Turks

Published by Ekathimerini.com, December 7, 2004

Why won’t Turks recognize patriarch as ‘ecumenical’?

Turkey and Greece must drop archaic obsessions if they are to coexist

By Burak Bekdil - Kathimerini English Edition

Istanbul’s Greek Orthodox Patriarch Vartholomaios has every privilege: he is much respected by his host nation and its leaders; his local parish of 3,000 or so peacefully practice their religion, and he is probably one of the few men Turkey’s Islamists and seculars both like. But a decades-old row over “just one word” keeps spoiling his otherwise peaceful life as the spiritual leader of Orthodox Christianity.

The usual debate over the patriarch’s status surfaced once again last week when a delegation of the American chapter of the Order of St Andrew, an organization of prominent Orthodox churchmen from the United States, visited Turkey.

When US Ambassador Eric Edelman’s invitation to a reception in honor of the visiting delegation referred to Vartholomaios as “ecumenical patriarch” — a title Ankara rejects for reasons most Turks fail to comprehend — Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan retaliated in a way that showed how archaic symbolism is still important in the official Turkish mind-set. He issued a circular barring politicians and government officials from attending the reception.

The United States and European governments, like the world’s Orthodox population, regard Vartholomaios as ecumenical. But Turkey says the patriarch has no international role and rejects the use of the title. It argues that the patriarch is merely a spiritual leader of Istanbul’s Orthodox community, citing the Lausanne Treaty of 1923 which set out the patriarch’s status.

But what’s in a name? The fear of Istanbul becoming Constantinople again after 551 years? The fear of a Greek-engineered conspiracy to be instrumented by the Patriarchate? The sanctity of the Lausanne Treaty as a symbol of Turkey’s independence? Or just official conservatism?

Mr Erdogan gives no reason other than a dryly worded reference to the Lausanne Treaty. But that explanation has failed to convince the Americans. US State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher said that the United States regards the patriarch as ecumenical, and thus he is a spiritual leader for many inside and outside Turkey. Mr Erdogan’s ban apparently has not gone unnoticed in Washington. Mr Boucher also said, “We would note that there is, as reported, I think, a decision by the Turkish government not to have officials attend the reception.”

Funny, though, former Prime Minister Tansu Ciller, who in the 1990s sent a letter to the patriarch requesting support from Istanbul’s non-Muslim religious leaders for the city’s bid to host the Olympic Games, addressed him as the “ecumenical patriarch.” Perhaps it is time the great reformist Mr Erdogan sat down and considered whether Turkey’s independence has been endangered with Mrs Ciller’s mention of the “dangerous word” about a decade ago.

Ironically, the row over the status of the patriarch came at a time when one of Turkey’s most conservative institutions, the National Security Council, decided to expose its new, not-so-conservative face. Its new secretary-general, the first civilian to take up the job, told a crowd of curious diplomats and journalists that his office, once viewed by many as the “den of deep state,” would transform itself into a think-tank with no “executive” powers and duties.

Yigit Alpogan, a career diplomat and a former Turkish ambassador to Athens, said that Turkey was in the middle of a process of revising its “foreign and domestic threat concept.” Mr Alpogan said that the reopening of the Greek Orthodox seminary school on Halki, off Istanbul, closed since the 1970s, was not considered a domestic threat to Turkey. He also gave the first signals that Greece would no longer be considered a foreign threat.

According to Mr Alpogan, there is an emerging understanding between Turkey and Greece. Two-way trade in 2004 will surpass $2.5 billion. In Turkey, there are 76 Greek companies with investments worth $642 million. Every year more than 800,000 Turks and Greeks travel across the Aegean. This situation, according to Mr Alpogan, must be reflected in the new threat concept now being drafted.

All of that is reality. But does the reality not contradict Turkey’s archaic obsessions? If Greece is no longer a foreign threat, why should the use of the title “ecumenical” be? All the same, the Greek government too must behave wisely and distance itself from the cliched language of confrontation if it wants to help Turkey transform itself into a genuine friend from a former foe.

For example, Evangelos Andoranos, deputy spokesman for the Greek government, did not miss the opportunity to remind Turkey of its EU responsibilities when the row over the patriarch’s status emerged. Mr Andoranos said Turkey should meet the EU criteria stipulating that religious freedoms must be respected and added that he had raised the issue in discussions with EU ministers.

It is time the Greek politicians understand that the standard reflex of warning Turkey of potential implications in its EU bid every time there is a controversy will not be constructive at all. A Turkey that has lost its EU appetite because of too much external pressure will not benefit anyone in this part of the world.



Volume 6 Number 50 - Tuesday, December 14th, 2004	A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY