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.’”

 
A PATTERN EMERGES

Isn’t it funny how, mixed in with the irony and tragedy that is the theme of the Balkan story, we also have another theme: George Soros, the eccentric billionaire who has made his life’s work a crusade against what he calls “unrestrained capitalism” and yet is widely seen as the least restrained of all capitalists. Aside from writing books attacking the alleged “dangers” of laissez-faire capitalism, Soros was also one of the most effective and relentless advocates of US military intervention in the Balkans. The Soros-funded Balkan Action Council brought together the top warmongers in both parties, and among the intellectuals, mobilizing public opinion behind the idea of US intervention on behalf of the allegedly victimized Kosovars: Soros personally spoke out in support of the Kosovo war, utilizing his considerable influence with such Clinton era figures as Strobe Talbott on behalf of the War Party…

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.

Second, the overt support of the State Department to FYROM hardened the positions of the nationalists in the Slav-Macedonian government. Eventually they gave them false signs since the State Department treated FYROM as a protégé. For the Greek side it was obvious that the real interlocutors during the bargaining process were the US and its NATO ally Greece. Athens was treated as a de facto minor ally whose le-gitimate security interests had to be sacrificed in order to cement south-eastern Europe from Russian policy built on establishing oil and natural gas pipelines.

This clearly illustrates a stark change of mood on the part of Washington. During the Cold War, Greece was the only NATO ally and EC/EU member whose interests had to be taken into consideration. The lack of alternatives made Washington more careful in the articulation of ideas and evaluations towards the so called Macedonian issue. After the end of the Cold War American foreign policy established a network of allies in the region that eliminated in part Greece´s advantage of being the sole NATO member in the region.

When the name issue emerged de jure in the early 1990s American officials dealt with it as if it were a technicality, although Greece had kept silent ever since the es-tablishment of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia by Tito in mid-1940s. In fact today Greece is “punished” for not upsetting American policy and western strategy of sup-port to a non-aligned Yugoslavia. This is an affront to Greek public opinion and his-tory and a fact that enhances dramatically anti-American feelings in the country.

Third, the reaction of the State Department to the insults to the Greek Prime Minister K. Karamanlis (see his portrayal dressed as a Nazi as presented by a magazine published in Skopje) and the Greek flag decorated with Nazi symbols was unsatisfactory. The same applies to the use of maps of Greater and united Macedonia circulated in recent demonstrations in Skopje and the aim of uniting geographical Macedonia. They constituted hard evidence of what the Greek side had always rejected, that is Slav-Macedonian irredentist or pseudo-irredentist claims. Playing deaf is not always a sound policy particularly vis-à-vis an ally that has offered so much in the struggle for democracy and freedom in the region.

The same people who today support “liberation” of Greek Macedonia (to Slav-Macedonians nationalists “Aegean Macedonia”) propagated in favor of a world communist order a few decades ago. The State Department seems to have forgotten a number of facts associated with history, diplomacy and loyalty to allies. Of course power, especially structural power, allows arrogance to overlay ethical issues not as-sociated with the conduct of foreign policy. Political realists reject ethical motives when materializing foreign policy goals. Yet, this ethical foundation has been America´s most powerful weapon in leading what American presidents used to call the “free world”.

On January 21, 1994 a New York Times columnist made the obvious mistake of eliminating the security aspects of the issue and failed to recognize the epitome of the problem. He wrote that “ever since the breakup of Yugoslavia, Greece has been fighting and gradually losing the battle to prevent the world from recognizing the for-mer Communist wedge of land on its northern border by the name it has chosen for itself - Macedonia. It is an issue that boils with nationalist passion. Yet, as some Greeks slowly seem to be acknowledging, it is an issue that cannot be won…”.

Evidently he himself made a number of blatant oversimplifications. The first refers to the right of a state to use a name of its own choice. Actually this is not happening even in the world of modern trade since brand names are protected trademarks and copyright protected. As I have previously suggested history is a powerful tool in the hands of nationalists. FYROM has propagated the existence of a “Macedonian nation” although its existence cannot be established throughout history. Actually it was Tito who “provided the occasion to develop a specifically Macedonian history which was clearly differentiated from its neighbours”[1].

Fourth, American mediating effort was built on putting pressure on the Greek side and bullying the Greek government allowing Skopje to operate under the impact of protégé euphoria since Washington has become a shield against Greek policies. This relationship between great powers and protégés has formulated the conceptual an-ticipations of the hardliners in FYROM. In mid-1940s B, Newman pinpointed that “many Balkan states were little more than puppets in the finger of protecting powers”.

Fifth, the State Department has dramatically undermined the catalytic role of Slav-Macedonian irredentist claims to Greek Macedonia. Ignorance of geopolitical expedi-ence is not an excuse in ignoring the obvious that is the long battle over control of Greek Macedonia, 90% of which matches the borders of the kingdom of ancient Macedonia. Evidently younger generations of American diplomats have not learned their history lessons. Tito was the man who created the Macedonian issue by constructing the “Macedonian” ethnicity and language with a view to dealing with Bulgarophilia and annexing Greek Macedonia. He was the one who openly set territorial claims on what he called “Aegean Macedonia” [2] and at times he turned the issue into a key dispute of the Cold War.

However, his dream was not a means of advancing the Soviet and Cominform-supported aim of establishing a Balkan Communist Federation but rather a policy of setting the foundations for the annexation of Greek Macedonia [3]. Despite internal divisions, the pro-Soviet Greek Communist Party endorsed this policy under the threat of being ex-communicated by Cominform. On March 4, 1949 A. C. Sedgwick reporting for The New York Times confirms the pressure on Greek Communists: «The Communist Information Bureau (Cominform) has ordered the Communist party of Greece to declare itself unequivocally in favor of an autonomous Macedonia and henceforth to work toward the creation and organization of such a state…» [4].

Actually this has been the basis of the critique against Greek Communists who were engaged in an ideologically-related struggle, built on a Marxist basis, against Ameri-can and British supported government forces [5]. Post-Second World War south-eastern history is well-known and I do not have the time to include thousands of bib-liographical references from American and British sources to make myself understood. I do not mean to give young American diplomats lessons of history although I am tempted to do so.

However, I have to remind them that it is this very policy that has alienated the US from its allies [6] and led them to support ephemeral alliances with those who sup-ported a communist world order. I need to remind them that bullying an ally is an op-tion provided by the multiple means of power disposed by the US, yet, it is not an honorable policy. I need to remind them that Slav-Mecedonians and Bulgarians need no interpreter when engaged in a conversation. Finally, I need to remind them that the issue is not a choice between an EU member - a NATO ally (Greece) and a weak country (FYROM) but a choice between a status quo country and a revisionist state. Greece is the most pro-status quo country in the region and has made substantial compromises in the issue. Obviously the will to compromise was taken as a sign of weakness. This clearly shows an inability to formulate sound evaluative judgments.

Evidently late American foreign policy has been built on supporting revisionist states, which again, exposes the advertised ethics of exporting democracy. It is also evident that the State Department would like to set hurdles to the current Greek administration. In the eyes of a small number of State Department officials this is the overt or covert price Greece has to pay for its support to the Russian energy expansion in the region. The issue here is that Greece has not shifted its loyalty. On the contrary, the current Republican administration has shifted its loyalty and wishes to sacrifice the national interest of its allies, a policy that voids the security guarantees provided by NATO. It wishes to dictate strategic choices in the domain of foreign policy, and jeopardize the security of an ally, a policy that above all violates the very meaning and collective security character of the Atlantic Alliance.

Ex-President Clinton’s view was that “American activism guarantees international stability”, yet this seems to have been forgotten, although American foreign policy is characterised by a substantial degree of continuity. It is time the State Department rediscovered its long-supported values and honored its allies.

Our neighbours need to understand that stability can not be built on irredentism. This is very basic for the return of the whole region into development orbit. At the same time the State Department should stop taking advantage of disputes that destabilize the region. These are the fundamental components of a real stabilizing activism.

1] S. Lefebvre, “The FYROM: Where to?”, European Security, vol.3, n.4, Winter 1994, p.711

2] “Tito held moving to win Macedonia”; Backing for Aegean Minority’s Unity Re-garded as Notice to Greece of Yugoslav Claim”, New York Times, October 14, 1945.

3] “Cominform Strikes at Tito And Athens Via Macedonia; Ancient Region of Battles in the Balkans A Key to ‘Cold War’ on the Greek Front”, The New York Times, April 3, 1949.

4] «Greek Communist Shift to ‘Free’ Macedonia Points to Party Purge on Cominform Orders», The New York Times, March 4, 1949.

5] This aspect is scrutinized in George Voskopoulos, Greek Foreign Policy, from the 20TH to the 21st Century, Papazisis, Athens, 2005 (published in Greek)

6] This view is scrutinised in George Voskopoulos (ed.), Transatlantic Relations and European Integration, realities and dilemmas, ICFAI University Press, Hydera-bad, 2006.

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,

…The unification of the entire Macedonian people depends on your participation in the gigantic anti-fascist front. Only by fighting the vile fascist occupier will you gain your right to self-determination and unification of the entire Macedonian people within the framework of Tito’s Yugoslavia, which has become a free community of emancipated and equal people. May the struggle of the Macedonian Piedmont incite you to even bolder combat against the fascist oppressors!”

And in a Proclamation to the people of Macedonia issued on August 4, 1944, it was stated:

“…In the course of three years of combat you have achieved your unity, developed your army,: and laid the basis for the federal Macedonian state. With the participation of the entire Macedonian nation in the struggle against the fascist occupiers of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Greece you will achieve unification of all parts of Macedonia, divided in 1915 and 1918 by Balkan imperialists” .

To popularise these visions, official or semi-official agencies and private enterprises in FYROM put in circulation all kinds of maps, calendars, car stickers, posters depicting the “homeland” of Skopje’s “Macedonians” ;-not within the borders of FYROM but all the way to the Aegean coast, the city of Thessaloniki and Mt. Olympus! This is happening not in 1903 or 1944, but in 1992, 1993, 1994.

More ominous for the future was the publication of identical maps and texts of a similar mentality in the new school textbooks of history, published by President Gligorov’s Ministry of Education in 1992-1993.

Thus, in no uncertain terms, it becomes clear that the new state was launched, from the very beginning, on a course of territorial expansionism.

At a closer look, one can observe certain striking similarities of the aims of present-day FYROM nationalists and those of the Bulgarian revolutionaries at the turn of the 19th century in Ottoman-held Macedonia; or those of the Bulgarian fascists during the Second World War; or, finally, of the Yugoslav communists during the first post-World War II years.

In all cases, the vision of terrorists guerillas-political activists was-and continues to be-identical: to unite all Macedonian lands into a unified entity, despite the different ethnological composition of these lands. Where these fighters or activists differed was their choice of the beneficiary. In the late l9th century and all the way to the Second World War, the aspiring beneficiary was nationalist or fascist Bulgaria. Later, it was Tito’s communist Yugoslavia. Now, it is Gligorov’s-or his successor’s-”democratic” FYROM.

Under the circumstances, one could hardly blame the Greeks, particularly those of the northern Greek provinces, if they view suspiciously the nationalistic claims of a new-born state in their backyard. After all, in the span of this century, they have experienced two foreign occupations and one Civil War, supported by neighbouring countries coveting Greek Macedonia and Thrace.

Let us take a glimpse at some not too distant historical events.

During the First World War, Bulgaria attempted to annex the Macedonian regions of her neighbours, Greece and Serbia, by espousing the cause of the Central Powers and Turkey. Indeed, with the support of Kaizer’s Germany it managed to occupy Greek Eastern Macedonia where ethnic cleansing-type tactics were applied against the Greek population. The defeat of Germany and Austria-Hungary terminated Bulgarian occupation. Having failed to annex the coveted territory,- Bulgaria subsequently sought to promote the idea of an autonomous Macedonian state.

Once again, during the second World War, Bulgaria, allied to nazi Germany and fascist Italy, was given in exchange the right to occupy large parts of Greek Macedonia and Thrace all the way to the Aegean coast. Bulgarian occupation authorities, benefiting by World War I experiences, reverted to their familiar policy of ethnic cleansing. The collapse of the Axis terminated the second Bulgarian occupation of Greek Macedonia (1941-1944).

It is interesting to note that this was not only the policy of the Bulgarian ruling elites of the time, but also that of the Bulgarian Communist Party. It is a fact that during the interwar period, the Soviet Union under Stalin endorsed a proposal by Bulgarian Communists for a united and independent Macedonian state in the framework of a Balkan Communist Federation.

In 1944, it was Tito’s turn, who set up the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. The federal form of the state was meant to solve the problem of quarrelling nationalities and ethnic minorities within Yugoslavia. He set up the “People’s Republic of Macedonia” (formerly known as the “Province of the Vardar”), and sought to annex to it the Macedonian provinces of neighbouring Greece and Bulgaria.

This brief historical expose is didactic in many respects. It brings out the fact that neighbours of Greece, irrespective of international alignments or internal political regimes, have pursued, throughout the 20th century, schemes for expansion towards Greek Macedonia and Thrace. Furthermore, it supports the thesis that no single Balkan neighbour dared to challenge Greek sovereignty over the two Greek northern provinces, unless it was in alliance with one or more external great Powers.

The succession of these great Powers is worth recording.

Certainly, Greece and the Greek people do not feel threatened today by a weak FYROM. Nevertheless, the logical assumption that comes to the minds not only of the Greeks but all those who know the history of the Balkans is a simple one: if FYROM is allowed to develop on a nationalist, expansionist and even revanchist course, then it is bound to seek its own patron who will hand over to it the “promised lands”.

In the name of Peace and stability in the Balkans -not only in our times but for future generations- it is important that the new state should be helped to divest itself of the legacies of the past, i.e. of the nationalist Bulgarian and communist Yugoslav mentality. Thus:

the contested articles of its Constitution should be deleted or amended in order to free political leaders of binding constitutional obligations -or the temptation- to pursue expansionist designs;
the school textbooks of history should be rewritten to put an end to the indoctrination of young children with grandiose, chimerical visions of a greater Macedonia;
internationally binding treaties should guarantee that the new state would sincerely accept the sovereignty of neighbouring states over their respective Macedonian provinces;
and, above all, the name “Republic of Macedonia”, a perpetrator of territorial expansionism, should be abandoned with no delay.
If such initiatives are taken and such guarantees are given, Greece would be the first to extend its hand in support of the new neighbouring state to its north.

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.

During this summit, however, the Alliance made it abundantly clear that accession is contingent upon respect for NATO shared values and principles; that alliances and partnerships can be forged among countries only when there is good will, mutual trust and good neighborly relations. So FYROM’s aspiration to join NATO came to an inevitable halt, as it failed to take steps toward normalizing relations with Greece - a neighbor, major foreign investor and future ally.

Greece has been a NATO member since 1952, ranking high in defense expenditure, reaching almost 2.67 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, participating with numerous personnel, means and capabilities in all major NATO missions and operations, and providing critical facilities. At the same time, it is committed to regional dialogue and stability, using soft and smart power to bring countries closer together. Greece is not only a major investor in its region, but it has also actively supported development in Southeastern Europe through developmental assistance, building of infrastructure and other projects financed by a special fund.

For many, a name expresses little more than a right to self-determination. This, I am afraid, is an oversimplification, as this is a complex issue, interwoven with a rich historical background - as is always the case in our part of the world - and with the sensitivities of the peoples living in the area.

The term “Macedonia” defines a wider geographic region, only a part of which is in FYROM. One might wonder whether FYROM has territorial claims to the entire region. Its leaders claim they have no such plans, and we want to believe them.

Yet, we wonder why official FYROM maps and other state documents depict the region of Macedonia in Greece - which they call “Aegean Macedonia” - as “occupied” territory belonging to FYROM that will one day be “liberated.”

And why are such maps and documents widely used? Why are these geographic and historical inaccuracies found in their school textbooks, propagating a distorted reality? At the very least, such actions - which emanate from the state - “poison” the political climate of our bilateral ties and, even worse, the ties between our peoples.

Let us remember that the name resonates not only for the people of FYROM, but for the Greek people as well.

Greece has taken bold steps toward a solution. In an unprecedented turn, we have come to negotiations prepared to accept a composite name, with a geographical qualifier for the term “Macedonia.” All we ask of the other side is that they meet us half way.

We are not alone in our expectations of FYROM. In the U.S. Congress, 116 members, both Republicans and Democrats, recently co-sponsored House Resolution 356, which expresses the “sense of the House of Representatives that FYROM should stop hostile activities and propaganda against Greece, and should work with the United Nations and Greece to find a mutually acceptable official name.” Sens. Robert Menendez, Olympia Snowe, Barack Obama, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow have introduced a similar resolution in the Senate.

On the fresh momentum of the NATO Summit aftermath, with our expressed readiness to resume negotiations immediately under United Nations auspices, I would like to send a clear and unequivocal message to FYROM: Our will to find a mutually acceptable solution is firm.

Greece invites FYROM anew to display the resolve and political spirit that will secure its accession to NATO and, if all requirements are met, to the European Union tomorrow. FYROM’s future lies in its own hands.

The name issue is not a game of skill. It is one of common sense, where fair is fair for all, and rules apply to all. This was made unanimously clear to both NATO members and aspirants in Bucharest.

Dora Bakoyannis is the foreign affairs minister of Greece.

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 

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).

As emerges from political discussions in Greek parliament and the press, following the liberation of Macedonia from Ottoman suzerainty in 1912-1913, the term ‘Macedonian people’ (Makedhonikos laos) was used to define not just the Greek Macedonians, but on occasion also the totality of its mixed population, even including Albanian-, Greek- and Turkish- speaking Muslims. Yet, particularly after the definitive exchange and population movements, which mainly took place in the 1920s, the non-Greek populations of Greek Macedonia were gradually forgotten.

In the same interwar period, a Slavic Macedonian nation-building movement began to appear among the Bulgarian and communist intelligentsia, under the added influence of Comintern policy, in the wider Macedonian area of Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. In Greece, this movement was treated as a paradox, or a historical irony of which very few people were aware. Even when it became understood-during the course of World War II and, more so, after the crisis of the Greek Civil War, 1946-1949-that the Macedonian name, despite historical titles, was acquiring an autonomous ethnic Slav substance through the formation of the federative People’s Republic of Macedonia within the Yugoslav Federation, nobody in Greece imagined that that name would end up as an international term contrasted to Greece; for this would be a contradiction in terms. For that same reason, apparently as a reaction to the usurpation of a cultural component of their Hellenic heritage, the use of the defining adjective ‘Macedonian’ expanded on all levels in Greek Macedonia and the Diaspora in the post-war years. For its inhabitants, the word was synonymous with Greek; it was both a title of honour and a vital catalyst for the mustering and growth of its population.

The same intensification of use was to be seen after 1991, when the Yugoslav federative Socialist Republic of Macedonia became an independent state. The existence of another Macedonia, which was not Greek, was seen as illogical by those Greeks who had forgotten that a part of geographical Macedonia had not been included in the Greek state, as well as by those who had never learned that as a term of geographical origin, the word ‘Macedonian’ was not a Greek monopoly.

So how can all these people adapt to such an extreme reality as the sudden appearance in their vicinity of an independent state by the name of ‘Macedonia’, in which a ‘Macedonian’ is by definition not Greek?

Moreover, how could they consent to that state‘s constitutional name ‘Republic of Macedonia’ which not only fails to specify the sovereign territory of the new state, but adopts instead the name of the wider Macedonian region, thus laying claims not only on the name of Macedonia but on all its derivatives?

Following over two centuries of intense use of the Macedonian name, and having exalted and fervently promoted Macedonian heritage within and beyond Greece, on both an individual and collective level, how could the Greeks accept not only that this identity does not belong exclusively to them, but that a neighbouring Slavic state is claiming the exclusive right to use it? At a time when regions in Europe are searching for and pushing their distinctive identities to the fore, how can it be possible for the Greek Macedonians to lose theirs?

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:

Greece 51.57%: The Southern Part
FYROM 38.32%: The N-Western Part (0 km coastline)
Bulgaria 10.11%: The N-Eastern Part (0 km coastline)
Notice the relation of each part with the Aegean Sea, and you will realize who would like to gain access to the sea for several purposes!

The percentages mentionned above correspond to area of what was “Provincia Macedonia” in the Roman empire in 148BC, and that was the area of the kingdom of Macedonia just before the battle of Pydna in 168BC, when it was conquered by the Romans. That “Macedonia” is basically “Historical Macedonia” and “Paeonia”. The, lets say, “true Macedonia” is what appears as kingdom of Macedonia in the days of Alexandros I, extended to the East to Nestos river.

Of course when Macedonia was divided, in the beginning of the 20th century, the state of FYROM didn’t exist. The territories were previously under the rule of the Othoman empire (Turkey) and the first division was among Greece, Serbia (later Yugoslavia) and Bulgaria.

People that live in FYROM are slavophonic and claim that they are Macedonians, a nation that, according to them, doesn’t have any relation with the Greeks, the Bulgarians, the Albanians or the Serbs.

Of course, if they believe that they are a unique nation, then, perhaps, they might be (who is to say how someone feels?).
And of course, they should be using a language, that, as all the national languages, reflects the history of the nation that originally uses it.
And of course, since they feel like a nation, what would be more fair than to name themselves as Macedonians, since they live in Macedonia?
Now, here is the problem. The name Macedonia is a totally Greek name*,  it is part of the Greek herritage and belongs to the Greeks. The name Macedonian has been used for many centuries to identify the person that lives in Macedonia and nothing more. The officials of FYROM use the word Macedonia to identify a nation. Because of the similarity of the name Macedonian (and nothing else!) with the name of the ancient Greek tribe of the Macedonians, they immidiately claim that they have something to do with those people, and they come up with completely ridiculus theories in order to support their claims. Of course, in that way, they create a lot of confusion, which is very convinient for any potential use in:

Suddenly becoming an ancient nation with great history
Declaring claims on the other 61.68% of the area of Macedonia, referring to that part as the “unliberated” part.
The truth is that all this, no matter how ridiculus it may seem, is part of a cleverly designed plan which is 120 years old, and aims to create an independent state in the Balkans with access to the Aegean Sea through the port of Thessaloniki.

Anyway this artificial confusion must somehow stop! Noone has the right to steal a part of the Greek, or any other, nation’s history. The name Macedonia is part of the Greek history as the name of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia and that forbids any use of it to identify any other nation and to deliberately cause confusion. If the officials of FYROM justify the use of the name of Macedonia by the name of the area that they live, then why don’t they use another geographical term, as:

Centro-Balkanian Republic,
Vardaria, (Before Wolrd War II, FYROM was named as Vardaska Banovina…)
or, something else?

Also, if that so called unique “Macedonian” nation was so unique, as the FYROMians claim, then does it need to use a Greek name that has already been used as an identifier?

The use of the name Macedonia is definitely wrong because

That state isn’t 100% Macedonian land but only by a small percentage
It doesn’t even have the majority of the Macedonian land and in addition
The name Macedonian has already been used to identify Greeks * and the use of the name to identify non-Greek populations is historically unacceptable.

*Link added ex post- not included in the original text

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

FYROMian Propaganda:  FYROM has allowed the dissemination of negative and nationalistic propaganda through school books that teach pupils that parts of Greece - including Greek Macedonia - belong to FYROM, and through maps* that show a Great Macedonia extending to Mount Olympus in Greece and to Mountain Pirin in Bulgaria in the east, thus consolidating, among parts of its population, enmity towards Greece.

* Ex. 1 (Source: Makedonismos ): 

Ex. 2  (Source: Makedonismos )

Congressional Legislation

‘A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered Interim Agreement between FYROM and Greece regarding “hostile activities or propaganda” and should work with the United Nations and Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of finding a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM’

(More Details: 110th USA Senate resolution 300 )

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.

What’s in a name, you may ask? A great deal, I can assure you. The term “Macedonia” has always been used to delineate a wider geographical region, approximately 51 percent of which is part of Greece, 38 percent of which is in FYROM and 9 percent of which is in Bulgaria.

The government in Skopje insists on being the sole claimant to the name of an entire area - the largest part of which lies outside its borders - and authorities in FYROM persevere in portraying Greek Macedonia as “occupied” territory. While government leaders declare they have no designs on Greek territory, they refuse to remove such claims from textbooks, state maps and national documents. Only a few weeks ago, the country’s prime minister was photographed laying a wreath on a monument to which a map of the so-called “Greater Macedonia” was attached that incorporated a considerable part of northern Greece, including Greece’s second-largest city, Thessaloniki. Moreover, it has recently decided to rename the international airport of Skopje “Alexander the Great.”

Despite those negative attitudes, Greece, in parallel to the negotiations regarding FYROM’s name, has spared no effort in responding in FYROM’s quest for economic growth and political stability. Greece is the country’s largest foreign investor, with over $1 billion invested and more than 20,000 jobs created in the last decade, and is one of its biggest trade partners.

Presently, and regardless of the Bucharest summit’s outcome, Greece is determined to continue on the same path and is willing to assist the people of FYROM, for which the Greek people continue to demonstrate their strong feelings for peaceful co-existence and friendship.

Encouraged by positive messages:

In the aftermath of the Bucharest NATO Summit, I would prefer to focus on the positive messages that were conveyed to the leadership and to the people of FYROM by Greek Prime Minister Mr. Costas Karamanlis and Foreign Minister Mrs. Bakoyannis. Encouraged by the vast support of our friends and allies, we are determined to restart the negotiations, in order to achieve a mutually accepted solution over the name.

I strongly believe that this is no time for polemics. If FYROM has the political will to engage in these U.N. sponsored negotiations, it should refrain from raising unlawful issues of the past as inaccurately as our friends from the FYROM Embassy did with their recent letter.

As a final remark, I would like to stress that the vast majority of the Greek people and all political parties support the renewed efforts for negotiations and the positive messages addressed by the Greek leadership to the people of FYROM. We expect that our neighboring country will demonstrate the same positive attitude and move toward the necessary compromise.

Fotios Jean Xydas is the Ambassador of Greece to Ankara.

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.

It is a well-known Communist propaganda, initiated by Stalin before World War II. A resolution was passed by the Communist International (Comintern) in 1934 that for the first time it proclaimed the existence of a ….”Macedonian nation”. Stalin’s Macedonian nation consisted of the territory of FYROM, classical Macedonia which is the northern part of Greece, and the Pirin Macedonia of Bulgaria. That same area is shown even today on FYROM’s maps as “Greater Macedonia”.

Ten years later, in 1944, Tito established the Peoples Republic of Macedonia (a part of Yugoslavia), thus pursuing that communist dream. The Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization in today’s FYROM has been pursuing the same dream with its expansionary policies. The map above speaks for itself.

Despina Fourniades
Bethesda, MD

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.