The Macedonian Question.

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios   Please read to the end, I didn't say what you quoted.

Yes but it looked like i was meaning something like that, so i cleared it out.

 

Why you are so nervous ?

is known that the Amercan foreign policy is not stable and always untrustworthy.

 

Here one from the internet source.

 

This Government (of USA) would regard as responsible any Government or group of Gonernments tolerating or encouraging menacing or aggressive acts of "Macedonian forces" against Greece�.

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios As I pointed thoroughly in this thread, Romania has too a region called Moldova, which was half under Russian Empire and later USSR, in which found a new state and perhaps a new ethnicity was established usurping the name "Moldavian" which had before a whole different meaning. However, I succeeded to disconnect my "patriotic" sentiments and see the things as they are today. I have no right to condemn millions of people to lose their identity (many really have no guilt, they just live this identity they found to have), just because I'm uneasy about this. And allowing some other "Moldavians" to exist, it won't harm the existing ones but in their pride and nationalistic being, but they'll have to deal with that for this is the world we live in.

Chibuldios, your example with Moldova would fit in a case where Cyprus and Greece came into a such point or Crete wanted to separate from the mainland and call themselves ethnic Cretans or ethnic Aegeans. It is not the same thing...Note that Crete has full potential to become independent due to trade, high capita, tourism, export etc etc. If that happened, Greece would not object. Ofcourse, other Greeks would feel dissapointed and do a friendly protest in the style "we're all one", "we're one family" and some would find the term "ethnic Aegeans" insulting and stupid.

The case of Cyprus is a bit close as well. Both nations identify themselves ethnically as Greeks, but Cypriots use the term "Cypriot" as a geographic marker of origin. The same goes for the Turkish population. I don't have a problem calling them Cypriots, in fact i have called a Turk from Cyprus "Cypriot".

Also, note the relations of Greeks and Turks. It is purely a political/millitary question. The majority of the Greeks (mostly the generations after the 50s) don't really have a problem with them. Ofcourse they don't like those Generals they have, but it's not like they wake up in the morning hating the Turks. The same goes for the Turks. I haven't met in personal a hostile Turk. Sure, the first 30 seconds when you meet one is kinda nervous until you realize the other part belongs to the non-haters.

I guess, you can notice it here, that Greeks and Turks of the forum do not interfear with each other at all. I have never seen a big issue myself (nor a small one) and from what i've been told there has been one that was handled perfectly by the mods of both sides.

In the case of FYROM however...It is not just a political issue but between people as well. Actually it is mainly the peoples problem (from both sides). There's much tention and the historical issues won't be skipped easily. The majority of the Greek Macedonians knew them as something else than "Macedonians" (I will skip the term for the sake of possitivity) and in the most liberal cases they will refer to them as "Slavomakedones".

There's recent history that hasn't dissappeared from one generation to another. There are splitted families, war victims, intrussion and non-political propaganda behind it. Let me be specific...

There are families like for example my parents neighbours family that indentify themselves as Makedones and Makedonski and argue about it! My neighbour was 8 when he lost his parents in the "civil" war, old enough to remember his early childhood as an ethnic Greek and a Greek speaker. His cousins were 2 and 3 however. They were taken to the other side and grew up in an orphanage. My neighbour never fell because of his age to the propaganda done, but today he has to speak slavic with his cousins and gets insulted cause he doesn't accept to be a "real makedonski". My aunt in the age of 10 was also taken to the other side, but luckily she had her whole family with her. I don't want to get into details nor victimize situations which i find pathetic, i'm just mentioning examples to come to a point to tell you that people in Greece simply don't trust this country named "Macedonia". Not because the state tells them so (in fact the failure of the 90s was silenced a lot until recently), but because from generation to generation, the situation remains the same and there are still people living to remember certain things.

That's why i gave you the Turkish example as well...It is another thing to meet "rival" people who tell you "Ah, Yunan, Yunan. Buyurum!" and avoid to hurt or insult you and another thing to meet people that in many cases won't keep distance from sensitive discussions and in many cases insults.

That was an honest and realistic example. Remember, all people are not "Chibuldios" in every part of the world and have different experiences that most of us can't live in.

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios Not quite. For instance the article specifying clearly FYROM has no territorial claims was added at Greece's request. That means FYROM cooperated with Greece in showing they have no territorial claims (it is a constitution article, please notice that!!!) on Greece. Why is there no friendly reply from Greece: "ok, if you don't want to change your name you can keep it, then; you proved you want no territorial claims!"?

Chibuldios, do you remember what i said about peoples trust?

Why is the most symbolic building of our capital in Thessaloniki still in their money?

 



As for the agreement of the interim accord...It has been signed by two countries:

The Hellenic Republic and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

I repeat that again...Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. That is the temponary name for international usage within the United Nations, but not within their constitution. It was the first point of the agreement to be broken.

An agreement is an agreement Chibuldios and it should be kept no matter what. If the VRMO regretted that afterwards it is simply noones problem but their own. The veto is a right given by the UN to Greece. Besides, Greece could simply avoid pushing for a solution and let them have that name within the UN "forever". However, Greece has actively tryed to solve the issue.

I can agree with all of your ideal thoughts Chilbudios, but in terms of keeping an agreement at 100%, whether it is politics or real life, I'm vertical. I won't even comment anything more related on being partially correct, even if that is at 99% which it is not in this case.

Btw, don't take my last phrase as a frustration. It is just a orientation i have in life, being truthfull in my promises.

Originally posted by Chilbudios  Let's not blow this out of proportions. MFA and many Greek officials do not complain about this agreement but only on the name.

I think you've missed that...I've been hearing about the breaking of the "Endiamesi symphonia" (namely the interrim accord) for many years by all foreign politics ministers.

Originally posted by Chilbudios  Don't insult my intelligence please. FYROM does not deny Greek Macedonians to be called Macedonians if they please to do so. Greece is denying FYROM-ers this option. The positions of the two parts are not equivocal.

I did not try to insult your intelligence nor tryed to imply that. They do not deny it in terms of irony Chibuldios. Their minister of foreign politics stated that with a tone full of irony: "You can rename your Macedonia to ancient Macedonia if you wish". Other than that ironic comment you don't have an official view on that issue. Maybe, if we start calling ourselves native Macedonians and try to get a grip of that term internationally they will react. All these in case things were a bit different, which they're not.

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios Perhaps many Greek citizens do not like Muslims or whatever else, it doesn't mean the world (or another country) will play the song the Greek citizens will like. It's not Greece's world.

I guess that was hypothetical, cause it would be a bias otherwise (unless we speak of fanatic christians who are found everywhere). Greece has muslim citizens and labour workers. Moreover, Greece has no majority feeling of that religion, nor a bond to that religion nationwide. We're talking about two different metrics here. On the other side, see how unfortunately my second motherland Sweden supports the hypocritical mask of a supposed "freedom of speech" just to support the Danish view that has gotten much support worldwide. It's not a western world eather. Anyway, that is another discussion we shall not take here.

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios   The last proposal of Nimitz was rejected by Greeks, not by FYROM-ers. And so far FYROM changed the constitution on Greece's request, not viceversa. Thus FYROM did compromises, so what are you talking about?

Greece had already denied that name in the early 90s Mr Nimitz is leaving his post and probably couldn't care most about making a better proposal. As many said say why not "Republic of Skopje (Macedonija)" instead of  that proposal? Besides, predicably enough FYROM said it could be a ground for negotiations to earn time until the NATO summit and then backed when there was no time left

Originally posted by Chilbudios There are many Guinese, Congolese, Hollandese, Moldavians, Dominicans facing the same problem and they do just fine (even Athenians ).

Since you correctly mentioned Athenians, add Spartans and Makedones (about cities in the US) as well. That means that there's more behind it...

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios But this example is not a good analogy. a) it is not about changing the name, which is the current issue b) in the real world US is one of the world super-powers and really has other options than Greece.

It is not about changing the name but for other filthy (not stupid) things. That's why I do not accept a diplomat working for a diplomacy of such tactics, hidden morals, and world order critisizes certain things as "Stupid". I could start talking about barbarism and attrocieties, but i simply don't care more of their opinion. They're doing their job, they have their interrestes and when these do not succeed as they want they get pissed off. It is not USs world theoretically eather. The US can take any measurements and make public statements to protect its interrests (economical, influential, geographic, strategic) worldwide but Greece cannot object to the monopoli of a name that is sentimentally bound to its citizens.

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios EU's admission is not conditioned by name, and Greece investing in FYROM only shows that they really do not fear any irredentist claims from the north and this whole thing is just a fist in FYROM's mouth, that's why I called it hateful and stupid.

The application is not conditioned (see the interim accord points i posted earlier). No application can be veto'ed. The entry can. Just for the record.

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios Lets say you were the foreign minister of Greece, what would you realistically do? I thought the answer is obvious: I'd let FYROM be called "Republic of Macedonia" and get to my own business in making a reliable neighbour in the north.

That eather shows you present a theoretical ideal concept or that you are unrealistic. I believe the first obviously but if you look at it practically...

Greek Minister of Foreign affairds Mr Chibuldios, recognises FYROM as Macedonia against the will of 99% percent of the Greeks. The goverment looses immediately its power and the citizens do a revolt. The police is obviously unable to restore any order due to the massive numbers of people and hatred starts from more passionate makedones against the southern Greeks, which they blame for the situation.

Just a fantastic story, that hopefully won't happen even if the end of the world comes. By that i wanted to show you that they do not have that option at all. Maybe worst things could happen in such a case that i can't even imagine...I can imagine that the prefect of Thessaloniki would demand a schism of northern Greece from south and name it something like "Hellenic Democratic Republic of Ancient Macedonia".

All, these are exhagerations hopefully but still not completely unrealistic. You have underestimated the internal issue of the case...

Originally posted by Chilbudios And as US doesn't fear USSR in Balkans, they don't really care if FYROM is named "Republic of Macedonia" or whatever else. The theory you suggest on current US's support lack evidence, so I'll refrain from comments.

I know that the millitary base is being built...I can't provide something on the fly for you now, but hopefully next time i reach Skopje i will take some pics. I don't think the Russian press office is more unreliable than any American one and especially when mr Bush is still a president of the US.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This solution sounds quite reasonable.