Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Turkey Seeks to Internationalize Mavi Marmara Dispute With Israel

    Turkey Seeks to Internationalize Mavi Marmara Dispute With Israel

    Turkey Seeks to Internationalize Mavi Marmara Dispute With Israel

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 163
    September 7, 2011
    By: Saban Kardas
    Turkey has announced various measures, in an effort to punish Israel for its failure to meet its demands for the Mavi Marmara incident last year, in which nine Turkish citizens were killed by Israeli soldiers. Ankara’s decision came on the eve of the announcement of the Palmer Commission’s report on the incident, established by the United Nations to investigate the competing claims by the parties. Previously, the announcement of the report was postponed for several months in the hope that it could be fine-tuned to live up to both sides’ expectations, and a diplomatic solution could be orchestrated to dampen tensions. While the report was finally due to be officially announced on Friday, it was leaked to the US press, which sparked Ankara’s reaction.

    Though Turkey’s move appeared sudden, it has been in the works for some time. Since the Mavi Marmara incident, on the one hand, the Turkish government has made an apology an essential condition for normalizing relations with Israel, and, on the other hand, it questioned the legality of the Gaza blockade. Israel’s refusal to compromise on both points has gradually deteriorated Turkish-Israeli relations, raising concerns in Washington over the implications of the rift between the two key US allies. Meanwhile, its inability to persuade Israel to change position has put the Turkish government in a difficult position domestically, as nationalist forces have criticized it for failing to protect the nation’s interests and prestige.

    Though severing bilateral ties through the initiation of some low-key measures, Turkey’s strategy was based on the internationalization of the issue to the extent possible to make Israel accountable before the international community. The initial statement from the UN Security Council and the Goldstone Report on the Gaza conflict released in September 2009 were in line with Turkey’s position. Turkey, thus, invested high hopes on the Palmer Commission’s inquiry, expecting that a decision favoring its position will result in confirmation of the nonconformity of the Gaza embargo with international law, and further generate worldwide pressure on Israel, forcing it to accommodate Turkey’s demand for apology.

    While waiting for the conclusion of the Palmer Commission’s work, the Turkish government considered more forceful measures against Israel, since the indications were such that the report might fail to live up to Ankara’s expectations (EDM, May 19). Moreover, although attempts were underway to find a negotiated solution –four secret talks in six sessions were held- and there was even speculation that the Israeli government was considering an apology, this process did not seem promising, either. Days before the submission of the Palmer report to the UN Secretary-General last month, Tel Aviv made it clear to Washington that it would not issue an apology, to which Ankara responded by saying that Turkey would go ahead with forceful measures, should Israel fail to apologize, pay compensation to the victims, and end the blockade (Radikal, August 17).

    As a head-on collision became imminent, Washington was reportedly seeking ways to avert a total collapse of the Turkish-Israeli relationship. Having managed to reestablish a collegial working relationship with Washington in the context of the Arab Spring, Ankara was keen to give a chance to Washington’s efforts. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu reportedly agreed to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s last-ditch offer to postpone the report until the end of September during their face-to-face meeting in Paris. However, the leak of the report to the US media a few hours later angered Turkish leaders, who interpreted this development as the work of the Israeli lobby, seeking to undermine any prospects of a compromise deal including some form of apology (www.ntvmsnbc.com, September 3).

    The tipping point was naturally the content of the report, as it was in disagreement with the Turkish theses. While the report described the Israeli use of force as excessive and unreasonable, it also found Turkey and the organizers of the flotilla partly responsible for what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara. Making no mention of an apology, the report asked Israel to make only “an appropriate statement of regret … in respect of the incident in light of its consequences,” and pay “a sufficient amount” to the injured and the victims’ families. The report also found Israel’s blockade to be a legitimate security measure.

    Turkish leaders denounced the report, maintaining that it would not be a binding UN document, and for Turkey it was non-existent (www.tccb.gov.tr, September 3). Davutoglu outlined a five-point strategy, which Turkey hopes will make Israel pay for the incident. First, diplomatic ties with Israel will be downgraded to a second-secretary level. Second, all military agreements with Israel will be suspended. Third, Turkey will take all measures deemed necessary to ensure the safety of maritime navigation in the Eastern Mediterranean. Fourth, renouncing Israel’s right to the Gaza blockade, Turkey will work to mobilize the UN General Assembly to bring this issue before the International Court of Justice. Fifth, Turkey will support legal action against Israel to be undertaken by the families of Mavi Marmara victims (Anadolu Ajansi, September 2). The Israeli side welcomed the report and insisted that they would not apologize and continue to enforce the blockade, signaling their readiness to face the consequences of Turkey’s precautions and confront Ankara where necessary (www.ntvmsnbc.com, September 4).

    As Turkey seeks not only retribution for the Mavi Marmara incident but also correction of Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians, to which Israel obviously will continue to object, these developments risk leaving irreparable damage to bilateral ties. The most critical aspect of Ankara’s intended measures appears to be the decision to boost the Turkish naval presence in the Eastern Mediterranean for the purpose of ensuring safe navigation. Taken together with Turkey’s rejection of the Gaza blockade, it might risk escalation of the crisis into a direct military confrontation. Moreover, Turkey’s preparation to bring Israel before the International Court of Justice will also further heighten the tensions on the political front. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s plans to visit Gaza as well as the upcoming vote on Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly will only aggravate these tensions.

    Whether Turkish-Israeli relations can be salvaged and who will mediate between the sides remain more uncertain than ever, and surprisingly the United States could exert little influence, if any, on both sides. But one thing remains certain: Turkey has so far failed to internationalize its disputes with Israel and will perhaps have difficulty in achieving this in the coming weeks.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-seeks-to-internationalize-mavi-marmara-dispute-with-israel/
  • Turkey Can Run, but Can’t Hide From the Long Arm of US Law

    Turkey Can Run, but Can’t Hide From the Long Arm of US Law

    sassounian3
    World heavyweight boxing champion Joe Louis once warned one of his opponents: “You can run, but you can’t hide.” This same warning now applies to the Turkish government and two of its major banks.
    Last December, when three Armenian-Americans filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit in U.S. Federal Court against the Republic of Turkey, the Central Bank and Ziraat Bank, the Turkish government ridiculed the charges, claiming “sovereign immunity.”
    The Armenian-American plaintiffs were seeking $64 million in compensation for confiscation of their properties in Adana, Turkey, in the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide. The plaintiffs were also demanding additional millions of dollars for the accrued rent and interest the U.S. government paid Turkey in the past 60 years for use of the strategic Incirlik Air Base, located on Armenian-owned land.
    Since one of the first steps in filing a lawsuit is to serve a copy of the court documents to the defendants, the three Turkish entities concocted elaborate schemes to avoid receiving the legal papers, in order to delay or obstruct the trial. As a result, the plaintiffs’ attorneys had to go to extraordinary lengths in the past nine months to deliver the court documents to the Turkish defendants.
    Ironically, after making every effort to block the serving of court papers, the Central Bank and Ziraat Bank filed a motion on June 1, 2011, seeking dismissal of the case, arguing that they had not received the proper documents.
    On August 2, 2011 U.S. Federal Judge Dolly Gee rejected the Turkish request, asserting that the plaintiffs’ representatives “made several attempts to serve the Bank defendants at their addresses in New York City. After being repeatedly denied access to the buildings and, in one case, being misdirected as to Ziraat Bank’s actual location, the process servers left copies of the summonses and complaint with the building security guards. Plaintiffs’ counsel then mailed additional copies to the each of the Bank defendants at these same addresses.”
    The Judge ruled that the Republic of Turkey had been adequately served with legal documents and ordered the Turkish entities to present their pleading in court no later than August 19, 2011.
    The plaintiffs’ attorneys faced greater difficulties in serving the court documents to the Turkish authorities than to the New York offices of the two banks. On January 26, 2011, the English and Turkish versions of the complaint were mailed to the Ministry of Justice in Ankara, as required by the Hague Convention. On March 1, 2011, Turkey informed the plaintiffs’ lawyers in writing, its refusal to accept the court papers, claiming that the lawsuit infringes Turkey’s “sovereignty and security.”
    After exhausting all other channels, the plaintiffs’ lawyers submitted the court documents to the U.S. Department of State on April 14, 2011, asking the latter to present them officially to the Turkish government. On June 20, 2011, the State Dept. advised the plaintiffs that the documents were forwarded through diplomatic channels to the Republic of Turkey.
    The American Embassy in Ankara transmitted the documents with a “diplomatic note,” warning the Turkish government that under U.S. law “a defendant in a lawsuit must file an answer to the complaint within 60 days from the date of notice or face the possibility of having judgment entered against it.” The U.S. Embassy strongly urged the Turkish Foreign Ministry to comply with the requirements of United States laws or face “a default judgment.”
    On August 29, 2011, after the mandated 60 days had expired and no response received from Turkey, the attorneys for the Armenian-American plaintiffs asked the Federal Court to enter a default judgment against the Turkish defendants.
    Vatan newspaper reported last week that the two Turkish banks, alarmed by the serious prospect of losing a multi-million dollar lawsuit due to their failure to respond to the U.S. Federal Court, rushed to hire a lawyer and asked for more time until Sept. 19, 2011 to file a response.
    Should the Turkish defendants not show up in court on Sept. 19, the Federal Judge could enter a default judgment and order that their assets in the U.S., up to the value of the judgment, be seized and turned over to the Armenian-American plaintiffs.
    The Turkish government can no longer hide from its responsibilities for the devastating damage caused to the Armenian people as a result of the Genocide. It is high time for Turkey to acknowledge its long history of colossal criminal acts and make appropriate amends.
  • Safranbolu & Traditional Turkish Houses

    Safranbolu & Traditional Turkish Houses

    The known history of Safranbolu, located near the north western Black Sea coast of Anatolia, in Karabük nearby Zonguldak, dates back as far as 3000 BC. Once a city of Roman Province of “Paphlagonia”, Safranbolu has hosted many civilizations including the Roman, Byzantine, Seljuk and Ottoman Empires throughout its history. During the Ottoman era the town served as an important junction on the Kastamonu – Gerede (Bolu)- Istanbul route of the famous silk road. Safranbolu was at the same time a popular residence for Ottoman Royalty close to the Sultan and Grand Viziers. The city received its name from the saffron which is native in Safranbolu. The powder obtained from its flower is a very strong dye. Used in very small quantities, saffron adds a delicate flavor, distinct aroma and a very unique color to deserts and other food in the Turkish Cuisine. It is also used for some Turkish carpets as a unique dye. Also unique in Safranbolu is the famous Çavus grapes with its extremely thin skin and sweet flavor. Safranbolu displays its extremely rich historical and cultural heritage through 1008 architectural structures displaying a good example of Turkish architecture, all preserved in their original environment. These structures include the public buildings such as Cinci Hodja Kervansaray and Cinci Hodja Hamam, Mosques of Koprulu Mehmet and Izzet Mehmet Pashas, The Tennaries Clock tower, Old hospital premises, The guild of shoe makers, The Incekaya aqueduct, The old city hall and fountains as well as hundreds of private residences. Rock tombs and tumulus just outside the city are also of interest. Safranbolu was placed in the world Cultural Heritage list by UNESCO in appreciation of the successful efforts in the preservation of its heritage as a whole. Safranbolu has deserved its real name for its houses. These houses are perfect examples of old civilian architecture, reflecting the Turkish social life of the 18th and 19th centuries. The size and the planning of the houses are deeply affected by the large size of the families, in other words a total members of a big family living together in one house. The impressive architecture of their roofs have led them to be called as “Houses with five façades”. The houses are two or three storied consisting of 6 to 9 rooms, each room is entirely detailed and have ample window space allowing plenty of light. The delicate woodwork and carved wall and ceiling decorations, the banisters indoor knobs etc. all come together to form an unmatched harmony of architectural aesthetics and Turkish art.

    Being strong and durable, functional, economical and aesthetic are the basic characteristics of the traditional Turkish house. The houses are built along the roads and on the edges of the squares in an order which reflects a strong respect for the neighbors. In most cases, the houses on both sides of the roads, which follow the configurations of the land, are separated with high walls and have overhanging sections on these walls, reaching towards the street. Entrance to the house is generally through an inner door which opens onto the garden. When household chores permitted, the lady of the house, whose privacy is ensured with the high walls, would go upstairs and look around and chat with neighbors from the overhanging windows of the hall which face either the street or the garden. The large windows of the upper floors protected with bars or grills allowed this outlet. Inside, the rooms were placed around a common space called sofa (hall), either on one or two sides or all around it. Sofas were in a sense interior court yards. It is an area which provides work space during the daily life as well as facilitating circulation among the rooms. They are opened to the outside sometimes completely on one side and sometimes on both sides. The rooms were arranged to meet all the needs of their occupants. There, one could sit and rest, sleep, eat, worship, work and even take a bath. The recessed cupboards, open shelves, storage cupboards and places for washing lining the walls functioned as built in furniture. The divans placed in front of the windows were both seats and beds and left centers of the rooms free. The main living area of the house was the upper floor while the ground floor was allocated to service spaces.The materials used in the houses varied according to the regions and climatic conditions. Wood and stone were used in the Black Sea Region, while it was stone and wood according to the locale in the West and the South and combinations of mud brick and wood in the Center and the Eastern parts of the country.
    298108 196088247124873 102386316495067 485869 127210 n

  • Sassounian’s column of Sept. 1, 2011

    Sassounian’s column of Sept. 1, 2011

    Same old Turkish Trick: Make Promises,

    Get Praised, but Deliver Nothing

    sassounian34

     

    Turkish leaders came up with a new ploy last week to impress world public opinion with fake magnanimity toward the country’s long-oppressed minorities.

     

    Prime Minister Erdogan signed a decree last Saturday that supposedly will return hundreds of buildings that belonged to Christian and Jewish community foundations or charitable trusts. There are currently 162 such trusts (vakfs) registered in the Republic of Turkey.

     

    Back in 1936, the Turkish government demanded that all non-Muslim foundations declare their property holdings. In 1974, Turkish courts illegally stripped these foundations from all properties acquired after 1936, and even some that belonged to them before that date. Last week’s decree requested the foundations to submit to the government within the next 12 months the list of properties confiscated from them — now worth billions of dollars — including schools, hospitals, orphanages, and cemeteries. If and when Parliament adopts this decree, the Turkish government is pledging to either return the seized properties or pay compensation for those sold to third parties. It is important to note that this decree does not cover the hundreds of thousands of private properties that were confiscated by the Turkish authorities from Armenians and other minorities during and after World War I.

     

    Before anyone starts thanking the Turkish leadership for its “kindness” or “fair mindedness” toward its non-Muslim citizens, one needs to scrutinize Ankara’s motives and anticipate its possible next steps.

     

    Although Erdogan’s ruling party has more than sufficient votes in Parliament to pass the proposed measure, no one should be surprised if this “generous” offer is considerably watered down in terms of the number and types of properties it covers and their current value, conveniently blaming these restrictions on the opposition parties! Erdogan’s previous promises to return confiscated properties to minority foundations were mired in bureaucratic red tape, causing lengthy delays and failure to honor almost all requests.

     

    Most probably Turkish officials decided to issue this decree after losing several major property claims filed by Armenian and Greek foundations in the European Court of Human Rights. Clearly, Turkey can ill afford to lose hundreds of similar lawsuits. Adnan Ertem, head of Turkey’s administration of charitable trusts, told Sabah newspaper that by dealing internally with non-Muslim foundations, the government would be able to avoid paying much larger sums, including damages and court costs, should it lose the lawsuits filed in the European Court. Ertem claimed that there are 370 confiscated properties that should be returned to minority foundations.

     

    More important than saving money, Turkey would spare itself the embarrassment of losing hundreds of court cases which would tarnish its reputation in the eyes of the world, particularly at a time when it is trying to join the European Union. In addition, Turkey has already scored a major propaganda coup by merely promising to return these properties. The international media has published glowing news reports of this “magnanimous” Turkish gesture, before a single piece of property has been returned to the minorities. No one should be surprised if Turkey uses this new decree as a propaganda tool to counter recent US congressional demands for the return of church properties to their rightful owners.

     

    Likewise, no one should be surprised if Turkish leaders brazenly demand that the Armenian, Greek, and Israeli governments reciprocate with a gesture of their own toward Turkey. Turkish officials should be reminded that by returning the confiscated properties they are not doing a favor to the religious minorities. Such misplaced gratitude would be akin to a robbery victim thanking a thief who for selfish reasons decides to return a small portion of what he has stolen.

     

    Even though the Turkish media has prematurely characterized the Erdogan decree as “historic” and “revolutionary,” in practice, it is less enforceable than the Turkish government’s obligations under the Treaty of Lausanne which provides the country’s Armenian, Greek and Jewish minorities much greater protection under international law. While domestic laws can be amended at any time, Turkey’s international treaty obligations can not be restricted by governmental decree. Fearing for their own safety, none of the non-Muslim communities have dared to file a complaint with the United Nations or international courts, despite the fact that successive Turkish governments have violated the provisions of the Lausanne Treaty since its ratification in 1923.

     

    My advice to Turkey’s minorities would be not to withdraw their lawsuits from the European Court of Human Rights until they recover their confiscated properties or receive appropriate financial restitution.
  • Senators Should Reject Pres. Obama’s Appointee as Ambassador to Turkey

    Senators Should Reject Pres. Obama’s Appointee as Ambassador to Turkey

    sassounian33

    Pres. Obama has an endless number of problems these days. Late last year, when Senators blocked several of his ambassadorial nominees, including the one to Turkey, the President resorted to the rarely used tactic of appointing Ambassadors without Senate approval, while Congress is in recess.
    Unfortunately for Pres. Obama, his unconventional fix could be short-lived. If by the year’s end the Senate does not confirm his “recess appointments,” these Ambassadors must abandon their posts and return home in ignominy.
    Pres. Obama’s nominee to Turkey, Amb. Francis Ricciardone, was in Washington on August 2, to see if the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would confirm his appointment. During his appearance before the Committee, he antagonized several Senators by making statements that were replete with Turkish propaganda. When confronted with Turkey’s deplorable policies on human rights, its occupation of Cyprus, and denial of the Armenian Genocide, the Ambassador gave a series of evasive and dubious answers.
    In response to a question from Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) as to whether the United States had ever denied the Armenian Genocide, Amb. Ricciardone regurgitated his poorly memorized talking point: “I stand behind Pres. Obama’s characterization of the ‘Yedz Meghern’ [sic], as the Armenians themselves call it….” Unfortunately, he mispronounced “Medz Yeghern” by reversing the first letters of the two words, making it clear that he had no idea what he was talking about. If he really wanted to use an Armenian word, he could have simply said “tseghasbanoutyoun,” which means genocide!
    The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will reconvene in September to consider Amb. Ricciardone’s nomination after reviewing his written responses to questions submitted by the Senators following the August 2 hearing. We have obtained copies of the six responses Amb. Ricciardone sent to Sen. Menendez last week. The questions covered such issues as Prime Minister Erdogan’s “authoritarian tendencies,” the return of Christian churches to their rightful owners, Turkey’s refusal to remove its troops from Cyprus, Turkish banks circumventing U.S. sanctions on Iran, Turkey’s blockade of Armenia, and U.S. policy on the Armenian Genocide.
    Amb. Ricciardone avoided responding to just about every question he was asked. The one time that he did give an answer, he got himself in big trouble by making the following patently false statement:
    Sen. Menendez: “To the best of your knowledge, approximately how many of the more than 2,000 Christian churches functioning prior to 1915 on the territory of present-day Turkey are still operating today as churches?”
    Amb. Ricciardone: “Most of the Christian churches functioning prior to 1915 are still operating as churches. Some churches of significance operate as museums. The remaining have fallen into disrepair or were converted to mosques for lack of use.”
    This is simply an incredible answer from a seasoned Ambassador who is supposed to be extremely knowledgeable about Turkey, since he has had several postings in that country and speaks fluent Turkish. Ricciardone’s problem is that he identifies himself too closely with Turkey. A year ago, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) placed a “hold” on Amb. Ricciardone’s nomination, accusing him of “quickly adopting the positions and arguments of his Egyptian diplomatic counterparts,” during his posting in Cairo. “Given these questions, I am not convinced Amb. Ricciardone is the right Ambassador for Turkey at this time,” Sen. Brownback advised Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in his August 16, 2010 letter.
    Amb. Ricciardone is now making the same mistake in his new posting in Turkey. He has actually become the mouthpiece of the Turkish government rather than the official representative of the United States in Ankara! Unfortunately, Sen. Brownback is no longer in the Senate to place a new “hold” on Amb. Ricciardone, but there must be other Senators who will do so, to make sure that an American Ambassador upholds U.S. interests overseas rather than do the bidding of the host country.
    How could anyone explain, let alone justify, Amb. Ricciardone’s nonsensical and false assertion that most of the Christian churches in existence prior to 1915 in Turkey are still functioning as churches? In fact, the exact opposite is true! Only a handful of Christian churches are still functioning as churches in Turkey today, not counting the few dozen Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian churches of Istanbul. Amb. Ricciardone’s vulgar attempt to justify the conversion of churches into museums or mosques is a supreme insult to all Christians.
    Amb. Ricciardone has clearly disqualified himself from serving as U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. One or more Senators should place a new “hold” on his nomination to keep him away from doing any more harm to U.S. national interests!
  • Amb. Ricciardone Finally Admits Most Churches not Operating in Turkey

    Amb. Ricciardone Finally Admits Most Churches not Operating in Turkey

    Publisher, The California Courier
    sassounian32

    After facing harsh criticism for covering up Turkey’s desecration and destruction of thousands of Christian churches, Amb. Francis Ricciardone, Pres. Obama’s appointee as Ambassador to Turkey, reversed himself last week, acknowledging that most churches functioning in Turkey prior to 1915 are no longer operating today.
    Amb. Ricciardone disavowed the Turkish misinformation he had recently spewed, after realizing that his nomination was about to be rejected by Senators for the second time in 12 months.
    A year ago, when Pres. Obama nominated Ricciardone as Ambassador to Turkey, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) placed a hold on his nomination, accusing him of being too cozy with Pres. Mubarak’s despotic regime during his posting in Egypt. Obama then circumvented the Senate’s confirmation process and appointed him as Ambassador to Turkey, while Congress was in recess. Should the Senate not confirm him by the year’s end, his assignment would be cut short and he would be forced to return to Washington.
    During his August 2 appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Amb. Ricciardone repeatedly made excuses for the Turkish government’s domestic and foreign policies, acting as the spokesman of yet another autocratic regime.
    To make matters worse, in response to a written question from Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Amb. Ricciardone falsely claimed that most Christian churches existing in Turkey before 1915 are still functioning today!
    The Ambassador’s gaffe triggered a massive outcry from the Armenian-American community. Church leaders wrote irate letters to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sharply criticizing Amb. Ricciardone’s erroneous assertion. The Armenian National Committee of America demanded that he issue a retraction, correction, and apology for his false statement. In my last week’s column, I called on the Senators to reject his nomination.
    Fearing that his confirmation is in serious jeopardy, Amb. Ricciardone issued a revised statement last week, partially reversing his earlier misrepresentation.
    Here is the question that Sen. Menendez had asked: “To the best of your knowledge, approximately how many of the more than 2,000 Christian churches functioning prior to 1915 on the territory of present-day Turkey are still operating today as churches?”
    Amb. Ricciardone’s initial answer: “Most of the Christian churches functioning prior to 1915 are still operating as churches. Some churches of significance operate as museums. The remaining have fallen into disrepair or were converted to mosques for lack of use.”

    Amb. Ricciardone’s revised answer: “With your permission, I would appreciate the opportunity to clarify the record. The corrected text should read as follows: Most of the Christian churches functioning prior to 1915 are no longer operating as churches. Christian community contacts in Turkey report that a total of 200-250 churches that date to 1915 and before offer Christian worship services at least once a year. Many churches do not offer services every week due to insufficient clergy or local Christian populations. Some churches of significance operate as museums, others have been converted into mosques or put to other uses. Still others have fallen into disrepair or may have been totally destroyed.”

    While Amb. Ricciardone’s revised answer is somewhat more accurate, it is still far from representing the full truth. Here is why:
    — His figure of “200-250 churches” operating today in Turkey is inflated.
    — His claim that “many churches do not offer services every week due to insufficient clergy or local Christian populations” is misleading. The real reason most churches do not offer services is that they have been converted to mosques, museums, stables or warehouses, if not outright destroyed.
    Our own research indicates more than 4,000 Christian churches were operating in Turkey prior to 1915:
    — More than 2,000 Armenian churches of all denominations (around 2,000 Armenian Apostolic churches, 200 Armenian Catholic churches, and 150 Armenian Evangelical churches);
    — More than 2000 Greek Orthodox churches;
    — More than 100 Assyrian churches; and
    — A small number of Bulgarian, Russian, Georgian and Coptic churches.
    Only 178 of these 4,000 churches (less than 5%) are still operating today in Turkey, mostly located in Istanbul:
    — 52 Armenian churches: 40 affiliated with the Armenian Patriarchate (34 in Istanbul, 6 in other regions); 2 Armenian Evangelical churches in Istanbul; and 10 Armenian Catholic churches in Istanbul;
    — 87 Greek Orthodox churches (74 in Istanbul, 13 in other regions);
    — 20 Roman Catholic churches (12 in Istanbul, 8 in other regions);
    — 14 Assyrian churches; and
    — 5 churches affiliated with other denominations.
    Amb. Ricciardone’s shameful attempt to minimize the destruction of thousands of Christian churches by the Ottoman authorities and Republic of Turkey is reprehensible. Given his false and evasive answers on this and many other issues, he should not be allowed to represent the United States in Turkey.