Talk:Foreign relations of Montenegro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal:Montenegro
 Montenegro Portal
Foreign relations of Montenegro is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Montenegro on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)
Foreign relations of Montenegro was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 17 September 2006

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 17, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: What is written is not particularly "compelling"--which the standards require. However, that's not a big problem, since it uses correct grammar.
2. Factually accurate?: The article is accurate, as best I can tell. Everything is sourced. Consider in-line citations.
3. Broad in coverage?: The main problem is that there's too little text. Two lists, although useful, do not make a Good Article.
4. Neutral point of view?: It seems to be NPOV.
5. Article stability? It isn't particularly stable. I consider this a good thing since it needs a lot more content.
6. Images?: Map is excellent, but no other images are present.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.

The article seems to have a decent start. The identification of foreign policy goals is good. I might add information about current foreign policy leaders, and specific information about bilateral relations. What's their relationship with the U.S. like? How does it get on with Serbia? Also, specific information about Montenegro's attempts to join the EU and NATO would be helpful.--Tjss(Talk) 16:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)



Contents


The Japanese news story claims Germany has recognised Montenegro. Is this right/can we find a direct source? Morwen - Talk 11:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, no recognition from Slovenia yet? Which seems odd. Morwen - Talk 14:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Should the article mention that Montenegro was in a state of war with Japan and the truce was only called today? [1] Edrigu 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Myeah. When Montenegro's independence was dissolved, surely its foreign affairs were folded into those of the wider Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes? Wouldn't the reason Montenegro has not made a peace with Japan since 1918 be that it was already done by SHS/Yugoslavia on Montenegro's behalf? QuartierLatin1968 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. That is so much nonsense : the new Montenegro isn't the same entity as the old one. The matter would have been anyway settled after the Second World War when Yugoslavia and Japan made peace, I expect. Morwen - Talk 19:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of Recognition and Diplomatic Relations Chart into one

I thought it would be a good idea to merge the two charts but when I tried to create one, I realize it was more trouble to maintain and more difficult to read. So, never mind.

--mnw2000

When did the United Kingdom recognise Montenegro? The other permenant members of the UN security council are mentioned but not the UK. Also Reference 1 is now a dead link... --Greeny 01:07, 29 June 2006

June 13th, 2006 (#15 on the chart) -mwn2000

[edit] Diplomatic relations with Bulgaria

There's a Bulgarian Consulate General in Podgorica and the source that says the country is recognised also mentions "declaration... to establish diplomatic relations". It's from 12 June. Are there any specific requirements so that diplomatic relations could be considered established, or is it just omitted? Todor→Bozhinov 17:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply supply a new source. By the way, someone red shaded Bulgaria in the first section, but did not add it to the second chart where the diplomatic relations dates are provided. Was that you? --user:mnw2000 06:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Organizations - Sports

I introduced sports into the section on International Organizations, others have added FIFA and UEFA. Since Union of Serbia and Montenegro was one of the best international basketball teams in the world, I added FIBA. There are many other international sports organizations that we could add to the list.

I thought I made an edit to split the sports organizations into a seperate chart but that change did not seem to hold. I just thought it would allow us to add more sports organizations without upseting the more relevent international organizations like the UN, EU, WTO, etc.

--mnw2000

[edit] Embassies and Mail

Is every single country that establishes diplomatic relations with Montenegro obliged to open an embassy there, or may they just create smaller representations?

In short, no. Countries are free to maintain diplomatic relations with one another. The establishment of diplomatic relations does not constitute reason for maintaining physical representation in that country.--Sir Tanx 11:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Are stamps saying "Serbia and Montenegro" still used in mail departing from a location in Montenegro? Or did they already just say "Crna Gora" even before the country became independent? Can letters be shipped to Montenegro using just that word in the end of the address?--Tugazo 18:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updating

Are we keeping this page as up-to-date as we should? It seems that the diplomatic relations/recognitions have not been updated in a week. I added Cuba today, but I am unable to read Serbian and I fear the Montenegrin MOFA website may have more news than is being reported on the WP page. Just checking. Thanks --Canadian Bobby

[edit] Holy See, not Vatican

In my most recent edit, I have removed the Vatican as the power that recognized Montenegro and replaced it with the Holy See. According to our article and the CIA Factbook, the Vatican does not exchange diplomats with the rest of the world. The CIA puts it this way:

The term "Holy See" refers to the authority, jurisdiction, and sovereignty vested in the Pope and his advisors to direct the worldwide Catholic Church. The Holy See has a legal personality that allows it to enter into treaties as the juridical equal of a state and to send and receive diplomatic representatives. Vatican City, created in 1929 to administer properties belonging to the Holy See in Rome, is recognized under international law as a sovereign state, but it does not send or receive diplomatic representatives.

The Holy See's list of nations that have relations with lists the FRY (the list was updated in Jan 03, a month before the State Union was final). Since the FRY became the State Union, and the State Union's diplomacy was inherited by Serbia, it's logical to conclude the Holy See recognized Montenegro and not the Vatican. - Thanks, Hoshie | 08:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Validate info with sources

Please, make sure to add a relevant source whenever new information is added. This goes for dipl. relations, recognition and opening of new embassies etc. - the opening of new Austrian and Hungarian embassies in Podgorica is currently not supported by any external source.--Sir Tanx 11:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember to update the "Establishment of Diplomatic Relations" section below with dates and sources bedore updating the Embassy section.

We are going to have to redesign the "Diplomatic missions". As more countries open up embassies and Montenegro opens up embassies in other countries, this section will become quite large.

Suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mnw2000 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Red Shading

I would like to suggest we stop shading the countries red when they establish diplomatic relations, because it is essentially duplicating information and makes the page look cluttered. I would prefer we revert to the previous format and just leave them unshaded. Thoughts? Canadian Bobby 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to merge this two tables into one. We keep the shading and just add another column for source. --Dijxtra 12:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
First first attempt to merge the two tables together found it unyiedling and difficult to maintain. That is why we have the red shading and still maintain two tables. However, if a single table is desired, I have created a sample of what it may look like. I included only one country for each of the three categories (Independence recognized, Diplomatic Relations Established and Embassy Opened) for this example. Of course, maintaining such a table will be a little more difficult, but if everyone is willing, I agree on doing what I can to assist in the merging of the columns.
To see what it would look like as of now, go to user:mnw2000/Montenegro Table. --user:mnw2000 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Very Good. My suggestions are - retain only the first numbering column (other numbers can be hidden next to the date) and maybe combine the multiple source links into a single column OR just put the source links next to the dates, without additional columns... 199.64.72.252 14:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to whatever you all want to do, just so long as we make this as simple as possible. Canadian Bobby 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgaria

Could someone please provide a source that confirms that Montenegro has established diplomatic relations with Bulgaria? It's shaded, but it's not listed in the second table on relations. Canadian Bobby 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Single Chart for Recognition, Diplomatic Relations, Opening of Embassy

I have installed a new single chart with columns for the date of the Recognition of the Republic of Montenegro, the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations, and the Opening of Embassy. I kept is as simple as possible.

--user:mnw2000 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should merge also the Emabssy/Mission list too. Something like: in the "Opened Embassy in Montenegro" column to put "Consulate, 11.11.2011" (if there is no Embassy) or only "Consulate" (if the date is not known yet) and in the "Montenegrin Embassy in the country" - to put "Trade Office", etc. 199.64.72.252 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought of that too. However, there are a few consulates already opened that did not follow a recognition of the Republic of Montenengro. Therefore, there would be no spot on the list to add this information. However, there is a situation where a country that has recognized the Republic of Montenegro which has a consulate that has been in existence before the the recognition. We could simply add a new column called "Status of Diplomatic Relations" and use the levels such as embassy (with date opened), embassy (with city in listed country located), consulate (with location), embassy branch office (which will probably become a full embassy), consulate-general (may be honorary missions without official diplomatic status), etc.). Here is an example on a possilbe change:

# Country Recognition
of the
Republic of
Montenegro		 Establishment
of
Diplomatic
Relations		 Status of
Diplomatic
Relations		 Sources
13 Flag of United States United States 8 June 2006 10 June 2006 Embassy (15 June 2006) [2]
14 Flag of United Kingdom United Kingdom 8 June 2006 Consulate, Podgorica [3]

This leaves one other issue: the opening of the Republic of Montenegro Embassies in other countries. Should that be another column? --user:mnw2000 13:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

199.64.72.252: I see you are attempting to make some new changes. You are already ahead of me. Maybe the titles should be "Status of Diplomatic Relations in Republic of Monenegro" and "Status of Diplomatc Relations in country". With that change, we can remove the Diplomatic Missions section. --user:mnw2000 13:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I cleaned up the problems with the chart due to 199.64.72.252 connection problem. I have also updated the charget so it includes ALL information. Can we remove the Diplomatic Mission section? --user:mnw2000 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, 199.64.72.252. It now looks really good. --user:mnw2000 14:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the increasing number of countries recognising Montenegro, would'nt it be more expedient to sort the list of countries alphabetically rather than chronologically. Sir Tanx 22:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. However, it is a lot easier to simply add a new country to the bottom rather than trying to figure out where to put it in the middle of the list. Also, it is nice to see when a country has gotten around to recognizing a country, especially on that has already been recognized by the EU and UN. --user:mnw2000 01:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my over-editing yesterday, but my internet connection was realy bad and it interrupted uploading in the middle of the process, etc. I also think that we should leave the table ordered by date of recognition... 199.64.72.252 06:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I do admit that it would be easier to simply add the next country to recognise M at the end of the list, and I too frequently check the end of the list to see if any fellow-wikis have added a new country. But most people who wish to find info on Montenegro-German / French etc. relations would probably prefer an alphabetised layout over a chronological one - it would both enhance the transparency of the list and also be much more easy to find the country and the status of relations that you're looking for instead of pressing CTRL-F. Another suggestion could be to list ALL sovereign nations in the world, and just fill out the blanks, when new countries recognise / establish dipl. relations / opens consulates or embassies, albeit this would leave the list very long. Anyways, let me hear what you think about it. Sir Tanx 10:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There are over 200 countries (entities) in the world. If you go to a Wikipage that has such a chart such as, you will see how large it really is. Also, the ability of being able to see what new countries have recognized M will lost if the entire list is static and alphabetic. This may be appropriate once a majority of countries have recognized M and should, probably me the norm for established countries. Maybe it is time to create template called "Diplomatic Missions" for each individual country. I would like to see one for countries that does not have universal recognition like Taiwan, Israel, Palestine, North Korea, etc.
As for this list, let's leave it the way it is until all countries have recognized M. This should take place by the end of the year. It will be interesting to see who is the last country (entity) to recognize M. (By the way, I wonder if M will exchange diplomatic relations with countries (entities) such as I mentioned above.
If fact, is there a chart of diplomatic mission with China and Taiwan? I assume that there is no country (entity) that has diplomatic relations with China and Taiwan but that is another discussion. --user:mnw2000 15:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The chart seem to be rather wide. Can we replace the term "pre-2006" with a reference number? --user:mnw2000 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to have such cross-reference table of diplomatic relations for each country (the 192 UN members + some "others"). To some degree there are such at: Foreign relations of the Republic of China (Taiwan), Foreign_relations_of_Western_Sahara (SADR), Foreign_relations_of_Israel, Foreign relations of the Palestinian Authority. Also the List of unrecognized countries has some "special" entities.
It should be noted that most probably there will be no "last country to recognize Montenegro" - becasue some of the small ones (pacific islands, etc.) maybe would never make such effort. Here we should make difference between "non-recognition" (as arab states do not recognise Israel) and "no relations" established, but no because of a dispute. Alinor 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palestine and Montenegro

Does [[4]] link say anything about Palestine establishing diplomatic relations with Montenegro? Canadian Bobby 15:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Should Palestine be number? At first it was not, now it is. Is Palestine a country or state? --user:mnw2000 18:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not, so it should not be numbered (I will change it) - see its link - it is to the Palestinian National Authority ... Alinor 07:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Palestine should be numbered. The Montenegrin government has established diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine, meaning that it recognizes it and considers it to be a state. Since this page is about the foreign relations of Montenegro, which includes Palestine as a state, it should be numbered and listed as sovereign. 94 countries recognize Palestine. It wasn't the ambassador of the Palestinian Authority that visited Podgorica, but the Ambassador of Palestine to Serbia. Canadian Bobby 20:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course All that's relevant is whether or not Montenegro considers Palestine a state (since clearly Palestine considers Montenegro a state and Palestine and Montenegro both consider themselves states); that's the definition of mutual recognition. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason to put Palestine (PNA) and the EU on the same page when it comes to numbering is becuase the UN does. The UN has given observer status to Palestine (PNA) and the EU.

However, I don't want to be the one to make this decision, so let us vote on this one. Should Palestine (PNA) be numbered? We have one vote for and one vote against. I vote against because of the reasons stated. --user:mnw2000 02:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote that Palestine should be numbered and listed as The State of Palestine, because that is the entity with which Montenegro established diplomatic relations. The position of the UN, EU, US or any other country is irrelevant. Montenegro and Palestine recognize each other, not Montenegro and the PNA. I think some of you are trying to unduly downgrade Palestine, which is a viable diplomatic, if not physical, entity. Canadian Bobby 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
UN and EU The UN is irrelevant; this is about Montenegro. The EU is not a state, so it shouldn't have a number. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the UN being irrelevant, but that is another matter. I assume from what you are saying is that the criteria should be what the country the article is about considers the "state" conferring recognition. Good argument. Wikipedia should be non-political in its reporting. --user:mnw2000 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If Montenegro and the State of Palestine recognize each other as states, they recognize each other as states. So Palestine should be numbered. Same goes if Montenegro were to recognize Somaliland or the Kingdom of Redonda. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 17:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Would it be ok with you all if I changed the designation back to "State of Palestine" and removed references to the PNA? We seem to agree on this. Canadian Bobby 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
PNA and SOP and SoaP It seems like the current situation is best, but there certainly needs to be at least a link to the State of Palestine. Since the PNA are the temporary administration in Gaza and (some of) the West Bank, those relations are vis a vis PNA, but it they remain with the SOP. 149.166.137.118 21:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The current listing allows for links to articles for both the PNA and the State of Palestine. --user:mnw2000 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak Montenegrin, so I can not see how do you come to the conlcusion that Montenegro recognises the "State of Palestine" and not the "Palestinian National Authority" or vice-versa. Can someone provide english translation, or a better link? Alinor 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak Montenegrin, either, and I don't consider myself a great linguist, but I do believe I can go out on a limb and hazard a guess that the "ambasadora Palestine" referred to is, in English, the Ambassador of Palestine. If they had wished to make the distinction, I'm sure that it would have been no great feat for them to add the words necessary to make it the "Ambassador of the Palestinian National Authority." But, they didn't. Canadian Bobby 18:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
We are arguing here about a little detail, so I think that we need a proper translation. Anyway, currently there is yet no "State of Palestine" - only a PNA. And the PNA is not "independent state" yet, so it should not be numbered... Alinor 11:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The State of Palestine might not be a de facto entity, but it certainly is a de jure one. There are Embassies of the State of Palestine in many countries, with ambassadors who present credentials and the whole bit. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is another similar case, where it controls only a sliver of the territory it claims, yet that does not stop it from sending ambassadors and having embassies in foreign countries. The State of Palestine might not control anything and may exist solely as a convenient fiction, but it's still a diplomatic entity that Montenegro has chosen to establish diplomatic relations with. An ambassador acting in the name of Palestine signed a communiqué with the Montenegrins. Canadian Bobby 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

When I created the numbering, I thought it would be good for us to see how many countries have recognized Montenegro. I left off numbering the European Union for obvious reasons, it is association of countries, each of which would, eventually, recognize Montengro itself. However, Palestine (as many countries and the UN refer to the PNA as), is a matter I did not plan on. The question is this: should we use an international definition of a country/nation or should we leave it to Montengero to decide what is considered a country/nation that it recognizes? There are good arguments on both sides. Therefore, I would like to suggeest we use the numbering to reflect UN full membership as the criteria. That was we know the maximum number of countries/nations that can recognize Montenegro is 192. There is probably a unknown number of other entities that could recognize Montenegro. Then again, we could simply remove the numbering all together and resolve the issue once a for all. What does everyone think? user:mnw2000 13:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there really isn't a universally accepted definition of a "country," unless we count the Montevideo Convention, which isn't binding, anyway. This is an article about Montenegro, so it should follow what Montenegro does. As an earlier writer said, if Montenegro chose to establish relations with Somaliland, Western Sahara, the Land of Oz or Never Never Land, it would be irrelevant whether the UN or other countries recognized that particular political entity or not. All that matters is that Montenegro recognizes it, because that's what this page is all about. Should we get rid of the article about the Tibetan Government because nobody recognizes it? I think not. Arguing that the State of Palestine isn't a full UN member is a red herring, because there are plenty of political entities that are de facto, if not de jure, independent that the UN doesn't recognize, such as Abkhazia, the Republic of China and South Ossetia. Using UN membership/recognition as the measuring stick in this sort of matter is pedantic and arbitrary. I full support the listing of Palestine as an independent entity, because a majority of states recognize it as such and Montenegro does so as well. Canadian Bobby 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is excellent. Should we rename the section, "States that have recognized the Republic of Montenegro" to "Political Entities that have recognized the Republic of Montengro"? (By the way, the ROC could recognize Montenegro, but the PRC would never let Montenegro recognize the ROC.) user:mnw2000 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is now. Canadian Bobby 23:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We still don't have translation of the link. I mostly expect that the actual situation is Montengro having relations with PNA and recognizing a potential future State of Palestine as PNA successor, pending resolution of the Israel-Palestine issues. Here is the List of sovereign states and Palestine is not there. We should list it (as it is one of the few here, but without a number. We should put numbers only next to UN members and UN observer states, eg. only the Vatican - totaly 193. IMHO Taiwan, SADR, Palestine and other such more-or-less states should be listed without a number... Alinor 12:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Montenegro-Palestine relations are "diplomatic", but not "inter-state". This is like the SMOM relations with many states - having diplomatic relations does not make it a state. Palestine/PNA is United Nations General Assembly observer, not in the "non member sovereign states" category, but in the "other organizations and entities" category. Will we put a number besides SMOM when/if it establishes relations with Montenegro? Will we change the heading? I suggest no. Alinor 12:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We all agree that we should leave the listing as "PNA (State of Palestine)". The only question is whether it should be numbered. IN staying with Wikipedia policies, let's use the Wikipedia article "List of sovereign states" as the criteria for the numbering as suggested above. user:mnw2000 13:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we'd be having this debate if it were any other country. I think there is a deeply-set bias present in the objections to listing Palestine as a state, and it is regrettably coupled with an ignorance of how diplomacy works. Insisting on a translation from an official source (it doesn't get much more official than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) when even the cognates make it abundantly clear to whom they are referring is an obstructionist tactic.

Official English translations were never an issue when the English version of the MOFA website was never updated (it is now) and all we had to go on were the original Montenegrin texts and we deciphered the cognates as best as we could. When France recognized Montenegro, all we had was a scan of the note, which was in French, and the Montenegrin-language article. Nobody complained when we listed France. There was no nitpicking over whether France had really recognized Montenegro or not. Why not? Because it was pretty obvious. When Belarus recognized Montenegro, all we had were texts in Russian and Montenegrin. Again, nobody complained and demanded an English translation. Why not? Because it was similarly very obvious. So when the Montenegrin article makes a specific reference to "ambasadora Palestine," there is an inexplicable surge of mass confusion. To me, it's pretty obvious that it refers to the "Ambassador of Palestine," since, like most other Slavic languages, Montenegrin doesn't have articles and there's only one country that calls itself Palestine officially. If it had been the Palestinian National Authority, the text would've included more words than just "ambasadora Palestine." So, I must reiterate that this debate seems to have at its base an anti-Palestine bias, otherwise its listening with the other countries would've been routine and based on the examination of the Montenegrin-language texts and a common sense-based analysis of their contained cognates, like all the others have been.

It doesn't matter whether Palestine is on Wikipedia's list of recognized states, a member of the UN, in league with the Sith or worth 25 points in Scrabble: Montenegro recognized it and that's all that should matter. Just saying that we're going to follow the list of sovereign states, which is based on the UN membership, arbitrary and, one could argue, a sort of political popularity contest, is not scholarly. This all boils down to a refusal to accept Palestine's diplomatic reality (I'm not arguing that it's a physical state, but a viable, widely-recognized diplomatic entity) and seeking any means necessary to obscure its status by throwing the semantic equivalent of garbage cans at it. I would list the Sovereign Military Order of Malta as a state. Why? Because other states recognize it as such, even though all it has is a few acres of real estate in Rome. It sends and receives embassies and ambassadors, has diplomatic immunity, a head of state and issues its own travel documents. It might not have a noteworthy territory, but as the saying goes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. "Diplomatic" and "inter-state" relations are the same thing. You don't diplomatically recognize another country, sovereign order or aspiring state if you don't accept them as a sovereign equal. You don't send an ambassador to an entity you don't consider to be equal. That would be pointless. It would be interesting to see someone walk into a Palestinian Embassy and then argue with them that their ambassador isn't a "real" ambassador and the embasy isn't a "real" embassy because it's not on the list of sovereign states on wikipedia.

I feel like we're going in circles in this debate, because others and myself keep making the same argument, which seems to enjoy general acceptance, and then others want to split hairs, argue over semantics and demand that lists supersede common sense. It seems that everyone has made up their minds. I genuinely appreciate the efforts of the others in rectifying this issue and bear no ill will. I do appreciate user:mnw2000's efforts and extend my thanks. I'm just growing frustrated with what seems to be a never-ending debate. Canadian Bobby 22:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Palestine is unique. The fact that we are having a debate proves that there is no bias. If there was bias, there would be no debate. I suggested the use of the UN's definition of a member state and that was rejected. I then accepted the numbering until another user mentioned that Wikipedia has an article called, "List of soverign states". Therefore, to stay consistant within Wikipedia, I have listed Palestine (as both the State of Palestine and the PNA). If you have a disagreement, I suggest you direct your concerns to the article, "List of soverign states". It has a very complete description of Palestine and the reason that it was not included in its listing as a soverign state. user:mnw2000 22:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In the english version of the site I can't find the message about the visit of the palestinian abassador to Belgrade, but anyway there are other untranslated messages. In the montenegrin text - there is no mention of the "State of Palestine", only of "ambasadora Palestine" - here "Palestine" may be a short form for PNA, not SoP (and of course vice versa is also possible).
SMOM is not a state and no one has said and no country has recognized such thing. SMOM is a special type of entity, both sovereign (thus "diplomaticly recognized and having abassadors" by/to the independent states in the World) and non-state (as it has no territory - Rome SMOM properties are on sovereign italian soil and do not constitute SMOM territory - in contrast with Vatican City). Also, diplomatic and inter-state relations are not the same thing - explained by the SMOM example. PNA is a similar entity. The difference is that it is expected (by almost everybody, including official statements by government officials from around the World) that in the future it will be superceded by a proper government of a sovereign State of Palestine. BUT, currently, diplomatic relations are in most cases (with the exception of governments that do not recognize Israel, I assume) with PNA, as representative of the palestinian people; and these relations are diplomatic, but not inter-state. And this is confirmed by the PNA status at the UN, not by the Wikipedia "List of" article. PNA currently is "sovereign" as much as SMOM (maybe de-facto a little more), but is expected to become a state later and this is accepted by virtualy everybody (including offical Israel). The issue is that this has not happened yet and we push the issue too far here. Alinor 14:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You do realize that you unilateraly changed our compromise designation for Palestine, which we had listed as "PNA (State of Palestine)", right? You did not consult the rest of us before you changed it. That is not nice, and since those of us who support the designation of State of Palestine have made our point of view emphatically clear, it was also unnecessarily provocative. You have not "won" the debate. In fact, were it not for your objections, there would not have been a debate, because nobody else took exception to listing Palestine as a state. The article on the Arab League lists Palestine as a state, too. I'm sure the contributors there would appreciate a lecture as to how Palestine isn't really a state, even though it's recognized as such by the Arab League members. The page on the Organization of the Islamic Conference lists the State of Palestine as a member. Maybe intervention is required?
The point is, there are plenty of pages around Wikipedia that list Palestine as a state and nobody has a problem with it. I request that the designation be changed to "PNA (State of Palestine)" and this debate be dropped, since the arguments that Montenegro established diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine are overwhelming. The PNA represents itself as Palestine to those countries that recognize it as such and as the PNA to countries that do not recognize it as the representative of the State of Palestine. Canadian Bobby 16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I used the term "PNA (State of Palestine)" as the compromise based on this discussion. Someone else changed it to "PNA (Palestinian Naiotnal Authority)" which is redudant. The reason for the "PNA (State of Palestine)" designation is because there are two seperate articles and it is the best description possible. I suggest we change it back. user:mnw2000 19:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Bobby, I was the first that added Palestine to the list, many days after you put the link here: "Does [[5]] link say anything about Palestine establishing diplomatic relations with Montenegro? Canadian Bobby 15:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)". So, it seems that you were not so sure about the issue in the first place, but now, when there is a debate you became so insisting. And no one wants to remove it, I only want to withdraw the number (I have not placed the number initialy, don't remember who has put it first).
AL and OIC as organizations (and the majority of their members) do recognize the SoP as such. This is why on their pages it is listed so. Also, again, from the link we have it is not clear if Montenegro relations are with PNA or SoP. I explained already why it is more probable to be with the PNA. Also, note the heading of the link - when such relations are established/recognition received with/from "non-debatable" independent sovereing states (like Iceland) - the wording is much more explicit and in our case we have something like "there was a meeting with the palestinian ambassador". I don't exactly understand your insisting on puting and number here - what do you want to prove: a) Palestine is the short name of a state with the full name "SoP" (with PLO as government/official representative/authority) with defined territory (witch?), recognized by AL, OIC and other countries AND Montenegro has established relations with the SoP/PLO and recognized it as a sovereign/independent state AND it should be listed in the article AND it should be numbered as independent sovereign state. b) Palstine is the short name of the internationaly recognized (by the UN, EU, etc. states) entity with full name "PNA" (with official representative/government - the current authorities in Ramalah - Hamas government and Abbas persident, all elected by the palestinian people in WB and Gaza), that has some de-jure and de-facto control over some areas/territories (but restrictions by Israel on its abilities in other areas/territories and some policies) that is not yet formed into an independent state (but is expected to be so in the future) AND Montenegro has diplomatic relations with this entitiy AND it should be listed in the article AND it should be numbered as independent sovereign state? a) or b)?
I already explained why I see the supplied link as proof for point b) with the MINOR correction that it should NOT be numbered (as it is not yet a independent sovereign state). Alinor 08:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason I asked for a translation was because I wasn't sure whether the ambassador had just visited or had signed a protocol on the establishment of diplomatic relations. I wasn't querying whether it was Palestine, but whether relations had been established.
What I'm trying to prove is a) Palestine has a sovereign international character and b) since Montenegro has recognized it, it should be listed as the State of Palestine and numbered in the listing of states with which Montenegro has established diplomatic relations. The List of Sovereign States maintained by Wikipedia is irrelevant. All that matters is Montenegro's position, since this is its page.
It would seem that Palestine is represented under many guises, as their precarious position demands pragmatism. The PNA runs the Palestinian government and is recognized under whatever guise countries will recognize them. To Montenegro and about 93 other countries, it's the State of Palestine and so far as they're concerned, it's a viable and sovereign entity that represents a de jure state. To other countries, like France, Canada or Colombia, it's the PNA, a somewhat-sovereign entity that may in the future have a state. Montenegro has opted for the former, so the latter shouldn't be hoisted on it. Canadian Bobby 19:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is our disagreement - from the link that we have it is not clear if Montenegro recognizes SoP (my option a) or PNA (my option b). In both cases it is "Palestine". Alinor 09:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with the "PNA (State of Palestine)" or how about "Palestine (PNA)"? Right now the Palestine links to PNA. user:mnw2000 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the current form - just "Palestine" (linking to PNA) is the most neutral and does not imply separate SoP recognition that is not 100% sure. Alinor 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recognition Map

A couple points of order about the map: Sweden and Bosnia have not established diplomatic relations with Montenegro, so it should not be darkened. Malaysia has established diplomatic relations with Montenegro, so it should be darkened. Thanks! I like the map a lot. Canadian Bobby 23:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I multiple times changed the color before finishing, so these were obviously omitted; will change them soon. Alinor 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ROC and Montenegro?

I see on the map and Article the ROC is empty. Does anyone know if the ROC and Montenegro have exchanged relations and recognition or is Montenegro bound by the one-china rule? - Thanks, Hoshie 09:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The People's Republic of China (PRC) has made it a requirement for releations that a country not recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) as a soverign state. This includes the United Nations where the ROC was ejected in favor of the PRC back in 1972. user:mnw2000 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Correct. Montenegro has established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and it recognized its government as the sole legal government of China. Montenegro adheres to Beijing's 'One China Policy,' and consequently does not recognize the Republic of China or have any form of relations with it. Canadian Bobby 03:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegro and Finland

I updated the list to show that Montenegro has diplomatic relations with Finland, but the article, sadly, didn't give a specific date, just "July." So, we'll have to make do with that for the moment. I've looked and looked and can't find a specific date. Can anyone else find out? For others who do the updating, you know how fickle the MOFA is with updating, so for all I know they'll announce ties with Finland in December. Bah. Canadian Bobby 23:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Egypt?

http://english.bna.bh/?ID=50763 states that they'll establish diplomatic ties, which implies recognition, but for neither action a date is given... —Nightstallion (?) 10:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Attention map editors: Ukraine, Slovakia and Tajikistan Established diplomatic relationship with Montenegro. Please reflect it on the map. Thank you

Someone corrected this already. Alinor 12:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Africa

Could somebody who can read Montenegrin please look at this [6] and see if it says that Montenegro established diplomatic relations with South Africa? Thanks. Canadian Bobby 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It also explained how to obtain the acreditation to attend the meeting of South African ambassador and the FM in Podgorica, but I guess you missed your chance ;-) JK. It also says he is a non-resident ambassador, therefore they will not be establishing a permanent diplomatic mission to Montenegro, and vice versa. I am Montenegrin myself and will be happy to help with any translation, but I just don't have the time to edit. Perhaps you might be interested to know MN recently became a member of United Nations Industrial Development Organization. I believe this is worth mentioning, as membership to this organization is by no means "automatic"? If so, please make a note of it. Regards. --213.240.3.199 08:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/o/r/Talk%7EForeign_relations_of_Montenegro_a11d.html"