From: c85perwe@IDA.LiU.SE (Per Westling)
Subject: Re: Ellemann-Jensen on Macedonia
Reply-To: c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se
Organization: CIS Dept, University of Linkoping, Sweden
	<C85PERWE.93Jan24135814@ide7.IDA.LiU.SE>
	<Jan24.224231.27648@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:38:42 GMT

In article <Jan24.224231.27648@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> irakliot@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Leo J. Irakliotis) writes:

> In article <C85PERWE.93Jan24135814@ide7.IDA.LiU.SE>, c85perwe@IDA.LiU.SE (Per Westling) writes:
> |> 
> |> Again I point out that if FYRM is a future threat to Greece it will be
> |> so regardless of what name they adhere to

> You are correct for what you see. But let me show what I believe to be the
> complete picture.

> If FYRM adheres to a name that complies with EC requirements and revise its
> constitution to meet the EC guidelines and terms set forth, then any future
> hostile act against Greece will not be based on solid ground. I.e. if they
> adhere to the name "republic of macedonia" they can easily claim that "hey,
> we are macedonians, that land (northern greece) belongs to us". But if the
> call their country "republic of Skopje" or "republic of Bardar" (these names
> reflect their geographical history) then how the hell can they support their
> claims. [Cont below]

I think people/politicians don't need names to make claims.  If this
feeling exist I think they could make claims even if they call
themselves "republic of Bardar".

> [Cont here:] And if they remove their "liberation of oppresed macedonians" passages
> from their constitution, then they are left with no reason to threaten Greece.

This is what is the real problem, so the discussion should center
around the constitution.

> And not only that. If they get recognition in compliance with EC's requirements,
> then, Greece, the only EC member in the region and a country with a descent economy
> and market, will be open to the enterpreuners of Skopje. Both countries will 
> benefit from each other, but as long as FYRM persists to the Stalinist dream
> (not a surprise, given to the hard-core communistic past of their president),
> it's the only looser.

This group is very interesting to read.  Some give references that the
issue started after WWII, some 1913, some giving other dates.  Who is
a poor person to believe?

This whole thing makes me think about Germany.  That is a
nation/country (see below) that is independent, while at the same time
there exist (oppressed?) minorities in other countries (eg Poland).
Should they be forced to change their name?  There must be other ways
to stop claims of "oppression" to come forth, eg ESC.

> |>, 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!

> Well, my friend. Being missinformed is not just a priviledge of Americans!
> (I don't know if you fellas in Sweden followed up the Zoe Baird affair in
> US but boy oh boy wasn't this something else. They refused to approve an
> excellent person for the position of the attorney general because she hired
> two "illegal immigrants" to take care of their children and drive their car.
> Ha! As opposed to the "legal and documented immigrants" you find all around
> the States, working in pizza delivery service, restaurants, sanitation etc.
> Hey? Did President Clinton ever ordered Pizza Hut? And was the pizza delivered
> by an undocumented chinese student? Boy, what a crime and what a shame!)

It is not good to have a Minister of Justice that break the law.  She
not only hired them, but also didn't pay the fees an emplyer should,
and to cover it up when she was appointed she payed them
retroactively!  So you think the highest chief of the police force is
above the law?  BTW, what are you suggesting?  That Clinton check the
Pizza deliverers Green Card?

> But on the other hand, you should give some thought to the anger of Greeks
> because for over than 40 years they were resisting against the communists'
> plots thus protecting their allies. And now their allies have not yet cleared
> whether or not they fully support Greece in this issue.

Sweden has have problems with RUSSIA for many hundred years.  Should
we ever start anew in our relations?

> |> 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?  

> A NATION always reflect an ethnic identity. A country may not. USA for example
> is a country despite they call it a nation. It will take a while (500 yrs) to
> mature to a nation. USSR was a country, but Russia is a nation. EC is a country
> but Greece is a nation. UK is a country but Ireland is a nation. You see the
> difference now?

Ah...  That is an error I often do, exchanging Nation/State/Country,
and I'm not so sure the definition you give is as clearly given in for
example Swedish.  Well, we talk about "Sami Nation", "United Nations",
etc. when it should be "United Countries".

> I don't consider FYRM as a nation but I am happy to consider them a country.
> As such they deserve a name. If the name is Republic of Macedonia, then it
> immplies that it'a a nation. But it is not.

OK, letsrecognize FYRM as an independent country, as long as they
don't call themselves an independent nation, and as long as they don't
join the "United Nations".

> As to what nation FYRM should be regarded as part of, I could say Albania, for
> 33%. Then there are Greeks, Serbs etc. But as far as I can tell, Greece doesn't
> wish nor willing to claim any part for the FYRM. Actually Greece seeks good
> relations with that country as long as they get a descent diplomatic status.
As I understand it there are 2% Serbs.  Using the Serbian algorithm I
suppose Serbia can claim about 10% of FYRM, and Albania 70%, leaving
20% or so to Greece or maybe Bulgaria?  Well, that solved the problem.
I suppose Albania never will be a problem to Greece.

> |> Sorry if I have missed something but what solution do Greece propose?

> Greece supports the solutions proposed by EC. Change the name and revise the
> constitution. In the interim, Greece took the initiative to guarantee the
> borders of FYRM and got Bulgaria, Albania and Yugoslavia to accept it. Greece
> also accepted the French initiative for int'l arbitration. All there solutions
> and initiatives were rejected by the communistic goverment of Skopje.

I hope they (FYRM) will reconsider, but I fear the whole thing has
become "a matter of honour"...

> |> 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 appreciate your statement Per, but damn'd do we have to go all the way
> down? Of course FYRM cannot defeat the allies. FYRM cannot even defeat a
> single recruiting camp of the Greek Army, but that's not the point. As you
> have already seen, Balkans is a quite unstable region still, thanks to the
> civilization brought in by Turks for about 200-400 years. Any military
> operations in the region will involve other countries as well and believe
> me Turks are not that naive to stay away.

An old chinese curse: "May you children live during interesting
times."  Turkey is an "interesting" country.  Yes, I agree with your
hopes that the whole thing can be solved far before that happens.

> As far as it goes for NATO support, I wonder where NATO was when Turkey
> invented Cyprus in 1974 --- btw Saddam Hussien used similar if not identical
> arguments to justify his country's annexation of Kuweit.

Isn't both Turkey and Greece members of NATO?  And NATO is constructed
to help against external threats?

> |> 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.

> Well, the name problem could have been solved. It's up to the FYRM to
> reconsider. But as you see it's not just the name. It's also the particular
> passages of their consitution. So far all diplomatic attemtps, by EC and
> France were rejected by Skopje. 

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

> It's a well supported statement. However, I'd like to believe that Italy will
> stand by its EC policy, as Greece.

Let us hope so.  We don't need the whole thing getting more
complicated by Albania (, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria, Austria, Turkey,
...) getting involved.

> |> 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.

> Cmon now. FYRM has nothing to do historically with Macedonia. Surely it parts of it
> fall within the geo-boundary of Macedonia but ancestors? No.

Didn't someone quote passages that showed that at least part of
ancient Macedonia had geographical similarities with FYRM?  Surely not
much, but at least some to give the analogy above (Faraway relative)
some "truth".  Not enough to make the choice of name
natural/well-founded/rational, but some.

> |> 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). 

> :-) What about a name that reflects their geo-history?

What name do you suggest?  Should we list all provinces of FYRM and
give a complete historical review of them?  And then choose?  To name
a country after a city is an unusual choice, although I can't remember
any examples right now.

> |> 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. 

> Right. Great. But Neither Swedens nor Finns are an "artificial" ethnicity
> as those "macedonians" are. Therefore they pose no threat to eachother.
> And the "macedonian" ethnicity was made up in order to support Yugo's
> claims over Greek territories. Should Greece accept this after fighting
> againt it for 40 yrs, backed up by the western allies?

Was Switzerland, Belgium, ... "natural" ethnic groups when they was
founded?
Regarding Finland it started as a province in first Sweden and then
Russia, and got their independence 1917.  It had never been
an independent nation/country before that time.

As I understand it a majority of the inhabitants of "FYRM" regard
themselves as Macedonians, although I don't know if they count
themselves descendents of the Ancient Macedonia (alas, it seems they
do and that this is the problem).  When they got independece from
Former Yugoslavia, it was natural for them to call their country
"Macedonia".

I suppose as you object to this, you would have objected to Finland in
1917 as well as you will object to Quebec becoming independet in the
future.

--
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,soc.culture.europe,soc.history