eu conditions and turkey's non-muslim minorities

East European Quarterly, XL, No. 4December 2006

EU ENLARGEMENT CONDITIONS AND MINORITY PROTECTION:

A REFLECTION ON TURKEY'S NON-MUSLIM MINORITIES

$ule ToktaýIsik University, Istanbul

IntroductionAs part of enlargement towards the East, Turkey was accepted as a

candidate country in 1999 at the Helsinki Council Summit and startedaccession negotiations on the 3rd of October in 2005. The start of the ne-gotiations has been the result of long, difficult and complicated relationsbetween Turkey and the EU. There had been several drawbacks andturning points, yet Turkey's westernization policy, which is one of thestrongest hallmarks in Turkish foreign policy dating back to the OttomanEmpire times, had always had an upper hand in Turkey-EU relations(Aydin, 2003). In other words, the only direction that Turkey has fol-lowed is that of the West. It is in this context that the start of negotiationswas not so unexpected despite concerns over the timing by some of theEU member states. 1 At the same time, the same process cannot be inter-preted as Turkey being ready for EU membership or having got Euro-peanized 'enough' since there are strong areas of resistance in Turkishpolitics and Turkish polity in general that may prove to be the short-coming for a possible full membership in the short-term. One can arguethat the issue of minority protection and minority rights is one of theresistance points among some others such as the resolution of borderconflicts with Greece and the Cyprus conflict (Oniý, 2003).

Turkey applies universal citizenship as the basic tool in governing itsstate-society relations and every Turkish citizen is entitled to the samesets of rights and liberties which are protected by the Constitution(Toktaý, 2005). By the same token, group rights or differentiated citizen-ship is an uneasy concept in Turkish politics. Although Turkey wasfounded in the ashes of the Ottoman Empire, one of the most multi-cultural and multiculturalist governments in history, with the introductionof the Republic in 1923, it followed one nation-one state understandingformulated as Republicanism (Keyman and igduygu, 1998). The Turkishnation-building process involved cultural homogenization and the intro-duction of a super culture at the expense of differences among the society.

489

EAST EUROPEAN QUARTERLY

The principle of equality has been prioritised over the principle of differ-ence, consequently, universal citizenship (addressing all citizens assingle, unified and as an equal subject category) became hegemonic inTurkish politics.

Conventionally, Turkey gives official recognition only to threeminority groups, the non-Muslim communities of the Greeks, Jews andArmenians. Since 1923, the minority protection framework, of which thebasics were set by the Lausanne Treaty, has remained intact and Articles37-45 of the Treaty, that regulate the parameters of minority rightsgranted to the non-Muslim minorities, still serve as the fundamentals ofminority regime in Turkey. These rights include educational rights,religious freedom, equality with other citizens under the same citizenshipcategory and cultural rights. Turkey has refrained from expanding thecoverage of official minority recognition to further groups. Even the costsof the fight against the violent nationalist Kurdish movement in the inter-national arena (specifically on the European front) did not compel Turkeyenough to change its traditional minority regime. In summary, the univer-sal citizenship, dominancy of the principle of equality in political cultureand limitation of official recognition only to non-Muslims as minoritygroups are key to Turkey's approach to the protection of minorities(Toktaý, 2006).

On the side of the EU, the conditions for membership mainly rest onthe Copenhagen criteria. Accordingly, the candidate states, before mem-bership, are expected to fulfil political conditions, economic conditionsand to be able to adopt the community 'acquis communautaire' (the bodyof the community law). As part of the political conditions, the 1993 Co-penhagen Summit set forth that "membership requires that the candidatecountry has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy,rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities."The conditions set out in the Copenhagen criterion are valid for Turkey'scandidacy and the same norms are expected from Turkey. EU institutionshave repeatedly referred to these criteria in its relations with Turkey andthe Commission and the Council and the Parliament have consistentlymonitored the development of human rights and the protection of minori-ties and reflected upon the status of minorities in Turkey in variousoccasions. In this sense, there are a set of critical questions. How doesEuropean Union urges in minorty issues make sense while there is nospecifically defined policy towards protection of minorities and minority

490

EU ENLARGEMENT CONDITIONS AND MINORITY PROTECTION: 491


rights? How do the EU institutions-the Commission, the Council andthe Parliament-assess the developments in Turkey's approach to minor-ity issues? To what extent the EU demands challenge Turkey's existingminorty regime? Will Turkey involve in a major revision of its traditionalminority regime? Did Turkey achieve any progress considering the EUexpectations in non-Muslim minority issues? Will Turkey's attitude innon-Muslim minority issues constitute a shortcoming in EU membershipprocess?

This article aims to review the EU's urge on Turkey to fulfil theCopenhagen criteria, hence the condition of 'respect for and protection ofminorities' in the case of non-Muslim minorities. In light of the docu-ments released by the EU institutions-such as the Commission regularreports, the Council decisions and the Accession Partnership with Turkey,and the oral and written questions discussed in the European Parlia-ment-the article tries to outline and analyze how the EU develops astance vis-A-vis Turkey's treatment towards its non-Muslim minorities.The article utilizes the result of a research on the essential documentsreleased by the EU; and therefore is not argumentative but descriptive andanalytical. Therefore, it has the potential of a reference guide to be usedby researchers in the field who might find the related issues and discus-sions on minority issues in EU-Turkey relations in the form of an essay.The task of analysis is undertaken in four parts. The first part spotlightsthe Commission and addresses its regular reports on Turkey publishedannually since 1998. The reports' coverage of non-Muslim minorities,religious freedom and cultural rights are attached for special focus in thissection. The second part focuses on the European Council and makes ashort review of the Presidency conclusions and the Accession Partnershipsigned with Turkey. The third part focuses on the oral and written ques-tions addressed by the parliamentarians in the European Parliament onTurkey's treatment of non-Muslim minorities. The last part makes anoverall assessment and discusses the position of the EU towards Turkey'streatment of non-Muslim minorities in light of the data reviewed in theprevious parts. This part also reflects on Turkey's attempts in fulfillingthe Copenhagen criteria and the reforms it has taken in the specificity ofnon-Muslim minorities.


Monitoring Turkey's Minority Protection:The EU Commission Regular Reports on Turkey

The European Union, in its relations with candidate countries and

hence with Turkey, mainly rely on the European Commission reports.

These reports are prepared annually and serve preparing candidate coun-

tries for accession by bringing them closer to the EU. They focus, to a

large extent, on the countries' capacity and performance in effectively

adopting the Copenhagen criteria. In a way, the main monitoring mecha-

nism of the EU is progress reports (Hughes and Sasse, 2003: 3). The

Commission prepared eight reports on Turkey in total in the period of

1998-2005.2 These reports are important in the sense that they not only

put forth what is expected of Turkey for its accession to the EU but also

they monitor the progress taken by Turkey after each report in a

comparative manner with the previous year's report as well as the short-

comings and ill-treatments in fulfilling the political criteria in the area of

minority rights and the protection of minorities.The general structure followed in the reports are the same in every

report: an introduction part on the context of the regular report and a brief

summary of Turkey-EU relations which is then followed by an assess-

ment of the Copenhagen criteria with sub-parts on the political criteria,economic criteria and the ability to assume the obligation of membership

(acquis communautaire). The political criteria section of the reports

analyses the situation with regard to the political conditions of member-

ship, more specifically democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the

protection of minorities. Within the specificity of the protection of mi-

norities, all of the reports pinpoint that Turkey's minority regime, as set

out in the Lausanne Treaty, was restrictive and hence did not provide a

protective framework for other ethnic, cultural and religious groups and

communities that fall outside the scope of the Treaty as there were other

groups in Turkey which might have qualified for minority status such as

the Assyrians, the Kurds and the Alevis. The reports also stated that Tur-

key was not applying the Lausanne Treaty to the full extent as there were

problems in the daily lives of the recognized non-Muslim minorities.

There has been no distinction made among the minorities-of Muslim or

non-Muslim origin- and all the reports mainly attribute problems to a

general framework and criticize the ineffectiveness of this generalframework. Therefore, the reports pinpoint the problems that may have

consequences for all or some of the minority communities. For instance,

492

EU ENLARGEMENT CONDITIONS AND MINORITY PROTECTION: 493A REFLECTION ON TURKEY'S NON-MUSLIM MINORITIES

when mentioning the problem with opening places of worship, the reportsnot only mention the case of Protestant churches but also the case of Cemhouses of the Alevis. In a similar vein, when the reports cover the prob-lems related to language instruction in mother tongue, the problematiccases of Kurdish language schools are mentioned in addition to theproblem related to learning Armenian in higher education institutions. Inlight of the style followed by the regular reports, it is observed that whileTurkey only recognizes the non-Muslim communities of the Greeks, Jewsand Armenians, the reports have not dwelled upon this categorization buthave utilized a general framework of all minorities.

The 1998 Regular Report from the Commission on Turkey's pro-gress towards accession is the first and the shortest of all the eight reports(European Commission, 1998). In the report, it was pointed out that by1998, Turkey had ratified the most important conventions for the protec-tion of HR with the exception of the International Covenant for Civil andPolitical Rights, the Framework Convention for the Protection of NationalMinorities and the Protocols 4, 6 and 7 of the European Convention forthe Protection of Human Rights which are related to minority issues. The1998 Report stated that there were major shortcomings in the treatment ofminorities such as Turkish identity cards carrying a mention of their faithand the existence of a department in the Ministry of Interior dealing withminorities. The problems relating to property of the non-Muslim founda-tions and to their freedom of association were also mentioned. Turkey'srecognition of Greeks, Jews and Armenians as minorities by the LausanneTreaty were acknowledged yet it was also reported that there were othergroups which might have qualified as religious minorities, such as theAssyrians and the Alevis which made them subject to pressures in theexercise of religious education, and non-existence of government salariedAlevi religious leaders in contrast to Sunni religious leaders.

The 1999 Report covered by and large the same points on minorityissues with that of the 1998 Report (European Commission, 1999). Itagain monitored the progress made by Turkey but at the same timepointed out that there were 'serious' shortcomings in terms of humanrights and protection of minorities. The difference in treatment betweenthe officially recognized minorities and other religious minorities wascriticized again within the domain of religious freedom. Turkey's refrainfrom signing the Council of Europe's major documents on minorityrights-the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Mi-


norities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages-was also referred to'in that year's report. Property problems also werecovered, too.

The 2000 Regular Report is more specific in its recommendation forTurkey to cooperate with the Council of Europe to a fuller extent in thesphere of human rights (European Commission, 2000). Under the topic offreedom of religion, the Commission pointed to a few signs of increasedtolerance towards the Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Catholic and SyrianChurches as well as the Jewish community. Yet, the Commission alsoincluded in the report the need of extending freedom of religion to otherreligious communities whether they were covered by the Lausanne Treatyor not-implying other non-Muslim or non-Sunni (mainly Alevi) com-munities. The point on the Halki Seminary being closed was alsomentioned as a deficiency in religious freedom. 3 Regarding languagerights, the Report mentioned that there were no language problems facingrecognized minorities but there were for groups outside the scope of theLausanne Treaty-mainly the Kurds. Additionally, the report pointed outthat regardless of whether or not Turkey was willing to consider anyethnical group with a cultural identity and common traditions as nationalminorities, members of such groups were clearly denied certain basicrights.

The Regular Report of 2001 by the Commission welcomed theadoption of a reform package of 34 constitutional amendments on 3October 2001 as well as the formation of various human rights bodies(European Commission, 2001). Signs of increased tolerance towardscertain non-Muslim religious communities such as the Prime Ministryissuing a circular to local authorities reaffirming the rights of AssyrianTurkish citizens, who had emigrated, to return to their villages in South-East Anatolian provinces or the permission for the opening of anotherSyrian Orthodox church in Istanbul were also noted. Yet, it was noted thatthere was no improvement in the situation of Alevis. Regarding propertyrights of the non-Muslim foundations, official permission was no longerrequired to carry out restoration of churches and other buildings belong-ing to minority foundations, this was also considered as a positive step.Yet, other problems of a more vital nature such as the right to own prop-erty and dispose of property are criticized in the report. The closed statusof the Halki Seminary took its reserved place in this year's report as well.The lack of legal status of the non-Muslims out of the scope of the

494



Lausanne was mentioned together with their problems in training andrecruitment of clergy. Regarding the Roma, elimination of pejorative dis-course from dictionaries published by the Ministry of Culture was wel-comed but at the same time the 1934 Law on Settlement that categorizethe Roma as groups who were not to be permitted as immigrants inTurkey was criticized. Restrictions on the right to education in languagesother than Turkish were also mentioned in the report. The Commissionrecommended Turkey to set an action plan regarding religious freedomfor non-Sunni (Alevi) and non-Muslim communities in its NationalProgramme for the Adoption of the Acquis.

The 2002 Regular Report released by the Commission welcomed theadoption of the first reform package of major constitutional amendmentsto the 1982 Constitution that covered the lifting of the death penalty inpeace time, the possibility for Radio and TV broadcasting in Kurdish, thewidening of freedom of expression and greater freedom for non-Muslimreligious minorities in 2002 (European Commission, 2002). The reformpackage included an amendment to the Law on Foundations whichallowed non-Muslim community foundations to acquire and dispose ofproperty. Yet, the Commission noted the existing problems in compli-cated bureaucratic procedures in the registration of properties. The valid-ity of the 1936 property listing which not only bring solutions to alreadyconfiscated property but also enable further confiscation possible and theGeneral Directorate of Foundations' immense involvement over theadministration of these religious foundations. The problem of theappointment of a Muslim representative from the Ministry of NationalEducation in minority schools who had greater authority than the head ofthe minority school and the restrictions over the training of clergy in ad-dition to visa and work permit problems for non-Turkish clergy were alsomentioned. The difference in treatment of recognized and unrecognizedminorities was illustrated with the examples of the Assyrians' problemsof the construction of new churches, no permission to open their ownschools, in teaching their liturgical language, training of clergy and own-ership problems regarding their historical properties due to lack of legalpersonality. The issue of the Halki Seminary maintained its place in thisyear's report as well. Formation of additional human rights bodies at thelocal and national levels in 2002 were welcomed however measures for amore effective functioning of these bodies were recommended. The Lawon Settlement still listing nomadic Gypsies not to be accepted in Turkey


as immigrants is criticized. Regarding international agencies and treaties,Turkey not signing the Framework Convention on the Protection ofNational Minorities was noted. In addition, Turkey was recommended tocooperate with the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities.

As the Commission reports started to get longer and in-depth everyyear, the regular reports after the 2002 report started to give a broader andmore detailed assessment of the treatment of minorities in Turkey both inthe steps taken for Europeanization of the minority regime as well as thelimits of the progress and the shortcomings (European Commission,2003). The 2003 regular report noted the embracement of a revised Na-tional Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA) in 2003,4 theratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights,5 and the International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights6 with reservations made on minority rights and education inminority languages. Yet, the report, like the previous reports, repeatedTurkey's refraining of signing the Framework Convention for the Protec-tion of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional orMinority Languages. Another issue which is repeated in that year's reporttoo is the Halki Seminary still being closed. However, the 2003 regularreport especially welcomed the constitutional amendments incorporatedin the 2003 reform package that covered the resolution of some of thebureaucratic problems related to acquisition, disposing of and registrationof property which was introduced with the 2002 reform package. A verydetailed assessment of the property issue is made in the report that coversthe number of applications made to the General Directorate of Founda-tions by the non-Muslim foundations, the bureaucratic procedures at sake,the deadlines for the applications, the complications still existing after the2003 amendments, the status of the applications (rejection or acceptancerates), the public offices involved in the procedures, etc. The power ofintervention of the General Directorate of Foundations over the religiousfoundations such as its trustee dismissal, assets and accountancy moni-toring or confiscation power that limit the autonomy of the non-Muslimcommunity foundations is criticized. Court cases in the European Courtof Human Rights of the Greek minority regarding the confiscation of theGreek Orphanage in Bilyikada, Istanbul and of the Bahais in the localcourt regarding the expropriation of place of worship in Edirne were alsomentioned in the report. Regarding the confiscations due to 1974 Councilof State decision that made all property of the non-Muslim foundations

496


acquired either through purchase or donation between 1936 and 1974 il-legal, the report specified it as a pending question that needed addressing.The report welcomed the amendment made to the Law on Public Worksas part of the 6th reform package followed by a circular in September2003 replacing the word 'mosque' with the phrase 'places of worship'which allowed opening of new churches, synagogues or other places ofworship for different beliefs in neighbourhoods. Yet, difficulties in find-ing locations for places of worship, especially by the Protestant and theCatholic communities were mentioned in the report as well. The problemsof the non-Muslim minorities that fall out of the scope of the Lausannewere also mentioned in detail in that year's report. Some of these prob-lems include those of: prohibition of establishing new foundations, a banon training clergy, work and residence permits or visa problems for non-Turkish clergy (a particular concern for the Roman Catholic community),nationality criteria restricting the ability of non-Turkish clergy to work(i.e. for the Syriac and Chaldean Churches) and prohibition of openingschools (a particular concern for the Syriac community). In the report,these problems are especially addressed under the topic of religious free-dom. Religious freedom in Turkey is seen as limited in comparison toEuropean standards due to the absence of legal personality, education andtraining of ecclesiastic personnel and full enjoyment of property rights ofreligious communities. The same point was made with regards to freedomof association as there were limitations in the establishment of associa-tions on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sect, region or any otherminority groups. The Law on Settlement listing the Roma as unqualifiedfor migration is repeated in that year's report as a form of discrimination.

Regarding specific problems of the Lausanne minorities, it is notedthat parents belonging to different religious minorities had encountereddifficulties in enrolling their children in religious minority schools. Chil-dren could only attend such schools if their father was registered asbelonging to that religious minority at the exclusion of the faith of themothers. The ban on the publication and import of non-approved religioustextbooks to minority schools (a concern of the Greek minority) was criti-cized as there had been cases of books being confiscated by customs offi-cials. The continuing situation of a Muslim deputy head appointed by theMinistry of National Education to the religious minority schools withgreater authority is criticized as well. The citizenship requirement tobecome the Ecumenical Patriarch is specified as a problem for the dimin-


ishing or already diminished population figures of non-Muslims whocannot nominate qualified candidates to these positions among non-Muslim Turkish citizens. Regarding curriculum at national publicschools, the hostility towards minority groups in history books is alsomentioned in the report. The inclusion of the Ministry of National Educa-tion issuing a circular in April 2003 requiring schools to organize confer-ences and essay competitions on controversial historical events related tothe Armenians, Greek Pontus and Assyrians illustrate the detailed moni-toring system process followed by the regular reports of the Commission.

Regarding the reform process taken by Turkey in the year 2004, theCommission acknowledged that Turkey was going through a process ofradical change including a rapid evolution of mentalities in the year 2004and encouraged such transformational processes to continue (EuropeanCommission, 2004a). The Commission, in its communication to theEuropean Parliament and the Council, recommended the accession nego-tiations with Turkey be opened as Turkey fulfilled the political criteria.The Commission, on the one hand acknowledged the two constitutionalreforms in 2001 and 2004 and eight legislative packages between 2002and 2004, but on the other hand it pointed to the need for further action onthe specific problems of non-Muslim religious communities in addition toother issues covered in the communication (European Commission,2004b). These problems were mentioned in detail in the 2004 regularreport.

The 2004 Regular Report prepared by the Commission continued thedetailed assessment of minority rights and minority protection (EuropeanCommission, 2004c). The Report noted that the Parliamentary Assemblyof the Council of Europe had lifted the monitoring procedure on Turkey,which had been applied since 1996, acknowledging the progress achievedby Turkey since 2001 in the area of constitutional and legislative reformsin 2004. Turkey would be subject to a post-monitoring procedure, whichwould focus on Turkey's obligations under the European Convention onHuman Rights. It was stated that the monitoring process would also coverthe full implementation of political reforms which needed further con-solidation and broadening of human rights including minority rights andresolution of the problems faced by non-Muslim religious communities.Besides the European Convention on Human Rights, other internationaltreaties and bodies are mentioned in the report as well. Turkey not signingthe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and

498


the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages is a pointrepeated in this year's report. The reservations and declarations made tothe UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights on minority rights are seen as po-tential for preventing further progress in the protection of minority rights.Turkey is recommended to cooperate with the OSCE High Commissioneron National Minorities towards full compliance with modem internationalstandards on the treatment of minorities.

The 2004 report acknowledges the freedom of religion and worshipgranted constitutional guarantee, it reports that non-Muslim religiouscommunities have continued to encounter obstacles due to lack of legalpersonality, restricted property rights, ban on the training of clergy, inter-ference in the administration of minority schools (a dual presidencysystem which gives more power to the Muslim deputy head than the non-Muslim head), and interference in the management of their foundationsthat could be removed by appropriate legislations. The enactment of anew Law on Associations that removes the obstacles for the establishmentof associations on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sect, region orminority group is welcomed yet constitutional prohibitions that mayrestrict such associations to be founded are also pointed out in the report.Religious foundations continued to be subject to the interference of theDirectorate General for Foundations which could dissolve the founda-tions, seize their properties, dismiss their trustees without a judicial deci-sion and intervene in the management of their assets and accountancy.The Regulation on the Methods and Principles of the Boards of Non-Muslim Religious Foundations, adopted in June 2004, was welcomedwhile noting it might provoke certain problems pertaining to elections fortheir boards. Another concern of the Commission was the circular issuedin May 2004 by the same General Directorate of Foundations which in-troduced the restrictive requirement that all foundations including reli-gious foundations should seek permission prior to submitting applicationsto participate in projects funded by international organizations includingthe European Commission. The situation of the property problems ofcommunity foundations was evaluated in-depth as usual in the year whichsaw an increased number of applications for registration of property to theGeneral Directorate of Foundations. The risk of confiscation was reportedto be continuing and exemplified with the confiscation of the GreekOrphanage on BtiyiUkada Island of Istanbul and some other Greek prop-


erty on the island of G6k9eada. Repairing facilities at the propertybelonging to non-Muslims, despite the relaxation of bureaucratic proce-dures at the General Directorate of Foundations, continued to facerestrictions exemplified with the case at the Panagia Greek OrthodoxChurch which was affected by the bombing of the British consulate inNovember 2003 and had still not been granted authorization to carry outrepairs. In December 2003, a Bahai place of worship in Edirne was givenback to the community but it was reported that there were obstacles whenseeking permission to make renovations to their property. Despitechanges in the Law on Associations, the lack of legal status of non-Muslims out of the scope of the Lausanne was still an obstacle for somecommunities, i.e. the Catholic and Protestant communities, to establishfoundations and register, acquire and dispose of property.

Violations in the right to education of the minorities attracted specialfocus in the report. It was welcomed that the Ministry of Education al-lowed children with mothers from the minority could also attend minorityschools (previously only those with fathers from the minority couldattend). Yet, the authorization of the Ministry of National Education tomake the final assessment of the parents' declaration of their minoritystatus, in a way their faith, was criticized. The ban on the Halki Seminaryand on the training of clergy continued to take its place in the 2004 report.Furthermore, it was noted that clergymen and graduates from theologicalcolleges continued to be prevented from teaching religion in existingschools run by minorities. The Greek minority reported to be encounter-ing problems of obtaining approval of new teaching materials and therecognition of teachers abroad. In contravention of the 2003 Labour Lawand in contrast with the situation of their colleagues of Turkish origin,Greek minority teachers were only permitted to teach in one school notesthe report. The Armenian community had a concern regarding the inade-quacy of the teaching of the Armenian language. Assyrians, not officiallyrecognized, were still not permitted to establish schools. Another offi-cially not recognized group albeit Muslim, the Alevis, experienced diffi-culties in opening places of worship and are contempt with the compul-sory religious instruction in schools that failed to acknowledge non-Sunniidentities. From another point of view, this year religious textbooks wereredrafted in order to address the concerns of Christian minorities such aselimination of discriminatory language with respect to Christianity.However, the history books for the 2003-2004 school year still portrayed

500


minorities as untrustworthy, traitorous and harmful to the state. Theauthorities intervention, having started reviewing discriminatory languagein schoolbooks, was welcomed and in March 2004 a Regulation was is-sued in which it is stated that school text books should not discriminateon the basis of race, religion, gender, language, ethnicity, philosophicalbelief or religion.

The difficulties of the non-Turkish clergy to work, reside and enterthe country continued in this year. Nationality criteria restricted the abil-ity of non-Turkish clergy to work for certain churches, such as the Syriacor Chaldean. Public use of the ecclesiastical title of Ecumenical Patriarchwas still not allowed in the year 2004. Christians were reported to besubject to police surveillance in Turkey from time to time, i.e. policemenpresent during Protestant religious services who checked the congrega-tion's identity cards. Yet, attempts for combating discriminatory languageagainst Christians were welcomed such as the conviction of the presenterof a local TV station for inciting hostility towards Turkish Protestants inAnkara. The security problems for Assyrians who returned back fromabroad to their home in South East Anatolia by village security guardswere identified as the major reason of the decrease in return migrationrates of the Assyrians. Members of minority communities facing difficul-ties in acceding to senior administrative and military positions were alsoincluded in the report.

Language rights as well as cultural rights were specifically seen to beviolated in the case of Kurds in this report such as the problems in non-Turkish broadcasting (specifically Kurdish) despite the elimination of alaw that prohibits Kurdish or other minority language broadcasting. TheRoma continued to be socially excluded experienced difficulties inaccessing adequate housing. Law on Settlement that prohibited the set-tlement of the Roma immigrants was criticized, yet the December 2003circular on the Law on Citizenship that removed the requirement to stateon the citizenship application whether the applicant was a 'gypsy' wasseen as a positive step. Another progress taken in the sphere of minoritieswas the circular which was adopted in the same month of 2003 which al-lowed for the recognition of a change of religious identity on the basis ofa simple declaration.

The Commission report welcomed the abolition of the 'SecondaryCommittee for Minorities' in January 2004 which was established with asecret decree in 1962 in order to carry out security surveillance on


minorities. A new institutional body, the 'Minority Issues AssessmentBoard' composed of representatives of the Ministries of Interior, Educa-tion, Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of State responsible for the Direc-torate General of Foundations was set up in order to address the problemsof non-Muslim minorities. However, the existence of the department forminorities established within the Security Directorate of the Ministry ofthe Interior responsible for relations with minorities was criticized.

The European Council in December 2004 decided to start accessionnegotiations with Turkey on the 3rd of October 2005 upon the recom-mendation of the Commission. The Commission, in the EnlargementStrategy Paper, pointed out that in regard to freedom of religion in Tur-key, despite some ad-hoc measures and some progress in the field ofprotection of human rights and minorities, the religious minorities andcommunities still lacked legal personality and there was an urgent need toaddress their problems through the adoption of a comprehensive legisla-tive framework in line with European standards. Although, the terms ofwhat these European standards refer to were not clarified, the Commis-sion found Turkey's approach to minorities and cultural rights restrictiveand pointed to a slowing-down in the pace of change and implementationof reforms being uneven in the year 2005 (European Commission,2005a). These developments and restrictions were discussed in detail inthe 2005 progress report.

The 2005 regular report released on the 9th of November 2005 afterthe start of negotiations is entitled 'the progress report' (European Com-mission, 2005b). The positive developments considered by the 2005 re-port were: the Council of State issuing a ruling in favour of a radio stationbroadcasting programmes on Christianity; introduction of equal treatmentfor Mosques and Christian churches as regards to free access to water; theProtestant church in Diyarbakir registered officially as a place of worship;a Protestant church established as an association in Ankara; the approvalof the Bahai community's request to renovate its garden as a place ofworship in Edirne; Governors' Offices under the Ministry of Interiorassuming responsibility for certain issues related to non-Muslim minori-ties-including their health, social, cultural and educational institutions-which had previously fallen under the responsibility of the ProvincialSecurity Directorates; and the Ministry of National Education indicatingAlevism and other faiths such as Christianity and Judaism to be includedin compulsory religious education as of 2006. Yet, despite these progres-

502


sive steps, the Commission report noted limited progress with respect to

freedom of religion since 2004 in terms of both legislation and practice.The classical criticism directed at Turkey's approach to minority rights ofwhich the fundamentals were set by the Lausanne Treaty is repeated inthe 2005 report with the point made that besides Armenians, Jews andGreeks there were other minority groups that could be classified asminorities according to relevant international and European standards. Ingeneral, the 2005 report by the Commission reinforced the idea that adhoc measures would not solve the problems of religious minorities andcommunities and religious pluralism to a full extent but their rights wouldonly be guaranteed through the creation of a clear and comprehensivelegal framework which established the conditions for the functioning ofall religious communities.

Despite the liberties brought by the Law on Associations that en-abled, for example, the establishment of the Ankara Kurdish Democracy,Culture and Solidarity Association, there were still problems of propertyrights, interference in the management of community foundations due tolack of legal personality pertaining specifically to non-Muslims. Reli-gious foundations continued to be subject to the interference of theDirectorate General for Foundations which is able to dissolve the founda-tions, seize their properties, dismiss their trustees without a judicial deci-sion and intervene in the management of their assets and accountancy.The regulation on elections to the board of trustees to the non-Muslimsfoundations waited implementation in daily practice. The report interpretsthe continued ban on the training of clergy as a difficulty for non-Muslimreligious minorities to sustain their communities beyond the current gen-eration. Non-Turkish Christian clergy continued to experience difficultieswith respect to the granting and renewal of visas and residence and workpermits. Nationality criteria restricting the ability of non-Turkish clergysuch as the Syriacs and Chaldeans safeguarded its place in that year'sreport as well. It was noted that the Halki Seminary was still closed; thepublic use of the ecclesiastical title of Ecumenical Patriarch was stillbanned; the election of the heads of some religious minority churches wasstill subject to strict conditions; it was still not possible for clergymen andgraduates from theological colleges to teach religion in existing schoolsrun by minorities; there was still a dual presidency system in minorityschools that gave the Muslim deputy head more power than the minorityhead; the Greek minority continued to encounter problems obtaining


approval for new teaching materials and the recognition of teacherstrained abroad; Greek minority teachers were still only permitted to teachin one school in contravention of the 2003 Labour Law and in contrastwith the situation of their colleagues of Turkish origin; the training ofArmenian language teachers was still not possible pending acceptance bythe Turkish authorities of an Armenian department within an Istanbuluniversity for the study of Armenian language; the Syriacs were still notpermitted to establish schools; and the school textbooks still portrayedminorities as untrustworthy, traitorous and harmful to the state.

A detailed situation regarding the property rights and problemsrelated to them also took their usual place in that year's report. Besidesthe continuing risk for confiscation, lack of a coherent plan to resolve theissue of already confiscated property due to 1974 ruling is highlighted inthe report. The lack of legal status of religious communities is seen as themajor obstacle facing religious communities, i.e. Catholic, Protestant andAssyrian communities, to register, acquire and dispose of property. Inpractice Greek citizens have problems inheriting property despite theexistence of a decree which grants them such rights. The Greek minorityon the island of G6kqeada continues to encounter a number of difficultiessuch as in land registry and the designation of land and buildings as'monuments of nature or culture' which has led to the confiscation ofsome of the property previously. Very few individuals of Syriac-originhave been able to return from abroad. Those that have lost their Turkishnationality were not able to register their property in the framework of theongoing land registry in the Southeast. In this context, the Commissionnoted a worrying increase in the number of complaints from Syriacs inTurkey and abroad regarding the seizure of their uninhabited property byboth citizens in the region and the land registry authorities.

The non-Sunnite minorities, the Alevis mainly, are reported to haveexperienced difficulties in terms of opening places of worship, represen-tation in relevant state bodies (such as the General Directorate of Reli-gious Affairs) as well as in relation to compulsory religious educationwhich has Sunnite tendencies. The Law on Settlement preventing thesettlement of the Roma as immigrants was still in force. No local broad-casting in Kurdish has yet been authorized (permission pending beforeHigher Commission on Radio and Television Broadcasting known asRTUK). The various human rights boards at local and national level werecriticized to be operating ineffectively as evidenced by the omission of

504



the report prepared by the Prime Ministry Human Rights Advisory BoardSub-Committee on Minorities. 7 The 2005 progress report also pointed tosecurity problems of the non-Muslims by the attacks on the Greek Patri-archate and the Protestant churches by some individuals and groups8 andthe return of Assyrians in the south east by the village guards. TheCommission was also concerned with the Presidency of Religious Affairsdistributing a sermon which was hostile towards missionary activities in2005.

Regarding cooperation with international norms of minority protec-tion, Turkey is acknowledged for signing the Revised 1996 EuropeanSocial Charter in October 2004. Turkey not signing the Framework Con-vention for the Protection of National Minorities or the European Charterfor Regional or Minority Languages was noted as well. Turkey has notyet ratified Additional Protocol No 12 to the ECHR on the general prohi-bition of discrimination by public authorities which was found to beimportant in light of the fact that minorities were often subject to de factodiscrimination and encountered difficulties in acceding to administrativeand military positions. The Commission was also concerned with reser-vations to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)regarding the rights of minorities and to the UN Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) regarding the right to education inmother tongue which could be used to prevent further progress on theprotection of minority rights especially with regard to communities thatfall out of the scope of the Lausanne Treaty. The report also repeated theCommission's expectation from Turkey to cooperate with the OSCE HighCommissioner on National Minorities.

That year's report, however, reflects on the third report on Turkeyprepared by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance(ECRI) in 2005 very much. It utilizes the data incorporated in the ECRIthird report on Turkey and borrows highly from the recommendationsdeveloped in the ECRI report. For example, the recommendations in the3rd ECRI report on Turkey such as religious instruction to be optional orencompass all religious cultures, the abolition of the requirement to indi-cate religion on ID cards, revision of school curricula and textbooks inorder to heighten pupils' awareness of the advantages of a multiculturalsociety, comprehensive measures aiming at overcoming barriers to accessto public services for those who do not speak Turkish, and the need forthe revision of Article 42 of the Constitution which prohibits the teaching


of any language other than Turkish as a mother tongue in state schoolswere borrowed and repeated from the 2005 progress report by the Com-mission on Turkey.9

The points made in the 2005 Progress Report of the Commissionregarding minorities and freedom of religion were also covered in theAccession Partnership Proposal for the European Council by the Com-mission (European Commission, 2005c). The Accession Partnership withTurkey was adopted by the European Council in 2001 which was revisedin 2003. The third one, a Revised Accession Partnership with Turkey wasproposed by the Commission in 2005 of which Turkey's reforms wouldbe monitored by the annual progress reports of the Commission. Regard-ing the rights of the non-Muslims, the Commission proposed a widerunderstanding of religious freedom to be adopted by Turkey by initiatinga comprehensive law addressing all the difficulties faced by the non-Muslim religious minorities and communities in line with the relevantEuropean standards (European Commission, 2005d). The Commissionalso proposed the suspension of all sales or confiscation by the Turkishauthorities pending the adoption of such a law. The Proposal also pro-posed for the revised Accession Partnership to include Turkey's takinginto account the relevant recommendations of the Council of Europe'sCommission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). Referring to theEuropean Convention on Human Rights Protocol No 1, the Commissionemphasized the need for Turkey's legal and judicial protection of reli-gious communities, their members and their assets, teaching, appointingand training of clergy and the enjoyment of property rights. For thisreform to be taken, the Proposal also referred to the principles laid downby the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities,which has not been signed by Turkey, and in line with best practice inMember States. These actions were set as short-term priorities for the EUas stated in the Proposal. For medium-term priorities, conceptualizationof cultural diversity was used in the areas of education and culture thatwould imply education in non-Turkish without the use of such wording(European Commission, 2005d). The points relating to minorities throughthe reports between 1998-2005 can be summarized in a table as follows:

507EU ENLARGEMENT CONDITIONS AND MINORITY PROTECTION:


Table 1EU Commission Regular Reports Coverage by

Main Problems Relating to Minority Issues

REPORTS1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

International Treaties X X X X X X X XIdentity Cards X X XProperty X X X X X X X XCompulsory Religious X X X X X XCourseGeneral Directorate of X X X X XReligious AffairsDifference in Treatment X X X X X X X Xbetween Various MinorityGroupsHalki Seminary X X X X X XLanguage Rights (courses, X X X X X X X Xschools, broadcasting, etc.)Opening New Places of X X X X XWorshipTraining and Recruitment X X X X Xof ClergyPejorative Discourse in X X X X XSchool TextsLaw on Settlement X X X X XMinority Schools X X X XGeneral Directorate of X X X XFoundationsOpening New Foundations X X XFreedom of Association X X X X X X X XEcumenical Patriarch X X XSecurity Problems X XRecruitment to State X XOffices

The European Council and Turkey's Non-Muslim MinoritiesThe European Council mainly rested on the reports and recommen-

dations developed by the European Commission. The Presidency's con-clusions of the European Council on Turkey since 1997 mention the needto fulfil the Copenhagen criteria by Turkey in its prospects of accessionwhich have been applied to other candidate states as well. Special empha-sis has been on the political criteria which include the stability of institu-tions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights and respect forand protection of minorities. The Council summits welcomed the political


and legal reforms taken by the Turkish governments in the accessionprocess, yet it was also mentioned, for instance in the CopenhagenEuropean Council of 12-13 December 2002, the Brussels EuropeanCouncil of 12 December 2003, and the Brussels European Council of 16-17 December 2004, that the implementation of the legislative reforms wasas important as the legislation itself which was to be monitored by theCommission via its annual progress reports (European Commission2005d; 2005e).

One of the most important official documents regarding Turkey'saccession to the EU and marking determinants of EU-Turkey relations isthe Accession Partnership adopted by the Council on the 8th of March2001. The Accession Partnership with Turkey put forth the need forreforms in the freedom of press, expression, association and assembly aswell as removal of the ban on mother' tongue in broadcasting as short-term priorities and intermediate objectives expected from Turkey in theyears 2001 and 2002 (Official Journal of the European Communities,2001). In the subsequent years, as medium-term and intermediate objec-tives, the decision emphasises further development of conditions for theenjoyment of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, human rightsand freedoms and enduring cultural diversity and guaranteeing culturalrights including education for all citizens irrespective of their origin.These sets of objectives clearly indicate a call for change in the minoritytreatment by Turkey. As the recognized minorities-the non-Muslimcommunities of the Armenians, Greeks and the Jews-already haveeducational rights within the existing minority protection frameworkdrawn by the Lausanne, such a priority and objective indicate granting ofeducational rights to other non-Muslim groups or sociologically recog-nized minority groups such as the Alevis or the Kurds. 10

In the revised Accession Partnership adopted by the Council on the19th of May 2003, although the emphasis was on economic criteria andthe adaptability of the acquis, under the heading of enhanced politicaldialogue and political criteria, Turkey's adapting and implementing pro-visions concerning the exercise of freedom of thought, conscience andreligion by all individuals and religious communities in line with Article9 of the European Convention on Human Rights; establishing conditionsfor the functioning of these communities, in line with the practice of EUMember States which include legal and judicial protection of the commu-nities, their members and their assets, teaching, appointing and training

508


clergy, and the enjoyment of property rights in line with Protocol I of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights were highlighted as priorities for2003 and 2004. The document also pointed to the importance of ensuringcultural diversity and guaranteeing cultural rights for all citizens irrespec-tive of their origin, broadcasting, education in non-Turkish (Official Jour-nal of the European Communities, 2003). The Accession Partnership wasrevised in 2006 which emphasized the need of Turkey "to consolidate thepolitical reform process in order to guarantee its irreversibility and ensureits uniform implementation throughout the country and at all levels of theadministration." (European Commission, 2006). The Council's decisionalso set forth the adoption of a law comprehensively addressing all thedifficulties faced by non-Muslim religious minorities and communities inline with relevant European standards as short-term priority (EuropeanCommission, 2006).

The European Parliament and Turkey's Non-Muslims:The Parliamentary Discussions and the Joint Committee Meetings

The issues of the rights of non-Muslim minorities and freedom ofreligion were frequently subject to written and oral questions in the Euro-pean Parliament. There were more than forty oral written questionsaddressed to the Commission and the Council by the Parliamentariansbetween the years 2002 and 2005.11 These questions, whose informationsources being mostly newspapers and human rights organizations' reportsand some of which were addressed by the Greek Parliamentarians, dealwith the claims such as: the governmental resistance to re-opening of theHalki Seminary, the killing of the Catholic priest in Trabzon in 2006, thetrial of Orhan Pamuk for his comments on the Kurdish question and theArmenian genocide claims, the confiscation of the Greek Orphanage onthe island of Batiykada, registration of religion on the identity cards,closing of the Protestant Church in Iskenderun, problems related to prop-erty rights of the non-Muslim communities' foundations continuing afterthe related EU reforms in Turkey, governmental uneasiness with themissionary activities, use of discriminatory rhetoric against minorities inschool textbooks, limitations on freedom of speech related to claims ofArmenian genocide, the sermon read at mosque gatherings in 2005 dis-tributed by the Directorate of Religious Affairs that oppose missionaryactivities and conversions in due course from Islam to other faiths, severalattacks on churches and graveyards, right of EU nationals to enrol in mi-


nority schools, missionary activities being on the agenda of the NationalSecurity Council or mentioned as a threat by some of the military staff in200112 and deterioration in the just treatment of non-Muslim minorities in2005 in comparison to previous years.

The issue of protection of minorities was a matter that frequentlycame up in various meetings of the EU-Turkey Joint ParliamentaryCommittee. The EU Parliamentarians frequently emphasized the short-comings in the fulfilment of the political criteria by Turkey as well as theneed to ensure the rights of non-Muslim minorities were to be safe-guarded.13 The European Parliament delegate, from time to time, pointedto the need to review the Turkish reforms on freedom of religion andexpression, the respect for the rights of minorities as well as to theimportance of the implementation of the reforms. The Turkish delegate,on the other hand, frequently responded to these points by emphasizingthe official minority regime of Turkey (the 1923 Lausanne Treaty specifi-cally) that acknowledged only non-Muslims as minorities, hence the non-existence of a minority problem as all citizens of Turkey and their indi-vidual rights and freedoms including the freedom of belief were protectedin the equal, secular and universal framework of Turkish citizenship.However, criticism by the European Parliament members continued.

Specifically in the 53rd meeting of the Joint Committee in 2005, thematter was discussed in-depth (European Parliament, 2005a). The Euro-pean Parliament delegate, in view of the problems experienced by thenon-Muslim as well as the non-Sunnite (Alevi) minorities despite thereforms taken by Turkey for EU accession process, asked from Turkey toreview its policies regarding religious freedom and to see that the reformswould get through to the everyday lives of people in Turkey. Some of theissues that were raised by the delegate were the limitations on the trainingof clergy, the possibility of the opening of the Halki Seminary whichwould enhance religious freedom, the abolition of the compulsory relig-ion course in the culTiculum of elementary schools for the non-Sunnitestudents, abolition of bureaucratic hardships when opening a place ofworship (i.e., Cem House) by the Alevis, removal of the reference to faithon identity cards and enhancing the liberty to preach by non-Muslims toMuslims.

These points on minorities that took place in the 53rd meeting in2005 were also included in' the Note by the European Commissionintended for European Parliament Members of the EP Delegation to the

510


EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee prior to the meeting (Euro-pean Parliament, 2005b). The Note, reflecting on the annual progressreports, the Accession Partnership with Turkey and a Strategy Paper,mentioned that the Commission monitored the fulfilment of the politicalcriteria and human rights issues as the conditionality for Turkey in theshort-term but the EU reforms taken by Turkey in the year 2005 hasslowed down and the implementations has remained uneven. It also pin-pointed the restrictive approach to minorities and cultural rights and thelimited interpretation of the Lausanne Treaty by Turkey who only recog-nized three major non-Muslim communities-Greeks, Jews and theArmenians at the exclusion of other communities. The Note also listedsome of the problems experienced by the non-Muslims such as de factodiscrimination in state offices, difficulties in acceding to administrativeand military positions, portrayal of minorities as untrustworthy, traitorousand harmful to the state in history school textbooks, limitations overteaching minority languages and establishing foundations that aim topromote a certain cultural identity or a particular religion. Specificallywith freedom of religion, the Note listed the problems of the non-Muslimreligious communities as follows: they lack legal personality, facerestricted property rights and interference in the management of theirfoundations, are not allowed to train clergy, and Catholics and Protestantsare not entitled to establish foundations and are deprived of the right toregister, acquire and dispose of property. The issue of compulsory relig-ion course in school curriculum and the difficulties in terms of recogni-tion of places of worship, specific concerns of the Alevis, were alsomentioned, in the Note.14

General Assessment of EU-Turkey Relations with Respectto Political Conditions on Minority Protection

The EU does not have a specifically defined policy towards protec-tion of minorities and minority rights. The EU member states have differ-ent sets of laws and regulations for protection of minorities. Somecountries, like France for example, hold the official position that there areno minorities in France, and hence is not a signatory of the FrameworkConvention for the Protection of Minorities. Some other countries, likeGermany, signed the Framework Convention but does not grant minoritystatus to Turks living in the country but mainly accepts them as guestworkers. Despite these differences in practices and policies with respect


to minorities within the EU and among the EU member states per se, EUhas some guiding principles on the issue of minorities. These principleshave mainly been crystallized in the last enlargement towards the East. Inthe accession processes of the Central and Eastern European countries(CEECs), these principles have been developed and put as conditionalityfor membership. In actual terms, these principles were those borrowedfrom the Council of Europe and OSCE (Vermeersch, 2003). It has to benoted that during the accession processes of the CEECs there are differentpractices in the EU which have been criticized for example, the non-existence of a coherent framework for the protection of minorities as wellas the liberal approach to the minority issue in the EU that does notimpose better treatment of minorities in existing member states in contrastto such pressures and conditionality put on candidate states. Such acritique was formulated as "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" (Johns, 2005).

The same approach of the EU is valid in its relations with Turkey.The EU institutions-the Commission, the Council and the Parliament-coherently and consistently recommended Turkey to develop its record ofprotection of minorities and minority rights. Especially via the monitoringmechanism of regular reports on Turkey prepared by the Commission, thedevelopments as well as the shortcomings in Turkey's approach to theminority issue were assessed. In these reports, the situation regarding notonly the recognized minorities-the Armenians, Greeks and the Jews-but also regarding other ethnic, cultural and religious minorities such asthe Kurds, the Roma, Assyrians, Protestants, Catholics and the Aleviswere also included. The 1923 Lausanne Treaty framing Turkey's minorityregime is the central point that EU focuses on. EU, on the whole, is notsatisfied with the restrictive approach contained in the Treaty and fre-quently, in various occasions and documents, emphasizes the need for abroader set of rights and liberties for minority groups and communities tobe incorporated by Turkey. In a way, the EU demands Turkey to move toa further level beyond the scope of the traditional position of Lausanneand revise and update its minority regime in light of the contemporarydevelopments evidenced in the aftermath of the collapse of the Sovietblock. The Council of Europe and the OSCE attempts in the field are seenas reference points by the EU in its demands from Turkey.

Turkey, in response to the urge for 'Europeanization' by the EU,adopted several reform packages that included amendments to key lawsand constitutional provisions. However, the reform process of Turkey did



not involve a major revision of its traditional minority regime but a revi-sion of the 'individual rights and liberties' structure (Toktaý, 2005). Inother words, the EU conditionality, hence the Copenhagen criteria weremet by broadening the scope of human rights rather than altering theminority regime altogether. For instance, various National Programmesfor the Adoption of the Acquis prepared by Turkey did not specify anychange in the minority regime. Even the planned reforms in the area ofhuman rights to be taken by Turkey were included, such as the necessaryamendments to the Constitution or signing some of the related intema-tional conventions or protocols, general discourse inherent in the docu-ment ignored any question of minorities or wording on religious freedom.Turkey broadened freedoms of thought, press, association and assemblyby way of constitutional amendments which also brought further libertiesto non-Muslim minorities as well as to other groups like the Kurds,Alevis and the Assyrians. By the same token, it became legal to broadcastin languages other than Turkish, to form associations on cultural grounds,to establish places of worship for all faiths and to acquire and dispose ofproperty by community foundations. It was due to these reforms that Tur-key was able to start negotiations with the EU.

However, having taken several reforms and started negotiations,Turkey still faces criticisms by EU with respect to protection of minori-ties. It is frequently emphasized by EU officials that Turkey had sloweddown its reform process in 2005. Enlargement Commissioner Oli Rehnexpressed his concerns over the treatment of minorities in various occa-sions (HRW, 2005). Regarding the non-Muslim minorities, the mostessential legislation is the amendment to the Law on Foundations whichis still pending in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. This shows thatthe minority issue will still be on the agenda throughout the negotiationprocess and although Turkey seems not to be ready to alter its minorityregime, expectations towards complying with the norms of the Council ofEurope and the OSCE are still alive.

NotesI. Austria resisted to the decision on starting negotiation with Turkey but could not

block it.2. The Cardiff European Council in June 1998 issued that the European Commission

would prepare regular reports on Turkey's progress towards accession in result of the Article28 of the Association Agreement (1963-1964) and the conclusions of the 1997 LuxembourgEuropean Council.


3. The Halki Greek Orthodox Seminary was closed in 1971 with the law that banned allprivate higher education institutions. By the same token, all educational institutions at thelevel of university or college no matter whether they were giving two-years or four-years edu-cation were closed down. Therefore, the closure of the Halki Seminary was a by-consequenceof a broader educational reform and the law was not prepared specifically for the Halki. Foran in-depth assessment of the closure of the Halki Seminary see Macar (2003), Kaya (2003)and Ozyilmaz (2000). From time to time, the possibility of re-opening the Seminary wasvocalized by Turkish political leaders. Especially Turgut Ozal, the leader of the MotherlandParty in the 1980s and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the current leader of the Justice and Develop-ment party and the prime minister, vocalized this possibility but no concrete steps have beentaken.

4. National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis was published by Turkey first in2001 and revised in 2003 (NPAA, 2001; 2003). The 2003 Programme mentioned that "Thelegislation concerning freedom of worship will be simplified in implementation in light of theECHR and its Additional Protocol No. 1, with a view to addressing the needs of differentreligions and faiths." In due course, Turkey resolved some of the complications regardingbureaucratic procedures related to non-Muslim foundations.

5. Turkey signed the Covenant in 2000 and ratified it in 2003 with the following decla-ration: "The Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of theparagraph (3) and (4) of the Article 13 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and CulturalRights in accordance to the provisions under the Article 3, 14 and 42 of the Constitution of theRepublic of Turkey." This declaration mainly covers the issue of education in mother tongue.According to Article 42 of the Turkish Constitution, official language is Turkish; education isa right; education in languages other than Turkish are prohibited.

6. Turkey signed the Covenant on 15 August 2000 and ratified it on 23 September2003. However, Turkey put a reservation on Article 27 of the Covenant which limited thescope of the right of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities to enjoy their own culture, toprofess and practice their own religion or to use their own language. This reservation providesthat this right will be implemented and applied in accordance with the relevant provisions ofthe Turkish Constitution and the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. This implies that Turkey grantseducational right in minority languages only to the recognized minorities covered by theLausanne who are the Armenians, Greeks and the Jews.

7. The Sub-Committee on Minorities prepared a report on minority and cultural rightswhich included recommendations like accepting 'being from Turkey' instead of 'being aTurk' as higher culture; amendment of the constitutional provision on Turkish as the officiallanguage; all ethnic and religious communities to be given recognition; and full application ofall the clauses of the Lausanne Treaty. The syndicate of public officials, Kamu-Sen, protestedthe report during the press conference when the report was publicized. The general secretaryof Kamu-Sen tried to tear up the report in front of the media and claimed that there were nominorities in Turkey. The academics that prepared the report, Baskin Oran and ibrahimKaboglu, were later taken to court on the basis of the Penal Code Articles 216 and 301. Arti-cle 216 rules that a person who "incites groups of the population to breed enmity or hatred

towards one another by, for instance, denigrating religious values, shall be sentenced toimprisonment for a term of 1-3 years." Article 312 states that "a person who explicitly insultsbeing a Turk, the Republic or Turkish Grand National Assembly, shall be imposed a penalty

of imprisonment for a term of 6 months to 3 years." For a brief summary of the report and theconsequent court cases, see Milliyet Daily of 20 October 2004 and http://xvww.nethaber.com/?h=51255 reached on 10 April 2006.

514


8. For example, a group belonging to Turkish Hearts, an extreme nationalist organiza-tion, protested the reception given by the USA embassy in Ankara for the representativesfrom the Orthodox Church in America. The group protested the representatives for demandingecumenical recognition to the Greek Patriarch and the re-opening of the Halki Seminary. Seehttp://www.skyturkonline.com/h_27006 l.html reached on 3 December 2004.

9. For full ECRI third report on Turkey, please consult ECRI (2005).10. The issue of educational rights were responded by Turkey in the form of allowing

language courses to be opened in private institutions.11. On the official website of the European Parliament, http://www.europarl.eu.int, the

written and oral questions addressing these issues can be traced.12. Such a tendency occurred in 2005 as well. Cumhuriyet daily published an article on

II June 2005 revealing the intelligence agency report on missionary activities. The reportconcluded that Christian missionary activities had apart from preaching the gospel also had asecond motive-to promote ethnic divisions amongst the Kurds. According to the report, themajority of foreign missionaries came from South Korea, the USA, England, New Zealand,Australia, Gernmany, Sweden and Romania and they were said to represent Catholic, Protes-tant and Orthodox groups of Christians. The report entitled 'Reactionary Elements and Risks'stated that some Turkish citizens and foreigners were collaborating to form non-governmentalorganizations and to spread Christianity. Istanbul was identified as Turkey's missionary head-quarters although places of worship were known to be established in Ankara, lzmir, Eskisehir,Antalya, Hatay, Mersin and Kusadasi.

13. In addition to the rights of non-Muslim minorities, broadcasting in non-Turkish lan-guages also frequently came up at the regular meetings of the EU-Turkey Joint ParliamentaryCommittee. Regarding the examples of the discussions in the Committee that illustrate theimportance attributed by the European parliament to the minority rights issue, see the minutesof the meetings held between 2000-2004 (European Parliament, 2000a; 2000b; 2001a; 2001b;2002; 2003a; 2003b; 2004; 2005a).

14. Similar points on the freedom of religion, cultural rights and protection of minori-ties to be considered as politically most important priorities by the European Commission arealso covered in the workings of the European Parliament Subcommittee on Human Rights.Please see European Parliament (2005c).

ReferencesAydin, Mustafa. 2003. "The Detenninants of Turkish Foreign Policy and Turkey's European

Vocation," The Review ofInternational Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp: 306-331.Cumhuriyvet Dailyv. 2005. I1 June.ECRI (Council of Europe European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance). 2005.

Third Report on Turkey, adopted on 25 June 2004, Strasbourg, made public 15February 2005, CRI (2005) 5, http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/ecri/l-ecri/2-Country-by-cotintiy_approach/Turkey/Turkey%/`20third%/o20report%/`20-%/o20criO5-5.pdf.

European Commission. 2006. "2006/35/EC: Council Decision of 23 January 2006 on theprinciples, priorities and conditions contained in the Accession Partnership withTurkey," http://ec.europa.eu/commI/enlargeinent/turkey/docs.htm.

European Commission. 2005a. "2005 Enlargement Strategy Paper," Communication from theCommission, SEC (2005) 1433,1421,1422,1423,1424,1426,1428, COM(2005) 561,Brussels, http://europa.eu.int/commi/enlargement/report 2005/pdf/package_v/comi561

final_en_strategy_paper.pdf, 9 November.


European Commission. 2005b. Turkey 2005 Progress Report. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report 2005/pdf/package/sec 1426 final_en_progress report tr.pdf.

European Commission. 2005c. "Proposal for a Council Decision On the Principles, Priorities,and Conditions Contained in the Accession Partnership with Turkey," SEC(2005) 1426,COM(2005) 559, Brussels, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0559en01.pdf, 9 November.

European Commission. 2005d. "Conclusions of the European Council on Turkey sinceLuxembourg (December 1997)," http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/turkey/pdf/european councils .pdf.

European Commission. 2005e. "Turkey, Presidency Conclusions, Brussels, 16/17 December2004," http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/Turkey.pdf.

European Commission. 2004a. "Issues Arising From Turkey's Membership Perspective,"Commission Staff Working Document, SEC(2004) 1202, COM(2004) 656 final,Brussels, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_2004/pdf/issues_paper_en.pdf,6 October.

European Commission. 2004b. "Recommendation of the European Commission on Turkey'sProgress Towards Accession," Communication From the Commission to the Counciland the European Parliament, COM(2004) 656, Brussels, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report 2004/pdf/tr_recommandation en.pdf, 6 October.

European Commission. 2004c. 2004 Regular Report From the Commission on Turkey'sProgress Towards Accession. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_2004/pdf/rr_tr-2004_en.pdf

European Commission. 2003. 2003 Regular Report From the Commission on Turkey'sProgress Towards Accession. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_2003/pdf/rr tk_final.pdf.

European Commission. 2002. 2002 Regular Report From the Commission on Turkey'sProgress Towards Accession. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report2002/tu_en.pdf.

European Commission. 2001. 2001 Regular Report From the Commission on Turkey'sProgress Towards Accession. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report200l/tu_en.pdf.

European Commission. 2000. 2000 Regular Report From the Commission on Turkey'sProgress Towards Accession. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_l I 00/pdf/en/tu_en.pdf.

European Commission. 1999. 1999 Regular Report From the Commission on Turkey'sProgress Towards Accession. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report 10 99/pdf/en/turkey_en.pdf.

European Commission. 1998. Regular Report From the Commission on Turkey's ProgressTowards Accession. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_ 1 _98/pdf/en/turkey_en.pdf.

European Parliament. 2000a. EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, 45th Meeting,Minutes of the Meeting of Monday/Tuesday 5-6 June 2000, Brussels, FdR 418885, PE291.076, http://www.europarl.eu.int/intcoop/euro/jpc/turk/jpc_meeting/minutes/2000_06 06 en.pdf.

European Parliament. 2000b. EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, 46th Meeting, Min-utes of the 46th Meeting, Antalya, 20-22 November 2000, FdR 439188, PE 304.340,http://www.europarl.eu.int/intcoop/euro/jpc/turk/jpc_meeting/minutes/2000

I 122 en.pdf.


European Parliament. 2001a. EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, Minutes of the 47thMeeting, Antalya, 26-27 June 2001, PV/449196EN.doc, PE 304.394, http://www.europarl.eu.intiintcoop/eUro/jpc/turk/jpc_meeting/minutes/2001_06_26_en.pdf.

European Parliament. 200lb. EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, Minutes of the 48thMeeting, Istanbul, 26-27 November 2001, FdR 469966, PE 308.595, http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/delegations/turk/20020617/469966EN.pdf.

European Parliament. 2002. EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, Minutes of the 49thMeeting, Brussels, 17-18 June 2002, PV/481979EN.doc, PE 322.144, http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/delegations/turk/20020617/TURK20020617.htm.

European Parliament. 2003a. EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, Minutes of the 50thMeeting, Istanbul, 16-17 June 2003, http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/delegations/turk/20040331/527120en.pdf.

European Parliament. 2003b. EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, Minutes of the 51 stMeeting, Brussels, 2-3 December 2003, FdR 527120, PE 342.027, http://www.europarl.eu.int/intcoop/euro/jpc/turk/jpc_meeting/minutes/2003_ 12_03_en.pdf.

European Parliament. 2004. EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, Minutes of the 52ndMeeting, Izmir, 5-7 April 2004, FdR 535894, PE 342.054, http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/delegaIions/turki20040331/529389en.pdf.

European Parliament. 2005a. EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, Minutes of the 53rdMeeting, Strasbourg, 23-24 February 2005, 568000/EN, PE 350.505, http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/pv/568/568000/568000en.pdf.

European Parliament. 2005b. Turkey's Progress towards EU Accession in 2005, Note,Intended for European parliament Members of the EP Delegation to the EU-Turkey JointParliamentary Committee on 23-24 November 2005, ExPo/B/PolDep/Note/2005, Direc-torate General External Policies, Policy Department, http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/2004 2009/documents/fd/d-tr20051123 08/d-tr20051123_08en.pdf, 18 Nov.

European Parliament. 2005c. Note for the File on the Human Rights and Political CriteriaAspects of the Proposal by the Commission Regarding the Accession Partnership 2005with Turkey, Subcommittee on Human Rights, The Secretariat, http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/fd/d-tr2005 1123_09/d-tr20051123 09en.pdf.

HRW (Human Rights Watch). 2005. Report on Turkey. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/1 8/turkey I 2220.htm.

http://www.nethaber.com/?h=51255 reached on 10 April 2006.http://www.skyturkonline.com/h 27006_ I.html reached on 3 December 2004.Hughes, James and Gwendolyn Sasse, 2003. "Monitoring the Monitors: EU Enlargement

Conditionality and Minority Protection in the CEECs," Journal on Ethnopolitics andMinority Issues in Europe, European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI), (http://www.ecmi.de/jemie/download/Focus 1 -2003 Hughes_Sasse.pdf), pp: 1-38.

Johns, Michael. 2005. "'Do As I Say, Not As I Do': The European Union, eastern Europe andMinority Rights," East European Politics and Societies, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp: 682-699.

Kaya, Onder. 2004. Tanzimat 'tan Lozan 'a Azinliklar (Minorities from Tanzimat to Lausanne).Istanbul: Yeditepe Yaymevi.

Keyman, E. Fuat and Ahmet iqduygu. 1998. "Tdrk Modernleýmesi ve Ulusal Kimlik Sorunu:Anayasal Vatandalhk ve Demokratik Agilim Olasiltgi (Turkish Modernization andNational Identity Question: Constitutional Citizenship and a New DemocraticApproach)." In Artun Onsal, ed., 75 YKda Tebaa 'dan Yurttaý 'a Dokru (From Subject toCitizen in 75 Years). Istanbul: TiIrkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfi, iý BankaslYaymnlari, 169-180.


Macar, Elgin. 2003. Istanbul Rum Patrikhanesi (The Greek Patriarchy of Istanbul). Istanbul:fietiýim Yaymlan,

Milliyet Daily. 2004. 20 October.NPAA (Turkish National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis). 2003. http://ec.

europa.eu/comm/enlargement/turkey/npaa_.2 0 0 3 .htm.

NPAA (Turkish National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis). 2001. htttp://europa.

eu.int/comm/enlargement/turkey/pdf/npaa_full.pdf.Official Journal of the European Communities. 2001. "Council Decision of 8 March 2001 on

the Principles, Priorities, Intermediate Objectives and Conditions Contained in the

Accession Partnership with the Republic of Turkey," L 85/13, II (Act whose publication

is not obligatory), (2001/235/EC), Brussels, http://wvww.deltur.cec.eu.int/english/apwithturkey.pdf, 23 March.

Official Journal of the European Communities. 2003. "Council Decision of 19 May 2003 on

the Principles, Priorities, Intermediate Objectives and Conditions Contained in the

Accession Partnership with Turkey," L 145/40, (2003/398/EC), Brussels, 12 June.

Oniý, Ziya. 2003. "Domestic Politics, International Norms and Challenges to the State:

Turkey-EU Relations in the Post-Helsinki Era," Turkish Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp: 9-34.

Ozyflmaz, Emre. 2000. Heybeliada Ruhban Okulu (The Halki Seminary). Ankara: Tamga

Yayincihk, Matbaacilik, Egitim, Dam§manlik Ltd. $ti.

Toktat, $ule. 2006. "The Conduct of Citizenship in the Case of Turkey's Jewish Minority:

Legal Status, Identity and Civic Virtue Aspects," Comparative Studies of South Asia,

Africa and the Middle East, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp: 121-133, 2006.

Toktaý, Sule. 2005. "Citizenship and Minorities: A Historical Overview of Turkey's Jewish

Minority," The Journal of Historical Sociology, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp: 394-429.

Vermeersch, Peter. 2003. "EU Enlargement and Minority Rights Policies in Central Europe:

Explaining Policy Shifts in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland," Journal on

Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, European Centre for Minority Issues

(ECMI), (www.ecmi.de/jemie/download/Focus 1-2003_Vermeersch.pdf, pp: 1-30.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Eu Enlargement Conditions And Minority Protection: AReflection On Turkey’s Non-Muslim Minorities

SOURCE: East Eur Q 40 no4 Wint 2006WN: 0634903507007

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2007 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

eu conditions and turkey's non-muslim minorities

Documents

minority rights

turkeyeu relationsaydin

cultural rights

parameters of minority

group rights

educational rights

samesets of rights

issue of minority protection