For the past two months Montenegro has experienced a series of protests. Driven to despair by unemployment and poverty, citizens demand the resignation of a corrupt government, reforms, fair and transparent elections. But most of all, Montenegrins want the authorities to listen and respect their will.
On September 16th, 2015 the Parliament of Montenegro voted in support of the country's integration into NATO. A national referendum was not intended, because the country's leadership is well aware that half the population would vote against joining the Alliance. It's no secret that membership involves substantial defense spending, bringing national armed forces up to NATO standards, participation in multinational military operations and, truth be told, taking orders fromWashington, which may include providing territory for US military facilities.
The declared benefit of membership is integration into a collective defense system. But from whom must NATO defendMontenegro? Or perhaps the country with a couple of thousands troops is important for theAlliancecombat capability? Lack of naval bases in Mediterranean is not an issue for theAllianceas well. In this regard, it is apparent that drawingMontenegrointo NATO is simply another step in expanding NATO infrastructure, creating a hostile environment forSerbia, and most importantly, withdrawingMontenegrofromRussia's the sphere of influence.
At the same time it's obvious that NATO will do nothing to neither improve the standard of living for the citizens of Montenegro, nor to revive agriculture, nor solve the unemployment problem. In other words, NATO will do nothing to help the country solve its social and economic crises. On the contrary, the inevitable reduction of Russian tourists' flow and infrastructure investments volume, will cause damage to the real estate market ofMontenegro. Illusive hope that membership is going to improve the welfare of the military personnel won't affect the financial situation in general.
So, how do you integrate a country into an alliance against the will of its people? Unfortunately,Brusselshas got just the right tool for the job. One named Milo Djukanovic, the acting Montenegrin Prime Minister. Given his criminal past, and possibly present, as well as the fact that Europeans have got a substantial amount of dirt on him,Brussels, in exchange for an "indulgence", receives a totally "obedient" politician. Milo Djukanovic runs the country for almost 25 years and all this time he has consistently ledMontenegrotowards EU and NATO. In return, Italian prosecutors closed the criminal case against a former smuggler Milo Djukanovic, whileWashingtonandBrusselsare doing their best not to notice the authoritarian and criminal methods ofMilos' regime. Not to mention the complete absence of freedom of speech and total government control over national media, the impartiality of which sometimes can be compared to the state media in North Korea.
The absolute control over the republic's media allows Milo Djukanovic to achieve a number of objectives on both domestic and international stages. Firstly, the Montenegrin prime minister blamed riots and clashes of protesters with the police on the provocative activities bySerbiaandRussia. According to him,Moscowinspires a "color revolution" in an effort to preventMontenegro's NATO integration, whileBelgradeintends to make Podgorica a part ofSerbia. At a time when the entire Western world is "zombified" by anti-Russian propaganda and tries to find "the hand of Kremlin" in any act of civil disobedience, convincing the international community in the Russian intervention to the Balkans is not a tough call.
Secondly, by manipulating the results of sociological research, Djukanovic tries to convince his Western "partners" of the fact that Montenegrins show full support for integration, while protesters are just a bunch of "Moscow-paid provocateurs".
However, it should be noted that in conditions of growing geopolitical tensions and the increasing number of challenges facing NATO, theAllianceis not ready to acceptMontenegro"as it is". American politicians' statements and German "Die Welt" newspaper report, quoting its diplomatic sources, saying that Montenegro will receive an invitation to the block at the beginning of December – are nothing more than an element of information campaign against Russia.
In fact,Brusselshas a lot to criticize Podgorica for, especially in the field of anti-corruption and public support for the national government policy. NATO is worried that a small Balkan country could become a source of great social unrest and discredit theAllianceleadership. The doubt about theMontenegro's integration grew bigger after the incident involving another NATO member –Turkey. By making a reckless decision to destroy a Russian jet in Syrian airspace,Ankaradamaged the image of the entireAlliance. So, what can NATO expect from a criminal leader ofMontenegro, who does not comply with basic democratic values or the free will of citizens?
Thus, soon we can expect the Montenegrin authorities to try and negotiate with the opposition, or, more likely, to enhance measures of preventing anti-government protests. Given that the next meeting is scheduled for November 28th, 2015 it is possible to say, that government authorities will probably attempt to provoke protesters to clash with the police to justify the use of force. The question is - will Brussels justify it once again? After all, NATO leaders are well aware that protests will continue anyway. And joining theAlliance is not the main issue. It's about the demand of Montenegrins to be able to make their own decisions, to be heard. And since Milo Djukanovic does not intend to comply with that, the country under his leadership will continue splitting into supporters and opponents of his policy, only the number of latter will grow every day.
What's the solution? It is obvious that normalization can only be achieved through dialogue between all parties of the conflict. And, provided that neither the authorities nor the opposition are yet ready for direct dialogue, they need an intermediary, one, who must also act as a guarantor of their agreement. As an example, one may consider the "Minskagreement" between the authorities ofUkraine,Donetskand Lugansk republics, which paved the way to stopping the bloodshed in Donbass.
Perhaps it is time forRussiaandEuropeto negotiate once more and calm the next possible hot spot on the Eurasian continent. Especially when the international community faces a real threat of international terrorism.
