by Barry Grey
The government of Montenegro, outside of Serbia the only remaining
republic of the Federation of Yugoslavia, took a major step toward
secession August 5 when it approved a plan to dissolve the federation
and establish an independent Montenegrin state.
Under the plan, the tiny republic would establish its own currency,
assume control over all Yugoslav troops within its borders and maintain
its own foreign ministry. It would remain loosely linked to Serbia in an
“Association of the States of Serbia and Montenegro.”
Montenegrin President Milo Djukanovic and other top officials make little
attempt to conceal the fact that the plan, which they forwarded to
Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, was intended to prepare the
way for a formal declaration of independence later this year. Djukanovic
said Milosevic would have six weeks to approve the proposal. If he
failed to do so within the allotted time, Montenegro would proceed with
a referendum on secession.
The plan has the character of an ultimatum which the regime in Belgrade
cannot possibly accept. Besides the provisions listed above, it demands,
for example, the replacement of the existing two-chamber Yugoslav
parliament with a one-house parliament, in which Montenegro, with a
population of 630,000, would have equal representation with Serbia,
which has 10,000,000 inhabitants.
If the provocative character of the Montenegrin plan recalls the
Rambouillet ultimatum that became the pretext for the US and NATO to
launch their war against Serbia, this is more than accidental. Djukanovic
and his government have for some time functioned as political assets of
the United States, which was the driving force behind the Rambouillet
sham. Just last week Djukanovic met with US President Clinton at the
Balkan Stability Summit in Sarajevo.
Zarko Vukcevic, a member of Montenegro's ruling coalition, said the
plan “represents a major step toward a sovereign Montenegro because
we are moving from the dead end called Yugoslavia.” Asked if the plan
were not an actual declaration of independence, Montenegrin Deputy
Prime Minister Dragisa Durzan said, “It sounds like that to me.”
The US and the European powers have embraced Djukanovic and
portrayed him as an enlightened and democratic counterweight to
Milosevic. This is a farce, one, however, that is dutifully cultivated
by the
Western press.
Prior to his election as president of Montenegro in 1997, when he ran
with the backing of the US, Djukanovic was an ally of Milosevic. His
politics differed in no essentials from the Serb chauvinist policies of
the
Yugoslav president. In its report on the new Montenegrin proposal, the
Philadelphia Inquirer described Djukanovic as “a former communist
and cigarette smuggler.”
Like his forerunners in the other former Yugoslav republics—Kucan in
Slovenia, Tudjman in Croatia, Izetbegovic in Bosnia—Djukanovic came
to the conclusion that the narrow and selfish economic interests of his
clique could best be served by shifting alliances directly to the imperialist
powers. His moves toward independence have no more to do with
democratic principles than the secessionist path taken by his Slovenian,
Croatian, Bosnian, Macedonian and Kosovan counterparts. In all of the
above cases, ruling cliques promoted by the West have established highly
repressive regimes which function as more or less direct puppets of the
great powers. The conditions of the masses—of all ethnic groups—have
generally declined to levels of poverty and social desperation
considerably worse than the already depressed levels that existed prior
to
the breakup of Yugoslavia.
The essential content of Montenegrin independence is revealed in the
economic platform drawn up by the Djukanovic regime. Last month the
Financial Times of Britain reported that it called for “accelerated
privatization, deregulation, protection of private property rights, equal
treatment for foreign investors, and the establishment of a foreign trade
regime open to world markets.”
Bluntly stated, the stunted, economically backward land of Montenegro
is to become a semi-colony of the United States, whose corporations will
have a free hand to plunder whatever natural resources and cheap labor
reserves the new state offers, while US military and intelligence agencies
employ it as a staging ground for new provocations against Serbia.
The proposal to split off Montenegro from Serbia is, in some respects,
more reckless, retrogressive and potentially explosive than the
Western-backed secession of the other republics. With its tiny,
mountainous land mass (half the size of the state of Maryland), scant
population and backward economy, Montenegro lacks any material basis
for independent economic development. On the other hand, its secession
would be a further, and perhaps crushing blow to Serbia. Montenegro
provides Serbia's only access to the sea. Montenegrin ports on the
Adriatic are Serbia's primary trade link to supplies of oil and other vital
resources. Western encouragement of Montenegrin separatism
underscores the fact that the great powers, spearheaded by the US, are
pursuing a policy of strangling Serbia.
There is no Montenegrin “people.” The vast majority of the republic's
inhabitants are Serbs, bound by history, tradition, language and religion
to
Serbia proper. By fomenting Montenegrin separatism and promoting the
myth of Montenegrin nationhood, the US and its European accomplices
are creating the conditions for a fratricidal conflict that could become
even more bloody that the civil wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo.
The US, while prodding Djukanovic forward in order to use him against
Milosevic, is at the same time seeking to head off a precipitous
declaration of Montenegrin independence. Washington's caution in this
regard is bound up with tactical calculations in its drive for domination
of
the Balkans. The Clinton administration may believe its client regime in
Montenegro can, for the present, be more effective in producing the
desired political changes in Serbia if it remains part of the Yugoslav
federation. Moreover, the unstable situation in Kosovo argues against
provoking, at least for now, a new military clash with Belgrade.
Responding to the Montenegrin plan, US State Department spokesman
James Rubin praised Djukanovic for showing “a measured and rational
approach to political and economic reform,” which he said the US
supported. Rubin added, however: “We think that they should continue
to work within Yugoslavia to insure their rights are protected.”
But as the past decade of carnage has demonstrated, once imperialism
has set in motion the process of dismemberment and communal conflict,
it is not necessarily in a position to control the consequences. Those
who
pay the price are the masses of the entire region.
Ninety years ago, almost to the day, Leon Trotsky wrote in his profound
essay “The Balkan Question and Social Democracy”: "The Great
Powers—in the first place, Russia and Austria—have always had a direct
interest in setting the Balkan peoples and states against each other and
then, when they have weakened one another, subjecting them to their
economic and political influence. The petty dynasties ruling in these
‘broken pieces' of the Balkan Peninsula have served and continue to
serve as levers for European diplomatic intrigues. And this entire
mechanism, founded on violence and perfidy, constitutes a huge burden
weighing down upon the Balkan peoples, holding back their economic
and cultural development."
With only a few changes to account for contemporary
circumstances—substituting the United States for “Russia and Austria,”
nationalist ruling cliques for “petty dynasties”—Trotsky's analysis stands
as a penetrating assessment of the tragic condition of the Balkans at the
end of the twentieth century.