What’s in a Name? ( UN General Assembly president act as FYROM Minister* )

by Alexandros P. Mallias

09.27.2007

When UN General Assembly president H.E. Dr. Srgjan Kerim, a native of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), introduced on September 25 the president of his home country, Mr. Branko Crvenkovski, he implied that the national interest of FYROM prevails over his duties to the UN body. He therefore addressed Mr. Crvenkovksi as the “President of the Republic of Macedonia.”

Some people may think that what happened in the UN constitutes a minor or isolated incident. Nevertheless, this is not the case—this has deeper roots both on a regional and international level. Challenging UN resolutions and decisions and ignoring commitments undertaken through international agreements, as FYROM has systematically done by violating the US-brokered Interim Accord with Greece, is a bad precedent. This is a violation of the principle of good-neighborly relations and puts sustained regional stability in jeopardy.

To make it clear, Dr. Kerim’s action is in full contravention of Security Council resolutions 817 (1993) and 843 (1993), as well as the recommendations contained therein regarding the provisional name under which this state was unanimously admitted to the United Nations (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).

Dr. Kerim, obviously acting under instructions from his government, has irreparably damaged his standing and credibility as president of the General Assembly. He did not respect the resolutions of the body over which he is presiding nor of the Security Council of the United Nations, the organization he has been called upon to serve.

Such a development also militates against the efforts made by the UN to facilitate the bilateral negotiations entered into by Greece and FYROM through the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy, Mr. Matthew Nimetz, to seek a mutually acceptable solution on the name issue. Following this action by Mr. Kerim, Mr. Nimetz said on September 26 that what happened in the General Assembly demonstrates why a permanent solution is needed. He is continuing his work with the parties on this issue. Furthermore, UN spokeswoman Ms. Marie Okabe stressed that within the United Nations, the Secretary-General and the Secretariat continue to use the name “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.”

The actions of Dr. Kerim and FYROM are a clear indication of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s lack of respect for international law and international institutions. They are also a blunt violation of the US-brokered Interim Accord

This development clearly shows that the President of the UN General Assembly has put his national interest over that of the United Nations.

Assurances by the authorities in Skopje concerning the use of the name “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” in international organizations are thus unreliable and untrustworthy. FYROM officials ignore their commitments. The responsibility for the consequences of this uncompromising position belongs exclusively and completely to the government in Skopje.

It should be noted that Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Mr. Nicholas Burns, following a meeting in New York with Greece’s Foreign Minister Ms. Dora Bakoyannis on September 24, 2007, stressed that “the time has come for progress on the FYROM name issue…this is our message to Skopje, and the spirit of our meeting today with the foreign minister…We wish to exercise our influence and urge Skopje, as we do with Athens, that the time has come for progress.” We fully concur with this statement.

Many Americans may think this is a minor issue. But the history of the region, not to mention of Europe as a whole, demonstrates that whenever irredentist claims are left unaddressed, the seeds of future conflicts are sown. Europe today is governed by the rule of law; the completion of the European project in the Balkans—and the extension of a zone of peace and prosperity—rest upon the willingness of governments to live up to their international commitments. Obligations are like a tapestry; even pulling on what might appear to outsiders to be a small and insignificant thread can end up unraveling the entire work. We have too much invested in the stability of the region to allow this to happen.

Alexandros P. Mallias is the ambassador of Greece to the United States. He was the first ambassador of Greece to FYROM immediately after the signing of the US-brokered Interim Accord in 1995. He has also served as Director of the Southeastern Europe (Balkan Affairs) Department at the Foreign Ministry in Athens, as Ambassador to Albania and Head of the European Community Monitor Mission Regional Office in Sofia.

The mentioned article was posted in National Interest

*Is not written in the initial post of the article

American and European Hypocrisy

FYROM officials yesterday announced that Canada decide to recognized them with under constitunal name. Officials at the Canadian embassies in FYROM and Greece as the UK and US at the past were not immediately available for comment.

Why you hide Canadians?

The name is one of the most emotive foreign policy issues in Greece. Macedonia is also the name of Greece's northern province, birthplace of Alexander the Great.

As Macedonian Greek I would like to express my humble but proud opinion regarding the issue.

FYROM’s political world is in all likelihood ready to accept a double name formula. This is a formula in which, drawing on the proposals of the ICG, Greece would use a “non-problematical” name and international recognition within the framework of the UN based on the name “Republic of Macedonia.” Twelve years after the signing of the Interim Accord, the government in Skopje seems to believe that it is approaching achievement of a goal very close to the one it had originally set when the name dispute began in 1991. Now, the FYROM side is exploiting the inopportune and ‘unfair’ US recognition of its constitutional name to continue its foot-dragging, and has restricted itself to offering the formula of the ‘double name’—one for Greece and one for the rest of the world—in the knowledge that no Greek politician will accept a solution that puts his country in a position of international ‘apartheid.’

FYROM is monopolistically claiming titles, both geographical and historical. Long ago, in the evil days of Hitler, the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, described Czechoslovakia as 'a far-away country' of whose people 'we know nothing'. The same tragic error might easily be made today concering Macedonia.

How well known is it in the West that there are two Macedonias, separated by a common frontier?

How many know that the northern mini-Macedonia, known officially at the present as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, has a seat at the United Nations, whereas the southern mega-Macedonia does not, because it is not a 'nation- state' but only a province of Greece?

How many have noticed that the acronym FYROM is already relapsing into 'Macedonia' tout court, so that its representative in New York will soon sit behind a tablet simply inscribed 'Macedonia', thus implying that his state alone can rightly claim a Macedonian identity?

This upstart mini-Macedonia is a product of the terrible conflict which is described from many writers like the Professor John Koliopoulos (Plundreed Loualities) or known British officers Chris Woodhouse and Hammond. It did not appear as Macedonia on any map before the Second World War. It is a landlocked area with no natural boundaries. Its population, apart from the usual Balkan minorities, is mainly Slavonic and Albanian.

As 'Macedonia' it was a creation of Tito, to provide a launching-pad from which to invade and take over the real Macedonia in northern Greece. The real Macedonia, on the other hand, has a history of at least three millennia: it was the homeland of Alexander the Great; the first country in Europe to which St Paul was invited to 'come over and help us'; the mainstay of-the Allied defense against Mussolini in 1940, when (as we chose to put it) Britain 'stood alone'; and the birthplace of modern Greece's outstanding Politician, Constantinos Kararnanlis.

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.

Europeans and the Americans have not been very helpful on this matter. They never seriously considered the fact that the People's Republic of Macedonia was the only Stalin and Tito achievement that the West declared preservable, though there is no blame for declaring the small enclave viable. The blame is for disregarding facts, brushing aside the available historical data to punish Greece, as if Greece were the instigator of this vexing Balkan event. If history had meant anything to the Europeans and Americans, they should have discouraged Skopje at the outset from using the name "Macedonia." 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 aspiratioils."

Cappelli (1997), discussing the Bosnian question, appropriately pointed out that "international recognition by no means necessarily endows a state with legitimacy, especially when the recognition has been granted in such an impetuous manner in the midst of a crisis and if legitimacy is held to have any connection with a common history and a sense of common destiny as characteristics of the state's population, without which no state can survive." Every word of this statement on Bosnia applies to FYROM.

Greek people and specially the Macedonians as the undersigned, asks fYROM to adhere to its UN agreement and stop its schools and others from irredentist teachings, such as that northern Greece should be part of their country. As well, the Greek people l urges fYROM to adhere to UN and EU policy and reach agreement with Greece on a name for their new country – one that does not encourage fYROM irredentism

“Biliteral” recognitions models show that behind the reality is the hypocrisy, a behaviour common among the old West world.

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.

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

By ANDRÉ GEROLYMATOS

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.

source
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20070716/COMACE16/comment/Comment

The Arnaiz-Villena controversy

The Arnaiz-Villena controversyAn often-cited study from 2001 by Arnaiz-Villena et al.[1] which maps 28 world population based on the HLA DRB1 locus, concluded that "the reason why Greeks did not show a close relatedness with all the other Mediterraneans analyzed was their genetic relationship with sub-Saharan ethnic groups now residing in Ethiopia, Sudan, and West Africa (Burkina Faso)." Later that year, the same data was used in another study by the same author published in a different journal.[2]

This second paper dealt specifically with the relatedness of Palestinians and Israelis and was subsequently "deleted from the scientific literature" because, according to the editor-in-chief Nicole Suciu-Foca, it "confounded the elegant analysis of the historic basis of the people of the Mediterranean Basin with a political viewpoint representing only one side of a complex political and historical issue".[3]

Erica Klarreich's report on the controversy further quotes Sucio-Foca as saying that the reaction against the paper was so severe that "We would have had mass resignations and the journal would have been destroyed if this paper were allowed to remain." [4] The controversy was further reported on in numerous locations including The Observer.[5]

Shortly after this, three respected geneticists, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Alberto Piazza and Neil Risch, argued that the scientific limitations of Arnaiz-Villena's methodology.[6]

They stated that "
USING RESULTS FROM THE ANALYSIS OF A SINGLE MARKER, PARTICULARLY ONE LIKELY TO HAVE UNDERGONE SELECTION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECONSTRUCTING GENEALOGIES IS UNRELIABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE PRACTICE IN POPULATION GENETICS.",

making specific allusion to the findings on Greeks (among others) as

"ANOMALOUS RESULTS, WHICH CONTRADICT HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, ANTHROPOLOGY AND ALL PRIOR POPULATION-GENETIC STUDIES OF THESE GROUPS."No multiple-marker analysis has ever duplicated Arnaiz-Villena's results.

In The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton, 1994), Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza grouped Greeks with other European and Mediterranean populations based on 120 loci (view MDS plot[7). Then, Ayub et al. 2003[8] did the same thing using 182 loci (view dendrogram[9).

THE DISPUTED DATA CONTINUES TO BE CITED ALL OVER THE INTERNET, MOSTLY BY WHITE SUPREMACISTS, AFROCENTRISTS AND MACEDONISM NATIONALISTS WHO HAVE POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS TO RELATE MODERN OR ANCIENT GREEKS TO BLACK AFRICANS. HOWEVER, IT'S NO LONGER REFERENCED BY POPULATION GENETICISTS IN CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH, MAINLY DUE TO THE CRITICISM OF CAVALLI-SFORZA ET AL.


Footnotes
1. Arnaiz-Villena et al.
2. Abstract
3. Human Immunology, Vol: 62, Issue: 10, October, 2001, pp1063
4. Nature
5. The Observer
6. Nature
7. MDS plot
8. Ayub et al. 2003
9. dendrogram

The Invention of the 'History of the Macedonian Nation', and the Real Descent of the Macedonians:

Those who produce the propaganda issued in Skopje attach great importance to the ex post facto construction of the history of the 'Macedonian nation'. The 'National History Institute of the Macedonian People' was founded in Skopje in December 1948. The historians of Skopje focused their attention on proving that a separate 'Macedonian' nation existed regardless of whether or not it had ever given any sign of life in the past.

Those historians included Kriste Pitoski, Alexander Trayanovski, Risto Poplazakov and Ian Katardziev, together with the politician Dimitar Vlahov. Their argument consisted of the claim that there had been a 'Macedon ian' people of Slav descent who lived in the area of Macedonia in the 7th century AD.

"After a period of importance in the Middle Ages" (this, of course, is the Empire of Tsar Samuel, who was a Bulgarian and certainly not a 'Macedonian') "the Macedonian people were enslaved by the Bulgarians and latterly by the Turks". In the particular case of Samuel, the argument from Skopje is that he was a 'Macedonian Slav', that since he was the leader of a Macedonian state he was therefore a 'Macedonian', and that consequently the state he founded was 'the first Macedonian state'.

The historical truth of the matter is that Samuel was a Bulgarian Tsar, not a Macedonian. Consequently, the state he founded was Bulgarian. That is why the Byzantine Emperor Basil II, who crushed Samuel and his state, is known as Basil the Bulgar-Slayer and not Basil the Macedonian-Slayer.

According to A. Vasiliev, "Basil's war against the Bulgarians was a very cruel one, as a result of which he was called 'the Bulgar-slayer"'. And M. Levtchenko says that "Basil acquired the name 'Bulgur-slayer because of his exploits and cruelty in war. By 1018 he had finished with Bulgaria."

An inscription dating from 1017 has been found at Monastir: it refers to John, the nephew of Samuel, "Bulgarian by race".

The 'Macedonian' historians of Yugoslavia have been careful enough to avoid the trap of claiming that they are the continuation of the ancient Macedonians. However, they have indulged in theories of various other kinds, identifying the Macedonians with the ancient Illyrians, or tracing their ancestry back to some separate indigenous tribe a sort of mixture of Illyrians and Thracians.

As a result, the Greek influence which can be seen everywhere in Macedonia has to be interpreted as imported from the Greek colonies of Chalkidike, while the Macedonian kings and their stock are described as 'Hellenising apostates' and the population is Macedonian rather than Greek. However, the historians of Skopje are aware of the need for their 'Macedonian' nation to acquire some bonds with antiquity. They thus invented the theory that the invasion of the Slavs (a thousand years after the golden age of Macedon) resulted in the extermination of a part of the indigenous population and inevitable intermarriage with the survivors. Under this oversimplified version of the process by which nations are born, the Slavs who established themselves in Macedonia 'married into' the last traces of the ancient Macedonians so as to provide the Yugoslavs with 20th century 'Macedonians'.

source
Macedonians in Canada

Why Macedonian Slavs Stealing the Greek Macedonian History?

Historian and Professor Eugene Borza who is credited as "Macedonian specialist" by the American Philological Association, and who have done extensive studies regarding the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, had also presented in-depth analysis that the ancient Macedonians were not "Slavs" or mixture of Slavs and Romans as Macedonian Slavonic position claim.. In his Macedonia Redux Borza writes:

The Macedonian kingdom was absorbed into the Roman Empire, never to recover its independence. During medieval and modem times, Macedonia was known as a Balkan region inhabited by ethnic Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs, Serbs, Bulgarians, Jews, and Turks.

Without a common national entity and distinguished historical path, as a nation, the present fYROMacedonia was part of Serbia since 1912 with the name of VARDARSKA and with Skopje as its capital. In 1929, following an administrative reorganization of the "Kingdom of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia", which consisted of 33 Districts (Oblasti), the "Kingdom of South-Slavia" (Yugoslavia) was created, with 9 Administrative Districts (Banobina) and a 10th one, independent, the Administrative District of Belgrade. The boundaries of the 9 Districts where set with geophysical criterias, in a way that they did not disturb any ethnological elements. Due to the inborn ethnological problem of the entire Dominion, which was composed of a mosaic of nationalities, the reformation law had foreseen the non existence, for each of the administrative districts, of common ethnographic elements, which could incubate future moves for independence. Thus, the present lack of ethnological homogeneity of the state of fYROM, is the result of diligent work and not incidental. The non existence of homogeneity is due to this prudence.Loring Danforth point out:

The history of the construction of a macedonian national identity does not begin with alexander the great in the fourth century b.c. or with saints cyril and methodius in the ninth century a.d., as Macedonian nationalist historians often claim. nor does it begin with tito and the establishment of the people's republic of macedonia in 1944 as greek nationalist historians would have us believe. It begins in the nineteenth century with the first expressions of macedonian ethnic nationalism on the part of a small number of intellectuals in places like thessaloniki, belgrade, sophia, and st.petersburg. this period marks the beginning of the process of "imagining" a macedonian national community, the beginning of the construction of a macedonian national identity and culture"

The fYROMacedonian historiography basing her “stealing process” via the Historical revisionism.Historical revisionism is the attempt to change commonly held ideas about the past. In its legitimate form (see historical revisionism) it is the reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards updating historical narratives with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information, acknowledging that history of an event, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate.Historical revisionism can be used as a label to describe the views of self-taught historians who publish articles that deliberately misrepresent and manipulate historical evidence.

This process identified from the Bulgarian historians as Macedonisn. Macedonism is the political idea prevalent in the Republic of Macedonia 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. For example, Bulgarian Tsar Samuil is denied the Bulgarian nature of his kingdom, despite overwhelming evidence supporting it, and is defined as a "Slavic" or "Macedonian" king. Further attempts are made to deny the Hellenic nature of the ancient kingdom of Macedon and to seek connections between present day ethnic Macedonians and the Ancient Macedonians.What are the aims of the Macedonists after the creation of the Macedonian Slav State ? Maria Nystazopoulou Pelekidou writes:

Their first aim was to cut off every link between the so-called "Macedonians" and the Bulgarians, as a well as the Serbs, and to convince the people that they belonged to a separate Slavic nation, the "Macedonian" one

The second aim was to eliminate Greek character of Macedonia and Macedonian history; and this would be achieved by minimizing the Greek presence in this region and misinterpreting or falsifying their role, specifically the cultural and intellectual contribution of Hellenism, the orthodox Greek clergy and Greek schools.

The third aim was to search for, fabricate and project the historical development of the so-called "Macedonian people", so as to prove the separate national identity of the "Macedonians", as well as their cohesion and continuity from ancient times until today.

The fourth aim was to create a Great Idea, which would bring awareness to the masses. So the historians of Skopje started declaring that Macedonia, as a whole, was a Slavic country both in its historical tradition and its ethnic composition. For this reason, it had to be united and form a unified state.

That is exactly why the Macedonian Slavs claim that the ancient Macedonians "were Slavs" or Mix, so that if in ancient times there was a non Greek tribe (Macedonians) living in Macedonia, then that land therefore is non Greek and therefore with the Slavonic invasion in 6th cent these Slavs didn’t find any Greek presence. They exterminated a large number of the indigenous population and assimilated the rest. Thus, within a few years Macedonia became Slavic. Because these indigenous populations were Illyrian and not Greek, the Slavs who settled in Macedonia were united with that non-Greek element and thus acquired ancient roots, irrespective of any Greek presence. In this way, Skopje claims for itself not only the history but also the achievements of the civilization connected to this region.

Source
1-Eugene Borza, “Macedonian Redux”
2-Loring Danforth, “The Macedonia Conflict”
3-Maria Nystazopoulou Pelekidou, “The Macedonian Question”
4-Historical Revisionism, wikipedia

Kalo Taxidi Amalia

Greek bloggers are mourning the loss of one of their own, a young Greek cancer patient whose adventures through the Greek medical system touched thousands, and are dedicating June 1 to her memory.

Amalia Kalyvinou, who died last week at the age of 30, had attracted many to her Internet Weblog with her stories about incompetent and corrupt doctors who failed to diagnose her for years or took financial advantage of her despair."Goodbye Amalia.

Greeks must think about how they tolerate this disgrace and never speak up," one anonymous blogger wrote.

Her ordeal appeared to have touched a nerve with many Greeks, long dissatisfied with their public medical care, and daily newspapers published news of Amalia's death on their front page on Tuesday.

Doctors in Athens pledged yesterday to look into accusations of malpractice and corruption made against their colleagues by a dying 30-year-old cancer sufferer who publicized her plight by keeping a popular online diary, or blog.It was revealed that Amalia Kalyvinou died on Friday, prompting more than 900 bloggers to log onto her site over the past few days to post messages of condolence.

Greek bloggers have also decided to dedicate Friday, June 1, as a day in honor of the philosophy student.

Kalyvinou used her blog over the last two years to detail the problems in the health system as she underwent treatment for cancer.

The address of the 30-year-old’s blog, fakellaki.blogspot.com, gives an indication of the type of problems she encountered.

Fakellaki, or small envelope, refers to the bribes that patients are sometimes obliged to give doctors so they can obtain preferential treatment.

Kalyvinou made a point of naming the doctors she thought had been professional as well as those she considered to be corrupt.

The head of the Athens Medical Association (ISA), Sotiris Rigakis, told Kathimerini that his organization will look into the claims of malpractice but admitted that it will be difficult to bring anyone before ISA’s disciplinary committee without hard evidence.“Unsubstantiated claims are an obstacle to our actions,” said Rigakis. “Nevertheless, ISA condemns doctors who take bribes.

If some people are not happy with their pay, they should challenge this through legal means, not by demanding money from patients.”A recent independent study revealed that 36 percent of patients admit to having bribed a doctor.

It is estimated that Greeks spend almost 200 million euros a year on bribing doctors.In a post on her blog two months ago during a break from chemotherapy, Kalyvinou said that she had come across “illogical bureaucracy” and doctors who “exploited” her financially.

She also complained of having been treated in dirty hospitals andbeing forced to queue for hours to have her health book stamped at IKA social security fund offices.

ΚΑΛΟ ΤΑΞΙΔΙ ΑΜΑΛΙΑ!!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSL2968726320070529 http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100041_30/05/2007_83897 http://fakellaki.blogspot.com/

Pan-Macedonian to nationalist UMD

The Panmacedonian Federation of Australia deplores the thoroughly racist, historically inaccurate Advertisement appearing in “The Australian” newspaper on 23 May 2007 by various “Macedonian” community organisations. That advertisement seems calculated to incite racial hatred and raises the spectre of irredentism, attitudes that are completely un-Australian. Certainly the claims made in the advertisement are not shared by the majority of Australians whose origins stem from the geographic region of Macedonia, and it is ironic that this advertisement was published in the context of a visit to Australia by the Macedonian Prime Minister of Greece, Mr Kostas Karamanlis.

In the advertisement, it is claimed that Greece “seized Southern Macedonia.” The implication is of course that this territory rightfully belongs to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In subtly calling for a ‘revision’ of borders, the advertisement’s sponsors conveniently neglect to mention that the geographical region of Macedonia was awarded to Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Albania after the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 by the international community, on ethno-linguistic lines. At no stage was there any consideration of a “Macedonian” ethnic identity by any of these nations or the international communities, simply because that ‘identity’ did not exist at that time. In an age of consensus and peace, why are the so-called “peaceful Macedonians” advocating a revision of borders set in 1913?

Much ink is further spilled in attempting to convince the reader that the human rights of “Macedonians” are not protected in Greece. Nothing could be further from the truth. Greek local government officials have fostered a spirit of cross-border co-operation with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and cultural exchanges are common. Much aid is sent by Greece to FYROM. A political party known as Rainbow-Vinozhito, which openly claims that there are tens of thousands of ethnic “Macedonians” living in Greek territory is permitted freely to take part in the Greek electoral process, despite not being able to advance any evidence to back its claims.

The sponsors of the advertisement can advance no evidence for their claim that “Macedonians” are being denied the right to study their own language and promulgate their culture in Greece. Indeed, their claim that Greek citizens have their land confiscated for doing so is fallacious and defamatory, considering that there is no such mechanism allowed for in Greek law.

Perhaps the sponsors of the advertisement could explain why, in ‘democratic’ FYROM, the local primate of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Archbishop Jovan, has been incarcerated, for refusing to adopt a ‘Macedonian’ identity?
Could they also explain why the Greek, Albanian, Vlach and Roma minorities in that country have no right to education, religious instruction in their mother tongue?
Could they explain why it is that so many members of ethnic minorities in that country have had their names forcibly changed so as to appear more ‘Macedonian?’
The FYROM government’s record on Human Rights is a sordid one, even to the extent where its persecution of its local Helsinki Committee for Human Rights President Mrs Mirjana Najcevska caused the intervention of several international organizations.

Finally, we ask why it is that the sponsors of the advertisement insist upon a culturally exclusivist and racist definition of the word Macedonian.
According to them, a Macedonian is a person who speaks the official language of FYROM and identifies himself as ascribing to an identity set out by its government.
According to them, the many Albanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Roma, Serbs and Turks who reside in the wider geographical region and have done so for the same amount of time, do not have the right to identify with their homelands, or to call themselves Macedonian.
Adopting this logic would be akin to a non-native minority in this state denying others the right to call themselves Victorian.

The Panmacedonian Federation of Australia, being a federation of various Macedonian organizations, condemns the malicious and false allegations in the advertisement and commits itself to supporting the cohesive, peaceful and tolerant fabric of Australian society. Sadly this is not achieved by name-calling, calling for the revision of borders and denying other peoples’ right to self-identification. It applauds the Australian Government’s current position on the naming of FYROM as the only sensible and viable solution, until such time as the government of FYROM and the people who identify culturally with that republic, understand that they cannot use rcial criteria to deny others the right to identify themselves as Macedonians.

Yours faithfully,

Dimitris Minas

PANMACEDONIAN FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA

'Aegean Macedonia' - an irredentist term

'Aegean Macedonia' is a Slav Macedonian irredentist 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. The term has occasionally appeared on maps circulated in the former Yugolsav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), which envisioned Greek Macedonia (referred to as "Aegean Macedonia") as part of a "Greater Macedonia", and is regarded as a challenge of of the legitimacy of Greek sovereignity over the area.[1]

The origin of the geographical terminology is arguable. A similar term was used in 1944 to describe a unit fighting in the Second World War called the "First Aegean Macedonian Brigade" [2], although there is no evidence that this is the first usage of the term "Aegean Macedonia".

During the Greek Civil War, in 1947 the Greek Ministry of Press and Information published a book, I Enandion tis Ellados Epivoulis ("Designs on Greece"), namely of documents and speeches on the ongoing Macedonian issue, many translations from Yugoslav officials. It reports Josip Broz Tito using the term 'Aegean Macedonia' on the 11th October, 1945 in the build up to the Greek Civil War; the original document is archived in ‘GFM A/24581/G2/1945’. For Athens in 1947, the “new term, Aegean Macedonia”, (also “Pirin Macedonia”), was introduced by Yugoslavs. Contextually, this observation indicates this was part of the Yugoslav offensive against Greece, laying claim to Greek Macedonia, but Athens does not seem to take issue with the term itself . The 1945 date concurs with Bulgarian sources.

Tito's war time representative to Macedonia, General Tempo (Svetozar Vukmanovic), is credited with promoting the usage of the new regional names of the Macedonian region for irredentist purposes. Indeed, Tsola Dragoiocheva, in her Memoirs, 'Pobadata', Sofia 1979, writes that, "Under pressure from Tempo, the Yugoslav Macedonian Headquarters issued a Manifesto in October 1943, for the slogan about a 'united Macedonia', which began to crop up in Communist Party of Yugoslavia documents. Hitherto, the Yugolsav party leadership only had designs on Vardar Macedonia." Tempo himself wrote [3] that, "The slogan about a united Macedonia first appeared in the Manifesto of the Headquarters of the National Liberation Army of Macedonia, at the beginning of October 1943. There had been no mention of it earlier in any document either in Yugoslavia or in Macedonia". Tempo also attacked the Greek Communist Party (KKE) because it, "only recognises the Macedonian people of Aegean Macedonia a right to equality in the framework of the Greek State" [4]. The ideological context was always 'anti bourgeois-democratic parties' and in line with communist ideology.

In 1946, the Belgrade newspaper Borba, (August 26, 1946) published an article under the title "Aegean Macedonia", it was also published in Skopje’s Nova Makedonija with a map of Yugoslav territorial claims against Greece. A month later, on September 22, the Premier of the People's Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Vlahov [speech in Nova Makedonija, on September 26, 1946] announced, "We openly declare that Greece has no rights whatsoever over Aegean Macedonia...". Vlahov then went on to publish, "The Problems of Aegean Macedonia", Belgrade, June 1947.

By 1950, the term 'Aegean Macedonians' had been officially adopted by the Slav Macedonian political separatists in Skopje [5][6] who began publishing their own organ, ‘The Voice of the Aegeans’; it is later found amongst militant diaspora communities. [7].

The Slav Macedonians in Greece seemed relieved to be acknowledged as Slavomacedonians. A native of the region, former exile and local historian, Pavlos Koufis, says in Laografika Florinas kai Kastorias (Folklore of Florina and Kastoria) [8], that,

“[During its Panhellenic Meeting in September 1942, the KKE mentioned that it recognises the equality of the ethnic minorities in Greece] the KKE recognised that the Slavophone population was ethnic minority of Slavomacedonians]. This was a term, which the inhabitants of the region accepted with relief. [Because] Slavomacedonians = Slavs+Macedoninas. The first section of the term determined their origin and classified them in the great family of the Slav peoples.”

The name "Aegean Macedonia" is considered by the Greeks as ambiguous and offensive. On one hand it contains a reference to a geographical area they consider historically Greek (the Aegean), but, as expressed above, there is also the experience that it is used by irredentist organizations in FYROM and beyond who support a United Macedonia, contrary to the desires of the people living in the area.

Writing in 1953, Lazar Mojsov seems surprised that the Greeks find the term "Aegean Macedonia" insulting, and uses it frequently, noting that "...Politis (former Greek minister of external affairs) didn't miss the opportunity to attack even the very term "Aegean Macedonia", stating that it was "coined by the communist propagandists" [9].

The term is currently used by some scholars, mostly contextualised, along with the sister terms Vardar Macedonia (describing the part of Macedonia in which the FYROM inhabits) and Pirin Macedonia (describing the part of Macedonia in which the Blagoevgrad province of Bulgaria inhabits). The term is used more frequently by Slav Macedonians and can have irredentist connotations, in relation to the concept of United Macedonia.

References

1. "The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World", Loring M. Danforth, p. 37
2. Autonomist Movements of the Slavophones in 1944, Spyridon Sfetas, Balkan Studies, 36/2 (1995), 297-317.
3. Struggle for the Balkans,London: Merlin 1980
4. How and why the people's Liberation struggle of Greece met with defeat (O narodnou revolucijiu u Grckoj), Manchester: Merlin Press, 1985, original 1949
5. International Organization, Vol. 1, No. 3, (Sep., 1947), pp.494-508. Appointed under the Security Council resolution of December 19, 1946, the "Commission of Investigation Concerning Greek Frontier Incidents" on May 27, 1947 submitted a report, to the Security Council.The general conclusion of the UN Commission as about Macedonia issue, was that Yugoslav and Bulgarian Governments themselves revived and promoted a separatist movement among the Slav minorities in Macedonia.In making this finding, the Commission pointed out that some 20,000 Greek citizens had fled to Yugoslavia and some 5,000 to Bulgaria — most of them Slavs — and that the treatment of this group by Greek officials had "provided fertile breeding ground for separatist movements." In Yugoslavia, Macedonian separatism was the special goal of an organization called the NOF (National Labor Front) which had its headquarters in Skopje and Monastirion(Bitola).
6. These separatists were born in Greece and in 1949 fled to Tito’s Communist ‘Socialist Republic of Macedonia’ and who years before (during Greece’s occupation by the Axis in 1941-1944) had openly expressed pro-Bulgarian sentiments and affiliations and enthusiastically collaborated with the Bulgarian allies of the Nazis, and the infamous Bulgarian Ohrana Police Battalions –operating in Both Macedonia and Thrace. Those very people (especially in Western Macedonia) in the aftermath of the Axis (including Bulgarian) defeat in 1944 and in order to avoid the dire consequences of their treason and collaboration decided, literally overnight, to make a drastic and highly opportunistic change of their political affiliations and national consciousness.
7. Some of this material is quoted from, E. Kofos, Nationalism and Communism in Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Institute of Balkan Studies, 1964
8. 'Laografika Florinas kai Kastorias', Athens, 1996, probably published by the author
9. Лазо Мојсов, Околу прашањето на македонското национално малцинство во Грција, ИНИ, Скопје, 1954)

Last chance for FYROM solution

The open wound that is Greece’s issue with the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been festering for 16 years, but it seems there might be just one last chance to resolve it, namely within the context of FYROM’s fervent desire to join NATO at the next summit in 2008.Assuming, of course, that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.As with the Cyprus issue, things have deteriorated since the early days of the problem, but there appears to be some, albeit faint hope for a compromise.

Athens has let it be known that it will block FYROM’s accession to NATO unless it receives satisfaction in its dispute centering on the neighboring country’s use of the name “Macedonia,” a name by which the US has officially recognized the Balkan state.

However, the Greek-American lobby has persuaded Congress to add mention of the term “FYROM” in the reference to “Macedonia” in legislation on the next enlargement of NATO, signed by President George W. Bush just a few days ago.

Skopje strongly protested the move, fearing backpedaling by the US and seeing it as the first step in a move to coerce it over its use of the name.

Any solution will be a painful compromise. Those who are hoping for a national triumph will be disappointed. Any such hopes were lost back in 1993 when maximalist claims stirred up patriotic fervor in the form of mass rallies around the world – from Thessaloniki to Washington – which merely resulted in a deadlock.

The international community was not convinced, not because of any conspiracy against Hellenism, but because Greece’s objection to the use of the name “Macedonia” was seen as irrational.

In 1993, moderate voices in favor of a combined name such as “Nova Makedonia,” as a more feasible and realistic compromise, simply fell on deaf ears.Back then, members of the New Democracy government, as well as PASOK leader Andreas Papandreou, left Prime Minister Constantine Mitsotakis no scope for negotiation.

Even the latter’s suggestion of “Slavomacedonia” raised cries of “treason,” an insulting accusation that is all too easily bandied about in Greece. Yet it was those maximalist patriotic slogans that led to the “Republic of Macedonia.”

If we are presented with one more opportunity to resolve the FYROM issue, it would be wise this time to avoid divisive excesses. For we might end up with something even more objectionable than the “Republic of Macedonia” which we are faced with today.

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_columns_4680884_13/04/2007_82278

The critical five years: 1945-50

[ Greece and The Macedonian Question,Etairia Makedonikon Spoudon]

Nonetheless the Slavo-Macedonians, with the backing of the newly- formed Tito regime in Yugoslavia, kept up their efforts. Just a few days after the Varkiza agreement, Slavo-Macedonian èmigrès from Greece formed an organisation named NOF (National Liberation Front) in Skopje, and sent armed guerrilla bands back to the border areas of Greek Macedonia. The activities of these bands attracted the criticism of the KKE, since they were in conflict with the terms of the Varkiza agreement and gave the government forces an excuse for applying severe measures to suppress them.

However, when the Civil War began in 1946, the Slavo-Macedonians, returned to Greek Macedonia in great numbers and joined the Greek Communist movement, while still retaining their own organisation, the NOF. To judge from the various collections of documents and memoirs which have been published in Skopje, the Slavo-Macedonians — that is, the part of the Slavic-speaking population whose national consciousness was Slavic — were fighting what they saw at this time as a "national liberation struggle for the Macedonians of the Aegean" in order to win their national rights. These rights were none other than the policy which Yugoslavia was officially pursuing at this time and which was intended to incorporate the Macedonian territories of both Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia.

In the meantime, and while the outcome of the civil war in Greece still hung in the balance, the Yugoslavs exerted unbearable pressure on their Bulgarian comrades in order to blackmail them into ceding Bulgarian Macedonia to Yugoslavia. In the end, by the Bled accords of 1947, Dimitrov agreed, in return for minor concessions, to acknowledge the inhabitants of Bulgarian Macedonia (Pirin) as "Macedonians" and to pave the way for the incorporation of the province of Pirin into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia. The incorporation of Greek Macedonia would await the outcome of the civil war.

The split between Stalin and Tito, which occurred suddenly in the summer of 1948, upset all the Yugoslav calculations about playing a leading role in the Balkans using the Macedonian question as the central lever. Bulgaria seized the opportunity to release itself from the concessions it had made over the Macedonian question. It repudiated the theory of the "Macedonian nation" and drove the commissars from Skopje off its territory. It then attempted to exploit the difficulties which the Yugoslavs were facing in order to advance once more the pre-war slogan of an "independent and united Macedonia ". This slogan also served to increase the more general political pressure which the Soviet Union was at that time exerting on Tito.

The Moscow-Belgrade split, however, also had dramatic repercussions for Greek Macedonia. The leadership of the KKE judged it to be expedient to fall into line with the Soviet Union in attacking Tito and at the same time adopt its new policy towards Macedonia. Thus, by decision of the 5th Plenum of the Central Committee, in January 1949, the KKE revived the old pro-Bulgarian slogan of the "independent and united Macedonia" in the framework of a future Balkan Communist Federation.

This shift of policy had grave consequences for the course of military operations, since the Yugoslavs, in order to protect their own rear, closed the border with Greece, which until that time had been the main channel through which supplies had flowed to the Communist forces in Greece. Some of the NOF supporters fled to Yugoslav Macedonia, where they settled. Later, when the armed conflict ended in August 1949, the remaining masses of NOF supporters followed the other Greek political refugees into exile in the countries of Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union.

The final outcome of those five tragic years was that those Slavic- speakers who had originally joined forces with the Bulgarians during the occupation and later identified with Skopje's Slavo-Macedonians left Greece. This was the last exodus from Greek Macedonia of people who felt themselves to be Slavs or had pro-Slav sentiments. Certainly, in the maelstrom of the fighting and the events of the time injustices must have been done, and consequently there later occurred a kind of selective repatriation of Slavic-speakers with Greek national consciousness. Those Slavic-speak­ ers with Greek national consciousness who had been fighting to keep Greece free and Macedonia Greek ever since the Macedonian Straggle remained in Greece . It was these frontier fighters who, even in the most difficult times, refused to become instruments of the Bulgarians' occupation forces or of Tito's SNOF and NOF. Yugoslavia , faced with the nightmarish prospect of a Soviet invasion, sought support in the West, which opened up the way for the normalisation of relations with Greece and the signing, in 1954, of a tripartite Balkan pact of defensive alliance, of which Turkey also was a member.

The new circumstances led Yugoslavia to drop the territorial demands it had been putting forward and to restrict itself to formal claims for the recognition of "Macedonian" minorities. These claims were, however, to­ tally insubstantiated, since the objective conditions to justify them no longer existed. The KKE, on its part, soon realised the enormous political cost of the decision taken by the 5th Plenum and reversed it with a theoretical position involving "the equality of the Slavo-Macedonians". However, since the Slavo-Macedonians concerned were no longer in Greece , this position gradually lost force and was officially abandoned with the categorical statement by General Secretary Harilaos Florakis in Thessaloniki in September 1988 that "for the KKE, there is no Macedonian minority in Greece".

Lastly, Bulgaria too dropped the slogan of a united Macedonia after the death of Stalin in 1953. After a considerable amount of vacillation — directly connected to the state of Soviet-Yugoslav relations at any given time — Bulgaria also adopted the position that there is no "Macedonian nation" and that consequently there can be no "Macedonian" minority in Bulgaria.

As a conclusion, after the upheavals of the period 1940-50, the three sections of Macedonia went over to licking their wounds and have since followed, peacefully, the political, economic and social development of the countries to which they belong.

FYROM airports, statues and the Bible

A new dish of Macedonian saladby Evangelos Kofos†
(This is an edited version of an op. ed. published in the Athens daily “Kathimerini”, 3 February 2007)


The renaming of the airports of Skopje and Ohrid to “Alexander the Great” and “St. Paul”, respectively, has triggered an emotional reaction among a segment of the Greek public. Some reacted scornfully considering this initiative by FYROM’s authorities as rather “absurd”, a gift to cartoonists. Others felt annoyed by the falsification and appropriation of what they considered as their cherished Greek Macedonian identity and cultural heritage. These feelings were accentuated by the fact that over the past few years statues of Alexander the Great have been erected in certain towns of the neighbouring country (Shtip, Prilep), as well as at the news that a series of new monuments are in line to commemorate king Philip II, Alexander’s father, and even the Macedonian born philosopher, Aristotle, Alexander’s tutor.

Following an unmistakable public expression of dissatisfaction by Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis as well as Deputy Ministers I. Valinakis and E. Stylianides, the once stagnant issue over FYROM’s state name between Athens and Skopje has resurfaced.

It would be clumsy and trivial to start a dialogue over a hint of jitteriness of certain nationalistic circles in FYROM. More important is for the Greek public to comprehend and deliberate over the reasons of this “provocative” action – as assessed by the EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn.

Certain sceptics contend that this provocation is nothing more than an addendum to a costless—for Skopje—diplomatic bargaining deal, to be bartered at some future date for Athens’ “capitulation” on the name issue. This is hardly the case. The causes are deep-seated and linked directly to a long-going process in FYROM, especially after its declaration as an independent country in 1991: they aim at reshaping and expanding the historical myth of the ethnogenesis of the “Macedonian nation”.

The traditional theory, shaped in former Yugoslavia since the 1940s, placed the onset of the identity of the Macedonian Slavs—the Makedonci—to the descent of the early Slav tribes to Macedonia (6th century AD). The historical dogma, currently taking shape in FYROM, backtracks the origins of this modern Slav Macedonian nation a full millennium to include the ancient Macedonians (5th century BC). This revisionist historical dogma, is not limited to encroaching upon the identity of a Hellenic people of the classical times. It aims at expanding the boundaries of the historical “taktovina” (fatherland) of the “Makedonci” to include wide regions of Greece and Bulgaria. It is well known, that for decades the classrooms and school textbooks of history in FYROM have been adorned with maps portraying Macedonia’s “geographic and ethnic”, i.e. Slavic boundaries extending all the way to Mount Olympus and Chalkidiki, in Greek Macedonia as well as to the Pirin district of Bulgaria. Now, by claiming the patrimony of the Ancient Macedonians, the boundaries of “Greater Macedonia” assume a much wider historical and cultural dimension in time.

This “improved”, triplex revision, redefining the fatherland’s identity, the time span of the ethnogenesis process of its people, and the historical heritage of land and peoples, consists of two equally important dimensions:
First, it provides the emerged Macedonian independent state with enlarged “ancestral” lands (regardless of the fact that these lands are integral parts of Greece and Bulgaria). Second, it enriches the Makedonski nation with a plethora of renowned historical figures and events. The expanded historical pantheon seeks to include Alexander the Great, King Philip II, Aristotle, (4th century BC), and the first European Christians who accepted the preaching of St. Paul during his visit to the Macedonian cities of Philippi, Thessaloniki, and Beroea, (lst century AD). Similarly, medieval historical figures fall pray to the ongoing “macedonization” process.

Among them, a recent addition to the list of eminent “ancestors”, is the Byzantine Emperor Basil II, the “Macedonian” (known also as “Basil the Bulgar- Slayer”), along with the other “Macedonian”, though of a different lineage, Czar Samuel, Emperor of the Bulgarians (10th century AD).This undertaking, however, does not aim to serve historical accuracy.

Instead, it aspires to the formation of a libro d’oro, a respectable passport for the country’s eventual entry into the European Union of 27.

Let’s now address the timely issue of what appears a sudden “epidemic” manifesting itself through the erection of monuments, the renaming of streets, airports, etc., with names of Ancient Greek historical origin. Judging by the recent publications in the European press, dozens of foreign correspondents are invited to FYROM, where besides the generous hospitality they can enjoy, they receive a satisfactory dose of brainwashing about this novel ethnogenetic doctrine.

The reasons behind the renaming of the Ohrid airport to St. Paul were less—if at all—discernible to the Greeks. No one, of course, is contending for the identity of the Apostle, hence the proclamation made by Skopje that the name change pays homage to the ‘Apostle of the Nations.’ Behind this act, however, remain hardly hidden dimensions of the continuous expansion of our neighbours’ historical doctrine.

Over the last years, the historical assertions of “Republika Makedonija” portray the “Macedonskii taktovina” as a country of the Bible, and, specifically, as the first European territory where Christian churches were established. It is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles that while at Troja, Paul witnessed a vision of a Macedonian calling him to come to Macedonia and help his people. He responded, crossed Chryssopoli (present day Kavala) and before arriving in Athens and Corinth preached Christ’s teachings to the cities of Philippi, Thessaloniki and Beroea, where he became accepted by “Judaeans” and “Greeks” alike. (New Testament, Acts, chapters 16, paras 9,12 and 17, para. 4).

Therefore, the name of the Ohrid airport is not so “innocent” after all. Nor can it be considered as an expression of Christian devoutness, in a region mostly surrounded by a Muslim/Albanian population. Notwithstanding that Paul never set foot on the lands of the modern FYROM, the state propagandists in Skopje, by giving the Apostle’s name to the Ohrid airport, attempt to convey two messages:
First, that St. Paul’s mission is a cherished religious and cultural component of “their” nation’s patrimony, thus justifying its appropriation for the promotion of their tourist industry.
Second, in an indirect way, it provides attractive elements to propagate, shamelessly, their territorial fantasies over the Greek Macedonian regions, visited by St. Paul.

Claiming Philippi, Thessaloniki and Beroea as sections of their homeland from the first century AD (that is, five centuries prior to the gradual descent of Slavic tribes towards the south), they aim in what is now a classic equation: If Paul was invited by a vision of a Macedonian to preach the Christian faith in three Macedonian cities, and if Skopje has a constitutional monopoly over the unscathed Macedonian name, then the territory, the citizens and the history of Macedonia through the ages, belong exclusively to them...In a few words, this is precisely the message conveyed by this new dish of “salade Macedoine”. And, in an indirect way, it reveals the core to the long-standing name dispute between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

*****

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.”

The Greek people, in general, and our Macedonians, in particular, wish to know the steps taken by the Greek government toward FYROM, and, more importantly, how the latter responded. Yet, irrespective of the response, it would be worthwhile to place it in the Greek delegation’s files when the EU embarks on accession talks with Greece’s northern neighbour.

Below you can read the Greek Edition
http://akritas-history-of-makedonia.blogspot.com/2007/02/blog-post_03.html

† Dr. Evangelos Kofos is currently Senior Advisor-Balkan Area of ELIAMEP and member of the Board of the Research Centre for Macedonian History and Documentation, Museum of the Macedonian Struggle.

Making FYROM negotiate

By Stavros Lygeros

It’s sad, but it was to be expected. The leadership of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is playing tricks on Greece.

After all, experience has shown that it can play games behind Greece’s back and go unpunished. Renaming Skopje airport “Alexander the Great” was a bid to reinforce Skopje’s fixation with creating a “Macedonian” identity. Even if Skopje backs down eventually, it will seek political rewards for doing so. The EU will go on to praise Skopje’s moderation while Costas Karamanlis’s administration will brag about having stopped its bid to usurp Greek history. Everyone will be happy – but, politically speaking, Skopje will be the real winners.

The root cause of the problem is that the name issue remains unresolved. FYROM has no reason to press for a solution. In fact, Athens should be the one pressing for a breakthrough. In 2005 Prime Minister Karamanlis warned Skopje that its NATO and EU ambitions hinged on a settlement. But Athens finally gave the green light to FYROM gaining EU candidate status without a solution to the name problem.

If the past is any prologue, FYROM will negotiate only if it is forced to. That is, it will negotiate only if it’s threatened with a block of its path to Europe and the transatlantic alliance – both of which are rightly seen as crucial to the survival of the state.

What would set a political precedent and change the terms of the problem is a referendum whose outcome would block FYROM’s path to NATO and the EU unless a commonly accepted solution were reached. That would force Skopje into serious negotiations and an honest compromise. Washington would also urge FYROM to do so.

Connections between Slavonic and ancient Macedonians

I hear the Slavonic origin macedonians the continious claim that they are descents from the ancient Macedonians.
Three from the most favour writers that used from the Slavonic origin Macedonians are the
-Karakasidou
-Danforth
-Borza

All the above writers were specefic as about the origin of the today Slavonic origin Macedonians.Are Slavs that came in the Balkans 800 years after the kingship of the ancient Macedonians

Here some quote from them:

Borza in "Macedonian Rendux"

The Macedonian kingdom was absorbed into the Roman Empire, never to recover its independence. During medieval and modem times, Macedonia was known as a Balkan region inhabited by ethnic Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs, Serbs, Bulgarians, Jews, and Turks.

Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom.

On the other hand, the Macedonians are a newly emergent people in search of a past to help legitimize their precarious present as they attempt to establish their singular identity in a Slavic world dominated historically by Serbs and Bulgarians



Loring Danforth in his known book (page 56) mention clearly

"the history of the construction of a macedonian national identity does not begin with alexander the great in the fourth century b.c. or with saints cyril and methodius in the ninth century a.d., as Macedonian nationalist historians often claim. nor does it begin with tito and the establishment of the people's republic of macedonia in 1944 as greek nationalist historians would have us believe.

It begins in the nineteenth century with the first expressions of macedonian ethnic nationalism on the part of a small number of intellectuals in places like thessaloniki, belgrade, sophia, and st.petersburg. this period marks the beginning of the process of "imagining" a macedonian national community, the beginning of the construction of a macedonian national identity and culture"


Karakasidou in Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood mention

However the polemics round Macedonia acquired new critical dimensions afterwards the establishment of Yugoslavian Socialist Republic of Macedonia, to1944. The Yugoslavian Macedonians and their successors of FYROM undertaken their own construction of nation, manufacturing separate fables of collective origin and claims from Great Alexandros (Apostolski et al 1969, Kolisevski 1959)

In the beginning of 20th century, Greece and Bulgaria colided for the region of Macedonia. Today, in the threshold 21th century the axis of competition was shifted with the constitution of FYROM in independent government owned entity, which includes Slavs, Albanians, Muslim Turks and Rom

So dear Slavonic origin inhibants of the Macedonia you are just a people that came in the Balkans at the 6th century and your supposing connection is just a fabrication of your new founding State.

Or and the Borza,Danforth and Karakasidou are part of the Greek propagnda as you learned dear Slavonic origin inhibants of the Macedonia?

Great Alexander airport

The provocative decision by the government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to rename the airport in capital Skopje after Alexander the Great(Aleksantar Veliki) proves that as long as the name dispute with Greece remains unresolved, it will continue to have a deleterious effect on bilateral relations and also influence broader political implications.

Unless an honest and mutually accepted compromise is reached on the name issue between the two neighboring states, the Greek Parliament (whether it is led by a conservative or a Socialist majority) is not going to give FYROM the go-ahead for the much-coveted membership of the NATO alliance.

Similarly, the government in Athens will most likely block the launching of the country’s European Union talks.

In light of the current deadlock on the name issue, which has been a problem for years, the visit of United Nations mediator Matthew Nimetz to the two capitals will offer a chance to lift the deadlock.

Skopje’s evasive tactics, which have managed to keep FYROM away from serious negotiations on the name issue, cannot continue. If these tactics go on, they will cause more damage and Skopje may have to pay the costs.

There is simply too much at stake, as FYROM’s membership of the EU and the transatlantic alliance is vital for our neighbor’s very survival.


Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis is today due to urge visiting United Nations mediator Matthew Nimetz to resurrect stalled talks aimed at resolving a dispute between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) regarding the latter’s official name.
Bakoyannis is expected to impress upon Nimetz Athens’s “deep displeasure” with Skopje’s decision last month to name its airport after the ancient Greek warrior Alexander the Great.
Greek diplomats have condemned the move for violating the spirit of an interim agreement and discrediting UN-backed efforts to resolve the dispute.

Bakoyannis intends to send a clear message to Skopje that Athens’s established stances on this issue “are not just formalities” but a true expression of Greece’s position, a diplomatic source told Kathimerini yesterday.

However the foreign minister will also reiterate Athens’s support of FYROM’s accession to the European Union and NATO, as long as a mutually acceptable agreement on the name dispute is reached, ministry spokesman Giorgos Koumoutsakos said.

“We have already taken the necessary constructive steps,” he added, in reference to Athens’s acceptance in 2005 of Nimetz’s proposal of “Republika Makedonija-Skopje” as an official name. (The proposal was rejected by FYROM.) Koumoutsakos stressed that the ball is now in FYROM’s court, and that Skopje “should follow the example of Bulgaria and Romania, which are looking toward a common European future instead of taking backward steps and insisting on distorting the past.”

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100008_12/01/2007_78787

The issue of a seperate 'macedonian' identity up the end of WWI

Before 1870 the literate Slavic-speaking inhabitants of Macedonia and Bulgaria were engaged in a common struggle against Greek cultural and linguistic domination in the Balkans. During this period the Slavs of Macedonia called their language Bulgarian.

They hoped to create a single Macedo-Bulgarian literary language based on some kind of compromise among the various dialects of Macedonia and Bulgaria (Friedman 1993).
It was not until after the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate and the increasing attempts by the Bulgarian intellegentsia to impose an eastern Bulgarian-based standard language of the people of Macedonia that efforts to establish a single Macedo-Bulgarian literary language were abandoned and the first signs of Macedonian linguistic separatism appeared. This is the period when dictionaries, grammars, and textbooks began to be published in what was specifically referred to as "Slavo-Macedonian" or "Macedonian language".

In 1892 the Kostur (Kastoria) parish school council adopted the proposal of a group of teachers "to eliminate both Bulgarian and Greek and introduce Macedonian as the language of instruction in the town school" (Andonovski 1985a, cited in Friedman 1993.) However, the Greek bishop and the Turkish governor of the city prevented this from taking place.

The careers of some of the important literary figures in Macedonia in the nineteenth century illustrate the degree to which the different languages and cultures of the Balkans had not yet become separated into bounded, mutually exclusive national spheres. They also poignantly reveal the dilemmas these writers faced as a result of the conflicting nationalist pressures that had begun to converge on Macedonia at this time.

Grigor Prlichev, who was born in Ohrid in western Macedonia in 1830, gained his reputation as a famous poet when his poem 'The Bandit' written in Greek, won a prize in Athens in 1860. He was described as a "second Homer."

When Greek officials offered him a scholarship to study in western Europe, however, he turned it down. He realized that even though he loved Greek literature, he was not Greek. Shortly thereafter he left Greece for Macedonia, and never wrote in Greek again.

After spending five months in Constantinople learning "the Slav language," Prlichev returned to Ohrid where he was imprisoned by the Greek bishop for opposing the use of the Greek language in the schools and churches of Macedonia. His translation of the 'Iliad' into the local Slavic language of Ohrid was dismissed by Bulgarian critics, who said he had poor knowledge of Bulgarian. Prlichev himself wrote, "In Greek I sang like a swan; now in Slavic I cannot even sing like a donkey." Even though he described himself once as "slain by the Bulgarians," toward the end of his life, when he decided to write his autobiography, he chose to write in Bulgarian.

The brothers Konstantin and Dimitar Miladinov confronted similar challenges. Dimitar was born in Struga on Lake Ohrid in 1810. He received a Greek education and taught Greek until a visiting Russian scholar encouraged him to teach his own language. As Dimitar became more interested in his native Slavic language, he developed a Bulgarian national consciousness (De Bray 1980:139),

His younger brother Konstantin, after competing his studies in Athens and Moscow, returned to Struga to work with his brother on a collection of folksongs in the local Slavic language. "I shall have these songs... published," Dimitar wrote, "so that they can always be sung, because these cursed Greeks will Craecize us and we shall no longer count for anything" (Nurigiani 1972:129).
Unable to find a publisher for his collection in Moscow, Konstantin finally obtained the sponsorship of a Croat bishop and patron of South Slavic culture in Zagreb. After Konstantin transcribed the six hundred songs he and his brother had collected in western Macedonia into the Cyrilic alphabet from the Greek alphabet in which they had originally recorded them, seventy-seven songs from eastern Bulgaria collected by a Bulgarian folklorist were added, and the total collection was finally published in Zagreb in 1861, under the title 'Bulgarian Folk Songs' (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 1978:182).

Finally, Krste Misirkov, who had clearly developed a strong sense of his own personal national identity as a Macedonian and who outspokenly and unambiguously called for Macedonian linguistic and national separatism, acknowledged that a Macedonian national identity was a relatively recent historical development.

In 'On Macedonian Matters', published in 1903, Misirkov, referring to himself and other Slavs of Macedonia in the first person plural, admits repeatedly that "our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians" and that "in the past we have even called ourselves Bulgarians" (1974:27,150).

He describes "the emergence of the Macedonians as a separate Slav people" as a "perfectly normal historical process which is quite in keeping with the process by which the Bulgarian, Croatians and Serbian peoples emerged from the South Slavic group" (153).

The political and military leaders of the Slavs of Macedonia at the turn of the century seem not to have heard Misirkov's call for a separate Macedonian national identity; they continued to identify themselves in a national sense as Bulgarians rather than Macedonians..

The political goals of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (VMRO) were the liberation of Macedonia from the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of an autonomous Macedonia, but VMRO's leadership of the revolutionary movement in Macedonia was challenged by the formation of the Supreme Macedonian Committee in Sofia, whose ultimate goal was the annexation of Macedonia by Bulgaria.

In spite of these political differences, both groups, including those who advocated an independent Macedonian state and opposed the idea of a Greater Bulgaria, never seem to have doubted "the predominantly Bulgarian character of the population of Macedonia" (MacDermott 1978:85).

Even Gotse Delchev, the famous Macedonian revolutionary leader, whose nom de guerre was Ahil (Achilles), refers to "the Slavs of Macedonia as 'Bulgarians' in an offhanded manner without seeming to indicate that such a designation was a point of contention" (Perry 1988:23).
In his correspondence Gotse Delchev often states clearly and simply, "We are Bulgarians" (MacDermott 1978:192,273).

After the failure of the Ilinden Uprising, the struggle for Macedonia continued. In the period leading up to the Balkan wars f 1912-13, Serbia became increasingly involved in what had until then been primarily a conflict between Bulgaria and Greece.

In their attempt to achieve the "ethnographic reclamation" of Macedonia (Wilkinson 1951:316-17), the Serbs first had to refute the Bulgarian claims that Macedonia belonged to Bulgaria because the Slavs of Macedonia were Bulgarians.

The Serbian position, which was effectively articulated by Jovan Cvijic, one of the most respected human geographers of the Balkans at the time, was that the Slavs of Macedonia were a transitional group located linguistically and culturally somewhere between the Bulgarians and the Serbs.

Cvijic gave this group the neutral name of "Macedo-Slavs". According to the Serbs, because the "Macedo-Slavs" did not exhibit any permanent national consciousness, they should be considered "incipient Serbs" (Wilkinson 1951:258).

In 1909 Cvijic published the first map to depict 'Macedo-Slavs" as a distinct ethnic group. His later ethnographic maps were extremely influential and were used as the basis for most postwar maps of the Balkans in both Europe and the United States. Through Cvijic's maps, then, the existence of a group of "Macedo-Slavs" became widely accepted, as did the right of the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) to retain a large portion of Macedonian territory after World War I (Wilkinson 1951:148-203).

At the end of World War I there were very few historians or ethnographers who claimed that a separate Macedonian nation existed. It seems more likely that at this time most of the Slavs of Macedonia, especially those in rural areas, had not yet developed a firm sense of national identity at all.

In a revealing passage from 'Life in the Tomb', Stratis Myrivilis' novel about life on the Balkan front during World War I, a Slavic-speaking family from a village of Vardar Macedonia is described as wanting to be neither "Boulgar," "S'rrp," nor "Grrts" (1977:182). Significantly, there is no positive statement of what they do want to be, no assertion of any nationality that they do want to identify with.

Of those Slavs who had developed some sense of national identity the majority probably considered themselves to be Bulgarians, although as R.King (1973:217) points out, they were aware of differences between themselves and the inhabitants of Bulgaria.

http://www.ucc.ie/staff/jprodr/macedonia/macmodnat2.html