February 23, 2005
Free Montenegro! Or maybe not.
I'm working at home this morning, and there was a brief piece on the TV (which plays downstairs from the office, but can be heard in the background) about how Montenegro was thinking really really hard about declaring independence from their union with Serbia. In fact, the Montenegrin President and Prime Minister have presented a petition for independence (sort of) to the Serbian and federal leadership.
More below the fold.
Serbia: medium-small country, population about 7 million (not counting Kosovo).
Montenegro: very small country, population about 600,000. Poorer than Serbia. Mostly mountains, though with a nice seacoast.
Serbs and Montenegrins speak the same language and have been united in one country since 1919. They stayed together when Yugoslavia broke up. Currently they're joined in a federal union as a single country called "Serbia and Montenegro". This began in 2003 and is supposed to last until March 2006, at which point the two countries will reconsider their options. Very broadly speaking, the international community would like to see Serbia and Montenegro stick together. (The region has enough countries already.)
Here's what I wrote about Montenegrin independence the last time Montenegro made loud noises about it (eight months ago, in July):
Montenegrin independence is a deeply silly idea. And most Montenegrins know it!What's going on here is Montenegro holding itself for ransom. See, if they make a really convincing case that they're about to bolt for independence, then (they think) the Serbs will give them a better deal when it's time to renegotiate the S&M union in a couple of years. Hey, it's worked once already — the present deal is far better for Montenegro than it should be. (Frex, M'gro has 8% of the population but 50% of the ambassadors and diplomatic staff. A Belgrade acquaintance of mine dryly asked if they could find that many M'grins who could read…)
Of course, sooner or later they're going to miscalculate, and push the Serbs too far.
Talos, of Histologion, replied that it didn't seem like a bluff, if only because a lot of Montenegrins had turned out for public support. To which I said:
It's a bluff. It's not hard to rent a crowd of flag-waving patriots in M'gro. (Or anywhere else in the former YU.) But sooner or later Serbia will call the bluff, and then Montenegro will suddenly be in a very interesting situation.
Note that this is rather similar to the way Slovakia split from the Czechs.
Djukanovic [the Prime Minister of Montenegro for the last decade or so -- ed.] is a clever, amoral opportunist. (I know, I know… the very last thing you'd expect to find running a republic of the former Yugoslavia.) Like some other clever, amoral opportunists, he's had a good long run, with some remarkable accomplishments. But he's nearly painted himself into a corner in the last year or so. The economy isn't growing, FDI isn't flowing in, the Serbs can't stand him, people are getting unhappy about things like dead journalists, and the international community is no longer charmed by his 'look at me! I'm a plucky democratic patriot from an appealing small nation' act.
So, time to play the independence card again, and see what more he can screw out of Serbia.
I think the Serbs will grit their teeth and let him get away with it one more time. Losing M'gro would be a huge psychological blow, and the fragile coalition government in Belgrade might not survive. But I can't see this working too much longer.
That was eight months ago. Today... well, I'm still not sure Montenegrin independence will happen. (And I still think it's a deeply bad idea.) But it's looking more likely.
One straw in the wind: the term of the federal Parliament of Serbia-Montenegro expires on March 3. There should have been elections last month to choose a new Parliament. However, neither Serbia nor Montenegro could be bothered. The legislators' terms will expire without anyone being elected to replace them. So in two weeks Serbia-Montenegro will move into constitutional limbo. Not a good sign.
Montenegrin independence would probably happen without violence. That's about all that can be said for it. It would further traumatize Serbia; meanwhile, little Montenegro, poor and isolated, doesn't make much sense as an independent state.
More on this as it evolves.
Posted by douglas at February 23, 2005 11:00 AMThis is one of those baffling questions -- why does CG raise the question of independence when they benefit from the federation (such as it is) more than they would from independence? And why does the EU insist on a federation when support for it in both Serbia and CG is fairly weak?
First off, the federal state is expensive and nonfunctional. I know that expensive and nonfunctional things exist in government everywhere, but SCG has a tiny enough tax base that it makes a difference. The federal government does not control banking or foreign policy, and it only nominally controls the military which is only nominally under legal control. So what is the federal government good for? 1) It is a lovely structure of patronage, all kinds of lucrative no-work jobs to be had, and 2) it can occasionally be brought in as a way for Serbian or Montenegrin political parties to block the initiatives of their opponents. That is really about it. So my general take on independence is that it could be good for Serbia, would probably be costly for CG, but in the end would make very little difference to anyone. Also that it is not likely to happen, mostly out of inertia and the realization that nobody is ready to build the consensus it would take to get legitimate new constitutions, which both republics need very badly.
Posted by: Eric at February 24, 2005 03:29 AM(For non-Balkan readers, CG is Montenegro -- Crnagora, which is what Montenegro is called at home. SCG = Serbia-and-Montenegro.)
This is one of those baffling questions -- why does CG raise the question of independence when they benefit from the federation (such as it is) more than they would from independence?
I really think it started as a bluff, but has acquired a life of its own. The Montenegrins fondly believe that since they have no war criminals, they have no problems with the Hague. So, hey! EU membership and prosperity await. If the Macedonians can make it to candidate status, why can't we?
There's also a long and glorious tradition of bashing Belgrade for everything that goes poorly in CG. This has continued even though Belgrade about as much power over CG as Washington does over Canada. It's just too handy, and fun too.
Finally, from a distance I get a vibe that Djukanovic is starting to get a case of Tudjman's Disease: I Am The Father Of My Country!
And why does the EU insist on a federation when support for it in both Serbia and CG is fairly weak?
Oh, it makes sense from their POV. The Balkan region has enough damn countries already. Does Europe really need Montenegro as an EU member? (Pause to imagine the rotating EU Presidency being held by Montenegro. The mind reels.)
There also seems to be a vague concern that letting CG go will encourage separatism in the region -- Kosovo, Republika Srpska, Macedonian Albanians, blah blah. This is an argument I've grown increasingly skeptical about. It's not like Balkan separatism needs much encouragement, and CG independence would at least be along the lines of a former Yugoslav republic. (Although, like the Slovenes, they'd inherit a tasty little border dispute with Croatia.)
Finally, there's the perfectly reasonable point that an independent Montenegro MAKES NO FREAKING SENSE.
1) It would be an economic basket case.
2) Independence would be expensive. Doubly so if Serbia takes it badly; but anyhow expensive.
3) They're linguistically and culturally closer to Serbs than New Yorkers are to Texans. Montenegrin nationalism (as opposed to Montenegrin regionalism and specificism... different things) is almost entirely a post-Communist construct.
4) The Djukanovic government, while decent in several respects (they've been admirably slow to play the race-baiting card, despite CG's significant Albanian and Muslim minorities) is corrupt, inbred, intolerant of criticism, and deeply linked with CG's criminal elites... and any subsequent government is likely to be worse rather than better... and independence is likely to make this worse, by imposing significant additional costs and burdens, while giving CG's elites new toys to play with. ("Hey, who wants to run the new State Investigative Bureau? No, not you, you're already ambassador to Italy.")
5) It would be an economic basket case.
There would be endless fiendish details to work out. Frex, there are over 100,000 Montegrins in Belgrade alone. By some estimates one out of every three M'grins lives in Serbia. There's a very substantial brain drain out of CG -- ambitious young M'grins tend to go north. What becomes of those people? Even Slovenia can't deal adequately with this issue; will Serbia do better?
So my general take on independence is that it could be good for Serbia, would probably be costly for CG, but in the end would make very little difference to anyone.
I think you may be underestimating intangible effects. Brooding Serbian paranoia -- which really should be represented by a single word or character in discussions of this sort -- BSP will not be improved by this. It'll be a shot in the arm for wingnuttery of every sort.
Also that it is not likely to happen,
A year ago I would have agreed. Now I'm a bit less sanguine. I'd call it an even bet now.
the realization that nobody is ready to build the consensus it would take to get legitimate new constitutions, which both republics need very badly.
Well, Serbia at least seems to be suffering from a mild case of constitution fatigue. They had new constitutions in 1990, 1995, and then the "constitutional charter" in 2002.
Posted by: Doug Muir at February 24, 2005 12:13 PMBrooding Serbian paranoia -- which really should be represented by a single word or character in discussions of this sort...
how about a word made up of the same character in a quadrant of crooked crescents? "CCCC" comes with a bonus side-order of red-rag ahistorical misrepresentation, as debated furiously on the link above. failing that, "inat" ought to do the trick just as well. especially when mixed with rakija: stirred but not shaken.