• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
02.10.2014

NEW DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE ISSUE OF CHURCH PROPERTY RETURN IN TURKEY

EnglishРуский

   

Vahram Hovyan
Expert, Centre for Armenian Studies, Noravank Foundation

A New Bill of the US Congress

The problem of preserving and returning church properties in Turkey seized from Christian minorities is time to time brought into the political agenda. Recently the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee adopted the bill H.R. 4347, a.k.a. Turkey Christian Churches Accountability Act 1 (on June 26, 2014 ordered to be reported unanimous consent), which once again made this issue a discussion subject in public/political and information dimensions.

Contextually, this new bill is the logical continuation of the US House of Representatives Resolution H. Res. 306 2. As both documents are related to the same problem, i.e. returning the church property seized from Christian minorities, it can be stated that there is a functional similarity between the two. However, there are some differences in the problem statement depth:

1. While the H. Res. 306 was related only to the church properties in Turkey, the H.R. 4347 also refers to the areas currently occupied by the Turkish military in northern Cyprus

2. While the first one regarded Turkish government as an acting subject in the issue of returning the property confiscated from Turkey’s Christian minorities, because it was ascribed with the responsibility to return the property, the new bill puts the responsibility also on the US government, as according to the bill the US government should work together with the Turkish government in resolving the issue of the church properties return.

3. Unlike the previous one, where no control was stipulated over the process of church property return, the new Act does provide for such control. The new Act requires the Secretary of State to submit annual reports to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate till 2021 on the status and return of stolen, confiscated, or otherwise unreturned minority properties.

Edward Royce, Chair, Committee on Foreign Affairs of the US House of Representatives, substantiated the adoption of the new act by the fact that “situation with Christian sites in Turkey is deteriorating, and the churches are disappearing despite optimistic statements by the Turkish leadership.”3 These motives are supported by arguments that rights and freedoms of Christian minorities in Turkey continue to be violated, which is manifested by the following:

1. Christian minorities in Turkey are prevented from fully practicing their faith.

2. They face serious obstacles to repairing their churches and monuments, or constructing new ones.

3. The Christians are subjected to violence, including murder and other crimes.

Attitudes of theStakeholders

To foresee the prospects of returning the confiscated church properties, it is important to review the attitudes of involved stakeholders towards the adoption of this act. Such stakeholders include Armenian, Greek, and other ethnic minorities of the USA that face the problem of church property return in Turkey and have nation-states and national structures of their own, and Turkey.

The Armenian, Greek and Assyrian communities of the USA welcomed the Act. Ken Hachikian, Chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America noted that “The adoption of this measure sends a strong signal to Ankara that it must stop its anti-Christian conduct and start coming to terms with its moral, material and legal obligations to Armenians, Syriacs, Cypriots, Pontians and other victims of Turkey's still unpunished genocidal crimes.” 4

The Armenian Apostolic Church also lauded the bill, describing it as an important step to protect Christian minorities in Turkey and their rights5.

However, the Turkish response to the bill inspired no much optimism. It can be divided in two parts: reaction of the public/political circles reflected in media and official reaction by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It has to be mentioned that the media response and the official stance proceeded in unison and complemented each other.

The Turkish media dubbed the H.R. 4347 a document acting against the interests of Turkey, adopted under pressure of the Armenian lobby6. The official stance indicated rejection of claims made in the Act, and showcased the traditional threatening style of the Turkish government. Generally, Turkey’s official attitude toward the adopted Act can be boiled down to the following:

1. The claims made in the Act are groundless accusations.

2. Turkey has undertaken great efforts to protect the rights of Christian religious minorities.

3.Adopting this this type of Act is damaging to the US-Turkish partnership in various areas.

Those concerned with Turkish-American relations should support Turkey in this issue7.

Thus, on one hand Turkey denies assessments made in the Act, on the other hand tries to pretend that it is interested in guaranteeing Christian minority rights and religious freedoms. However, in practice it continues the policy of setting legal and political obstacles8, through which the return of church property is actually obstructed.

Next Steps

Despite the existing problems and obstacles, the US Armenian, Greek, Assyrian and other communities that have to deal with the problem of church property return in Turkey should cooperate with their nation-states and national diaspora structures to use the opportunity and extract maximum benefits from the pressure imposed on Turkey.

The bills adopted to date contained loopholes, lacked concreteness and were generalized, which allowed Turkey to maneuver and avoid from fulfilling its obligations. The only specific provision in H.R 4347 is the requirement of comprehensive listing of all church property, which enables to identify the properties to be returned to Christian minorities.

The Armenian, Greek, Assyrian and other interested communities must undertake efforts in their future discussions and documents to be adopted, in order to bring clarity to the issue. In particular, the following matters call clarification:

1. The list of Christian minorities in Turkey: The officially recognized religious minorities in Turkey include adherents of the Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic churches and Jews. However, there are also communities without official recognition, such as Armenian Catholic and Armenian Evangelical churches. The properties expropriated from them comprise part of the rich Armenian legacy. Hence, by clarifying the issue of the list of Christian minorities, it is a necessary to include communities with no official status in Turkey and extend the demand for return of confiscated property over them as well. This would expand the camp of allies by involving the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant churches, etc., because for example, the Armenian Catholics and Protestants, other than being ethnic Armenians are also part of the global Catholicism and Protestantism.

2. Church properties to be returned։ The Turkish government is inclined to return only Christian properties that were confiscated after 1936, whereas most of the properties were lost before that, during the massacres and genocide. It is important the Act includes demands to return of all the lost properties, rather than just part of it.

3. Property return procedure։ The experience tells that politicization of the issue and bureaucratic hurdles are effective tools in Turkish government’s hands to disrupt the return of properties of the Christian minorities. Quite often the Christian churches have to resort to litigation with the government so as to return their property9. Artificial difficulties created for return of property cause psychological stress to the Christian communities and make them feel that Turkish government is omnipotent and it is impossible to resolve their problems, which may dissuade the Christian communities from continuing the struggle for their rights. Therefore, resolving the issue requires developing a simple and clear procedure for church property return and making it part of the requirements to Turkey in the documents to be adopted.

4. Deadlines for submission of applications։ This is about having no deadlines at all, rather than determining deadlines. The law on returning church properties adopted in Turkey in 2011 stipulates a deadline of one year for accepting applications from Christian communities about returning their property. Given that application submission is a time-consuming and cumbersome process, the one-year limit makes the whole task of church property return impossible. Therefore the future documents to be adopted must stipulate a clause about unacceptability of any deadline for submission of church property return applications.

5. Assessment and adequate compensation for appropriated church property։ Although the above-mentioned law stipulates compensation for property taken from Christian minorities and appropriated from individuals, but the issue of the adequate compensation remains problematic. Hence, it is necessary to devise a clear formula for property assessment and include it as a requirement in any future documents.

Only with these and other clarifications any significant results might be expected in the issue of returning church properties seized from Christian minorities in Turkey. Otherwise the bills on this issue will remain as documents simply describing situation and condemning Turkey, while in reality they would bring a restricted impact. They would have moral, rather than tangible significance. Taking advantage of abstract formulations, Turkey would continue making symbolic concessions to create an imitation of guarantees for the rights and religious freedoms of the Christian communities.

1 H. R. 4347 http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sites/republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/HR 4347_Turkey Christian Churches Accountability Act.pdf

2 H. Res. 306 http://www.atour.com/government/pdf/20110615-USCongress-BILLS-112hres306ih.pdf

3 House panel adopts Turkey Christian Churches Accountability Act, http://news.am/eng/news/216498.html

4 Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians of America welcome passage of the Turkey Christian Churches Accountability Act, http://news.am/eng/news/216512.html

5 Մայր աթոռ Սուրբ Էջմիածինը ողջունում է ԱՄՆ Կոնգրեսի Արտաքին հարաբերությունների հանձնաժողովի որդեգրած H. R. 4347 բանաձևը, http://www.aravot.am/2014/06/27/475133/

6 Թուրքիայի ԱԳՆ-ն արձագանքել է ԱՄՆ Կոնգրեսի հանձնաժողովի ընդունած բանաձևին, http://ermenihaber.am/?lang_id=2&news_=9&cur_news=478

7 Ibid.

8 Հովյան Վ., Եկեղեցական գույքի վերադարձման խնդիրը Թուրքիայում, «Գլոբուս», 2013, թիվ 1, էջ 38-41։

9 Տե՛ս, օրինակ, Ստամբուլի դատարանը մերժել է հայոց պատրիարքարանին վերադարձնել «Սանասարյան տունը» http://ermenihaber.am/?lang_id=2&news_=9&cur_news=479

“Globus” analytical bulletin, No. 7, 2014

Return
Another materials of author