SLOVENIA: GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA REACTION TO THE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 LJUBLJANA 000152

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

EUR/NCE FOR SSADLE, EUR/PPD FOR CMUDGETT, DRL/AE FOR MDAVIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/12/2017
TAGS: PHUM PGOV KPAO SI
SUBJECT: SLOVENIA: GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA REACTION TO THE
2006 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT

REF: 2006 LJUBLJANA 173

Classified By: COM for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)


1. (C) SUMMARY. The 2006 Human Rights Report (HRR) generated
extensive reaction from the Government of Slovenia (GoS),
opposition party leaders, and the media. In general,
government ministries offered an upbeat assessment,
accentuating positive comments, minimizing criticism, and
expressing pleasure at the overall report. That said, the
Ministry of the Interior (MOI) contested some statements and
private reaction from Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA)
leaders indicated the GoS's "disappointment" and "hurt
feelings" about criticism levied in the report. Opposition
leaders were also generally positive regarding the report's
findings and credibility. While they exploited passages for
their own political agendas, the opposition was less fiery in
their rhetoric against the government than last year. All
major Slovenian media organizations covered the HRR release,
issuing straightforward reports with a minimum of commentary.
The intense interest in the HRR, particularly at the highest
levels of Slovenian government, showcases the charm offensive
led by the GoS on human rights issues, and post is confident
the GoS will continue to put forward strong efforts to
influence the HRR again next year. There have been some
concrete improvements, most notably in trafficking in
persons. Nevertheless, the GoS continues to focus on
correcting perceived errors in the report rather than
tackling the tough issues and briefing us on the practical
effects of their work. END SUMMARY.



2. (U) The 2006 Human Rights Report was released at four
o'clock in the afternoon local time on March 6. An op-ed
written by COM was placed in national daily Vecer that day
highlighting that the HRR would be released, explaining the
background of the report, and detailing why the State
Department writes it each year. At the time of its release,
the report was sent to key contacts in the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. On March 7, Post's Information Resource
Center Director emailed the report to an extensive list of
human rights contacts. The report is also posted prominently
on post's external website. A Slovenian language version of
the HRR Introduction and Slovenian portion will be posted on
the website by the end of March.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GOS Public Response: MFA, MOJ and Ministry of Culture Spin
Positive, while Interior Cries Foul
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


3. (SBU) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a press
notice on March 7 "welcoming the findings," saying that the
report was: "positive in general," that it noted progress in
a number of areas, and that the State Department grasped the
complexity of the issues Slovenia faces. It also welcomed
the report's inclusion of GoS actions to tackle issues like
trafficking in persons (TIP) and Roma integration. The
Ministry of Justice responded positively as well, saying that
the inclusion of the court backlogs was "not a surprise" and
indicating that this was "extra stimulus for the
implementation of the (backlog-fighting) Lukenda project."
The Ministry of Culture was positive overall, calling the
media freedom portion of the report "extremely favorable" and
downplaying reports of indirect government influence by
saying that the HRR contained only "reports" of indirect
government influence while it listed as "fact" that
individuals were free to criticize the government publicly or
privately without reprisal. In contrast, the Ministry of the
Interior took a more negative stance, with a press notice on
March 9 that disagrees with the report's findings on asylum
policies, treatment of the "erased," and excessive use of
force by the police. The MOI contested the report's
statement that some asylum applications may get cursory
review, said its solution to the "erased" problem -- a
constitutional law -- was being delayed by opposition
parties, and rejected comments about excessive use of police
force.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Private Face at MFA Differs from the Public One
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


4. (C) MFA Officials were more mixed in their private
response to the report. Approximately one hour after the
HRR's release on March 6, Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel
called COM complaining that the Slovenes were "hurt" by it,
but admitting that he had not actually read the report yet.
Later that day, Slovenian Ambassador to the United States
Samuel Zbogar told Deputy Assistant Secretary Mark Pekala,

LJUBLJANA 00000152 002 OF 004


during a previously scheduled meeting, that the MFA is very
pleased with the report, and views it as well reasoned and
very appropriate. He noted that the GoS appreciated that the
report mentions progress on several issues, not just areas
that need improvement.


5. (C) On March 8, DCM Maryruth Coleman and PolOff met with
Anita Pipan, the Director General of Multilateral Issues at
the MFA, to discuss the report. Pipan began by echoing the
positive comments in the MFA's public response, thanking the
Embassy for acknowledging Slovenia's positive overall human
rights record and working hard to delve into the details of
some of the more complex issues. That said, she indicated
that the first reaction at the MFA was "disappointment and
surprise" with the report. Pipan delivered a lengthy set of
comments on the HRR, going through the document point by
point where the GoS felt that it could be improved. She hit
on all of the most contentious issues in the report including
the treatment of the Roma, the problem of the "erased," court
backlogs, media freedom, and asylum regulations, as well as
several smaller, less politically sensitive issues like
domestic violence and police use of excessive force.
Criticism followed the format that the GoS presented last
year in reaction to the report and the conversation closely
mirrored previous meetings in March of 2006 and January 2007.



6. (C) Delving into specifics, Pipan said that the GoS felt
language on excessive force by the police was too strong and
noted that one of the police investigations mentioned had
come to the conclusion that excessive force had not been
used. She was positive on the court backlogs section, but
mentioned that the GoS expects significant improvements in
the situation in 2007, when the bulk of the results are
expected from the Ministry of Justice's "Lukenda Project."
She was particularly concerned about the HRR's section on
media freedom, stating that there is no state ownership of
media companies and that there is no analysis from the
government or any NGOs that prove journalists self-censor.
She was displeased with the comments on discrimination
against Jews, saying it was "really difficult for the
government to do anything about this" but noting that they
had sponsored anti-discrimination seminars for civil
servants. On asylum issues, Pipan strongly disputed the
findings of the report, stating that all asylum seekers know
their rights because "officials are required to tell them"
and that Slovenia "falls in line with EU standards."


7. (C) Pipan defended the government's policy of giving
special rights to "official" minorities from Hungary and
Italy, while offering different treatment for minorities from
the former Yugoslav republics. She explained that this is
how the issue is treated in the Slovenian constitution, that
it is the will of the people, and that regardless of
technical rights, "everyone is actually protected." Pipan
expressed appreciation that the HRR pointed out progress the
GoS is making on trafficking in persons, and said they were
glad to see that the report "tries hard to acknowledge
activities the GoS has taken." Regarding women's issues, she
said that the Ministry of Labor is increasing shelter
facilities and that the Ministry of Justice has talked about
criminalizing domestic violence. She also pointed out that
prostitution has been decriminalized and disputed the HRR's
figures on pay gaps, saying the accurate figure is 8 percent
difference in pay between men and women, not 10 percent.
Pipan repeated long-standing GoS explanations disputing the
HRR's comments on de-facto segregation of Roma in schools (by
saying differentiation is based on ability not ethnicity),
said the "erased" had already had numerous opportunities to
resolve their status, and commented that the case of the
Strojan family was misleading because readers would not know
the circumstances of their "resettlement." In contrast with
her very detailed concerns, Pipan repeatedly thanked the
Embassy for writing a report that "aims to present the
complexities" of some of the more difficult human rights
challenges in Slovenia.


8. (C) Overall, Pipan stressed that the MFA felt that the
report could have been improved if post had consulted more
with the government to "give context" to the issues. She
mentioned that the report does not include various
international treaties Slovenia has ratified on human rights
and is not organized to include EU standards for human rights
-- citing the death penalty as an example. She was also
concerned that the HRR practice of listing specific incidents
draws undue negative attention to the issues and prevents
readers from understanding issues in a broader context, and
that the reputation of the GoS was being unfairly besmirched
because of some problems in the report for which the
government has no control (citing Roma child marriage and

LJUBLJANA 00000152 003 OF 004


private anti-Semitism as examples).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Opposition Less Fiery with HRR Rhetoric than Last Year
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


9. (SBU) In contrast to last year (reftel),opposition
lawmakers were less vocal in using the HRR to criticize the
current government and its handling of human rights issues.
Left-of-center Social Democrats (SD) lawmaker Majda Potrata,
the President of the Parliamentary Commission for Petitions,
Human Rights, and Equal Opportunities, and opposition
left-of-center Liberal Democracy Party (LDS) leader Darja
Lavtizar Bebler said the report was highly credible, included
all of Slovenia's major human rights challenges, and
highlighted poor treatment given to minority and vulnerable
groups. One exception was Matej Lahovnik, leader of an
association of left-of-center members of parliament, who
highlighted the media freedom section of the report as "a
very serious warning...that Slovenia took a step backwards in
media freedom." The dramatic use of HRR language in
parliamentary debates last year has yet to be seen in regards
to the HRR 2006.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Media Emphasize Challenges, Particularly Media Freedom
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


10. (U) All major Slovenian media organizations covered the
release of the 2006 HRR, giving it straightforward coverage
with a minimum of commentary. Wire service STA reprinted the
opening paragraph of the report and highlighted the HRR's
passages on court backlogs, trafficking, media freedom,
religious freedom, refugee rights, and the "erased" in two
reports. On March 7, leading daily Delo carried a front page
report detailing major human rights violators around the
world and a more in-depth article on the foreign policy page
that covered both the full report and the Slovenian section.
Daily Dnevnik led with a front page article titled "USA on
Human Rights in Slovenia: Good, But..." that echoed the HRR's
message about the generally good state of human rights in
Slovenia but listed the handful of continuing problems that
the report details. Dnevnik also includes a more in-depth
report on the state of Slovenia's Roma population titled "USA
Warns About Slovene Attitude Toward Roma." Dnevnik carried a
second Roma-related article on March 8, comparing the HRR's
2005 and 2006 coverage of the Roma and detailing other
differences in the HRR between last year and this year. A
March 8 commentary in Dnevnik titled "America's Mirror to the
World and Itself," stated that the HRR is the most widely
read State Department publication, that its coverage is not a
surprise, and that any positive assessment should not be
overshadowed by the need to address remaining human rights
problems, most importantly those that are repeated each year
in the HRR. Another Dnevnik article March 8 criticized the
government's "satisfaction" with the report, saying that it
was not appropriate for the GoS to be satisfied given the
criticisms raised in the HRR, and the fact that "some
warnings have been repeated for years."


11. (U) March 8 coverage in daily Vecer focused on the media
freedom section of the HRR, comparing the 2005 and 2006
sections on the media with the headline "USA: Media in
Slovenia are Plural," but also pointing out critical remarks
that remain in the report, including language on indirect
government influence on the media. March 10 coverage in
leading left-of-center newsmagazine Mladina, headlined
"Influence on Journalists and Media is 'Indirect,'" also
focused on media freedom and included a response to the HRR
from the Ministry of Culture. A brief article in the March
10 edition of daily Dnevnik covered a statement from the
Liberal Academy, an "independent association of politically
engaged intellectuals," that criticizes the Ministry of
Culture's efforts to note the positive remarks in the HRR
while "overlooking the criticism." The Liberal Academy,
whose membership includes former high level officials from
left-of-center parties, said they observed "increasing
pressure on journalists" and restrictions on the space
available in media for government criticism.


12. (U) Television news broadcasts on national channel TV
Slovenia, commercial channel POP TV, and radio news broadcast
on national radio station Radio Slovenia also gave the report
prominent, straightforward coverage. Potshots at the U.S.
human rights record from the generally skeptical Slovenian
press were rare, brief, and followed by commentary that
reaffirmed the value and objectivity of the report.

- - - -
Comment

LJUBLJANA 00000152 004 OF 004


- - - -


13. (C) COMMENT. Given the upcoming prominence of holding the
EU Presidency and Slovenia's efforts to win a seat on the
United Nation's Human Rights Council, the GoS strenuously
pushed post for a very positive Human Rights Report in 2006.
Their reaction to the report -- which was consistent with
previous reports -- was disappointment and, curiously, as
both the Foreign Minister and his staff told EmbOffs, "hurt
feelings." The MFA's frustration likely comes from
disappointment that its charm offensive in Ljubljana and
Washington did not result in a significantly less critical
report and that Slovenia continues to take criticism for a
lengthy list of smaller problems despite the generally
positive state of human rights here. The MFA's reaction is
surprising, and begs the question of whether the GoS (1)
feels the human rights challenges are not really challenges
at all, or (2) thinks it can reeducate the international
community to accept its view of the problems. There have
been some concrete improvements, most notably in trafficking
in persons. Nevertheless, the GoS continues to focus on
correcting perceived errors in the report rather than
tackling the tough issues and briefing us on the practical
effects of their work. Post is confident that the GoS will
continue to put forward strong efforts to influence the HRR
again next year. END COMMENT.
COLEMAN