19 Oct 2009
Macedonia: Naming the Future
A participant in a 'Macedonia is Greek' rally, November 2007
(cc) pappalicious/flickr
Standing at the door of the EU and NATO clubs, Macedonia’s reception largely depends on one thing: compromise over the long-running name dispute with neighboring Greece. Meanwhile, regional stability hangs in the balance, Anes Alic writes for ISN Security Watch.
By Anes Alic for ISN Security Watch
The 14 October report by the European Commission recommended opening EU membership negotiations with Macedonia; but despite the cheerful atmosphere on the streets of Skopje and official celebrations, there is a catch, though not an official one: The report urged Skopje to work harder to find a resolution for its ongoing name dispute with neighboring EU member, Greece.
The EC report said Macedonia had achieved “convincing progress” in police reform, corruption and human rights. However, European Enlargement Commission Olli Rehn said in a later statement, “I trust that the government in Skopje will take this as a very strong encouragement to finally settle the name issue."
Macedonia gained independence from the former Yugoslavia in 1991, joining the UN in 1993 under the temporary name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), as Greece then demanded. However, government institutions, citizens and much of the rest of the world continued to refer to the country as the Republic of Macedonia, its constitutional name. That fact has outraged Greek officials, who say that its neighbor's name implies territorial claims to the northern Greek province of Macedonia.
There are nearly a dozen cities, regions and mountains also bearing the name ‘Macedonia’ – six of which are in the US, with others in Australia, Canada and Brazil.
Enter Greece
Greece has blocked Macedonia’s NATO accession over the 18-year-old dispute, and now Macedonia’s EU accession is also under threat, despite a recent change of leadership in Greece, which some analysts had hoped would prompt a change of heart in Athens.
EU-Macedonia negotiations could start as early as in December, but all 27 EU member states, including Greece, would have to approve this move.
Speaking to Greek media on 13 October, Greek Deputy Foreign Minister Dimitris Droutsas reportedly said that "the European path of Macedonia passes through Greece."
On 14 October, the Macedonian daily Vreme reported that Athens would not accept the EC recommendation to begin membership talks with Macedonia, which has been an EU candidate member since 2005.
According to Vreme, unnamed Greek sources told the daily that the EC should pay special attention to the name dispute, otherwise Greece would veto the start of accession negotiations.
“Our government will make everything possible to solve the name dispute through finding a name acceptable for both countries. It is time [for the] FYROM government to show [...] constructive intentions,” newly elected Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou was quoted as saying on 16 October. Papandreou was sworn in on 6 October, after a victory in 4 October parliamentary elections.
In response to the EC report and Rehn’s comments about the name dispute, Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski said, "We are aware of the importance of this report and [...] will actively and constructively negotiate and seek a solution with Greece under the United Nations auspices."
The international community has ruled out the possibility of the EU assuming any role is helping to resolve the name dispute. According to statements by EU officials, the UN will remain the main mediator in Greece-Macedonia name resolution talks, headed by the secretary-general’s envoy, Matthew Nimetz.
Nimetz said that negotiations over the dispute should soon begin again, now that Greece’s parliamentary elections are over. The resumption of talks comes after the tabling of a number of compromise ideas over the summer, and the UN is hoping to keep up that momentum.
UN mediators have proposed various solutions without much success. Though there have been a few instances of false hope, both sides have reverted to their previous entrenched positions. In 2005, Nimitz proposed using three separate names for the country, depending on the situation.
The proposal suggested that the ‘Republic of Macedonia’ be used by those countries that had recognized the country under that name, including international institutions and organizations, while Greece should use the formula ‘Republic Macedonia - Skopje.’ Greece rejected the proposal as unacceptable, while Macedonia had no arguments.
The closest the two sides came to a deal was in 2001, when they discussed the potential use of ‘Gorna Macedonia’ (Upper Macedonia). But negotiations collapsed when Macedonia became engulfed in an ethnic conflict between security forces and the ethnic Albanian minority.
In late 2008, Macedonia submitted a complaint at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Greece for breaching the 1995 UN-brokered Interim Accord on the name row. However, even if the ICJ should rule in Macedonia’s favor, the court’s decision is not enforceable and will do little to keep Greece from wielding its NATO and EU veto power.
In July, Nimetz sounded optimistic, saying the name dispute could be resolved “within months.” Local media speculated that a new deal could be agreed on by attaching a geographical prefix to the name Macedonia for international use. Nothing has so far come of that alleged deal.
Some analysts believe that while Macedonia may not be able to expect a change of heart in Athens now that the opposition socialist party PASOK is in power, the situation is also not expected to worsen. Indeed, many have described PASOK as having a more flexible foreign policy that may stem the rise of nationalism and xenophobia in Greece.
According to Ana Petruseva, Macedonia country director for the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) and managing editor of Balkan Insight, we should not expect any radical changes.
“The new government in Greece has pledged to be constructive, but that does not mean a radical change of position. They may change their game tactics, but I would not expect a drastic shift in their position,” she told ISN Security Watch.
According to Petruseva, “The recommendation for accession talks should serve as an incentive for the Macedonian authorities to resolve the name issue or show, by the December EU meeting, the political will to resolve the matter.”
“Otherwise,” she told ISN Security Watch, “we could be facing another fiasco like the one in Bucharest, as Greece could veto a decision to set a date for negotiations, and in that case the [EC] recommendation won’t mean a lot.”
Petruseva said it was clear that Macedonia would not be able to join NATO or the EU “without a compromise. Thus, it is crucial that both sides enter constructive talks to find a mutually acceptable solution.”
Eternally existential
Macedonia has long had a fragile sense of identity.
Earlier this month, the Macedonian government denied media claims that it was toying with the idea of holding a referendum to ask the public whether it would accept a new country name in return for speedy EU and NATO membership.
Indeed, name dispute aside, a recent survey by the International Republic Institute shows that more than 90 percent of Macedonians continue to support their country’s entry into the EU and NATO. But the question remains, are they in fact willing to sacrifice what they consider part and parcel of their identity for membership in these international clubs.
At the same time, polls have shown that a large majority of Greek citizens would block Macedonia’s bid to join NATO and the EU under the country’s currently disputed name, while a smaller majority would block Macedonia’s international cub bids regardless of its name.
From an outsider’s perspective, the name dispute should be rendered to the annals of history’s most ridiculous and low-priority disputes. That said, more than many other major global issues published in the media, this story earns online news portals an unbelievable amount of traffic – and countless letters to the editor from incensed Greeks and Macedonians who seem unrealistically dedicated to trolling for media injustices on the name issue. And there is also a regional stability aspect to the dispute that cannot be ignored.
And beyond…
The Greek-Macedonian name dispute is also placing EU and NATO stability objectives for the western Balkans at risk, according to the International Crisis Group (ICG).
“The international community has a compelling strategic reason to acknowledge Macedonia's constitutional name as a matter of regional stability, and this can be done in a way that meets Greece’s legitimate concerns,” according to an ICG report.
The ICG is concerned that “an indefinite delay to NATO and EU integration could undermine what has been achieved in stabilising the country, with consequences that would be particularly harmful not least for Greece itself. The name dispute is more than a bilateral issue between Skopje and Athens. It risks derailing the main strategy of both NATO and the EU for stabilising Macedonia and the region through enlargement and integration. Member states should not allow the organisations’ credibility to fall victim to an intractable dispute involving one of their fellow members.”
The ICG recommends that other NATO and EU member states “actively encourage Athens to unblock Macedonia’s integration into both organizations and to respond positively to Skopje’s concessions on the country’s name.”
It also recommends that Skopje should “publicly state its readiness to accept the latest proposal of the UN mediator that ‘Republic of North Macedonia’ be the name for all international purposes, and that “Athens should respond by acknowledging the national identity and language of its northern neighbour as ‘Macedonian’ and accepting Skopje’s assurance that use of that adjective does not imply any exclusivity or territorial claim [...].”
Anes Alic is a senior writer for ISN Security Watch, based in Sarajevo. He is also the co-founder and executive director of ISA Consulting, based in Sarajevo and Tel Aviv.
Publisher
Creative Commons "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported"
Subjects
Comments
Danielle | North America | 19 October 2009
Greeces problem is the none recognition of the Macedonian minority in Greece.This ongoing problem can be solved by Greece by recognising there are more minorities in Greece than they let on.There are Macedonians,Turks,Albanians,Vlahs,Roma,Jews and many more.Greeces claim of 99% purity is a myth.They denying themselfs the truth.
Peter Gramatikakis | Canada | 20 October 2009
Having read the comments of Mr.Anes Alic, his views appear one-sided and he as well as the negligent editors have failed to grasp the context of Greek opposition to the naming of our neighbor.
It is not a question of Greece being the bully, but rather of a nation seeking identity by encroaching on part of Greek history and claiming it as their own.
The name is just a name, yes...But it is an important part of Greek history that the slavic people of the area have no legitimate claim to, apart from the geographical one of having settled on the lands of macedonia some 1500 years ago. (700years after the period they claim as their own...)
Their government has been propagating and misleading their people to believe that they are the descendants of Alexander the Great. They have been using symbols of Macedonian history found in Greece. Macedonians where a Greek people of ancient times. They spoke Greek, thought Greek and where part of the greater Hellenic culture of the time. When the lands latter got invaded by slavic tribes, macedonian culture fell into the dark ages...
During Tito's reign, his plans of expansion become obvious with his naming of the region, in view to a future claim on Greek territory. His plans never materialized, but repercussions are still felt today.
This nation should instead resolve to bestowing more weight on their roots, but have simply decided to follow a history that isn't even theirs. It is imperative that the international community respects the history of Greece and any other nation with similar issues. If we are to go and change history then why bother even writing it in the first place.
Having said that, I regret that ISN use the statements of an editor, no matter how senior, but so obviously one-sided.
This is the nature of the whole issue. A small state in search for it's identity, wishing to embrace integration in Unions of Nations, finds a means of stability by trying to steal a part of Greek history.
In my opinion, your editor is a promoter more than a neutral reporter to the issue. Find a way to address this to a wider public that remains negligent not only to the issue, but to history itself.
Best Regards,
P.Gramatikakis
Dimitrios Philippelis | N/A | Greece, Larissa | 20 October 2009
While the attached Report of Commission of the European Communities is stating the correct name of the country of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), which is a UN approved name you arbitrarily change it into "Macedonia".
It is obvious your objectivity goes in question.
Yes, Regional Stability hangs in the balance but avoidance of one-sided promotional tactics as yours seems to be better and more productive contribution.
S. Bicaku | Geneva | 20 October 2009
Yes, there are many locations in the world with the name Macedonia, but the inhabitants of this places do not claim to be descended from the ancient Macedonians. They know their origins and Greece has nothing against them. What bothers the Greeks is that their northern neighbor claims that the ancient Macedonians were a Slavic speaking nation, had nothing to do with the ancient Hellenes and that today's Slavs from FYROM are direct descendants of the ancient Macedonians. They go even further, having territorial claims on the Greek province of Macedonia!
For more information, please check http://macedonianname.blogspot.com
Christos (a Greek, but you would have guessed) | 20 October 2009
Kudos for a decent effort in trying to portray an as unbiased as possible image of "the name issue".
However, "the name dispute should be rendered to the annals of history’s most ridiculous and low-priority disputes"?
I would call that particular view short-sighted. Don't let me bore you with how the use of the name "Macedonia" is frequently followed by explicit verbal (statements) or material (maps) offenses against Hellenic territorial integrity (which also means "european territorial integrity", another fact that few people ever remember).
But, I'm guessing other European countries are quite interested to see how this ridiculous and low-priority dispute will turn out. Spain and Belgium leap to mind, others follow close behind. And how about - neighboring - Kossovo? Any similarities there? Any implications? If solving disputes (internal or intra-state) was that ridiculously easy in the old european continent, why hasn't it happened yet in Kossovo?
So, in all, great article, but if a European Union and NATO member-state is actually willing to exercise veto power over it, then it's definitely a high-priority issue for all partners involved and interested, be them european or not.
ALEXANDROS MAKEDON | 21 October 2009
ISN and Anes Alic could understand the problem, from the letter of the American Professor St. Miller. Please see:
http://www.panmacedonian.info/Archaeology+Miller.htm
Panos UK | 21 October 2009
Dear Anes Alic
1. You take sides as seen from the picture that is placed at the beginning of the article. In the way you present this picture, reveals that you are ironic against Greece and that the Greeks are the ones with the strong ultra-nationalist feelings.
2. The United Nations name for the so-called ‘macedonia’ is FYROM. This is a fact that you point out in your article. However, by using the constitutional name of the country you take sides again. That is surreal. You attempt to be an independent analyst in search of the truth but at the same time you consciously ignore a United Nations decision, the historical and political perspective of a European Union country, and you openly take the side of someone with strong ultra-nationalist and discriminating feelings and policies.
3. “There are nearly a dozen cities, regions and mountains also bearing the name ‘Macedonia’ – six of which are in the US, with others in Australia, Canada and Brazil.” How stupid or consciously provocative can someone be to write such a thing? There is only one Macedonia and it is located in North Greece and in parts of neighbouring Balkan countries. The other names have been given either by the Greek Macedonian Diaspora or by slav immigrants from the region. It is not just a name issue. I think you really know that.
4. “Speaking to Greek media on 13 October, Greek Deputy Foreign Minister Dimitris Droutsas reportedly said that "the European path of Macedonia passes through Greece." Please try to be a serious journalist by quoting exactly the sayings of an official that in this case comes from an EU country. The Greek Deputy Foreign Minister Dimitris Droutsas did not use the word ‘Macedonia’ to describe FYROM.
5. You present Greece as the one responsible for regional instability and you do not say ANYTHING about:
a) The recent encyclopaedia that FYROM published that was discriminating to both Greeks and Albanians.
b) With regard to the Albanian Minority in the country you say nothing although FYROM-state policies towards these populations are the major source for instability both within the country and the region.
c) You do not say anything about FYROM’s ridiculous (and unscientific) celebrations, statues, flags, symbols, textbooks related to the history of Ancient Macedonia and its Hellenic roots.
d) You do not accuse the current government in Skopjie of being ultra-nationalist. I begin to wonder about your sensitivities and the definitions you give to words, human rights, democracy, nationalism, etc.
6. If Greece agreed for FYROM to be called Macedonia then the problem would continue to exist, not the opposite. The pressure should be on the other side to abandon ultra-nationalist sentiments and provocative statements just like the one related to their so-called ‘minority’ within Greece and the originality of their language.
7. If dear Anes Alic you really seek to describe and analyse the events in the region by being a fair and just journalist please do provide all the necessary information and learn to distinguish between a simple historical truth based on ALL universally recognised textbooks about the Greek history of Macedonia and then accuse Greece of playing power politics games. Also learn to distinguish between a country with an ultra-nationalist government and an EU state without a similar one for at least twenty years. This can be easily observed by the Greek names and symbols that the neighbouring country uses to construct its sense of identity. The Balkans, you know very well, is a fragile place. Therefore, try to assist to solve regional problems and conflicts and do not actively encourage nationalism and further destabilisation.
Agilis Lux | TWP | Paris | 21 October 2009
It is already embarrassing for Europe that a US Diplomat, Matthew Nimetz, channeled through the UN system, is working on the very issues of European Unions Decisions? Has the OSCE not been staffed enough with retired US militars, winning tenders for private military companies (Dyncorp) in Kosovo?
The Greek people haven't been great-full to the Turkish for liberating them from a military dictatorship, likewise the Argentinians haven't been great-full to Thacher's adventure, but demanding a change of the name of a country is simply asking too much. It also carries even more constrains on Europe Union.
The USA should not be involved in any decision on this! If this simple demand is not met, we will soon see US nuclear missile stations built up in that construct, called Kosovo, and we certainly should be more worried about an Albanian "patronage"-system, then about Iranian nuclear stations.
Changing the country's name is more a question for NATO and it's so called "security-strategies", rather then focusing on the fragile ethnic mix of Greeks, Macedonians, Bulgarians Jews, Albanians and Gypsies in the country. Such politic is designed to cause more problems rather then solving them.
art | 21 October 2009
just the facts ....mam
UNLESS NEW FACTS / EVIDENCE / PROOF COMES TO LITE ......
MUSEUMS WORLDWIDE WILL CONTINUE TO EDUCATE MANKIND AS SUCH .... IE. MACEDONIA IS CORE ROOTED AS GREEK IN HISTORY PEOPLE CULTURE LANGUAGE
greg | new york | 22 October 2009
Do people on the outside believe that this is just about a name. Wow people really do not know anything do they , yes there is places called Macedonia outside of Greece but they are not claiming to alter history, they do nat rename there Airports Alexander the Great and make there Slavic people believe they are Direct Descendants of Ancient Macedonians. If it was just a name DO YOU NOT THINK IT WOULD BE SOLVED ALREADY.I am an Italian -American and it disgusts me that a little country like FYROM is a llowed to continue to try to change history. NOT A NAME ISSUE AN IDENTITY ISSUE GET YOU DAMN ARTICLES RIGHT AND THEN PUBLISH THEM .IDIOTS
Dimis | 22 October 2009
Before the Preliminary Treaty of San Stefano 1878 the where no "Ethnic Macedonians" or a "Macedonian identity" in the area. After the failure of the treaty and the ratification of the new treaty of Berlin (June 13-July 13, 1878) the Territory of Bulgaria was reduced and the Ethnic-Macedonian was created (as a Bulgarian plan to rebel against the Ottoman Empire and create an Independent Macedonia that later will unite with Bulgaria) The heroes of FYROM with Bulgaria are the same. For further reading look at (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization). That lead to a failure. The population of Macedonia did not follow the only Macedonian Slavs who played a leading part in the Uprising were those who called themselves Bulgarians. Look at the comments of Misirkov a leading figure: We can call the Uprising whatever we like, but in fact it was only a partial movement. It was, and still is, an affair of the Exarchists: that is, a Bulgarian ploy to settle the Macedonian question to its own advantage by creating a Bulgarian Macedonia... If the autonomy of Macedonia should result from the present Uprising, the Macedonian question will be settled not to the advantage of the Macedonians but of the Bulgarians, for the Committee, as we have seen earlier, is working behind a Bulgarian front... Thus the reason why the Uprising failed is perfectly clear: from the very outset it was established on the wrong basis instead of being a general Macedonian Uprising it was a partial insurrection with Bulgarian overtones. The only Macedonian Slavs who played a leading part in the Uprising were those who called themselves Bulgarians.
But the idea of the Ethinc Macedonian remained in some groups.
Later after the Second World War Tito used that Macedonian Identity and put it in the front again to serve his needs.
Separate the predominately Bulgarian Population of Vardaska from Bulgaria by:
a) the renaming of the area from Vardaska to "Macedonia".
b) The Creation of a "Macedonian" alphabet that is closer to Serbian, and the forceful indoctrination of Bulgarians and other nationalities to the "Macedonian" identity.
Also with the creation of "Macedonia" it was pretext of invasion to Greece for the unification with the "Aegean Macedonia".
With the brake up of Yugoslavia we have the creation of FYROM today.
This is not just a name issue this is a state of mind of a nation that is still in the pre-Balkan wars era with the same fanaticism and territorial claims.
The main motto of the current administration of FYROM during the elections was an anti-Greek sentiment and the unification of greater Macedonia.
As you can see the Fanaticism of FYROM from its creation to today is getting stronger and deeper and it is supported by the state institutions.
That could very easily destabilize the area and the whole region especially if a war starts between FYROM and Greece.
Nick | UK | 23 October 2009
Once again we see the petty attitude of Greece blocking the expansion and development of the EU. It plays a similar 'blocking' role in NATO an suurely should start asking itself why it instinctively adopts such retrograde positions.
Katerina | Edinburgh, Scotland | 24 October 2009
It doesn't take a Professor of Critical Discourse Analysis to see that the above article is overtly biased. All one has to do is count the occurences of the term "Macedonia" referring to FYROM (the country's official name is according to the UN). "Republic of Macedonia" would have probably been a wiser choice, given that, at least, this is the country's constitutional name, even if Greece does not recognise it.
Who cares whether Greece recognises it anyway! It is a "ridiculous", "low-priority issue"... "it's just a name".... of course!
Londonderry is just a name (or is it Derry?)
Taiwan is just a name (or is it Chinese Taipei?)
The Falklands is just a name (or is it Las Malvinas?)
And is it the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Gulf that is situated between Iran and UAE?
All these, low-priority, ridiculous issues, brought forward by backward people who refuse to open their door to the future.... right??
Indeed, there are cities in the US named Macedonia - but firstly, these are cities, not states and secondly, these American cities do not claim any Macedonian heritage in terms of history or culture.
In contrast to this, we have the international airport at Skopje being re-named as "Alexander the Great" airport, we have statues of Alexander the Great in main squares, parks etc in many cities in FYROM, we have "Macedonian" as the official language of FYROM (a Slavic language with cyrillic alphabet), and all this inevitable leads to serious misconceptions and mis-interpretations of history.
What language did Alexander the Great speak?
Was the Macedonian Empire Hellenistic or..... Slavic????
If a person born in Skopje is Macedonian, does that mean that people born in Macedonia, Greece, are not allowed to be called Macedonians anymore?
Sure, a dispute over a name may seem trivial, ridiculous, unimportant, and the enlightened author is extremely kind to point that out to everyone.
But if claiming a name is coupled with appropriating a country's history, language and, in some cases, territory, then maybe that means that certain so-called analysts should scratch beneath the surface of seemingly trivial naming disputes before dismissing them as a whim or, even worse, as bullying tactics.
Goran | R.Macedonia | 17 November 2009
The name issue is actually the exodus problem. Greece needs to deal with that and not cover it. Until than, we are left to belive that we have a contemporary bilateral problem, rather than the one that happened after the WW2, which is still covered in the veil of the "name problem". The government in Greece needs to explain, appologise and continue to live in the modern world as a democratic society as Republic of Macedonia is trying to do.
Jim | Canada | 19 October 2009
Unfortunately there is a tendency to dismiss the Macedonia Greece dispute as just a name dispute. This is a dramatic over simplification of the very complex ethnic issues.
Unfortunately Macedonia (or FYROM) has interpreted name recognition to to start claiming Macedonia Greece is "occupied" and to be direct decedents of ancient Macedonians (despite that they are clearly Slavic, speak a Slavic language, live in ancient Paeonia, and showed up to the region a thousand years too late for Alexander)
Despite this, they are renaming many of their institutions and structures to Alexander or Philip (much to the dismay of Greek Macedonians). To make matters worse they are revising history of Albanians, Bulgarians to show continuity to the past (e.g. their current Manu encyclopedia had to be pulled because it was so full of historical revisionism) Apparently many have forgotten their first government's assurances they wouldn't do this.
'We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great.'
(FYROM'S Ambassador Ljubica Acevshka in speech to US representatives iin Washington, - January 22 1999)
'We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian.'(FYROM´s Ambassador to Canada Gyordan Veselinov - Interview to Ottawa Citizen Newspaper 24 February 1999)
"We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians" (Kiro Gligorov, FYROM's first President - Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA3kwC2YTq4
Macedonia/FYROM is to blame for its own problems. People need to stop blaming Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians for their extreme nationalism and bizarre attempt to revise western history.