International engagement in Montenegro has brought significant positive results. It bolstered the pro-Western government of Djukanovic when it faced the threat from Milosevic. It has helped promote reforms that have set Montenegro on the way to becoming a modern democracy, with a market economy and an independent, effective criminal justice system. However, efforts to promote regional stability have been hampered by an obsession with keeping Montenegro and Serbia in a single state. The West’s overriding interest in the region should be to find stable, long-term solutions. Cobbling together interim solutions that lack legitimacy on the ground and that are unlikely to be
functional in practice, is not the way to build stability.
Central to building stability is the fight against the legacy of institutional weakness, corruption and organised crime from the Milosevic era. Here, too, the international community’s approach to Montenegro has been distorted by the misplaced determination to preserve the joint state. Opposition to Djukanovic’s independence aspirations has mistakenly been bundled with criticisms of alleged links to organised crime. That allegations of crime links started to be made in public just when the West was turning against Montenegro’s independence campaign, though the information had long been known in policy circles, raised suspicions that the issue was being manipulated. Further, the notion, popular in some quarters, that an independent Montenegro would more likely be deeply corrupt than a republic in union with Serbia has no basis in reality.
The frequent tendency among Western officials to portray Montenegro as uniquely corrupt is not only unfair. It has also fuelled resentment among many Montenegrins that their republic is being slandered as part of an attempt to bully them into accepting a particular solution for their future. It has also allowed Montenegrin leaders to dismiss serious allegations as plots to bring pressure on the republic. Indeed, pressure on Djukanovic has not produced the desired result, as his ruling coalition won increased support in the October 2002 parliamentary election and its presidential candidate, Filip Vujanovic, won still more votes in elections in December 2002 and February 2003.
The international community should end its policy of opposing Montenegrin independence and instead be ready to support whatever solution Montenegro and Serbia can agree upon for their future relationship. The international community, and the EU in particular, should be ready to assist Montenegro and Serbia to work out a satisfactory arrangement, while maintaining neutrality about the form of their relationship.
Donors should apply strict conditionality on assistance to Montenegro, tied to real performance on reforms. Assessment of progress needs to go beyond ticking off new legislation and focus on implementation. In particular, the international community should insist upon measures that really deal with allegations of corruption, cronyism and criminal activities connected with senior officials. Unless there is adequate evidence in this respect, it should withdraw or suspend assistance programs. The international community has considerable leverage. Given its budgetary problems, the Montenegrin government depends on international aid. Until now that leverage has largely been used in the ill-conceived effort to keep Montenegro in a union with Serbia. It should now be used to force real change in the way that Montenegro is governed.
