Following is the speech of Mr. James Bissett at the conference " Montenegro
at the beginning of the 21st century: between stability and risk" held in
number of cities in Montenegro on July 2-6, 2005
=======
MONTENEGRO SEPARATISM
It is an honour for me to be here today to speak to you about the
possibility of Montenegro separating from Serbia. As a Canadian I am
familiar with the problem of separatism. My country has been dealing with a
separatist issue for almost fifty years. During that period we have learned
a great deal about separatism. We are still threatened by it.
Today I am going to talk about Canada's experience and hope that what I say
might be helpful to Montenegro.
As a former Ambassador to the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia I have
continued to follow events in the Balkans with a great deal of interest.
I am also aware that as a general rule when things go wrong in this part of
the world it is usually when outside powers intervene in the affairs of
Balkan countries. More often than not the outside powers have very little
understanding of or interest in what is happening on the local scene. Their
motives are purely selfish. They intervene to satisfy domestic or foreign
policy objectives that frequently have little to do with Balkan issues.
There are many examples of this in Balkan history: invasion and occupation
by the Hapsburgs, the Ottomans, by Hitler, by Stalin, and more recently by
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and by the United Nations. None of
these interventions that caused so much violence and bloodshed among the
peoples of the Balkans was inspired by genuine concern for the security or
well being of the local populations. Indeed when the Balkans were left alone
and did not become the pawns in deadly international chess games, their
peoples lived together peacefully and in harmony.
The intervention by the United States leading to the recognition of
Izetbegovic's Islamic Bosnia and later the US led NATO bombing of Serbia and
Montenegro over Kosovo had really nothing to do with allegations of ethnic
cleansing or human rights abuses.
The United States supported the Muslims in Bosnia because after the first
Gulf war the Americans were desperate to find a Muslim cause they could
champion. They intervened in Kosovo to prove to an increasingly critical
public that as it approached its fiftieth birthday NATO still had a
dominating role to play in Europe.
There surely are lessons to be learned here. Why did the United States urge
Montenegro to separate from Serbia? Only the naive and innocent would
believe it was because of concern for the people of Montenegro. There were
only two reasons: the first was to weaken the Milosevic regime and the
second was a belief that an independent Montenegro would be more easily
managed and manipulated by the Pentagon.
I believe any objective person would say that these are not good reasons
upon which to base the breakup of a long and mutually beneficial union.
Moreover, in the world of international affairs conditions change rapidly
and policies favoured one day may not be so eagerly pursued later if the
reasons for doing so no longer remain valid. Reasons for separation that
might have appeared valid ten years ago might not be valid in 2006.
The former President of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic is in a jail cell in
The Hague. There is now a democratic government installed in Belgrade. The
European Community is showing signs of concern about the growing number of
states wishing to become members of the Community. More significantly, the
United States has more immediate and pressing problems on its agenda than
Montenegro separatism.
It would be wrong for anyone to assume that the United States today has as
strong and pressing an interest in Montenegro affairs as it did ten years
ago. It would also be folly to believe that substantial financial or
material assistance might be forthcoming that country should separation take
place.
History has surely shown that the United States has friends one day that
become enemies the next. Saadam Hussein, Manuel Noriega and even Milosevic
can all attest to that.
Why then should Montenegro separate from Serbia? There seem to be no
logical or pressing reasons. From an historical perspective most separatism
is caused because one part of the state or nation or an ethnic minority is
being suppressed or mistreated by a more numerous or powerful segment of the
same country. This would hardly seem the case in today's Serbia/Montenegro.
They both share a common history. They speak the same language. They have a
common religion and a common culture. They are linked together by geography.
Perhaps even more importantly they have in the past faced common enemies and
their people have made terrible sacrifices together. These are normally the
bonds that weld a nation state together, not the characteristics that
motivate secession.
My own country has faced a serious separatist threat from the Province of
Quebec. The separatist movement is still strong and continues to pose a
challenge to the Canadian unity. However, Quebec would seem to have much
more reason to leave the Canadian federation than does Montenegro to
separate from Serbia.
The first European settlers in Canada were from France. They arrived in the
beginning of the seventeenth century and established "New France" in North
America, by settling in what is known today as Quebec and in Canada's
Maritime Provinces. In the following century as a consequence of war between
France and England, New France was conquered by the military forces of Great
Britain.
Contrary to the usual standards of that time when defeated peoples were
often treated harshly, the conquered French settlers in Quebec were allowed
to maintain their language, their laws and their religion.
At the time of the British conquest in the 1750's the population numbered
about 70,000 people. Through the years with a high birth rate the population
multiplied. The inhabitants for the most part were rural farmers with a
strong attachment to their language, their land and their church.
They prospered in Canada but never forgot that they were looked upon as a
conquered people. French Canadian nationalism remained a powerful force in
Quebec but did not express itself in a desire to separate from the rest of
Canada until the early 1960's a time of economic and social unrest in that
Province.
The so - called "Quiet Revolution" that took place in Quebec in the sixties
and seventies was not primarily a revolution against Anglophone Canada as
much as revolution against the traditional way of life that had prevailed in
French Canada since the conquest. It was a protest against the dominance of
the Catholic Church and the small and at times corrupt political system that
had controlled Quebec politics. It was a demand to modernize Quebec society
and to enter into the mainstream of North American life.
One of its inevitable manifestations was the formation of a Separatist
political movement. An early attempt by a fringe political group [FLQ] to
use violence [the October Crisis of 1970] was a failure and was repudiated
by the population. However with the emergence of a charismatic leader, Rene
Levesque, the separatists formed a provincial political party called the
"Party Quebecois," and were able to win political power in Quebec in 1976.
Four years later in 1980 the separatists held a referendum in Quebec seeking
approval to negotiate "Sovereignty Association" with the rest of Canada. The
proposal was defeated by 60% of the Quebec electorate.
Sovereignty Association called for free trade with the rest of Canada,
common tariffs and a common currency. It fell short of a demand for outright
independence because all public opinion polls indicated that the majority of
Quebec voters were more likely to support political independence if it
included maintaining an economic partnership with Canada.
During the referendum campaign, however, Canadian political leaders in
English speaking Canada declared they would not negotiate an economic
agreement with an independent Quebec. This tough position adopted by those
opposed to separation undoubtedly played a major role in the decisive defeat
of the separatists in the referendum. It did, however, spell an end to the
separatist movement.
In 1994 Canada entered into the North America Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA]
and as a consequence the importance of an economic association with Canada
was no longer a condition of Quebec independence. It was assumed by the
separatists that an independent Quebec would continue to enjoy the benefits
of free trade with the United States and Canada.
The previous year [1993] the separatists in Quebec formed a national
separatist party, the "Bloc Quebecois" to compete in national elections. In
the federal elections of that year the new party won 50% of the Quebec vote
and 52 seats in the Canadian Parliament. Ironically the Bloc Quebecois
formed the official opposition in the Canadian Parliament. Of course its
primary objective was to promote Quebec independence.
With a separatist party in power in Quebec and separatist party as the
official opposition in the federal parliament of Canada the time was
opportune for another independence referendum. This was held in October of 1995.
The separatists lost again by a very narrow margin of 49.4% to 50.6% but
won a substantial majority of francophone voters. What turned the vote in
favour of the province remaining with Canada was the anglophone and
immigrant vote in Quebec. Most of the non-French voters live in the greater
Montreal area where they account for 14% of the residents. These latter
voters were unanimously opposed to separation.
The narrow victory of the federalists in the 1995 referendum prompted the
federal government to take a more active role in combating separatism. One
of the measures was to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on the
legality under the Canadian constitution of the unilateral secession of
Quebec from the rest of Canada. [The government of Quebec refused to
recognize the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on this matter.]
The Court ruled there was no basis in law for a unilateral secession.
Nevertheless it did find that if after achieving the consent of a clear
majority of the Quebec population on a clear question in a referendum Quebec
could initiate legal steps toward secession. If it did gain a victory the
federal government and the other provinces of Canada would be obliged to
negotiate with Quebec the terms of separation in good faith.
The Court deliberately refused to define what a "clear question" and a
"clear majority" meant, preferring to leave this to the politicians.
In an attempt to clarify these questions the federal government passed a so
- called "Clarity Bill." This legislation was designed to set out the ground
rules for any Province of Canada that wished to secede from the federation.
It was a determination to ensure that the break up of Canada would not occur
in confusion. In other words if there was no clarity there would be no
negotiation.
The Clarity Act did not set out the rules for a referendum. It established
rules for the Government of Canada to follow if a referendum on secession
was held by any province. It obliged the Government of Canada to negotiate
if the referendum was clear and not to negotiate if the referendum was not
clear.
The Act required the Canadian House of Commons to say within thirty days of
a referendum question on secession being announced whether the question was"
clear." Questions that were ambiguous or contained other options would be
rejected. The question would have to ask the voters directly if they wished
to leave Canada.
The Clarity Act also addressed the question of a "clear majority." After a
referendum was held on a clear question the Federal Government would have to
decide if there had been an expression by a clear majority of the voters to
secede. In these deliberations the Government would consider the size of the
majority, the number of voters participating and the views of other
political parties in the Province as well as other matters that might be
considered relevant.
Secession would require an amendment to the Canadian Constitution and this
would involve consultations with the other Provinces of Canada. Furthermore,
no amendment to the Constitution would be proposed unless negotiations with
the secessionist province had addressed relevant issues, such as: the
division of assets and liabilities, any border changes, the rights and
territorial claims of aboriginal peoples and the protection of minority rights.
Looking back at the dreadful violence and bloodshed caused by the unilateral
declarations of secession by Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia, the wisdom of
establishing clear rules for separation seem now to be of critical
importance. The Canadian Clarity Act might serve as an appropriate model for
any country to follow when faced with the reality of secession by one of its
parts.
A further question that must be addressed by those who advocate secession is
whether the secessionist state is viable. Is it economically self
sufficient? Will independence result in its own minorities demanding to also
break away? Does independence threaten its security? Has it the means of
guaranteeing its citizens a decent standard of living and protection from
civil unrest, organized crime and aggressive neighbours?
In the case of Quebec these questions can for the most part be answered in
the affirmative. Quebec is a modern state with a population of seven and one
half million people. It is the largest province of Canada with a vast
territory covering 1,667,441 square kilometers. It has a highly educated and
skilled labour force. It has a vibrant and strong economy with a gross
domestic product [GDP] of more than 145 billion dollars [US].
This level of GDP would rank it among the 20th most industrialized countries
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD].Its
economy compares with Sweden and Switzerland. Its GDP per head compares with
Germany and Japan. Quebec is rich in natural resources and hydro electric
power. It has a thriving agricultural, industrial and service industry. Its
viability as an independent country is without question.
This can hardly be said of Montenegro. Its small territory [13,812
kilometers] and tiny population of only 616,258 makes its viability as an
independent state questionable. Moreover with a considerable minority of
Muslims and Albanians, Montenegro may itself be faced with eventual
separatist movements from within. It would seem that remaining with a larger
Serbia would, from a security point of view alone, be a prudent decision.
The recent history of the Balkans suggests that the region remains more
unstable now than before the NATO bombing. The final decision on Kosovo is
unlikely to result in a satisfactory solution. The future of Bosnia does not
hold forth the promise of a healthy and progressive state. The Pandora box
of a "Greater Albania' has been opened by the events in Kosovo and
Macedonia. Who is to say that the Balkans will not again become the powder
keg of Europe?
There would seem no reason to believe that Montenegro would improve its
chances of entry into the European Community by declaring its independence
from Serbia. On the contrary it would seem evident that the Europeans would
prefer Montenegro to remain part of Serbia. The compromise solution brokered
by the Europeans that led to the current state union would point to that
conclusion.
Secession is never easy and there is a price to be paid for it. At a time
when all of Europe is moving towards closer integration it is difficult to
understand the reasons why Montenegro would want to leave the Serbian family.
I would like to end by quoting the words contained in a declaration made in
November 1918 by the Assembly in Podgorica that led up to the decision that
Montenegro should become part of the new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
"The people in Montenegro are of one blood, one language and one
aspiration, one religion and custom with the people who live in Serbia and
in the other Serbian regions," I think this declaration is reason enough to
convince the people of Montenegro to remain with Serbia. Thank you. J.Bissett
====
Mr. JAMES BISSETT, former Canada's ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and
Albania, one of the foremost authorities on Balkan politics. Mr. Bissett is
chairman of the Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies.
http://www.deltax.net/bissett/
===============
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BalkanNews/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
