Macedonia - An Imaginary Country - The Soros Connection

Source: Antiwar

 

AN IMAGINARY COUNTRY

…After all, the classification of “Macedonian” as a separate language, unique to itself, like English French, and German, is quite a stretch: it is more like a regional dialect, one with Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian influences (both of which, like Macedonian, are written in the Cyrillic alphabet). Indeed, as far as the Bulgarians are concerned, there is no such language as “Macedonian,” but only a dialect of Bulgarian: the Serbo-Croatian speakers in Macedonia proper hold a similar view.

The fragility of this linguistic nationalism is, furthermore, exacerbated by the historical reality that no such country as “Macedonia” has had a separate existence since the days of Alexander the Great: its resurrection by Tito and the Yugoslav Communists was merely a crude attempt to intervene on the Communist side in the Greek civil war. This, however, has not deterred “Macedonian” nationalists from determinedly averring their linguistic and cultural uniqueness, and fiercely defending their (largely imaginary) national identity. Against the genuine cultural chauvinism of the Albanian fanatics, however, the faux nationalism of the “Macedonians” is a weak reed bending in a strong wind.

 
…THE SOROS CONNECTION

The make-believe country of Macedonia is a Yugoslavia in miniature: with all the built-in problems of the latter even more deeply embedded in its origins. Its first President, Kiro Gligorov, was a longtime Communist bureaucrat who served under Tito and, like Milosevic, made the transition to the post-Communist political scene.

Unlike old Slobo, however, Gligorov obtained the invaluable support of billionaire speculator and international do-gooder George Soros, who literally bailed out Macedonia with a generous loan and became the country’s de facto ambassador-at-large, lobbying for international recognition in the face of an embargo declared by Greece. The Greeks, it seems, feel threatened by the country’s very name, Macedonia, which is the same as Greece’s northern province, and some aspects of the Macedonian constitution, couched as it is in irredentist language: when the Macedonian government published a textbook showing a map of “Greater Macedonia,” including large chunks of Greece, Athens was not amused. In a [January 23]1995 New Yorker profile of Soros, the special relationship between Soros and the Macedonian model of “multiculturalism” was explored:

“Nowhere has Soros put more energy and money into bolstering a government than in Macedonia. “George is the savior of Macedonia,” his friend Morton Abramowitz declared. And the Macedonian representative in Washington, Ljubica Acevska, says of two separate Soros loans of twenty five million dollars, ‘People found it difficult to believe. The opposition said, ‘A country does not help you- why would an individual help you?’ Remember, twenty-five million dollars in Macedonia is like billions here… the fact that Soros did it helped the government a great deal.’”

American faulty policy in the Greek-FYROM name dispute

Source: American Chronicle

Dr. George Voskopoulos
May 02, 2008
Alexis de Toqueville wrote one of the most comprehensive works on American Democracy titled Democracy in America. His critique was based among other things on the American political establishment and its operating mode. I do not mean to endorse his critique as a whole but I will agree that Americans do not really appreciate criticism. In essence my views here reflect certain aspects of its evaluation judgments based on the State Department´s policy and mediating strategy in the Greek-FYROM dispute.

American active and rather biased involvement in the negotiations between FYROM and Greece was evident in the late phases of negotiations under the auspices of the UN. The dead-end was not a surprise and this may be attributed not only to the clash of non-negotiable national interests of Athens and Skopje but also Washington´s policy. A number of issues may be pinpointed as non-facilitating factors in resolving the issue. They directly and indirectly relate to the formulation of Greek and Slav-Macedonian positions and the lack of understanding or ignorance on the part of the State Department.

First, President Bush has obviously underestimated the importance of the issue for Greece and consistently used the term “Macedonia” when referring to FYROM. In terms of semantics this is a direct support to Skopje a fact not appreciated by Greek public opinion and political elite. When in 2004 US government decided to recognize FYROM under its constitutional name “Republic of Macedonia” it was done as a means to avoid further destabilization of the country. At least this was the explanation provided by the State Department. Greek worries were not just overlaid but rather treated as a symptom of national paranoia, a technicality and not an issue of direct or indirect threat to territorial status and a non-military threat to a NATO ally.

The Expansionist Features in FYROM’s Foreign Policy Objectives

Source: Macedonian Heritage

 

The Expansionist Features in FYROM’s Foreign Policy Objectives
The first steps of the former Yugoslav “Socialist Republic of Macedonia” towards independent statehood bear the marks of nationalistic visions mixed with territorial expansionism.

It is not a coincidence that, as a result of the first democratic elections (December 1990), the party which won first place in popular votes and parliamentary seats was the “Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation” (VMRO). Its platform declared specifically its intention to work for the unification of all the Macedonian lands in one state: the “Republic of Macedonia”.

Similarly, VMRO’s electoral poster depicted a map of a united Macedonia which included the whole of Greek Macedonia, as well as the Pirin district in Bulgaria.

In November 1993, under the influence of nationalists, the Gligorov government prepared and passed through Parliament the Constitution of the “Republic of Macedonia”. In its preamble, the Consh-tution stated that the new republic rests upon “the statehood-legal traditions” of the “Republic of Krushevo” (1903) and of ASNOM (1944). Both events are considered in Stopje as the first steps toward the establishment of an independent and united Macedonian state. It is worth quoting certain paragraphs from the ASNOM documents of August 21, 1944:

“Macedonians under Bulgaria and Greece,

In the name of a common future

Source: The Washington Times

By Dora Bakoyannis
April 29, 2008

In the aftermath of the NATO Bucharest Summit, a meeting of highest importance for regional and international security, as well as unprecedented in terms of attendance, a significant issue remains unresolved: that is, the invitation to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to join the trans-Atlantic family.

All members of NATO, including Greece, look forward to the day that an invitation is extended to FYROM, as we believe this will further strengthen regional security. Such an outcome is particularly important to Greece, considering the geographic proximity, the traditional ties and the links between our peoples.

Hellenistic Period - American Historical Association

Source: American Historical Association

Introduction: The Hellenistic Period in Modern Historiography

The Hellenistic period is conventionally said to extend from the accession of Alexander the Great to the throne of Macedon in 336 B.C. to the death of Cleopatra VII of Egypt in 30 B.C. Its beginning is marked by Alexander’s successful invasion of the Persian Empire and its end by the redivision of the Near and Middle East between Rome and the new Iranian-ruled kingdom of Parthia. For much of the intervening three hundred years the territory of the former Persian Empire was dominated by a series of Macedonian-ruled kingdoms in which Greeks and Greek culture enjoyed unprecedented preeminence. Art and literature flourished, the foundations of Western literary scholarship were laid, and Greek scientists formulated ideas of theories that would remain fundamental to work in a variety of fields until the Renaissance.

There was also a dark side to the Hellenistic period. It was the first great age of Western imperial expansion in Asia, ushering in the beginning of the end of the great civilizations of the ancient Near East that had dominated the Near and Middle East for almost three thousand years. These two aspects of the Hellenistic period, the emergence of Greek culture as a significant factor in the culture of the old world and the decline of Greece’s Near Eastern rivals, were intertwined, since it was Macedonian imperial domination in the east that facilitated the cultural hegemony of Greece.

This view of the Hellenistic period as one of the major creative periods of Greek history and a fundamental turning point in the history of ancient Eurasia is, however, comparatively recent. Prior to the nineteenth century the Hellenistic period attracted little scholarly interest. To scholars who identified the concept of Hellenism with the Greek republican tradition of the polis , or city-state, and with the restraint and balance of fifth-and fourth-century art, the “baroque” art and “oriental” monarchies of the Hellenistic period seemed decadent. Three factors were responsible for a more positive reassessment of the importance of these three centuries…

 

============================================

Comment: The name Macedonian has already been used to identify Greeks*  and the use of the name to identify non-Greek populations is historically unacceptable.

 

 

* See also: Macedones, a Greek-speaking people 

The Macedonians

Source: Macedonian Heritage

The word Macedonian (Makedhonas, makedhonikos) has always been used in the Greek language to declare the origin of individuals and not to mark out their ethnic identity. That is why its use is so widespread and unlimited; all the more so, since it drew on the weighty heritage of Alexander the Great, unforgotten even under Ottoman Rule. In 19th century Greece nobody ever cast doubt on the Greekness of the Macedonians, even though it was entirely clear that many of them spoke non-Greek Slavic, Romance and Albanian dialects. The very use of the word ‘Macedonian’ distinguished them from the Bulgarians and classified them as belonging to the Greek stock.

Yet the word ‘Macedonian’ had the same geographical rather than ethnic sense of origin in the corresponding languages in Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania; it was used to define individuals from the corresponding national groups in the wider Macedonian area.

In short, in the closing decades of the 19th century, individuals, belonging to different national and linguistic groups, natives of the wider Macedonian area, were defined using the same Macedonian name, which varied only linguistically, according to their particular language group ( Makedhones, Makedontsi, Matsedoneni).

The “Name” Issue

Source: The Falsification of History of Macedonia 

What’s all the trouble about?

When it comes to the bottom line, the so called Macedonian Problem is just a problem of definition ?!

Macedonia is the name of a geographical area of the Balkans as it is shown in the following map with the blue dashed line. Only a part of FYROM (the southern) is in Macedonia. The rest (northern) is part of ancient Dardania, with capital the town Scupoi (now Skopje), and the Dardanians were enemies of the ancient Macedonians:

 

Nowdays that area is divided among 3 countries:

Yes, there is a name issue with ‘Macedonia’ - Turkish Daily News

Source: Turkish Daily News

Yes, there is a name issue with ‘Macedonia’

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Fotios Jean XYDAS With reference to the letter from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s (FYROM) Embassy, published in the Turkish Daily News on April 7, 2008, I would like to stress from the outset that Greece, as the region’s oldest NATO and European Union member, wholeheartedly supported the policy of enlargement. That is why we have always been constructive, supportive and practical regarding our neighbors. In the recent Bucharest NATO Summit, Croatia and Albania were invited to join since they were in a position to further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
At the same time, we were saddened that this was not the case for our other neighbor, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), after a collective decision of the Alliance.

Not an ‘artificial’ problem:

Concerning the FYROM Embassy’s letter, I find it strange that it even questions the fact that there is indeed a “name issue.” Do I have to remind that such an issue was recognized by the Security Council of the United Nations? This is, after all, proven by the fact that for over 15 years our two countries have been involved in U.N.-sponsored negotiations regarding FYROM’s name.

Greece has real and concrete concerns over the issue. It is not an “artificial” problem. It has historical roots, a clear political dimension and its abeyance is negatively affecting good neighborly relations and stability in the region.

A Reaction to NY Times Editorial

Source: Greek - American Weekly Newspaper

14/04/08
SHAME on YOU, New York Times!!!! Since you condemn Greece and praise “Macedonia” in this dispute, I assume that based on the same principal and the same way of thinking, you would totally accept and praise the following ad showing Mexico reclaiming some of our southwestern states. At least this is done by a private company while the maps claiming part of Greece by “Macedonia” is done by their government.

Also, FYROM’s (”Macedonia’s”) schools teach their children that their country’s borders in the south are in the…middle part of Greece!
At the tomb of Goche Delchef (a Bulgarian hero)

Here are some facts about the geographical region, independent since 1991, referred to as “Macedonia”:
a. the official name of the country is FYROM.
b. Alexander the Great was Greek as were the Ionians, the Dorians, the Achaeans, the Aeolians and the Macedonians.
c. All the findings of the ancient Macedonians have scriptures in Greek.
d. Thessaloniki, the second largest city in Greece, located in the Greek part of the ancient Macedonia was named after Alexander the Great’s sister.
e. The inhabitants of FYROM are Slavs who came to the region during the 6th and 7th centuries AD and have nothing in common with the ancient Macedonians.
f. 52.4% of the ancient Macedonia belongs to Greece, 38% of the ancient Macedonia is part of FYROM, and 9.6% is part of Bulgaria.
g. The name of the region known today as FYROM, was Vardarska Banovina after the Vardar River.
h. The name Macedonia was given to that part of Yugoslavia by its Dictator Josip Broz Tito after World War II.

What’s in a name? - The Japan Times

The Japan Times 

By DANIEL OLSEN
Oakdale, N.Y.

The April 9 article “NATO meeting sends dangerous signals” portrays Greece as the aggressor and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as the victim. The provisional name of FYROM was not selected by Greece, as the author states, but was part of an interim agreement suggested by others so FYROM could enter the United Nations.

For years Greece has not wanted the term Macedonia in the name of FYROM. It has since compromised and agreed to the term, but wanted a geographical qualifier such as Upper Macedonia. What was the position of FYROM? It rejected all compromises presented by Matthew Nimetz, the U.N. negotiator, and insisted on the Republic of Macedonia.

Furthermore, FYROM stated its willingness to forgo membership in NATO and the European Union. Rather than pressure FYROM, Greece was pressured to settle the issue prior to the NATO summit. Greece was expected to ignore the fact that FYROM claims to be descendent from the ancient Macedonians, a Greek people, and to ignore recent history as well. While Greece has tried to deal with the issues in a sober manner, FYROM has continued provocative behavior such as insisting that there are “Macedonians” in Greece who are being repressed. Furthermore they have printed maps showing Aegean Macedonia and western Bulgaria as occupied territories to one day be liberated.

Until 1944, the FYROM region, then part of Serbia, was known as Vardar Banovina. It was at this time that Marshall Tito invented the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, and from this area that he supported the communists in the Greek civil war, which cost over 100,000 Greek lives, in his quest of an outlet to the Aegean via the northern Greek province of Macedonia.

Finally the author states that Greece should have confidence in its NATO allies, and that any adventurous policies by FYROM would be stopped in its tracks if they were in NATO. Are these the same allies who have refused to guarantee Greece’s territorial integrity in its dealings with Turkey, another member of NATO? It is true that FYROM is a minor nation, but conflicts in the Balkans rarely remain between two combatants.