Greek people is under occupation.
Merkel Germany, EC, ECB and IMF try to kill the Greek people by force them in internal default. In order to doing this, they kill the Liberal Democracy. As Pr. Krugman remark: "They now looking at a scenario in which Greece is forced into killing levels of austerity to pay its foreign creditors, with no real light at the end of the tunnel.
This is just not going to work."
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Greek position on the FYROM naming dispute according to Georgios Koumoutsakos
The Greek position on the FYROM naming dispute, described by the Greek member of the European Parliament Georgios Koumoutsakos (Group of the European People's Party - Christian Democrats) in an interview for the FYROMacedonian A1 Television, 04.02.2010
I couldn't watch very much of it. Koumoutsakos was faltering and unimpressive (though I admit that the off-the-shoulder dress of the attractive interviewer was not without influence). He made a fatal mistake by being sidelined into historical questions and whether "Macedonian" is or is not a language. It has been recognised as a Slavic language and that is the end of it. Who cares? Such debates are not part of the negotiations and get into the dangerous area of a people's self-identity.
The people of the FYROM can feel themselves to be whatever they want. The only issue for the Greek side is the name of the country which would be used internationally. Everything else leads to the swamp in which Gruevski has invited the parties to go.
I was impressed with Koumoutsakos before I heard him speak at length. Now that I hear him, I'm very glad he's gone. In this interview, what I saw of it, he has done Greece a disservice.
Just to highlight one part of the interview: the young interviewer pointed out to Koumoutsakos that Greece violated article 11 of the Interim Agreement that says that Greece will not hinder FYROM membership to an international organization but Greece did so at the NATO summit when Skopje applied as FYROM. The correct response is that Skopje initially applied as "Macedonia" in violation of the agreement and changed to FYROM when it saw that it would not be successful. Here Koumoutsakos could have listed the many, many other times FYROM deviated from the agreement with a switching of names, instead he haltingly muttered on about something defensive and irrelevant. The interview was a clear loss for the Greek side. I hope there are not people like the ineffective Koumoutsakos left in the Foreign Ministry. It's scary enough to think that he is representing Greece in the European Parliament. Remember, I used to be an admirer of his until I heard this interview.
"Macedonian" has been recognised by many authorities including scholars and universities as a Slavic language. It clearly refers to the language of the modern republic. In history, there was no "Macedonian" language because the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek. How do you propose to unrecognise the "Macedonian" language of the modern Slavs? And why should this concern Greece which is negotiating the Interim Agreement for the name of the republic and makes no reference to the language at all?
The Greeks have a right to the name "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" including its reference in ancient history, but it is false to assume that the Slavs have absolutely no claim to it at all. They most certainly do not have a right to monopolize the name, but the fact is that some Slavic people feel their identity connected to the name of Macedonia. How is it possible to make them no longer feel that?
In response to Carol's last comment I'd like to add that Greek people feel their identity connected to the name of Macedonia. How is it possible to make them no longer feel that?
In other words it is not only the citizens of FYROM who may feel this way (although at least 35% of them certainly do not being Albanian or other minority). So my question is , what gives FYROM the exclusive right to use the name Macedonia when Macedonia is indeed a territory spread between 4 nations? And if you take into account the Macedonia belonging to FYROM is about 30% of all Macedonia, as well as the fact that FYROM itself is 1/3rd part Macedonia, 1/3rd part Paionia and 1/3rd part Dardania it is obvious that the sole use of the name Macedonia is without geographical and historical content. The proper, fairest the righteous thing to do would be to add a prefix to distinguish it from one another, the most proper for Fyrom would be "North". If anyone country has the right to keep the name Macedonia as it is it is Greece which contains the majority of Macedonia, but also because Macedonia proper (that is ancient Macedonia) is all within the boundaries of Greece.
A careful reading of my post, which may not have been as clear as it could have been, reveals this sentence: "The Greeks have a right to the name "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" including its reference in ancient history, but it is false to assume that the Slavs have absolutely no claim to it at all. They most certainly do not have a right to monopolize the name, but the fact is that some Slavic people feel their identity connected to the name of Macedonia."
Nowhere do I say the Slavs have "an exclusive right" to the use of the name Macedonia. The whole point is that they certainly do not have such an exclusive right. That is why there is a need for a qualifier as the Greek positions holds. The Greek position has already yielded that the Slavs have a right to a qualified version of the name "Macedonia". No one, least of all me, suggests that Greeks should "unfeel" their identity with Macedonia. Very much the opposite. The ancient name of "Macedonia" is part of the Greek world. The modern name stems from a region that was ethnically diverse and from which some people, who are not Greek, take their identity. This is not to say that the extremist and outrageous position of FYROm is valid in its totality. Most of it is historically absurd.
I couldn't watch very much of it. Koumoutsakos was faltering and unimpressive (though I admit that the off-the-shoulder dress of the attractive interviewer was not without influence). He made a fatal mistake by being sidelined into historical questions and whether "Macedonian" is or is not a language. It has been recognised as a Slavic language and that is the end of it. Who cares? Such debates are not part of the negotiations and get into the dangerous area of a people's self-identity.
ReplyDeleteThe people of the FYROM can feel themselves to be whatever they want. The only issue for the Greek side is the name of the country which would be used internationally. Everything else leads to the swamp in which Gruevski has invited the parties to go.
I was impressed with Koumoutsakos before I heard him speak at length. Now that I hear him, I'm very glad he's gone. In this interview, what I saw of it, he has done Greece a disservice.
Alfred di Genis
Just to highlight one part of the interview: the young interviewer pointed out to Koumoutsakos that Greece violated article 11 of the Interim Agreement that says that Greece will not hinder FYROM membership to an international organization but Greece did so at the NATO summit when Skopje applied as FYROM. The correct response is that Skopje initially applied as "Macedonia" in violation of the agreement and changed to FYROM when it saw that it would not be successful. Here Koumoutsakos could have listed the many, many other times FYROM deviated from the agreement with a switching of names, instead he haltingly muttered on about something defensive and irrelevant. The interview was a clear loss for the Greek side. I hope there are not people like the ineffective Koumoutsakos left in the Foreign Ministry. It's scary enough to think that he is representing Greece in the European Parliament. Remember, I used to be an admirer of his until I heard this interview.
ReplyDeleteAdG
1)The name will be 1 FOR EVERY USE.
ReplyDelete2) the nation and the language WILL NOT BE CALLED "Macedonian".
3)Any claims against Greek teritory WILL STOP.
"Macedonian" has been recognised by many authorities including scholars and universities as a Slavic language. It clearly refers to the language of the modern republic. In history, there was no "Macedonian" language because the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek. How do you propose to unrecognise the "Macedonian" language of the modern Slavs? And why should this concern Greece which is negotiating the Interim Agreement for the name of the republic and makes no reference to the language at all?
ReplyDeleteThe Greeks have a right to the name "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" including its reference in ancient history, but it is false to assume that the Slavs have absolutely no claim to it at all. They most certainly do not have a right to monopolize the name, but the fact is that some Slavic people feel their identity connected to the name of Macedonia. How is it possible to make them no longer feel that?
In response to Carol's last comment I'd like to add that Greek people feel their identity connected to the name of Macedonia. How is it possible to make them no longer feel that?
ReplyDeleteIn other words it is not only the citizens of FYROM who may feel this way (although at least 35% of them certainly do not being Albanian or other minority). So my question is , what gives FYROM the exclusive right to use the name Macedonia when Macedonia is indeed a territory spread between 4 nations? And if you take into account the Macedonia belonging to FYROM is about 30% of all Macedonia, as well as the fact that FYROM itself is 1/3rd part Macedonia, 1/3rd part Paionia and 1/3rd part Dardania it is obvious that the sole use of the name Macedonia is without geographical and historical content. The proper, fairest the righteous thing to do would be to add a prefix to distinguish it from one another, the most proper for Fyrom would be "North". If anyone country has the right to keep the name Macedonia as it is it is Greece which contains the majority of Macedonia, but also because Macedonia proper (that is ancient Macedonia) is all within the boundaries of Greece.
A careful reading of my post, which may not have been as clear as it could have been, reveals this sentence: "The Greeks have a right to the name "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" including its reference in ancient history, but it is false to assume that the Slavs have absolutely no claim to it at all. They most certainly do not have a right to monopolize the name, but the fact is that some Slavic people feel their identity connected to the name of Macedonia."
ReplyDeleteNowhere do I say the Slavs have "an exclusive right" to the use of the name Macedonia. The whole point is that they certainly do not have such an exclusive right. That is why there is a need for a qualifier as the Greek positions holds. The Greek position has already yielded that the Slavs have a right to a qualified version of the name "Macedonia". No one, least of all me, suggests that Greeks should "unfeel" their identity with Macedonia. Very much the opposite. The ancient name of "Macedonia" is part of the Greek world. The modern name stems from a region that was ethnically diverse and from which some people, who are not Greek, take their identity. This is not to say that the extremist and outrageous position of FYROm is valid in its totality. Most of it is historically absurd.