The Rockford Institute
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

July 23-27, 2000

REPORT ON THE VISIT TO SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO

The immediate reason for the mission was a disturbing communication fromAmphilochios, he Metropolitan Archbishop of Montenegro, concerning a spate of recent attacks on Church property there. In view of our active interest in Balkan affairs and our fruitful past cooperation with the Metropolitan, we have concluded that a fact-finding mission was called for. At a very short notice we have managed to put together a mixed ecclesiastical/secular team that included two Rockford Institute associates (Tom Fleming, President, and Srdja Trifkovic, Director of the Center for International Affairs) and two clerics: Fr. Hugh Barbour, a prominent Roman Catholic theologian from California, and Rev. Bill Hutton, an Anglican priest from Canada who has repeatedly visited Yugoslavia.

In an action-packed week we have visited Belgrade, Podgorica, Cetinje and a host of other locations in Montenegro (Prevlaka nr. Tivat, Budva, Lake Skadar, Moraca Monastery, and Ostrog). Besides our host, Metropolitan Amphilochios, we have met people prominent in politics and business in both Yugoslav republics. Especially useful to us was a long, frank and exhaustive meeting with the Montenegrin Minister of Religion, Mr. Dubak. His views were subsequently confirmed in a brief meeting with the Prime Minister, Mr. Vujanovic. Our statement on the Church issue in Montenegro is attached as Appendix I.

The highlight of our visit was a well attended press conference at the Montenegrin Government Press Center in Podgorica on July 25, which was followed by considerable media coverage of our statements. The collective view of the delegation was summarized in the opening remarks at the press conference by Dr. Fleming (see Appendix II).

Amidst the constitutional crisis created in Yugoslavia by Slobodan Milosevic's attempt to manipulate the federal constitution by giving himself unlimited extension of presidential mandates, elections were called during our stay. The immediate decision of the Montenegrin government to abstain from these elections, in view of the way those changes were enacted, was unsurprising. Somewhat unexpected, however, is the speed and seriousness with which the democratic opposition in Serbia has started consultations on a joint presidential candidate who will stand against Milosevic. Dr. Vojislav Kostunica of the Democratic Party of Serbia has emerged as a front runner. This we regard as a welcome development: Dr. Fleming and Dr. Trifkovic have met Dr. Kostunica on numerous occasions over the past four years and regard him as a politician of impeccable democratic credentials, keen intelligence and high personal integrity.

If the opposition stays truly united, opinion polls indicate that Milosevic may lose the election. It is unclear what will happen then, however: our interlocutors appear certain that he would stop the vote count if it started turning against him, proclaim a state of emergency (note a spate of arrests of "foreign spies and terrorists" in recent days) and rule by decree. Very few people in Yugoslavia see Milosevic's quiet departure from power as an option. But, they say, at least an unpredictable new situation will have been created. "Anything is better than this long road to nowhere" is a typical refrain.

Serbian democrats are convinced that a positive sign from the West that sanctions would be lifted in case of Milosevic's defeat could additionally tip the balance. European Union diplomats are aware of this, and there is increasing discrete pressure from Europe on the United States to help the Serbian opposition by agreeing to relax sanctions on Belgrade, and announcing that they would be unconditionally lifted in case of Milosevic's defeat.

Several developments in the last few weeks illustrate the new trend. The European Union foreign ministers' first open debate on the EU policy in the Balkans, held in Brussels in early July, has ended with an admission of failure. The French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine, who chaired the meeting, said there existed "real skepticism" about the sanctions among a growing number of EU member states, and that the policy would have to be reviewed. The Irish foreign minister Brian Cowan, who complained of too much stick and not enough carrot in EU policy, echoed this view:

"We should review the effectiveness of these sanctions, which appear to be impacting primarily on the ordinary people of Serbia. The regime is benefiting through their control of the black market that has emerged in Serbia and it cannot be in our interest to impoverish the country."

Almost simultaneously, the United Nations special envoy in the Balkans, Slovakia's foreign minister Eduard Kukan, has called for sanctions against Yugoslavia to be changed. Mr. Kukan, in a BBC interview, said the current sanctions against Belgrade were imposed after the Kosovo crisis, ostensibly to strengthen the Yugoslav opposition and to weaken President Slobodan Milosevic - but they had failed on both counts.

Such sentiments are commonplace in Europe and their public venting is long overdue. As we at The Rockford Institute have repeatedly argued, the first problem with economic embargoes ("sanctions") is that they are morally wrong: the most vulnerable, and therefore the least "culpable" segment of the target-country's population will always suffer the most. But even from the purely pragmatic point of view they fail: as the Irish diplomat correctly pointed out, they contribute to the survival of those regimes against which they are supposedly directed. Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein are the most obvious examples, with Slobodan Milosevic a close third. They wipe out the middle classes and help the Mafiosi flourish. They give dictators an undeserved patriotic aura. More recently, American insistence on other countries' adherence to the U.S.-led quarantine of Serbia has damaged America's relations with a whole host of countries. Macedonia, Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria all see themselves as the uncompensated victims of Washington's pig-headedness. According to an American businessman who is quietly scouting Belgrade for post-sanctions opportunities, "The present sanctions regime breed resentment not only among the target population, but also among those who are asked to damage themselves - Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia - in order to help us." In conclusion, our mission was a resounding success measured against its primary objective: our concerns have been heard at high levels of government and widely reported in the media, and we have received assurances from the authorities that they will be adequately addressed. In addition, our visit was extremely valuable in providing us with first-hand knowledge of a politically volatile part of the world that will undoubtedly figure prominently in international news over the next few months.

APPENDIX I STATEMENT BY THE ROCKFORD INSTITUTE TEAM ON THE CHURCH SITUATION IN MONTENEGRO

1. We are fully satisfied that the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral is the only legal, historical and canonical "Orthodox Church" in Montenegro, with a vibrant spiritual life, and a growing body of clergy and faithful whose undivided loyalty is beyond doubt. In addition, the Metropolitanate a major contribution. There is no rival group with any legal, canonical, or historical claim.

2. Because the Metropolitanate is an integral part of the Serbian Orthodox Church, it is at the receiving end of persecution orchestrated for purely political purposes by the advocates of full Montenegrin independence. We take no position on the issue of independence, we object to the artificial transfer of political issues to the Church sphere.

3. The so-called "Montenegrin Orthodox Church" is a purely political construct, not an authentic church or a genuinely religious organization in any sense. It is led by a defrocked monk who has been excommunicated - and subsequently anathemized - by the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople (under whose jurisdiction he used to be). It has no canonically recognized clergy and most of its "faithful" are political activists who have never taken part in Church life.

4. The kind of persecution to which the Metropolitanate is now subjected would be front-page news if the victim was any OTHER group. We can only imagine what would happen if a group calling itself "Montenegrin Catholic Church" tried to take over Roman Catholic churches in Kotor, Budva, or Bar by force. There would be an international outcry, and rightly so. When whole parishes have--by overwhelming majorities--tried to secede from the Episcopal Church, American courts have always upheld the bishops in reasserting ownership and control over dissident parishes.

5. We are disappointed by the indifference of Western NGOs, journalists, and other representatives within Montenegro, and by international bodies who have been approached by the Metropolitenate, and who have failed to respond to these outrages.

6. The Metropolitanate has been in the forefront of the struggle for democratic change in Yugoslavia; it has repeatedly condemned Milosevic and it has disretely (as befits the Church) supported President Djukanovic in elections and in his previous showdowns with the Milosevic government. Djukanovic's perceived abandonment of his Orthodox supporters is all the more unwise in that it divides the Montenegrin people at a critical time in their struggle for a democratic change that would be free from violence.

7. Canon law apart, the seizure of the church's property is also a gross violation of the rule of law and of the rights of private property. Montenegro should prevent them in the name of those values and ideals that it needs to uphold if it is to become a fully-fledged member of the community of democratic nations.

8. We have been encouraged by the assurances given to us by Prime Minister Vujanovic that similar incidents will not be tolerated, and especially by the detailed and comprehensive explanation given to us by the Minister of Religion, Mr. Dubak. We hope and trust that such statements reflect the collective will of the Montenegrin government.

APPENDIX II:

Press Conference held at the Press Center in Podgorica, July 26th, 2000: Opening statement by Dr. Thomas Fleming:

It's a legitimate question for people in the press and the Government here in Montenegro to know why we have come? People all over former Yugoslavia had to put up with a series of so called experts from the West coming in and telling them how to run their country and how to run their lives. I can assure you that our intention is not to meddle into the internal affairs of the Montenegrin people but to listen and to find out certain things that have been going on. The Rockford Institute of which I am President has a long-term interest both in the Balkans and the intersection between politics and religion. Even in the US some people are beginning to be alarmed by news that we have heard about events here involving the seizure of property and acts of violence against the Orthodox Church.

A group which claims to call itself the "Montenegrin orthodox church" has made certain acts that are against the law in themselves, and also threats of future action. This so called church, which I have not been able to find any canonical or legal status for, has declared its intention to seize legal church property belonging to the Orthodox Church - the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral - here in Montenegro.

What was even more alarming to us when we heard these stories in the US is that relevant government agencies have so far been not able to protect the Orthodox Church or to punish the culprits and those who have been threatening future violence. What's equally disturbing is that some representatives of the international community and various NGOs although they have been informed of the events and the situation have taken the position of equating the legal and legitimate Orthodox church with this invented entity of recent years.

I want to underline the concern of Western Christians we have brought with us both a distinguished priest of the Roman Catholic Church who is also a prominent theologian, as well as the distinguished Anglican priest from Canada. So, our two fathers represent two countries and two faiths. Despite the efforts by the so-called Montenegrin orthodox church to portray itself as the victim of oppression it has in fact no legal claim whatsoever. And if the government is unable to protect the legitimate church it will be conniving at the destruction of an historic Christian church and at the creation of a new artificial body.

Let me give one small example of how such a problem is handled in the US. Even in cases where the entire congregations belonging to Father Hutton's church - Anglican congregations which have tried to separate themselves from the Protestant Episcopal Church of the US - and in cases where the entire congregations and all the people who have put up the money and built the church - when they all wanted to separate the US Government and our courts have always upheld the position namely that the Church Corporation is the owner of this property. And these congregations, I have to say, had good reason and a historic claim for wanting their independence, a justification which I cannot find in the case of the so-called "Montenegrin orthodox church."

But beyond the question of religion there is a very fundamental question of property and because people in practical politics do not always care about the difference between right and wrong we can put it in far more pragmatic terms. I know it is the desire of the current government in Montenegro to attract foreign investment, and in fact two years ago I came here with an English businessman and a Texas investment banker to investigate the possibility not only of their investment here, but also to encourage others to make their investments into Montenegro. Texas banker who is a man of vast wealth and great influence was very blunt. He said that until Montenegro developed a respect for private property and a respect for contract law that it would never attract Western investment. If the kind of news that is leaking out about the violations of the property rights against the Orthodox Church becomes more broadly known in the West I think you can kiss the hope of Western investment goodbye.

This is not a question of those who are seeking greater autonomy and independence for Montenegro and those who are resisting it. There are sound practical reasons for the government in Podgorica to distance itself from the government in Belgrade. This is not up to foreigners to pass judgement on, but it only discredits the movement towards the autonomy and independence to confuse the issue by illegal acts.

I am happy to say that we had along and frank session with the Minister of Religion Mr. Dubak. He has assured us that he understands the situation perfectly and that he does not regard the so-called Montenegrin orthodox church as a legitimate church. He also said that he will never equate it with the legitimate Orthodox Church in Montenegro adding that he can assure us that Montenegrin Government will make every effort to protect property rights and the legitimate interests of the Orthodox Church. We look forward in the near future to seeing the proof of this conviction.

Metropolitanate of Montenegro and Littora : English index

Copyright ©1999-2000 Metropolitanate of Montenegro and Littora. All rights reserved.