By blaming the United States of America (USA) for facilitating the rise of the “Serbian world”—a concept advocating the political unification of Serbs—Milo Djukanovic seems to be intentionally generating adversaries while neglecting his own role in fostering sharp ethnic divides. He conveniently overlooks the West’s support of the “Đukanović world,” which allowed the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) to maintain power while Montenegro succumbed to crime and corruption.

This interpretation of Djukanović’s recent critiques of the US and the West comes from his discussions with “Vijesti,” where he claimed that their approach to the Western Balkans was “completely wrong” and “pro-Russian.”

During an interview with “Al Jazeera,” aired on January 30, he acknowledged the West’s prompt response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, now nearly three years ongoing, but contended that this same strategy has unintentionally bolstered the “Serbian world” within the former Yugoslavia.

“Naturally, one must question why this situation has unfolded. I believe that the Western approach in this area has been fundamentally misguided—highlighting the hypocrisy of attributing this solely to European policies which the United States merely follows. That’s not accurate; this strategy has originated from the State Department, with Europe merely following suit,” Djukanović expressed.

The former leader of the DPS concluded that the US State Department fell short of its objectives—specifically in its attempts to detach Serbia from Russia and to broker a settlement between Serbia and Kosovo that would recognize Kosovo in international bodies. He criticized the fundamental error of assuming that pursuing their self-serving ambitions would suffice, believing “everything else is merely a question of agreement.”

“The essence of the agreement was essentially to permit the authorities in Belgrade to exhibit some regional bravado. They didn’t just showcase it marginally but rather went beyond, employing the very same framework as the former president of Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, in the 1990s, by asserting threats to Serbs in neighboring nations without concern for undermining the sovereignty of those states,” he added.

“We know who the originator of division is”

According to diplomat and former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro Miodrag Lekić, Djukanović seemingly believes he holds relevance in both the current political landscape and future implications, suggesting the judiciary doesn’t trouble him. Consequently, Lekić infers from a recent interview that Djukanović appears to have shed his previously evident, rational anxiety regarding justice institutions.

“He seems to have regained the sentiment he has maintained for decades—that of operating outside the rule of law—and thus, he seems obsessively intent on perpetuating schemes that incite hatred and division within Montenegro,” Lekić asserted.

He remarked that creating “enemies by duty” has been a crucial component of Djukanović’s plutocratic governance, as he has found enemies both domestically and internationally. By generating such adversaries, Lekić argues, Djukanović has systematically fostered national splits, currently perceiving Americans as instigators of ethnic rifts in both the Balkans and Montenegro. Lekić finds this assessment ironic given that, during an extensive period, Djukanović’s actions appeared aligned with American interests…

“It is historically evident that the USA, a recognized democratic nation, has sometimes engaged with compromised individuals and factions for pragmatic objectives. Following the known strategy of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend,’ it becomes irrelevant who these individuals are,” Lekić added.

Recalling that Djukanović’s recent adversaries include Russia “and Serbia, which is viewed as a mini Russia,” Lekić notes the difficulty in grasping Djukanović’s intentions by implicating the Americans in “shifting blame for ethnic divisions and the prevailing sense of ethnocentrism.” Lekić questions whether Djukanović aims to obscure his origins as a primary architect of “harsh divisions in Montenegro using a cynical strategy—divide, divide, and control.”

“Even though the government formed after 2020 was neither capable nor mature enough to acknowledge the detrimental impact of dominant state policies and the ascendance of ethnic particularism in an increasingly fragmented society and state, which poses one of the paramount dangers to both the functionality and longevity of the Montenegrin state—one cannot overlook Djukanović’s pivotal role in this dynamic. All for the sake of securing a numerical majority to maintain his grip on power, entailing corruption and the criminalization of both Montenegrin society and the state itself,” Lekić concluded.

Djukanović’s disdain for the West is not a novel occurrence; he has previously made pointed criticisms of the international community, albeit in less severe tones, asserting that the three-decade governance of the DPS was overturned in 2020 with the “support of the international community,” and maintaining that “superficial international politics can come with substantial costs” and that global partners perceive Montenegro’s condition as slightly improved since Russia’s aggression against Ukraine but still insufficient…

“It’s not criticism; it’s a cry”

In contrast to Lekić, Milena Perović, the editor-in-chief of the weekly “Monitor,” argues that Djukanović’s criticisms of the US suggest he is fearful of the judiciary, and justifiably so.

“A judicial system that is free from political influence, granting it a degree of autonomy. Cases concerning war crimes are unfolding, including those tied to the deportation of Bosnian refugees, which could lead to significant repercussions. Other cases exist, with extensive documentation,” she informed “Vijesti.”

Perović purports that Djukanović criticizes the West, especially the US, because he perceives their policies as having legitimized the “Serbian world,” while intentionally neglecting that this same West previously supported the “Đukanović world,” viewing the ex-president as a “stabilizing factor in the region” while Montenegro “was sinking into crime, corruption, and autocracy.”

“His criticisms of the West, once it forfeited its privileged position, are not genuine critiques but rather a manifestation of desperation. They reek of fear… Montenegro must not choose between the ‘Serbian world’ and the ‘Đukanović world’; instead, it ought to carve out a path toward a genuinely European, democratic society,” she stated.

With the assistance of the West, in 1997, Djukanović distanced himself from Milošević and his nationalistic agendas, which played a significant role during the wars of the 1990s striving to establish a “Greater Serbia,” a notion that segments of the domestic, regional, and international community associate with the “Serbian world” concept.

Following this, Djukanović repeatedly portrayed himself as a “peace factor,” effectively gaining Western support to sustain his tenure in state office and solidify his authority. Numerous instances demonstrate the West’s backing of him, notably the statement made by former US ambassador to Serbia and Montenegro, William Montgomery, in July 2021, in which he revealed that the United States had stationed a ship in Cavtat (Croatia) with a contingent from the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) tasked solely with rescuing Djukanović if Milošević “sought retribution against him.”

Montgomery, in an interview with the Croatian newspaper “Večernji list,” claimed that it was challenging to procure funding to sustain Djukanović’s administration during the 1990s. Consequently, the West opted to permit tobacco traffickers “to operate from Montenegro.”

“We chose to look the other way and refrained from addressing this smuggling,” he remarked, among other statements.

The US Embassy in Podgorica refrained from commenting when approached by “Vijesti” regarding Djukanović’s statements, indicating that they saw “no need for commentary at this time.”

He expresses concern for American democracy as well.

In his interview with “Al Jazeera,” the former Montenegrin official addressed the socio-political climate in the United States, critiquing the newly re-elected president, Donald Trump, as the first leader to “grant substantial political latitude to large capital” and noted how “certain influential figures in American big capital seem to harbor ambitions that extend beyond merely reorganizing America itself.”

“Hence, these ambitions now stray into Europe. We ought to remain vigilant regarding this new landscape. I regard the warnings indicating that the American value system is endangered to be credible. The ambitions of American big business threaten to erode American democracy,” he asserted.

Among the political figures, only the leader of the ruling Democratic People’s Party, Milan Knezevic, responded to Djukanović’s announcements, equating this “attack on the State Department and American democracy to Al Qaeda’s attack on the Twin Towers in 2001.”

Lekić: He first targeted Montenegrins and some minorities, then Serbs

Lekić believes that Djukanović has fostered divisions within Montenegro on two occasions by fabricating enemies. Initially, as “a prominent Serb,” he demonized and politically marginalized Montenegrins and segments of minority communities, and subsequently, “as a (quasi) Montenegrin, he unleashed fierce attacks against the Serbs in Montenegro, who have become perceived as the primary malevolent force within the Montenegrin state.”

“To clarify the term ‘quasi-Montenegrin’—I am referring to groups principally distinguished by two defining features: a virulent animosity toward Serbs and membership in a financial-clientelistic network associated with Djukanović. This predominantly interest-driven faction should be delineated from Montenegrins, a historically recognized people who foster cooperation with others and are prepared to protect Montenegro and its interests in the spirit of its authentic historical tradition.”

Lekić posits that the situation in Montenegro and the Balkans diverges greatly from the USA, where various groups merge into a “compact American nation.” In contrast, he claims that a relatively robust connection through a common destiny has devolved into “fractured ethnic enclaves.” He cautions that this trend is manifesting dramatically in Montenegro, with a population of 620 thousand and, he asserts, it is proceeding dangerously towards an unpredictable and risky resolution.

“Djukanović appears oblivious to his contribution to this scenario. Observe the Americans now. I personally reserve the right to critique American operations globally, including their geopolitical actions post-Cold War; however, transposing their philosophy of ethnic divisions is excessively ambitious and ultimately—unsustainable. It’s futile, particularly when originating from one of their problematic allies, whose allegiance they may not have thoroughly validated. Eventually, I would leave it to them to navigate that phase of relations.”

Perović: Further signs of his fear

According to Perović, it is evident that Djukanović is apprehensive, despite his claims of feeling secure in the interview with “Al Jazeera.” Signs of his anxiety are apparent through his assumed honorary presidency of the DPS (set to occur next week), frequent interviews wherein he laments the country’s fate, and even his family’s active participation in student protests ignited by the recent massacre in Cetinje…

“However, this predominantly illuminates the manner in which the DPS has been operating since the retirement of Constitutional Court judge (Dragana Đuranović). The dramatization of the Constitutional Court events by the DPS, which desperately seeks to restore that court to its previous state—essentially a blockade populated by half of its party judges—exudes panic and dubious intentions. Of course, this does not exonerate the government which perpetuated this court’s political manipulation and interpreted laws in alignment with their interests.”

The DPS-led opposition contends that the Constitution has been violated since the parliament unilaterally declared the termination of Dragana Đuranović’s judicial role in that court in mid-December of the previous year without the necessary notification to the Constitutional Court, resulting from her achieving retirement eligibility. They demand a return to the “status quo,” asserting that failing to do so would impede the functioning of the highest legislative body.

News