Montenegro Weighs Independence

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

STING2

Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Joined
Oct 22, 2001
Messages
8,876
May 18, 2006
Prepared by: Lee Hudson Teslik


Montenegro has set a May 21 referendum on final independence from Serbia. Opinion surveys show a majority intending to vote for separation, but independence is no sure thing. Under EU-brokered regulations, a 55 percent majority will be needed to move ahead with secession, and polls show the pro-separatists' margin in a “gray zone,” between 50 and 55 percent (Serbianna). Milo Djukanovic, Montenegro's pro-independence prime minister, has said that he will move ahead toward secession even with just a simple majority. The possible outcomes of this scenario are analyzed in this new CFR Background Q&A.

Should the vote succeed, however, tiny Montenegro, often overlooked in a tumultuous neighborhood, could open a final phase in the crumbling of the former Yugoslavia. All that remains of the federation is a two-country union, officially named "Serbia and Montenegro," which encompasses Kosovo, the ethnic Albanian-dominated province that is also seeking national sovereignty. A number of experts now predict a Kosovar solution in the near future, though most do not believe Montenegro's elections will have much of an effect on that process. A December 2005 report by the International Crisis Group emphasizes that the results of Montenegro's referendum should have no bearing on Kosovo's campaign for independence. Serbs, at least, seem markedly pessimistic about their prospects of retaining control, particularly in Montenegro; in a recent survey by the Balkan news agency DTT-net, 56 percent say they believe Montenegro would gain independence.

The position of the European Union remains unclear. It was the EU, after all, that negotiated the 55 percent target for the referendum (EU Observer), when a simple majority would have almost guaranteed the vote's success. Some experts say the EU may have set the bar high because it didn't want to see the referendum pass (the rationale being that independence—or, at least, independence now—would create instability in the Balkans). But experts say it's more likely the EU set a high target to stave off the threat of boycott by Montenegro's large ethnic Serb minority. The United States, for its part, has remained more or less mum on the issue; this 2005 Special Report by CFR Senior Fellow William Nash argues for a more active approach.

Another question is whether an independent Montenegro would stand a better chance of admittance into the EU. Many Montenegrins consider themselves handcuffed to a country which has burned its European bridges (Deutsche Welle) by failing to arrest and hand over a number of war criminals, including Ratko Mladic. Separatists argue that independence would "dramatically increase" Montenegro's chances of admittance (RFE/RL). As this analysis from England's Daily Telegraph points out, the recent spat over Mladic has almost certainly strengthened the hand of Montenegro's pro-separation forces.

Montenegro was last independent in 1918 under King Nikola


http://www.cfr.org/publication/10716/montenegro_weighs_independence.html
 
I'll be happy if Montenegro votes to separate from Serbia. Yugoslavia was nothing but a bunch of different Slavic countries forged together by a dictatorship. The dictator is gone, let the countries go their separate ways.
 
verte76 said:
I'll be happy if Montenegro votes to separate from Serbia. Yugoslavia was nothing but a bunch of different Slavic countries forged together by a dictatorship. The dictator is gone, let the countries go their separate ways.

Many say this will not have any impact on potential independence for Kosovo, but I'm not so sure about that. I think it might be inevitable that some time in the future, Kosovo will become an independent state.
 
Take a look at the former Yugoslavia, because it's the future of Iraq, sooner or later.

I'll understand if Montenegro votes to break away, because it's population is dwarfed by the Serbian population. It can really never be an equal partnership.

Melon
 
melon, beat me to it

verte76 said:
Yugoslavia was nothing but a bunch of different Slavic countries forged together by a dictatorship. The dictator is gone, let the countries go their separate ways.

any similarities to Iraq?
 
My geography students aren't gonna like hearing this :ohmy: They have a damned hard time remembering the former Yugoslavia countries (I tell them it's because they're being lazy and not studying hard enough)
 
melon said:
Take a look at the former Yugoslavia, because it's the future of Iraq, sooner or later.

I'll understand if Montenegro votes to break away, because it's population is dwarfed by the Serbian population. It can really never be an equal partnership.

Melon

Take a look at Bosnia where the vast majority of the fighting and sectarian violence took place. Bosnia is still a country today with three different ethnic groups. Despite everything that happened in the early 1990s, with nearly 10% of the population being massacred in 4 years, the country is still together and has a standard of living better than China. If Bosnia can succeed as a state, Iraq will succeed as well.

As for the other states of the former Yugoslavia where fighting and sectarian violence were at a minimum(the exception being Kosovo and perhaps Croatia in 1991 and 1995), they will all eventually be members of the European Union as well as members of NATO. Slovenia has already made this step. The divisions of the 1990s will eventually became meaningless.
 
Bosnia is full of jihadists. Maybe if people were paying some attention, they'd start shitting their pants over what's going on over there. You've got hundreds of fundamentalists from Yemen, Saudi and so on infiltrating there. Everyone in the region knows it and nobody is doing anything about it.

And Bosnia is not a successful state, it exists essentially in a 2 state paradigm and the ethnic groups don't mix.

Eventually Bosnia will split up as well, it's just a matter of time.
 
STING2 said:
The divisions of the 1990s will eventually became meaningless.

This is a very good point.

I think it's ironic that these tiny Balkan groups all want their own little countries so they can get away from their bloodthirsty neighbors, but then all of them want to join the EU so they can all become united under one currency, one foreign policy, one economic policy, etc.

It's perfectly understandable, given their hatred of each other there, suppressed by 45 years of Communist totalitarianism, but it's amazingly short-sighted and impractical.

Just ask Slovakia if splitting from Czech was such a great move.

Montenegran independence is a romantic notion, but foolhardy in the larger scheme of things.

As for Iraq: Everything I have read, and every Iraqi here in California that I have spoken to about this say that Iraq will never split up because Iraqis are far too nationalistic, despite what al-Queda and Iran and Kurdish nationalists are trying to foment.

The current blood-letting is simply revenge attacks by Shia militia groups against Sunnis for the years of terrorism the Sunnis perpetrated on the Shia civilian population with little or no resistance. These killings will probably continue for many years, to one degree or another (like in Sri Lanka, Colombia, Palestine, and many other nations in Africa), but I don't predict that it will eventually cause Iraq to break apart.

In fact, current trends suggest that Iraq is solidifying, based on newly forged goverment agreements on power-sharing, though this could always unravel down the road, naturally.

A fractured Iraq is in nobody's interest, except for maybe the Kurds, but even they would be better suited to remain as the autonomous region they have been over the past 15 years, simply because an independent Kurdish nation would instantly have three very hostile neighbors on its borders (Iraq, Turkey and Iran), and few allies willing to protect them if push came to shove (remember how long it took the Europeans to finally get around to asking the Americans to please intervene in the killing fields next door in Bosnia and Kosovo).

Geopolitics are ever-changing, but at the moment, a unified Iraq still seems like something that all the major players want to maintain.
 
4U2Play said:

I think it's ironic that these tiny Balkan groups all want their own little countries so they can get away from their bloodthirsty neighbors, but then all of them want to join the EU so they can all become united under one currency, one foreign policy, one economic policy, etc.


That's just such a naive, simplistic view of the situation there.

First of all, there is really no future for a country within greater European borders without the context of the EU, so joining the EU is an inevitability.

Second, the drive towards independence began before the neighbours got "bloodthirsty" and it isn't simply because of ethnic strife but economic inequalities between the republics for the 50 years prior (ie. the 'western' republics which were wealthy and bringing in most of the foreign currency through diaspora investment and EC tourism had no benefits from it since Belgrade was siphoning all the funds for themselves). It only became bloodthirsty after Slovenia and Croatia declared their intent to leave the federation.

It's convenient to sit there and just say, these people hated each other all along, but the answers are always much more complicated than that.

As for Montenegro, they should have left SCG a long time ago. They did get off very easily in the strife by looking like a neutral third party, but let us ask ourselves where the Serbs bombed Dubrovnik from and it becomes clear that while the Serbs got all the blame for it (righfully so), they had a very willing and able partner assisting them in these crimes.
 
antiram,

Your passion is noted, but most of your points are invalid.

Firstly, the word "bloodthirsty" can be either taken literally or euphemistically. "Bloodthirsty" can mean people that like to kill, and it can mean those that are predatory or thieving, ie "bloodthirsty lawyers". You used both definitions to make your points, but failed to recognize or consider my intent in its usage.

Please learn to read things in context and realize that certain words have more than one meaning.


1. Joining the EU is not inevitable. Switzerland and Norway aren't members, but their economies seem to be doing just fine.

Furthermore, the UK is not all in, and recent votes in France and Holland against an EU constitution does not portend a positive outlook for a united Europe at the moment. However, we do agree that all these new little nation states are desperate to join the EU (for the reasons you stated), which makes their wars and votes for independence nothing more than exercises in romantic nationalism.

Also, how do you explain Slovakia's peaceful split from the now Czech Republic? Granted, Klaus and the others put Meciar in a box with their either/or proposition, but even after everyone told the Slovaks it would be an economic disaster for them, they did it anyway, and now look where they are, especially compared to the C.R.

Economic independence is not the main reason for these national independence movements. Ask any Kurd, Palestinian, Tamil or Kashmiri.

Yes, Belgrade treated the rest of Yugoslavia unfairly (kind of like how California gets ripped off by Washington), but to believe that "economic inequalities" drove the independence movements shows a basic lack of knowledge about the peoples and cultures that exist there.


2. Please read a history book about the Balkans. Even recent ones about Croatian behavior during WW2, or Muslim (Ottoman Turkish) behavior for hundreds of years leading up to WW1. An excellent one to start with is "Balkan Ghosts" by Robert D. Kaplan, the great Atlantic magazine writer.

You will soon discover that the Balkan region has a very long history of ethnic and religious hatreds dating back centuries, with each group living in fear of the next group, and each group demonizing the other. This cannot be ignored when examining the reasons why the Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats, Kosovar Albanians, Slovenians and Slovaks sought independence as soon as the Communist yoke began to crumble.

The neighbors there have been "bloodthirsty" for hundreds of years, not only just since 1991, after the declarations of independence were unilaterally recognized by Genscher, with great loss of life as a result.

The independence movements were the direct result of aggressive Serb nationalism, not Belgrade economic decisions.

Serbia's neighbors got scared when Milosevic started preaching about a "Greater Serbia". Economic considerations might have played some part in these various decisions to declare independence, but I would argue that desire for decentralization and democracy (ie. to get away from your "bloodthirsty" neighbor, Milosevic), and the ideas of "owning" your own country and recovering lost imperial glory were far more powerful incentives

Remember, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims wanted independence from Belgrade, but not Bosnian Serbs. If Belgrade economic pressure was the reason for those independence movements, why didn't the Bosnian Serbs side with their fellow Bosnians?

Why did Zagreb support the brutal Bosnian Croat militias (the so-called "Ustashi") during the Bosnian civil war? To get away from economic unfairness by Belgrade?

Ethnic and religious solidarity play important roles in Balkan socieities, whether you want to believe it or not.

When I first got to Belgrade in 1992, I couldn't believe some of the vile, bigoted statements coming from the mouths of the people I met there, even from the university students. I thought the Serbs were some of the worst people I had ever met. As I continued my travels, however, I soon found out that many, many people in that region, from Turkey and Greece to Romania and Bulgaria harbor deep, historical ethnic hatreds for one another. This may be news to you, and perhaps a bit uncomfortable, but it is true.

Remember how Milosevic rallied Serbia to fight his civil war in Kosovo by invoking memories of the Serbian defeat at the Battle of Kosovo Polje in 1389. Ignore Balkan history at your peril.

It's convenient to sit there and take a Marxist view on everything, but the answers are much more complicated than that.

Your points about Montenegro are scattered and make no sense.
 
Last edited:
anitram said:
Bosnia is full of jihadists. Maybe if people were paying some attention, they'd start shitting their pants over what's going on over there. You've got hundreds of fundamentalists from Yemen, Saudi and so on infiltrating there. Everyone in the region knows it and nobody is doing anything about it.

And Bosnia is not a successful state, it exists essentially in a 2 state paradigm and the ethnic groups don't mix.

Eventually Bosnia will split up as well, it's just a matter of time.

Jihadists go to fight where there is war. Bosnian war has been over for 10 years now, I doubt there is some massive influx of jihadists into Bosnia, they are all flocking to Iraq if anywhere. Even if there is some type of a muslim extremist presense, it has done nothing to upset the incredible stability that has been present in Bosnia for the past 10 years. How many Jihadists attended the U2 POPMART concert there in September 1997?:wink: To go from the slaughter that Bosnia went through to 4 boys from Dublin and Lemon setting up shop in the stadium that was turned into a grave yard during the war, in such a small space of time was incredible!

People said Bosnia was the United States next Vietnam and the country would never work. The critics have been proven wrong. The Bosnians and the Croats do mix and its only a matter of time before the Serbs will mix with the rest of society there as well. The country has prospered over the past 10 years, the war was a waste and most people on both sides realize that. There is no benefit for anyone to return to the time from 1992-1995. People don't want to give up the way of life they now have, which they would certainly lose if fighting were to start again.

Northern Ireland has proved that it is possible for two sides with centuries of conflict between them to move beyond, just in the space of a couple of decades. Catholics and Protestants mix all the time in Northern Ireland, both at work and play.

Bosnia has a surprisingly high standard of living for a country that saw so much devestation in the early 1990s. Europe is only going to become more integrated as time goes on, and new generations are not going to have the same pressures and lack of opportunity that previous generations were trapped in.
 
I hope the Kurds don't separate. That wouldn't be good for them. This is Turkey's worst nightmare, and one reason why they opposed the Iraq war.
 
Bombing Dubrovnik is something that both Serbia and Montenegro should be blamed.Remember that at that time Milosevic had very strong political,military and finance support from Montenegro.Whatever he did,whatever decisions did he make , Montenegro was his support.They did try to play the "neutral third party" as anitram said, but facts are facts.At that time , did you hear any Montenegro official that raised his voice against it? I didn't.
 
roy keane said:
Bombing Dubrovnik is something that both Serbia and Montenegro should be blamed.Remember that at that time Milosevic had very strong political,military and finance support from Montenegro.Whatever he did,whatever decisions did he make , Montenegro was his support.They did try to play the "neutral third party" as anitram said, but facts are facts.At that time , did you hear any Montenegro official that raised his voice against it? I didn't.

Of course, I agree 100%.

The Montenegro government is trying to set themselves up as an innocent third party that played no part in the ethnic strife in the 90s. It is convenient for them to blame Serbia and Serbs in general for the atrocities committed, but when it comes to Dubrovnik, this is bullshit. Except in the eyes of the international community there is one guilty party and the other one got away scot free.

4U2Play, I'm not even going to get into the comments with you because frankly I disagree with most of what you wrote and your notion that I'm unfamiliar with the people and history of the region is really actually quite funny but I'm not going to bother pointing out why.
 
As for Montenegro independency , frenkly i don't care,but i very much doubt that they will vote it.Many Montenegro people live in Serbia(Belgrade mostly),they are on very high positions in firms,banks,goverment... And 90% of Montenegro students come to Serbia to study.Very big part of those people left today to Montenegro to vote union state.Given the fact that Montenegro itself is divided i predict Serbia and Montenegro will last longer than expected.
 
roy keane said:
As for Montenegro independency , frenkly i don't care,but i very much doubt that they will vote it.Many Montenegro people live in Serbia(Belgrade mostly),they are on very high positions in firms,banks,goverment... And 90% of Montenegro students come to Serbia to study.Very big part of those people left today to Montenegro to vote union state.Given the fact that Montenegro itself is divided i predict Serbia and Montenegro will last longer than expected.

If it only required a 50% majority, it would definitely pass. But it has to clear 55%, and most polling has shown its at around 52% to 53%.
 
Weary Serbs watch Montenegro vote

Sunday, May 21, 2006; Posted: 8:59 a.m. EDT (12:59 GMT)



BELGRADE, Serbia-Montenegro (AP) -- If Montenegro decides Sunday to split from Serbia, the union's larger republic by default becomes independent too.

It is a decision Serbs have no say in and unlike the suspense accompanying Montenegro's historic vote, the mood in Serbia was mostly that of resignation, mixed with bitterness.

"Montenegro is deciding our fate for us," analyst Bosko Jaksic said in a commentary published in the Politika daily. "Serbia can only watch as the scale tips one way or the other."

For Jaksic, the outcome of Montenegro's independence referendum could be the "last nail in the coffin" of the country that was once Yugoslavia. "Maybe it is time to bury the past, firmly and forever," he said.

Others were more indignant.

"Let Montenegro go, this marriage never worked anyway," said Danka Krivokuca, a 29-year-old Belgrade economist. "Our union was in agony from the start, it is time to end it."

Montenegro stayed with its traditional ally, Serbia, when the former six-republic Yugoslav federation broke up in a series of bloody Balkan wars of the 1990s. But their relations later soured as a pro-independence drive in Montenegro gained strength, climaxing in Sunday's referendum.

Before the vote, Serbian officials and church leaders have called on Montenegrins to reject independence, invoking deep historical, religious and traditional links between the republics. Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica cited a "togetherness ... inseparable in its innumerable ties and deeply intertwining lives" of the two peoples.

For hundreds of thousands of Serbia's citizens who hail from Montenegro, those ties are very real.

Slobodan Bulatovic, 61, failed to lose his strong Montenegrin accent despite having lived for 40 years in Serbia, where he studied, married and raised a family. He regularly goes back to his native town of Bijelo Polje, in northern Montenegro, to visit his sister and many relatives.

"It is like your heart is in one place and your soul in the other," said Bulatovic, a tourism entrepreneur in Belgrade. "With independence, a border will come up, and with it new barriers. But can a person separate his heart from his soul?"

Concerns have also increased that the loss of Montenegro would further destabilize Kostunica's already shaky minority government, which has claimed that the union stands a better chance of someday achieving the much coveted membership in the European Union.

But the head judge of Serbia's Constitutional Court, Slobodan Vucetic, believes Serbia could easily declare its own independence in parliament within days of a secession by Montenegro.

"Serbia can make a smooth transition to a sovereign country," he said. "Serbia is legally the union's heir and would automatically assume all posts held by the union in international organizations."

However, Serbia's strategic position in the Balkans would significantly change if the Adriatic republic of 620,00 secedes. With an 8 million strong population, Serbia will become a landlocked state overnight, making a makeover of the army and navy -- with no sea left to guard -- inevitable.

Underscoring Serbia's lack of role in Montenegro's decision, the G17Plus party from Kostunica's governing coalition staged mock referendums Sunday at several squares in Belgrade, inviting residents to "cast ballots" for an independent Serbia.

"We want this symbolic action to show we care," said Goran Kreclovic, one of the event organizers. "Serbs should also have a say in what kind of country they want to live in."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/21/montenegro.serbia.ap/index.html
 
STING2 said:


If it only required a 50% majority, it would definitely pass. But it has to clear 55%, and most polling has shown its at around 52% to 53%.


.

The unofficial results found that 55.3 percent of voters opted for the change, Journalist Bruce Konviser said. That's slightly more than the 55 percent approval that the European Union said was required for passage.
 
STING2 said:


If it only required a 50% majority, it would definitely pass. But it has to clear 55%, and most polling has shown its at around 52% to 53%.

So, what do the Kurds need to do for their autonmy?
 
deep said:


So, what do the Kurds need to do for their autonmy?

The Kurds already have some level of autonomy. Montenegro is not voting for autonomy, its voting for independence.
 
OK, now that it's a done deal, who is next?

Will Scotland ever vote to secede from the UK?

What about Wales?

What happens if the Albanian minority wants to secede from Montenegro? How about the Hungarian minority in Vojvodina, and the Albanians in Kosovo? Don't they deserve countries, too?

More importantly, how will all these new mini-states affect the Eurovision Song Contest next year?
 
4U2Play said:
What happens if the Albanian minority wants to secede from Montenegro? How about the Hungarian minority in Vojvodina, and the Albanians in Kosovo? Don't they deserve countries, too?

If you believe in the right to self-determination (as I do), then yes.
 
4U2Play said:
OK, now that it's a done deal, who is next?

Will Scotland ever vote to secede from the UK?

What about Wales?

What happens if the Albanian minority wants to secede from Montenegro? How about the Hungarian minority in Vojvodina, and the Albanians in Kosovo? Don't they deserve countries, too?

More importantly, how will all these new mini-states affect the Eurovision Song Contest next year?

Final results probably won't come until late tomorrow, so its still not official yet that Montenegro is going to secede.

Its a difficult question. In general, I think there has to be some sort of legitimate reason for seccession, otherwise any city or territory could vote to secede at any time, which would be total chaos. Yugoslavia broke apart partly because of the undemocratic actions of the Serbs in the government. When a certain territory or group of territories is denied certain rights available to others in the country, or the country is not a democracy, then I think one can start to make and arguement for seccession.

Scotland has been a part of the United Kingdom for so long that I doubt that they will actually secede. They agreed to union in 1700 I believe. Wales agreed to union in 1500. The real question is in the 21st century, what would secession actually change in the context of the United Kingdom? Scotland has been apart of this democracy for the past 300 years, and they were not treated during that time the way the Irish were treated in Ireland. Irelands drive for independence at the start of the 20th century is totally understandable. Most people in Ireland were not able to own land until the 20th century.


With Kosovo, I would say it could be only a matter of time before they get independence. The country is 91% ethnic Albanian and had to live through the ethnic clensing horror of the 1990s. Its still far from certain though. 20 years and a dramatically improved economic and political environment could change a lot of things. If NATO allows it, it would indeed happen.

Albanian seccession from Montenegro will only happen if Kosovo secedes from Serbia.

From what I have heard about Vojvodina, the Hungarian minority is too small and mixed in with the rest of the population for there to be seccession.
 
Montenegro was republic.Kosovo wasn't, neither is Vojvodina.As for Montenegro Albanians,they also look for a part of territory as well as in Greece and Macedonia.There will be more divisions in Balkan, be sure.
About UK, i'm almost sure that if there was referendum in Scotland, most of people would vote to stay within Kingdom
 
roy keane said:
Montenegro was republic.Kosovo wasn't, neither is Vojvodina.As for Montenegro Albanians,they also look for a part of territory as well as in Greece and Macedonia.There will be more divisions in Balkan, be sure.
About UK, i'm almost sure that if there was referendum in Scotland, most of people would vote to stay within Kingdom

Montenegrin Albanians look to become part of a future independent Kosovo, not territory in Greece and Macedonia. There are Kosovo Albanians who have claims on parts of Macedonia, but not Greece I don't believe since they don't share a border.

The only other division I can see happening is Kosovo becoming an independent state. While it was not a republic before, it is less ethnicly mixed than any of the Republics and is essentially under NATO control at the moment. If Kosovo does not become independent, it will likely have some form of republic or other autonomous status within Serbia.
 
Back
Top Bottom