FORMER SERBIAN RELIGION MINISTER DEFENDS DISCRIMINATORY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BELGRADE 001742

SIPDIS

SIPDIS
SENSITIVE

DEPARTMENT FOR DRL/SEA, DRL/IRF

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL SR
SUBJECT: FORMER SERBIAN RELIGION MINISTER DEFENDS DISCRIMINATORY
LAW

REF: 06 BELGRADE 678

Summary
--------------


1. (U) NGOs and small Protestant churches have criticized Serbia's
2006 Religion law, citing its multiple obstacles to becoming a
legally recognized church. The 2007 International Religious Freedom
Report (IRFR) identified these obstacles as well, prompting
criticism from the Religion Ministry about the report's accuracy.
Former Religion Minister, and drafter of the law, Milan Radulovic
asserts that the law is necessary for the defense of the Serbian
Orthodox Church and that the U.S. report should take into account
the European view. Post adheres to the accuracy of the 2007 IRFR
and will continue to convey concerns about religious freedom to the
Serbian Government. End Summary.

Problems with the Law
--------------


2. (U) NGOs and small Protestant churches, many of whom have had
difficulties registering or functioning under the current law, have
criticized the 2006 Law on Churches and Religious Communities, which
replaced a hodge-podge of laws from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and
the Tito era (reftel). Specifically, the law recognizes seven
"traditional" churches and religious communities, based upon
historical agreements and earlier laws. All other churches and
religious communities, including some that have been present in
Serbia for 150 years and recognized by the government for more than
50 years, must register with the Government of Serbia in order to be
recognized. Further, the registration process requires proving that
the church has at least 75 members by listing each member and his or
her national identification number. Finally, only one church may
register under a given name, preventing multiple churches with the
same word in their name from registering (for example, other
Orthodox churches and protestant churches such as the Adventist
Reform Union, which shares part of its name with the Seventh Day
Adventist Church). The United States identified these elements of
the law as discriminatory in the International Religious Freedom
Report (IRFR).

Religion Minister Criticizes Religious Freedom Report
-------------- --------------


3. (U) Current Religion Minister Radomir Naumov and his special
advisor, former Religion Minister Milan Radulovic have repeatedly
lashed out at critics of the law. In statements to the press, they
have said the law allows any religious community to practice its
faith, recognizes churches registered under previous law, and gives
each church the choice whether to register. Shortly after the
release of the IRFR in September 2007, Minister Naumov voiced his
objections to the report in a press conference. He claimed that the
report had mistaken facts and an incorrect interpretation of the
law. The report's statement that respect for religious rights had
deteriorated was subjective and erroneous, he argued.

Former Minister: Law Reflects a European Worldview
-------------- --------------


4. (SBU) In order to correct any factual errors in the IRFR and to
understand better the law, on December 21, poloff met with
Radulovic, who wrote the law when he was Religion Minister.
Radulovic said the United States had a fundamentally different view
of religious freedom that had probably influenced the IRFR,
producing the inaccuracies in interpretation of the law. The
European view "harmonized" the rights of individuals and
organizations, according to Radulovic. Serbia's religion law was
perfectly consistent with that view, therefore criticism of the law
was tantamount to criticism of the European understanding. The
individual's religious freedom was not absolute, and the law
protected the rights of institutions, not individuals.


5. (SBU) In response to poloff's reiteration of U.S. concerns with
the law, Radulovic acknowledged that the law recognized the Serbian
Orthodox Church (SOC) as "first among equals." He said the law
recognized the traditional churches based on their history in
Serbia, their strong identity, and rights recognized previously by
the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. "The law does not divide, history does."
The purpose of the law was to restore to those churches the rights
the Tito regime had taken away, he said. The name of a church was
integral to its identity, so no two churches could have the same
name. According to Radulovic, the state could not become involved
in internal church issues, therefore, for example, the state could
not recognize the Macedonian Orthodox Church (which the SOC does not
recognize as either autonomous or autocephalic).

A Better Law Would Be Undemocratic
--------------


BELGRADE 00001742 002 OF 002



6. (SBU) Radulovic said the law was liberal, because it recognized
the rights of other, non-traditional, churches and religious
communities that the government had never recognized. Radulovic
said non-traditional churches had the option to register or not. If
they chose to register, they only needed to prove that they
faithfully represented the history and identity of their founding
church in the United States. Radulovic said only those churches
whose applications were incomplete experienced delays in
registering. Radulovic admitted that the law ideally would have
been more liberal, but then it would have made 98% of Serbs unhappy,
which would have been "undemocratic."

Comment
--------------


7. (SBU) Radulovic's defense of the law boils down to disingenuous
rhetoric about European worldviews and history, a claim that the law
is good because it is popular, and questionable claims about the
government's fair treatment of small churches. Post's concerns
about the law remain valid, and Radulovic failed to establish any
factual errors in the International Religious Freedom Report.
Radulovic unabashedly admitted that he wrote the law to protect the
Serbian Orthodox Church as the defender of traditional Serbian
values, although some observers claim that even the SOC is unhappy
with the law. Although the Religion Ministry, under its current
leadership, is unlikely to initiate any amendments to the law, post
will continue to deliver the message that the law is discriminatory.
End Comment.

MUNTER