VZCZCXRO7646
PP RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN
RUEHLZ RUEHNP RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHPOD #0037/01 0411927
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 101927Z FEB 09
FM AMEMBASSY PODGORICA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1153
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHPOD/AMEMBASSY PODGORICA 1241

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PODGORICA 000037 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EUR/SCE AND PRM/ECA (MATTHEW R JOHNSON) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREF PHUM PGOV PREL MW
SUBJECT: MONTENEGRO'S KOSOVO IDPS:  STILL IN LIMBO 
 
REF: PODGORICA 026 
 
PODGORICA 00000037  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Recent statements by President Vujanovic have 
drawn attention to the more than 16,000 refugees from Kosovo - 
called internally displaced persons (IDPs) by the GoM - still on 
Montenegrin soil.  Because of security, legal, and economic 
concerns, very few have returned to Kosovo since 2001.  While 
some ethnic Montenegrins and Serbs have integrated into 
Montenegrin society, a large number of IDPs, particularly Roma, 
live in miserable conditions.  Almost none of the IDPs have seen 
their status legalized.  END SUMMARY. 
 
 
 
Vujanovic Draws Attention to Sensitive Issue 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶2. (SBU) President Vujanovic told the press on January 5 that 
prior to the establishment of diplomatic relations with 
Montenegro, the GoK should grant more rights to Montenegrins and 
"establish conditions" for the return of non-Albanian IDPs from 
Kosovo currently residing in Montenegro.  The GoM has assured 
the Ambassador that it is not seeking to establish preconditions 
for relations with Kosovo (reftel), but the President's 
statement did draw attention to the IDP issue. 
 
 
 
¶3. (SBU) While the GoM refers to these individuals as IDPs - 
which stems from when Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia were part 
of Yugoslavia and then the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro 
- now that Montenegro and Kosovo are independent, the 
individuals should more accurately be termed "refugees." 
However, we use "IDP" here because this is the GoM's legal 
designation of their status; the GoM also designates certain 
individuals - such as those who fled violence in Bosnia and 
Croatia during the 1990s - as refugees. 
 
 
 
Scope of the Problem~ 
 
---------------------- 
 
 
 
¶4. (SBU) During 1998 and 1999, more than 50,000 individuals 
fleeing violence in Kosovo entered Montenegro.  The majority 
were Kosovo Albanians, most of whom returned to Kosovo after the 
war.  A sizeable number of non-Albanian IDPs remained in 
Montenegro, however, unable or unwilling to return to Kosovo. 
 
 
 
¶5. (U) The Montenegrin Bureau for the Care of Refugees (BCR) 
reports that, as of October 31, 2008, there were still 16,210 
IDPs from Kosovo residing in Montenegro, including: 
 
 
 
-Montenegrins      5,336 
 
-Serbs             4,016 
 
-Roma              3,027 
 
-"Egyptians"       1,383 
 
-Muslims           1,471 
 
-Albanians           427 
 
-Bosniaks            256 
 
-Others              318 
 
 
 
The Problem With Returns... 
 
----------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶6. (SBU) Contacts such as BCR Director Zeljko Sofranac, UNHCR 
Director Serge Ducasse, representatives of the NGO "Legal 
Center" (an implementing partner of UNHCR) and a number of 
refugees themselves have told us that the overall security 
 
PODGORICA 00000037  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
situation in Kosovo, coupled with the lack of freedom of 
movement there and limited access for employment, housing, and 
land continue to affect the prospects for sustainable return to 
Kosovo.  Many IDPs also complain that property restitution 
remains a major problem. 
 
 
 
¶7. (SBU) The BCR says that 2,400 IDPs have left Montenegro since 
2001, but a sizeable number of this total apparently consisted 
of Serbs moving to Serbia.  UNHCR figures show that, since 2001, 
a total of 1,372 Roma, Ashkaeli (an ethnic group similar to 
Roma), and Egyptians (collectively referred to as "RAE") 
returned to Kosovo through programs organized mainly by UNHCR 
and the Danish Refugee Council.  According to the UNHCR, 93 RAE 
IDPs returned to Kosovo in 2008. 
 
 
 
Integrating Or Not Into Montenegrin Society 
 
------------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶8. (SBU) According to the BCR, the vast majority of Kosovo IDPs 
live in the municipalities of Podgorica, Berane, and Bar.  By 
all accounts, their integration into Montenegrin society has 
been problematic.  Ethnic Montenegrins and Serbs have fared the 
best, as many have relatives in Montenegro.  (There are more 
than a dozen small Serb refugee organizations in Montenegro 
which advocate on the behalf of Serb IDPs.) 
 
 
 
¶9. (SBU) The situation for RAE IDPs is particularly dire.  While 
some 95 percent of all Kosovo IDPs live in private dwellings, 
the overwhelming majority of the five percent still in 
collective centers are RAE.  The more than 1,000 RAE inhabitants 
of Konik Camp, on the outskirts of Podgorica, live in abject 
poverty, many without running water and toilets. 
 
 
 
GoM Strategy 
 
------------ 
 
 
 
¶10. (SBU) In 2003, the GoM adopted a National Strategy for 
Resolving the Problems of Displaced People, which was succeeded 
by another Strategy for the 2005-2008 period.  The latest 
Strategy outlines the responsibilities of government offices and 
agencies dealing with IDPs and refugees, and the GoM provides 
some funds for shelter, social programs, education, and health 
care.  The GoM also facilitates IDP access to assistance from 
domestic and international humanitarian organizations.  However, 
UNHCR representatives and a number of IDPs have told us that 
they believe the overall conditions of life for most Kosovo IDPs 
have not significantly changed since the initial Strategy was 
adopted. 
 
 
 
Legal Limbo Complicates Picture 
 
------------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶11. (SBU) In 1998 and 1999, the GoM first registered Kosovo IDPs 
under an ad hoc emergency measure.  The Montenegrin Commissariat 
for Refugees (MCDP), now known as the Bureau for the Care of 
Refugees (BCR), has responsibility for the IDP caseload.  The 
BCR has conducted a series of registration exercises aimed at 
renewing or revoking IDP status; the last of these occurred in 
¶2003. 
 
 
 
¶12. (SBU) Under current arrangements, an IDP's status entitles 
him to stay temporarily in Montenegro (as long as he remains 
registered).  IDPs can work, send their children to Montenegrin 
schools, and access government health care.  But in general, 
IDPs face considerable difficulties.  Employers must pay a tax 
of 2.50 euros per day for their services, and under the Law on 
Employment of Aliens (which entered into force in January 2009), 
IDPs fall under stringent foreign worker quotas which further 
limit their employment.  IDPs also lack full and consistent 
 
PODGORICA 00000037  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
access to health insurance and social welfare benefits and do 
not enjoy full property rights. 
 
 
 
Re-Registration Envisioned 
 
-------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶13. (SBU) BCR Director Sofranac told us January 14 that 
preparations for another IDP re-registration exercise have been 
underway since December 2008.  He said that the process will 
begin in March of this year and conclude in May. 
 
 
 
¶14. (SBU) Sofranac commented that the re-registration drive 
could reduce the total number of IDPs, as some people may not 
qualify, while others may "graduate" to other legal categories. 
However, he said that those individuals who retain their IDP 
status following re-registration will be able to apply for 
temporary residence status, offering a path to eventual 
citizenship, provided they declare their preference for settling 
in Montenegro. 
 
 
 
Comment 
 
------- 
 
 
 
¶15. (SBU) Almost a decade after the fighting ended in Kosovo, 
the fate of the 16,000 Kosovo refugees still in Montenegro 
remains unclear.  Recent discussions between the Montenegro and 
Kosovo governments on this issue are a positive sign, but 
refugee returns are still difficult, and a quick solution is 
unlikely.  The future legal status of the IDPs may become 
clearer once the GoM's latest re-registration process is 
completed.  However, while the GoM's promise to consider 
temporary resident status could represent a step forward, 
international officials believe the BCR's timeline is 
unrealistic and may not permit full consideration of each  claim. 
MOORE