I
begin with what I believe should be three defining characteristics of the
Montenegrin foreign policy.
First, it should be humane. This means that it must
value the human dignity of each individual, respect the right of every human
being to a serene and prosperous life, and articulate the commitment to the
tolerant and peaceful coexistence of all the differences in the world.
Secondly, it should be rational. It should promote the values of scientific
development, technological progress, and global solidarity in the distribution
of material resources.
It should demand global disarmament and the
establishment of the international mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of
disputes.
And, thirdly, it should be intellectually honest in its
deconstruction of the prevailing rhetoric of freedom, democracy, and human
rights which most often hides the geopolitical interests of major world powers
and the oligarchic elites which direct them.
I
believe that these three defining characteristic of the Montenegrin foreign
policy can best be expressed through the commitment to the military neutrality
of Montenegro. Here I will note at least three reasons.
First,
can anybody seriously dispute the humaneness of the non-participation in
violence and war and the promotion of the peaceful resolution of disputes?
That
this is not possible is also understood by those in Montenegro who oppose
military neutrality. This is why they claim that by entering NATO, Montenegro
would never again participate in wars.
However,
this claim is false. In the last twenty years, NATO participated in at least
three wars and its most powerful members logistically supported several more.
This means that NATO membership requires that the Montenegrin tax payers bear
the burden of financial participation in war operations.
Instead of being
invested in education and retirement benefits, in health and disability
insurance, the taxpayers' money would go into purchasing machine guns, bombs, and
armoured car vehicles.
Montenegrin soldiers would be put in danger of getting
wounded or killed far away from their families and homes, in the deserts of
Asia and Africa.
The vast majority of Montenegrins would be subjected to
emotional, psychological traumas, while the spoils of war would be split
between the global capitalist oligarchies and their corrupted puppets in the
Montenegrin government.
And, as it always happens, the children of the poor
would be sent to the frontlines, while the children of the rich would be able
to get away. Do we want that? Is that humane?
Secondly,
if, so far, we have concluded that neutrality is essentially humane, we still
have to check whether it is rational given the existing economic constraints.
The opponents claim that NATO membership costs less than military neutrality.
Is their claim true?
One look at the military budgets of the militarily neutral
European countries is enough to show that all of them spend on defense less
than the NATO standard of 2 % of the GDP.
According to publicly available information, Ireland spends 0.7%, Austria 0.8%,
Switzerland 0.9%, Finland 1.4-1.6%, Sweden 1.5% and Malta 1.7%
And not only
that. It is important to note that the vast majority of citizens in these
countries, which are all, except Switzerland, also the members of the European
Union, strongly supports the policy of military neutrality.
It is evident that
for these citizens, military neutrality is not only a humane, but also a rational,
choice.
The
interplay of humaneness and rationality is the ideal of all political
communities. The policy of military neutrality enables the attainment of at
least one dimension of that ideal.
However, the question remains as to what extent
this policy is intellectually feasible and pragmatic in the current Montenegrin
political context.
Does this mean that if Montenegro does not enter NATO, it
will somehow remain outside the community of democratic countries, left at the
mercy of the corrupt, authoritarian regime embodied in the rule of the prime
minister Milo Djukanovic, who has been in power for the last 25 years?
The
answer to this question makes necessary the honest appraisal of the fact that
those countries which are democratic in their domestic political order often do
not behave particularly democratically in the sphere of international
relations. They generally have one standard for their citizens and another for the
rest of the world.
If one carefully examines the conduct of the foreign policy
of the United States, one can find many instances in which the US has broken international
agreements, including the Charter of the United Nations.
The documents made
public by Edward Snowden, for instance, show that the institutions of the US
government in a shocking manner violated the right to privacy of tens of
millions of people around the planet.
Can we therefore have a great deal of confidence
that the activities of the US government, or the government of any NATO country
for that matter, can be taken as the model of democratic behaviour and respect
for international law?
On
the other hand, neither the socialist Yugoslavia, nor many of the countries in
the Non-Aligned Movement, were democracies by the standards of the official
Washington, but did they not give an immeasurable contribution to the
improvement of the quality of life on Earth as well as to the prevention of the
nuclear Armageddon between the two superpowers?
Today, for instance, the BRICS
countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) play a more positive
role in the search for the more just distribution of global resources and the
fight against poverty than the countries which founded NATO.
This
is why it is intellectually disingenuous to claim that by not entering NATO,
the democratic development and economic growth of Montenegro will be in any way
slowed down or stopped.
Military neutrality means open and friendly cooperation
with all countries, while respecting mutual interests and reflecting universal
values.
In my opinion, it is the only authentic road to the prosperity of
Montenegrin citizens and the respected status of Montenegro in international
affairs.
It would make Montenegro into the place of reconciliation and credible
cooperation between the West and the East. It is therefore a humane and
rational and wise foreign policy choice.
Filip Kovacevic, PhD;
