VZCZCXRO2475
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN
RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHBW #1742/01 3651605
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 311605Z DEC 07
FM AMEMBASSY BELGRADE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1989
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE

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