This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BELGRADE 000054 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL MW SR
SUBJECT: MONTENEGRIN INDEPEDENCE REFERENDUM NOTES: EU ENVOY 
LAJCAK PROPOSES 'KEY PRINCIPLES' 
 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED - PLEASE HANDLE ACCORDINGLY 
 
REF: 2005 Belgrade 2185 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary: EU Envoy Lajcak has widely circulated 
"Key Principles" for the referendum process, which have 
even appeared in the press (text below).  Lajcak told 
Consulate January 12 that he is focused on "parliamentary 
and systemic" solutions, rejecting opposition proposals for 
a national unity government and placing opposition "co- 
heads" in police and media bodies. Lajcak says the talks 
will start January 23, and believes they can be concluded 
by the end of February, which would allow a vote by the end 
of April.  Lajak's confident planning to a referendum is a 
refreshing change from earlier EU hopes to see the vote 
postponed.  We should support Lajak's efforts not only to 
reach the necessary compromise, but also to plan the 
implementation of the referendum.  End summary. 
 
Meetings to Start January 23 on "Technical" Issues 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶2. (U) Lajcak told Consulate Podgorica January 12 that the 
process of working out the rules for the referendum would 
start January 23. (Discussions about alleged irregularities 
in a December 29 local by-election will occupy Parliament 
the week of January 16.) The talks will start with a focus 
on "technical" issues such as access to the media, and be 
conducted in the Parliament building, with Lajcak (at least 
initially) shuttling between the government and the 
opposition. Talks will also be held at the party leader 
level. Lajcak expects talks to conclude by the end of 
February, with agreement reached both on how to strengthen 
the legal framework and on non-binding issues, such as an 
agreement that MPs will respect the results of the 
referendum vote in any post-vote parliamentary decisions 
(Reftel). 
 
¶3. (SBU) Speaker of Parliament Ranko Krivokapic told Lajcak 
he would finesse the issue of the February 7 parliament 
session, at which the GOM initially planned to formally 
table the President's request for an independence 
referendum.  The session will be called into order, and 
immediately adjourned, according to Krivokapic's proposal. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Lajcak has rejected opposition proposals for a 
national unity government, or placing opposition "co- 
chairs" in the police and public media, noting that 
acceptance of such proposals would imply that Montenegro's 
systems and structures are inadequate and do not meet 
European standards.  He said the talks should focus instead 
on "parliamentary and systemic" solutions. 
 
Referendum: Legitimacy of the Vote 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Lajcak will defer discussion of qualified 
majorities, super-majorities, and the like, until later in 
the talks.  He observed to our Consulate that there was no 
sense in a "compromise" figure between having independence 
approved by 40 percent of registered voters (the GOM 
position), and 50 percent plus one (the opposition 
position). (Comment: If forced to arbitrate, we suspect but 
do not know that Lajcak would pick 40 percent.)  Lajcak is 
also considering a third course, where the referendum poses 
two alternative questions. The first would ask if the voter 
supported Montenegrin independence, and the second whether 
the voter supported continuation of the State Union.  Each 
voter would vote yes on either question one or question 
two.  The referendum vote would be valid if 50 percent plus 
one of all registered voters cast a ballot. In that event, 
whichever question got a majority of votes cast would win. 
Lajcak observed that this avoids the problem where voters 
who abstain, for any reason, essentially count as "no" 
votes. 
 
The Belgrade Angle 
------------------ 
 
¶6. Lajcak noted that he met with Serbian PM Kostunica's 
advisors Samardzic and Jankovic on January 11.  They 
stressed that Serb People's Party (SNS) leader Andrija 
Mandic is "ready to talk" to Lajcak.  Lajcak added that as 
long as Mandic was abstaining from the parliamentary 
discussions, he saw no need to reach out to SNS.  Lajcak 
observed that in his meetings with the rest of the 
opposition on January 12, they were "not worried" about the 
SNS boycott of the talks.  To the contrary, they appeared 
"happy to have the SNS sit this one out." 
 
Post-Referendum Realities 
------------------------- 
¶7. (SBU) SaM President Marovic told Lajcak he was concerned 
that "no one cares about the day after" the referendum. 
Lajcak told Consulate officers that Serbian PM Kostunica 
was particularly determined not to do any planning for the 
post-referendum period, regardless of the outcome.  That 
does not mean that Kostunica is neutral however, observed 
Lajcak, who agreed with our suggestion that the Serbian 
media should be asked to follow the "code of conduct" 
developed for the Montenegrin media. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Based on our conversations, we agree that some, 
but not all, pro-Union politicians are refusing to think 
about the day after.  Others, particularly SNP leader 
Predrag Bulatovic, are quietly sniffing out survival 
strategies following a potential loss in the referendum. 
Pro-independence politicians are developing detailed 
strategies for either contingency. 
¶9. (SBU) The number of issues Ambassador Lajcak intends to 
address before a referendum is announced is daunting (para. 
10), but he is confident the task is doable by the end of 
February.  True enough, assuming the political will is 
there.  We have been impressed so far by Lajcak's grasp of 
the issues and his diplomatic skills.  His efforts so far 
deserves our support, both in achieving the political 
compromise and in implementing the referendum itself. 
 
¶10. (U) Full text of Ambassador Lajcak's key principles 
follows. 
 
Begin text: 
 
KEY PRINCIPLES OF A DEMOCRATIC REFERENDUM PROCESS IN THE 
REPUBLIC OF MONTENEGRO 
 
Below are some fundamental issues/principles of a 
democratic referendum process, which we suggest to be 
considered prior to the announcement of a referendum. 
 
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 
 
The legislation applicable to conducting the referendum on 
the state status should be improved in line with OSCE/ODIHR 
and Council of Europe recommendations to ensure that the 
legislative framework is comprehensive, detailed 
unambiguous.  The current Law on Referendum should be 
either amended or, alternatively, a special law on 
referendum on the state status could be adopted. 
 
Provisions promoting a level playing field in referendum 
campaign should be introduced in the relevant legislation. 
 
MAJORITY REQUIREMENTS 
 
Consideration should be given to adoption of some specific 
majority that should be required to decide on the state 
status. 
 
REFERENDUM QUESTION 
 
The wording of the referendum question should be clear and 
precise.  Procedure for adoption of a referendum question 
should be detailed in the law.  Holding of a referendum 
with two alternative questions (with positive options only) 
could be considered. 
 
REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN 
 
Detailed regulations should be introduced to specify all 
aspects of the referendum campaign.  In general, the 
provisions regulating the conduct of the referendum 
campaign should ensure transparency of the process and a 
level playing field.  The regulatory framework should 
provide for both sides (YES and NO) to have equitable 
campaign opportunities. 
 
State and political party functions should be separated. 
Any form of discrimination or political pressure on public 
employees should be clearly prohibited.  Police should 
ensure absolute neutrality. 
 
ACCESS TO MEDIA 
 
Both sides of the referendum spectrum should have equal 
access to campaigning on public radio, television and print 
media.  Public media should undertake non-partisan voter 
information activities and grant free airtime to the YES 
and NO campaigns on an equal basis.  Coverage of the 
referendum in the public media should be politically 
balanced and unbiased.  The private media organizations 
should develop a Code of Conduct on good editorial 
practices to be signed and observed on a voluntary basis. 
Regulatory and self-regulatory bodies should be empowered 
to sufficiently implement the regulatory framework, warn 
and adequately act upon breaches of applicable legislation 
and standards by the media during the referendum campaign. 
Paid political advertising in the media should be clearly 
marked. 
 
FINANCING OF THE REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN 
 
Provisions contained in the Law on Financing Political 
Parties regarding campaign expenditure limits and reporting 
requirements should be reviewed to assess their application 
to referendum campaigns.  The manner of scrutinising 
campaign accounts should be set out in the legislation 
regulating the referendum, with a view to guaranteeing full 
transparency. 
Imposing limits of individual donations for referendum 
campaigns should be considered.  Political parties, which 
will choose not to participate in the referendum, should 
not receive public funds for the referendum campaign. 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF THE REFERENDUM 
 
Plurality of political interests should be guaranteed in 
the membership of the referendum administration bodies at 
all levels (republic, municipal and polling boards).  No 
political party should be in a position to dominate the 
administration of the referendum. 
 
The legislation should ensure that all eligible citizens 
are granted the opportunity to vote, including hospitalised 
persons and voters serving the military on the territory of 
the Republic. 
 
The referendum results should be published promptly after 
the holding of the referendum.  Consideration should be 
given to measures, which would enhance the transparency of 
the tabulation (and recounting) of the results. 
 
OBSERVATION OF THE REFERENDUM PROCESS 
 
The authorities calling for a referendum should invite, in 
a timely manner, the relevant international election 
observer organizations, including OSCE/ODIHR, the Council 
of Europe and the European Parliament.  In addition, 
domestic monitoring organizations should be accredited to 
observe the entire referendum process. 
 
End text. 
POLT