Montenegro has challenging problems - from the diverse ethnic and religious structure in a small country to corruption - but I am sure that these are challenges that you can overcome. On the other hand, Serbia's difficulties are potentially greater, which is why Podgorica's decision to restore independence in 2006 was a good one - said the former US ambassador to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), William Montgomery.
In an interview with "Vijesti", he said that the former long-time head of state, government and Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) Milo Djukanovic closely monitored the changing geopolitical situation, and based on that, sought out countries that would help him. He claims that the United States of America (USA) knew about cigarette smuggling to Italy, that the British wanted Đukanović to step down from power because of this, but that he (Đukanović) justified it as the only way to secure funding for the Montenegrin government, because the then leader of the FRY Slobodan Milosevic was "cut off" from state money.
"We obviously knew there was cigarette smuggling... We had to help strengthen the police in Montenegro, because he (Djukanovic) was in control... We had to help Djukanovic a lot," Montgomery said.
Speaking about his friendship with the murdered owner of the Croatian "Nacional" Ivo Pukanić, who reported on cigarette smuggling in which Đukanović was allegedly involved, Montgomery told "Vijesti" that Pukanić's source of information was, among others, a businessman and former head of the Montenegrin Trade Commission in Washington. Ratko Knezevic.
The last American ambassador to Yugoslavia also claims that it was Knežević who led the campaign to get the West to support him in order to succeed Đukanović.
"... He came to Zagreb, to the US Embassy, to formally ask for our support. I said no and I banned him from entering the embassy," Montgomery claims.
He was in Podgorica to promote his memoirs "Nediplomatski životi" (Undiplomatic Lives), published by the Belgrade publishing house "Clio", which he wrote with his wife. Lynn Montgomery.
It will soon be 20 years since Montenegro regained its independence. In several interviews you have said that the West did not support Montenegro's independence in the early 2000s. It is now a member of NATO and very likely the next member of the EU. Do you think that the right decision was made in 2006?
I think joining NATO was the right decision. Independence was the right decision, that's for sure. There's no doubt about that. It's good that it happened.
You were among the first to propose a 55 percent majority for the validity of the referendum on independence. How did you see the situation in Montenegro before the referendum? Did you believe that this threshold could be achieved and that Montenegro would regain its independence?
Well, what I thought was that opinions would be very divided about the referendum - probably with Serbs in Montenegro, who would not want it to pass, wanting closer ties with Serbia. And if it passed by only a small margin - say one or two percent - given the influence that the government obviously had over the media and other advantages, that would create a very bad atmosphere for Montenegro, where many people would not accept the outcome of the referendum. That would be a very bad situation. So I thought it was important that the margin was big enough, decisive, to avoid that problem. And that's why I said "55 to 45".
It's been 20 years since the “breakup.” How do you see Serbia and Montenegro and the paths they are taking today?
As for Montenegro, you have challenging problems. One is the ethnic structure, which is very diverse - you have Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins, Albanians, Bosniaks, etc. You also have different religious beliefs, and all this in one small country that has had periodic invasions, problems with neighbors, etc. So, you have a difficult challenge to unite your country, your people on one path. And that is a clear challenge, which I think you can meet.
Like all countries in the world, you have a corruption problem, but strong measures are needed to convince the people about it. And I think that if you do that, Montenegro is in a very good position, but it depends on the political parties working together, not dividing themselves and getting into a lot of unnecessary issues...
There is a huge problem in Serbia right now with students and protests. The world is watching how this will go, and I am not sure how it will end. The problem is that I don't think the students have a plan for the day after, if they succeed. In some ways, Serbia's difficulties are potentially greater than Montenegro's. I think that is why the referendum and your independence were a good decision.
You were the ambassador to Serbia and Montenegro from 2000 to 2004. During that period, DPS was in power in Montenegro. After you left, it remained in power for another 16 years, until it lost the elections in 2020. How do you see Montenegro today? Do you think anything has changed since the fall of DPS?
The honest answer is that I am here now to promote the book, but I am also here to get to know the situation in Montenegro better. I decided to some extent, when I retired from political life, that I would not comment on Croatian politics, because I lived in Croatia. And I applied that decision to Montenegro as well.
I really don't have a very good feeling about the political situation here. I hope to have one in a few days, after the meetings. But right now it wouldn't be fair for me to comment because it would be based more on some newspaper stories I've read than on personal feelings.
Montenegro is very likely to be the next EU member. If Russia had not invaded Ukraine in 2022, would Montenegro be in the position it is in today? Many say that the geopolitical situation is accelerating Montenegro's accession to the EU, rather than the necessary reforms in the country...
First of all, I would say that the EU is constantly raising the bar for membership. Many EU countries don't really want new members. They're not very happy with some of the last members they admitted. There's a part of the EU, a department, that encourages people to think about membership. But there's a higher level that hasn't yet made a decision on whether that's going to happen. And they're very reluctant to do that.
I've seen stories that Montenegro is the closest, but you'll have to work really hard for it. What they've done is they've made it harder for everyone. That's what they call their soft power. In other words - they give you a lot of things that you have to do to become a member. And they keep expanding them. You have to fulfill every chapter. And then all the EU members, everyone, have to say "yes" to the admission of a new member. And it has to be unanimous, which is a very high standard.
It's very difficult because your neighbors who are in the EU are pressuring you to make compromises that benefit them in order to get in. Slovenia did that to Croatia. And I know Croatia is trying to do that to you.
You have repeatedly called Mr. Djukanovic the most capable politician in the Balkans. You have often mentioned his ability to adapt to the situation. For example, from a young communist he became an ally of Milosevic, and from Milosevic's ally - an ally of the West. From an ally of the West, after the Italians opened an investigation into cigarette smuggling, he turned to Russian investments, and then went back to the West. Do you think that the ability to adapt to the situation is what makes a good politician, or is it more of a trait of a successful businessman?
You must have read my book because your description of what he did is exactly what it says in my book. And he did. I admire him for that in the sense that Montenegro is a small country and it needs support. And he was very attentive to see how the situation was changing and which country would help him.
For example, he saw the problems that Milošević was causing the world. He was closely associated with Milošević, he participated in the invasion of Croatia, and at one point he realized that this was a losing strategy - he changed course. And when Serbia got rid of Milošević, practically all of our interests shifted from supporting Montenegro to Serbia. He saw that reversal, which is why he had to react. I think it was a smart strategy for a small country that needed the support of a larger ally.
Mr. Đukanović no longer holds public office. How do you assess his legacy? On the one hand, he and his closest associates are accused by political opponents of “privatizing” the country and siphoning off large sums of money for personal enrichment, allowing organized crime to flourish. On the other hand, he was a key factor in Montenegro’s independence in 2006, and under his and DPS’s leadership, Montenegro joined NATO...
Well, you've painted an accurate picture of Djukanovic - the positive things he's done and the problems he hasn't solved. So, both sides are correct. I think the danger for any politician who stays in power for a long time is precisely that - that when you're in power and you favor people from your own party to get positions, it creates the wrong atmosphere that leads to the problems you're talking about.
Look at the USA and who is (the president Donald) Tramp appointed as his advisors. Many are disastrous. If Trump stayed in power for 16 years, I can't even imagine how bad that would be. So I think the length of time someone is in power is more of an issue than anything else.
One thing that has been consistently linked to Mr. Djukanovic is cigarette smuggling in the late 90s and early 2000s. You were friends with Mr. Pukanic, the murdered owner of Nacional. That media outlet published a series of articles alleging that Djukanovic was involved in cigarette smuggling. Media reports from that time and later also claim that you allegedly provided Pukanic with information about cigarette smuggling, as a political move to convince Washington that you could prevent the “divorce” of Serbia and Montenegro by “intimidating” Djukanovic. Are these allegations true?
No. It's true that I was good friends with Pukanić. He was a very good investigative journalist. He did a lot of critical stories about Tuđman's government, etc. I happened to be passing by the hotel, looked out the window, saw Pukanić with Ratko Knežević. They invited me in. Pukanić said: “I have a story. I am writing about Đukanović with the help of Ratko Knežević. Will you comment?” I said - no. That was the beginning of the story that I was supposedly part of it. But it was Ratko Knežević, who was close to Đukanović.
When Đukanović broke off the relationship with him, Ratko was very unhappy and turned against him, and he was the source of all this information (about cigarette smuggling). I believe there was another woman, Alka Vuica, who Pukanić met with and who gave him more information. But Ratko was campaigning to get the West to support him. He wanted to replace Đukanović. He wanted us to help him. And he came to Zagreb, to the US embassy, to formally ask for our support. I said no and banned him from entering the embassy.
We obviously knew that there was cigarette smuggling, and Djukanovic explained it at the time as the only way to secure funding for the Montenegrin government when he broke with Milosevic, who then refused to give him (Djukanovic) any state money. We had to help strengthen the police in Montenegro, because he (Djukanovic) controlled the police, while Milosevic controlled the army. So, we had to help Djukanovic a lot. Why it continued later, I don't know...
You talked about the possibility of Đukanović being removed from power after Milošević fell in Serbia. In your book, you wrote that the British wanted to replace Đukanović with another political actor, but that you assessed the situation in Montenegro and said that there was no viable option for his replacement. As you said just now, the US knew that the smuggling was going on. Do you think that this action - or rather the lack of it - later influenced the way Đukanović governed and developed his alleged criminal activities that his political opponents accuse him of?
I don't know the answer to that question. Because the thing is - I don't think our intelligence was as good as many people think. We knew there was cigarette smuggling. We had little information about whether it was continuing. We didn't know exactly what was going on, but we knew the Italians were investigating.
That was a problem for us, but a bigger problem for the British government because a lot of cigarettes were ending up in Britain. That's why they made the decision to separate themselves from Đukanović. And my question to them was: “Who will rationally replace him?” They said, “It doesn't matter to us, all we care about is that he has to go because of smuggling.” My position was: “You have to tell me who can replace him.” I came to Montenegro for a week, talked to all the political parties and saw their positions. I made the decision that it would be very difficult to form a sustainable coalition that would be pro-Western and functional.
Because, again, and I may be wrong - I think the Serbs in Montenegro were closer to the hardliners in Serbia. I thought that would be a very difficult situation.
We talked about your relations with Mr. Đukanović. What, for example, are your relations with Mr. Predrag Bulatović, who was the leader of the opposition at the time? While you are in Podgorica, will you see any old friends from the Montenegrin political scene? Before we started the conversation, we saw you with Mr. Milan Roćen...
Yes, I hope to see Predrag. I had great respect for him. We worked very closely. He was an honest man. He was not an extremist. And as you probably know, I worked very hard with him, with Đukanović and others to come to an agreement on holding elections (in the early 2000s).
Because at that time the opposition was trying to boycott the elections, because the conditions were not fair. Bulatović was very cooperative. He had a list of five demands that we tried to fulfill. I described it in detail in the book. I respected him enough to allow him to visit Washington.
At that time, we also had several NGOs that helped develop political parties, monitor elections, and the like. When they did that in Montenegro, they didn't include Bulatović's party. I practically forced them to work with Bulatović's party as well.
Bulatović had five demands, things he considered wrong. One of them was that the Government should not appoint all the judges of the Constitutional Court, which is not fair - the opposition should have been consulted. The money for political parties to participate in the elections was not distributed fairly and a few other similar issues. We worked on these issues and received satisfactory answers from the Government.
It is easy to overthrow a government, it is difficult to establish one.
In previous interviews, you said that when you came to Budapest in 2000 to take up the position of US ambassador in exile to Yugoslavia, the goal was to overthrow the Milosevic regime. There is a lot of talk now about the ongoing war in Iran. It is another war for regime change in the Middle East. How do you view this situation? Do you think the US should be the “world’s policeman”? Or is the public in America no longer in favor of such a foreign policy?
No, the American public is not for it. We have had a lot of experience with regime change. The further a country moves away from our values and culture, the harder it is. It is easy to overthrow a regime, but we do a poor job of installing a functioning democratic government. And we consistently fail to pay enough attention to ethnic differences. Nor to crime and corruption. And our success is, frankly, poor.
And yet, in the US, people know your ethnicity, but it's not that important - it's important that you're American. That works in the US. But we try to apply it everywhere and it doesn't work. A classic example is Bosnia. Three ethnic groups. We underestimated the strength of ethnic ties. And 30 years later, Bosnia and Herzegovina is still problematic.
You said that the political situation in BiH, but also in Kosovo, is not working. If the current situation is not satisfactory, what is a better solution?
The problem is that it was easier when these problems were alive and the US had an intense interest in solving them with the attention of the leaders there. Now, for example, we have the Dayton Peace Agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Changing that agreement would require strong will and support from major powers. I don't know if that's possible...
If I could, I would first propose three entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. An entity for Croats as well, with a six-year period. After six years, those entities would have a referendum on independence.
You said that the US had identified Kosovo as a sensitive spot in the Balkans back in 1992, and that you wanted the US to focus more on the conflicts that were raging at that time than on Kosovo. How do you see the situation today?
I am very sad that the US and Western Europe did not use more sanctions, economic pressure to Albanians in Kosovo, (Prime Minister of Kosovo Aljbin) Kurti In particular, respect the Brussels agreements and stop the provocations against the Serbs, which I think are still ongoing. Kurti hopes to provoke enough provocation for the Serbian military to intervene. Unfortunately, the US and Western Europe are still very supportive of Kosovo. They should be more forceful in opposing these provocations.
I was not wrong when I said that the Radicals in Serbia have reformed.
What is your position on Aleksandar Vučić's regime in Serbia? At the beginning of the last decade, you said that the former radicals had been reformed. Now the government in Serbia is described as undemocratic, authoritarian. Do you think you were wrong when you said that the radicals had been reformed?
No, I don't think I was wrong. I think that when a party stays in power for a long time, there is a high chance that it will favor people from within the party and that leads to problems. The problem with the student protests is that they don't know what they will do tomorrow, what if Vučić falls, who will take over. I talked to some leaders of the opposition there and they give childish, frivolous answers. For example, one of the more important leaders, a very articulate guy, a university professor, told me: "After Vučić, we have to eliminate all parties because they are all corrupt. We have to change the leaders of all the big companies in Serbia because they are all corrupt too. We have to revise the judicial system. We have to change everything."
But that was not a logical approach. And if you notice, Vučić keeps saying: “Let's negotiate, let's hear what you want.” And the students are not willing to say what they want. And I think that's the problem. The atmosphere in Belgrade has never been worse, at least not since I can remember.
You said that you think that what is happening in Serbia with the protests is not a "color revolution," as the authorities there claim.
That's right. I participated in the attempts to deal with Milosevic or to overthrow him, as well as with some others. I know how it's done. First, you need charismatic leaders with authority who people can look to as an alternative. You need financial support for political parties. You need to train them how to organize campaigns and how to monitor elections. You need to have an organization like "Otpor".
When the protests against Milosevic started, they were organized by a group called “Otpor”. And we gave them a lot of support. So, their role was to protest. But that was only one part of how to overthrow the government, I listed all the other parts. And if you look at what is happening in Serbia now, that is “Otpor”. That is not everything else. That is just “Otpor”. And that is why I think it is not a color revolution. This is “Otpor” 2.0 without anything else.
I advise, I don't lobby in Washington.
There has been a lot of talk about your business relationships and connections with Balkan countries. How do you respond to people who say that you used your diplomatic connections with the political elites of Balkan countries to enrich yourself?
Well, the truth is that when I finished my career, I could have returned to the US, to be a retired ambassador. The job I would have gotten there would have been to work for some NGO or something like that, for not much pay. I love life in the Balkans. And I feel free to offer my advice to different organizations, companies, political parties - if they want.
But the important thing is that I have no influence over the American government. So, in the beginning, they came to me looking for a way to get things done in the American government. I couldn't do that. I can give policy advice and I didn't mind that. But that's different from being a paid lobbyist who then goes and deals with the American government on their behalf. I would never do that. And there are a lot of people who make a lot of money doing exactly that.
Trump has turned the world against America
How do you view the Trump administration and US relations with the EU? Do you think there is a rift on that front?
Yes, and I think it's hurting the world, and most of all the United States. And what hurts me is that the reaction to what Trump is doing, the actions he's taking - it's turned a lot of people around the world against America and Americans. Canadians, for example, a lot of them now dislike Americans because of Trump. And I think that's a shame.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
