Greek PM: FYROM name must have geographic qualifier

Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis on Friday again reiterated Greece's position regarding the "name issue" with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), saying that a composite name containing a geographic qualifier could put an end to a nagging problem that has had a negative impact on regional stability and cooperation.

He was speaking during a press conference in Brussels following earlier meetings to discuss the FYROM name issue with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Cyprus President Demetris Christofias on the sidelines of the European Union Summit taking place in the Belgian capital.

The Greek prime minister reiterated that Athens was participating constructively in the UN-sponsored process for finding a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue, pointing out that this was an issue concerning good neighbour relations.

In calling for a composite name containing a geographic qualifier, Karamanlis said such a solution would be "clear and practical", while noting UN Security Council resolutions referring to the negative impact of perpetuating the problem.

He also stressed that the issue affected FYROM's otherwise excellent bilateral relations with Greece, as well its ambitions to join EuroAtlantic structures.

"No solution means no invitation, in other words no accession to NATO," he emphasised, while underlining that the Greek position was clear and unambiguous.

Relations amongst allies and relations of mutual support could not be built on a basis of unresolved issues, the Greek premier added.

"This is the position that it applies today; it will apply tomorrow and will continue to apply until a solution is achieved that is mutually accepted," he stressed.

Questioned about the political crisis now unfolding in Greece's neighbour to the north, Karamanlis expressed hope that this would not be used as an excuse to perpetuate the problem.

"We want to believe and we hope that political developments in the neighbouring country will not be used either as an excuse or as an alibi for perpetuating a 17-year deadlock through a false, compromise settlement. It is evident that such an approach cannot be accepted," the Greek premier said. He also noted that Greece had already "covered a great distance" in order to approach FYROM's positions and that it was now time for the other side to do the same.

Replying to questions about a meeting held on Thursday between Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis and FYROM's Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, the prime minister stressed that there was no need to fear discussion when one has clear positions and that no problem was caused.

"I judged it advisable for the foreign minister to attend the meeting. If such meetings serve the interests of the country, no further answer is needed," he said.

For the same reason, he said he met with the leaders of Greece's partners and allies and had shaken hands with Gruevski the previous day, adding that he would have been more than willing to detail the Greek positions if his FYROM counterpart had chosen to raise the issue.

source :ana-mpa

The dual name trap

By Stavros Lygeros

The proposal of UN mediator Matthew Nimetz includes five different names for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Four of them are descriptive of the polity (Democratic Republic of Macedonia, Constitutional Republic of Macedonia, Independent Republic of Macedonia and New Republic of Macedonia). Nimetz is thus trying to sweeten the pill. But the fifth alternative, the Republic of Upper Macedonia, is a geographical designation that reflects reality on the ground. If the Slav-Macedonians wish to be a separate nation they have every right to be so. But they cannot portray FYROM as their fragmented homeland. Macedonia is a multiethnic region, not the land of a nonexistent Macedonian nation. The part cannot lay claim to the whole.

Greece accepts the name Upper Macedonia. But there is another crucial issue:

Will the composite name apply in all cases or selectively?

In other words, will the neighboring state have one or two official names?

Nimetz is pushing a two-name solution, keeping the “Republic of Macedonia” as a constitutional name while using the composite name at international organizations.

Initially, Athens wanted a composite name for all uses. Then the Foreign Ministry abandoned this position, without getting anything in return. It asked that the composite name apply only for international use. But Greece also wants the composite name to be used in Skopje’s bilateral relations. And even a Security Council resolution could not ensure this.

Instead of pursuing impossible guarantees and the use of the composite name on passports, Athens should demand a new constitutional name such as the “Republic of Upper Macedonia.”

If Athens agrees to a dual name, it will end up running after third states urging them to adopt the new name in their bilateral ties with Skopje.

The old problem will go. But a new, bigger one will emerge.

source:ekathimerini

--------------------------------------------------------

The danger for Greece does not emanate from the size of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but from the combinations of forces that can result in the future. Importance does not only have the relative force of state, but the combinations of force where it can include itself and that can use in order to destabilize a neighbouring country or a entire region.
FYROM 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 aspirations.

France Backs Greece In Macedonia Row

14 March 2008 Brussels _

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has confirmed he backs Greece in the row over Macedonia’s name.

On the margins of the European Union summit, Sarkozy said it was “the right impression” to conclude that that Paris is on Greek side in the “name” dispute.He also confirmed the issue is always raised during various meetings with Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis.“I always stressed that we support the Greek position in the name issue. Greeks are our friends,” Sarkozy said.“I am confirming to you that we are in solidarity with the position of our Greek friends,” the French president said.

Athens objects Skopje’s use of its constitutional name, “Republic of Macedonia” saying it implies Skopje's territorial claims over Greece's own northern province of Macedonia.

Greece has vowed to veto FYROM’s bid to join NATO at the alliance’s Bucharest Summit at the beginning of April if a solution is not found.

Meanwhile, the European Commission expressed its worry that FYROM's’s government crisis might affect the pace of EU reforms in the country.

Merci Beaucoup Monsieur le President

Krste Misirkov and The Bulgarian Matters

Krste Misirkov is a prime example of the often fluxuating ethnic conscience of some of the early Macedonists at the turn of the century. Many intellectuals were having to decide whether they favoured annexation by Bulgaria, or an autonomous Macedonia. While Misirkov is curiously heralded by Skopjians as one of the "founders of the Macedonian nation", he is also wrote that the Slavs of Macedonia "are more Bulgarian than those in Bulgaria!". The purpose of this thread is to expose the Bulgarian views of Misirikov after the know "Macedonian Matters"

He was the first person to transform "Macedonian" as a literary language. While in Sofia in 1903, he published the book ''Za Makedonckite Raboti'' ('On Macedonian Matters') in which he laid down the principles of the slavomakedonci language. According to this book, the language should be based on the central dialects of Vardar. He also used those dialects to write the book itself. Misirkov died in 1926. Decades after his death with the communist takeover of Yugoslavia, Misirkov's principles were used by the Yugoslav committees for the codification of the slavomakedonci language.

It appears that at one point in his life, under Russian sponsership, he favoured his own brand of Macedonism and this is when he published his book on the 'Macedonian language. Later he adopted a vehemently Bulgarian nationalist stance and abandoned his Macedonism, apparently beleiving it would never materialise as an ideology; though it ironically it did, long after his death after WW2. In his book, ''The national identity of the Macedonians'', which he wrote in 1924, two years before he died, he uncompromisingly defends the Bulgarian character of the population of Macedonia saying "We [Macedonian Slavs] are more Bulgarian than those in Bulgaria!". He completley retracts everything he wrote in his book ''Za Makedonckite Raboti'' about the Macedonian language, with the explanation that "I wrote it as a politician". The book is considerably pro-Bulgarian, describing himself as a Bulgarian, nationalistically so.Krste Misirkov
the below are some abstracts of tKrste Misirkov from the article "National Identity of the Macedonians. 1924:

• We speak Bulgarian language and we believed with Bulgarians is our strong power.
• The Bulgarians in Macedonia. The future of Macedonia is spiritual union of the Bulgarians in Macedonia.
• The Macedonian Slavs are called Bulgarians.
• The biggest part of the population are called Bulgarians.
• All spoke that Macedonians are Bulgarians. Until 1978 all including Russian Government spoke the Macedonians are Bulgarians. But after the Berlin Congress the Serbs came with pretension to have Macedonia. They try to change the European opinion that in Macedonia there are Serbian too.
• If Ilinden uprising win we will be thankful to Bulgarians, but Serbians try to compete with Bulgarians and spend a lot of money and propaganda. If Macedonia is autonomic there will be no space for propaganda and the Serbs have to leave Bulgarian in peace.
• The Ilinden Uprising Committee is Bulgarian.
• Bulgarian Language and Bulgarian name. The Committee is ready to give guarantee to Europe that Macedonia will not unify with Bulgaria, but they can't take the Bulgarian name and language from Macedonia!
• Unification between Turks and Bulgarians in Macedonia. Serbia and Greece do not want to give us autonomous and independent Macedonia, because they see this as a fist step to unification. In Macedonia have only pure Bulgarian population, which can't be unified with the Turks.
• Serbia is against autonomous Macedonia. Serbia is afraid because Macedonia with the Bulgarian population will have tendency to united with Bulgaria and for this reason Serbia will not allow this.
• They divided us and now they do not allow us to unify. We are living now 25 years divided from Bulgaria and they do not allow us to unify? We call ourselves Bulgarians or Macedonians and see us as separate and radically different from the Serbs with Bulgarian national consciousness.
• Our Grandfathers call themselves Bulgarians. They never thing that we will be having such a problem to call ourselves so.
• Bulgarian Literally Language. We the Macedonians voluntarily choose one and the same language with Bulgarians long before the liberation of Bulgaria from Turkey. The prohibition from the Serbs to use our literally language, which is the only one connection between us and Bulgarians is significant violation of our human rights. .. and further.. when they forbid us to call ourselves Bulgarians, to learn Bulgarian history and to be ashamed from everything which connect us with Bulgarians. It is enough to learn our Macedonian culture and history to understand that we are very different from Serbian nationality.
• There no difference between Bulgarian and Macedonian Slav. The Greeks in 1804 long before Bulgarian exarchate do not make any difference between Bulgarian and West Macedonian dialect. 15. Bulgarian national name of Macedonians. In the IX century in the first Bulgarian kingdom we do not have anything against this Bulgarian national name for us and for the rest of Bulgarians in Bulgaria.
• We Macedonian Bulgarians (Macedonians) like Bulgarian state as our own.
• The Serbs are much inferior than we are. We demand freedom for all of us and not to be material for assimilation experiments of the Serbs, which stand much inferior from us in spiritual narrow-mindedness and chauvinism.
• The Serbs come to the idea of the Macedonian nationality. The Serbs develop the concept for special Macedonian Nation, which they put in the south Macedonia. They declare north Macedonia as a pure Serbian land. Middle Macedonia as a transition between Serbian and Macedonian language.
• The population of Skopje is pure Bulgarian. Bulgaria make a big error when recognize the territory for "neutral". It is pure Bulgarian and the population in Skopje and surrounding area is pure Bulgarian.
• Why the Serbs want Macedonia? What Serbian you can find in this pure Bulgarian land, which is since 6 century till today Bulgarian, despite of all vicissitude of the historical destiny.
• Serbian-Greek attempt on the Bulgarians in Macedonia. Because of the treaty between Serbia and Greece Bulgaria was robed and 2 Millions Bulgarians where conquered from Serbia and Greece. Yes! To many damage did the Serbs on Bulgaria, Macedonia and Dobrudja and with this they do not stop! They filled that their vicious work will be discovered and to be prosecuted by the Slavic consciousness because of the freedom of 1/3 of Bulgarians - the Bulgarians in Macedonia.
• The lies about Bulgarian and Bulgaria. Restoration of the human rights of the Bulgarians in Macedonia and Dobrudja, despite of the lies spread for Bulgaria and Bulgarians! Who is against Great Bulgaria, he is against the Slavs!
• Krali Marko songs in Macedonia are from Bulgarian origin. The songs of Krali Marko in Macedonia are from Bulgarian origin and speak for the Bulgarian influence over the Serbs and not the opposite.
• The Serbs will coarse many wars, if the "Dushan empire" will not disappear. In the last quarter of the XIX century the Serbs start to dream to restore this abandon from Serbs it selves empire. With intrigues and and allies they conquer big part of Bulgarian Macedonia. But this Serbian advantages of 1912 coarse the war in 1913 and they coarse the war in 1915-1918 and will coarse many more wars, unless "Dushan empire" get liquidate in the same way as in XIV century on the principal of the self-determination of the nations.
• Serbs falsify the history. In Bulgaria Macedonians have all personal rights, freedom of expression and self-determination in Bulgaria. The Serbs try to destroy the soul of the Macedonians and for that reason the falsify the hole history. In this Serbian logic and Serbian fillings there are something abnormal, which is prove of the failure of the Serbian state. They are afraid from the Macedonians in Macedonia and also this living outside.
• The Macedonian population is against Serbs. You have to know that because your Serbian politics against Macedonians you have against you all past present and future Balkan governments and the Macedonian population.
• The Bulgarians are our fellow citizens. The European recognize that only independent sate will put an end of the competition conquer and hegemony on the Balkan. An will end once forever violence of the new conquer. And everlasting peace on the Balkan and in Europe will rise. Greece and Serbia will loose territorially and les Bulgaria and will win all Macedonians.
• The Serbs forbid us to celebrate all Bulgarian holidays. We are forced to celebrate St. Sava and forbid to celebrate St. Cyril and St. Methodius and Ilinden Uprising.
• Our souls are in Bulgaria. Serbia conquer the land and the body of Macedonians, the souls are in Bulgaria and with Bulgaria

Is known that Misirikov after the the Macedonian matters published a series of articles that expossed the Bulgarian line of the Macedonist moovement against primarily in the Serbian and secondly against Greece. The bellow is a translation from works of K. Misirkov, "Balazki po juzno-slavjanskata fiologija ...", Bilgarska Sbirka. XVII, 1, Sofija, 1910

In other words, he returns to the views concerning linguistic and national boundaries between Serbo-croats, and Bulgarians which he expressed during his period of study at the University of St Petersburg (1897-1902). It is obvious that he identifies the geographical boundaries in which a Slavic idiom or dialect has been spread and is spoken with the national boundaries of the people which he regards as its bearer. In other words, he adopts the then widely prevalent view and from the Slavic academic world, according to which the uniqueness and autonomy of a people's language is a necessary condition for the recognition of its national uniqueness and autonomy.

Having as his foundation the middle-age southern Slavic sources, the ancient Slavic texts of the Serbs and the Bulgarians and the southern-Slavic cycle of epic demotic narratives and songs about Volkasin and Marko, the Slavic leaders of Macedonia, he puts forward a series of claims which tend towards one general conclusion: The Slavs of Macedonia belonged to the same Slavic racial group as the Slavs of Bulgaria during their settlement in the area, and that they maintained their linguistic and national identity with the Bulgarians from the middle-ages to the contemporary times. Misirkov repeatedly voices the view that the Slavs of Macedonia had a Bulgarian national consciousness as subjects of Samuel's state, of Byzantium, as well as the state of the Serb dynasty of Nemanje.

We briefly list the basic tenets of the Misirkov article (The below quote translated from Tsontos and came from the book with title Misirkov and the Makedonist moovement ,pages 402-405) :

• The Morava valley is included among the Bulgarian countries, because the Slavs who settled in the area did not belong to the Serbo-croatian racial entity but to the same racial entity as the Slavs of Bulgaria. Their settlement in the Morava valley took place earlier than the arrival of the Serbo-croats in the Balkans. The “Moravic” idiom belongs to the Bulgarian language, however, because it is the “most western-Bulgarian” idiom along the boundaries of the Bulgarian and Serbian linguistic area, has also taken on Serbian characteristics.
• The linguistic and national boundaries between “Slavic Bulgarians” and Serbo-croats are defined by the geographical line which begins at the right bank of the Savos river, descends to the south along the length of the waterline of the Kolubar and Morava rivers and continues along the length of the Morava and Ibar rivers , to Skadros in the Adriatic.
• The Slavs who settled in the Morava area but also in Albania, Macedonia, Greece and Thrace belong to the Slavic racial entity as the Slavs of Bulgaria. The majority of them descended almost simultaneously from the Moravia valley and not from Eastern Bulgaria. The settlement of the Slavic element in the Moravia valley, in today's Western Bulgaria, Macedonia, Thrace as well as in areas which were later Albanized and Hellenized (Albania, Greece), took place earlier than the descent of the Sebo-croats in the Balkans. Therefore, the Moravia valley, Macedonia and Thrace are included among “Bulgarian countries: because their population is Bulgarian as far as descent and culture are concerned.
• During the Nemanje dynasty, the Serbian state extended its borders and occupied the Bulgarian countries (valley of Moravia, today's West. Bulgaria, Old Serbia and Macedonia). The Bulgarian population of these areas allied with the Nemanje and accepted Serbian political authority because it wished to be delivered from the yoke of Byzantium. In this way an extensive Serbian state was formed, in which the Serbian element almost disappeared before the great mass of Bulgarian population of integrated new countries.
• The dynasty which governed the state was Serbian, but the great majority of the population were Bulgarian, having accepted the name Serbs as a political rather than national term.
• The induction of Macedonia into the territory of the Serbian state of the Nemanje did not result in the Serbinization of the area's Bulgarian Slavic population. To the contrary, the Bulgarian culture of the occupied influenced the culture of the Serbian occupiers.
  The integration of the northern “Bulgarian countries” (valley of Moravia, today's Old Serbia) into the Serbian state of Nemanje resulted in the ethnic Bulgarian character of the population of theses areas coming under Serbian influence. While the integration of the southern “Bulgarian countries” (Macedonia, today's southwestern Bulgaria) did not bring about any change in the Bulgarian national consciousness of the population.
  With the integration of the Bulgarian countries and the increase of the Bulgarian population in the state of Nemanje, the Serbian element gradually lost the politically dominant position it held and became a secondary factor of state life.
• The Bulgarian national consciousness of the Slavic population of Macedonia during the 13th and 14th centuries played a significant role in the formation and disintegration of the state of Dustan. Dusan, the Serb leader, granted political privileges and senior titles to the Bulgarian aristocracy of Macedonia and displaced the center of political power from “the Serbian north to the Bulgarian south of the state. Reinforcement of the position of the Bulgarian aristocracy, during the leadership of Dusan and his heirs, indicates that the “Serbian kingdom of Nominee took on a Bulgarian character and changed into a western Bulgarian state. Dustanâ's favor towards the Bulgarian aristocracy attracted the ire and reaction of the Serbian north of the state. For this reason, Dusan was treated negatively by the Serbian chronicles and the Serbian popular tradition.
• The Slavic leaders of Macedonia, Volkasin and Markos, are hailed in the Serbian chronicles as Bulgarian leaders, due to the Bulgarian national consciousness of the population of their state territory. For the Serbs the name Macedonia had the same meaning as the name Bulgaria.
• The Bulgarian national character of Macedonia is also proven by the study of the southern Slavic cycle of epic demotic songs and stories about Volkasin and, especially, Krali Markos.
  

Why the Serbs want Macedonia? What Serbian you can find in this pure Bulgarian land, which is since 6 century till today Bulgarian, despite of all vicissitude of the historical destiny.Restoration of the human rights of the Bulgarians in Macedonia and Dobrudja, despite of the lies spread for Bulgaria and Bulgarians! Who is against Great Bulgaria, he is against the Slavs!

And of course the latter discover. In his recently discovered 381 page diary, written in 1913 while he resided in Odessa (Ucraine) Misirkov identified as Macedonian Bulgarian

Missirkov's analyzes from the period July 5- August 30, 1913 contradict with the ideology he adheres to decades later. Because the person considered as “father of the Macedonian literary language” defines himself as “Macedonian Bulgarian”.

The reviewer of the diary prof. dr. Vlado Popovski, cited by “Vreme” newspaper explains Missirkov's positions immediately after the end of the Second Balkan War:

“He presents Bulgaria as martyr, who has undertaken the biggest burden from the war with the Turkish empire, it is a country that sacrificially heads to the realization of its national ideal for the unification of the Bulgarian lands, in which apart from Thrace, Missirkov includes also Macedonia. In the context, he presents a range of statements with which he justifies the Bulgarian interests in Macedonia and calls the Macedonians Macedonian Bulgarians. Accusing Russia of unfaithfulness and coarse nationalism, which has been frightened by the Great (San Stefano) Bulgaria, Missirkov recommends to it (Russia-ed.) at least to call for autonomy of Macedonia as a transition solution to unification with Bulgaria.”

Krste Petkov Misirkov defines himself as a Bulgarian. The readers of this article will be very surprised of the big controversy opinion, which they will meet here in comparison with the article "For Macedonian matters".

FYROM in Governmental Crisis

FYROM’s ethnic Albanian party decided to walk out of the coalition government, said Menduh Thaci, leader of the the Democratic Party of Albanians (DPA).
In the meantime, a new round of talks on the FYROM name dispute under UN envoy Matthew Nimetz has been scheduled for the coming week.
Citing diplomatic sources, the FYROM Press read that the USA will be represented in the talks by its Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Victoria Nuland.
On his part, FYROM Foreign Minister Antonio Milososki said that Nimetz’ role, which was assigned to him by a UN resolution and the 1995 Interim Treaty, will not be altered.

US Embassy Announcement
Following Democratic Party of Albanians (DPA) leader Menduh Thaci’s decision to withdraw from the coalition government the US embassy in FYROM has issued an announcement urging the country’s political party leaders to focus their efforts on FYROM’s entry to NATO, adding that the only pending problem for the above country is the name dispute with Greece. The announcement ends by stressing that political stability is a prerequisite for those who wish to join NATO.

source:ΝΕΤ, ΝΕΤ 105.8 - 12 Mar 2008 21:51:14

110th USA Senate resolution 300

Legislation to stop state-sponsored propaganda by FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), which is potentially dangerous for Greece, was introduced in the U.S. Senate today by Senators Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), along with Presidential candidate and Chairman of the European Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).

More than 72 Members of Congress and climbing are sponsoring similar legislation (HR 356) in the House of Representatives.The Resolution (S.Res. 300) points to a television report showing students in a FYROM state-run school being taught that parts of Greece, including Greek Macedonia, are rightfully parts of FYROM. The legislation also points to various recently-published textbooks which contain maps of ‘Greater Macedonia’ extending many miles into Greece and Bulgaria. The Resolution points out that FYROM propaganda, contrary to the U. N. Interim Accord, instills hostility and a rationale of irredentism in portions of the population of FYROM toward Greece and the history of Greece.

The legislation urges FYROM to adhere to the U.N. brokered Interim Agreement, which directs the parties to “promptly take effective measures to prohibit hostile activities or propaganda by state-controlled agencies and to discourage acts by private entities likely to incite violence, hatred or hostility” and review the content of textbooks, maps, and teaching aids to ensure that such tools are stating accurate information. The bill also urges FYROM to work with Greece within the U.N. framework process to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals by reaching a mutually acceptable official name for FYROM.

Below you can read the legislation ...

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered... (Introduced in Senate)

SRES 300 IS

110th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. RES. 300

Expressing the sense of the Senate 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 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 FYROM.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

A

ugust 3, 2007
Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, and Mr. OBAMA) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Senate 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 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 FYROM.
Whereas, on April 8, 1993, the United Nations General Assembly admitted as a member the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), under the name the `Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia';

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 817 (1993) states that the dispute over the name must be resolved to maintain peaceful relations between Greece and FYROM;
Whereas, on September 13, 1995, Greece and FYROM signed a United Nations-brokered Interim Accord that, among other things, commits them to not `support claims to any part of the territory of the other party or claims for a change of their existing frontiers';

Whereas a pre-eminent goal of the United Nations Interim Accord was to stop FYROM from utilizing, since its admittance to the United Nations in 1993, what the Accord calls `propaganda', including in school textbooks;

Whereas a television report in recent years showed students in a state-run school in FYROM still being taught that parts of Greece, including Greek Macedonia, are rightfully part of FYROM;

Whereas some textbooks, including the Military Academy textbook published in 2004 by the Military Academy `General Mihailo Apostolski' in the FYROM capital city, contain maps showing that a `Greater Macedonia' extends many miles south into Greece to Mount Olympus and miles east to Mount Pirin in Bulgaria;

Whereas, in direct contradiction of the spirit of the United Nations Interim Accord's section `A', entitled `Friendly Relations and Confidence Building Measures', which attempts to eliminate challenges regarding `historic and cultural patrimony', the Government of FYROM recently renamed the capital city's international airport `Alexander the Great Airport';

Whereas the aforementioned acts constitute a breach of FYROM's international obligations deriving from the spirit of the United Nations Interim Accord, which provide that FYROM should abstain from any form of `propaganda' against Greece's historical or cultural heritage;

Whereas such acts are not compatible with Article 10 of the United Nations Interim Accord, which calls for `improving understanding and good neighbourly relations', as well as with European standards and values endorsed by European Union member-states; and

Whereas this information, like that exposed in the media report and elsewhere, being used contrary to the United Nations Interim Accord instills hostility and a rationale for irredentism in portions of the population of FYROM toward Greece and the history of Greece: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) urges the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to observe its obligations under Article 7 of the 1995 United Nations-brokered Interim Accord, which directs the parties to `promptly take effective measures to prohibit hostile activities or propaganda by state-controlled agencies and to discourage acts by private entities likely to incite violence, hatred or hostility' and review the contents of textbooks, maps, and teaching aids to ensure that such tools are stating accurate information; and

(2) urges FYROM to work with Greece within the framework of the United Nations process to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals by reaching a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM.

Panslavism Penetration in Macedonia and the rise of the Macedonism Ideology(19th century)

Modern Slav-macedonim is the political idea prevalent in the FYROM advocates revising history in order to project an ethnic group that formed in the 20th century - ethnic Macedonians - in the context of the 19th century and even in the middle ages. But who was the element that discovered the Macedonism and teach the Slavic populations in Macedonia that were ancestors from the a ancient tribe that never meet in the route of the Macedonian history ?

Slavic populations (Bulgarians and Slavmcedonias) in Macedonia were in 19th century, a people with confuse sense of distinct national identity, leading a passive existence for centuries in the area between the Danube and the Haemus mountain range. The Russians discov­ered this Slavic people during their drive to Adrianople in 1828—29 and found them similar in language, appearance, religion and character. The most important thing about them, however, was that they did not have an espe­cially strong sense of national identity. Moreover, they did not hold liberal ideas, as did the Serbs, They were very near the much longed for Dardanelles Straits, and away from Austrian influence, to which the Serbs could easily fall because of their proximity. Thus, the Russians preferred the Bulgarians to the Serbs as a check against Greek ambitions and decided to make them a depen­dent satellite state.

In the three sanjaks of Vidin, Nikopolis and Silistria there lived a Bul­garian people, with its distinctive churches, folk songs and folk art. The Bul­garian hajduks even though they did not possess such a high level of national consciousness as their Serb and Greek counterparts, preserved a tradition of hostility towards the Turkish adminis­tration. In these three areas, the Bulgarian expression of Panslavism was main­tained, despite the domination of the Greek element in the European part of the Ottoman Empire.

Limited Bulgarian revolts took place in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; however, there was no indication of a national revolt among the Bulgarian populations in the early nineteenth century. When a revolt even­tually did take place, it was the work of Russian Slavophiles, it followed those in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and was planned and funded by the Russians. Somewhat earlier, in 1772, Paisius (Paisi), the Athonite Bulgarian monk had composed, in a crude Slavic idiom, a Slavonic-Bulgarian History of the People, Tsars and Saints of Bulgaria. This compendium aimed to awaken Bulgarians patriotism. It was published in 1844, having circulated for a long time in man­uscript form, but with limited impact either on the Bulgarian people or on Russian foreign policy.

In 1829 the ardent Slavophone Venelin from Lemberg (1802—1839) published in Russian a history titled Ancient and Modern Bulgarians. The book coincided with the Russian drive to Adrianople and gained the attention of the Russian Academy, which invited the author in 1830 to travel through Bulgaria and the European territories of Turkey. Since that time Russian gold began to flow abundantly in Bulgaria, in order to accelerate the awakening of Bulgarian nationalism, and to restrain the growth of dangerous Hellenism. Following his tour in the areas inhabited by Bulgarians, Venelin pub­lished his findings, and the material he had collected, not hesitating to distort it in order to suit his wily purposes. In particular he claimed that Bulgarian Slavs existed in Rumelia, Macedonia, Albania, Thessaly and Asia Minor. He further claimed that the Bulgarians brought the Cyrillic alphabet to the Rus­sians and proselytized them to Christianity. In a study on the origin of the Bulgarians, Veselin's disciple Rakovski (1818-1868) claimed that the Olympian Zeus, Demosthenes, Alexander the Great and the Souliot Markos Botsares, hero of the Greek War of Independence, were all Bulgarians. He also claimed that the ancient Orphic festivals were Bulgarian and that the Apostle Paul spread the Gospel in the Balkans in the Bulgarian language.

Ilija Garashanin (1812-1874) was a distinguished Serbian statesman and the main architect of Serbian state policy between 1843-1868. In 1844 he published a blueprint, known as "Nachertanije" (Outline), describing future Serbian territorial ambitions. A plan modelled directly on Dushan's medieval empire - that is including both Macedonia and Old Serbia. But, at the same time Garashanin also encouraged a diplomatic policy of strong support for Bulgarian revolutionary activity against the Turks. In fact it was 1848 Garashanin who arranged for the Bosnian Croat, Stefan Verkovich (1821-1893), on the pretext of completing Karadjich's linguistic research, to tour Macedonia and covertly collect ethnographic data ultimately be used as support for long- term Serbian hegemony.

After him, Stefan Verkovich (1827-1893), another Bosnian-Croatian nationalist and propagandist, wrote a work in Russian titled On Macedonian Ethnography, and became one of the protagonists of Russian propaganda. He discovered "Slavo-Macedonian folk songs" on Alexander the Great. Animosity against the Greeks was obvious and unrestrained. Whatever was Greek had, at all costs, to be presented as Bulgarian. Hristovich went so far as to claim that Aristo­tle spoke Bulgarian, but wrote in Greek in order to civilize the barbarians to the south. Other Bulgarians included Emperor Constantine the Great, Saints Cyril and Methodius, and Georgios Karaiskakes, another hero of the Greek War of Independence.

However in 1860, when the Serbian Academic Society published Verkovich's first volume of "Folk Songs of the Macedonian Bulgarian" awarding him the Serbian "Uceno Druzestvo" (Scholar's Society), in his preface Verkovich said:

I call these songs Bulgarian and not Slavic, because if someone today should ask the Macedonian Slav "what are you?" he would be immediately be told: "I am Bulgarian" and would call his language 'Bulgarian'.

All these crude fabrications seem laughable today, but during that period their dissemination made a mark upon the simple, illiterate Slavo-phone villagers of Macedonia. Until then, the term "Bulgar" was deemed an insult, however, there appeared those who assured these simple people that they ought to feel proud about this designation and history, since all the great men in history were like them. It followed that those, easily swayed by these lies, would fall prey to Slavic propaganda.

The Russian efforts had a remarkable impact on the Bulgarians before influencing the Slavophone peasants of Macedonia. The first Bulgari­an primer appeared in 1824; in 1828, the New Testament was published in Bulgarian; and, in 1836 Rijlski published a Bulgarian grammar. By 1849, 31 Bulgarian schools operated in present-day Bulgarian territory, 4 in Macedo­nia and 18 in Thrace. At that time, many Bulgarian graduates of Greek schools, who had heretofore appeared Greek, started to become conscious of their ethnicity and to serve the Bulgarian cause efficiently, with the special help of Russian gold. Russian efforts began to bear fruit. More important, they were not limited to the spread of a written Bulgarian language, but were extended to important church matters.

The Eastern Greek Orthodox Church, led by the Patriarchate of Con­stantinople, was the main guardian of the Balkan peoples survival. Had it not been for the existence of Church, Islam would have prevailed in the Balkans and would have eliminated every national identity, except the Turkish one. The Ottoman Empire divided its subjects in the Balkans between Muslims and Christians. The only authority the Ottoman Empire recognized over its Christian subjects, besides its own, was that of the Orthodox Church, a priv­ilege granted by Sultan Mehmet II the Conqueror right after the fall of Con­stantinople (1453). Thus, the Patriarchate enjoyed the boundless respect of the Balkan peoples and its authority was uncontested. It continued to retain its Greek character, and preserved Hellenic culture, despite the fact that the Greek patriarchs did not discriminate among the faithful on the basis of eth­nicity. The Russians were aware of this and considered the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate a great obstacle to their designs. The attacks against the Patriarchate began as soon as the first signs of a resurrection of Bulgarian ethnic identity became apparent.

Since 1840, the Russians advised the Bulgarians to ask the Greek Patriarch to allow the use of the Bulgarian language in churches existing in Bulgarian areas. Their request was rejected and, in 1853, they appealed to the Russian ambassador to Constantinople, Count Mentzikoff, who eagerly undertook to support their claim. Following the Crimean War, the sultanic rescript (Hatt-i-Hiimayiin) of February 1856 promised equality for all Ottoman subjects, regardless of religion. The Bulgarians, supported at that time by the English and the French, requested the consecration of Bulgarian bishops and the use of Bulgarian language in their churches. These requests were not accepted, nor were they after another effort with the Patriarch, in December 1858

It was not only the Russians who noted the power of the Church, as a means of imposing the Ottoman administration on the Christian population. The Church of Rome created the Uniate church after 1555. It was an inven­tion that aimed cunningly to draw into its fold the Orthodox Christians. To entice the Orthodox and convert them into Uniates, that is to persuade them to beak away from the Patriarchate of Constantinople and to recognize the bishop of Rome (pope) as supreme head of the Christian Church. The Roman Catholics thus permitted the converts to retain certain forms of Orthodox worship, showing a measure of respect for their ancestral religious customs.During the time the Russians attempted to create a Bulgarian nation, the French ambassador to Constantinople Lavalette realized the potential usefulness of the Uniate church as a counter to their schemes. Without delay he made use of it in order to undermine Russian influence on the Bulgars.




Biliography

1. Douglas Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia, 1897-1913, Thessalonica: Institute of Balkan Studies, 1966
2. Spyridon Sfetas, Formation of the Slavmacedonian Identity, Vanias, 2003, Greek edition
3. Hellenic Army History Directorate, The Struggle for the Macedonia and the events in Thrace(1904-1908), 1988, Greek edition
4. Djoko Slijepcevic, The Macedonian Question-The Struggle for Southern Serbia, 1958
5. Anna Aggelopoulou, The moovement of the Macedonists, 2006, Greek edition

Albanian and Serbian activity in Macedonia (1903-1904)

Abstract from the book of Douglas Dakin with the title "Greek Struggle in Macedonia (1897-1913)", pages 170-173, publish in 1966 from IMXA

Although the Internal and Vrchovist Organisations gave the Turks rela­tively little trouble in 1904, in Albania and in the neighbouring regions there was a return to the lawlessness of the previous year. The outlaw Bairam was still active. Murders of Christian gendarmes continued. The new sheep tax aroused great opposition, and in February 1904 a serious disturbance broke out at Jakova. Bairam collected some 5,000 men to defy General Shakir Pasha who had been sent with 19 battalions (including artillery) to reinforce Shemsi Pasha, the local commandant. Fierce fighting took place in the hills at Unico, Bonik and Reka. Other Albanians assembled in the villages between Jakova and Ipek and there was every danger that the Mirdite clans would unite with the rebels of Jakova. But, as in previous year, Shakir acted firmly and by the end of March he had put down the rebellion.

Nevertheless, while the Vali, Shakir Pasha, was absent from Uskub (he did not return until the end of June) a general lawlessness prevailed in his pro­vince. Murders took place almost daily, the majority of the victims being Exarchists and Vlachs. The army at Uskub, which had received no pay for many months, was in a state of unrest. Early in July the officers mutinied and took possession of the telegraph office at Prizrend. Similar action was taken by the troops at Ipek, who demanded, in addition to their arrears of pay, the release of Albanian prisoners in Ipek goal, dismissal of Christian rural police and gen­darmes, exemption from the tax on animals and also a reduction of tithes. Pro­tests against reforms were taken up at Prizrend and there was every danger that the unrest would extend to Jakova where disaffection had continued to smoulder since the spring. Indeed, the situation was on the whole worse than it had been the previous year; and, as previously, the Vali gave way, concluded a 'bessa' or truce with the Albanian chiefs who paid neither sheep tax nor the full amount of tithes. Early in October, Hilmi Pasha, while at Uskub (although he subsequently claimed to have subdued the rebellious tribal leaders) in effect endorsed the concessions of the Vali. In point of fact he had insufficient troops to deal adequately with the situation. Concessions were imperative, for, while he and the Vali were making some show of force against the Alba­nian rebels, the Exarchist bands had been free to molest the villages that lie in a semi-circle among the foothills of the Kara Dagh Mountains. In Decem­ber, however, Lieutenant-General Naser Pasha arrived with reinforcements and he was able to restore order in the area lying in the triangle Kumanovo-Kratovo-Ishtip.

Adding to the confusion that reigned in Northern Macedonia was the ap­pearance in the winter of 1903-4 of Serbian bands or rather of a new kind of Serbian band. Previously Serbians (though often passing under the name of 'Bulgars') had formed units to fight alongside of the Exarchist bands in the name of Macedonian autonomy, but there were many Slavs who felt that they belonged to Serbia and who had no wish to pass under Bulgarian rule by way of Macedonian autonomy. There were also Serbians in the Kingdom who, like the Greeks of the Hellenic Kingdom, saw the need to organise the Serbian interest in Macedonia so as to prevent the villages from passing under Exar­chist control. This movement, like the Greek movement, was ostensibly in­dependent of the Government. Agents, bandsmen and arms were sent to Ma­cedonia. But the new Serbian bands, because of the presence of strong Turkish forces and of Albanian marauders, found it difficult to get a footing. A small Serbian band which crossed the frontier near Yeni-Varosh early in January 1904 was driven back by Turkish pickets; and a somewhat larger unit which crossed a few days later near Rashta was encountered by Turkish forces and obliged to retreat. Later there were several skirmishes between Serbian bands­men and Turks around the villages of Hertnitsa, Dupnista and Propelitsa. Early in March the Turks succeeded in forcing a large Serbian band across the frontier, the survivors being arrested by the Serbian authorities. In May the Turks annihilated almost completely a band of 28 near Kumanovo.

This activity of the Serbian bands so alarmed the Serbian Government, that the Prime Minister, General Grujio, himself went to the Vrania frontier region to make enquiries. (He came to the conclusion that the bandsmen had been induced to cross the frontier by agents who had persuaded them that the Serbian-Bulgarian rapprochement meant that the two countries had de­termined to take common revolutionary action in Macedonia). But the Ser­bian government, even had it wanted to, did not succeed in preventing the flow of bandsmen into Macedonia. Later in the summer several bands crossed the frontier and one of them, led by Mitso Kristic, came into conflict with an Exarchist band under the chief, Sugaroff, first at Topolnitsa and later (1 Octo­ber) at Slatina.

Not only were Serbian bands being sent across the frontier, but bands, acting in the Serbian interest and against the Exarchists, were being formed in the villages of Northern Macedonia. One of these bands was that of Yovan Svetanoff, who, like other local leaders, co-operated closely with the bands which came from Serbia. The result was that by the end of the year the Serbian effort had become a distinct challenge to that of the Exarchists. In Novem­ber a large Serbian unit, said to have been 150 strong, appeared in the Kara Dagh region to the north east of Uskub. It eventually took up a position at Pobazhda and drove away an Exarchist band from Lubantsi to find safety in the Kumanovo district. This band (it was an agglomeration of small bands) began to dominate the region and, like other Serbian bands, intimidated the villages and killed from time to time Exarchist agents.

FYROM actions after the Greek Veto....

FYROM will officially revoke the interim agreement, thus it's validity will be annulled, and that the name dispute talks with Greece or any other country will be stopped if Greece puts a veto on 'FYROMs accession to NATO. In that case FYROM will send an official request to the UN on recognising the constitutional name. Given the intention, FYROM will turn to the Security Council of General Assembly, or to both of them, if it evaluates that it's the best option.

FYROM in case of a Greek veto will also organise a referendum for preserving the constitutional name in order to prevent any current or future high-profile politician from changing the name.

Moreover, a procedure on retrieving the old original flag (Vergina sun) will be instigated having in mind that the change of the flag didn't contribute to mitigating the name problem. It is anticipated this idea to be accepted because both Slavmacedonians and Albanians honour Alexander the Great.

Out of the same reasons, a procedure for retrieving the constitutional amendments from 1992 will be started, while appropriate legal procedure regarding the minority issue of the Slavmacedonians in Greece will be launched.

Hundreds of streets, highways, buildings, stadiums, sports halls and squares will be renamed, bearing the names of great ancient Macedonians. Also the Tabanovce-Bogorodica route of Corridor 10 will be named Alexander the Great Highway, whereas the new airport in Stip will bear the name of Philip II.

Closer ties with Turkish Occupied Cyprus will be established, as well as the partnership with USA and Turkey will be reinforced and implementing Ancient Macedonian symbol's in the equipment of Macedonian sports teams.

Nimitz, the Final Proposal in FYROM name dispute

UN envoy Matthew Nimetz submit his final blueprint on the FYROM name dispute . Believing the time has come for a mutually acceptable solution, the Greek side will enter the talks with that goal in mind, Greek Foreign Ministry spokesman Giorgos Koumoutsakos told state-run radio station NET 105.8. He voiced his conviction that Matthew Nimetz will put forward a new and better-processed package of ideas, while he did not rule out a proposal on the name.

Greece will not consent to the creation of ally relations between FYROM and NATO unless the name dispute is settled, concluded Koumoutsakos.

Ambassador Vasilakis thanked Nimitz and the FYROM counterpart and said that Greek government will examine the final proposal.

According Ignatiou and Mega Channel the proposal is

Double formula

• One name for inside FYROM and bilateral usage
• One name for the international usage
• Suggestion to the UN members to following the second solution. USA agree and will following in that as I have already mention.

The names of the second option are

• New Republic of Macedonia
• Republic of New Macedonia...Nova Macedonia

Slavmacedonians has rejected this formula and Greek side probably discuss it with the second option as about the name.One more think is that yesterday night Greek side make clear to Nimitz that want

• One name for all usage
• Name with specific geographical specification
• Solution below the NATO summit
• Failed of the negotiations mean VETO

In my opinion Slavamacedonins is in the corner since Greece will ACCEPT the double formula.

Greek TV corresponded that Greek journalists beaten and in this time Greek Office is under attack and the FYROM Police is .....Invisible.

source

Ethnos

in.gr

skai.gr

Modern Macedonian Salad

In Greece the arguments run as follows:

• Ancient Macedonians were Greeks.


• Medieval Slavs and Bulgars were culturally converted to Byzantine Hellenism and were ethnically assimilated.


• Slav-speaking Macedonians were not necessarily Bulgars or Slavs. Considering their loyalty to the Patriarch and their active contribution to Greek 19th century irredentism, it is evident that they were ethnically Greeks beyond doubt.

In Bulgaria they are not concerned with ancient Macedonians but they argue that:

• Medieval Slavs in Macedonia were absorbed by the Bulgarians, but the latter were not assimilated either by the Greeks or by the Serbs.


• Despite allegiance to the Greek dominated Ecumenical Patriarchate, Slav-speaking Macedonian Bulgars were a separate ethnic group, which in the late 19th century inhabited most parts of Macedonia, but failed to be annexed by Bulgaria.

During the last quarter of the 19th century Serbs also developed their own theories about the identity of Macedonia’s population.They sought to demonstrate that:

• Medieval Slavmacedonians were Serbs. In fact Serbs dominated Macedonia after the Bulgarians in the 14th century; thus, they could not have been assimilated by the latter who were swept out in the early 11th century.


• They preserved a distinctive Serbian culture, a language akin to Serbian and were called “Serbs” for centuries.


• Macedonian Slavs were not identified as Bulgarians until the mid 19th century.

Naturally after World War II Serbian views were abandoned. Serbs were replaced ever after by Slavmacedonians historians who assimilated and further enhanced theories which in the past had been supported chiefly by the Communists. Their main task has been to show that:

• Ancient Macedonians were not Greeks but Slavs.


• Medieval Slavs assimilated ancient non-Greek Macedonians, but were absorbed neither by the Bulgarians nor by the Serbs or Greeks.


• In 19th century a dense and distinct Slav-speaking Macedonian ethnic group, overwhelmingly larger than the Greek one, became the vehicle of Macedonian nationalism, but ethnic Macedonia, having failed to get independence in 1903, was divided in 1913.

We have of course and the US views that run as follows

• Until 1990 considered talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonian "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic, nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece.


• After 1990 found Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland" or Macedonian "national consciousness". Greek thesis is now a unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic, nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Republic of Macedonia.

Greek American Community Charges U.S. Congress on Skopjeʼs Name Issue

Posted on Monday, February 11

Washington, D.C. By Apostolos Zoupaniotis

Leaders of major Greek American organizations gathered at an extraordinary meeting on Thursday, in Washington D.C. to coordinate their efforts in mobilizing the Greek American Community, in promoting the Hellenic positions regarding the name dispute with Skopje. The meeting was initiated by Theodoros Spyropoulos, Regional Coordinator of World Council of Hellenes Abroad, USA. President of the Pan-Macedonian Association of USA, Nina Gatzoulis; the President of the Hellenic American National Council, Em. Velivasakis, Executive Director of AHEPA, Bill Mossaidis; Executive Director of the American Hellenic Institute, Nick Laringakis; Coordinated Effort of Hellenes chairman Andy Manatos; the President of the American Hellenic Congress , Dr. D. Pallas; and staffers of the offices of Representatives Zack Space, Carolyn Maloney, Niki Tsongas, and Albio Sires attended the meeting that was described fruitful and positive by all.The leaders of the organization decided unanimously to intensify lobbying efforts in Congress, promoting HR-356 - proposed by Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) - and the Senate resolution SR-300, proposed by Senato Bob Menendez and supported by Senators Barack Obama and Olympia Snowe.

Furthermore, it was agreed that the Greek positions should be voiced in the American press, through advertisements, editorials and letters.

“We have ahead of us six crucial weeks, until the debate on issue of the NATO enlargement in Bucharest. If as Greek American Community we intensify our efforts and at the same time if Greece takes a decisive position, utilizing the NATO process, we can succeed” Ted Spyropoulos told the Greek News.

“There was always a converging collaborative effort between the Pan-Macedonian Association, the World Council of Hellenes Abroad (USA Region), the American Hellenic National Council, the American Hellenic Institute, and other organizations”, stated Ms. Gatzoulis. “ I am very satisfied however that we were given the opportunity for all Greek-American Associations to convene together and discuss this important issue which is not an issue that only concerns the members of the Pan-Macedonian Association, but one that is important to all Hellenes throughout the world.”

Ambassador of Greece to the United States Alexandros Mallias, briefed the participants on the Greek positions and he assured them of the Greek governmentʼs determination in the negotiations, regarding the naming of the FYROM. A pre-requisite for the integration of FYROM into NATO, is the implementation of the good neighbor policy in the process of defining a mutually accepted solution, emphasized the Greek Ambassador. Greece recognizes and expects the assistance of the Greek American Community to promote and protect the issues of national interest.

Ambassador Mallias also referred to the upcoming visit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dora Bakoyiannis to the US on the 13th and 14th of February, 2008. Ms. Bakoyiannis will meet with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy Secretary of State John Negreponte. During the meeting she will inform them, amongst other things, Athensʼ position regarding the FYROMʼs integration in NATO. The Greek Foreign Minister will also meet with members of the Congressional Hellenic Caucus.

“It was a productive meeting and a coordinated effort by all present. The goal is that the Greek Americans use their capacity as American citizens to encourage their political representatives to support the two resolutions SR300 and HR 356”, Mr. Spyropoulos emphasized. “More than 100 members of the House of Representatives, as well as Senator and Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, Senator Olympia Snowe, and Senator Robert Menendez, are already consigners of the respective decrees. As American citizens of Greek descent we possess great strength, and we can request from our political representatives to apply pressure and appropriately intervene regarding FYROM, in order to curb their incompliance and to contribute toward a commonly accepted solution for the naming of their nation, before the upcoming NATO conference in April of 2008”.

“It is very important for the entire Greek-American community to promote the Congressional resolution HR-356, which was proposed by Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), and the Senate resolution SR-300 which was proposed by Senator Robert Menendez. These resolutions urge the FYROM leadership to bring to an end its pursuits of propaganda against Greece stemming from the governmental domain and the private sector and to focus its initiatives or endeavors in finding a mutually accepted name with Greece, for their country. Furthermore, they urge the FYROM to stop annexing the Greek legacy and history, fanaticizing the youth of their country against Greece”, stressed the Pan-Macedonian President, Ms. Nina Gatzoulis.

The President of the Hellenic American Council Emmanuel Velivasakis also expressed satisfaction, “H.A.N.C. always supports the Pan-Macedonian Association of USA and its positions on the Macedonian issue. It is now time for a coordinated effort by all Greek American organizations. H.A.N.C. will collaborate with AHEPA at the upcoming gathering which will take place some time in March 2008 to inform members of the American government about this issue. This was a very positive meeting, and I am looking forward to the next one,” added Mr. Velivassakis.

http://www.greeknewsonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8078

Please take action !!!

Dear All,

Please take a look at the lecture that will take place at the Smithsonian Resident Associated program and take the proper action:

http://residentassociates.org/ticketing/tickets/reserve.aspx?performanceNumber=178528

Please call, fax or email.

Contact information:
Tel: 202-633-3030
Fax: 202-786-2034
email: CustomerService@ResidentAssociates.org

Below is the Pan-Macedonian responce.....

Barbara Tuceling
Director of Smithsonian Resident Associate Program

On behalf of the members of the Pan-Macedonian Association, USA, one of the largest Greek-American organizations, we wish to express our profound disappointment that such a respected institutions as the Smithsonian Resident Associate Program, is ready to embrace historic inaccuracies.

It came to our attention through your advertisement that art historian and “Macedonian” native, Aneta Georgievska-Shine “...explores the multi-layered cultural heritage of this dynamic history...Home to exquisite Byzantine churches with beautifully preserved frescos and valuable icons, the Republic of Macedonia is a country or rich and complex cultural identity. Form antiquity, when Alexander the Great created an empire that reached as far away as India...”

Even though President George Bush erroneously recognized the FYROM as Republic of “Macedonia,” back in 2004, Macedonia is a province of Greece since time immemorial. The Slavs, who are Ms Shine’s ancestors, cannot be ethnically, linguistically or culturally Macedonians simply because they did not exist in this area until the 6th century AD, when they descended from Siberia and settled there.

The Hellenic name Macedonia, which had always identified the northern area of Greece, preceded the introduction of the majority Slavic population of The FYROM in the Balkans by well over 2000 years. Therefore when they arrived in the area, the Byzantine Empire was already in existence.

In addition Ms Tuceling two wrongs, our President’s in 2004 and your institute’s embracing historic inaccuracies, do not make a right. In addition Alexander the Great the Macedonian, spoke Greek, used the Hellenic alphabet, carried Homer’s works with him and spread the Hellenic language and civilization throughout the then known world. He did not speak the Bulgarian dialect that The FYROM people speak; he did not use the Cyrillic alphabet, which had not even appeared till about one thousand years after his death. Alexander the Great is our Abraham Lincoln, as he united the North and the South of the Hellenic World under Hellas.

The historians in your esteemed institute should know that during the ancient Olympic Games, only Greeks could participate. The Macedonians therefore participated for the very fact that they too were Greeks.

With this letter we formally request that you desist from engaging in promoting falsified and revised history through your institution.

We would appreciate an answer.

WE NEED YOUR HELP TO PASS A RESOLUTION ON FYROM

CONTACT THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS TODAY!ASK THEM TO TAKE ACTION ON FEBRUARY 14

Background on the Issue

The FYROM issue will come to the forefront in 2008, because the United States is advocating for FYROM's inclusion into NATO and the European Union. Greece, a key NATO ally and EU member, will oppose FYROM's membership into NATO unless a mutually agreeable solution is found by the time of the NATO Summit this April. It will become increasingly difficult for Greece to negotiate a mutually acceptable name with FYROM should the latter become a NATO member and eventually an EU member.

On May 1, 2007, Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced H.Res. 356, which urges FYROM to stop utilizing materials that violate provisions of the UN-brokered Interim Agreement between FYROM and Greece regarding "hostile activities or propaganda" and should work with the United Nations and Greece to achieve longstanding US and UN policy goals to find a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM.

Status

Currently, the bill sits with the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs. Rep. Tom Lantos is the chairman of the committee.

Action Needed Today

The bill has not been taken up by the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
AHEPA Supreme President Ike Gulas has requested a meeting with Chairman Lantos on this issue.

Now it is your turn. As American citizens of Hellenic descent, we must have a collective voice.
Contact Representative Lantos through the Committee on Foreign Affairs Today!
Telephone or write to Robert King, who is Rep. Lantos' Staff Director for the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Request that Chairman Lantos bring H.Res.356 up for debate and consideration by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Present the reasons why the Resolution merits debate (you can utilize these talking points).

more in AHEPA.org

FYROM irredentism .....

The below picture show the FYROM Prime Minister Gruevski when put flowers on the grave of the revolutionary Goce Delchev on the anniversary of its 136th birth day. On the grave has been put a map of Greater Macedonia that includes what is nowadays Greek Macedonia and Bulgarian Macedonia.

Now tell me dear neutral observer ?

Do you really beleive that this tiny State has fairly policy against Greece and the Greek people. Mant times I have wrote taht cause of this ultra-nationalist behaviour is a ideology that flourish and in FYROM borders and grow dynamically in diaspora Slavmacedonians.This ideology call as Macedonism.

FYROM main headings were, are and will be...

1. Renaming Greek Macedonia as ‘Aegean Macedonia’, and representing
   it as terra irredenta, as an integral part of FYROM.
2. Claiming the existence of an oppressed ‘Macedonian minority’ within
   Greece.
3. Appropriating emblems and symbols, and the Greek cultural legacy in
   general (with Ancient Macedonia as the focal point).

FYROM’s irredentist policy towards Greece from 1944 to the present, a policy that is in flagrant breach of the Interim Agreement signed by the two parties in 1995 expressly calling on
them to put an end to any mutual expressions of irredentism.

AHI Sends Letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Regarding FYROM

WASHINGTON, DC-

On January 31st, AHI sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice regarding the administration's failure to properly address the name issue regarding the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as it relates to U.S. interests and that of our most important ally in the Balkans - Greece. The text of the letter follows:

January 31, 2008

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice

Secretary of State

2201 C Street, N.W.

Department of State

Washington, D.C. 20520

Re: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Dear Madame Secretary:

On behalf of the nation-wide membership of the American Hellenic Institute (AHI) we write to express our strong disapproval concerning the administration's continuing failure to properly address the name issue regarding the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as it relates to our interests and that of our most important ally in the Balkans-Greece.

The U.S. has important interests in Southeast Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean. The projection of U.S. interests in the region depends heavily on the stability of the region. Therefore, the U.S. has an important stake in fostering good relations among neighboring countries in the region.

Greece is of vital importance for the projection of U.S. strategic interests in the region by virtue of among other factors, its geographic location and by being home to the most important naval base in the Mediterranean Sea, Souda Bay, Crete. There are thousands of visits by U.S. military ships and planes to Souda Bay and its adjacent air base annually.

This sentiment has been expressed several times by our government in the past few years, by President Bush and by you, Madame Secretary.

Stability in the Balkans is not only critical for overall U.S. interests, but also because it serves the interests of every country in the Balkans.

Greece is by far the most economic and politically stable country in the Balkans. By contrast, FYROM is of limited significance to the national security interests of the United States.
However, the continuing intransigent and provocative actions by the government of the FYROM against its neighbor, Greece, poses a potential threat to stability in the Balkans, to the detriment of U.S. interests.

Yet, it would seem that Greece has been taken for granted. The sensitivities and concerns of our most important ally in the Balkans and one of our most loyal and long-time ally have not been considered.

Successive administrations from President Clinton to the present Bush administration, have had a habit of taking Greece for granted. These administrations have looked upon Greece as a Western nation and ally that will not rock-the-boat and will follow what the U.S. and the major NATO nations desire. That has been unfortunate and has created unnecessary problems- such as the FYROM name issue.

As you very well know, the FYROM name issue is coming to a head soon. As you are further aware, it is expected that the application of FYROM to join NATO will be discussed at the March 6, 2008 NATO foreign minister's meeting in Brussels. The U.S. supports FYROM's admission to NATO. Greece obviously objects to admission without a resolution to the name issue, and has stated it will use their veto, if necessary, which Greece is within her right to exercise.

If the United wishes to avert this veto, we encourage you to strongly use your influence to bring the proper pressure to bear on FYROM to negotiate in good faith the name issue that satisfies both countries and to cease its provocative actions against Greece. Only in this way will the interests of all parties be satisfied.

To this effect, Greece has recently made a major compromise by proposing "a compound name for the country; a name that will distinguish it from both the Greek and Bulgarian part." Greece's position is unambiguous. It has gone the extra mile. It wants a negotiated, mutually acceptable solution that will be valid internationally, in accordance with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Foreign Minister Bakoyannis publicly expressed Greece's readiness to accept a composite name. This is a serious shift of tremendous importance from Greece's initial position. Unfortunately, this gesture was not reciprocated from the FYROM. The time is ripe for FYROM to demonstrate the maturity and the responsibility that a state needs in order to become a member of the Alliance.

The U.S. can easily turn the situation around by informing FYROM that the U.S. supports the Greek government's major compromise of accepting "a compound name for their country, a name that will distinguish it from both the Greek and Bulgarian" part.

Greece is determined to settle this difference before the NATO Summit in April of this year. However, if FYROM remains unwilling to engage in good faith negotiations, then the issue will remain unresolved. Such a situation will perpetuate the problem.

The immediate settlement of the name issue, in a way that is acceptable to Greece, will allow the United States' strongest ally in the Balkans to be the driving force for FYROM's membership to NATO and ultimately to the European Union.

FYROM's "passport" to NATO and the European Union is Greece. It is however, FYROM, that is the intransigent party in this regard, and not Greece. FYROM must realize that in order to join NATO, it must focus on the fulfillment of NATO's good neighborly relations principle and the immediate settlement of the difference over the name. Greece is the biggest investor in FYROM and literally helps to sustain FYROM's precarious economy and reduce its large unemployment. Greece is also a leader in investment and economic development in Southeastern Europe, with over 22 billion dollars invested.

Yet, FYROM continues to provoke Greece and who refuses to negotiate in good faith over the name issue. Unfortunately, actions over the years such as distortion of geographic maps, naming its airport "Alexander the Great," revisionist textbooks in schools, and inflammatory comments by top government officials, encourages new generations in FYROM to cultivate hostile sentiments against Greece. Further, this continuing systematic government policy will hinder FYROM's accession to both the EU and NATO. This is the real threat to stability in the Balkans.

Unfortunately, the irresponsible decision by the administration in the fall of 2004 to recognize FYROM as the "Republic of Macedonia" has contributed greatly to FYROM's increasing intransigent stance.

In our view, and many others, U.S. actions since 1992 regarding the FYROM name dispute has constituted an American foreign policy blunder which has damaged U.S. interests in the Western Balkans and damaged Greece, our key ally in the Balkans and Eastern Mediterranean, for no sound reason.

I emphasize that there is no sound reason for the U.S. to have supported FYROM on the name issue. Further, for the U.S. to support FYROM against Greece, a loyal ally, a member of NATO and the European Union (EU) and the key nation in the Balkans and Eastern Mediterranean for the projection of U.S. power and U.S. diplomatic, economic and political initiatives, is gross diplomatic negligence.

For the record, there is no unqualified universally accepted rule of international law that authorizes a state to name itself anything it wants.

It is not proper for a country which is part of a region to define itself in an official manner as representing the whole region. Macedonia, like the Americas and Europe, is a region. Just as no country in North and South America would call itself the "American Republic," and no European country would call itself the "Republic of Europe," FYROM in naming itself cannot assume the mantle of all of Macedonia.

Tito changed the name of this area in 1944 from Vardar Banovina to Macedonia. The usage of Macedonian as a nationality was an invention of Tito in 1944. Tito, the communist dictator of Yugoslavia, created a false Macedonian ethnic consciousness among his south Slavic citizens for a number of reasons, including his campaign against Greece to gain control of Greece's province of Macedonia and the major port city of Salonika. (See article by C.M. Woodhouse, a noted historian, in the Christian Science Monitor, October 28, 1992, p. 19.)

The United States opposed the use of the name Macedonia by Tito in 1944 and we should continue to oppose it now. In a Circular Airgram (Dec. 26, 1944) Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., stated:

This government considers talk of Macedonian "nation," Macedonian "Fatherland," or Macedonian "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece.

Stettinius' airgram was prophetic because Tito and Stalin did initiate aggressive action against Greece. Therefore, we call upon you, Madame Secretary, to please use your influence with FYROM to impress upon them to negotiate in good faith with Greece to resolve the name issue and to cease immediately their irredentist propaganda against Greece, which violates the UN-brokered Interim Accord, as stated in Article 7 paragraph 1 of the Accord, signed in New York on September 13 1995 between FYROM and Greece.

It is useful to recall President Bush's words and yours regarding U.S. relations with Greece. On March 20, 2005, during the occasion of Prime Minister of Greece, Constantine Karamanlis' visit to the White House, President Bush stated, "America and Greece have got a strategic partnership. That's important. It's important for our respective peoples, and it's important we work together to spread freedom and peace."

On March 24, 2005, you stated, after meeting with then Greek Foreign Minister Petros Molyviatis, that, "...the Balkans, a place in which we believe great progress has been made but, of course, there are many challenges yet to meet. ... we have no better friend in these challenges than our friends in Greece." And in reference to Kosovo and Greece's role there, you stated, "We believe that this is an area that is ripe for cooperation between Greece and the United States..."
And once again, on March 23, 2006, when welcoming the then new Foreign Minister of Greece, Dora Bakoyianni to the State Department, you said, "We've had a great opportunity to discuss our strategic partnership with Greece. This is a relationship that is first and foremost, of course, based on values. It is a relationship that recognizes the seminal role of Greece as a cradle of those values and recognizes that in the modern era in which we find ourselves now with so many challenges that Greece is a stalwart partner in the spread of democratic values, whether it be in Greece's work in the Broader Middle East Initiative, in which we've all been involved, promoting stability and prosperity in the Balkans, fighting terrorism and, of course, seeking the reunification of Cyprus on the basis of democratic values."

We write this in the interests of the United States and for the support of our long-time and loyal ally, Greece, who is our most important strategic partner in the region and the key country for stability in the region.

Respectfully yours,

Gene Rossides

President

Nick Larigakis

Executive Director

cc:

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns

Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Daniel Fried

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Matthew Bryza

Director of Southern European Affairs Kathy Fitzpatrick

Greek Desk Officer Gabrielle Cowan

The Congress

Slavmacedonian Embassador Nikola Dimitrov

In the talks between Greece and FYROM to settle their dispute over the use of the name 'Macedonia' by FYROM we have hear the name of Nikola Dimitrov, the Slavmacedonian negotiator.


In this picture you can see the 37 year old Slavmacedonian politician with the Greek Embassador Vasilakis in Ochrid.

Two years ago the present Slavmacedonian politician Nikola Dimitrov was in stationed in USA as Ambassador of the FYROM. On March 9th, 2006 organized by the FYROM Embassy in the U.S. House of Representatives with the help and support of the Office of Congressman Mark Souder.

Slavmacedonian Dimitrov as FYROM Ammbassador briefed various Congressional staffers, members of the media, and Greek and Macedonian émigré organizations, respectively on the topic of The right to an identity: Republic of Macedonia and Resolutions H. Res. 521 and H. Con. Res. 306. .His arguments follow the known nationalistic and un-historical thesis of the FYROM State such as Greece discover Macedonia in 1988 and several other thinks that you can read it in this link .

As I said one from the biggest lier of the Slavmacedonian politician was that Greece discover Macedonia in 1988. With the First Balkan War of the Balkan states against the Turks in 1912, when the Greek army liberated Thessaloniki, the Governorate- General of Macedonia (ΓΕΝΙΚΗ ΔΙΟΙΚΗΣΗ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑΣ) was established immediately, with its headquarters in Thessaloniki. It was well known that Greece had the right to do this and no one objected. Until 1944, no one ever conceived of the existence of any other Macedonia.and the first General Governor was Stefanos Dragoumis.

Also one from the FYROMian propaganda sources was the famous Rossos article with title The British Foreign Office and Macedonian National Identity, 1918-1941 In this article there is a quote that mention

1923: "In the course of conversation, Mr. Lambros [Governor General of Macedonia], actually said that the present was a good opportunity to get rid of the Bulgars [sic] who remained in this area and who had always been a source of trouble for Greece.

Also proffessor Marcus Alexander Templar gave a great answer with some intrestings historical facts such the Ottoman map that you can see below...

Major M. Nasrullah, Senior Captain M. Rüşdü, First Lieutenant M. Eşref; Osmanlı Atlası XX. Yüzyıl Başları; Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı; İstanbul 2003; ISBN 975-7268-34-8

Let's read the article........

At the end they present the map of the present-day FYROM as the map of “ancient Macedonia,” an ancient Macedonia that NEVER existed. It is “their” version of Macedonia. Fifty years under the communist rule taught them to revise their history as it suits them.

On the other hand, the Greek maps display Macedonia in any website and any book, present only the Macedonian part of Greece, as Macedonia. Only historical maps show some parts that belong to The FYROM, as part of Lyngistis, Pelagonia, and the Macedonian Paeonia[1]. It is therefore evident that these maps demonstrate in a subtle, but clear manner that The FYROM Slavs do not recognize Hellenic sovereignty over the Greek part of Macedonia, Macedonia Proper; this is the reason they insist on calling it Aegean Macedonia and not Greek or Hellenic Macedonia. It also violates the Interim Agreement signed by both Greece and The FYROM and the Constitution of The FYROM itself – amendment replacing and clarifying article 49 of the said Constitution. The dream and the goal of The FYROM Slavs are the incorporation of the Hellenic part of Macedonia into their newly independent country with the city of Thessaloniki as the first prize.

This goal began in the 1800’s and not by the Slavs of The FYROM, but by a Bulgarian, aspiring to make the Bulgarian dream come true. This dream began with Georgi Stoykov Popovich or better known as Georgi Sava Rakovski of Kotel, Bulgaria, who dedicated his life for the liberation of geographic Macedonia for the Bulgarians.

On August 2-3 every year since its establishment, The FYROM celebrates the establishment of the ephemeral Krushevo Republic, a “republic” that started by Bulgarians and victimized the Greeks of the area of the villages of Krushevo. The Manifesto of Krushevo treated the term Macedonia geographically, calling for all Macedonians “regardless of faith, nationality, sex or conviction, not being able to endure any more the tyranny of bloodthirsty converts” to rise up against the Ottomans. For the first time in history Tito named his Slavs of the People’s Republic of Macedonia, “Macedonians” Stalin’s suggestion, and only recently, the self-proclaimed “Macedonian” Patriotic Organization, admitted they are actually Slavs[2]. Of course, he simultaneously declared his ignorance about the origin of the alphabet of his own old country.

The view that when the territories of Macedonia were divided into three areas, awarding Greece 51.57%, Serbia 38.32% and Bulgaria 10.11% of the total Macedonian territory, is based on erroneous discernment, which leads to miscalculations. These percentages are incorrect because they correspond to the area of Greek Macedonia (34,603 km2) and Bulgarian Macedonia (6,789 km2), but not to the actual section of the former Serbian Macedonia.

The territory of the present day FYROM (25,713 km2) was not totally part of Serbian Macedonia. Namely, the calculations mentioned in the previous paragraph refer to the republic[3] when it was formed after the WWII, disregarding the fact that Serbian territories merged with Serbian Macedonia in order to create the new “People’s Republic of Macedonia.”[4] There is no reference of “Macedonia” in the Treaty of Bucharest, because Macedonia did not exist, and thusly the Treaty divided the Vilayets of Selanik and Manastır of the Ottoman Empire

======================================================================

[1] See Templar, Fallacies and Facts, 2003, map The Macedonian Homeland.

[2] “The Macedonians are Slavs” Chris Evanoff, MPO President, 17 July 2002 – Letter to the Governor of Illinois. “Today the Macedonian alphabet and language are Slavic and differ completely from the Greek alphabet and language” Chris Evanoff, MPO President, 23 July 2002 – Letter to the Governor of Illinois.

[3] “People’s Republic of Macedonia” and in April 7, 1963 “Socialist Republic of Macedonia.”

[4] From personal experience: Skopje, i.e. belonged to Serbia and its inhabitants used to speak “old Serbian.”

Also you can read and the Istor article regarding Dimitov claims

The question is ....can we trust a politician that said to much lies as Nikola Dimitov ?

Can Balkan Peace trust a politician that his State *FYROM) generated falsifications and several factors that wish to serve their own interests by creating trouble in the Balkans

Greece objects to the use of the name "Republic of Macedonia" by FYROM, saying this may give rise to irredentist claims against a northern Greek province of the same name that shares a border with tiny and landlocked FYROM. It has also objected to FYROM's adoption of symbols associated with the ancient Macedonian king and general Alexander the Great as historically inaccurate.

Nikola Dimitrov are you trust as negotiator ? or you one that adopted the Macedonism ?