From: chrysp@zooid.guild.org (Chrys Pelegris)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek
Subject: H.N.I.N. #4 - PART 2/4
Date:  7 Jan 93 16:49:27 GMT

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MESSAGE...
 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
 11.06.92
                             The Boston Globe
 
                             USURPING A NAME
                            by: Nicholas Gage
 
     The bloody breakup of Yugoslavia has brought death and destruction back
 to the Balkans, an area once called "history's cauldron".  The United States,
 the European community and the United Nations have tried to stop the violence
 without success.
     Perhaps no one could stop the bloodshed once ethnic and nationalistic
 passions were unleashed in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.  But now
 te United States has a chance to keep the violence from spreading to an area
 that could turn all of the Balkans into a war zone the so-called "Republic of
 Macedonia", with its capital in Skopje.
     The newly-formed republic has no firm ethnic identity, but is made up of
 several contentious groups with ties to neighboring countries - Bulgaria,
 Albania and Serbia.
     Of all its neighbours, Greece is the only country that has no significant
 minority in Skopje and no designs on its territory.
     Greece is also the onyl stable democracy in the region and the only
 member of both NATO and the European Community.  It is the only country in
the
 area that can help Skopje secure a viable place in the Balkans.  But Skopje
 has infuriated Greeks by calling itself Macedonia - the name of a Greek
 province twice the size of the would-be nation.  Greeks believe Skopje wants
to
 unsurp the name to make claims on Greek Macedonia.
     They have good reason to think so.  The region of Skopje was not called
 Macedonia until 47 years ago, when Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia gave it that
 name in an effort to seize all Greek Macedonian provinces(...)
     At the time Tito created the republic, US Secretary of State, Edward R.
 Stettinius said that talk of a Macedonian nation was "a possible cloak of
 aggressive intentions against Greece".  His warning is just as valid today.
     The new republic's constitution proclaims the same expansionist goals set
 out by Tito, and its leaders portray Greek Macedonia as "occupied" territory
 that much be "liberated".
     Some argue that a country should have the right to call itself whatever
it
 chooses, but new states are not accepted if they express territorial claims
 against another country, as the republic's choice of a name clearly does.
     So far, Washington has been tentative in its handling of the issue,
putting
 off Skopje when it recognized Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia, but holding out
the
 possibility that it might do so later.
     Perhaps the Bush administration hopes that deferring action may move
either
 Athens or Skopje to relent on the name.
     That is not likely.  Nothing since the invasion of their country during
 World War II has united Greeks the way the Macedonian issue does now.  On
 the other side, while some groups in Skopje have urged giving up the name,
its
 leaders feel their political futures are tied to it and won't yield.
     In the end, Washington will have to make a choice between a key ally,
 Greece, and an area of two million people whose recognition as a state risks
 igniting conflict all over the Balkans.
     The time has come for the Bush administration to tell Skopje's leaders
 bluntly that Washington will not recognize it with the name Macedonia.
     The United States has encouraged the dismantling of all the trappings of
 communism in Europe.  It makes no sense to legitimize a state under a name
 so closely identified with communist expansionism.
     The Soviet Union changed its name to break clean with its past.  The so-
 called "Republic of Macedonia" should do the same.
     If it does, Greece has said it will welcome it as a neighbor.  But if it
 doesn't, the republic retains its territorial ambitions and doesn't deserve
 recognition.
 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
 12.06.92
                          "MACEDONIA" FOR GREECE
                            by Leslie H. Gelb
 
                                  ATHENS
     What's in a name?  Ghosts or real historical demons.  Perhaps war or
peace.
 Nothing and everything.
     The name in question is Macedonia, birthplace of Alexander the Great and
 Aristotle.  Some 1.9 million souls who used to constitute a republic within
 Yugoslavia now insist they must have that name for their newly independent
 state.  Greece, with its own province of Macedonia, says it will recognize
 the new state, with its capital of Skopje - but only if "Macedonia" appears
 nowhere in its name.
                       Athens deserves US support.
     From the Balkan wars of 1913 to the Greek civil war of 1946 to 1949, when
 Greek and Macedonian Communists tried to unite the two Macedonians into
 Yugoslavia, tens of thousands have died over this obscure pinch of land.  And
 over this issue today, Greece is united as it has rarely been throughout what
 Greeks here call their 2,500 years of democracy.
     This history and situation would be quite unremarkable save for one very
 curious occurence:  Most West European nations and the U.S. are not
supporting
 Greece in the matter.  That fence-sitting is curious, even mysterious,
because
 the West has every incentive to back reform-minded Prime Minister Constantine
 Mistotakis - whose two-seat majority in Parliament surely will collapse
unless
 he can bring the Macedonian issue to a successful conclusion.
     The question of Western neutrality and even quiet opposition saturates
 newspapers, television and daily conversation in this low-slung, white city
 on the Aegean.
     The conservative Mr. Mitsotakis is the most pro-American Greek leader in
 a very long time.  He consummated a controversial naval base agreement with
 the U.S.  He recognized Isreal and got tough on terrorism.  Surprisingly,
 he delivered Greek help for the war against Iraq.  He has the full weight of
 the powerful Greek-American lobby behind him, a lobby with close ties to
 President Bush.  Not least, the alternatives to Mr. Mitsotakis are the
 notoriously anti-American Socialist.
     The 12-nation European Community, of which Greece is a member, also has
 strong reasons for helping Mr. Mitsotakis out.  Greece has become the poorest
 E.C. nation, a basket case constantly in need of E.C. economic aid.  And
 though E.C. leaders feel that this gentle Prime Minister has not gone far or
 fast enough in making reforms, they greatly prefer him to Andreas Papandreou,
 his old and bitter Socialist rival.
     Mr. Mitsotakis does not have a good explanation for his plight either.
 "Perhaps Greece didn't provide enough historical information soon enough to
 the West" before their positions were staked out, he said in an interview in
 his office, sitting behind his desk flanked by the Greek and E.C. flags with
 tables adorned by proud pictures of his extensive family.
     He recalled that months ago he offered compromise names like Slav-
 Macedonia, only to be rebuffed by Skopje and Greek politicians and ignored by
 the West.  Pressed for further explanations, he responded:  "I would prefer
 not to explain."
     In the Balkans, answers are always elusive.  Perhaps the West does not
 like the friendly relationship between Mr.Mitsotakis and President Slobodan
 Milosevic on Serbia.  Though the Greek fully supports E.C. sanctions against
 Serbia.  Perhaps the West fears the two will divide Yugo-Macedonia between
 them.  Though it is now known that Mr. Mitsotakis rejected just such a
 Milosevic offer.  Perhaps the West thinks of Skopje as a democracy.  Though
it
 is run by a bunch of Communists who still look to Serbia.  Perhaps the West
 reckons that independence for Skopje can work only if it has the name
 Macedonia.  Though these "Macedonians" are mostly Slavs, and though Macedonia
 is largely a geographical expression and not a tribal reality.  Perhaps
 Britain and Turkey are secretly conspiring against Greece, as many Greeks
 darkly suggest.
     Or maybe the explanation for Western neutrality is tragically simple -
 Greece no longer counts.  Once at the center of Western civilization, it now
 seems a backwater.
     But such a judgement would be shortsighted.  Greece is the one true
 democracy in the Balkans.  And it is led by a man trying to rid the Greek
 economy of bureaucratic Socialism and who is also working with Turkey toward
 a solution of the long-festering Cyprus problem.  These are not prospects
 to throw away over a name.  Let the West tell Skopje to be "Skopje", and let
 "Macedonia" be Greek.
 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
 28.10.92
 
                      The Christian Science Monitor
 
                  RECOGNIZING "MACEDONIA" DEFIES HISTORY
                            by: C.M. Woodhouse
 
     Commentators on international politics do not like being taken by
surprise,
 so they tend to foresee the worst.  Few thought Yugoslavia would stay
together,
 in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet empire.  But few if any foresaw
 the horrifying brutality and scale of the consequences in Croatia and Bosnia.
 The experts do not want to be caught napping again, so they are already
 identifying the scene of the next catastrophe.  We are now being warned that
 the most likely candidate is the ex-Yugoslav republic which Tito called
 Makedonija.  The people being blamed for a prospective catastrophe are the
 Greeks.
     The Greek government is regularly accused in the western press of being
 tiresome, difficult and obstructive over the recognition of this small,
 land-locked territory on its northern borders, which has declared itself
 independent of Yugoslavia.
     The de facto government of the ex-Yugoslav republic, with its capital at
 Skopje, sought international recognition as the Republic of Macedonia.  After
 a cursory discussion in the Council of Ministers of the European Community,
 eleven members were initially persuaded to agree, but Greece dissented.  From
 the first, the Greeks made it clear that their objection was not to
recognition
 but only to the name of Macedonia.
     Some weeks later, at a meeting of heads of governmentm the Greek Prime
 Minister explained the grounds of their objection.  The other members
accepted
 his arguments, and agreed that the new state could be recognised, but only
 under a different name.  Given that the decision was finally unanimous and
was
 reached by a process of reasoned argument, what was tiresome, difficult or
 obstructive about the Greeks' conduct?
     What was the Greek case?  Simply, it was that the former Yugoslav
republic
 of Macedonija was nothing but an invention of Tito's as a bridgehead for the
 penetration and annexation of Greece's northern province, which is the real
 Macedonia with its capital at Salonika.  Tito's Makedonija did not even exist
 as a name on any map fifty years ago.  But after 1945 Tito began openly
 talking of a Greater Macedonia which would include not only his minute,
 artificial province, but alos the major Greek province which he called
 Aegean MAcedonia.  He pursued this policy not only by state-controlled
 propaganda but also by semiclandestine warfare.
     During the Greek civil war of 1946-49, the Communist - led Democratic
 Army was supported from Tito's territory by military supplies, training
 and recruits, and by the safe harbours north of the Greek frontier which the
 Greek National Army was debarred from crossing.  By the end of the civil
 war half of the man-power of the Democratic Army were Slavs recruited from
 Tito's Makedonija or from the Slavo-Macedonian minority in Greece.  The
 rebel government set up by the Greek Communists contained two Slavo-
 Macedonians.
     There is no doubt that if Tito had had his way, Greater Macedonia would
 have been established wiht its capital at Salonika, the great port on the
 Mediterranean that Stalin also desired.  The Republic of Makedonija would
have
 sunk back to the status of a minor province, and its nominal capital of
Skopje
 would have remained an insignificant country town.  Skopje as a capital city
 would have been absurd, for when Macedonia was last geographically united,
 under the Ottoman Empire, Skopje was not even in MAcedonia; it was the
capital
 of the neighbouring Turkish vilayet of Kossovo.
     If one consults a reliable map of southeast Europe before the Balkan Wars
 (the Harmsworth Atlas of 1910), the boundaries of Macedonia in the Ottoman
 Empire are clear.  Those boundaries were breached by two Balkan WArs and
 re-constituted on the lines that the original anti-Turkish alliance (Greece,
 Montenegro, Serbia and Bulgaria) had reached by force of arms.  No final
 settlement of the frontiers could go unchallengeable on ethnic grounds;
 not for nothing did the French adopt the world "maedoine" for fruit salad.
     But the frontiers have not been substantially changed since 1913, despite
 several efforts.  The outcome is unmistakable on the map of southeast Europe;
 Only a very small segment of historic Macedonia now lies within the borders
 of Tito's Makedonija, and an even smaller one in Bulgaria.
     The Greeks' objection to the misuse of the name of Macedonia is therefore
 well founded.  It is all very well for the experts to claim that the petty
 new state presents no threat to anybody.  That could be as fatally optimistic
 as the expectation that the disintegration of Yugoslavia could be peacefully
 managed.
     The optimists should not forget that both Serbia and Bulgaria have had
 historic claims on Greek Macedonia, however ill-based.  It was from Belgrade
 and Sofia that he last assault on Greek sovereignty was launched.  Are
 the present incombents of power in Belgrade and Sofia more trustworthy?
 They too have potential claims against the ex-Yugoslav repuiblic, whereas
 the Greeks have none apart from the usurpation of the name.
     It would be naive to suppose that in accepting the Greeks' argument the
 EC was yielding to a tiresome, difficult and obstructive partner.  It was
 simply exercising prudence and common sense.  If a catastrophe is coming
 in the ex-Yugoslav republic, it will come anyway, not because its wish
 to choose a provocative name is frustrated.
 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
                            EUROPEAN DECISIONS
                           --------------------
 
                          The European Community
                                 16.12.91
                             DUTCH PRESIDENCY
                         THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
 
     The decision of the Council of Ministers of the <<12>> in Brussels
 stipulates that if the Republic of Skopje wishes to be recognized it will
 have:
     "To commit itself, prior to recognition, to adopt constitutional and
 political guarantees ensuring that:
     a) It has no territorial claims towards a neighbouring community state.
     b) It will conduct no hostile propaganda activities versus a neighbouring
     community state including the use of a denomination which implies
     territorial claims".
 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
                                1-2.05.92
                          PORTUGUESE PRESIDENCY
                           EC FOREIGN MINISTERS
 
     At the informal meeting of the EC Foreign Ministers at Guimaraes in
 Portugal the following statement was issued:
     " The European community and its member states, gathered in an informal
 ministerial meeting at Guimaraes on 1 and 2 May 1992, had an in depth
 discussion on the request of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to be
 recognized as an independent state.
     They decided to recognize the republic of Skopje, within its existing
 borders, as a sovereign and independent state.
     They expressed their high appreciation for theefforts of the presidency,
 which included the prepation of a global package.  The community and its
 member states look forward to establishing with the authorities of Skopje
 a fruitful cooperative relationship aimed at the promotion of meaningful
 cooperation capable of improving political stability and economic progress
 in the area.  Simultaneously, they urge the parties directly involved to
 continue to do their utmost to resolve the pending questions on the basis
 of the presidency's package."
 
                          PORTUGUESE PRESIDENCY
                            EC SUMMIT MEETING
 
     At the Summit meeting of the European Council in Lisbon the following
 statement was issued:
     "The European Council reiterates the position taken by the Community and
 its members in Guimaraes on the request of the former Yugoslav Republic of
 Macedonia to be recognized as an independent State.  It expresses its
 readiness to recognise that republic within its existing borders according
 to their Declaration on 16 December 1991 under a name which does not include
 the term Macedonia.  It furthermore considers the borders of this republic
 as inviolable and guaranteed in accordance with the principles of the
 UN Charter and the Charter of Paris".
 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
                           European Statements
 
                          British EC Presidency
                          18.7.92
 
                               Douglas Hurd
 
     In his capacity as President of the European Council Mr. Douglas Hurd,
 the British Foreign Minister, visited Skopje to discuss the matter of
 recognition.  At a Press Conference, he had this to say:
     "The name was not the only subject which I have discussed with Minister
 Malevski and with President Gligorov concerning the decision by the Lisbon
 European Council on recognition.  You know what this is:  It is that the
 European Council decided its readiness to recognise this republic within
 its existing borders and the unresolbed matter in the question of names.
 I come here on the basis of that Lisbon decision and I have explained the
 background of it, the reasoning behind it, to the President and to the
 Government.  And as a Foreign Minister under the European Council of Heads
 of States and Governments, I stand by that...
     I come here as the President of the Council of Ministers, and I come
 here a few weeks after a decision by the European Council on this point.  It
 is not a question of law it is a question on what basis we do what we want
 to do, which is recognise this country and help it.  When you belong to a
 Community you try to take account of real anxieties on the part of any
 member.  This is how the Community functions on all occasions.
 
                                  * * *
 15.10.92
 Athens News Agency (ANA) reports from Londom:
 
     British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd reiterated Britain's insistence
 to stick to the Lisbon summit decision during a 40 - minute meeting with
 Skopje President Kiro Gligorov.
     Mr. Hurd told Mr. Gligorov that the recent dispatch of British envoy
 Robin O'Neil to Skopje and Athens had been within the framework of the EC's
 June 27 decision not to recognise Skopje under the name "Macedonia", a
 Foreign Office spokesman told reporters.
 
                                  * * *
 28.10.92
 Replying to questions by members of the European Parliament Mr. Hurd
declared:
 
     Could I just, on a very particular point, comment on the observations
 of the two Greek Members of this Parliament - who talked about MAcedonia.  I
 would like to say to them very seriously on behalf of the presidency that
 we have taken very seriously the Lisbon conclusions on this matter.  That
 is distinct from the question of help for people in the former Yugoslav
 Republic of Macedonia.  Nobody - certainly not the Greek Government,
 certainly not the European Commission - wishes to deny that help.  There has
 been complicated but now I hope successfully resolved discussion,
particularly
 between the Commission and the Greek Government, about oil supplies.  That
 is a question of help.  Recognition is governed by the Lisbon conclusions.
 We have worked hard to make those conclusions a reality.  Everybody who
 studied this matter knows the difficulties.  They are real difficulties and
 there is in the Community a growing anxiety on this matter.  In order to
 achieve a result which is acceptable to all, there has to be further
 discussion and that is why I asked Ambassador O'Neill, Member of the British
 Foreign Service, to act as my representative in fielding these discussions,
in
 lkistening to these points of view and trying to work towards a solution.
 He is continuing that work and I would urge all those, whether in former
 Yugoslavia, whether in Greece, whether friends of Greece or former
Yugoslavia,
 who have any influence in this matter, to help us find an answer which is
 acceptable and whic can be operated.  We are bound by the Lisbon conclusions.
 Let us find ways in which they can be operated.
 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
                            The European Press
 
 04.01.92
                             The Independent
 
               TALKS ON FUTURE OF MACEDONIA REACH DEADLOCK
                            by: Peter Thompson
 
     The Yugoslav republic of Macedonia yesterday failed to persuade Greece,
 its chief antagonist, that it qualifies for recognition by the European
 Community as an independent state.  A Delegation from Skopje, the republic's
 capital, was told bluntly by Foreign Minitry officials in Athens that Greece
 would not budge unless the name "Macedonia" was dropped completely.
     The EC will decide in mid-January which of the Yugoslav republics
satisfies
 its criteria for separate statehood:  Croatia and Slovenia will almost
 certainly be recognised.  At Greek insistence, the 12 EC foreign ministers
 last month added requirements which are aimed specifically at Skopje:  a
 candidate for recognition must provide constitutional guarantees "that it has
 no territorial claims towards a neighbouring community state".  It must also
 undertake not to conduct "hostile propaganda" against such a state,
"including
 the use of a denomination which implies territorial claims".  For Greece,
 Macedonia is a purely geographical term:  neither a Macedonian nation nor
 a Macedonian language exists.  Tito was falsifying history when, partly to
 cut Serbia down to size, he set up a republic under that name in 1944.
     Ever since, the Greeks have been on the receiving end of a stream of
 propaganda from Skopje about their treatment of a "Macedonian minority" in
 their northern provinces.  Even though almost all Greece's remaining Slav
 speakers took refuge in Yugoslavia when the Greek civil war ended in 1949,
 the Skopje constitution, adopted two months ago, invokes "the rights of the
 members of the Macedonian people in neighbouring countries".
     It also suggests that under certain circumstances the republic's borders
 could be changed.  Extreme nationalist groups in Skopje have frequently
 spoken of a "Greater Macedonia", and maps have appeared showing that it
 would incorporate much of northern Greece - including Salonica and Mount
 Athos - as well as a slice of southwestern Bulgaria.  The Greek worry is not
 about a threat from fragile independent Macedonia, but that the republic
 might one day find more powerful backers for its claims.
     At yesterday's meeting, constitutional amendments now under discussion in
 Skopje were quoted, but since they qualify rather than replace the offending
 articles the Greeks were not satisfied.  The talks ended in deadlock when
 the visiting delegation refused to discuss any change in the name
"Macedonia".
 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
 21.03.92
                                 LE POINT
 
                         WHAT GREEKS WORRY ABOUT
            And if this independent Republic of ex-Yugoslavia
                nurtured expansionist aims against Greece?
 
                            by Rady Portocala
 
     Those who know the Greeks are well aware of their passion for politics.
 There are good reasons for that:  Descendants of the inventors of democracy,
 having experienced a tumultuous history they believed in remaining true to
 their heritage.  Nonetheless, even during these last difficult and eventful
 years, the political debate has never pulled crowds as huge as those which
 gathered on 14th February in Thessaloniki, capital of Northern Greece.  There
 there were, some 700,000 to 1 million of them, of all political colours,
moved
 for the first time since many years by the same "anxiety".  An anxiety which
 has a name:  The ex-Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
     First populated by the Dorians, Macedon became one of the kingdoms making
 up the antique hellenic world.  It was in this capacity that Macedon
 contributed significantly to the spread of the hellenistic culture far beyond
 its frontiers through the conquests of Alexander the Great.  Occupied by the
 Romans whose colonies were hellenised by the Macedonians, the area named
 Macedonia ever since became a province of the Byzantine State and was overrun
 by Slavs in the 7th century.  In the 10th century Macedonia became for some
 decades part of the Bulgarian Empire, then reverted to Byzantine rule before
 being conquered by Serbia in the 14th century.  However the southern part of
 Macedonia containing the city of Thessaloniki was never occupied.  In the
 15th century the Ottomans took over the whole of the territory while the
 population remained preponderantly Greek throughout the Ottoman rule.
     Liberated from the Turks after two balkan wars, Macedonia was shared out
 in 1913 by the peace treaty of Bucarest so that Greece obtained 51.7% of the
 territory.  This area covered almost entirely the territory of historic
 Macedonia, Serbia kept 38.2% and Bulgaria 10.11% of the province.
     IT was only after WWII that marshal Tito granted the region around Skopje
 in southern Yugoslavia the status of a Republic whose artificial existence
 endowed with the creation of a separate nationality and even a language
 was designed to contain the territorial ambitions of Bulgaria.
     This Republic of Macedonia having chosen on the 8th of September 1991,
 to break away from Yugoslavia, asks for international recognition thus
 causing worries to Greece and embarassment to its allies.  The embarassment
 is du to the fact that three conditions for recognition whic had been set
 by the foreign ministers of the EC on 16th December 1991 are not met as they
 should have been.
     Firstly a formal guarantee is needed about the respect of the rights of
 minorities.  The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is, however, populated
 by such a mixture of nationalities that it is difficult to establish which
 population group forms the majority.  It is further required that the actual
 borders shall not be questioned.  The very use of the term "Macedonia",
 however, makes Greece worry about future attempts, at southward expansion. 
It
 is precisely this risk that the EC wishes to avert by insisting that a name
 be used which "does not imply territorial claims against another state"(...)
     It is in this sense that Athens asked its EC partners for their
solidarity
 (...)  Beyond border issues what is actually at stake with the emergence of
 this Republic is not negligible.  In spite of its small size or even because
 of it Macedonia, risks to whet the appetites of some of its neighbours in
 this balkan region which for more than a year now is in the throes of a
 generalised mayhem(...)
 
 CONTINUED NEXT MESSAGE...