Tag: Balkans
The Montenegrin question now
Former Montenegrin Foreign Minister and Ambassador to the United States Miodrag Vlahović, who is now President of the Helsinki Commission in Podgorica, writes:
Problems for Milojko Spajić, the Prime Minister-designate for composition of the government of Montenegro, were easy to predict.
He got what he wanted. After six hours of discussion, the Main Board of the Europe Now Movement decided by an overwhelming majority not to invite pro-Serbian/pro-Russian parties into the government. This caused a “rebellion” in the ranks of its smaller coalition partners and “civic lists,” which have three MPs in the Parliament of Montenegro.
So, now the long-lasting dispute and disagreement between Spajić and newly elected President Milatović, is out in the open. President Milatović, Vice President of Europe Now!, has advocated participation of the main pro-Serbian/pro-Russian coalition in the new government.
Milatović’s friends are unhappy
The pro-Serbian, pro-Russian coalition “For the Future of Montenegro” (ex-Democratic Front) is infuriated. Long favorites of Serbian President Vučić and Russian President Putin, its leaders are openly xenophobic and ethnic nationalist. Their main accusation is “treason” and their main target is the Bosniak Party. Why should Bosniaks deal with problems that do not concern only Bosniaks? They attack the civic concept of Montenegrin society.
The Church of Serbia is a mainstay of that attack. Together with the pro-Serbian/pro-Russian parties, it organized a mass rally in an effort to exert its enormous and destructive influence.
Serbian President Vučić is disappointed. His new “trump card” in Montenegro – President Milatović – appears unable to channel the development of the situation in the Serbian direction. Vučić still hopes to find MPs in Europe Now! who can be subjected to Belgrade, Moscow’s, and Church influence.
There is an alternative, but…
It remains to be seen whether – and under what conditions – Spajić could open his governing coalition to his rivals in the Democratic Party of Socialists, the Social Democrats, and the Liberal Party. The chances are slim. The psychological and political barriers are high.
But without their support, Spajić’s government will be weak and unstable, with a 41 to 40 majority. He may even need Social Democrats to reach that margin.
An unstable government or new elections – that is the Montenegrin question now.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Failure is definitely an option
Things are coming apart in the Balkans, where a sometimes uneasy peace has prevailed for more than two decades. War in the 1990s mode is unlikely. No one can sustain a conflict like the one in Bosnia, which lasted more than three years. Nor would the NATO-led forces in Kosovo tolerate a full-scale Serbian invasion of its entire territory. But instability, armed clashes, ethnic strife, and dysfunction are more than possible. They are likely. US and EU policies and practices are not helping.
Dodik threatens Bosnia and Herzegovina with secession
Milorad Dodik is back as president of the Serb-majority entity (Republika Srpska, or RS) that governs on 49% of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He has continued to salami-slice his way towards independence, de facto if not de jure. Recent moves include two notable ones. The RS Assembly has passed legislation that purports to invalidate the jurisdiction of Bosnia’s judicial system. In addition, Dodik himself has declared that the international community High Representative, responsible for the Dayton peace agreement, will be arrested if he enters RS territory. Both moves violate both the spirit and letter of the Dayton agreements. But apart from declaring the former invalid the HiRep, Washington, and Brussels have done nothing to counter them.
Dodik has also built up the police forces of the RS, obtained ample armaments and financing from Russia, and successfully enlisted Hungary to block any EU sanctions Brussels might propose. Washington has sanctioned him both for his challenges to Dayton and for blatant corrupt practices. But the lack of a unified Western response invites further salami slices. So too does Dodik’s warming relationship with Belgrade, which is seeking a “Serbian world” that incorporates the Serb populations of neighboring countries.
Vucic threatens part of Kosovo
That is an even more serious threat in Kosovo. Serbia already controls four Serb-majority municipalities north of the Ibar River contiguous with the border Belgrade calls a “boundary.” With encouragement from Belgrade, the Serbs there have abandoned the Kosovo institutions, boycotted recent elections, and rioted against installation of the non-Serb mayors who were consequently elected. Serbia has kidnapped Kosovo police from Kosovo territory, mobilized its army along the border/boundary, intimidated Serbs into leaving the Kosovo Security Force, threatened North Macedonia and Montenegro for having recognized Kosovo, and rejected agreements reached with Pristina that the US and EU claim are legally binding. The Americans and Europeans have responded only with mild verbal reprimands.
That has not been true for Pristina, which has incurred “consequences” for its insistence on installing the non-Serb mayors in their offices and deploying paramilitary police in response to disorder. While northern Kosovo has calmed since the spring, US and EU diplomats are still insisting on their own demands for withdrawal of Kosovo police from Kosovo’s sovereign territory. Meanwhile, Serbian President Vucic has been busy trying to prevent Ukraine from recognizing Kosovo independence, in clear violation of the agreement the Europeans and Americans say is binding.
Vucic also threatens the whole of Montenegro
The situation is even less salubrious in NATO member Montenegro. It lacks a fully empowered government following June elections. The President wants Russophilic political parties in the government. The Prime Minister-designate does not, but he also resists bringing in the former ruling party, the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS). The result will either be a government with a thin majority in parliament or new elections. In any new election, Serbia will pull out all the stops to support the Russophiles, who are also pro-Serbian.
The obvious solution would be a coalition between the Europe Now! winners of the June election and DPS, which is also pro-European. But Belgrade will exert enormous pressure on the President and Prime Minister-designate to prevent such a combination. Serbia sees the possibility of regaining de facto, if not de jure, control of all of Montenegro. That would eliminate a potential rival for EU membership. It would also render Montenegro’s NATO membership a practical dead letter. Podgorica would continue to be a member, but serve Russian interests.
Blind to the obvious
The sources of threats in the Balkans to peace, stability, and progress towards the EU are clear. They lie in Banja Luka and Belgrade. Moscow supports both. But Brussels and Washington remain blind to the obvious. They are still trying to bend Bosnia, Kosovo, and Montenegro in directions the majority does not want to go. Failure is an option. Now is the time to re-assess and correct course. Democracy and rule of law require it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The right direction for Balkans policy
Labor Day weekend is over, so everyone in the US is back at work. It’s a good moment to reflect on EU and US policy in the Balkans.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is pointing in the right direction. It has decided, subject to confirmation, that the Bosnian constitution, agreed at the Dayton peace talks in 1995, violates the individual rights of its citizens. They cannot all vote for their choice as president, due to geographic and ethnic restrictions, which also dominate in the election of other officials.
This power-sharing arrangement was essential at the end of the Bosnian war. It reassured the warring parties that they could hold on to power. Other ethnic groups would not be dominant. Twenty-eight years of peace have ensued.
That is nothing to sniff at. The Dayton scheme seemed a house of cards when it was signed in December 1995. The Americans made the constitution difficult to amend because they realized how fragile the arrangement would likely be. But the constitution they imposed was precisely what the then warring ethnic nationalists wanted. They have used its bizarre concatention of group rights to protect their own hold on power. They have also prevented citizens who don’t identify with a particular group from gaining power.
This is not the first time the ECHR has intervened in favor of individual rights regardless of ethnicity. Bosnian politicians have mostly ignored its previous decisions. This one will likely suffer the same fate, unless something is done to counter the inertia.
Kosovo
Kosovo is different, arguably more successful. Its minority communities are much smaller relative to the majority than those in Bosnia. Still, Kosovo has strong constituitonal arrangements to protect minorities, including a veto on constitional changes. There are reserved seats for minorities in parliament as well as the government, minority vetoes, and an advisory Council of Communities linked directly to the President. But there are no ethnic restrictions on voting rights comparable to Bosnia’s.
Belgrade, Washington, and Brussels have been pressing Pristina hard to implement a 10-year-old agreement that calls for an Association of Serb-majority Municipalities (ASMM). Belgrade wants it to have executive powers. That would make it a level of governance intermediary between Pristina and the country’s municipalities, which have ample powers of their own.
The ASMM could thus become analogous to Republika Srpska in Bosnia. Advocates of the ASMM say that such arrangements for minority governance exist in more than a dozen European Union member states. But in all those instances the neighoring countries recognize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of their neighbors. That is not the case with Kosovo, as Serbia has steadfastly refused recognition and its officials now assert it will never happen.
What is to be done?
Washington and Brussels should be pressing Bosnian politicians this fall to implement the most recent as well as previous ECHR decisions. The Europeans and Americans should also back off pressing Pristina for the ASMM, explaining to Serbia that its formation will have to await Belgrade’s recognition as well as recognition by the five non-recognizing EU members. Washington and Brussels should also be prepared to guarantee that the ASMM will be consistent with the Kosovo constitution. They have said as much in op/eds. They should say it in a formal international agreement.
Along with these diplomatic moves should come a vigorous effort to upgrade the judicial systems in both Bosnia and Kosovo. Unfortunately, the Bosnian ruling parties are gutting serious reform. Bosnia needs to make its prosecutors and judges far more independent of politics. Extending the existing international OSCE judicial monitoring to prosecutors would be a major step in the right direction. In Kosovo, it is vital that Belgrade encourage the Serb judges and police to return to the country’s institutions, which they exited last spring at Belgrade’s behest. Belgrade also needs to refrain from influencing their decisions.
Group rights–including the ASMM in Kosovo as well as Bosnia’s existing constitutional provisions–are the wrong direction. The right direction for EU and US policy in the Balkans is greater support for individual rights under the rule of law. This is still at least a decade-long project, despite the many well-intentioned efforts that have preceded it. The sooner Pristina and Sarajevo start, the sooner they’ll finish.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Appeasement without limits
This interview, which I did Tuesday for Anja Ivanović at Podgorica daily Pobjeda, has attracted some attention, so I am posting here the original English version:
Q: The Minister of Serbian defense, Miloš Vučević, stated that the recognition of Kosovo will come back to haunt Montenegro and North Macedonia, much like it has for Ukraine and to all those who promoted Kosovo as an independent state. US ambassador in Serbia Christopher Hill did not make any criticism on this statement but said that he does not see the statements of Serbian officials as an attempt to destabilize the region. What kind of policy do you think Hill is demonstrating with such an attitude toward Belgrade’s propaganda? Why do you think Hill didn’t criticize Serbia at all?
A: US policy now favors Belgrade. Washington is silent on many things: corruption at high levels in Serbia, Serbian threats of the use of force, a Belgrade-sponsored attack on NATO troops, Vucic’s refusal to commit to implementing agreements reached recently in the Belgrade/Pristina dialogue. You will have to ask Ambassador Hill and Deputy Assistant Secretary Escobar why. My impression is that they have convinced themselves they can bring Serbia towards the West, despite a good deal of clear and compelling evidence to the contrary. They also appear to be prioritizing Serbia’s allowing arms supplies to get to Ukraine.
Q: Do you believe that the absence of a critical attitude of the American ambassador is proof of a “soft policy” towards Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić? What do you believe needs to happen to change Hill’s approach?
A: Yes, US policy towards Serbia is now all about appeasement. I don’t see this changing while present personnel are in place.
Q: Is it possible that Hill, who openly supported the “Open Balkan” initiative, abstains from reacting to the disputed statements of Serbian officials because of possible privileges in the Initiative “Open Balkan”?
A: So far as I am aware, Open Balkans is a dead letter. Nor do I think it offered much to the US. American support for it was part of the appeasement policy.
Q: This month, US and EU officials sent a letter in which they called for a change of soft policy towards Serbia and Aleksandar Vučić in relation to Kosovo. Do you think that this approach by Hill confirms their request? Is Hill opposing US officials with this statement?
A: The “officials” you mention were legislators. They would like a dramatic change in the current approach. I see no sign yet that US and EU executive branch officials will give it to them. Much more pressure will be required.
Q: The former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro and the first Montenegrin ambassador in Washington, Miodrag Vlahović, assessed in an Open Letter (published by Pobjeda) to the US Ambassador in Belgrade, Christopher Hill, that the “Pax Americana” policy promoted by His Excellency Hill through concessions and pandering to the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, was “deeply wrong and compromises decades of positive and effective US engagement in the Balkans.” Do you have comment about Vlahović letter?
Q: I think Ambassador Vlahovic is correct.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Black Sox in Belgrade
This interview provoked a reaction, published originally in the Podgorica daily Pobjeda, from former Montenegrin Foreign Minister and Ambassador to the United States Miodrag Vlahović, who is now President of the Helsinki Commission in Podgorica. He has contribued previously to peacefare.net
Your Excellency, Dear Ambassador Hill,
Your last interview with “Voice of America” is full of wrong theses, incorrect and incorrect interpretations which, once again, confirm your policy of appeasing and pandering to Aleksandar Vučić, i.e. the official policy of Serbia, and seriously calls into question the motives and intentions behind such a position of yours and your public statements.
Your reluctance to publicly criticize the politics personified by Vučić in any way is taking the form of a caricature. It is fascinating that even in the last brutal threats and insults, which were sent, one after the other, to Montenegro and North Macedonia by the President of Serbia Vučić, then the Minister of Defense Vučević and, finally, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Dačić, you do not recognize anything controversial! For you, that is not an attempt to destabilize the region? What are the reasons for your attitude, which honestly surprises and worries all sincere American friends in Montenegro, but also in all other countries of the region?
If what three Serbian officials publicly said is not a problem, then neither is your repeated advocacy for the so-called “Open Balkans”, which three of the six Western Balkan countries never agreed to – and one of the two main promoters (i.e. Prime Minister Rama) recently clearly and definitively gave up – “is not in dispute”. That is why it’s amazing. Indeed, for what reason do you unnecessarily and futilely insist for months on that unregulated and imposed form of co-operation, which all our (and your) European friends and allies have clearly said was not compatible with the European agenda of the Western Balkans, not even with the Berlin Process itself? What is your interest in it? Obstructing the European integration of the Western Balkans, in order to satisfy the appetites of the nationalist politics of official Belgrade? That’s the goal?
What worries us the most in your interview is the statement that the policy that is now identified with you, having in mind everything you say and do (although Mr Escobar, Mr Grenell and one of your predecessors in Belgrade, Ambassador Montgomery, belong to the same “school of thought”) is good and correct, even if it doesn’t produce results?!
We must, with all due respect, correct you here. It is not true that such “Pax Americana” does not produce results in our region. The truth is quite different: the policy you promote causes very bad consequences. It destabilizes the Western Balkans. It creates and maintains crises and prevents some open issues and antagonisms from starting to be resolved, finally. Examples, we are sure, you know more and better than us, are there: the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the relationship between Serbia and Kosovo, and events and trends in our country, Montenegro. That is why your policy is deeply flawed. It threatens to completely compromise the decades-long positive and effecient engagement of the United States in our region.
We, in Montenegro, not only because of the process of restoration of our independence, will never forget the great friendly support and help that we continuously received from your country.
And for this reason, your policy of appeasing and yielding the regime of Aleksandar Vučić is wrong. And worse than that: it is doomed to fail.
This failure will cost Serbia itself dearly, as well as all its neighbors.
We will not, in this address, spend time and energy on analyzing whether and how much it is about your personal intervention and your preferences, and how much it is the politics of Washington. This, we are sure, is better understood and known in the State Department itself. Your colleagues and your superiors will be able to recognize how successful your publicly declared intention to “separate Serbia from Russia” can be and how much and for how long it could cost other countries in the Western Balkans. And how much it can affect the stability and security of the region as a whole.
It seems to us that it is also not true that “there are no results”: the consequences of your policy are exactly the opposite of those that you publicly project. Therefore, it is not a stagnation. It is a regression.
For us in Montenegro, but also for all democratic and pro-Western political forces in the Western Balkans, including, especially, our friends in Serbia, the statement that “you cannot compare Milošević and Vučić” is, to say the least, surprising. And offensive to all of us.
You cannot compare the head of a regime, who ended up in The Hague, with his Minister of Propaganda, who we remembered for his brutal attacks on the free media and for his warmongering and xenophobic statements, including those that it is necessary to “kill a hundred Bosniaks for every lost Serb”?! It is enough to remember the name and fate of Slavko Ćuruvija, whom Minister Vučić openly threatened…
Or, instead of unnecessarily reminding you about things that you know better than us, we should ask you: do you see similarities between the fate of Ivan Stambolić and that of Oliver Ivanović? This tragic coincidence is even greater and more tragic than the one between Vučić and Milošević. You don’t need to answer that question, of course. The obvious does not need an explanation.
In the end: there is also no need to explain to you, as an American, what this “Black Sox” from the title can be associated with. And you know that better than we do, too.
Your engagement in Belgrade and its consequences can actually make it unnecessary for us to send you the message that was sent when some were deeply disappointed with their sports and social role models and idols: “Tell us that’s not true!”
Therefore, you don’t need to make excuses for us. You should say and do what would confirm the reasons and principles by which the politics and diplomacy of the United States of America were recognized in our part of Europe.
We still hope that you are ready for such a change.
Best wishes and sinecere regards,
Miodrag Vlahović
Here is the Hill interview with VoA, courtesy of Googletranslate:
Voice of America: The President of Serbia, Mr. Vučić, met with the President of Ukraine, Mr. Zelensky, this morning and said that they had a “good and open conversation.” Last night, however, we heard the news reported by the Serbian media, referring to a Russian media outlet, that Vučić insisted that the joint declaration of the leaders of the Western Balkan countries from the summit in Athens did not contain a call for the introduction of sanctions against Russia. Do you see it as Vučić’s balancing act?
Hill: You will have to ask Mr. Vučić, but our position is very clear: everyone should join the sanctions against Russia, especially countries that aspire to join the EU. We think it’s the right thing to do. Many small countries have imposed sanctions even though it harms them, but they did it anyway because it is in their higher interest and in the interest of a larger group like the EU. We would like Serbia to do the same and for it to be part of its path towards the Euro-Atlantic system. When it comes to the meeting with Zelensky, I was extremely pleased when I saw that the Serbian and Ukrainian presidents sat down to talk. Serbia and Ukraine have a long history, they always got along well, had good relations, and that’s why I think it’s important that they met, exchanged opinions and talked about what the future brings. Because there will be changes, this war will not last forever and we will see how things will develop. But I believe that the past months were important for the people of Serbia to see what Russia is really like, and that Serbia should move west, towards Euro-Atlantic systems.
Voice of America: Speaking of Serbia’s approach to the West and Russia – the US recently imposed sanctions on the director of the Security and Intelligence Agency, Alexander Vulin, a man with close ties to Russia. Are you disappointed that he is still sitting as director of the Serbian secret police, as if nothing happened?
Hill: I don’t like that at the beginning of this conversation I have to talk about things on which we disagree with the Serbian authorities, but yes, we have a problem with him, with his determination, and our position is that he should be sanctioned. And I see that this attitude is not shared by the authorities in Serbia, but our attitude is very clear… Disappointment means that your expectations have not been met. I would say that I am a realist and I do my job, and my job is to promote the close ties between the USA and Serbia, as well as for the two countries to be on the same side.
Voice of America: Mr. Vučić often says that the sanctions were introduced only because of Vulin’s close ties with Russia and because Serbia did not impose sanctions on Moscow. And that the other allegations – about drug trafficking, arms and corruption, are secondary or unfounded. How about that?
Hill: I want to say that we imposed sanctions on Mr. Vulin only because of Mr. Vulin, and I think that in general we have maintained a good relationship. Sanctions are not against the institution, but against the individual. This is a process that happens in Washington, not in the embassy, but from what I understand it was a fair process, where different activities were taken into account and a decision was made… I assure you that the people who decide on this in Washington are working they carefully consider the evidence and make decisions based on it.
Voice of America: Several dozens of parliamentarians from the USA and European countries appealed in a letter to the West to change its policy towards Serbia, claiming that the current policy does not work and that the Western approach to Vučić is “soft” in the context of Kosovo. Do you consider your policy successful if you consider that the situation in Kosovo has escalated several times in the past year, that Serbia is not closer to the EU, that neither the Ohrid Agreement nor the European proposal on Kosovo are implemented? Where is the success?
Hill: First, you don’t make policy because it’s successful, but because it’s right. When we formulate policy, we weigh our interests and the idea of whether it is the right thing for our government to do. Of course we would like the Brussels dialogue to take place much faster, we support Mr. (Miroslav) Lajčak because we think that is the right approach. And we would like to see an agreement based on the formation of the Union of Serbian Municipalities, so that the Serbs in the north of Kosovo know what the rules of the game are and what their lives will look like, that is very important to us. We recognize Kosovo and we would like it to join international organizations because we think it is the best for Kosovo, but also for the stability of the region. That’s our policy, and I think it’s the right one regardless of whether it’s successful or not. The game is not over.
Voice of America: What do you say about the statements that Vučić is destabilizing the region? The Minister of Defense of Serbia recently said that North Macedonia and Montenegro could be “hit on the head” by the recognition of Kosovo, which some in Montenegro interpreted as a threat. Do you consider it an attempt to destabilize the region?
Hill: I don’t see it as an attempt to destabilize the region, and I certainly don’t think that Mr. Vucevic wanted to be understood that way. I would certainly like to see better relations between the Balkan countries and I think that the Open Balkans is a good step in that direction, as well as the Berlin process… I would like to see more support from other countries in the region, but also from the West where everyone understands that these countries must cooperate and that way they will be better partners or members of the EU.
Voice of America: In the 1990s, the West had a harsher approach towards Serbia. You also met Slobodan Milošević, now you are working with Vučić, can you compare them, to say who is easier to cooperate with?
Hill: I can’t compare them, they are very very different, and the time is different. And I can’t talk about the similarities and differences between the current president and someone like Milosevic, I’ll leave that to you and the historians.
Voice of America: The situation in Kosovo seems calmer than it has been in recent months. Did you find a common language with Mr. Kurti, the Prime Minister of Kosovo, to work on solving the problem together? I am asking you because you told us in an interview in June that you are not sure that Mr. Kurti is an American partner. Have you moved on from that point?
Hill: What I can tell you is that we are working closely with Serbia to solve the problem, we think it makes sense for Serbia and Serbian-American relations, and I will leave it to others to answer this question. My opinion is well known.
Voice of America: Do you think that the situation in Kosovo is more peaceful or do you think differently?
Hill: I’d say it’s August and a lot of people are on vacation, we’ll have to see how it goes in September. I believe that this is an issue that requires urgent resolution and that progress is needed. Although we now know what the “ingredients” are for a peaceful future – the formation of the ZSO, Kosovo’s access to international organizations, we know what we need to do, we just need to put the pieces together. It’s like a big puzzle that you put on the table and then put the pieces together.
Voice of America: Do you expect a crisis in September?
Hill: I can’t predict a crisis, but what I can see is a new attempt to solve the problems. Everyone had a chance to think during the summer and I hope we can improve. Serbia is the largest country in the Balkans, it has ambitions to get closer to the West, it has ambitious economic plans, Expo 27 is coming up, if I were Serbia I would like to solve the problem with Kosovo, to show that I still support the Serbian community in Kosovo, but, finally, to see what are the broader, strategic moves that need to be made to get closer to the West.
Voice of America: You recently tweeted a video that some saw as controversial because Mr. Željko Mitrović, the owner of TV Pink, appears in it. Pink was seen as a generator of violence because of reality shows that are violent, you can often see a dirty campaign against the opposition, it is about pro-government television. With the understanding that the American goal is to bring Serbia closer to the West, do you think that this should be done with the help of people who represent everything that America does not advocate?
Hill: I think your question assumes that the US ambassador here has a lot of tools in his hands and thinks “look, it would be easier if we recruited TV Pink into our process.” But that’s not how it works at all. Pink TV made a decision, not because of me, but because they think that the future of this country is in the West. It is up to them to decide how they present themselves to the viewers. If you are a foreign diplomat here, you assess how things are. And I have to tell you – one of the things that you don’t value much, and yet many in Serbia would raise that question – is honesty. What I’m looking at is what they actually do, what they say, what the news looks like to them, whether they’re looking for violence and whether they’re pro-Russian – speaking of violence. And what you see is television presenting arguments in favor of Serbia in the West. They recently sent a team to Ukraine, not only to visit Kiev, but you see Serbian journalists in the trenches with Ukrainian soldiers, reporting on the worst war in decades. I’m not here to judge, I’m not here to talk about what they did in the past, I’m just looking at what they’re doing now. And now they are presenting arguments that I think should be presented more often in Serbia – that Serbia is a country in the heart of Europe and that it should be part of the Euro-Atlantic structures.
Voice of America: Do you think this statement of yours will create the impression that you are defending TV Pink?
Hill: I don’t mean to defend anyone. I defend the idea that Serbia should look forward and I hope that others will see it that way. I’m not defending anyone, I’m just stating the facts. Do you want people to look forward, or keep looking back? I would like people to look forward.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Montenegro: where’s the beef?
Miodrag Vlahović, former Montengrin Minister of Foreign Affairs and former ambassador to US, is now president of the Montenegrin Helsinki Committee. He continues his observations on his country’s current political course:
Montenegro’s parliamentary election June 11 gave the Europe Now movement 24 out of 81 seats, edging out the former ruling party and its coalition allies. But the process of creating the new Montenegrin government still goes on. After a long consultations, President Milatović has given Milojko Spajić a mandate. He now has to gain a majority in parliament.
Back to square one
That took almost two months. Now Montenegrin politicians seem to be back to square one. The reason is simple. The dilemma is whether to include pro-Serbian/pro-Russian parties (New Serbian Democracy and the Democratic People’s Party) in the next government.
Their inclusion would be risky move for Spajić. The new government would lose any claim to being pro-EU. And it would have no credibility in the West. The US and German ambassadors in Podgorica have emphasized that participation of political parties opposed to NATO and to recognition of Kosovo, or failing to oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine, would block Montenegro’s progress towards the EU.
Limited options
Spajić has received this message, but whether he can comply remains uncertain. Without the pro-Serbian/pro-Russian parties, he can hope for support from 44 members of parliament (41 is required for a simple majority). But a qualified majority (3/5) of 49 is required for implementation of crucial judiciary reforms.
The elephant in the room is is the former ruling party, the Democratic Party of Socialists, together with their allies. They are pro-EU. If things were normal and logical, DPS would be a natural partner for Spajić’s Europe Now movement.
Spajić, however, still clings to the notion that former President Đukanović’s party is “not reformed enough.” Translation: Đukanović is still there. Not able to do what is logical, Spajić is condemned to forming a weak government unable to pursue needed reforms. He might even find himself evicted from the prime ministry after even the smallest dispute or political crisis.
No top cover
President Milatović, his deputy in the Europe Now movement, is part of Spajić’s problem. The President is thought to be connected to a group who have announced the creation of new party. They want inclusion of anti-NATO parties in the new government.
So is this delay about formation of a new reformist government that can take Montenegro into the EU, or is it a power struggle between Spajić and Milatović? Where’s the beef?
New elections?
There is the possibility of new elections. That would mean Spajić lost the power struggle. It is an open question whether it would be good or bad for Montenegro.
RSS - Posts
