Wednesday, August 08, 2007

FAQs: What is the rightful name of FYRepublic of Macedonia?

This article is a responce to the nationalist Slavmacedonian Organization UMD article that post here

What is the rightful name of the FYRepublic of Macedonia?
  • From the very beginning of FYROM'S independence, Greece declared it had no claims on FYROM'S territory. Greece's only serious grievance was, and still is, the use by FYROM of the name "Macedonia" and its derivatives.
  • Greece has already compromises by accepted the name “Macedonia” in the Interim Accord of 1995(former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia)
  • Skopje must also understand Greece's sensitivity on this issue, because for more than fifty years the name problem has always been used as a pretext to create an independent and united Macedonia, which, if it had been achieved, would have meant the shrinking of Greece's territory and the loss of the precious Macedonian inheritance.
  • Slavmacedonians leaders must accept the reality that FYROM'S multiethnic conglomerate population, not really "Macedonian" nut also Albanian, Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks.
    Slavmacedonians must realize that does not have the right to acquire, by international recognition, an advantage enjoyed by no other state in the world: to use a name which of itself propagandizes territorial aspiratioils
Does the FYRepublic of Macedonia want to absorb a territorial region of Greece?

Yes and this seems everywhere. From the books and the writings.Great example is the
Brief Historical Summary that Skopje post in the EAPC-Security forum that speak for interritism. Some critical points are
  • Skopje talk for civil war forget it to mention that this civil war was between Greeks and the involment of the Tito Regime via the Slavmacedonains of the Vardar region and the SouthWest Macedonia.
  • The usage the term Aegean Macedonia. Is a nationalist Macedonian Slav term used to refer to the region of Macedonia in Greece, in the context of a United Macedonia. The origins of the term seem to be rooted in the 1940s but its modern usage is widely considered ambiguous and irredentist.
Do FYROMacedonian textbooks claim that their country should extend into Greece?

The Society of the Macedonian Studies(Etairia Makedonikon Spoudon) publish in July 2007 a book as that has as title ...Macedonism, The Skopjan Imperialism 1944-2006, efesos publisher. In this book you can see many proves that show the Slavmacedonian interritism against Greek History and HERITAGE.

In this first map (8th Grade,2005, page 54) you can see in the Yellow line the ethnotical borders as they imagine the FYROMacedonian nationalists and this include of course the Greek Macedonia(Green part)

In the second map (7th Grade, 2005, page 120) you can see the geographical-ethnotiical borders as they imagine the FYROMacedonian nationalists

Does the FYRepublic of Macedonia promote ‘hostile activity’ against Greece ?

The sudden “epidemic” manifesting itself through the erection of monuments, the renaming of streets, airports, etc., with names of Ancient Greek historical origin is a “hostile activity”

The usage of the Greeks Symbol Vergina Star from the Slavamcedonians officials is a is a “hostile activity”.
Great example is the Slavmacedonian nationalist PM Gruevski and the usage of the Greek symbol

  • The brief historical summaries that are post in the FYROMacedonian web sites (Empassies, conferences, summits e.t.c.) are full of unaccuracies, lies and interetism.Great example is the below quote from the FYROMacedonian Embassy London
However, in 1912 and 1913 three Balkan states - Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece, waged the Balkan wars intending to conquer and divide Macedonia between them. The Balkan Wars between Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia ended with the treaty of Bucharest in 1913, with which, in spite of the protests of the ethnic Macedonians, Macedonia was divided into three parts

In that time we didnt have any protest of any "erthnic Macedonian" and not any Unite Macedonia
! With this quote FYROM dipute OPEN the present borders by queried the Bucharest Treaty.

What is the Interim Agreement between the FYRepublic of Macedonia and Greece?

Article 7 of the Interim Accord between Greece and FYROM (1995) states the following:“

If either Party believes one or more symbols constituting part of its historic or cultural patrimony is being used by the other Party, it shall bring such alleged use to the attention of the other Party, and the other Party shall take appropriate corrective action or indicate why it does not consider it necessary to do so

For unknown reasons Greek governments show a strange political patience and indigence in the escalate FYROMacedonian hostile activity(symbols, names interritism, ultranationalism e.t.c.) since is known that Interim Accord is ended in 2002.

FYROM want monopolistically to claiming titles, both geographical and historical. If in the future this trend spreads into the economic sector and FYROM seeks exclusive use of derivatives of the Macedonian name in copyright, commercial titles and product names, the name problem could create severe problems—and not just in international relations.

Consequently, Greek people demand:
  • The essential, and actual, recognition of Greece’s sovereignty over the entire Greek territory with ACTS and with TALKS. This simply means that Greek Macedonia—from the prefectures of Kastoria and Florina in the west to Drama in the east—cannot be referred to in public documents, maps and school textbooks of neighboring countries as ‘Aegean Macedonia under Greek rule.’ After all, its name is internationally known as ‘Greek Macedonia.’
By the same measure, today’s official place names in Greek Macedonia should be respected.
  • Respect for the Greeks’ Macedonian cultural identity and heritage. The erection of a statue to Alexander the Great in Skopje and the rename of Skopje airport in with the name of the Great Greek Historical Leader, as ridiculous as it may seem, would invariably sustain cultural antagonisms.
What might be the Solution ?

The kernel of the problem is that FYROM´s policy has long been based on old agendas, eventually the oldest issue on the national priorities of the states in the region, namely irredentism and great idea aspirations. These were once again exposed recently in slogans over "liberation of Thessaloniki", provocations that aim at formulat-ing a zero sum policy framework in both sides.

130 Members of Congress have so far co-sponsored Resolutions
H.356 and S.300, expressing the sense of the Senate / House of Representatives that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered Interim Agreement between the FYROM and Greece regarding ‘‘hostile activities or propaganda’’ and should work with the United Nations and Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of finding a mutually-acceptable official name for the FYROM.

Through the cosponsoring of this resolution, and the election of Barack Obama in US Presidency, it is our hope that the United States will be sending the FYROM the clear message that their attempt to rewrite history and steal the cultural heritage of an honorable people is not acceptable behavior.

The Bush administration by recognizing this state as “Macedonia, “ while the name issue was being negotiated under UN has encouraged FYROM to adopt the most obstinate intransigent stance regarding the negotiations. They refuse to discuss any other name than Republic of “Macedonia”, even though according to the Interim Accord in 1995, they agreed that a new name must be found for their country. The Bush administration by recognizing this state as “Macedonia,” has become instrumental into the most horrific revision of history throughout the ages.

The attitudes of Greece and FYROM are radically different and this is something that the international community should take into account. Most people in both states do not want to back down on the name issue. But while Greece’s political leaders have pushed for a reasonable and fair compromise, FYROM’s elected premier has veered in a blatantly nationalist direction.
As long as Gruevski plays at being a crusader for nationalist fantasies, he will sink in the political morass. And as he sinks, he will act spasmodically and rather ridiculously. If he keeps this up, no one will take him seriously internationally. The Greek side should show patience. Only if he gets serious can he negotiate a solution, one that will reflect the reality of the region and not harm the interests of either side. Until then, the price that the Slav-Macedonians will pay will be much greater than they think it is today.

Greece has made a rather generous offer by accepting the use of the name Macedonia by FYROM with a geographical prefix that will distinguish it from Greek Macedonia. Practically it has offered Slav Macedonians the raw material to go on with their hostile and aggressive irredentist activities despite the mass objection of the Greek public opinion. This has not been fully appreciated by nationalists in Skopje and mediators.

Greece has called upon FYROM's leadership to act responsibly and show political courage and meet Greece half way. It will be a responsible move on the part of an aspiring candidate, a move that will win them a European future, a future of stability, peace and economic prosperity, based on the principles upon which NATO and the European Union are founded.

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

What's in a name? Blood, if it's Macedonia


Last month, Liberal MP Lui Temelkovski introduced a private member's bill that called for Canada to recognize the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as the Republic of Macedonia. This seemingly innocuous bill raised nary an eyebrow in Ottawa. Yet, the name change is a potential source of regional conflict. For 16 years, Canadian governments have stayed clear of Macedonian politics and avoided contributing to such a crisis.

Not long ago, the Balkans conjured images of mass killings, terror and armies of refugees after Yugoslavia's disintegration. The wars in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo gave us the term "ethnic cleansing," as organized killing symptomatic of the Second World War returned to Europe. Remarkably, the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia managed to quietly separate in 1991 and, for the most part, avoided the bloodshed that swept the other republics. In fact, the only crimes against humanity were committed against history by weapons of cultural destruction and historical parody, a circumstance not exclusive to the Balkans.

According to some voices from Skopje, all Slav citizens are descendents of Alexander the Great and of the ancient Macedonians - everyone, of course, with the exception of as much as 40 per cent of the population that is Albanian. Airports, schools, buildings and bridges are named after Alexander, Philip or other historical figures whose names provide an instant link with antiquity. The Greeks, however, do not like the hijacking of what they believe is their monopoly of classical Greece and its symbols. The Bulgarians are disenchanted with the notion of a Macedonian identity that is not Bulgarian, and the Albanian minority still feels excluded.

During Tito's heyday, the Macedonian republic constituted a small part of the federation, a reminder of the brief flirtation with a greater Yugoslavia that would have encompassed western Bulgaria and Greece's northern province of Macedonia. To this end, Tito armed and trained Greek Communist insurgents who waged a destructive civil war in Greece from 1946 to 1949. Concurrently, he stocked the fires of a distinct Macedonian nationalism that would serve as a fig leaf for the Yugoslav dictator's Balkan ambitions. The idea was that, under the label of pan-Macedonia, the Yugoslavs could absorb parts of Greece and Bulgaria.

Tito's dream never became a reality because Stalin would not countenance a rival Communist strongman in southeastern Europe. As a result, the Macedonian republic was left to languish in obscurity - the dream of a greater Macedonia was confined to history books, maps and storytelling. The Greeks occasionally protested, but the United States and NATO were far too content with Tito's anti-Soviet policies to take it seriously.

But, despite the outward appearance of a prosperous and multicultural Yugoslavia, the forces of extreme nationalism lay just under the surface. In fact, one reason why Yugoslavia began to unravel in the 1980s was because it could not reconcile Serbian predominance and the latent nationalism of the constituent republics. Regional identities supplanted federalism and common sense. Overnight, Slobodan Milosevic set in motion the process for a greater Serbia that, inevitably, led to civil war

Despite their common ancestry, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes and Bosnians had different memories of the past and saw themselves as distinct peoples. The Macedonian problem, to some degree, is not only a mirror image of Yugoslav religious and cultural divisions but also complicated by the Albanian factor. The Slav extremist's insistence on a single ethnic Macedonian identity within a unitary state will further alienate the Albanians and encourage them to seek separation.

This potential new Balkan crisis will also be fuelled by granting independence to Kosovo, a move that will act as a magnet for Albanians in the Macedonian republic. In the ensuing civil war, the Yugoslav horrors of the 1990s will once again plague the region.

This is not to say that a private member's bill in the House of Commons will be the catalyst for a new Balkan conflict. But if it succeeds, it will cast Canadian foreign policy alongside that of the U.S. and Britain, whose short-sighted advocacy of Kosovo independence could trigger another crisis. Ultimately, it would be a very high price to pay for the few votes the bill would generate.

The solution to the Macedonian issue is not facile arguments over who is related to Alexander the Great or what the republic's name is, but rather the admission of this small state into the European Union.