By any other name, still Macedonia
Zara Bozinovska of the Skopje daily Dnevnik asked some questions. I replied. I’ve touched up the questions a little, just to make them a bit more accessible to English-speaking readers.
Q: Some time ago you stated that Chicago summit is an opportunity to correct the injustice that is done to Macedonia in Bucharest [at the 2008 NATO Summit, when Greece blocked Macedonian membership]. Two months before the NATO gathering, do you think there is a chance to change anything in terms of Macedonia’s membership?
A: It isn’t looking good. Greece, preoccupied with its financial problems, has remained indifferent to the International Court of Justice decision. The Americans, while supportive of Macedonia, have not to my knowledge done anything substantial to change the situation. I may still hope for a solution, but I am not seeing one emerging.
Q: What can be changed and how injustice could be corrected if [the] NATO Secretary General, as well as senior U.S. officials repeat that there is no NATO membership until the name is resolved, calling [for] consensus in decision making?
A: Obviously one possibility is to solve the name issue. The parameters by now are well known. But I haven’t seen any flexibility either in Athens or Skopje. The other possibility is to convince Athens to allow NATO membership as The FYROM, as required by the interim accord and the ICJ decision.
Q: Do you think that consensus is stronger than injustice?
A: Consensus is the NATO rule. Yes, I suppose it appears stronger than injustice at this particular moment.
Q: What should Macedonia do in [the] next two months, given that on its side [Macedonia] has the judgment of the Hague Tribunal. How we can use that judgment?
A: My view is that the NATO issue should be solved under the interim accord, in accordance with the ICJ decision, not in the UN talks on the name, which may go on forever. But neither Washington nor NATO seems to agree with me. If I am correct, the right address for Skopje is Athens, not New York.
Q: What do you think, why Greece keeps the Hague judgment on low level?
A: Because they lost.Q:
Q: You said that Skopje should stop knocking on the door of ambassador Nimetz and to address directly Athens to convince the [its] authorities to allow admission to NATO under reference FYROM. How can we convince them for an issue that cannot be resolved 20 years, especially when both sides accuse each other constantly?
A: Maybe it would be best to stop accusing and start negotiating. That starts with this question: what does Greece need that Macedonia can provide?
Q: What is the impact of the current situation and the crisis in Greece? Does Greece just use the crisis as an excuse for failure to solve the issue or it really cannot think of the name issue?
A: The financial crisis does make it difficult for Greek politicians to think about the name issue. It also gives them a good excuse for not doing so. Not to mention upcoming elections.
Q: Why do you think that the Macedonian-Greek name dispute is one of the most uninteresting problems stemming from the breakup of former Yugoslavia? Uninteresting and long last[ing], as you said…
A: Uninteresting because I think Macedonians have a right to call themselves whatever they want. If Skopje and Athens reached an agreement tomorrow to call you Martians, would anyone pay any attention to it? Would the language you speak suddenly become “Martian”? Long-lasting because it involves identity issues on both sides. And we know how difficult identity issues are, especially in the Balkans.
Q: Recently we witnessed several interethnic incidents in Macedonia, but also in the neighborhood. In Kosovo, the Macedonian flag was burned, and the same happened in Albania. Is there a danger of a new crisis in the region?
A: There is growing pan-Albanian sentiment in the Balkans, due to Serbia’s unrelenting opposition to Kosovo’s independence and continued control of north Kosovo, Kosovo’s difficulty moving forward on its path to the EU, as well as the difficulties Macedonia is facing getting into NATO and proceeding with its EU candidacy. It would be far better to solve these problems than to allow the current situation to fester.
Q: Who is behind these incidents, do you think that they may be organized by one center?
A: I really don’t know.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
2 thoughts on “By any other name, still Macedonia”
Comments are closed.
RSS - Posts
Actually he former Yugoslav region is not technically located in Macedonia. Many have confused ancient nomenclature with modern place names (confusion which the former ethnic Bulgarians of the former Yugoslav republic also confuse to encourage their citizens to see Greece as occupied territory)
In antiquity the former Yugoslav republic was called “Paeonia” to the south and “Dardinia” to the north. Calling the former Yugoslav republic “Macedonia” is sort of like calling Montreal “New York City”. Macedonia is in Greece.
And now that the former Yugoslavians/ethnic Bulgarians have suddenly become descendents of ancient Macedonians… could the unprincipled lowlifes that dishonest pretend not to notice please explain to the Macedonians of Greece what exactly did the US government mean when it used to say…
“This (US) Government considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland”, or Macedonia “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece” – US State Department Dec, 1944
Confusing FYRoM for Macedonia is bad enough but Mistaking ex-Yugoslavs for Macedonians is quite inexcusable…shows lack of historical, geographical and demographic knowledge.
Conflict Management requires competence in all those fields of knowledge.
Well Managed Disputes requires observers with opinions to at least be knowledgable on People-Names, Place-Names and the historical backdrop from whence they originate.