From: c85perwe@IDA.LiU.SE (Per Westling)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,alt.news.macedonia
Subject: Re: Ellemann-Jensen on Macedonia
Date: 24 Jan 93 12:58:17 GMT
	<C85PERWE.93Jan23143806@kol2.IDA.LiU.SE>
	<Jan23.210931.28890@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
Reply-To: c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se
Organization: CIS Dept, University of Linkoping, Sweden

In article <Jan23.210931.28890@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> irakliot@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Leo J. Irakliotis) writes:

> In article <C85PERWE.93Jan23143806@kol2.IDA.LiU.SE>, c85perwe@IDA.LiU.SE (Per Westling) writes:
> |>  So far everyone (at least here up north) has
> |> got the impression that it is the name that is the problem.

> The name of that FYRM is just the tip of the iceberg. There are other issues
> to be resolved, like the unacceptable Intro and articles 49 and 74 in their
> consitution.

Again I point out that if FYRM is a future threat to Greece it will be
so regardless of what name they adhere to, and I find it curious that
there are Greeks (even in this group) that has said they will
recognize FYRM just if it changes it name!

> What the people up there in North as you say Per, cannot understand, is that
> the name "Macedonia" impplies the existence of an ethnic group called 
> "Macedonians". There's none. The population in the GYRM is a mixture of
> many ethnic groups and none of them is Macedonian.

There are lots of examples of Nations that doesn't reflect any ethnic
groups.  One question - if FYRM is not to be regarded as a nation,
which nation should that geographic region be regarded as part of?
The Neo-Yugoslavia (which consist of Serbia-proper, Montenegro and
porbably soon 50-70% of Bosnia as well Kosovo, and probably some more
parts?  
Sorry if I have missed something but what solution do Greece propose?

> What also most people fail to understand is the potential threat FYRM poses
> to the area. The "raison d'etre" of this artificial country is to gain an 
> exit to the mediterranean --- obviously through Greek territories. And in such
> an event you understant that Greece will defend itself. Now how does it strike
> you to have a local war down there involving an EC and NATO and WEU member?
> All these organizations should move to assist Greece, right? That's the
> purpose of NATO and WEU: provide assistance to a defending member. So why
> the hell do we have all the way down, to get the international support we
> need now and resolve the issue peacefully and thru diplomatic channels?

I understand that Greece will defend itself, and I will support Greece
in that case if it ever will happen.  FYRM is not a member of
EC/NATO/WEU so it will be interesting to see if FYRM can defeat the
"allies".
I find this "raison d'etre" very far fetched and fell that their are
more pressing threats, most involving Great Serbia/Albania.
But how can an issue be solved peacefully and diplomatically if the
naming business creates such outbursts.

> Greece is the only EC and WEU member in the region and can play a significant
> role to the welfare of the FYRM should the communists of Skopje get some common
> sense and drop their irrational demand on the name.

Looking at the recent history I suppose Italy might be drawn into the
conflict eventually.  But if it spread that much...

> Doesn't it strike you all too odd that they persist on that issue for more
> than a year? Anyother reasonable state would reconciliate, but not a state
> ruled by Communists (after all President Gligorov is a communist, face it).

> Doesn't it strike you all to odd that FYRM rejected all the initiatives for
> negotiations, arbitration etc? 

The whole thing might be a very important thing for a small country as
FYRM.  I haven't studdied the psychology of the people in that part so
I can't give you any explanation, but at least I would react kindly
towards a neighbour who was the only one to object (and object
strongly even) if I wanted to take a new last-name when I moved from
home, chosing a name of one of my ancestors.

> And aren't you concerned with the explicitly expressed objection of the 33%
> of the population of the FYRM that they don't want their country named
> Macedonia because such a name will suppress their Albanian ethnic identity?

Well, I suppose that those regarding themselves as "Macedonians" in
FYRM will regard themselves suppressed if they don't take that name...
So what should they do?  Adopt the name "The republic consisting of
regions containing Albanians, Macedonians, Greecs, Bulgarians, Serbs
and Others" (TRCORCAMGBAO).  Did I forget anyone?  BTW, this has been
solved in other countries, eg Finland has both Swedes and Finns but
only the latter gives their ethnicity to the name, and this is
accepted by the Swedes as they are a minority. 
I still think the name is not that important.

> And aren't you surprised a bit that the US Government in 1944 fully endorsed
> what appears to be today the position of the Greek government?

Huh?  I wouldn't be surprised if you could find lots of examples of
strange behaviour by the US (or Swedish) government.  BTW, I detest
VERY STRONGLY some things the Swedish government did during and after
WWII.

--
Per Westling              |
Mardtoprsgatan 15         |  c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se
S-582 48 LINKOPING        |  In praise of Idleness -- Bertrand Russel
SWEDEN                    |
Stuff regarding DPP may be sent to x90perwe@ida.liu.se instead.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,alt.news.macedonia