Lawyer Murat Cano talks to Turkish Daily News on many subject in detail. Below you will find the whole conversation
Murat Cano, a lawyer and expert on minority rights, is known for his work on the legal status of minorities in Turkey, laws or practices requiring amendment and their adaptation to universal norms. He has prepared numerous reports and presented them to different governments and ministers. He has also worked in a project for the Helsinki Citizens’ Association. He answered our questions about the history of minority rights, the enactment of the Armenian genocide law, individual and institutional rights of minorities, and the link between reform on the status of minorities and Turkey’s bid for membership in the European Union.
TDN: If you will, let’s start with the definition of “minority,” one of the most controversial terms in the Accession Partnership Document. Does the definition of “minority” in Turkish law cohere with the universal concept of the term?
CANO: It can be said that until 1774, minorities were people who shared the same geography with the majority whom they differed from in religion or race. Minorities were defined in this way almost everywhere in the world, and it is noteworthy that language was not a distinguishing characteristic, per se.
Starting in 1945-60 and gaining new significance in the 1980s, minorities were conceived in more general terms as a result of a process of the spread of the law of continental Europe and the United Nations and the emphasis on individual rights. The term started to be used for people who shared the same geography and were different from the majority through their language, religion, race and way of life and who practiced what their different characteristics implied.
We need to underline that not all of these characteristics have to coexist to make up a minority, at least with regard to the law of the European Council (EC) and the EU. In other words, it is sufficient to be in the minority and to be different in at least one of the aforementioned respects. According to the law of the EC and the EU and in developed judiciary systems, “modern democracy exists in states which grant the rights of the minorities in theory and in praxis.”
TDN: Does this definition cover Turkish democracy?
CANO: If we recall that even the classical institutions of democracy have yet to be established in Turkey, we will see that the country is quite removed from this definition.
The second part of your question was “Who is regarded as a minority in Turkey?” The real and legal existence of minorities in Turkey was recognized with the Treaty of Lausanne, where they were called “non-Muslim minorities.” But a brief glance at the records of Lausanne will show that what is meant here is Greeks and Armenians. Assyrians and Jews are not mentioned in those texts.
Despite the political difference in the application of minority laws, the de jure conclusion was that Jewish and Assyrian institutions had to follow the same practices as Greeks and Armenians.
Turkey unable to face up to the past
TDN: How does the issue of minority rights and the Armenian genocide law look to you in the context of Turkey’s bid for EU membership? If minority rights had been regulated in Turkey according to universal laws would we have encountered the problem of the enactment of the Armenian genocide bill?
CANO: It may have emerged as a result of the strategies of great powers who wanted to create problems for Turkey, but it would not have been so effective and consequential. Perhaps a number of scientists, intellectuals and politicians from other countries would have opposed it before us.
For instance, there were more cases of genocide in the history of France and Britain, but they are not often confronted by such issues, because the establishment of democracy, the development and institutionalization of human rights in their country, and their having dared to face their past make such efforts meaningless and ineffectual.
The real cause for the discussion of the genocide law regarding Turks in foreign parliaments and its enactment is political. I believe that it is closely related to the situation in the Khazar basin, the balances in the Middle East and Turkey’s position in the region.
If the Turkish republic had viewed Ottoman history from a courageous and realistic perspective and had criticized it, it would have inherited an acceptable cultural heritage at the same time that it would have distanced itself from this past. In fact, if it had approached the minorities on a basis of equality until the 1980s and during the twenty-first century, this kind of accusation would have had a lesser impact. If you pay attention, the Armenian patriarchate and the established members of the community do not say that they don’t have problems, even as they react to such events. What they say is that this address is not the right one for the resolution of their problems. In any case, they don’t have the option of saying anything else. I would have wished so much that they said, “The state in the Turkish republic has resolved our problems.”
TDN: What do you understand from the “confrontation of the Turkish republic with its history,” a statement that we have been hearing often recently?
CANO: The confrontation of a person or a nation with its past enables it to perceive its mistakes. At the end of this process, this person or nation has to say, “I apologize to humanity, the people who were involved and their surviving representatives.” It is also necessary to make the following statement: “I return their rights, which in fact exist in my country and which I should protect. If they wish, they can return to their county of origin, live freely on a basis of equality and enrich this country.” This does not mean “take our land.” On the contrary, this claim [of reappropriation] would be completely spurious if they could return.
What does the return of rights mean? It means the return of immovable property, immunity from military service — if they have not been already conscripted — and encouraging them to practice their old profession, whether it is that of a carpenter, stonemason or bar owner. You give them financial credits from local or international sources. And all humanity sees that you recognize your mistake and try to make up for it in a fearless manner. In the meantime, you also present the mistakes of the other side in an objective manner, and you become much more plausible. In this way, you also demonstrate the meaninglessness of discussing this issue in the context of the Turkish republic. What remains are political calculations, which will always exist. But in the meantime, you impede future events like the Armenian genocide bill and its enactment.
The return of basic rights
TDN: Do you believe that this injustice toward minorities was a genocide, massacre, or the result of a local and two-sided conflict?
CANO: I am not a historian but my impression is that there was much tumult in the area. The position of the first assailants and the people who lost out were changed in the end. The virtual collapse of the Ottoman empire encouraged Armenian groups to rise against the state with the support of Britain, and to some extent, Tsarist Russia. This is how the first armed gangs and conflicts started. This was followed by local resistance movements. But after some time, the forced evacuation of Armenians became state policy. I do not know what happened during that time and how many people lost their lives. But the Armenians killed the Turks and the Turks killed the Armenians. When the state could not prevent this from happening, it resorted to forced evacuation as a solution.
I believe that the real injustice has to do with the policies that were followed against the Armenian, Greek and Syrian minorities and their outcome.
TDN: The return of minority rights automatically brings to mind the repossession of the land and buildings that were evacuated at the time. If Turkey accepts proposals to return this property, it would incur considerable debts. This is probably an important reason why minority rights are so controversial.
CANO: Yes, but this needs to done. If possession of property must be based on rights — Karacaglan, the Turkish folk poet, says, “Who lived on these lands before we came” — this must be established first. The basic norms and sense of justice points in this direction. For instance, it is clear that there was a significant fall in the number of Greeks and Armenians from the first census in 1927 to the one in 1935. In other words, a policy of forced evacuation was followed. And the minorities, whose number were counted in the hundreds, have left Turkey en masse, to the extent that the number of Greeks is a few thousand and that of Armenians is 75,000.
No one suddenly leaves the country where s/he has roots, sometimes going back generations. It is not known at what rate they sold their property when they were forced to leave, and if they were able to sell at all. The property they left behind was occupied, and the state legitimized this system by giving out title deeds. This is how immovables were looted. In addition, there was no permission for the relatives of these people, who left the country and most of whom are no longer citizens, to repossess this land. These are the real injustices.
If the grandchild of Hrant or the son of Yorgo wants to repossess the plot or house of his father or grandfather, to live here and be a citizen, he should have the right to do so, at least in principle. And the granting of this right should be enshrined in the law and be announced to the world. In fact, their return should be encouraged.
For instance, Armenia is able to follow policies against Turkey through the efforts of the diaspora. If these people lived in Turkey, would this diaspora have existed? At most, we would have had a handful of malicious people. As simple as that. And Armenia would be unable to play indirect games through the diaspora and would either take a negative attitude itself or develop neighborly relations with Turkey.
History of minority policies in Turkey
TDN: Why is it that Turkey hides behind a chauvinistic discourse which is emotional and useless, and which is certainly not rational?
CANO: Minority policies in Turkey were different during the period of Mustafa Kemal, Ismet Inonu, the Democratic Party and in its aftermath. There were no problems during Mustafa Kemal. All kinds of efforts were made for minorities to continue their lives as in the past. For instance, if they were living in Beyoglu [which was then called Pera], police officers were stationed along the street in order to prevent people, whose attire was not up to the standards, from entering the street. This was how much care was shown [for the preservation of the lifestyles of the minorities.] All the older members of minority groups said that they felt that something was missing after the death of Mustafa Kemal. Without imitating one another, they talked about their peaceful life during the time of Mustafa Kemal and the feelings of ambiguity and fear they experienced later.
We should say that they were also bothered by the policies of Ismet Inonu. The policy of gathering non-Muslims at certain transit centers and seeking to annihilate them to avert potential dangers was followed by Sukru Saracoglu [prime minister under Inonu.] But Inonu approved of this policy. The capital tax (varlik vergisi) was introduced during his rule.
When this was insufficient and the Turkish bourgeoisie, which was just flexing its muscle, had in fact not accumulated sufficient wealth, the events of September 6-7 were provoked by the officials. But even this was not enough. The forced evacuation of 12,000 Greeks of Greek citizenship during the rule of Ismet Inonu in 1964 was followed by the departure of about 40,000 people. Their families had to leave as well.
Turkey and Greece blockaded each other on various issues after 1968, including money transfer, the sale and purchase of property and inheritance. This policy continued until 1988.
By the way, I would like to add something with regard to the injustices against minorities. The immovables of people who were forcefully evacuated or who left were not only confiscated, they were also given title deeds. This meant that the occupation of the property of minorities or their foundations was legally confirmed. The looting in Bozcaada and Imrali reached such proportions that there are a number of lawsuits today.
Tomorrow: We will discuss tomorrow with Cano the trajectory of minority rights and especially the controversy over the ownership of minority foundations after 1936.
The controversial 1936 law which enabled the state to take over minority foundations was objected to by former president Kenan Evren in 1981, when he asked that the state end the confiscation of minority property.
Yorumlar kapatıldı.