From: nick@rti.org
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek
Subject: The discussion on Macedonia
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:23:42 GMT
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC


  I have been reading s.c.greek for a while and I am truly fascinated
by the discussions. 
The  use of the net-debate capability       can have positive results
when used constructively. On the other hand this capability can create
a lot of false impressions in the mind of the observers of  different
discussions if there is a strong bias in the postings of people. The
worst problem however, in my opinion, is the lack of perspective in
many postings, especially postings concerned with socio-political
issues. My interest in particular at this time ,is the discussion on
the issue of the recognition of the former(Socialist)Republic of Macedonia as an
independent country named the same as above and the greek objections
over its  recognition with the requested name. 
On this issue we read numerous postings from many sides trying to justify
different positions. I would like to make a few observations of some
obvious and not so obvious points, and also ask a few specific
questions for people to take a position on the different sides of this
issue.

A fair number of people claim that Greece is making a big deal for a
name that does not have a copyright on and no right to demand an
independent state to not use this name.
Some people even say that this endangers this new state because the
Serbian army may invade if the country is not recognized
internationally.
Others claim that Greece blackmails the EC on this matter and this is
not good politics and the northern europeans are sick of it because
this is uncivilized "balkan" behavior, pretty childish for the
standards of EC in the 20th century.

Now, they may be right if Greece is objecting to recognition because
of a name. After all look at the cost:
-Greece becomes the mockery of the world looses credibility and since
it is not a significant economic/military power(with international
standards) suffers the consequences. This is even compounded in the
post cold war days because Greece's leverage due to its geographical
position has decreased significantly.
- If Greece blackmails the EC now she will have to pay back later
since this is how politics works. Being one of the weak EC partners
what is she gonna give up???

So the question is why Greece is willing to take a position with a
high downside risk if the whole thing is a naming convention. Further,
why Greece does this in this particular case and not in other similar
cases? For example , as rightfully stated by many people, there are greek
names of cities, provinces, etc, in quite a few   countries
around the world. Why did Greece never complain, or blackmail anybody,
for that. In her neighborhood there is Eastern Thrace that belongs to 
Turkey, and she has a province called Western Thrace, and I am not
aware of any complains on either side about naming conventions. In the
west there is Eperus and Northern Eperus which belongs to Albania.
There is a sizable minority in that part of Albania that is ethnically
greek but Greece never raised a naming issue with Albania. So what is
the deal this time??? Again, greek foreign policy may not be the best
in the world(far from it actually) but to think that the government
and all the political parties represented in the parliament lost it at
the same time is kind of highly unlikely.
So my question to the people who take the position that Greece is
objecting to a name is how can they justify this potition given
related positions on similar matters and the possible cost, for 
objecting in international organizations the recognition of a
state just for its name!

The greek objection is over the claimining of a Macedonian Nation
and claims on history that greeks feel it belongs to them.
Furthermore, Greece is also concerned about the long-term stability in
the Balkans and the effect of a state called Macedonia can have on
this issue given the very recent past(last 50 years). May be
this is greek paranoia but is it?? 
Let me ask specifically to the people who feel they are Macedonians
and the others who believe what is written on this board about the
right of these people of self-designation as Macedonians, some
questions that can hopefuly be used for some reasonable and
informative discussion on the subject.

-What is the ethnic make up of the inhabitants of the Republic of
Macedonia?
-What is the ethnic make up of the inhabitants of the greek province
of Macedonia?
-Who are the ancestors of the inhabitants of the Republic of
Macedonia?
-Given the claim of a Macedonian nation is there a geographical 
area that this nation used to(or does) occupy?
-Which ethnic group in the region is closer
related(language,religion,customs,etc)to the claimed Mecedonian
nation.
-If the Macedonian nation believes that its roots are in the era of
Alexander the great, what is the justification for this belief other
than the name Macedonia.
- And,          if the greeks believe the same for relation to
Alexander, what is the best way to settle the dispute??
-What are the historical landmark-events for the Macedonian nation,
say, the last 100 years, with particular emphasis on the events during
WW II.
-Which is the first party after the Nov.1990 elections in Skopje(with
37 seats) and what is mentioned as part of the mission of this party.
[as a side note, in the recent vote of no-confidence of the previous
government and the assumption of the government by a coallition
controlled by the x-communists(socialists today) this party walked 
out during the vote].
-What are the views of the ""Republic of Macedonia""(both in a
historical sense and in a political sense) for the greek province
of Macedonia.
[On this question please be specific if you know of official comments
or in stating your opinion, so that readers not very familiar with the
area can get a more informative view of the debate on this issue]

Now, on the notion of the danger of war due to non-recognition caused
by Greece's objections. I think this is a highly unsupported notion
intenting to play on the sentimental side of people. Croatia was
recognized quickly and so did Slovenia(not as quickly), and Armenia
and Georgia in USSR(ex). I don't think war was avoided due to their
recognition and the current policies of the EC and the US. Recognition
does not imply military intervention by the recognizing parties, and
in fact in these examples we can see the results of manipulation of
strong nationalistic feelings.  

Finally, I would like to make a general comment concerning the remarks
of some people implying that somehow greek foreign policy for the case
in question is related to Greece's level of civility or culture. I
don't think we can relate the two because the aim of foreign policy is
to promote the national interest of a state without violating
international law and this is the only civility test you can apply.
Greece in raising her objections for the issue of the Macedonian state
is doing so within International Organizations and with emphasis on
her positions concerning the history of the region and the political
ramifications for this region of the Balkans.Greece's foreign policy
makes her no less civilized than any other European country if foreign
policy decisions is the measure. If the posters on this board are
using a differnt measure then we can discuss this issue further.

Sorry for the lenght of this posting. I hope we can have a
constructive discussion on this issue.

nick
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek