Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Macedonian Question.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 16>
Author
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1028
  Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Macedonian Question.
    Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 10:58
Afaik, it existed briefly in the '90s before being withdrawn after Greece's protests.

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.
Back to Top
Spartakus View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
terörist

Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
  Quote Spartakus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Apr-2008 at 08:23
Flipper, that banknote does not exist.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Apr-2008 at 08:20
Flipper, I don't have time today to answer your post fully, only that I am not sure you're picturing a real Macedonian banknote. Because AFAIK there currency is the denar (dinar).
 
So, I searched for their national bank website and here is what I found:
 
http://www.kcshop.com/imagegallery/Macedonia.htm (here are several of their banknotes)
 
 
 
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 19:28
Originally posted by Flipper


I don't think i'm unreasonable now...
 
This solution sounds quite reasonable.
.
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 19:03
Btw Chibuldios...I forgot to ask.

What about a common solution that goes as following:

a) Greece refers to its province internationally as MaKedonia (Μακεδονία) which its subprovinces (Kentriki Makedonia, Ano Makedonia, anatoliki Makedonia etc) in Greek and so to its inhabitants Makedones and Makednoi.
b) FYROM uses internationally the name MaKedoniJa (Македонија) in slavic and the ethnic term Makedonski.
c) Macedonia becomes a geographic only term and the usage of the national/ethnic term "Macedonian" is not allowed to be used in English etc by any part.
d) Products from Greece can use the mark "Makedoniko", "Makedoniki", "Makedonikos", "Makedonika" in Greek while FYROM can use the latinized slavic equivalent. The term "red Macedonian wine" for example ceases and is replaced by "red Makedoniko wine".

All these with strong garanties and agreements...


I don't think i'm unreasonable now...


Edited by Flipper - 10-Apr-2008 at 19:04


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 18:52
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Flipper, I want to apologize if you believe I have something against the Greeks as a people or against you or other Greek forumers who replied to me in this thread. The epithets described actions. I assume my repetition of "stupid" triggered this observation from you, but what really opened the door was the press quoting US officials labeling this action as such.


It was the "moody individuals" that triggered it. I know the "stupid" part was a transportation from the US officials quote. All cool Wink I feel we can discuss now, not negatively argue or so.

 
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. Smile 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 Confused 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 Wink



Originally posted by Chilbudios

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


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.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[/QUOTE]

Edited by Flipper - 10-Apr-2008 at 19:27


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 22:25
Flipper, I want to apologize if you believe I have something against the Greeks as a people or against you or other Greek forumers who replied to me in this thread. The epithets described actions. I assume my repetition of "stupid" triggered this observation from you, but what really opened the door was the press quoting US officials labeling this action as such.
 
Originally posted by Flipper

It is not a normal reaction unless you don't live within some situations and don't give the same meaning as a others might. You're not connected to the region sentimentaly, by origin, by common interrest to your compatriots etc. I will comment more on this further down.
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.
 
The amendment affects FYROM as not being a "Macedonian" only state. That means that with the Ohrid Agreement Albanians are a part of that state, their language is co-official and that their equal rights to the rest of the population are ensured.
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!"?
 
Greece did not agree on something else nor did they place a veto out of the blue.
Let's not blow this out of proportions. MFA and many Greek officials do not complain about this agreement but only on the name. They said they would agree with NATO admission if FYROM would change its name, as simple as that. To blame some irredentist propagandistic accesses is missing the point.
 
Both parts show that this name is important for both. You don't need to bother more or less, if you don't get it. Realistically speaking
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.
 
99% of the Greek citizens don't like the idea of having a neighbouring state with FYROMS profile (with everything that this means) being called with a name including the term Macedonia. I'm sure a very large part of the population of FYROM don't like the idea of having to accept a name without the term Macedonia. Many won't accept another name than "Republic of Macedonia".
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.
 
However, a lesson in life is that you can't get always everything the way you want it. Sometimes you need to compromize. That's why, even though noone in Greece wants that state to be named including the term Macedonia, most people agree that the only solution is a common acceptable name by both countries. That acceptable name will realistically not be ideal for anyone whether we speak in a political level or in a public level.
  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?
 
The name issue does not end with a simple name agreement
Strange, it was said that if FYROM would drop its name claim, Greece wouldn't have veto-ed. Greece didn't say "stop displaying Greater Macedonia maps and we will allow you in NATO".
 
If plain Macedonia would for some reason be forced, what would any goverment of Greece tell some millions of people in MaKedonia who identify themselves with that name? How will a minority be recognised with a name of a majority?
I already answered to that. There are many Guinese, Congolese, Hollandese, Moldavians, Dominicans facing the same problem and they do just fine (even Athenians LOL).
 
I said I'm not a speciallist in Mexican history, but I gave you an example on how the US affected the development of Cuba because politics (could Cuba as Cuba threaten the US?) and Puerto Rico. In the case of Puerto Rico which i btw consider inside my heart as my third "homeland" and that i know most about in Latin America, i gave you some examples of how its being threated by a civilized & modern country that runs world politics and has officials and diplomats making comments about Greeces veto.
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.
 
As for the effect Greece has in FYROMS development, don't forget who contributes the most investments in that country. Namely Greece. The foreign minister Dora Bakoyianni has stated that it is Greeces interrest to have FYROM both in Nato and the EU.
  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 interim accord of the UN is between the first part named the Hellenic Republic and the second part the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Not the Republic of Macedonia.
Looking at what you quoted, this is really a non-answer. I was talking about the veto. 
 
Then if you feel you want to be balanced without taking sides critisize FYROM without my requests/protests each time. You still didn't answer me what you see as options in these cases. 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.
 
Exactly...After WWII when the world was about to be divided in two. All the Balkans fell to USSR while Greece was the last man standing. It was within USAs interrests to keep it so. Now things are different...Greece, develops its own weaponry and will do the same with its airforce. It has other friends to provide her equipment. We're a less good client in their eyes. Moreover, Greece has nowadays better relations with Russia than with its own NATO ally!!! I'm sure you're realistic enough to know the dirty diplomatic games of the background and what effects they had, have and will have.

Now, look what the US cares more about in the Balkans..The link is from the Russian press office in Greece: http://www.cere.gr/upload/WIRE%20XL.pdf

Read the parts Intelligence, Diplomacy, NATO EXPANSION, BUSH PROPOSES BILATERAL SECURITY PACT
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.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 09-Apr-2008 at 22:27
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 20:35
No no not at all. Just give an indication of the link or publication where you got it from.
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 20:15
Originally posted by Sparten

Flipper please add the link to the post in question, use the edit function, click on post options for that.

 

Akritas, I am supremely disinterested in this question, so asking why I am "nervous" is nither here nor there. Simply, under the CoC external post have to be referenced.



It is an imageshack link so i don't think it helps. I can remove it if you wish so.


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 19:27

Flipper please add the link to the post in question, use the edit function, click on post options for that.

 

Akritas, I am supremely disinterested in this question, so asking why I am "nervous" is nither here nor there. Simply, under the CoC external post have to be referenced.

Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 17:45
Chibuldios, before continuing I will kindly ask you that we should both lower the heated discussion. It has no point getting out of our clothes for politics, since we're in a history forum and have other common interresting things to discuss than this.

Furthermore, i will ask you to avoid labeling groups of people with various epithets, just because you may not agree with certain opinions. A generalization of a wider group as moody individuals, nationalists, faschists and living 200 years ago don't contibute to healthy discussions.

If you disagree with certain views expressed by people, i don't expect you to accept them or understand them, but at least to respect them as opinions which do exist.

I will take equally care of the same parts that are attributed to me.





Originally posted by Chilbudios

Soothsayers? And this is no normal reaction. Not in the corner of world where I live and perhaps also not in other corners of the world where Greece's opposition was labeled as "world stupidest major issue".


It is not a normal reaction unless you don't live within some situations and don't give the same meaning as a others might. You're not connected to the region sentimentaly, by origin, by common interrest to your compatriots etc. I will comment more on this further down.

As for the "worlds stupidest major issue" as characterized by US officials...It does not affect me at all. Especially when those officials have other plans in mind and won't care less about what those who have the problem think. They want to do their bussines. If anything becomes a hazard, it doesn't make them happy.


 
Originally posted by Chilbudios

http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/South-Eastern+Europe/Balkans/Bilateral+Relations/FYROM/ - this is one of many links (and coming from Greek Foreign Affairs Minister). I also want to remind you that FYROM ammended its constitution at Greece's request.


The amendment affects FYROM as not being a "Macedonian" only state. That means that with the Ohrid Agreement Albanians are a part of that state, their language is co-official and that their equal rights to the rest of the population are ensured.

The Ohrid agreement
http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/police_and_internal_security/OHRID%20Agreement%2013august2001.asp
 
Does that fully satisfy all the terms agreed with Greece? It is a progress and bravo for those making it happen but...Still work to do with the irredentism part.

According to the Interim Accord, supervised by the United Nations, FYROM has still not kept the line agreed when signed. Some things might have taken a good way for FYROM but...An agreement is an agreement and it has to be fullfilled at 100%. Greece did not agree on something else nor did they place a veto out of the blue.

According to the interim accord, here are some points that are still dubious or broken...

Each Party undertakes to respect the sovereignty, the territorial integrity and the political independence of the other Party. Neither Party shall support the action of a third party directed against the sovereignty, the territorial integrity or the political independence of the other Party.



Recognizing the difference between them with respect to the name of the Party of the Second Part, each Party reserves all of its rights consistent with the specific obligations undertaken in this Interim Accord. The Parties shall cooperate with a view to facilitating their mutual relations notwithstanding their respective positions as to the name of the Party of the Second Part. In this context, the Parties shall take practical measures, including dealing with the matter of documents, to carry out normal trade and commerce between them in a manner consistent with their respective positions in regard to the name of the Party to the Second Part. The Parties shall take practical measures so that the difference about the name of the Party to the Second Part will not obstruct or interfere with normal trade and commerce between the Party of the Second Part and third parties.



The Parties shall refrain, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, from the threat or use of force, including the threat or use of force designed to violate their existing frontier, and they agree that neither of them will assert or support claims to any part of the territory of the other Party or claims for a change of their existing frontier.



Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, The Party of the First Part agrees not to object to the application by or the membership of the Party of the Second Part in international, multilateral and regional organizations and institutions of which the Party of the First Part is a member; however, the Party of the First Part reserves the right to object to any membership referred to above if and to the extent of the Party of the Second Part is to be referred to in such organization or institution differently than in paragraph 2 of the United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993).


Therefore a broken interim accord cannot lead to a permanent accord like FYROM and the US hoped.


Originally posted by Chilbudios

It's Greece's right to react and to negotiate if it wants that. It's FYROM's right to refuse this negotiation. Again, it's only about a name.


Both parts show that this name is important for both. You don't need to bother more or less, if you don't get it. Realistically speaking Smile
 
Originally posted by Chilbudios

 Let's keep the perspective: this is only about a name (see the mfa.gr page, too!). If it is not stupid, it is very stupid!


99% of the Greek citizens don't like the idea of having a neighbouring state with FYROMS profile (with everything that this means) being called with a name including the term Macedonia. I'm sure a very large part of the population of FYROM don't like the idea of having to accept a name without the term Macedonia. Many won't accept another name than "Republic of Macedonia".

Both countries citizens, depending on each individual, have their own sentimental, geographic, patriotic, nationalistic etc etc reasons.

However, a lesson in life is that you can't get always everything the way you want it. Sometimes you need to compromize. That's why, even though noone in Greece wants that state to be named including the term Macedonia, most people agree that the only solution is a common acceptable name by both countries. That acceptable name will realistically not be ideal for anyone whether we speak in a political level or in a public level.

I can't speak for FYRO Macedonia in the rest of the case but i can transfer to you the hazards that will practically occur if a solution is not found.

Certainly both countries are responsible for what is going on, but that doesn't mean we should do the best to solve the situation. The name issue does not end with a simple name agreement. The U.S proposed the entrance of FYROM in the NATO as FYROM. How does such an entrance give garantiees for the correct usage of that name? Who will garantee that after the entrance and without a common international agreement, FYROM (which is indeed not a practical name) will not change the name back?

If plain Macedonia would for some reason be forced, what would any goverment of Greece tell some millions of people in MaKedonia who identify themselves with that name? How will a minority be recognised with a name of a majority?

I don't want to get tiresome, these are just few examples of hazards that need to be tackled. A name solution is not just a name solution, but an agreement on how both countries will deal with it under equal terms. So, you basically have a name issue + guarantees from both sides. Besides, do you believe two countries can be in the same alliance when having a problem?

Originally posted by Chilbudios

Originally posted by Flipper



On the other side, receiving comments from that diplomacy when previously that country has boycotted the development of other countries than Mexico is unacceptable. Let me mention Cuba to start with...Then I will jump to Puerto Rico...A country with such a title (Rich Harbour) ended up to be one of the poorest countries in the world during the 30s. Moreover, it is still not a country with full independence nor its own army. It is unofficially the fifty something state...Ask 1000 Puerto Ricans if they want their country to be administered as it is done now and gather the results...Go tell a Puerto Rican to visit the statue of liberty...


I don't understand how are any of these related to Greece (a state!)'s stance against FYROM (also a state) because of the name it has?



You asked me earlier if the US affected Mexicos development because of a name, history, a map or something like that. I said I'm not a speciallist in Mexican history, but I gave you an example on how the US affected the development of Cuba because politics (could Cuba as Cuba threaten the US?) and Puerto Rico. In the case of Puerto Rico which i btw consider inside my heart as my third "homeland" and that i know most about in Latin America, i gave you some examples of how its being threated by a civilized & modern country that runs world politics and has officials and diplomats making comments about Greeces veto.

As for the effect Greece has in FYROMS development, don't forget who contributes the most investments in that country. Namely Greece. The foreign minister Dora Bakoyianni has stated that it is Greeces interrest to have FYROM both in Nato and the EU.
 


Greece did not bind FYROM's admission in NATO by a change of attitude (the interim accord, right?), but by a change of name.



The interim accord of the UN is between the first part named the Hellenic Republic and the second part the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Not the Republic of Macedonia.


Originally posted by Chilbudios

 
I do not say FYROM does not display nationalism, I say that Greece does display it and plentiful. I say that Greece lives in an era long gone in many parts of Europe. I say that Greece does not act like a civilized and modern country. 



Then if you feel you want to be balanced without taking sides critisize FYROM without my requests/protests each time. You still didn't answer me what you see as options in these cases. Lets say you were the foreign minister of Greece, what would you realistically do?

 
Originally posted by Chilbudios

in WWII. Nice attempt.
Anyway, let's update that document. Today there is a political reality and possibly an ethnic one, thus we have the justification they complained at that time to be lacking.


Exactly...After WWII when the world was about to be divided in two. All the Balkans fell to USSR while Greece was the last man standing. It was within USAs interrests to keep it so. Now things are different...Greece, develops its own weaponry and will do the same with its airforce. It has other friends to provide her equipment. We're a less good client in their eyes. Moreover, Greece has nowadays better relations with Russia than with its own NATO ally!!! I'm sure you're realistic enough to know the dirty diplomatic games of the background and what effects they had, have and will have.

Now, look what the US cares more about in the Balkans..The link is from the Russian press office in Greece: http://www.cere.gr/upload/WIRE%20XL.pdf

Read the parts Intelligence, Diplomacy, NATO EXPANSION, BUSH PROPOSES BILATERAL SECURITY PACT


Edited by Flipper - 09-Apr-2008 at 18:33


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
akritas View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote akritas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 16:24
Originally posted by Sparten

Flipper, please give the link or the source for your last post specifically the US state department telegram . Otherwise I will have to delete it per the CoC.
Why you are so nervous ?
is known that the Amercan foreign policy is not stable and always untrustworthy.
 
Here one from the internet source.
 
The Department has noted increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from YugoslavPartisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state.
This Government (of USA) considers talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonian "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.
The approved policy of this Government is to oppose any revival of the Macedonian issue as related to Greece. The Greek section of Macedonia is largely inhabited by Greeks, and the Greek people are almost unanimously opposed to the creation of a Macedonian state. Allegations of serious Greek participation in any such agitation can be assumed to be false.
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.


Edited by akritas - 09-Apr-2008 at 16:38
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 16:14
Originally posted by Sparten

Flipper, please give the link or the source for your last post specifically the US state department telegram . Otherwise I will have to delete it per the CoC.


You're right Sparten. Sorry for not mentioning more, I understand it is a sensitive document. I had this file for some time so I don't remember exactly where i collected it. It is a telegram of the U.S State Department (Foreign Relations Vol. VIII) sent by Edward Stettinius (Secretary of the United States under President Roosevelt ) to diplomatic officers.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9069645/Edward-Reilly-Stettinius-Jr

If that is not enough, let me know and i will remove the picture.


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 11:23
Flipper, please give the link or the source for your last post specifically the US state department telegram . Otherwise I will have to delete it per the CoC.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 08:11
Chilubdios, the good analogy with Moldova isn't to compare Romania's province called Moldova to Moldova itself, but rather saying that the russians of Moldova calling themselves Moldavians (or even "Wallachians" to bring it to its actual scale ) , and claiming that they're the actual Moldovians and the Romanians are the conquerors that occupy the province that rightfully belongs to the russians...
In Republic of Moldova there are several ethnicities: Romanians (sometimes called Moldavians), Russians, Ukrainians, Gagauz plus that they all can be called Moldavians as citizen of Moldova. But to answer your point, there's a Moldavian ethnicity and a Moldavian language asserted by some of the them opposed to the Romanian one (though if you ask many Romanians they will say there's no such thing). Like in FYROM's case it is largely due to the anti-Romanian politics of the ex-SSR. Like in FYROM's case the political reality of today is undeniable, and while the ethnic one is debatable, I'm sure that in a longer while they'll crystalize their own ethnicity.
 
These are actions by Greece and not by Fyrom. Greece has made many openings towards FYROM, but FYROM isn't really responding.
Not according to that site. "Since the signing of the Interim Agreement, political relations between the two countries have developed in a satisfactory manner." and also if you click on the name issue link you'll find the following: "On the contrary, cooperation between the two neighbouring countries is developing in many sectors.". Should I believe Greece MFA or you?
 
Not WWII. Cold war. WWII had ended for Greece.
In 1944 both US and USSR were in WWII. What's the point of accusing FYROM-ers of twisting history if you do the same?
 
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1028
  Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 01:49
Chilubdios, the good analogy with Moldova isn't to compare Romania's province called Moldova to Moldova itself, but rather saying that the russians of Moldova calling themselves Moldavians (or even "Wallachians" to bring it to its actual scale ) , and claiming that they're the actual Moldovians and the Romanians are the conquerors that occupy the province that rightfully belongs to the russians...

http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/South-Eastern+Europe/Balkans/Bilateral+Relations/FYROM/ - this is one of many links (and coming from Greek Foreign Affairs Minister). I also want to remind you that FYROM ammended its constitution at Greece's request.

These are actions by Greece and not by Fyrom. Greece has made many openings towards FYROM, but FYROM isn't really responding.
in WWII. Nice attempt.

Not WWII. Cold war. WWII had ended for Greece.

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 00:40
Originally posted by Flipper

No but as I said before actions have reactions...They knew what the reaction would be.
Soothsayers? And this is no normal reaction. Not in the corner of world where I live and perhaps also not in other corners of the world where Greece's opposition was labeled as "world stupidest major issue".
 
Don't be so sure...Until that time we had no messages of good neighbourship.
http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/South-Eastern+Europe/Balkans/Bilateral+Relations/FYROM/ - this is one of many links (and coming from Greek Foreign Affairs Minister). I also want to remind you that FYROM ammended its constitution at Greece's request.
 
Exactly! And Greece had already reacted to that for a long time ago. See the papers on earlier pages in this thread.
It's Greece's right to react and to negotiate if it wants that. It's FYROM's right to refuse this negotiation. Again, it's only about a name.
 
Not cooperating and having an unacceptable stance leads to such options...It is not stupid when it is your last option.
Let's keep the perspective: this is only about a name (see the mfa.gr page, too!). If it is not stupid, it is very stupid!
 
No..Not specifically Mexico. But the reaction by the metric discussed here is similar to the heated up feelings that can develop with such happening. As for the development, i'm not a specialist in Mexican history. I'm suspicious that there can be things we don't know much about, that are better hidden than balkan politics.

On the other side, receiving comments from that diplomacy when previously that country has boycotted the development of other countries than Mexico is unacceptable. Let me mention Cuba to start with...Then I will jump to Puerto Rico...A country with such a title (Rich Harbour) ended up to be one of the poorest countries in the world during the 30s. Moreover, it is still not a country with full independence nor its own army. It is unofficially the fifty something state...Ask 1000 Puerto Ricans if they want their country to be administered as it is done now and gather the results...Go tell a Puerto Rican to visit the statue of liberty...
I don't understand how are any of these related to Greece (a state!)'s stance against FYROM (also a state) because of the name it has?
 
Give another option that would make their politicians to have another stance then...FYROM has broken the interim accord...Not Greece. The blind and hateful nationalism has been demonstrated by the other part, long before the veto. Many many times...
I'm sorry, everytime I read Greece's side of the story I only see waves of hate and poison and myths. Greece did not bind FYROM's admission in NATO by a change of attitude (the interim accord, right?), but by a change of name. What's in a name?
 
I do not say FYROM does not display nationalism, I say that Greece does display it and plentiful. I say that Greece lives in an era long gone in many parts of Europe. I say that Greece does not act like a civilized and modern country.  
 
And lets not forget how the name dispute was seen when the Soviet Union had a grip on it...
in WWII. Nice attempt.
Anyway, let's update that document. Today there is a political reality and possibly an ethnic one, thus we have the justification they complained at that time to be lacking.


Edited by Chilbudios - 09-Apr-2008 at 00:46
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 00:13
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Are you kidding? Is Greece some sort of international arbiter who approves which country is named what?


No but as I said before actions have reactions...They knew what the reaction would be.

Originally posted by Chilbudios


I'm sure Greece had messages of good neighbourship from FYROM, what they didn't have is a request for approval for this name.


Don't be so sure...Until that time we had no messages of good neighbourship.


Originally posted by Chilbudios


Besides, Macedonia was the name of the Yugoslav Socialist Republic, it was somehow obvious that after the breakup of Yugoslavia the next name will be "Republic of Macedonia" (i.e. dropping the Yugoslav Socialist part). If Greece can negotiate a "Republic of Macedonia-Skopje" or "Republic of Upper Macedonia" or whatever to appease their nationalistic pride, fine, if not, let them get over with it. Veto-ing a NATO admission for that is hateful and stupid.


Exactly! And Greece had already reacted to that for a long time ago. See the papers on earlier pages in this thread.

Not cooperating and having an unacceptable stance leads to such options...It is not stupid when it is your last option.
 
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.
 

Originally posted by Chilbudios

 and? Is US denying Mexico its name??? (they have a New Mexico after all, maybe it fuels irredentism in Mexico).


No..Not specifically Mexico. But the reaction by the metric discussed here is similar to the heated up feelings that can develop with such happening. As for the development, i'm not a specialist in Mexican history. I'm suspicious that there can be things we don't know much about, that are better hidden than balkan politics.

On the other side, receiving comments from that diplomacy when previously that country has boycotted the development of other countries than Mexico is unacceptable. Let me mention Cuba to start with...Then I will jump to Puerto Rico...A country with such a title (Rich Harbour) ended up to be one of the poorest countries in the world during the 30s. Moreover, it is still not a country with full independence nor its own army. It is unofficially the fifty something state...Ask 1000 Puerto Ricans if they want their country to be administered as it is done now and gather the results...Go tell a Puerto Rican to visit the statue of liberty...Also, do a lookup on how a term like "Gringo" (Green go!) appered in some vocabularies...
 
Originally posted by Chilbudios

  Riiight. FYROM ammended its constitution at Greece's request and it's "denial of cooperation". Greece interferes in FYROM's affairs and it's "denial of cooperation". That veto is an expression of blind and hateful nationalism, of a Greece living 200 years ago.


Give another option that would make their politicians to have another stance then...
FYROM has interfeared ealier on Greece affairs...FYROM has broken the interim accord...Not Greece. The blind and hateful nationalism has been demonstrated by the other part, long before the veto. Many many times...

And lets not forget how the name dispute was seen when the Soviet Union had a grip on it...





It seems nowadays only Bulgarians remember those details and some Greeks living 200 years ago. All these at a time when Greece didn't build its own defensive systems and was a good client...Now, they got their own production of German Panther tanks and soon won't be needing american airfighters...




Edited by Flipper - 09-Apr-2008 at 21:45


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 23:39
Originally posted by Flipper

Cause they already knew there would be a reaction...I didn't speak about reporting, i said earlier on this topic they should approach and say:

"We're becoming independent anytime and wish to name our country Macedonia. Lets talk about this as a start of good neighbourship"
Are you kidding? Is Greece some sort of international arbiter who approves which country is named what? I'm sure Greece had messages of good neighbourship from FYROM, what they didn't have is a request for approval for this name. Besides, Macedonia was the name of the Yugoslav Socialist Republic, it was somehow obvious that after the breakup of Yugoslavia the next name will be "Republic of Macedonia" (i.e. dropping the Yugoslav Socialist part). If Greece can negotiate a "Republic of Macedonia-Skopje" or "Republic of Upper Macedonia" or whatever to appease their nationalistic pride, fine, if not, let them get over with it. Veto-ing a NATO admission for that is hateful and stupid.
 
Why should anyone care actually? That is not the logic...You can flipp that and use it anyway you like. Prefer selfishnesh is the good egocentric solution, but not in the terms of a social order
Please read to the end, I didn't say what you quoted.
 
I didn't mention anything about history there and the Greek generals Sun-emblems in the Trojan war nor the Spartan shields before the use of Λ.
You didn't, but many other Greeks (including officials), do. 
 
I'm talking about the elements and their gods represented. 
You already got an answer to that.
 
I was refering to the reaction to that advertizement...Why did so many react on it? You know there's a hidden fear about the growing latinization of the US. You know there are people that you will ask them in English and they will answer you in Spanish.
... and? Is US denying Mexico its name??? (they have a New Mexico after all, maybe it fuels irredentism in Mexico).
 
The Veto was the last option in the constant denial of cooperation.
Riiight. FYROM ammended its constitution at Greece's request and it's "denial of cooperation". Greece interferes in FYROM's affairs and it's "denial of cooperation". That veto is an expression of blind and hateful nationalism, of a Greece living 200 years ago.


Edited by Chilbudios - 08-Apr-2008 at 23:40
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 23:05
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Why? Why should FYROM give Greece such reports?


Cause they already knew there would be a reaction...I didn't speak about reporting, i said earlier on this topic they should approach and say:

"We're becoming independent anytime and wish to name our country Macedonia. Lets talk about this as a start of good neighbourship"

Originally posted by Chilbudios


Why should FYROM care


Why should anyone care actually? That is not the logic...You can flipp that and use it anyway you like. Prefer selfishnesh is the good egocentric solution, but not in the terms of a social order.


Originally posted by Chilbudios


if some Greeks are religiously attached to their history and nationalistic symbols? Isn't Greece a secular state?


I didn't mention anything about history there and the Greek generals Sun-emblems in the Trojan war nor the Spartan shields before the use of Λ. I'm talking about the elements and their gods represented.

Originally posted by Chilbudios


Isn't Greece actually a state instead of a bunch of moody individuals?

 
Do you really think you can generalize it like that?


Originally posted by Chilbudios


Flipper, does US oppose Mexico's development because of its name? No one denies Greece the right to protest against irredentism (school textbooks, national celebration with dubious irredentist messages, etc.), but we talk about denying FYROM's ascension to NATO only because of its name. This is where the things start to become absurd. This is where Greece starts to look bad. This is where Greece gets associated with fascism, etc., etc.. 


I was refering to the reaction to that advertizement...Why did so many react on it? You know there's a hidden fear about the growing latinization of the US. You know there are people that you will ask them in English and they will answer you in Spanish.

The Veto was the last option in the constant denial of cooperation.


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 16>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.336 seconds.