Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
FDCH Political Transcripts
April 12, 2005 Tuesday
COMMITTEE: HELSINKI
SUBCOMMITTEE: U.S. COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
U.S. SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS) HOLDS HEARING ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
IN TURKEY
SPEAKER:
U.S. SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS), CO-CHAIRMAN
LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C.
UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
(HELSINKI COMMISSION) HOLDS BRIEFING:
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN TURKEY
APRIL 12, 2005
COMMISSIONERS:
U.S. SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS)
CHAIRMAN
U.S. SENATOR GORDON H. SMITH (R-OR)
U.S. SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R-TX)
U.S. SENATOR SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA)
VACANT
U.S. SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD (D-CT)
U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD (D-WI)
U.S. SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY)
VACANT
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH (R-NJ)
CO-CHAIRMAN
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FRANK R. WOLF (R-VA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH R. PITTS (R-PA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT B. ADERHOLT (R-AL)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE PENCE (R-IN)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN L. CARDIN (D-MD)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LOUISE MCINTOSH SLAUGHTER (D-NY)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ALCEE L. HASTINGS (D-FL)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE MCINTYRE (D-NC)
WITNESSES/PANELISTS:
MERVE KAVAKCI
FORMER MEMBER
TURKISH GRAND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
REV. FR. VERTANES KALAYJIAN
ARMENIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
VAN KRIKORIAN
TURKISH-ARMENIAN RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
BARRY JACOBS
AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE
REPRESENTATIVE
PROTESTANT/EVANGELICAL GROUPS
The briefing was held at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2200
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C., Sam Brownback, co-
chairman, Helsinki Commission, moderating.
PRYOR: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I’d like to welcome you
all this morning to the CSCE briefing that we’re having to examine
the situation faced by Muslims, Protestants, members of the Armenian
Orthodox Church and the Jewish community in the Republic Turkey.
Congressman Smith has hoped to be with us. We’re going to go ahead
and start, though. I’ll probably read his statement for him. And then
we’ll open the floor to our distinguished group of panelists this
morning, and then also open the floor for questions and answers.
As many of you are aware, last month we highlighted the serious
problems experienced by the Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate.
We plan to hold a commission hearing soon on Turkey to discuss human
rights issues overall, Ankara’s efforts to meet E.U. criteria for
accession, and that country’s implementation record as a longstanding
OSCE participating state.
First of all, we want to applaud the efforts by Turkey to bring its
legal system into conformity with OSCE commitments on religious
freedom. The current government has taken significant steps to
improve conditions for the enjoyment of religious liberty, steps that
were unthinkable just a few years ago.
At the same time, as we learned last month, about the Greek Orthodox
Church, there are important areas requiring close attention and
urgent action.
Turkey’s system of regulating religious groups remains problematic,
especially the ban on headscarves in public institutions and the
secular government’s strict control of Islamic teaching and practice.
While the E.U. has rightfully focused much attention on the religious
freedom’s of non-Muslim religious groups, it has been virtually
silent regarding the rights of Muslims to practice their own faith.
As members of the Helsinki Commission have consistently urged every
prime minister over the past decade, the right of women to openly
manifest their religious beliefs, including in public places and
schools, must be fully respected.
While the president of Turkey recently approved legislation to allow
thousands of students expelled from universities to return, including
women who violated the ban on headscarves, the ban nevertheless
remains. The time has come to end this injustice.
The Armenian Orthodox Church has suffered the loss of important
properties through government expropriations. Similar to the
situation of the Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox and Catholic
Churches, the Armenian Orthodox Church has lost much under current
laws that enable the government to assume direct administration of
properties that fall into disuse when the size of the local
communities falls below a certain point.
In addition, the Armenian Patriarchate continues to seek recognition
of its legal status. Last September, Turkey did adopt regulations to
improve the way the size of the religious community is gauged, and to
give communities with legal status the ability to acquire these
properties.
However, the loss of property has done much damage to the church, and
the legislation does not allow for the reclamation of property
unjustly expropriated by the state.
Protestant and evangelical groups are experiencing problems in
meeting openly, despite reforms that purportedly allow non-Muslim
religious communities to build churches and to buy property.
Groups without legal standing or unable to afford these options
cannot meet in other locations such as private homes or rented
facilities, as authorities have actively sought to close these
meeting places under the pretext of zoning laws. Worse yet, the
reforms are enforced in varying degrees depending on the will of the
local officials.
We urge the government to explicitly allow for the holding of
religious meetings in rented facilities or private homes.
Turkey has a special relationship with the Turkish Jewish community
dating back to the Ottoman period, when Sephardic Jews fleeing the
Spanish Inquisition were welcomed and given refuge.
After the November 2003 bombings of two Jewish synagogues, not only
did Prime Minister Erdogan publicly denounce the bombings, but he
also met with Jewish leaders, reportedly a first in the history of
the republic.
At the same time, there were disturbing reports that “Mein Kampf,”
Hitler’s notorious work outlining an anti-Semitic world view, has
become a bestseller in Turkey. We urge the prime minister and other
leaders in Turkey to speak up publicly against resurgent interest in
such racist materials.
In closing, Turkey has done much to earn a date to begin negotiations
with the European Union. We urge the government of Turkey to continue
its good work and redouble efforts to fully respect the rights of
individuals and their communities to freely profess and practice
their faiths.
As I noted, we have a very distinguished group of panelists here this
morning. Before I commence with the introductions, I’d like to remind
the audience that a transcript of this briefing will be available on
the Helsinki Commission Web site, which is Usually,
it’s within 24 hours.
Our first panelist this morning is Merve Kavakci. She’s a former
member of the Turkish Grand National Assembly. In 1999, she became
the first female conservative to be elected to the Turkish
parliament, where she served for two years.
During that time, Ms. Kavakci acted as the spokesperson for human
rights, women’s rights and the process of democratization in Turkey
and the Middle East before the United Nations, the governments of the
U.S. and Great Britain, international organizations, American and
European universities.
Prior to that, she spent five years as the head of foreign affairs
for the Welfare-Virtue Party. She currently serves as an adjunct
professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at the
George Washington University, and is a visiting scholar at the
Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies.
We welcome you this morning, and you have the floor, madam.
KAVAKCI: I thank Senator Brownback, Representative Smith and Mrs.
Chair, and the commission in general, for giving us this opportunity.
While I do love my country, I believe that we have to speak about
some of the things that we want changed, to bring about to Turkey.
To be able to enter and speak at the American Congress as a woman
with a headscarf is something that I cannot take for granted. I’m a
member of a family whose lives have been torn about by the ban on
headscarves in Turkey for over three decades now.
My mother was a professor of German literature when she was coerced
to choose between her profession and religious convictions in the
early ’80s. She chose not to take her headscarf off, and resigned at
a young age.
My father, though not directly, was also a victim of the ban. As the
Dean of the College (ph) of (ph) Islamic Studies in Ataturk
University, he was coerced to enforce the ban on his female students
at the very college where Islam and its mandate on women to wear
scarves were taught.
Little I knew then that only a few years later I would face a similar
challenge and would have to quit my medical school education as a
freshman. The school administration was just not able to get past my
looks. My family had to move to a free land to live and learn and
work freely.
In 1999, I paid another price for wearing a headscarf, this time as a
duly-elected parliamentarian. I walked into the Grand National
Assembly of Turkey to take my oath of office to serve my country. My
fellow parliamentarians chanted, “Get out, get out.” The prime
minister called upon the MPs, as he pointed at me and said, “Put this
woman in her place.”
It took then the government only 11 days to revoke my citizenship
with a pretext of my dual citizenship, and to start the persecution
for instigating hatred and discriminating against peoples (ph),
despite the very fact that I had parliamentary immunity.
I was never permitted in. My seat remains vacant, and my constituents
were denied from representation. The result was the closure of my
party and a ban on my political activities for five years. The scarf
that I wore was perceived to be a threat to the secular state
edifice.
My ordeal, however, was not an exception. Rather, it was typical of
the civil liberties violations that have been carried out against
female citizens.
Originally, what began as merely a provision to regulate the dress
code of federal employees in the early ’80s has become a means of
patent discrimination against religious women. While the state
promotes equality for its citizens, it stifles and ostracizes women
with headscarves.
With a headscarf, a girl cannot get education in a junior high, high
school or a university. She cannot work at a state or military
office. She cannot enter the university or the military grounds.
Private realm is no exception to this rule. She even cannot give or
get education at a private institution. She is not only precluded
from providing service, but at the same time from receiving service,
as well.
Medine Bircan was a senior citizen who paid the ultimate price by
losing her life in 2002. Because she wore a headscarf on her ID
picture, she was denied health care at an emergency room at an
Istanbul hospital.
That same year at Ataturk University, mothers who wore headscarves to
their children’s graduation ceremony were not permitted in unless
they wore wigs on top of their headscarves.
In 2003, a woman who appeared before the Supreme Court of Appeals in
Ankara was denied the opportunity to give her testimony when the
judge decreed that a public place could not be assumed with a
headscarf.
The wife of the prime minister, wife of the speaker of the house,
cabinet members, wives of MPs are not permitted into the presidential
residence. As a result, thousands of Turkish women are excluded from
schools and jobs, some endured interrogations at the “persuasion
room” — quote, unquote — established at their institutions.
The proponents of the headscarf ban rose (ph) various justifications.
Just a couple of them that I would like to point out. That the
headscarf is antithetical to the values of the developed world Turkey
yearns to be a part of for quite some time now, namely the democratic
values.
If that is the case, shall we claim that the police officer who
stripped a little girl’s headscarf off against her freewill acts
within the boundaries of democracy and human liberties? Can a state
whose main responsibility is to meet the needs of its citizens and
assist them to prosper justify discrimination, simply because their
subjects choose to be religious? How can a state legitimize not only
the social, but more importantly, maybe, the economical ramifications
of its systematic discrimination against its citizens?
On one hand, the state promotes social and economic growth for women,
via (ph) education. On the other hand, it still has discrimination on
women with a headscarf. While promoting gender equality within its
physiology (ph), it’s brought inequality against particular women.
The second justification claim which I would like to point out and
pass on is that in a secular country, your public space cannot be
assumed by any religious symbols. This simply involves the question
of what the public realm is and is not. Seventy percent of the
Turkish women do wear headscarves. It is part of our culture, part of
our religion and part of our history.
We can inquire on what basis that the public be denied from existing
in public. Despite the fact of the ban on headscarves in almost many
facets of the women’s life, the ban does not have legal status. It
contravenes the Turkish constitution, as well as the international
conventions Turkey is signatory to.
Since the establishment of the republic, women’s clothing has not
been regulated via a law. Women had never been mandated to dress in a
certain, particular way. On the other hand, men are mandated to wear
hats.
The ban on the headscarf is obviously the most ostentatious, yet not
the only manifestation of staunch secularism.
The provision that mandates inequality vis-a-vis the graduates of
Imam Hatip’s religious faith school is another consequence of the
secularism in Turkey. The law that bans the teaching of our holy book
Quran to our children under the age of 12 is another reverberation of
Turkey’s secularism.
The unique construct (ph) of secularism espoused by the state is
distinct from the secularism adhered in the Western world. While the
state adamantly refrains itself from the cloud (ph) of religion over
state affairs, over time it shifted toward the other extreme, namely
(ph), secular fundamentalism.
While it fervently rejects the concept of religious faith, it creates
a state religion. Due to this very fact, the Turkish religious
authority, Diyanet, is a faith institution.
Therefore, in conclusion, the conceptualization of such unique
(inaudible) of Turkish secularism must be overhauled. It must be
reexamined through open discourse. We must bring Turkish secularism
from where it is at the far right to where it is supposed to be on
the continuum.
Meanwhile, the recent reforms Turkey has undertaken to meet the
Copenhagen criteria give new hope to women with headscarves. We know
that the current government acknowledges the discrimination. The pain
caused by the ban hit the homes of the members of the current
government.
Recently, the speaker of the parliament enunciated that he was
waiting in patience for the revoke of the ban. We, the victims, are
waiting. The parliament is waiting. The Turkish people are waiting.
A recent study depicts that 71 percent of the people believe that the
ban must be lifted. This accounts for national consensus. U.S.
Congress must urge the Turkish officials to hear the people of Turkey
and act upon the will of the people to cease the blatant
discrimination against women.
Every woman deserves the right to live and work in dignity.
Thank you.
PRYOR: Thank you very much, Ms. Kavakci.
PRYOR: I see that we’ve been joined by Congressman Hastings. Mr.
Hastings, did you — want me to just keep going?
Did you have a statement you wanted to make now?
HASTINGS: (inaudible).
PRYOR: OK. All right. Well, welcome. Glad to have you here.
The next speaker that we have is Father Kalayjian, originally from
Syria. He’s an archpriest in the Armenian Orthodox Church. Prior to
this, he served as a parish priest in the Eastern Diocese of the
Armenian Church of America.
He has worked both in the United States and Jerusalem and Amman in
various capacities. He’s also served as a representative of the
Diocese of the Armenian Church, on the State Department’s pornography
commission and its reports on South Africa, as well as the state of
the affairs of the church communities in Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Republics.
Father, we’re pleased that you’re here this morning, and you have the
floor.
KALAYJIAN: Thank you, Madam Moderator. And it is indeed the pleasure
to be here and share this podium with the rest of the distinguished
guests, and with the Helsinki Commission members and the audience.
As it was said, I am Father Vertanes Kalayjian, pastor of St. Mary,
Armenian Apostolic Church. And I am here representing the Armenian
Apostolic Church, Eastern Diocese, headquartered in New York.
I thank you for the opportunity to address this briefing, and to
voice our concern relating to the status of the Armenian Church and
the Armenian community in Turkey.
Allow me first to speak about myself to provide a background for the
statements that I am about to make in this briefing.
I was born in Aleppo, Syria, and I was raised in the northern town of
Azaz, only 10 kilometers from the Turkish border. As a teenager,
there were many occasions when, with my friends, we would take a hike
or take a bike ride to the border. Another 10 kilometers beyond the
Turkish border is the town of Kilis, the birthplace of my parents,
grandparents and my ancestors, a place which I could never visit.
That was 50 years ago. Circumstances have changed, of course, as they
do with the passing of time. Now, as a U.S. citizen, I can go and
visit my ancestral lands and of my parents, and I did so in the year
2001 on the occasion of the 1700th anniversary of Armenia’s official
declaration of Christianity as the faith of the nation.
The official reception we received in Turkey was beyond our
expectation. Swept by the prevailing cordial reception, I suggested
to the mayor of Kars, a northeastern city near the border with
Armenia, to plant a tree to commemorate the occasion.
Before our departure to Armenia, our final destination of our
pilgrimage, we did plant a tree in one of the newest parks created by
the mayor himself.
Mrs. Chairman, even though the circumstances have changed to some
degree, there are some thick clouds overshadowing the relations
between our two nations, the Turks and the Armenians.
In June of 2004, a few of our community leaders and I responded to an
invitation extended by the ambassador from the Turkish foreign
ministry, Mr. Ecevet Tayzhan (ph), for a first-hand exchange of
views, as he put it.
Mr. Tayzhan (ph) went on to say in a follow-up letter, and I quote,
“I hope this exchange of views will bring positive results in the
future, paving the way for a better understanding between our
societies, and for peace and prosperity in our region. I have every
reason to be optimistic.” End of quote.
Mrs. Chairman, I regret to say that at this point, we have no reason
yet to share that optimism. I want to make clear that my lack of
optimism has nothing to do with almost insurmountable issue of the
genocide, the Armenian genocide by the Turks, which on this 90th
anniversary year, we are commemorating in this month worldwide.
And may I be allowed to observe a moment of silence.
It has, however — thank you — our lack of optimism has everything
to do with the steps and measures that the Turkish government can and
must take unilaterally to make life for the Armenian Church and the
Armenian community in Turkey bearable, to lift de facto second class
citizenship, bureaucratic obstructionism and discrimination
perpetrated upon the Armenian and the other Christian minorities —
and other minorities, as well. And here are the points I really
presented to the ambassador, and I share it with you.
One, safeguarding the ethnic culture and the religious rights of the
Armenian citizens of Turkey. It is telling that such minorities which
have been part of the landscape for centuries are referred to by the
Turkish government, even today, as indigenous foreigners.
Second, safeguarding uninhibited functioning of the remaining
Armenian Church structures and communities under the administrative,
legal and spiritual authority of the Armenian Patriarchate of
Istanbul. That relationship doesn’t exist.
Three, recognizing the legal personality for the Armenian
Patriarchate. And that creates its own myriad of problems.
Four, safeguarding the integrity, the independence and even
encouraging the positive contributions of the Armenian schools and
institutions, such as the press, hospitals, cultural and alumni
associations.
And lastly, granting permission, or more correctly stated, restoring
the right of the Armenian Patriarchate to have and maintain a
religious seminary to produce the next generation of Armenian clergy
to care for the religious, spiritual needs of the Armenian population
of Turkey.
It does not make sense at all to impose a requirement that the next
patriarch be elected from among the clergy who are Turkish citizens,
when the operation of a seminary to produce such candidates is
hampered, does it?
Emanating from the points mentioned are also situations such as
forcing a government appointed vice principal, or some such official,
upon the Armenian schools. The result is lack of freedom of action,
intimidation and an untenable suspicious environment, let alone fear.
Routinely, the churches and institutions are denied physical repairs
and renovations, as mundane as it may sound. Yes, one may apply for
such permits, but you have to apply for it in Ankara, when the church
is located in Istanbul. Ankara is where the capital is. And the
response, if any, may come detrimentally late, sometimes too late.
Because of demographic changes and shifts, the status of the churches
that remain with little or no parishioners are not subject to the
Patriarchate’s administrative discretion. The result has been
confiscation of church properties, because the government has decreed
that they are not transferable to the Patriarchate.
The Patriarchate, in the absence of legal identity, cannot address
these issues and other — issues of other churches and properties
that are abandoned since the 1915 massacres and mass deportations.
For the same reason, one cannot bequeath property to the
Patriarchate, or any other church, for that matter.
The restrictions were placed on how to identify a citizen in the
identity card. It is called nofus (ph) paper, nofus (ph) card.
The removed the previous practice of mentioning an individual’s
religion — in this case Christian — and ethnic identity —
Armenian. And then, by the government decree, one could not enroll
into the Armenian school unless you prove you’re an Armenian.
Catch-22.
These items, Mrs. Chairman, cover some of the basic human, as well
civil, rights of the Armenian population of Turkey and the
debilitating restrictions imposed upon the Patriarchate and the
churches under its jurisdiction.
We hope and pray that sober minded officials in the Turkish
government will find their way to correct them for the benefit of
all. And I think this process puts a positive beginning to it, and we
hope that it will continue.
Thank you.
PRYOR: Thank you very much, Father Kalayjian, for that statement.
Our next speaker is Van Krikorian, the founding member of the
Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission. He has served as the
deputy representative and counselor to the United Nations for the
Republic of Armenia, as well as a member of the U.S. delegation to
the 1991 Moscow CSCE meeting.
Mr. Krikorian is also active in the Armenian Church and with several
charities, including the Armenian Assembly, on whose board he sits.
Additionally, he is a member of the International Experts Group on
the Armenian Genocide of the World Armenian Congress.
After a career as an international attorney with extensive work in
structuring investments, negotiating agreements and resolving
disputes, Mr. Krikorian currently serves as the president of Global
Gold Corporation.
Thank you very much for being with us today.
KRIKORIAN: Thank you. And I think the CSCE also for convening this
hearing, for examining freedom of religion issues in Turkey, and
inviting Father Kalayjian and me to participate here today.
This is an especially meaningful event, as Father Kalayjian noted,
because April is the month in which Armenian genocide is
commemorated. And we rededicate ourselves to building a future in
which that crime against humanity does not recur.
As Christians, and as Americans, we also welcome increased concern
for religious minorities as part of the United States’ foreign
policy.
One of our primary considerations today, therefore, is to try to
improve, and certainly not be the pretext for further damage to the
conditions of life for Armenians or any other group in Turkey.
For reference and for details in connection with my testimony today
is attached a report by Dr. Tessa Hoffman, published by the Forum of
Armenian Associations in Europe in October 2002, called “Armenia and
Turkey Today: A Critical Assessment,” which details throughout the
20th century a lot of the specific problems that the Armenian Church
and Armenian minority has had in Turkey.
The first-hand experience I had with the CSCE and the Helsinki
Commission’s remarkable work at the time of the Soviet Union’s
collapse, the Sumgait and Baku pogroms, the attempted eradication of
the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the transition to Armenian
independence, will always be appreciated. And it’s another reason why
I’m glad to be with you all here today.
Armenian presence in Turkey, however, is and has been tenuous. It is
a different kind of a situation. International commitments to reform,
as we’ve heard and as I’m sure we’ll continue to hear, have regularly
been followed by backlash, leaving an even more damaged situation
than before.
In an effort to break that cycle, Armenians and Turks are
increasingly engaged in civil society dialogue. There’s a critical
role for religious figures and respect for religious rights in this
process. If the CSCE can help catalyze and secure progress in these
areas, you’d achieve the kind of permanent results you have helped to
achieve in other areas. And that’s a request that I have.
The dialogue process in which I took part is called the Turkish-
Armenian Reconciliation Commission — that’s — began
in 2001 and ended last year after, among other things, producing a
legal opinion on the applicability of the United Nations Genocide
Convention, and producing joint recommendations from the Turkish
members and the Armenian members to the government on how relations
of Armenians and Turks and Armenian Turkey could be improved.
This process is also the subject of a recently published book called
“Unsilencing the Past,” by our former chairman, David Phillips.
One of our joint recommendations — and I’ve also attached those
recommendations to my testimony — one of our joint recommendations
dealt with encouraging religious understanding. It stated that among
civil society initiatives there also opportunities for religious
leaders to develop contacts and engage in joint activities, as well
as activities within their own groups, to promote reconciliation
between Turks and Armenians.
Those activities should be encouraged by government, including the
restoration of religious life and supporting the rights and
functioning of religious foundations.
It’s fair to say that progress in Turkey is being driven by both
external and internal factors. Certainly, the European harmonization
packages, as were noted earlier, that were passed into Turkish law,
are a testament to that combination.
But it seems that a growing number of public figures understand that
entering the European Union for Turkey is not some kind of
standardized test where they meet some objective criteria, by passing
laws they’ll get a passing grade.
They’re increasingly understanding that fundamental change needs to
take place in Turkey, and that charges of religious prejudice against
the European Union ring hollow unless all Christian, Jewish and
non-majority religious rights are restored and respected in Turkey,
in practice as well as on paper.
With that background and that suggestion for future CSCE activity,
let me now briefly discuss the specific situation of Armenian
churches in Turkey.
There is an Armenian Protestant community in Turkey, which is active.
And there’s also an Armenian Catholic community which is active. The
majority of Armenians in Turkey, as elsewhere, however, are members
of the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church led by Patriarch Mesrob II
Mutafian.
That Patriarchate is one of the four hierarchical sees of the
Armenian Church, and the other patriarchate is in Jerusalem,
Anvaratuk (ph) Catholicoi (ph, one in Antelias, Lebanon, and then the
Catholicos of all Armenians, who is in Etchmiadzin, Armenia.
In 301, Armenia, as Father Kalayjian noted, was the first state to
adopt Christianity. And the vast majority of the Armenian homeland
then, and for millennia, stretches over modern Turkey.
In 1914, there were approximately 5,000 Armenian churches, seminaries
and schools registered by the Patriarchate, which attest to this
historic presence in Christian faith. Less than 50 Armenian churches
are under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Patriarchate today.
For centuries, Armenians paid — and in many places still pay — a
high price for their Christianity. The seizure and often destruction
of Armenian church property, of this Christian legacy, thus presents
itself as a ripe area to demonstrate reform and begin building
confidence (ph).
Like other perversions of history, many of these ancient structures
— and quite a few of them are more than 1,000 years old — which
were not destroyed were desecrated to remove their true identity.
Such sites as Ani and Akhtamar are recognized as sites critical to
world civilization. And the progress that’s been made there so far —
for example, Ani’s been listed on the world monuments fund — need to
move to the next level.
In addition, the multitude of sites, such as the holy Garabed
monastery in Moosh, also need attention.
The Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople was established in 1461.
Patriarch Mesrob himself was born in Turkey, and I won’t go into the
rules which Father Kalayjian noted, but he attended the University of
Memphis here in the United States. And so, I’d like to note that he
has those roots, as well, as well as the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, and the Pontifical University of St. Thomas in Rome.
He was elected patriarch in March 1998 by a large margin, and has
proven to be a thoughtful, spiritual and well respected leader.
Although the population of Armenians in Turkey is estimated at 70,000
to 82,000, the Turkish government has also stated that another 30,000
to 40,000 Armenians from Armenia work in Istanbul.
These Armenians and the Armenians from Turkey are well known for
their piety. Church services are held daily. They are packed, and
it’s something that’s impressive for Armenians and other Christians
all over the world, that they are so pious, attend church and
practice their faith in difficult circumstances the way they do.
Especially for Armenians, because these are the remnants of the
2,100,000 Armenians that lived there before the genocide. Those
numbers I know don’t take account of the progeny of Armenian children
taken from their parents or forcibly converted, or Muslim Armenians
that exist there as well.
Turning to the current situation, on March 16th, the CSCE took
testimony on the situation of the Greek Orthodox Church, the
Ecumenical Patriarchate. The same types of problems apply to
Armenians, as can be seen from Dr. Hoffman’s report.
These issues generally fall into three main categories.
First, the ability to conduct services, which includes the ability to
train and employ clergy.
Second, the ability to maintain Armenian schools without censorship
and with the ability for any Armenian student to attend whose parents
so desire.
Third, the ability to fund, administer and operate the church and
properties, including restoring religious properties to their
relevant religious group, rectifying denials of parishioners rights
to gift or bequeath property to support their religious institutions,
self governance and the ability to repair or improve physical
structures.
On March 16, co-chairman Smith I think summed this all up very well
in his opening statement. And I’ve quoted that in my written
testimony, and I won’t go over it again. But basically, we know what
the problems are. They’re not new problems. Congressman Smith
recognized them, I’m sure. Everyone that participated or read that
testimony recognized them as well.
At one point he summed up that the issue is indeed black and white.
Property must be returned and expropriations must end.
The issue of allowing churches to train clergy really should not even
exist. Axiomatic to freedom of religion is the ability to train
clergy to administer religion. Denial or curtailment of that right is
not only a denial of freedom of religion established by law, but also
counterproductive to fostering a tolerant society.
The issue of allowing parishioners to support their church should
also be a black-and-white issue. Last month, a Turkish newspaper
reported efforts to deprive the Armenian hospital Surp Prgich, Holy
Savior, of a multimillion U.S. dollar bequest.
The Istanbul building was left to the hospital in 1952. The deed was
registered. And then in 1992, the government declared that the
bequest violated the 1936 decree disallowing non-Muslims from
donating real estate. And the property was seized, as the original
owners and their heirs were long gone.
The courts complied with the government. Not until there was an
appeal to the European Court of Human Rights did the ministry of
finance refuse to approve the prearranged sale. Proper compliance
with the Treaty of Lausanne, which I know has been examined in prior
hearings as well, and other standards that apply in Turkey protecting
religious rights, would have never let this case get so far.
The good news, I think, that we can take out of this, though, is that
it is a Turkish newspaper that printed this story and exposed the
situation and drew attention to it. And that’s a positive role that
civil society is playing, and it should be encouraged to play.
The issue of obstacles to repairing churches also recurs (inaudible).
A recent example is the report on the Samacha (ph) Armenian Church,
where permits to fix the roof went unissued for months. And when the
parish took it upon themselves just to simply fix the roof
themselves, the authorities sealed the church doors and closed it.
This is not behavior compatible with the rule of law or the type of
society many Turkish people want to see in their country.
But again, from that we can also see sort of the seeds of progress,
because one parish member actually was able to talk about it in
public.
Unfortunately, and in addition to the list of current problems, the
problems of Christians in the ’30s, the ’40s, the ’50s, the ’60s, the
’70s and every decade, virtually, need to be openly discussed without
fear of reprisal, and with an eye to reconciliation.
Many of these problems are more in the nature of human rights, such
as acts of violence, extortion and theft against minorities, changing
Armenian names to Turkish names, persecution and denial of identity.
And they’ve all been very well documented over time.
A study titled, “The Christian Minorities of Turkey” was published in
1979 by the church’s committee on migrant workers in Europe, which
thoroughly documents much of that behavior. A former patriarch,
Shinat Kalustian (ph), also published reports describing adverse
conditions, confiscatory acts, denial of Armenian identity and
interference with self governance. And I believe that the CSCE has
also those things on file going back to those years.
Accounts of other problems encountered by Armenians more recently in
Turkey, including violence to churches and holy places, violence
against persons, perpetuation of hostile atmosphere against the
Patriarchate and Armenians also bear the CSCE’s and other’s review
and understanding.
The State Department’s record on reporting infringements in the
international religious freedom report shows improvement from the
past, but still does not do justice to the situation.
For example, continuing breaches of Articles 38, 40, 41, 42 and 43 of
the Treaty of Lausanne, which in theory guaranteed Armenians may (ph)
many of the same religious rights which were promised before and are
being promised again are soft pedaled or overlooked. A simple
comparison with other publicly available even journalistic reports
now coming from Turkey, those reports shows the deficiencies.
Today, we’re also concerned with the fate of an Armenian evangelical
Protestant pastor in Turkey. He struggled and ended up in jail to
avoid confiscation of his church’s property in the past, and last
month discussed Armenian genocide on television.
The past pattern has been retaliation and preemptive anti- Armenian
and anti-Christian activity for such behavior. Our hope and our
prayers, however, are that the historical patterns on that subject
will also change, and the experience of basic religious rights — the
exercise of basic religious rights — and basic rights such as
freedom of speech will not be persecuted.
Here I can note that the study on the applicability of the genocide
convention, of which the reconciliation commission in which I
participated, was translated into Turkish, published by the “Turkish
Daily News” and actually serves as a basis for discussion in Turkey.
I can also say that there are more members of Turkish civil society
willing to discuss these problems than ever before, and that the
government has so far at least tacitly allowed more discussion to
take place is a small but important step. That trend really needs to
continue.
Like the Armenian government and the majority of populations in both
countries, according to a poll taken jointly by Armenians and Turks,
I also believe that the establishment of diplomatic relations, as
well as Turkey’s lifting of its blockade of Armenia, which
ironically, but characteristically, is also the subject of treaty
obligations requiring Turkey to maintain an open border with Armenia,
would be positive contributions to this trend.
These are areas, like genocide recognition, where the United States
can and should be publicly engaged. There’s a leadership role for the
CSCE here. I hope you accept it.
Thank you again for your efforts in promoting progress in this area.
PRYOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Krikorian, for your thoughtful
remarks.
I’d like to now introduce our next speaker, who is Jeff King, the
president of International Christian Concern, who will give a
statement on behalf of the Turkish Protestant evangelical community.
The ICC is a nonprofit and interdenominational human rights
organization dedicated to assisting and sustaining Christians who are
victims of persecution and discrimination due to the practicing of
faith. Core activities of the ICC are to provide training for pastors
in persecuted countries, advocates for the persecuted in Washington,
delivers humanitarian aid and raise awareness in the West about the
existence and severity of persecution worldwide.
Mr. King, welcome. You have the floor.
KING: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The Republic of Turkey has traditionally identified minority citizens
in terms of ethno-religious affiliation. Christian minority citizens
traditionally have been of non-Turkish ethnic origin, and during the
Ottoman Empire, as well as later during the republic period, they
have accepted their minority status and lived according to the
regulations of the Turkish government.
The rights of these ethnic minority Christians in the Turkish
republic are regulated by the Lausanne Treaty of 1923, which dates
back to an era before ethnically Turkish Protestants began to emerge.
Within some limits, the Turkish state protected the ethnic minorities
and allowed them autonomy in their own religious and cultural
affairs. In the last quarter century — last quarter of the 20th
century — a small number of ethnically Turkish citizens, members of
the majority Muslim population, converted from Islam to Christianity.
And consequently, they have found themselves outside the protection
of this treaty.
Some, but by no means all, of these ethnically Turkish citizens who
identify themselves as Protestants, or as evangelicals, officially
changed their religious affiliation on their national identification
cards. This official documentation of their change of faith was
permitted, albeit often with some official opposition by the secular
state of Turkey.
They refused to call themselves minority citizens, as ethnically they
are not. We can say that ethnically, they are not a minority, but in
terms of religion they are.
When identification of Turkish Protestants is strictly on a religious
basis, these citizens may be regarded as a miniscule minority in
their own country. They themselves estimate their numbers at 3,000 to
5,000. The major part of this community has formed a network under
the title of Alliance of Protestant Churches of Turkey.
While this alliance, under current regulations, has not been able to
register as a legal entity, it has nevertheless been able to
represent the Protestant Christian community before national and
international bodies.
The major root of present difficulties lies in the fact that outside
of the Sunni Muslim majority, all religious groups, including
Protestants, find themselves in a legal no man’s land, as there have
been no laws regarding the legal identity of religious bodies.
Therefore, churches have been unable to own property, employ people,
have bank accounts or conduct any activities on an official basis.
Another root source of the problems has been the absence of laws
regarding the opening of places of worship. However, in the last
couple of years through local and international pressure, there have
been steps toward legal reforms in these areas, as Turkey is seeking
to comply with European Union standards.
These reforms theoretically now allow for places of worship to be
opened upon receiving the permission of local authorities.
Also, changes in associations laws have now permitted Protestant
churches to take steps towards being legal entities in the form of
associations. However, churches and other religious communities have
as yet to see the practical outworking of these changes.
As a trial case, a local Protestant church in Ankara applied to
become an association and was ratified as such in March 2005. It
remains to be seen how this will officially work.
With regard to places of worship, church buildings that have been in
existence since the pre-republic era of Turkey remain zoned and
protected as churches through international treaties. These
buildings, even though many may stand empty today, are not easily
available to the Turkish Protestants. There are some exceptions,
primarily Turkish Christian Protestant congregations meeting weekly
for worship in ethnic minority Christian church buildings by
permission from these minorities.
Therefore, ethnically Turkish Protestants have felt obliged to rent
apartments or buildings not zoned for religious purposes in order to
gather weekly for worship.
Although there has been one exception to this recently, the great
majority of those seeking to meet as congregations face the near
impossible regulatory situation, and currently, over 20 churches have
ongoing court cases in this area, including some at the European
Court of Human Rights.
Turkish Protestants have been consistently granted their
constitutional rights by the judicial branch of the Turkish
government. However, laws, regulations or ordinances which would
allow them to structure their church are either nonexistent or vague,
and thus leaving Protestant churches to the mercy and prejudices of
the local authorities.
Thankfully, ethnically Turkish Protestants do not have too many
instances of human rights violations to report. However, from time to
time, and most intensively since the start of 2005, the popular media
and other institutions, including some state officials and offices,
such as the directorate of religious affairs, has waged a relentless
slander and blatant disinformation campaign, particularly against the
Protestant Christian community and any form of evangelism.
An ugly picture is being continually presented of the Christian
community, portraying them as a public enemy out to undermine Turkey.
People have been incited to make attacks on Christian individuals and
churches in a number of cities, including Izmit, Samsun and Ankara.
Since these churches do not have a legal existence, individual
Turkish Christians have opened court cases against some of the
perpetrating media.
But this small community of faith is hard pressed to keep up with,
much less cope with this onslaught. Sadly, the government has turned
a blind eye to all this recent increase in negative attitudes and
attacks, seeming to be supportive of this active disinformation
campaign.
Across the country, numerous converts within Protestant churches are
being harassed by members of state security, either directly or
through visits to relatives and neighbors. These tactics are aimed at
denigrating and shaming these Christians among their family and
acquaintances. The goal seems to be to try to instill fear and
separate the Protestant converts from their immediate social network.
These present activities against the Protestant community in Turkey
are currently the greatest concern for this faith community.
Hopefully, in the coming months and years, the legal process will be
slowly but gradually ironed out. But until this happens, the struggle
for these men and women and children will be to gain acceptance by
their own government and their society, as both sincere citizens as
well as sincere Christians.
PRYOR: Thank you, Mr. King.
We now turn to our final speaker, Barry Jacobs. He’s the Director of
Strategic Studies at the American Jewish Committee’s Office of
Government and International Affairs.
The AJC has a cooperative agreement with the Turkish Jewish
community. As a result, Mr. Jacobs is a regular visitor to Turkey,
and a close observer of Turkish affairs.
Mr. Jacobs was a senior foreign service officer with the United
States Information Agency for 26 years, serving on four continents in
seven countries, including Greece, Cyprus and Israel.
He has also served as deputy director of the Washington Foreign Press
Center, deputy program manager for USIA’s WorldNet Television
service, director of USIA’s Latin America Wireless Cloud, and vice
president for international media for the Discovery Channel’s network
in Latin America and Asia.
I now turn the floor to you, Mr. Jacobs. Welcome.
JACOBS: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you, Congressman Hastings.
I would also like to thank Senator Brownback and Representative Smith
for the outstanding work they have done in overseeing this
commission.
I am Barry Jacobs. I’m the Director of Strategic Studies for the
American Jewish Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to appear
before you.
As the chairwoman has said, I am not Turkish. But for the last eight
years I have followed the affairs of Turkey and the welfare of the
Turkish Jewish community very closely. My organization has a
cooperative agreement with the Turkish Jewish community. I am a
regular visitor to Turkey, and a close observer of Turkish affairs.
As a foreign service officer, I never served in Turkey itself, but I
did spend two years in Greece, three years on the island of Cyprus,
where my first child was born, and visited Turkey several times as a
tourist. I now follow events closely, and I’m a frequent visitor to
the republic.
I have talked with the Jewish community of Turkey in Istanbul in
preparing these remarks. I would like to start by stating that the
25,000 person Jewish community of Turkey is free to practice its
religion as it wishes. Its synagogues and institutions are protected
by the Turkish authorities. Its leaders meet regularly with Turkish
political leaders, and its members live and work as they wish.
It is a strong middle class community, well represented in the
professions, with a small number of top-level, wealthy industrialists
and business executives.
For over 500 years, the peoples of Turkish and its predecessor, the
Ottoman Empire, offered refuge to Jews driven by rampant and
murderous anti-Semitism from Europe.
In August of 1492, when Columbus embarked on his most famous
expedition to the New World, his fleet departed from the relatively
unknown seaport of Palos, because the shipping lanes of Cadiz and
Seville were clogged with Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain by the
edict of Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand.
Sultan Bayazid II, offerer of refuge, gave new hope to the persecuted
Spanish Jews. In 1492, Sultan ordered the governors of the provinces
of the Ottoman Empire, and I quote, not to refuse the Jews entry or
cause them difficulties, but to receive the cordially.
Moreover, even before 1492, the Jews welcomed the military successes
of the Ottomans in the 14th and 15th centuries, when the Ottomans
captured Bursa in 1326, they found a Jewish community that had been
persecuted during long centuries of Byzantine rule.
Over the next decades, the country became a haven for Jews fleeing
repression and expulsion for various parts of Europe, including
Hungary, France, Spain, Sicily, Salonika, and Bavaria. In the liberal
atmosphere of Ottoman rule, Jewish activity flourished, and many Jews
held important positions. Istanbul was the home of great rabbis and
scholars, and was a Hebrew book printing center.
This history is important, because it sets the tone for Jewish
religious practices in today’s Turkey. This history is even more
remarkable today, in that Turkey is a country that is 99 percent
Muslim. It is a tribute to the greatness of the founder of modern
Turkey, Kemal Ataturk, that the Republic of Turkey is the only
secular democratic state besides Israel in a difficult region.
It is a loyal member and the only Muslim member state of NATO. And it
was the first Muslim country, and only the second state overall, to
recognize the newborn Jewish state of Israel in 1948.
During the Second World War, as historian Stanford Shaw, Professor
Emeritus of Turkish and Judeo-Turkish history at the University of
California in Los Angeles, UCLA, writes, “While six million Jews were
being exterminated by the Nazis, the rescue of some 15,000 Turkish
Jews from France, and even of some 100,000 Jews from Eastern Europe,
might well be considered as relatively insignificant in comparison.”
It was, however, very significant to the people who were rescued. And
above all, it showed that, as had been the case for more than five
centuries, Turks and Jews continued to help each other in times of
great crises.
Nevertheless, being a Jew in Turkey is not always easy. In November
2003, on Shabbat, suicide terrorists with ties to al Qaeda detonated
truck bombs in front of two synagogues in Istanbul, killing 25 people
and wounding hundreds, most of them Turkish Muslims who happened to
be in the vicinity.
This was the second murderous attack on Neveh Shalom, the chief
synagogue, in the past quarter of a century. The first took place in
1986, when two foreign terrorists tied to Abu Nidal entered the
temple firing machine guns and throwing hand grenades, killing 22 of
the 30 worshippers present that Saturday morning.
A large clock stands near the boarded entrance of Neveh Shalom, its
hands stopped forever at the time that the attack occurred. Above it,
the name of each victim is carved into stone.
Turkey is currently going through a period of fevered nationalism.
Its media and political comment is stridently anti-West,
anti-American and anti-Israel. Attitudes the frequently bleed into
outright anti-Semitism. “Mein Kampf,” as has been mentioned, is a
bestseller.
My former colleague and longtime friend, Ambassador Eric Edelman, a
distinguished career diplomat who has been our envoy in Ankara these
past two years, was greeted by a headline in the daily newspaper
“Vakit” — and I must apologize, I identified in the papers out in
the hall as “Vatan,” it was “Vakit” — welcoming, in quotes, the Jew
ambassador.
Turkey has a free press, but both the American Jewish Committee and
the friends of the Turkish Jewish committee call on the Turkish
leadership in the media and intellectual and academic circles — and,
most importantly, in the political leadership — to openly and
vigorously denounce this rising cacophony of anti-Semitic
pronouncements. These create a dangerous and hostile atmosphere,
especially towards the community of loyal Jewish Turkish citizens and
stain the tapestry of 500 years of Turkish tolerance for diverse
religious communities.
Moreover, much of the worst religious slander pours forth from
newspapers that, if not official organs of the ruling Justice and
Development Party, are nonetheless closely aligned with its
leadership. Two of the most notorious publications are “Yeni Safak”
and “Terkurman.” And I should add “Vakit” and — “Milli Gazete.”
Excuse me, I had to think.
Turkey, in line with many European nations, has so-called anti- hate
legislation. We urge Turkey’s prosecutor of the republic, that is,
its attorney general, to both openly denounce such messages and to
employ this legislation to actively prosecute religious slander and
libelous articles in the media.
On the positive side, AJC praises the new legislation that brings
Turkish jurisprudence more in line with that of the European Union.
On an issue of great importance to the Turkish Jewish community, new
laws have fundamentally improved the property management of minority
foundations. This now permits the Jewish community to buy, sell and
rent property belonging to its synagogue foundations, and this new
system is functioning to the community’s satisfaction. The community
has purchased and sold property, and has encountered no obstacles.
There is an official list of religious foundations, and the community
hopes that those of its unlisted foundations will soon be included.
There is another issue that may appear humorous, but is actually
quite serious. Both Islam and Judaism include ritual circumcision.
Those Jews in Turkey who perform this operation lack the official
sanction of their Muslim counterparts. This results from the fact
that they have not received the same training as their Muslim
colleagues, but have taken equivalent courses in Israel, and have
obtained the necessary certification there.
It would be useful if arrangements could be enacted to grant
recognition and equivalency to the Israeli certification.
There is one outstanding issue that is of great importance to the
Turkish Jewish community, and that is supported by Jews throughout
the world. Jewish synagogues in Turkey are located in built-up urban
areas that are almost impossible to secure without greatly
inconveniencing Muslim neighbors and businessmen.
Even before the November 2003 attacks on the two synagogues, the
community has been seeking a plot of land in Istanbul to construct a
secure community and religious center, large enough to accommodate
community celebrations including weddings bar mitzvahs.
Both the current AK Party administration and its predecessors have
promised to accommodate this request, but little has been done,
because of bureaucratic obstructionism. We urge the responsible
governments, particularly the Istanbul municipality, to work with the
community to solve this grave danger resulting from the lack of a
secure location to both worship and to celebrate.
We, at the American Jewish Committee, stress that there are actions
we would like to see Turkish authorities take to help secure and
ameliorate the concerns of its Jewish citizens. These suggestions
should not in any way obviate that we believe Turkey’s history and
the current situation deserves greater recognition by those outside
its borders for the toleration it has shown and still shows.
This is particularly worthy of praise at a time when we see rising
and violent anti-Semitism in the rest of Europe.
And I should like to add that the American Jewish community supports
and openly encourages the Turkish government to grant the same
conditions that the Jewish community experiences to our friends in
both the Armenian and the Greek Orthodox communities, the need for
the ability to train their own clergy, to reopen religious
institutions for the training of such clergy, and to regularize the
conditions both in theory, but also in practice that will allow the
religious communities to care for, expand and modify, as they see
fit, their own properties.
Thank you.
PRYOR: Mr. Jacobs, thank you very much.
We’re going to open the floor in a few minutes for questions, but
first we welcome some remarks by Congressman Hastings.
HASTINGS: Thank you very much, Ms. Pryor, for presiding. And I want
to thank the panelists all for coming today to this important
briefing on religious freedom in Turkey.
I also apologize for being a bit tardy. Rather interestingly and
ironically, I was meeting with 20 representatives of the Black Sea
region, which includes Armenia and Azerbaijan, and also Turkish
representatives, before coming here. And interestingly, they raised
the subject of religious freedom. And I informed them that I would be
coming to this commission meeting.
As has been mentioned, Senator Brownback and Congressman Smith, our
other colleagues in the Helsinki Commission, have been very active
not only in this particular aspect of the commission’s mandate, but
in a general way, to advance the cause of religious freedom and human
rights.
I have traveled to Turkey many times. And I’ve also traveled to
Armenia and Azerbaijan. I’ve always enjoyed Turkish hospitality, and
am mindful that Turkey and the United States are allies and founding
OSCE participating states.
I also support Turkish accession into the European Union. And in my
most recent visit, I said to President Erdogan that it would be my
great hope that that would happen sooner rather than later.
I’d like to recognize the great improvements made to Turkish law and
policy. Still, as have been pointed out here, there are areas that
need improvement. And I hope that the Turkish government will take
note of the areas highlighted today in such a succinct and candid
manner as all of our presenters have put forward, so that all Turkish
citizens can enjoy their religious freedom.
Religious freedom is a fundamental human right. So I urge the
government to continue with its reforms in this sphere.
I guess it’s accidental and coincidental that this hearing is
established shortly after the death and funereal experiences that all
of us have witnessed with reference to Pope John Paul II, and the
ongoing commemoration of one individual’s extraordinary work in
reaching out. Notwithstanding some of his critics, all, I think,
would agree that he made an effort to try to bring the world’s
religions into focus together.
We state the obvious, so that we don’t leave this hearing thinking
that religious freedom issues exist just in Turkey. Recently in
Russia, same subject. Some years back in China, same subject. All
over Europe, with the advent of a substantial number of Muslims and
scarf issues in France and elsewhere, the U.K., same subject.
And lest I give the impression that it’s everywhere else in every
other country, the United States still has some issues concerning
religious freedom. Notwithstanding the fact that people can openly
practice their religions here, there are times when certain religions
are identified by some, in a way to refer to them as cults. A fellow
said to me once that one man’s cult is another man’s religion. And
somehow or another, we have to come to terms with all of this.
I, week before last, was at the Church of Nations in Israel. And I
saw the Lord’s Prayer in each of the languages that was represented
there.
After being there, I went to Greece. And in Greece on the Greek side
of the green line and on the Turkish side of the green line, I
watched and listened to the song birds. And I thought to myself, you
know, it’s us humans that create these divisions and these lines. The
birds, I’m sure don’t always agree on nesting rights and territories,
but at least they were free to cross the green line, back and forth,
without there being difficulties.
I would urge their leaders to follow the birds, and perhaps all of us
would be very wise to take into consideration the need for strong
ecumenism, interdenominational undertakings on behalf of all of us,
intercultural and interfaith actions on behalf of all of us.
And it would be helpful if those of us that are Christians would
spend some time trying to walk two miles in the moccasins of those in
Islam, and that those in Islam would take time to recognize that
Buddhists exist in this world. And I could go on and on and on.
Part of the problem is, we isolate ourselves within the framework of
our own convictions and our own beliefs, and are not willing to reach
out and try and understand others.
I hope that’s what we advance here today. I think the panelists have
given us an extraordinary amount of food for thought. And I’m sure
that the Helsinki Commission will accept this mandate in pursuing
religious freedom for all of humankind.
Thank you.
PRYOR: Thank you very much, Congressman Hastings.
We’re going to open the floor now. And if I may, I’d like to ask
those who want to ask questions and make statements do three things
for us.
One is to come to the microphone to ask a question. That helps those
who are recording for our transcript.
Second is to identify yourself and your affiliation. And the third is
to stay within the boundaries of the subject matter today, and not
stray too far away. And remember that this session today, we’re
really looking at the situation faced by Muslims, Protestants,
members of the Armenian Orthodox and the Jewish community with the
Republic of Turkey.
So I now open the floor.
Yes, Mr. Yildiz (ph)? Mr. Yildiz (ph), I think, was going to ask
first. Please.
YILDIZ (ph): Hi. This is Marty Yildiz (ph) from the Turkish embassy,
first section of the embassy dealing with human rights issues.
Since Turkey is the subject matter, I hope you can bear some comments
of my side. I will not have any questions to the speakers.
First of all, I would like to thank the commission for the interest
shown in the religious freedoms in Turkey. And I assure you that
(inaudible) has things in this (inaudible) end, and the speakers, of
course, that the testimonies of them will be transmitted back to
Ankara.
This is the second meeting that’s held within the framework of this
commission. It’s a series of meetings on religious freedom in Turkey.
And the first meeting was held last month under the title of recourse
(ph) to the church in Turkey, with the most systematic expropriation.
So, be (ph) very much, it’s only four days before that conference,
that meeting, to attend the meeting, which was biased, I should say,
not only as with the title, but to its composition of speakers, I
should say.
Unfortunately, this meeting has been committed (ph) at least under an
unbiased title, I should say, saying that religious freedom is
something to get appreciated, of course.
But as to the speakers, except for Mr. Barry Jacobs, maybe, to a
certain extent, I see that this special effort which was (inaudible)
during the first meeting, as regards to selecting the speakers, was
preserved.
You may wonder why we were not, you know — why we — you refrain
from participating to the conference as speakers.
I believe it’s Turkey’s right to let’s say reserve its position as
regards to participating at a gathering which consists (ph) of people
who are, in fact, I should say, striving for promotion of their
mostly personal and restricted (ph) agendas, who didn’t even, let’s
say, miss the opportunity to reserve (ph) in such a, under such a
title, to the so-called Armenian genocide, which has got nothing to
do with the title of the meeting, let’s just say.
Turkey will continue to let its, let’s say, efforts and reforms on
the religious freedom be known by the world public opinion and
American public opinion, of course, in the appropriate forums, like
OSCE and during our celebrations with the European Union. We will
continue our efforts to let the world public opinion and U.S. and
E.U. public opinion know about our efforts in the course and within
the framework of appropriate forums.
Thank you for giving me the chance to speak. Thank you.
PRYOR: Thank you very much.
Again, questions from the floor. Gentleman on the front row?
ELIAN (ph): My name is Hague Elian (ph). I have no organizational
affiliations except for being a Christian Armenian since 301 A.D. I
wear my age well, I know, but …
(LAUGHTER)
ELIAN (ph): As a young reporter on the “Miami Herald,” Congressman
Hastings’ home state, in the 1950s, I was working the night desk. And
a one-line item came across the desk from the wire services.
And it said merely that Armenians, Jews and Greeks were being taxed
in the middle of the night in the Turkish provinces. And because they
didn’t have the necessary gold pieces, their homes and properties
were being confiscated — 1950s.
Fast forward to the set of a cable television station in Maryland
where I have a talk show. And my guest was a Turkish artist of Jewish
ethnic faith. And we were discussing this situation. And he said —
and I quote — “Oh, no. The Jews were not victims, but the Turks
thought that they were Armenians.”
In legal circles we laughingly refer to this as the mistaken victim,
accidental victim defense.
And he said it with a straight face. And now I read Congressman
Cardin’s comment that when the Jewish synagogues were bombed in
Istanbul, that it was not aimed at the Turkish minorities in
Istanbul. Again, the accidental victim.
Turkey has been getting away with this since 1895, as far as their
minorities are concerned. And we sit here with straight faces and
talk about the progress in Turkey. There has been no progress in
Turkey. The persecutions continue.
Mr. Jacobs pointed out that they do have some issues. And, yes, they
do. And the issues have not gone away, and probably will not go away
for years to come.
My question generally speaking is, we appear to be preaching to the
choir this morning. And that’s not enough.
If anything is to be done, Turkey is to be called to blame for their
actions. Pure honesty is all we ask for.
For Mr. Jacobs’ edification, it is said that German officers in
Turkey, their allies during World War I, advised the Turkish
government on the genocidal attacks on the Armenians. And in 1936 in
Munich, when Adolf Hitler told the world that he was going to
exterminate the Jewish population of Germany, he used the Armenian
genocide as an example and as a pattern for that genocide.
And as a matter of fact, it is said that the German officers that
were in Turkey in 1915 were the same German officers that were
advising Mr. Hitler in 1936.
Accidental? I don’t think so. Not according to the history books.
But we are preaching to the choir here. I urge to commission to take
what has been said here very seriously, and to not cajole Turkey with
words of, or promises of entering into the European Union, but to
very firmly state, it’s time to fess up, fellows.
Thanks for your indulgence.
PRYOR: Any comments?
Who else has a question? A few in the back?
COSMAN: Cathy Cosman, U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom. Thank you so much for holding this very valuable event, and
the previous one.
I did have a question about the situation of the syncretic religious
group known as the Alawites, who consider themselves to be Muslims.
And I believe they are up to 20 percent of the Turkish, the ethnic
Turkish population.
I was wondering if one of the speakers could address their situation.
I imagine that their legal situation may be rather similar to that
described by Mr. King, but I don’t know. And if someone could
describe that, I’d be very grateful. Thank you.
PRYOR: Anybody want to tackle this? No?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Only that they did appear before the same
commission, it seems to me, several months ago.
PRYOR: I’m being told by the experts here that they were invited, but
nobody was able to appear.
Yes?
KALAYJIAN: The only thought that I can offer, is the fact that any
reference to the word minority, Turkish government considers that as
a threat to their national security. Take it from there.
HASTINGS: I’d ask that you do one thing, and that’s leave your name
and number, and we’ll make an effort here in the commission to get
you more finite information.
KRIKORIAN: And just anecdotally I could say that when I was in
Istanbul a while ago, I was talking to an Armenian friend who said
that Alawites were persecuted and had problems. They’re not a
minority as was understood under the Treaty of Lausanne.
But it really came home, because on one occasion, a family of that
faith came to Istanbul and asked to be converted to Armenian. And
they were asked why. And they said, well, we just found out that we
were Armenians, but they told us not to identify ourselves as
Armenians, because we would have been persecuted because of that.
And we’re persecuted because we’re Alawites, so we might as well be
persecuted for what we are instead of something for what we’re not.
PRYOR: Questions?
The young woman (inaudible)?
FENDERSON (ph): Rebecca Fenderson (ph). Howard University, Department
of International Relations.
My question is for Ms. Kavakci. You mentioned the social
ramifications of the ban on the headscarf. Can you please elaborate?
KAVAKCI: The social ramifications of the ban includes emergence of
what we consider as a step (ph), a social class of women who identify
themselves with the victims — as the victims — of the headscarf
ban.
Most — some of the very privileged women or girls who had the
opportunity to leave the country, continue their education and their
lives in other countries, including the United States. Canada has
been very welcoming. Some of them live there through receiving
Canadian citizenship and political asylum for such matters.
Some well-to-do ones are in the United States. But the large
population of those women who have been banned from wearing their
headscarves are in Europe. Some of them do go to school in Austria.
Especially medical school students, the Austrian government has been
very receptive.
The rest, the underprivileged ones go, have either succumbed to the
system for a variety of reasons, from family pressures to economic
concerns, decided to take their headscarves off and continue.
The rest basically, they emerged as these women who identified
themselves as former teachers, former attorneys, former medical
doctors or academics. But yet, simply homemakers. These women
established this, a social stratum, if you will, of the victimized
women with headscarves.
PRYOR: Yes. I see one in the front row here.
MANDEL: Thank you. My name is Ruth Mandel. I’m an anthropologist
working at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in
Washington. I’m a visiting fellow.
This is in response to two questions ago about Alevis, just for the
record. I’ve been doing research on the Alevi communities for about
20 years. And just very briefly, they — the situation has improved
there. There was a 1998 court case forbidding the building of what’s
called a “cemevi,” an Alevi’s place of worship. And so, that has been
overturned.
In addition, there has been what’s called by many scholars a
renaissance and a revival of Alevilik, of Alevism and expressions.
Twenty years ago it was very underground and covert. Today it’s very
open, much more open. There’s hundreds of Web sites and publications
and all kinds of things.
This is not to say that there’s not enduring public prejudice.
There’s a great deal of animosity on a colloquial, vernacular level,
if you will, throughout the Sunni Muslim community. And there is not
a great deal of intermarriage between Sunnis and Alevis.
There’s no direct population figures, because people are not —
there’s no census data about that, but the estimates range anywhere
from 10 to 25 percent of the population being Alevi. And within the
Alevi community there are many different types and languages spoken.
And lastly, about the Armenian Alevi connection, I’ve just done some
research on that. And there’s very interesting connections, even that
go back to Apolic (ph) period. And there’s been a lot of mutual
influence among the Alevis in the eastern Anatolia Dersen region in
particular.
And many Armenians were actually, during the massacres, sheltered and
taken in by Alevis, and eventually now have become Alevis. Don’t
speak Armenian anymore, but still have some Armenian identification.
They have ritual kinship relations with each other.
Thank you.
PRYOR: Thank you very much for filling in that information for us.
It’s good that you were here.
Are there other questions or comments?
KALAYJIAN: May …
PRYOR: I have one comment.
KALAYJIAN: May I …
PRYOR: Yes.
KALAYJIAN: In the light of the presentation by Mr. Jacobs, it
occurred to me that probably we sounded a little bit limited in the
scope of our presentation — or may presentation, at least — vis-a-
vis Turkish-Armenian relationship.
If we want to go as far back as history, as Mr. Jacobs did, one
should acknowledge the fact that the Armenian Church is the
beneficiary of the Ottoman Empire’s policy, in that it guaranteed or
secured the Armenian legal presence in Jerusalem, in the holy places,
and all over the Palestine and Israel landscape where the Armenian
Church owns and operates many sanctuaries related to Christian
tradition.
And also, the fact that Armenian arts and literature flourished in
Istanbul. And we consider the 19th century as the awakening, or the
great activities of Armenian literature and arts, and et cetera.
We’re not talking about past history to give accolades on the Ottoman
Empire in the past. And there are many reasons to probably go over
that in the appropriate environment.
But we are talking about what happened after 1890s or 1860s. Maybe
even we can go and say 1800s.
Something very drastic thing happened. And that was the
disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. And with that, unfortunately,
the paranoid attitude of the leaders, both sultans and the
successive, the Tihad (ph) and Teraki (ph) Party, and their
successor, Kemal, which now is being imagined as a hero, it was
another butcher, if you ask me.
And these people, to guarantee the ethnic survival of the Turkish
nation, on the same land where the Armenians were there for thousands
and thousands of years, one of them had to go, and the Turks
prevailed. That’s the bottom line of this history.
Now, however, we are dealing with a real situation on the ground. And
I respect the hospitality that Mr. Hastings has received in Turkey,
and they’re very good at it. But that doesn’t change that their
mistreatment of their own citizens, Mr. Hastings. And that’s the
issue here. Not how good they were for the Jews fleeing from Spain,
or how good they were for the Armenians in Jerusalem.
What’s happening today? And that’s the important.
And I didn’t even mention as a request or as a demand, as a case, the
Armenian genocide. It was only passing. And we didn’t mention that
with Mr. Tajun (ph), when we met to discuss some of his issues, to
create a more positive and more hopeful environment. We never
received a goodwill gesture, a confidence building something that you
can latch on and go on from that point.
This is what we are looking for. An extended hand that will say,
let’s start solving today’s problems. And that’s what we are asking.
PRYOR: We’ll take this one question, and then we’ll go back with you.
You had a question, madam?
CHILTON: Hi. I’m Elizabeth Chilton. I’m with the Armenian National
Committee of America. And I really, really do appreciate the CSCE for
opening up the forum today to be focusing on this very important
topic, because the issue of religious repression within Turkey is
certainly something that Armenian Americans, Amik (ph) Americans, and
(ph) not (ph) Christian minorities know about.
I’d like to kind of extend that and follow in Father Kalayjian’s kind
of vein. The repression, of course, is not just religious. It also
focuses on Armenian genocide denial. And while we do see positives,
perhaps, in civil society, we see a constant, constant dual message
of repression from the Turkish government, specifically with
criminalizing the mention of the Armenian genocide within their laws
— Turkish Penal Code Number 306.
And then forcing students within Turkey to learn genocide denial,
according to the Turkish education minister’s decree just a couple of
years ago.
And so, my question is, for all those who talk about progress in
terms of civil society, isn’t this, in fact, really just a
subterfuge? And the reality of what we’re seeing is the Turkish
government following the same policy of denial, policy of repression
that it’s had, unfortunately, for 90 years on the genocide. And can
we hear some comments from our speakers with respect to that? Thank
you.
PRYOR: Comments from the panelists?
HASTINGS: If no one wants to comment, I would urge that while we are
speaking, genocide is occurring in Darfur. I’m curious if many of us
who are concerned about past genocides are prepared to let them
become lessons learned and move forward, or to try and avert the
occurrences that take place and have taken place very recently. Not
meant to detract from the awesomeness of your concern, which I full
well understand.
But I come again to the past and what took place in Rwanda. And I
happened to be in this very same room with an African American named
George Moose, seated in chairs assemble. And he held the African desk
for the United States State Department.
Congressman Donald Payne and I asked him repeatedly whether or not
what was transpiring in genocide, and they were upwards of 360 —
there were upwards of 360,000 people at that point, Don and I having
been there and seen some of it. And they kept talking all sorts of
fancy words all the way throughout that process. And it wasn’t until
three years later that Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright said that
it was genocide.
Now, I don’t mean to put down anybody’s notion about what they
consider to be right with reference to their own set of
circumstances. But I leave you, because I have to go to another
meeting with a thought, just to show you how it’s pervasive. And not
only can Turkey, according to some, have an accusing finger pointed
at them.
I don’t recall anywhere in the United States of America that anybody
that has led this country has apologized for slavery. And I’ll leave
it at that.
PRYOR: Mr. Hastings, thank you for being with us.
And for those comments, Mr. Yildiz (ph), I believe you had some
comments.
YILDIZ (ph): Sorry for taking the floor once more.
That was exactly what I meant when Father Kalayjian referred to us
(inaudible) as butchers.
As long as you cannot condone calling George Washington a butcher in
this, under this group, you cannot condone calling the founder of the
nation, the founder of a state, being called that, as butcher.
Because Ataturk in his personality represents the dignity of this
nation.
And the insult that has just been made was an insult to my country
and my nation, I should say. And this should be taken note of by the
commission, bearing in mind for the future events that you will
organize, that you should be scrutinizing the background of the
persons that you are inviting to this forum, or you should maybe set
a code of conduct, which the speakers would refrain from making
general insults to the dignity of the nation.
Thank you.
PRYOR: Thank you for your comments.
I’m going to close the briefing at this point. We want to thank all
of our distinguished panelists, who gave us most stimulating
presentations this morning. Thank you for your time in being with us.
Thank everybody who came. The hearing is closed.
(Whereupon the briefing ended at 11:50 a.m.)
END
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
www.csce.gov.
www.tarc.info