Montenegro heads divided into vote

azzuri · Montenegro heads divided into vote

see - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4999672.stm

Montenegro heads divided into vote

The BBC's Nick Hawton has been travelling around Montenegro assessing the mood of the people as they prepare to vote on what could be the final act in the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia.

This is a land of contrasts - from the beautiful coast with its natural harbours and wealthy tourists to its rugged mountains and impoverished inhabitants.

And wherever you go these days you will find a people divided - those who are desperate to see an independent Montenegro and those who want to see the continuing union between Serbia and Montenegro.

In the coastal town of Budva, the red and gold flags emblazoned with the crest of the Montenegrin Royal family - the symbol of the independence movement - are everywhere to be seen.

"We want independence. We want to have our own country. We want peace with our neighbours, like Serbia and Croatia, but we must have our own country. And this way our economy will improve," says Dragana, 45, from Budva who owns a local shop.

At the beach fish restaurant, Marjan Simoni is preparing lunch for a group of American tourists.

"Business has been getting better over the past few years. We have three restaurants. There are more and more foreign tourists coming here. Personally, I think we should have our own country and so we can look after our own affairs. We should be in charge of our own destiny. Independence will only improve business," says Marjan.

Bribe rumours

Drive inland and pro-independence graffiti and billboards with the word "DA!" (meaning "Yes" for independence) line the route. Again, there are more red and gold flags.

But up in the steep, wooded mountains, heading closer to the border with Serbia, views begin to change.

The town of Kolasin is deeply divided over the issue. There has been tension between the two sides. Those against independence took down their own Serb flags so as to avoid clashes with neighbours across the street who had put up red flags.

"It will be very bad if Montenegro becomes independent," says 26-year-old Mileta Ilic, who is unemployed. "Serbia will simply turn off the financial tap and Montenegro will have to try to get international loans and credit," says Mileta, wearing his blue-and-white "NO" tee shirt.

Across Montenegro, rumours abound that both sides in the referendum have been offering bribes to their potential supporters.

Frustrated majority?

And even the transport system has become divided. Free railway tickets are being offered in Serbia for Montenegrins to return home to vote against independence. Meanwhile dozens of extra aircraft have been flying in Montenegrins living abroad, at no expense, so they can vote for independence.

Indeed, the result of the referendum may be very close and it could be the diaspora that ultimately decides the republic's fate. Montenegro has agreed with the European Union that for independence to be won they must achieve at least 55% of votes cast.

The big question is what happens if they achieve more than 50% but less than the required 55%. That could lead to a lot of frustrated people.

But so far the campaign has been relatively peaceful and its organisers are hoping it will stay that way.

In the capital, Podgorica, the two camps held large rallies to bring their campaigns to a close during the final week. Thousands turned out in the central square on separate nights, waving their flags and banners, in support of their cause.

And now everyone awaits Sunday's vote.

azzuri

see - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4994212.stm

Q&A: Montenegro referendum

Montenegrins will decide in a vote on Sunday whether their small coastal republic should remain part of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro or become fully independent.

What is at stake?

The union of Serbia and Montenegro is now all that remains of the federation of six republics that made up Yugoslavia before the independence wars of the 1990s.

In terms of both population and area, Montenegro is very much overshadowed by Serbia, and many Montenegrins - including Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic - would like their republic to make the final break and go it alone.

The pro-independence camp insists that Montenegro is being held back by its association with Serbia.

Those in favour of preserving the union point to the strong historical links between Montenegrins and Serbs - who share the same language and Orthodox Christian faith - and economic ties between the two republics.

How do things stand at the moment?

The union of Serbia-Montenegro was formed in March 2002 as the successor state to Yugoslavia under the EU-brokered Belgrade Agreement.

According to the 2003 census, the population of Montenegro is 670,000, of whom 43% are Montenegrins, 32% Serbs, 14% Muslim Slav, 7% Albanians, 1% Croats and 1% Roma. The population of Serbia is nearly 10 million.

Despite the close historic ties between the two republics, Montenegro already enjoys a high level of autonomy and uses the euro as currency instead of the Serbian dinar.

Who is in favour of independence?

Broadly speaking, most ethnic Montenegrins and the Montenegrin government back the drive to independence. The ethnic minorities are seen as mostly favouring independence, though some have expressed doubts over their status in an independent Montenegro.

During the early 1990s, the present prime minister, Milo Djukanovic, was a key ally of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic and favoured the preservation of some form of federal state.

But as Mr Milosevic's policies attracted ever greater international condemnation, Mr Djukanovic gradually distanced himself from his former mentor and came to see Montenegrin independence as his ultimate goal.

Who is opposed to it?

Those against independence tend to identify themselves as ethnically Serb and see no real distinction between Serbs and Montenegrins.

Many are strong supporters of the Orthodox faith and see the historical and religious ties between Serbs and Montenegrins as being stronger than any divisions. They point out that the greatest Montenegrin historical figures often described themselves as Serbs.

The pro-union Montenegrin opposition regularly accuses Mr Djukanovic of seeking to set up his own "private state".

What is Serbia's position?

Serbia sees the Montenegrin independence drive as a stab in the back and believes that dissolution of the union will fuel Kosovo Albanian demands for independent statehood.

What line is the Orthodox Church taking?

The official Montenegrin Orthodox Church is part of the Serbian Orthodox Church and is against independence.

An independent Montenegrin Orthodox Church was set up in 2000 with the backing of Mr Djukanovic. This supports independence but is regarded as a renegade body by the Orthodox Church globally.

What form will the referendum take?

On 21 May, a single question will be put to voters: "Do you want the Republic of Montenegro to be an independent state with full international and legal subjectivity?"

A 55% majority is required for a "yes" vote to be accepted internationally. This figure was proposed by the EU after the two sides failed to reach agreement on what the threshold should be.

But the pro-independence camp insists that if less than 55% but more than 50% vote for independence - that is, if the figure falls within what is being referred to as the "grey zone" - then this will be seen as a mandate to continue the drive for a separate state.

The Montenegrin diaspora has the right to vote - with the exception of Montenegrins living in Serbia, who are barred from voting in the referendum.

What is the likely outcome?

Opinion polls in March indicated that, based on a estimated voter turnout of about 84%, the pro-independence camp had a lead of about 5% over the unionist camp.

However, a significant percentage of voters - mainly those belonging to the ethnic minorities - were still undecided at the time of these polls, so the result is by no means a foregone conclusion.

What about the Mladic factor?

The EU's suspension of talks on closer ties with Serbia on account of the Belgrade government's failure to arrest top war crimes suspect Ratko Mladic is seen by some analysts as having given a boost to the pro-independence campaign.

Mr Djukanovic has long maintained that an independent Montenegro stands a better chance of achieving EU membership than one linked to Serbia, and the EU's suspension of talks with Serbia is seen in some quarters as vindication of this argument.

Other commentators, however, argue that most voters will already have made up their minds according to their ethnic identity, and that the Mladic factor will only count with waverers.

azzuri

Sunday could be a decisive day not just for Montenegro, but for all small nations seeking Independence within the EU.

Like Montenegro, the opinion of those in Scotland looks divided down the middle. If the referendum does reach the required 55% then it is a good omen for Scotland as it suggest those undecided favoured Independence, or that those in favour of it turned out in higher numbers to vote than those who want to keep the status quo.

Above 55% is good news for the Scottish Nationalists as it sets a trend within the EU for positive Independence referendum results. Above 60% would be an excellent result. It'll be very interesting to see what happens if the pro-Independence vote falls between 50-55% however.

SLG

They say it's tight, but no polls? I'm not sure it tells will tell us too much about our referendum.

IMO the 55% mark is crazy. If there is >50% but <55% I'd expect there to be trouble.

azzuri

.......maybe I'm just a wishful thinker. Smile

Aventinian

azzuri

I agree Aventinian - it may be sensible to have a review referendum after 5 years to see whether or not it is the 'settled will' of the Scottish people as you say.

SLG

IF Convenor

azzuri

Maybe it should depend on how close the vote is.

If the yes vote is above 59%, then a review will not be needed. If it is between 51-59% however then a review might be sensible 5 years down the line.

I only say this however because I'm 100% sure it would go in an Independent Scotland's favour. Razz

SLG

I think the idea would be to have a series of referenda with nothing decided until the results from all referenda had been collated. So even if the first referenda is a yes, nothing happens, only after a set period of time over which a number of referenda have been carried out could we claim the settled will. Interesting in theory, and I'd be in favour of it in theory. It's not going to happen though, and in practice, I wouldn't want it to. Mainly because I have no trust in the Unionist parties whatsoever when it comes to this. Labour have already discredited themselves beyond repair following the '79 referendum.

SLG

Shadowman

Why not just say that a result between 50% and 60% will result in greater autonomy, and anything over 60% full independence? A state that is nearly 300 years old should not be dissolved on the back of 50.3/49.7 vote (that recorded for the Welsh Assembly).

Cado

I think the referendum needs to be carefully considered.

Firstly for the SNP - the SNP has always be for independence, its been their founding aim. When there is a referendum on independence - and if it fails- it may do the SNP incredible damage. The SNP need to work out how to ensure that a failure doesn't damage the party in anyway. The SNP are unique is being the only party with purly scottish concerns - they can't let themselves be damaged by a 'no' vote.

Secondly - people voting intentions. This is always the sticky one. To my knowledge (I know there are figures quoted above) Ive never really seen pro independence figure of much more than 20% (I'd be grateful if anyone can provide links or sources to figures much more than this). However, there are very few 'pure' unionists in Scotland - I suspect that no matter how atrocious the present scottish government is - very few will vote for abolision and a return to full union.

Thus I conclude that the overwhelming majority are at least for 'self-determination' a possible definition of this being "we should be allowed to get on with things and do what we want - everything that does or does not happen within Scotland is the responsibility of the Scot government"

What I'm trying to get at here is that it may be best to provide a number of options in a referendum. ie
1) no change
2) a 'self-determination' package
3) full independence

I suspect those who are for full independence may not like this idea - simply because it presents a 'half-way' house which people who may have been pro 'full-independence' may decide to opt for. However it also avoids the potential embarrisment of people feeling forced to vote 'no-change' simply because they don't want full independence.

But I beleive my suggestion removes certain risks.

1) If people vote 'no change' because there isn't a middle option it may stop the whole band wagon stone dead - it may also damage the SNP - it would effectivly be a rejection of their core principals.
Therefore a 'self-determination' vote would still be a 'progressive' vote. Even though it isn't full independence it would still be seen as a vote for further change and a re-affirming of Scotlands right to be a nation. It would also avoid (I beleive) avoid damaging the SNP.
2) A self-determination vote wouldn't kill off full independence - though it may take some of the steam out of it. It would still keep the option of full independence alive and well. A 'no change' vote would kill everything off for a considerable period of time (I think).

We want to keep things moving forward - so any result which stops things is undesirable. If the settled will of the scottish people ends up being 'no-change' then forget it - we won't be seeing another referendum for a long time. There is also no point in fielding a referendum that could loose, like I said, it could be very damaging to the whole movement.

A middle ground which moves things forward but which is also guaranteed to win is (to me) the preferred option. We have devolution in its current form - we naturally want to be abe to do more - so devolution as it stands has acted as a spring board to wanting further independance. Any lost referendum kills the momentum - also any referendum too far - risks derailing things.

Anyway - rambling.

Simply put - there needs to be a middle option (in my opinion) - something progressive that would be (at least) a winner without potentially giving people cold feet my only allowing full independence.

azzuri

see http://www.independence1st.com/polls.shtml for a large sample of polls held.

There have also been 2 or 3 in the last year which show the same conclusion (support for Independence higher than that of opposed). A recent poll which asked whether there should be a referendum on the issue got over 80% saying 'yes' also - the Scottish people see that it's obvious, so why are the government not doing anything about it?

azzuri

There was also a YouGov poll of 1607 Scots in April of this year which showed 46% of those in favour of Independence, 39% opposed and 15% 'don't knows' - another clear majority for Independence.

SLG

Cado

Cheers for the poll data - it certainly prooves there is substancial interest - which at least helps show that Scots in general are feeling 'politically' interested.

I'd though about the poll split thing - my thought were that of 'incremental options ie.

1) Do you wish no change
2) Do you wish 'self-determination'
3) As well as Self determination do you wish to go further to full independence.

Thus it would give an ability to 'grade' opinion - those pro full independence could still be considered to be pro 'self-determination' ie

if it polled (totally made up figures just to illustrate)

1 No change 34%
2 Something 33%
3 indpendence 33%

In normal circumstances 'no change' would win - which would be unfair as clearly 66% want at least somthing.

SLG

I think if we get Labour out of power in Holyrood, we'll be getting more powers for the Parliament. As you show, pretty much the entire parliament apart from the Labour members are in favour of more powers. I still don't see the need for any referendum on that. Mibee after a non-Labour Executive has been in power and we have reached some sort of settled level of government, we might need a referendum to push for specific powers. But I think we would be better off just seeing what happened in that regard.

I don't think there would be too much fall for the SNP if the referendum was lost. I think even in the worse case, it would be marginal, and might actually turn a lot of folk on to Independence that weren't previously political. Folk voting agin wouldn't be SNP voters anyway. The other parties would spin it as defeat for the SNP, but they could spin it as an opportunity for them to get on (presuming they form part of the Executive) with running the country to the best of their ability, calling for more powers within the devolution framework and building more confidence in their ability to run the country before asking the people again at some point in the future whether it is still the settled will to remain part of the UK, or whether Scotland should be Independent.

IF Convenor

Labour managed to organise the devolution referendum within 5 months of taking office in 1997. I see no reason (other than politics) for delaying an independence referendum for as long as a year once a decision is taken.

SLG

I picked one year at random. Even with 5 months, it's still going to be a long sustained campaign. I'm just interested in the form that the campaign will take from both sides. Especially how it plays in the Unionist parties who have a significant number of members who are pro-Independence, and what outside influences (from outside of Scotland) are brought to bear.

Neil

The interesting thing about the BBC reporting is not what it says but what it ignores.

Instead of doing a travelogue "beautiful coast & rugged mountains"they could mention that the government is in the hands of people who "benefit personally" from western aid deals, that the place is swarming with Albanian & Commora gangsters (even a travelogue should say that), that thousands of ex-pats, some very dubiously so, have been flown in purely to vote, that 300,000 Montenegrans in Serbia are disenfeanchised, that the media is strongly state controlled (the BBC may not be able to tell), the unslilved murders of pro-Serbian leaders, EU threats if they don't vote as told, the role of the KLA in recruiting Albanian voters (again some of dubious nationality), the promise of the KLA to either seek the right of Albanian areas to secede or for Montenegro's "union" with ethnically cleansed Kosovo.

I would not wish to suggest that this report represents any thing other than the highest journalistic standards of the BBC but it is pure pro-Nato/Nazi propaganda.

Who runs the BBC after independence & who pays for it?

Neil

Pro-KLA Albanian tourists who helped the "independence" campaign are gearing up for the next stage. During the independence campaign they openly said they wanted either for part of Montenegro to be given to Albania or for a union of the countries.

"Thousands of extremists dressed as tourists were charging at the police, chanting slogans supporting the terrorist OVK [disbanded Kosovo Liberation Army], and members of the Ministry of Internal Affairs failed to react adequately," said a statement by [the SNS] information service head, Jovan Vucurovic.

......."Only naive people can believe that this was a spontaneous gathering of over 2,000 persons, and the SNS openly suspects that this was a well-organized action and that those whom [Kosovo Prime Minister] Agim Ceku and [Democratic Party of Kosovo chairman] Hashim Thaci recently praised for their selfless participation in the dissolution of the country were also among the protesters,"

SLG

SNS - is that the Serb People's Party?

Neil

That's right.
The party that officially got 44.7% of the vote (the other side counted the votes & they needed 55%) & whose leader hasn't been indicted in Italy for smuggling billions of cigarette.

Our media didn't find the former suspicious or the latter, & numerous other crimes, worth reporting.

SLG

Regarding thousands of Albanians protesting for Montenegrin independence, I would prefer to see evidence from a source more independent than the SNS.

According to wikipedia, there is only one region of Montenegro (out of 21) where Albanians form a majority. Is that what you are saying the Albanians are after? I can't imagine how there could be a full Union when the Montenegrins have just voted for independence, and the Serbian population would never go for it.

Neil

Well you certainly weren't going to see it on the BBC but I hopr nobody would call these corrupt Nazi liars independent. Who would you count as a suitable independent source?

At the end of WW2 Albanians formed only 40% of Kosovo's population. now it ahs been largely ethnicly cleansed. If it can be done once then, naturally, the threat is there that they & we will do it again.

SLG

Neil

You are doubting the source - what source would you regard as honestl, assuming we agree that the UK media, having lied deliberately for 16 years to assist Nazis to commit genocide, isn't honest? I don't think you can point to any occasion when the Yugoslav media has failed to prove itself vastly more honest than ours. If you do not accept this source then surely the onus is on you to say what source you would & why.

On the 2nd point - No there was not an Albanian majority then. Tito did prevent 150,000 Serbs who had been cleansed under the Italians, from returning but even than Albanians were only 40%. After the war, being a good multiculturalist communitst Tito allowed essentially unlimited immigration from Albania (a good place to leave), Albanians had larger families & the Albanian community engaged in low level violence against others. With great success. This is also currently happening in Macedonia with obvious NATO support so it would be quite astonishing if our genocidal KLA friends were not to try it in Macedonia & to get the help of our genocidal leaders, again.

SLG

Neil

Firstly I will acknowledge that I have no other source for the riot, which I don't think is particularly surprising since I don't read the languages local papers are printed in & obvioulsy it is unlikely to make our papers. Nonetheless I think it hardly likely that they would have lied about this even had they had a good reason to do so. Montenegro is a very small place & it is hardly likely that riots could pass unnoticed. Any party which made up a story like that which everbody knew to be rubbish would look ridiculous.

On your 2nd point I do not think NATO have been encouraging democracy & economic development so far, quite the reverse, they have been encouraging genocide & economic catastrophe. Albania & Albanins are useful catspaws for terrorising Serbia & as long as they encourage Albanian irridentism they keep them in play. As to why an Albanian would wish to colonise land he moves to for Albania - I am afraid that is just the nasty side of nationalismI

I will accept that I am, perhaps overly, touchy on the subject of the credibility of Serbian or pro-Serbian news sources having seen them always treated as liars & ours treated as being at least somewhat honest. If Serbian news publishes a story about a riot happening I tend to believe it unless there is evidence to the contrary.

By comparison here (part 2)http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2005/02/sod-off-swampy.html is what I think a rether amusing story of how the BBC competely misreported what was legally a riot, reporting verbatim a press release by one of the bodies the BBC, impartially, supports.

SLG

Sorry, I thought I replied to this the other day, the post must not have gone through for some reason.

Neil

We seem to be in pretty close agrement. Logicaly you are quite right that NATO don't need to kill any more Serbs. Unfortunately once you get into a bad habit it gets difficult to stop & it is clear that the EU are still keen on using EU tariff barriers to keep Serbia poor while Rumanin, Bulgaria & even Croatia & Bosnia are being lined up to join. I think the separation of Montenegro was simply that NATO have got used to pulling the wings off flies & cannot trust them not to keep doing so.

Partly this may be the German racial hatred I have refered to before, although to be fair to ordinary Germans there has actually been a public backlash in favour of Serbia - something not seen here. This may be because the Germans at least know a bit of the history of the place while most people here & in the US know nothing beyond the lies the media tell them.

I agree with you about the BBC handling of the swampy story with the caveat that they would never have just taken a story verbatim from one party unless it was a party they were impartially in bed with. Since there are always an ifinite number of stories the BBC rarely have to lie themselves they can merely repeat the lies of approved sources.