Serbia and Montenegro: Unhappy Couple on the Way of Divorce?
Can Karpat, AIA Turkish and Balkan Section
For 88 years Montenegrins shared the fate of Serbia in war and in peace. Today they want to try alone in the international political scene. Is there any risk that the independence of Montenegro reopens the Pandora’s Box in the Balkans? How will Serbia react in case it lost the land where the essence of Serbdom was born? Or maybe one should put the question differently: Do the Montenegrins unanimously aspire to their independence?
Montenegro: “One land with two souls”
Aleksa Djilas, the Serbian historian, remembers his Montenegrin father having described this small mountainous land as “one land with two souls”.
Montenegro map None of the Montenegrins feels any contradiction between being both Serb and Montenegrin. In a report of 28 April 2000, the International Crisis Group went even further: “There are Serbs who are not Montenegrins. But there are no Montenegrins who are not in some sense Serbs”.
The land is small but its symbolic valour is unprecedented for the Serbs and their history. From the Serbian defeat in the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 until the full independence of Serbia in 1878, the principality of Zeta, later Montenegro, was virtually the unique refuge for Serbian nobles, an independent Slav island in the middle of the Ottoman sea. Although scholars state that the Ottomans did not conquer Montenegro, for there was strategically no point in it, Serbian and Montenegrin myths kept blessing the unbending independent soul of Montenegro, the “Serbian Sparta”. In this small land was born the most famous epic poem, which gave the essence of Serbdom for centuries to come, namely “The Mountain Wreath” written by the Prince-Bishop of Montenegro, Petar II Petrovic-Njegos in 1847.
On the 29th of November 1918, National Assembly of Podgorica (the capital of Montenegro) voted for the union with Serbia under the roof of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Thus Montenegro became the only Allied nation to lose its independence after the First World War. From that date on, Montenegro’s history is almost inextricably tied to Serbia’s… in joy and in suffering.
In 1945, Tito acknowledged Montenegro’s brave fighting against the Nazi occupiers, and granted the land the status of one of the six republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. According to the Constitution, Montenegro was equal with other five founder republics and thus had the right “to self-determination, including the right to secede or unite with other peoples”. Typical of Tito, who himself created the conditions, which would nullify his efforts to keep Yugoslavia together. That was his tragedy.
In the fateful year of 1991, which eventually sealed up the end of Tito’s Yugoslavia, Montenegro was the only loyal federal unit, which decided to stay by Serbia. Montenegro militarily backed the Serbs early in the civil war on the Dubrovnik frontline in Croatia. In 1992, 96 per cent of the Montenegrins voted in the referendum for keeping the federation with Serbia although the turnout was at 66 per cent because of a boycott by the Muslim and Catholic minorities as well as of pro-independence Montenegrins. However the impact of the embargo imposed by the United Nations in 1992 was very severe on Montenegro. By 1997, when Milo Djukanovic was elected President of Montenegro, the
Milo Djukanovicrelations with Serbia, back then still under Milosevic, became very tense. Montenegro, which did not approve of the Serbian intervention in Kosovo, by 1999, gradually began to distance itself from Serbia.
However the Montenegrins were not as determined as their government was about breaking the historical ties with Serbia. The result of the 22 April 2001 parliamentary elections is noteworthy.
Djukanovic’s “Victory for Montenegro” coalition billed the elections as a pre-referendum on independence from the former Yugoslavia. The group of anti-independence, “Together for Yugoslavia”
Predrag Bulatovic including all of pro-Yugoslavia parties was led by Predrag Bulatovic. On the 22nd of April, 81.8 per cent of the Montenegrins voted - a higher turnout than ever before in Montenegrin elections. The result confirmed a nation divided right in the middle: Pro-Yugoslavia coalition obtained 40 per cent of the votes while pro-independent coalition obtained 42 per cent. Albanians, who form 6.5 per cent of the population, provided the 2 per cent, which determined the victory for pro-independence coalition.
However, along with Serbia and half of Montenegro, there was another actor, who was not prepared for an independent Montenegro: The international community.
The European Union and other nations opposed to an immediate independence of Montenegro fearing that it could lead to further disintegration and fighting in the Balkans. In March 2002, under international pressure, Serbian and Montenegrin representatives signed the Belgrade Agreement, which gave birth to a loose “State union” named Serbia-Montenegro. On the 4th of February 2003, the name of Yugoslavia was consigned to history.
The three-year moratorium on an independence referendum, which was agreed by the Belgrade Agreement, will end in February of this year. Montenegro will hold the independence referendum in April. Does the independence of Montenegro risk to reopen the Pandora’s Box in the Balkans?
Montenegro: The 193rd State of the world?
In fact, apart from the common army and air traffic control, Montenegro is already an independent State in all but name. As early as November 1993, Montenegro elected its own bishop instead of the Serbian appointed bishop. It was then interpreted as the first step towards independence. In 1996, Montenegro switched to the Deutschemark as currency as proposed by foreign advisors at that time. In Montenegro, which currently uses Euro, the Serbian Dinar is only accepted at some tourist resorts. Since June 2002, Montenegro and Serbia has separate customs, economic policies and legislation. There are two central banks; the systems of privatisation are different, so are foreign trade, protection and excise systems, as is general taxation. In July 2004,
The new flag of MontenegroMontenegro's Parliament adopted a new flag, national anthem and national day.
Montenegrins, though, seem to be still divided. In Montenegro, where the people have no contradiction to feel themselves both Montenegrin and Serb, there has never been overwhelming support for independence in the same way as there was in Slovenia and Croatia or amongst Muslim and Croat populations in Bosnia.
On the 27th of January 2005, a People’s Movement was established in order to keep Serbia and Montenegro together. Leaders of this movement are Montenegrin academicians and politicians living in Serbia. Their purpose is to hinder the independence referendum. Because of internal quarrels, the movement could not obtain the support of the main opposition pro-Belgrade party in Montenegro, the Socialist People’s Party (SNP). In turn, on the 28th of January, the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) of Djukanovic, the ruling party, formed a pro-independence movement.
During the war in Yugoslavia, the SNP and its president of the time, Momir Bulatovic (no relation
Momir Bulatovic with Predrag Bulatovic, the current president of the party) closely supported Milosevic. As to the members of the anti-referendum movement, they consider Radovan Karadzic (a Montenegrin) and Ratko Mladic as heroes, “Karadjordjes of modern times” (Leader of the Serbian rebels against the Ottomans in 1804). The victory of such a mentality, whatever their purpose may be, would be highly undesirable. As to the DPS and Djukanovic, they contradicted themselves as they accepted to form a State union with Serbia in March 2002 while promising fervently in homeland the independence of Montenegro. Some pro-independence Montenegrins could have lost confidence in the DPS.
The EU once hinders the independence referendum and quasi forced Montenegro into a State union with Serbia. As the negotiations for Kosovo’s status recently began, what will be the EU’s position? The International Crisis Group’s report of December 2005 recommends to the EU to accept the will of the Montenegrin people, and warns that “there are already signs that Serbian nationalist elements are interpreting EU signals as a green light to boycott a referendum and perhaps even resort to violence. There are signs that some elements are discussing the organisation of a secessionist Serbian Autonomous Region inside Montenegro, a move reminiscent of the precursors to the wars in Bosnia and Croatia”. The Western world should not repeat the mistakes of the early 1990s.
Europe is anxious that the independence of Montenegro triggers off secessionist movements in Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. However Dr. Jonathan Eyal, the Balkan analyst at the Royal United Services Institute, stated: "I suspect that if Montenegrin independence comes, it will have very little impact on Bosnia where the logic of the behaviour of the various ethnic communities is completely different”. As for Kosovo, its status is different. Whereas Montenegro is equal with Serbia within the State union, Kosovo is still legally an autonomous part of Serbia. Likewise in Macedonia, Albanians there, how powerful they may be, form only a minority.
It must be remembered though that in September 2004, the EU launched a twin process, which permitted the signature of a single Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with two separate economic annexes for Montenegro and Serbia. According to Dr. Nicholas Whyte, Europe Program Director in the International Crisis Group: “I think the twin-track approach recognised the reality that the attempts to make Serbia and Montenegro integrate with each other before joining the EU simply was not working”.
One of the poorest regions of the former Yugoslavia, Montenegro seems to have serious economic problems and a sad “criminal” reputation especially in neighbouring Italy. By 2003, one third of Montenegrins are unemployed while those, who are employed, only earn 120 Euros per month. Milo Djukanovic, who was elected Prime Minister in October 2002, continues to face actions in various Italian courts over his role in widespread smuggling during the 1990s and in providing safe haven in Montenegro for different Italian mafia figures. However according to Misha Glenny, the renowned Balkan expert: “Montenegro is so small that absorbing it actually would not make much difference [for the EU]. It would probably be very easy to do it, although it is still a pretty highly criminalised state”. If Montenegro becomes independent, its revenues will be from tourism and transit traffic to Serbia.
On the 23rd of January, referendum discussions between the representatives of Montenegrin parliamentary parties and the EU representatives will begin. The EU is willing to accept the result coming from a fair and democratic referendum. Washington is rather favourable to the independence of Montenegro. In 2000, Djukanovic offered a deal to Serbia: “The first element is independence and international legal personality for both Serbia and Montenegro and the second element is our proposal for a union of two independent internationally recognised states”. This union would consist of a common market, a common currency and co-operation in the fields of defence and foreign policy. In other words, Montenegro prefers concubinage to marriage.
Thus, if the Montenegrins choose the independence, whether this will be a “velvet divorce” will depend on Serbia’s reaction. Will Serbia simply welcome this 193rd State of the world? Or will the country, which suffers from a constant loss of territory and prestige since 1991, burst into violent indignation?
Serbia, which must have taken the necessary lessons from catastrophic Milosevic experience, may try this time a more tact way to keep Montenegro within the union. Without falling into the trap of nationalism, Serbian politicians may make efforts in order to make the Montenegrins see that there is more to gain together within the union. However beyond pure rhetoric, Serbian politicians should make realistic and solid propositions for the political, economic and social improvement. The effort is worthwhile since the Montenegrins themselves are divided upon the independence issue. The latest opinion polls in September 2005 show that 41.6 per cent of the population are for independence, 34.5 per cent for keeping the union and nearly a quarter undecided. The independence is then likely but by no means certain.
In history, there are examples of “friendly divorce” between States, such as that of Norway and Sweden in 1905 or that of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. There are also examples of one nation divided into two or more different States, such as Turkey and Turkic Republics. This is the occasion for Serbian President Boris Tadic, who called on his fellow citizens “to turn their backs on the nationalism of the past”, to prove the democratic maturity of Serbia.
For 88 years Montenegrins shared the fate of Serbia in war and in peace. Today they want to try alone in the international political scene. Is there any risk that the independence of Montenegro reopens the Pandora’s Box in the Balkans? How will Serbia react in case it lost the land where the essence of Serbdom was born? Or maybe one should put the question differently: Do the Montenegrins unanimously aspire to their independence?
Montenegro: “One land with two souls”
Aleksa Djilas, the Serbian historian, remembers his Montenegrin father having described this small mountainous land as “one land with two souls”.
Montenegro map None of the Montenegrins feels any contradiction between being both Serb and Montenegrin. In a report of 28 April 2000, the International Crisis Group went even further: “There are Serbs who are not Montenegrins. But there are no Montenegrins who are not in some sense Serbs”.
The land is small but its symbolic valour is unprecedented for the Serbs and their history. From the Serbian defeat in the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 until the full independence of Serbia in 1878, the principality of Zeta, later Montenegro, was virtually the unique refuge for Serbian nobles, an independent Slav island in the middle of the Ottoman sea. Although scholars state that the Ottomans did not conquer Montenegro, for there was strategically no point in it, Serbian and Montenegrin myths kept blessing the unbending independent soul of Montenegro, the “Serbian Sparta”. In this small land was born the most famous epic poem, which gave the essence of Serbdom for centuries to come, namely “The Mountain Wreath” written by the Prince-Bishop of Montenegro, Petar II Petrovic-Njegos in 1847.
On the 29th of November 1918, National Assembly of Podgorica (the capital of Montenegro) voted for the union with Serbia under the roof of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Thus Montenegro became the only Allied nation to lose its independence after the First World War. From that date on, Montenegro’s history is almost inextricably tied to Serbia’s… in joy and in suffering.
In 1945, Tito acknowledged Montenegro’s brave fighting against the Nazi occupiers, and granted the land the status of one of the six republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. According to the Constitution, Montenegro was equal with other five founder republics and thus had the right “to self-determination, including the right to secede or unite with other peoples”. Typical of Tito, who himself created the conditions, which would nullify his efforts to keep Yugoslavia together. That was his tragedy.
In the fateful year of 1991, which eventually sealed up the end of Tito’s Yugoslavia, Montenegro was the only loyal federal unit, which decided to stay by Serbia. Montenegro militarily backed the Serbs early in the civil war on the Dubrovnik frontline in Croatia. In 1992, 96 per cent of the Montenegrins voted in the referendum for keeping the federation with Serbia although the turnout was at 66 per cent because of a boycott by the Muslim and Catholic minorities as well as of pro-independence Montenegrins. However the impact of the embargo imposed by the United Nations in 1992 was very severe on Montenegro. By 1997, when Milo Djukanovic was elected President of Montenegro, the
Milo Djukanovicrelations with Serbia, back then still under Milosevic, became very tense. Montenegro, which did not approve of the Serbian intervention in Kosovo, by 1999, gradually began to distance itself from Serbia.
However the Montenegrins were not as determined as their government was about breaking the historical ties with Serbia. The result of the 22 April 2001 parliamentary elections is noteworthy.
Djukanovic’s “Victory for Montenegro” coalition billed the elections as a pre-referendum on independence from the former Yugoslavia. The group of anti-independence, “Together for Yugoslavia”
Predrag Bulatovic including all of pro-Yugoslavia parties was led by Predrag Bulatovic. On the 22nd of April, 81.8 per cent of the Montenegrins voted - a higher turnout than ever before in Montenegrin elections. The result confirmed a nation divided right in the middle: Pro-Yugoslavia coalition obtained 40 per cent of the votes while pro-independent coalition obtained 42 per cent. Albanians, who form 6.5 per cent of the population, provided the 2 per cent, which determined the victory for pro-independence coalition.
However, along with Serbia and half of Montenegro, there was another actor, who was not prepared for an independent Montenegro: The international community.
The European Union and other nations opposed to an immediate independence of Montenegro fearing that it could lead to further disintegration and fighting in the Balkans. In March 2002, under international pressure, Serbian and Montenegrin representatives signed the Belgrade Agreement, which gave birth to a loose “State union” named Serbia-Montenegro. On the 4th of February 2003, the name of Yugoslavia was consigned to history.
The three-year moratorium on an independence referendum, which was agreed by the Belgrade Agreement, will end in February of this year. Montenegro will hold the independence referendum in April. Does the independence of Montenegro risk to reopen the Pandora’s Box in the Balkans?
Montenegro: The 193rd State of the world?
In fact, apart from the common army and air traffic control, Montenegro is already an independent State in all but name. As early as November 1993, Montenegro elected its own bishop instead of the Serbian appointed bishop. It was then interpreted as the first step towards independence. In 1996, Montenegro switched to the Deutschemark as currency as proposed by foreign advisors at that time. In Montenegro, which currently uses Euro, the Serbian Dinar is only accepted at some tourist resorts. Since June 2002, Montenegro and Serbia has separate customs, economic policies and legislation. There are two central banks; the systems of privatisation are different, so are foreign trade, protection and excise systems, as is general taxation. In July 2004,
The new flag of MontenegroMontenegro's Parliament adopted a new flag, national anthem and national day.
Montenegrins, though, seem to be still divided. In Montenegro, where the people have no contradiction to feel themselves both Montenegrin and Serb, there has never been overwhelming support for independence in the same way as there was in Slovenia and Croatia or amongst Muslim and Croat populations in Bosnia.
On the 27th of January 2005, a People’s Movement was established in order to keep Serbia and Montenegro together. Leaders of this movement are Montenegrin academicians and politicians living in Serbia. Their purpose is to hinder the independence referendum. Because of internal quarrels, the movement could not obtain the support of the main opposition pro-Belgrade party in Montenegro, the Socialist People’s Party (SNP). In turn, on the 28th of January, the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) of Djukanovic, the ruling party, formed a pro-independence movement.
During the war in Yugoslavia, the SNP and its president of the time, Momir Bulatovic (no relation
Momir Bulatovic with Predrag Bulatovic, the current president of the party) closely supported Milosevic. As to the members of the anti-referendum movement, they consider Radovan Karadzic (a Montenegrin) and Ratko Mladic as heroes, “Karadjordjes of modern times” (Leader of the Serbian rebels against the Ottomans in 1804). The victory of such a mentality, whatever their purpose may be, would be highly undesirable. As to the DPS and Djukanovic, they contradicted themselves as they accepted to form a State union with Serbia in March 2002 while promising fervently in homeland the independence of Montenegro. Some pro-independence Montenegrins could have lost confidence in the DPS.
The EU once hinders the independence referendum and quasi forced Montenegro into a State union with Serbia. As the negotiations for Kosovo’s status recently began, what will be the EU’s position? The International Crisis Group’s report of December 2005 recommends to the EU to accept the will of the Montenegrin people, and warns that “there are already signs that Serbian nationalist elements are interpreting EU signals as a green light to boycott a referendum and perhaps even resort to violence. There are signs that some elements are discussing the organisation of a secessionist Serbian Autonomous Region inside Montenegro, a move reminiscent of the precursors to the wars in Bosnia and Croatia”. The Western world should not repeat the mistakes of the early 1990s.
Europe is anxious that the independence of Montenegro triggers off secessionist movements in Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. However Dr. Jonathan Eyal, the Balkan analyst at the Royal United Services Institute, stated: "I suspect that if Montenegrin independence comes, it will have very little impact on Bosnia where the logic of the behaviour of the various ethnic communities is completely different”. As for Kosovo, its status is different. Whereas Montenegro is equal with Serbia within the State union, Kosovo is still legally an autonomous part of Serbia. Likewise in Macedonia, Albanians there, how powerful they may be, form only a minority.
It must be remembered though that in September 2004, the EU launched a twin process, which permitted the signature of a single Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with two separate economic annexes for Montenegro and Serbia. According to Dr. Nicholas Whyte, Europe Program Director in the International Crisis Group: “I think the twin-track approach recognised the reality that the attempts to make Serbia and Montenegro integrate with each other before joining the EU simply was not working”.
One of the poorest regions of the former Yugoslavia, Montenegro seems to have serious economic problems and a sad “criminal” reputation especially in neighbouring Italy. By 2003, one third of Montenegrins are unemployed while those, who are employed, only earn 120 Euros per month. Milo Djukanovic, who was elected Prime Minister in October 2002, continues to face actions in various Italian courts over his role in widespread smuggling during the 1990s and in providing safe haven in Montenegro for different Italian mafia figures. However according to Misha Glenny, the renowned Balkan expert: “Montenegro is so small that absorbing it actually would not make much difference [for the EU]. It would probably be very easy to do it, although it is still a pretty highly criminalised state”. If Montenegro becomes independent, its revenues will be from tourism and transit traffic to Serbia.
On the 23rd of January, referendum discussions between the representatives of Montenegrin parliamentary parties and the EU representatives will begin. The EU is willing to accept the result coming from a fair and democratic referendum. Washington is rather favourable to the independence of Montenegro. In 2000, Djukanovic offered a deal to Serbia: “The first element is independence and international legal personality for both Serbia and Montenegro and the second element is our proposal for a union of two independent internationally recognised states”. This union would consist of a common market, a common currency and co-operation in the fields of defence and foreign policy. In other words, Montenegro prefers concubinage to marriage.
Thus, if the Montenegrins choose the independence, whether this will be a “velvet divorce” will depend on Serbia’s reaction. Will Serbia simply welcome this 193rd State of the world? Or will the country, which suffers from a constant loss of territory and prestige since 1991, burst into violent indignation?
Serbia, which must have taken the necessary lessons from catastrophic Milosevic experience, may try this time a more tact way to keep Montenegro within the union. Without falling into the trap of nationalism, Serbian politicians may make efforts in order to make the Montenegrins see that there is more to gain together within the union. However beyond pure rhetoric, Serbian politicians should make realistic and solid propositions for the political, economic and social improvement. The effort is worthwhile since the Montenegrins themselves are divided upon the independence issue. The latest opinion polls in September 2005 show that 41.6 per cent of the population are for independence, 34.5 per cent for keeping the union and nearly a quarter undecided. The independence is then likely but by no means certain.
In history, there are examples of “friendly divorce” between States, such as that of Norway and Sweden in 1905 or that of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. There are also examples of one nation divided into two or more different States, such as Turkey and Turkic Republics. This is the occasion for Serbian President Boris Tadic, who called on his fellow citizens “to turn their backs on the nationalism of the past”, to prove the democratic maturity of Serbia.