President of Montenegro Jakov Milatović claims that in a four-hour meeting with the Prime Minister and former party comrade Milojko Spajić there were no concrete agreements on open issues, but that they converged on some positions. He denies that he participated in deciding with whom the Movement for Podgorica (PzPG) will negotiate and form the government in the capital, saying that this does not mean that he "washes his hands" of them.
He also claims that the turn in the negotiations was not the result of any blackmail against him, neither because of his brother's business in Serbia, nor threats of dismissal, nor the influence of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) and social networks, on which he was threatened with protests in the event that the government is formed with the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS).
"These are frivolous and malicious constructions that have no basis in facts," Milatović said in an interview with "Vijesta" via email.
Milatović does not rule out the possibility of PzPG growing into a state-level party, nor the option of his return to the Europe Now Movement (PES), but he says that is not "primary" for him now, nor has he discussed it with the Prime Minister.
He says that he does not want to believe that the leaders of the former DF Andrija Mandić and Milan Knežević "knowingly work against their country", but believes that "any political platform, which would exclude the civil, anti-fascist and pro-Western orientation of Montenegro... is doomed to doom”.
What was the year 2024 like for you in the political sense, what happened in it that you didn't expect, and what expectations were fulfilled?
For the previous year, as the President of Montenegro, I worked dedicatedly to point out the importance of planned and dedicated action for the benefit of the state and all our citizens.
My goal was for the processes we initiate to be transformational, not just transitional - to lead to essential changes that will permanently improve our society.
In 2024, Montenegro entered institutionally consolidated, at least on paper. The new Government began its mandate at the end of 2023, the new convocation of the Assembly demonstrated its functionality by completing the Constitutional Court at the end of 2023 and the election of the VDT in January 2024, with the important contribution of the opposition.
Therefore, expectations regarding the implementation of significant reform initiatives and the European path were high. The election of the president of the Supreme Court at the end of the year rounded off the election of the highest judicial positions in the country, which had been in acting status for a long time.
However, the political dynamics we witnessed greatly changed the final picture of the year behind us. The government was reconstructed, which, by the nature of things, required additional time for reorganization within the administration, which certainly affected the quality of its functioning.
Thus, Montenegro got its fourth government in four years, which today is one of the most numerous in the world. The Constitutional Court again became incomplete in the middle of the year, the Assembly did not announce a public call for a new judge for half a year, and the constitutional crisis related to the retirement of current judges and the election of new judges, where the Constitutional Committee of the Assembly took over the competences of the Constitutional Court, led to an opposition boycott of the work of the Assembly and its dysfunctionality in the most important period of the year - when the budget for the following year is discussed and adopted.
To summarize, I expected that the year 2024 would bring a more permanent stabilization of institutional and political conditions, which ultimately did not happen. Moreover, the end of 2024 brought a constitutional and political crisis in the country.
On the other hand, I am pleased with the progress that Montenegro has achieved in the process of EU integration. The closing of three negotiation chapters, for the first time after seven years, was good news for Montenegro.
However, I believe that we could have done significantly more here, especially considering the announcements from the beginning of the year by the highest state officials about closing significantly more negotiation chapters.
In economic terms, the year behind us brought an increase in the minimum pension and minimum wage, but also numerous challenges. The increase in wages came as a result of a reduction in pension contributions, which may have far-reaching consequences for the long-term sustainability and stability of the pension system.
VAT on tourism has been increased and an excise tax has been introduced on wine production, which may have negative effects on the competitiveness of our important economic sectors.
For the first time since the restoration of independence, with the exception of the pandemic year 2020, there was a drop in tourism revenue compared to the previous year, which is a serious alarm for all decision makers.
A successfully implemented census was something we should all be happy about. I have already said that I believe that the obtained results reflect the multi-ethnic character of our society and define its civil character as the only possible and correct one.
At the same time, the results of the census showed that demographic policy must have an important place in the focus of decision makers in the coming period, as one of the most important for the future of our society. Montenegro needs a demographic and not an identity policy.
On December 20th, you met in the President's building with the Prime Minister and former party comrade Milojko Spajić and talked for four hours, after which none of you spoke publicly about the details of the meeting. Did anyone else, apart from the two of you, attend the meeting, what were the topics of conversation, what did you agree with Spajić and what did you not, and did you "reconcile" politically at the meeting or are you going to do so?
I understand that, bearing in mind the many conflicting positions that the Prime Minister and I expressed during this year, that meeting caused a lot of public attention. It is true that it lasted a long time, probably for the reason that unfortunately, despite my efforts, it was the only one of its kind in 2024, which I think is not good.
In fact, the fact that the two of us, in the capacity of president and prime minister, met only five times in 2024, once at the beginning of the year as part of foreign policy consultations and talks about ambassadors, three times at the sessions of the Defense and Security Council, and this time, speaks of insufficient institutional communication between the two most important state positions.
Bearing this in mind, I think it is important that, after a long time, we openly discussed numerous topics concerning the future of Montenegro.
The topics were varied and concerned the challenges facing our country, which are well known to the public. Starting with the constitutional crisis in the country, the dynamics of European integration, the functioning of the Defense and Security Council, and ending with economic topics.
The meeting, which was also attended by two of our associates, was good and meaningful, and I expect that in the coming period we will concretize certain things, including more intensive discussions between our cabinets, and thus find solutions to some of the open issues.
Regular communication between the President of the State and the Prime Minister is extremely important, regardless of who performs these functions at a given moment. Our political and personal relations are less significant compared to the need to manage to find a common denominator in every situation concerning the national interest.
Which colleagues were at the meeting?
As during other meetings I have, one of my advisors was present.
So you haven't agreed on anything specific about the "open questions". Did you "reconcile" politically at the meeting or are you perhaps closer to that than before the meeting?
I would say that in relation to certain open issues, we have brought our positions closer together and that concrete developments can be expected in the coming period. E.g. we discussed the necessity of urgently selecting and appointing ambassadors to NATO, and I think that this important issue will be resolved very soon.
A year ago, in a New Year's interview with "Vijesti", you kept silent on the question of whether you trust the prime minister. Do you trust him now, in case you have agreed something, and do you think he trusts you?
Trust is hard to gain but very easy to lose. I would not repeat the reasons for which my trust in Mr. Spajić, during our joint political work, was significantly undermined. After all, my leaving PES, as a joint political project we created, was the culmination of broken trust and a way of working that I did not agree with.
However, regardless of certain disagreements, as a responsible statesman, I am ready to contribute to the establishment of that level of trust that will enable better cooperation between institutions in the interest of citizens and their betterment. In this sense, regular and constructive communication between the president of the state and the prime minister is important, which we recognized during the meeting and which should become a practice in the coming period.
Does the prime minister trust me - that's a question you have to ask him.
We would certainly ask him if he had agreed to a New Year's interview, like this one with you. Does this previous answer of yours mean that you now trust him more than you did before the marathon meeting? Why?
My previous answer is clear.
Who "pushed" you and Spajić to meet and are the claims of those familiar with the political situation in Montenegro correct that your meeting took place with the assistance of some international centers? What are those addresses?
The initial call for an institutional dialogue, which I addressed to the Prime Minister, is the result of my state responsibility and consideration of what each of us can do, as people who cover the most important state functions, in order to take advantage of the important moment in which Montenegro is, and which concerns the need to advance democratic development, preserve its civic character and complete the European path by 2028.
That call is not an exclusive one that only concerned the prime minister, since I have spoken on various topics on several occasions with numerous other socio-political actors, including the President of the Assembly, leaders of opposition parties and numerous deputies.
In the end, it is the duty of the President to lead the conversation. I repeat, due to the history of our political relations, I understand the increased curiosity of the public when it comes to my conversation with the Prime Minister.
Our international partners clearly show us the importance of institutional stability, but also the improvement of institutional relations, as a basic prerequisite for achieving the proclaimed state goals.
In this sense, there is their interest when it comes to the quality of the relationship between the president and the prime minister.
I highly appreciate the contribution that our strategic international partners, primarily the EU, the USA and Great Britain, make in order to support Montenegro on its way to further democratization and the fight against organized crime and corruption.
So you are saying that no one, not even some members of Quinta, suggested to you that you see Spajić?
As I said, during the meetings with diplomatic representatives of other countries, there was and still is interest in the relationship between the two of us, just as there is interest in relations with representatives of other institutions.
I am the President of the country and I make decisions independently, but I always want to listen to our international partners as well.
After the meeting with Spajić and the "reconciliation" in Podgorica, will your criticisms of the Government's work subside or will you continue to criticize them as before?
The motive of my criticism of certain moves of the Government was never contained in the desire to achieve political profit in this way, but solely in the need to protect the public interest from the harmful consequences of decisions that I considered wrong.
The argumentation that I offered for my views has repeatedly proven to be well-founded and justified.
In addition, the reasoned pointing out of bad practices serves as an incentive to improve and improve things in society for the benefit of all citizens.
That is why, of course, I will continue to point out what I judge to be against the interests of citizens and the state. But I sincerely hope that such situations will be much less than before.
At the same time, I will continue to propose initiatives that I consider important, such as those that I presented in the previous period, including the introduction of open lists, compensation for the victims of the Bald Islands and their families, a common platform for Montenegro in the EU, etc.
Is there a possibility, as is speculated in the public, that you will return to PES or that PzPG will merge with it, or do you intend for PzPG to grow into a state-level party?
PES is one of the important segments of my political journey and I will always look back on the time I spent there with a special feeling. I have good relations with many people from PES, and I believe that they do their job well in some of the most responsible positions in the country.
In which direction my further political path will go is a secondary question at this moment.
Primarily, I want from the position of the President of Montenegro, precisely the position that has the greatest political legitimacy in the country, but which also carries with it the greatest burden of responsibility for the well-being of our society, to contribute to the important state processes that are underway, while, of course, I will not run away from responsibility to get involved in political events - when the need arises.
This means that you do not rule out a return to PES. Did you talk about it with Spajić? If so, what did he tell you?
No, we didn't talk about that.
Your political opponents do not recognize the legitimacy you mentioned, calling you an "accidental president", and then, they claim that you certainly lost it, after the list bearing your name received significantly fewer votes in the local elections in Podgorica than did you get the presidential one? How do you defend against it?
I don't know which political opponents you mean. If you are referring to the former government, coincidence cannot happen twice, especially not in the way that the victories that I led in front of PES in the city elections in 2022 and in the presidential elections in 2023 happened.
I derive the legitimacy I have from the huge number of votes I received in both the first and second rounds of the presidential elections, and I do not see it being questioned in any way.
As you know, only the President of Montenegro is directly elected by the citizens, and that election is the only example of direct democracy that I advocate through the idea of introducing open lists.
It is clear that in the previous local elections, the vote was for a new city administration, and not who will be the President of Montenegro.
Why did the PzPG, close to you, form the government in the capital with the government parties from the state level, and not with the opposition with which it overthrew their previous administration? Then why were the extraordinary local elections held in the first place?
This is primarily a question for the Movement for Podgorica. As you know, they make their decisions independently, and they will of course answer to the citizens, as do all other political entities. I understand that repeating the election, although legitimate, was not a good solution because the citizens would suffer the most.
At the same time, as you know, I did not participate in making the decision about the elections, but I understood that the decision to shorten the mandate of the former city administration was a consequence of numerous factors.
First of all, a part of the majority councilors believed that the city is developing at a slower pace than expected. Second, there was a political over-composition within several political entities that constituted the government, including the largest among them - PES - as a result of which the legitimacy of any agreement without holding new elections was questionable.
It can be concluded that the PzPG has become an important factor of the new city government and I would like it if the people who make up it would contribute to a significant qualitative step forward of the new city government, compared to previous practices, guided by the principles of transparency and good governance, which I myself supported in the elections .
MP Jevrosima Pejović said that you are the address that should answer the previous question?
Well, I just answered that question.
The impression is that you are now trying to "wash your hands" of PzPG, even though the list they were on had your name on it and you really participated in the campaign. Is it politically correct? Do you regret participating in the elections in Podgorica that way? Do you think there is anyone besides you who believes that you did not participate in making decisions with whom to negotiate, or that you did not consult with them at all during the process of forming the government in Podgorica?
Of course, I do not wash my hands of the PzPG because these are people I consider my long-term political comrades and in whom I have confidence. These are persons who have a clear political position and who presented the past election process in the capital city.
We also discussed the final decision regarding the formation of a new city government, and their unique position was to support the solution that was finally voted on.
Your question is based on the assumption that in Montenegro, decisions are made exclusively by individuals who have institutional power at a certain moment, which was a multi-decade experience we witnessed.
PzPG councilors are free-thinking people of integrity whom I greatly appreciate and respect, as well as the choice they made regarding the new city government.
Isn't it politically disgusting that PzPG entered into an alliance with parties whose high-ranking officials (especially your former party) until just a few days ago accused you of "treason", claimed that you were "politically buried", and called on you to return the votes that were Did they give you during the presidential elections, etc., while the PzPG announced, targeting those parties, that they would not "negotiate with those who violate the Constitution"?
If I looked at things that way, I could state that there is practically no political party that, at least in some period of my public activity, did not treat what I do in a similar way.
Such manifestations of political bad taste are inherent in persons who are not up to the functions they perform.
On the other hand, violation of the Constitution is not exclusive to any party in Montenegro, but, unfortunately, it is a pattern by which almost all political entities are recognized. Those who in the past criticized numerous unconstitutional actions of the previous government are those who are also knowingly violating it today.
Montenegro is the best example of the fact that the Constitution is needed to defend the minority from the actions of the majority.
Regardless of the above, the interest of the citizens of Podgorica, and everything related to the improvement of communal infrastructure, the protection and planning of space in the general interest, solving the problem of traffic jams, etc., must be placed above the often dreary political everyday life at the state level, and I understood that the formation of the new city government is precisely the result of such an approach.
How did you experience the split between PzPG and GP URA, and the assessment of Luka Rakčević, who led the list with your name - that "overnight" you agreed to the "role of a rag and a pawn" of the ruling parties?
I experienced it as inappropriate and unfounded. I will remind the public that I was the one who, after the city elections in 2022, which were unconstitutionally postponed to October 2022, precisely at the insistence of the constituents of the ruling majority from DPS, URE and SNP, insisted that URA be part of the government, regardless of the fact that it was not necessary for the constitution of the majority. If the SNP had passed the census in the elections that year, I would have invited the SNP to be part of the government.
All members of the then majority accepted my position, leaving aside everything previously done by those parties at the state level, overthrowing the 42nd Government and forming the 43rd Government with DPS.
That is why I am surprised by this tone from a man whom I respect and whom I wholeheartedly supported as a candidate for mayor.
Unfortunately, the citizens did not give Luka Rakčević enough support for the position he was running for. I understood that the URA refused to be part of the new city administration, in which Luka Rakčević would be the deputy mayor. I am sorry for that, because I believe that they could have made a significant contribution to the work of the new city administration.
But PzPG, which is close to you, abandoned the joint platform with them that they presented to the citizens, which states that the mayor should be from their ranks. PzPG gave up on that. How do you think they will cooperate with PzPG and you in the future, after this?
The platform is the initial document with which the PzPG entered into negotiations, and exclusivity and lack of readiness for certain compromises are not a good political approach.
In response to the previous question, I briefly recalled some political processes led by the URA and the history of our relations. I personally believe that this party belongs to the civic center and that instead of burning bridges, it should be one of the actors of the political gathering around the idea of the strength of the civic center.
What was the obstacle for PzPG to form the government in Podgorica with DPS?
The councilors of PzCG evidently had a unique view that the arrangement with the PES-Democrat and ZBCG coalitions is the best choice at the moment, better than going to new elections. URA obviously had a different attitude.
It seems to me that the public was aware of the fact that the PzPG did not respond to the talks initiated by the DPS and the former DF, but to those initiated by the political actors of the wider civic center, including of course the URU, but also the PES-Democrats coalition and the European Union.
I consider this fact an important step forward in the democratic maturation of political actors.
Often in conversation with people, on the street, in the market, in the park, they honestly tell me: "This is how it is now - we didn't vote for this - but everything is better than the return of DPS".
This very sentence is the most important message of a large number of our citizens. Its essence was also my motive to support the list of the united civic center in the elections in Podgorica, and to point out the necessity of the existence of the so-called the third time.
The result of the election was such that the idea - summed up by that one sentence - did not receive enough support in the elections to be able to create processes on its own. Because of this, even after the election, a gap was created between the political constituents within the coalition. One accent was placed on the first part of the sentence, ignoring the continuation, without which the sentence itself would not be complete. Others just put the accent on the second part of the sentence.
The first thought that it was hopeless to be in power with the current ones, and the second thought that it was wrong to think that the former have become better in the meantime than what they were before.
In my opinion, the truth is actually in the completeness of the sentence from the beginning. Citizens want changes, not replacements!
If the goal was to prevent the DPS from returning to power in Podgorica, then why did the PzPG overthrow the previous government with the DPS, and wasn't that giving the DPS a chance to return?
Returning mandates to citizens is always a good decision in situations where the government is dysfunctional and when political regroupings are taking place. That is a basic democratic rule.
If PzPG makes decisions independently, how do you know that they had a unified view that the arrangement that was contracted was the best?
Because they informed me about it.
Has anyone, from the country or abroad, blackmailed you in any way so that the PzPG does not enter into an alliance with the DPS, given that the head of the DPS, Mr. Danijel Živković says that "it is obvious that some serious blackmail took place"?
These are flat and unfounded assessments that are not worth commenting on.
I do not come from a political milieu where blackmail is a way of acting, nor am I someone who would accept that his decisions are the result of anyone's conditioning. On the contrary, the public has been able to convince itself countless times that I am not a supporter of calculations and conditioning, but that I advocate an open political struggle, which, let me remind you, brought me leadership in two great victories over the DPS, both in Podgorica in 2022 and in the presidential elections in 2023. , which crucially traced the democratic development in Montenegro.
The point where the current government has an obvious problem with me is that even now I point out bad practices, and in accordance with the strength I have, I fight against such actions. Of course, I am not omnipotent to correct every "wrong Drina", but I am persistent in this effort.
In informal conversations, some actors on the political scene say that it is possible that you were blackmailed because of your brother's business in Serbia, alluding to speculations about a similar situation in which Dritan Abazović and his brother allegedly were. Others say that they threatened to dismiss you in the Assembly for allegedly violating the Constitution. Many say that you gave in to pressure from groups close to the SPC, social networks, etc. How about that?
I would not pay attention to the topics that you, in your question, call "speculation". These are frivolous and malicious constructions that have no basis in facts.
The public has been able to testify in the past year and a half that I do not hesitate to clearly state my position on numerous issues concerning the development of Montenegro, which is why, very often, there are political and institutional disagreements between me and the parliamentary majority, or me and the former authorities.
Therefore, I did not choose to sit in the chair of the first man of the state and, satisfied with my personal position, remain silent and not hold a grudge against anyone, as many others would do if they were in a similar situation.
If I had calculated, I would not have left the political party of which I was one of the founders, at the moment when it was at the peak of power. I do not trade with the interests of the citizens of Montenegro and with my principles.
Do you think that the "not with DPS" narrative has expired and that party is being rehabilitated by the bad moves of the government after August 30, 2020? How do you view the leadership of the DPS, and do you think that the party is still managed by Milo Đukanović?
I think it is in the general interest that, after all the elections, national or local, we have a different dynamic compared to the one that has been present so far. This implies more conversations, less particular and more general interests.
In my opinion, young people who today are a kind of "frontman" of DPS, in the value vertical, cannot be identified with the bad legacy of the party they belong to.
I got to know many of them through the positions they hold in the Parliament of Montenegro and I appreciate them as good politicians who represent the electoral will of a significant number of Montenegrin citizens.
However, in my humble opinion, that party is evidently in a gap between the past and the future and it does not manage to make a final departure from the shadows of the previous period.
If that were to happen, however, I am of the opinion that the political environment in the country would be significantly more relaxed and productive.
Bearing in mind that you claim that the Constitutional Committee violated the Constitution because, without notifying that court, it concluded that Dragana Đuranović met the requirements for an old-age pension, don't you think that the highest legal act was violated when Đuranović and judges Desanka Lopičić and Budimir Šćepanović decided this summer at the session of the Constitutional Court that they should not retire according to the PIO Act, but according to the labor act? Why didn't you speak out then and warn about the violation of the Constitution, and don't you think that the summer event is the biggest problem in the story of the Constitutional Court?
We are talking about different situations. At the summer session of the Constitutional Court, it was decided which regulation applies to the retirement of judges of the Constitutional Court, and this took place in the place that the Constitution provided - at the session of the Constitutional Court. Then the Constitutional Court found that the Labor Law was applied.
Another situation concerns the taking over of the constitutional jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court by a non-competent body, in this case the Constitutional Committee of the Assembly and the President of the Assembly, which is a completely different matter.
I would agree with you that the biggest problem in this situation is the resolution of the disputed issue concerning the application of regulations on the retirement of constitutional judges. But the only one competent to determine the procedure on this basis is the Constitutional Court.
At the same time, the key question is why the legislator did not further develop the constitutional provision concerning this issue in the Law on the Constitutional Court and finally resolve the dilemma, as all other competences of the Constitutional Court are legally developed.
Do you think it is normal that three judges decided in their case, that is, according to which law they will retire?
I believe that it may not be logical, but it does not mean that it is illegal, and that in practice there are no similar situations. As you know, during the election of the Government, as well as the leadership of the Assembly, individual MPs are in a position to decide for themselves and ultimately vote for themselves.
Maybe this is not logical, but it is not illegal and no one has disputed that so far. And these are not the only examples of this practice.
When will you publish an advertisement for the successor of Judge Šćepanović and do you think that he has already acquired the condition for an old-age pension?
I am obliged to do it within 15 days from the day I received the notification from the Constitutional Court and I will fulfill my constitutional obligation within the stipulated time. Article 154 of the Constitution of Montenegro is clear in that part, and it states in paragraph 3 that the occurrence of reasons for termination of office or dismissal shall be determined by the Constitutional Court at its session.
But the Constitutional Court did not determine this, and considering the constellation of relations/attitudes in the Constitutional Court, it will be difficult to collect four votes to make any decision on this. When will the person who is elected by your public invitation take office, immediately after the election or on May 31 of this year?
I received a clear and unanimous opinion of the Constitutional Court from the session of December 25 that the conditions have been met for announcing a public call for the election of a judge of the Constitutional Court to fill the position of judge Budimir Šćepanović, for which the President of Montenegro is responsible, and I will, in accordance with the Constitution and fulfill that obligation by law.
It is not rare that after official visits abroad, you make statements or announcements in which you more or less openly criticize the Government. Do you also do that at those meetings, and is it appropriate to do that in front of foreign officials and abroad? Why?
I know which specific meetings you mean.
During my intensive international agenda in the previous year, through an active role in the process of European integration, I tried to contribute to the achievement of our key strategic goal - membership in the European Union.
In this direction, I advocated the acceleration of reform processes, the strengthening of the rule of law and the construction of a stable society based on European values and standards.
At the meetings I have as part of my foreign policy agenda, topics concerning internal reforms are often discussed, especially when it comes to fulfilling the conditions for Montenegro's membership in the EU or our credible membership in the NATO alliance.
In this sense, the interlocutors are very well acquainted with the dynamics of the reforms we are implementing and are interested in an open discussion. I'm not someone who avoids difficult topics, nor am I someone who "hairstyles" the situation where problems evidently exist.
The public testifies that on many occasions, through institutional action, I have presented criticisms regarding certain decisions of other state bodies, including the Government, which is therefore available to interlocutors from other countries.
As a reminder, I considered that the adoption of the Resolution on Jasenovac was against our national interests. You remember that that Resolution was not adopted even in the Serbian Parliament, due to the same reasons that I stated, which meant the collapse of good neighborly relations with the Republic of Croatia.
Also, the President's cabinet presented an analysis concerning worrying trends that call into question the democratic progress achieved in the country so far after the change of government in 2020, including the adoption of laws without public discussion and consultation with citizens, politicization of institutions through the legal framework, illegal appointments and dismissals , non-completion of the election process in Šavnik, etc.
The last example is the constitutional crisis that arose from the assumption of jurisdiction by the Constitutional Court. All these topics were part of the interest of our partners from the EU or member states.
Another example of concern on my part as the President of the country, but also on the part of our strategic partners, was in the case of the appointment of a new acting director of ANB.
The opposition also announces activities "outside the institutions" in the fight against the "constitutional coup", alluding to the protests. Will you support those eventual protests, and if so, in what way? Will you join them?
The outcome of the session of the Constitutional Court on December 25, at which it was unanimously determined that the conditions for announcing a public call for the election of a judge to fill the position of judge Budimir Šćepanović, for which the President is responsible, can and should be an incentive for everyone to give their full contribution overcoming the institutional crisis and returning to regular constitutional and legal frameworks.
As before, I will act within the limits of my competences, trying to contribute to the resolution of this crisis with a constructive approach. On this occasion, I had a conversation with the leaders of the opposition and the Prime Minister, as well as with the members of the Constitutional Committee.
I advised the Prime Minister to take a serious and responsible approach to solving the emerging crisis.
Will you support those protests, if there are any, and you and they have the same position on the procedure of retiring Judge Dragana Đuranović before the Constitutional Committee?
As I said, I have already spoken with representatives of the government and the opposition, and I am ready to contribute additionally to the resolution of the emerging constitutional crisis.
What kind of relations do you have with the head of the parliament and the New Serbian Democracy, Andrija Mandić, and what do you think might be the consequences of him, as you claim, dictating processes within the parliamentary majority?
I have a correct institutional relationship with Mr. Mandić, which boils down to institutional cooperation between the President of Montenegro and the President of the Parliament of Montenegro.
It is known to the public that in his actions he represents and imposes the program positions of his party, which due to political inexperience or simply indifference of other government constituents, are perceived as the dominant positions of the current majority. In most cases, I personally do not belong to such a worldview.
I believe that some high-ranking officials of that party often have activities in which they present positions that deepen divisions, disturb inter-religious harmony and collapse good-neighborly relations, which is not in accordance with the state interests of Montenegro.
It has been shown that identity themes, which are often accepted by the constituents of the parliamentary majority, can significantly slow down the further democratization of the state and its European path.
I believe that the focus of all decision-makers must be on reforms, European integration, preservation of civic character and multi-ethnic harmony, building a legal state and a society of equal opportunities.
There is not much you can do to stop him and his officials from doing this. Do you think that Spajić can do something, as well as, if this continues, that he and other leaders of the coalition should also consider terminating cooperation with that party and Mr. Mandić in power, because by doing so they violate the coalition agreement they signed?
This is a question for Prime Minister Spajić and for the other constituents of the parliamentary majority.
The President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, is considered by many to be a destabilizing factor in the region, especially because of his alleged ambition to regulate internal affairs in the surrounding countries and ties with the Kremlin. Are there any political leaders in Montenegro who could, in case of need and at Belgrade's request, stop its European integration or cause unrest. If so, who are they? How can this be prevented?
I do not want to believe that there are individuals or political groups who consciously work against their country. If such attempts were to happen, I am sure that there would be strong resistance from that part of Montenegro that inherits European and civil values.
Any political platform, which would exclude the civil, anti-fascist and pro-Western orientation of Montenegro, has no political perspective and is doomed in advance.
Do you mean that Mr. Mandić and Mr. Knežević and their political groups and officials, "unknowingly" on that platform with their insistence on identity issues, the law on dual citizenship, the resolution on Jasenovac, the glorification of the Chetniks, the mention of "Turks", etc.? Is the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro, which many consider a political group, "unknowingly" on that platform?
Each political entity has its own program goals that it tries to impose as topics of national importance. In this sense, neither Mr. Mandić nor Mr. Knežević are exceptions.
The Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral and other dioceses of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro enjoy the great trust of citizens, and that is a fact that no one can dispute.
As I have said several times so far, Montenegro is a secular society, so I believe that no religious organization should be an actor in political processes.
In Serbia, according to the opinions of many experts, the power of Mr. Vučić, due to the fall of the canopy and the death of 15 people in Novi Sad and the increasingly strong protests of students and citizens as a result. Do you support these protests? What consequences could further destabilization of the situation in Serbia have for Montenegro, and what would a possible change of government be?
I was deeply moved by the tragedy that happened in Novi Sad and I sympathize with the pain of the citizens of Serbia on that occasion.
I do not want to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, not even the Republic of Serbia. I expect a reciprocal relationship from other countries towards Montenegro.
I have the impression that the authorities in Montenegro, including you, hesitate to respond more harshly in situations where it is obvious that Mr. Vučić and the regime in Serbia are meddling in local internal affairs, to mention meddling in local elections, Vučić's attempt to incite inter-ethnic hatred in the case of Balijagić, holding lessons after the summit in Tivat, etc. Why is that so?
I have talked about this topic many times and I really don't want to repeat myself. I have diplomatic relations with Vučić, as well as with other officials of other neighboring countries, which serve to preserve and improve good neighborly relations.
The question is whether Spajić, Mandić and Knežević can solve the problem with Croatia
How to resolve disputes with Croatia so as not to block further European integration? What can you do here, and what can the Government do? What did the Prime Minister of Croatia say to you, Mr. Andrej Plenković during the recent meeting?
It is necessary to start solving all open issues as soon as possible. Therefore, it is necessary to solve the problems simultaneously with the process of fulfilling the final criteria for EU membership.
What the Government can and should do is to stop making unilateral decisions that could further worsen the situation, as was the case with the Resolution on Jasenovac, which damaged relations with the Republic of Croatia, resulted in a slower pace of our EU integration and worsened the negotiating position of Montenegro in relation to Croatia in the part of resolving existing open issues.
However, the question arises whether those who created the problem can also be the ones who can solve it.
As far as I am concerned, I will use the excellent relations I have with President Milanović and Prime Minister Plenković to the maximum extent possible, in order to contribute to the improvement of bilateral relations between the two countries, which are, at the moment, undoubtedly at a bad level.
Who made everything a problem? Are they more guilty Mr. Mandić and Knežević, who requested the adoption of the Resolution on Jasenovac or Mr. Spajić and Mr. Bečić, whose MPs voted for it? Who else but them can solve the problem with Croatia right now? Voices are coming that Zagreb will not allow Montenegro to enter the EU with Mr. Mandić in power.
I absolutely agree that a problem has been created and that, above all, it is up to the executive to face the consequences that have arisen.
I think that the blame for that reckless move is shared and that the state interest should have been taken into account much more.
Will you make a move to ask Plenković and Milanović to solve some important issues for Montenegro, such as the torture of its citizens in the "Lora" camp?
I am of the opinion that we must, as soon as possible, start solving all open issues with the Republic of Croatia. I expect that all topics that burden our mutual relations will be nominated on both sides of the table and that they will be discussed in good faith and openly.
Professionals for ambassadors, I suggested some good ones
Since the beginning of your mandate, the problem of vacant ambassador positions has not been solved. The government accuses you of not being in charge, but of you, and even of not allowing ambassadors to go to countries from which they have already received agreements. What's the problem? It is speculated that you sought to identify several of "your" candidates. Is that correct?
The appointment of ambassadors is a shared responsibility between the Government and the President of Montenegro, with the President having the final say. I am a supporter of the professionalization of the diplomatic network, to the maximum extent possible, so that its operation is a function of state and not party interests.
I agree that the process is going slower than it should be, but the reasons for this should not be sought from the President of Montenegro.
If I had not approached the government's candidates with the utmost caution, now in the positions of ambassadors there would be individuals whose views deviate diametrically from the foreign policy orientation of the state, as well as citizens of other countries, which would have endangered the state interest of Montenegro.
I will remind you that for a long time there have been two proposals for ambassadors in Belgrade and Pristina in the Parliament. Also, I believe that in the coming period, situations from the past where the credentials of some of the candidates for ambassadors were requested without the consent of the president will not occur.
Do you have your own candidates for ambassadors, say someone from your current cabinet? Have you discussed this with the government representatives?
I do not have my own candidates, because in this procedure the President of Montenegro is not the proposer of candidates for ambassadors.
However, during foreign policy consultations with representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it is no secret that I suggest that individuals be considered who I believe would make good ambassadors.
Krapović should leave Lazarevic alone, we will see if the prime minister will stand behind the minister
How do you think you and the Prime Minister will resolve the dispute that threatens the work of the Council for Defense and Security and the constitutional order?
In the coming period, I expect intensive communication with other members of the Council on this occasion, in order to make the work of that body even more efficient. I believe that the first necessary step in this sense is for the Minister of Defense to withdraw the decision that prevents the Chief of General Staff from performing his function in full capacity in the way he was elected by the Council, or for the Council to pass a decision ordering the Minister to do so.
Mr. Krapović claims that he will not do that, and that the Council is not competent to order him to do anything regarding the NGŠ, but that it is exclusively him? I doubt that the Prime Minister will not stand behind his minister, so it is unlikely that the dispute will be resolved that way? Or maybe the prime minister told you that he would agree to such a solution?
The time ahead will show whether your doubts are justified and whether a compromise solution will be sought.
Why does the Council not make any decision on the dismissal of the Chief of the General Staff, whether to reject or accept the request of the Minister of Defense, but this situation "neither in heaven nor on earth" reflects on the situation in the Army and sends a negative image of the country, in whose supreme command three Man, they can't agree on other issues either?
At the moment we have a Chief of the General Staff who will soon end his military service, so the first important task is to discuss his successor. The selection of the first man of the Army of Montenegro must be the result of a thorough analysis and a responsible attitude towards the Army as a pillar of our statehood and sovereignty.
Montenegro is a part of the NATO defense system and any improvisation regarding the personnel solution at the head of the Army, as was the case with the election of the acting director of the ANB, is inadmissible and against the interests of Montenegro, and I will not allow it to happen.
General Lazarevic, as long as he performs the function of Chief of the General Staff, must be able to fully perform the tasks entrusted to him by law.
Even if he is being prosecuted on the minister's charges, including trying to import a private motorcycle with a military vehicle?
Let's leave it to the competent authorities to examine these applications.
Bonus video:
