 Greece is afraid of 2 million Macedonians claiming properties in Greece Greece falsely accuses Macedonia that the latter is engaged in
irredentism and hostile propaganda - not to mention Athen's
preposterous claim that Macedonia does not have the right to its own
name or to its historical, ethnic, and religious identity.
Demonstrably, Greece's recent moves are mute points: Macedonia
historically and culturally did
transcend the country's current borders. In 1912-13, after two brutal
regional wars, Macedonia was forcefully partitioned among Greece,
Bulgaria, and Serbia. The Macedonians were subject to genocide and many
were driven from their land.
It is this reality that Greece tries to cover up. Human Rights
Watch, among other credible organizations, have documented the
existence of, and on-going discrimination being waged against the
remaining Macedonians in Greece. In fact, until recently, Greece had
Apartheid-like laws on its books to prevent exiled Macedonians or
others hoping to enter Greece to claim title of their family property.
This should help explain the "name dispute," the endless Greek
misinformation, the hostile posturing, attempts to censor, then
ridicule and finally dismiss Macedonian claims. But now it may be
turning more refined methods in the hope to have an international
sanction of the Balkan nation.
Greece's campaign to blot Macedonia from the map has been in effect
for over a century and Kosovo is not the only simmering Balkan issue.
Recently, Greece has intensified its campaign in the U.S. and in the
European Union, and even in Latin America - at a time when Macedonia’s
present stability is critically important as it inches closer to
European Union and NATO membership. For example, instead of maliciously
trying to block Macedonia from establishing ties with Latin America,
Greece should renounce efforts to replicate its baseless disputes in
Europe, on the Latin American continent. Greece could take a leaf from
history, particularly from recent Latin American initiatives at
neighborly relations and regional cooperation, such as the spate of
regional agreements coming to life throughout the region: e.g.,
Mercosur, CAN and Alba.
Last year, for example, Venezuela was brazenly invoked by the Greek
propaganda machine against Macedonia. During a visit to the United
States, one of Macedonia's political leaders was surprised to be
questioned by U.S. officials whether he had entered into secret
meetings with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. This was one of several rumors
maliciously being spread by the powerful Greek lobby in the U.S., which
frequently happens to coordinate its activities with the activities of
the Greek ambassador to the U.S., Alexandros Mallias. The Greek
interest here was clearly limited to trying to injure Macedonia’s ties
with the U.S., by exploiting current U.S.-Venezuela difficulties.
Chavez, for his part, had been (pleasantly) surprised during a
different occasion to learn that there exists, in his words, a
descendant of Alexander the Great, referring to Srdjan Kerim, the
former Macedonian foreign minister, who recently assumed the position
of president of the UN General Assembly.
A competition thus has been steadily developing for winning Latin
American hearts and minds when it comes to the issue of recognition of
Macedonia. Faced with a concerted Greek effort to block Macedonia
internationally, bilateral recognition of its legitimacy has become the
ticket for Macedonia's very survival. This is understandable: at a time
when war raged in the Balkans in the 1990s, Greece's campaign against
Macedonia included a three-year illegal embargo and an economic
blockage of the country, which was also directed against international
institutions dealing with it. As a result, factories in Macedonia were
shut down; crops rotted in the fields; emigration of Macedonians abroad
in search of a livelihood expanded, even including moving complete
households and families to faraway Latin American countries such as
Brazil and Argentina. In the words of a Macedonian minister, Jane
Miljoski, it was a "murder without bullets." Yet, the attempt at
committing genocide against Macedonian culture and history by Greece
includes labeling the use of Alexander the Great's name as hostile
propaganda, including attempts to officially prohibit the singing of
songs about him at Macedonian sporting events, approaching serious
levels of paranoia.
Some countries like Peru, Paraguay, or Suriname have had the courage
to recognize Macedonia under its constitutional name. Others, like
Brazil and Argentina, have been more circumspect, but have nonetheless
extended recognition and established diplomatic ties with the "Macedonian government." Still others, such as Chile, have completely
turned off the argument, perhaps driven by trade considerations. Chile
has so completely fallen under the Greek sway that it did not even want
to even hear about recognizing Macedonia under its centuries-old name.
All seems "fair" in this pathetic game of pondering for influence, and
in Chile's example that includes the existence of such flourish
institutions as the heavily funded Centre of Byzantine and Modern Greek
Studies at the University of Chile, the only one of its kind in Latin
America. Perhaps Macedonia too will have to build a Macedonian Center
for Contemporary and Ancient History near La Moneda. Meanwhile, most of
the world's leading historians such as Dr. Eugene Borza of Pennsylvania
State University or Dr. Ernst Badian of Harvard, agree that the ancient
Macedonians of Alexander the Great - the ancestor's of today's
Macedonians - were a distinct, non-Greek, people, conscious and proud
of their separate and distinct ethnicity.
Greek Presence in Latin America
Greek presence in Latin America has been rather limited, given the
small number of diplomatic missions, exchanges of official visits, and
limited trade and economic activity. The Greek emigre communities in
Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Uruguay, and Panama, like Greek
emigration elsewhere, have been fired up by the Macedonian issue and
fanatically support the local application of Greece's discriminatory
stand against Macedonia. Despite the great geographical distance that
separates the Balkans from Latin America, Greece’s influence in Latin
America has been aided by the head start that Athens has had in
developing relations there at a time that relations were not being
burdened by any fractious issue. Furthermore, the cooperation of Cyprus
with Latin American countries, within the framework of the Movement of
the Non-Aligned Countries, also has helped Greece promote its position.
Ever since Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou visited Mexico in 1986 for
the first time in an official capacity, Greece's influence has steadily
grown, this has included opening embassies in Mexico, Venezuela,
Brazil, and Argentina, and more recently, in Cuba, Uruguay, Chile, and
Peru.
Yet, Latin America is slowly learning that when it comes to
irredentism, it is demonstrably Greece that threatens Macedonia, and
not the reverse. Greece is several times larger and economically far
more powerful than Macedonia, in addiction to being a NATO and an EU
member. When Macedonia declared independence from Yugoslavia in 1991,
it explicitly foreswore territorial claims against anyone. As an
anticipated response to a chauvinistic anti-Macedonian hysteria that
then developed in Greece, Macedonia even changed its constitution and
its flag to show its peaceful intentions and desire for good neighborly
relations which, reflected a long-standing policy. Macedonia could not
pursue irredentism against Greece even if it wanted to; it is too
dependent for its economic survival on the port of Salonica, which
Greece acquired in the wars in 1912-13. By contrast, just three months
ago, two leaders of the state-sponsored ,dominant Greek Orthodox Church
independently called for Greece to annex by force the southern
territories of the Republic of Macedonia.
Concession after Concession
In such a minatory atmosphere, soon after its independence, Macedonia
agreed to be admitted into the UN under a temporary provisional
reference - "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" was only for
the use by the UN furthermore, for a period of only two months. No
other country has thus far been subject to additional, extralegal
requirements when joining the UN, and the demands on Macedonia then
were clearly outside the scope of the U.N. Charter. The full
provisional reference is not to be confused with a meaningless,
nonexistent word "FYROM," which Greece tries to insert rather than its
formal name.
In addition to the extralegal UN requirements, Macedonia was also
pressured by the international community to sign an Interim Accord in
1995 with Greece, to try to come to a mutual agreement. Ambassador
Matthew Niemetz has been named a UN Special Envoy to work with the two
nations towards a solution. While it would be wise for the countries to
talk over their differences, the process has turned into an inevitable
initiative to rename Macedonia and to change its identity.
A Fight for Recognition
Given that Greece has dug itself into a hole, and that the European
Union, despite incessant talk of protecting fundamental human rights,
has shown hypocrisy by straight away accepting Greece's stand on
Macedonia, and, in addition, given the set timetable of admitting new
NATO members, the U.S. now finds itself pressuring Macedonia to accept
one of Niemetz's bizarre “triple formulae” (or similar) solution. The
triple formula contains one name for the internal use in Macedonia,
another name for Greece to refer to Macedonia as it chooses, and yet
another name for international use. A more recent Niemetz proposal has
been the "Democratic Republic of Macedonia." This allegedly is "more
acceptable" for Macedonia to swallow, yet, the bottom line is that the
exact nature of the proposed names are all but meaningless, as the
essence of Athens demand on Macedonia is to show that Macedonia is
being permitted by Greece to use such a given name. The change of
Macedonia's name would give credence to Greece's mythology that the
Macedonians have no roots in ancient Macedonia but are an artificial
nation created by Yugoslavia’s Tito - or such similar outrages against
a truth that only politicians can concoct.
Chile's mendacity aside, it appears that many in Latin America well
understand that the UN's provisional reference is demeaning to
Macedonians as well as seriously harmful to Balkan regional relations.
It is the equivalent of forcing Chile, for example, to rename itself "The Former Spanish Colony of Chile" and then deny Santiago the use of
the name "Chile." Since Macedonia's declaration of independence, over
120 countries have recognized it under its self-professed name,
including the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, Canada,
Turkey, etc. Yet, tragically, Macedonia remains as if it was a
servitor, under extreme outside pressure to continue using its
temporary reference internationally. It is worth repeating that no one
in Macedonia has a mandate to change the Macedonian people’s identity
and any suggestion to do so in order to placate Greece's quasi-racist
policies are as insulting as they are jejune. Any Macedonian official
who will alter the country's name will be guilty of treason and likely
will be helping to destabilize Macedonia and the entire Balkans for the
time to come.
It is at this juncture that Latin America could play a most
constructive role. The region often has supplied a valve that can let
off once the pressure of an already over-pressured Balkans can be
charged from a safe distance. The region could show solidarity with a
small and beleaguered country and extend recognition to Macedonia under
its constitutional name. Those Latin American countries that have
recognized Macedonia, have learnt that the part of Macedonia that
Greece occupied in 1913 is not even named Macedonia. Greece is
administratively divided into thirteen regions, three of which include
the word Macedonia in their name: "Region of Western Macedonia", "Region of Central Macedonia" and "Region of Eastern Macedonia and
Thrace," but none of it is named simply "Macedonia." Therefore, there
can be no confusion as to territories, and, Macedonia directly has
foresworn any territorial ambitions in any respect.
By contrast, succumbing to Greece’s unbudgeable stance, such as its
recently stated intent to veto Macedonia's NATO membership for example,
is certain to create sustained instability in the region, with
potential spillover effects in Kosovo, Albania, Serbia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and, even Greece itself. Hence, the name "dispute"
remains a sizzling fuse for yet another Balkan conflict. After all, who
but the Latin American countries can better understand that a country’s
very existence and choice of a name are embedded sovereign rights, with
each of them having a prerogative to promote, preserve, and protect
their ethnic identity and culture.
Patently, Macedonia's name is not injurious to anyone and
Macedonians are united in the right to self-determination. In fact,
Greece has been referring to Macedonia by its name in official
documents and in textbooks for nearly 50 years, at a time when
Macedonia was part of the Yugoslav federation. The historical reality
that Macedonia has existed and will continue to exist was recently
acknowledged by the former Greek Ambassador to Macedonia, Dora
Grosomanidou; she was promptly sacked for her candid admission. Leaders
of Latin American countries that have not, out of common decency and
immutable, rights, formally recognized Macedonia should heed Ambassador
Grosomanidou's advice and give peace a chance. Z. Kovac
|