From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: A Rose by any other name [LONG]
Organization: VTT
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:55:32 GMT

What's in a name?  Romeo and Juliet shows the absurdity of fighting over
a name, whether it be Capulet or Macedonia.  

And in this case, the argument is even more strained because of the
language and alphabet differences.

The real problem seems to be a Greek desire that the new nation not in
the future lay claim to any part of Greece.  It certainly seems that the
Macedonian Republic's government has sworn not to do this in its
Constitution.  This is where the argument should lie and where it should
be resolved (IMHO).

Greece is also concerned that its Macedonians might in some way be seen
to loose their "identity".

Greece desires that the former Federated Republic of Macedonia change
its name upon independence and not keep the labeling word, "Macedonia",
in its name.  The "Republic" has had the name over 40 years, and during
this period, Greece has had friendly relationships with both the
"Republic" of Macedonia and the country it was part of, Yugoslavia.
This indicates that Greece has no strong objection to that part of the world
being called Macedonia.  Part of Bulgaria also has that name, without
complaints from Greece.

The issue of loosing identity should not hold as people from Yugoslav
Macedonia were calling themselves Macedonians before the split up.  Any
confusion that results now would be the same as the confusion which
resulted then.

Most of the people living in the Republic have grown up thinking
themselves as Macedonians and speaking a language, called by themselves
and linguists around the world (with the possible exception of Greece)
Macedonian.  While it is true that this language is not much more than
100 years old, it is a distinct language.  Most countries in the world
are newer than that language.

Because of language differences, the Greeks should have no problem.
They could call the new country whatever they want in Greek.  They
should realize that countries can have different names in different
languages:  for example few countries call Greece "Hellas" or some
variation of the Greek word for Greece.  [A more extreme example is
Germany/Deuchland/Allemange/Saksa/Tyskland/...  -- all names for the
same country in different languages.]

The Republic of Macedonia does not even write its language in the Greek
alphabet, but in the Cyrillic(?) which is closer to the Greek alphabet
than the Latin alphabet is, but not the same.  So the Greeks would have
to adapt the name anyway to be able to read it in Greek.  Most of the
rest of the world does not use the Cyrillic language either.  So what is
really being discussed (evidently) is how the name of the country would
be called in French or English (the two Security Council languages which
use the Latin script); the Chinese characters to be used are probably
not under debate (or do some Greeks wish to propose the Chinese
characters to use?).

Maybe we could use the Mongolian solution:  there is a nation of
Mongolia adjacent to a province of the same name.  The province is
called "Inner" and the country, "Outer", although neither are in the
official names of the entities.

I see no reason why the Greeks should not accept the common term for the
new country to be "Inner Macedonia".  The name implies several things:
it implies that there is also another Macedonia and also that Inner 
Macedonia does not have a seacoast (otherwise it would not be "Inner").
This should resolve the Greek fears that their Macedonians would loose
their identity and that Inner Macedonia might lay claim to Greek
territory.

And now to comment on some points raised in a number of the posts:

>Recently the ex-Yugoslav republic with the capitol city of Skopje has
>decided that it should somehow inherit this name. While there are no
>Greeks who hold any grudge against our neighbors to the north we feel
>that the name Macedonia should remain exclusive to the province of
>Greece and that the new state should choose a different name ...

The name Macedonia has not been exclusive to the province of Greece and
has been used for the ex-Yugoslav republic for over 40 years.  If the
Greek who wrote this, didn't realize this because Greece used some other
name for the Yugoslav republic, so much the better:  Greece can continue
using that name.

>Many people cannot understand why Greece is insisting on this. I ask
>that they try to understand Greece itself. While the country is
>relatively poor and undeveloped it deeply cherishes it one of it's few
>"natural" resources: it's history. Many Greeks feel that Skopje's
>decision was an affront to their history and for this they are troubled.
>	***  James Tsillas  jtsilla@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu   ***

Changing a name would be a decision, maintaining it would not.  If the 
country compromises with Greece and renames itself Inner Macedonia, then
the Greek history is not stolen.  From my understanding, in ancient
times the borders of Macedonia extended into the territory now occupied
by the country under discussion.

>Today, the new consitution of the FYRM still supporting territorial
>claims over northern Greece. You understand thus, that the debate is
>not just over a name. It is much more than that.

  The first sentence is evidently not true.  Let the debate be over this
  issue and let it be resolved on this issue.  Don't throw the name into
  the business as a smoke screen.

>Greece doesn't object to the recognition of that state. Should the

  Somehow this doesn't fit with the above claims.

>Skopje government changes the name, the state will be granded recognition
>and will be supported financially from Greece. Their (FYRM)

  This sounds like a bribe.

>persistence to the particular name should raise a few questions around.

  Likewise shouldn't Greece's persistance to the same name raise questions?

>Leo J Irakliotis                 irakliot@eva.lance.colostate.edu


>In article <1jk74rINNpi@NYAYA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU>, reinitz-john@cs.yale.edu (John Reinitz) writes:
>|> You say you are talking about a name. Suppose the Republic of Macedonia
>|> is recognized? What policy should Greece take then?

>Whatever it is it will be peaceful as always. 

Don't use "always".  Greece under the Colonels was not always peaceful.

>|> The answer is that I think the stand taken by Greece is absurd.
>|> It is equivalent to the United States of America not recognizing
>|> the United States of Mexico.
>|>     ^^^^^  ^^^^^  ^^ ^^^^^^

>You're WAY off. Ill give you a much better example. Its like Mexico gets 
>partitioned and the northern section of it decides to call itself Texas. 

This is 1845, right?

>They call themselves Texans and they start talking of an oppressed 
>minority of Texans in the United States who are not allowed to 
                           ^(you mean Mexico?)
>speak their native language. They issue money with pictures 
>from Dallas and Houston and they talk about one day uniting all of Texas.
      ^These cities did not exist when Mexico was partitioned to create Texas

From this, it seems that you fear that Macedonia may issue currency with
pictures of locations in Greece on them.  Perchance negotiations could
have Macedonia agree not to do this.  But they should not be prevented
from putting Alexander the Great (who ruled over the area) on their
currency.

>And historical ignorance can lead one to make a fool of himself in public. 

A reference to the Texas splitting off from Mexico comment?

>Aleck 


>The rights of one group of people should not harm the rights of another
>group of people.  In this case the rights of Greeks who live in Macedonia,
>Greece, are violated by the request of Skopjeans to gain recognition
>under the name "Macedonians".  

People from all over the Republic of Macedonia, not just Skopians are
keeping, not adopting, the name.  This in no way violates any rights of
the Greeks who live in Macedonia, Greece.

>If Skopjeans have trully good intentions
>for Greece, they should respect the rights of Macedonians in Greece who
>wish not to share their identity with their northern neighboors under
>the current circumstances.

The Greeks are surely not being asked to share their identity.  People
in both the provence and the republic have grown up understanding
themselves to be Macedonians.  

If the situation were reversed and Yugoslavia had stayed together, while
Macedonia split off from Greece, would you feel that Yugoslavia had the
right to demand that Macedonia adopt a name other than Macedonia before
being accepted as a separate nation by the world.  All of your arguments
would work that way as well, but somehow i suspect that your answer
would be different.

>When we are talking about identity, including national or ethnic identity,
>we are talking about uniqueness (at least that is my understanding of the
>term "identity").  Therefore, I cannot see why it justifiable to use the
>same term to describe geographical, ethnic, and political entities that are
>different.
>Panos Lolonis U. of Iowa

It has been done for the last 40+ years in this case.  


>I think Greece will be glad to recognize Skopje once it has defined its
>borders and constitution. The issue on the name is the most visible of a
>number of sticking points. 

This is not included in the two conditions you mentioned.  So it should
NOT be a sticking point.

>What Greece and Skopje really need is a treaty to establish borders, etc. 

True.  Why not say "Athens and Skopje"?  It is strange to identify one
country by its capital and not the other in a parallel formation.

>There is also the problem of Serbia.
>Greece needs the land routes through Serbia for commerce so they are
>hesitant to enter into a dispute over Skopje's recognition. 

What???  The easiest way to have land routes is to use the existing ones
through Macedonia.  (The routes through Bulgaria are very round about.)
Greece is entering into a dispute over Skopje's recognition now, so the
second half of the sentence makes no sense.

>Greece is
>also worried about radical nationalism in Skopje which in control of the
>country which brings back the issue of the Macedonian name. Certainly it
>is easier to make territorial claims on a region if your republic has is
>named after that region. Historically, Macedonia extended about a quarter

So therefore they have a historical right to the name.

>of the way into Skopje (and did not include the city) and into

"Into Skopje" but not the city????  Are you talking about a province of
Macedonia called Skopje or having a problem with prepositions (meaning
"a quarter of the way TO Skopje"?  Or are you using the term Skopje to 
refer to the Republic of Macedonia?  If that is what Greece has done (in
Greek), let them continue to do that--i'm sure it will not bother the
rest of the world.

>partially into neighbouring Bulgaria. It is absurd for them to call
>their entire country Macedonia. 
>	***  James Tsillas  jtsilla@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu   ***

The republic has had that name since the 1940's.  You may consider it
absurd, but it is the case.  Is it also absurd for Poland to use that
name because historically it has been further east and has not contained
much of what is now western Poland?  They gained that territory this
century.

>	What about Americans that managed to have 10 millions native
>	Indians become extinct? Is America a vicious country because
>	of that incident? If you draw a similar conclusion, the

As a US citizen, i would have to admit that the US has certainly been
incredibly vicious at various times in its short history.

>	answer is " that Americans cannot talk about New World Order,
>	Operation Hope and Human Rights since they did what they did 
>	with the Indians in the past", right?
>	->dimitris

Of course they can talk, but the last two do show a bit of hypocracy,
don't they.  The first term is just real-politik--the single superpower
declares a New Order, and the rest of the world can like it or lump it.
[This discussion belongs in another group.]

>Second, it is the Skopjeans who ask for recognition.  Therefore, it is

Nope, the whole country, not just the capital.  This refusal to use
common terms strikes me like the US State Dept's insistance on calling
Beijing "Peiping" instead of "Peking" in the 1950s because the "king/jing" 
in the Chinese word means "capital" and the US recognized only the
capital in Taipei.

>up to them to prove (with historical, geographical etc) arguments that
>they diserve the title "Macedonians".

No other country has had to "prove" its name.  Ghana, for example, took
the name of an African kingdom that had existed well to the north of the
location of the current Ghana.  The proof is easy anyway: continuity --
they just wish to keep the name that they are used to.

>Second.  Suppose that Macedonia, Greece, decides to become an independent
>country (Just for the example folks!!!!).  Can she apply to gain recognition
>in the UN, as the "Republic of Macedonia", if the Republic of Skopje has
>already been recognized as "Republic of Macedonia"?

Of course.  In the 1960s there were two Democratic Republics of the
Congo as members of the UN with identical names (in their own languages
of French as well as English--it made it a little hard for us stamp
collectors.).  The UN had no problem with it.  The countries were
distinguished by refering to their capitals.  There have been many
instances of two countries with the same basic name, with just
differences in the modifiers.  

>In this case, the right of Macedonians in Greece to call themselves
>Macedonians and name their country "Republic of Macedonia" is taken 
>away by the Skopjeans because they have already used it in defining their
>identity.

No.

>No doubt the example is extreme.  It shows, though, the conflict of rights
>between two groups of people for the same "resource" (the name of the 
>ethnic identity).  It also shows that the use of a term to define the
>identity of one group automatically imposes restrictions on the choice
>sets for defining the other groups. 
>Panos Lolonis

As explained above, this is not the case.

>Carlos, why don't you go to read your post WWII history again before coming
>back here? It is not just a name mister. The FYRM constitution talks about
>the liberation of Macedonian all around the world. Given the fact that the

Nope.

>Yugoslav communists maintained for more that 40 yrs that there is a sizeable
>Macedonian minority in Greece, Greeks feel threatened by the particular
>passage in the GYRM constitution.
>Leo J Irakliotis                 irakliot@eva.lance.colostate.edu

I could understand that they would be if such a thing were in the
Constitution, but from reading the English translation of the article
(somewher below), this is not in the constitution.


>- Kevin Hope and Judy Dempsey: Balkan Pledge for Macedonia. Greek
>Seeks To Allay Int'l Concerns About Its Itentions; Financial Times,
>Nov 13, 1992.
>
>Regarding the FYRM new Constitution here're what Greece consinders
>unacceptable:

> From the "Introduction" to the Constitution:
>   "The Republic of Macedonia [R of M from now on] is established as the
>    state of the macedonian people [nation], granting complete political
                                    ^
               This is an editorial comment, not in the text.
>    equality and permanent residency to the macedonian people, the
>    albanians, turks, vlachs, gypsies and other nationalities that live
>    in the R of M."

>[Comment: Note the omission of the Serbs, Bulgarians and Greeks, and the
>inclusion of Turks in the minorities. The exclusion of Serbs is
>especially troubling. Either Skopians do not think they are different
>than Serbs, or they are preparing for war by not recognizing them as
>a minority.]

This is a misreading.  "[O]ther nationalities" are expressly included.
I understand that the Serbs are about 2%.  Does someone have the figures
for the percentages of the population which are members of the listed
groups?  What about the Greeks?  It should not matter anyway, as the
constitution grants equality and permanent residencies to all
nationalities that live in the Republic of Macedonia.  The only
strengthening of the language that i can see as possibly needed in this
translation is an "all" before the "other nationalities".  Does the
Macedonian original text mean "all" in this sentence--i can't tell from
the translation?

>    Article 3:
>   "The territory of the R of M is indivisible and unaltered. The existing
>    borders of the R of M are inviolable. The borders of the R of M can
>    change only according to the Constitution."
>[Modified after complaints] Article 3
>     The territory of the Republic of Macedonia is indivisible and inviolable.
>     The existing borders of the Republic of Macedonia are inviolable.
>     The borders of the Republic of Macedonia can only be changed
>in accordance with the Constitution, and based on the principle of
>voluntariness and generally accepted international norms.
>     The Republic of Macedonia has no territorial claims against
>neighbouring states.

>   Article 74:
>   "The assembly decides for the change of the borders of the R of M with
>    a 2/3 majority of the total number of representatives. The decision to
>    change the borders of the R of m is adopted with a referendum if it is
>    voted for by the majority of the voters."

>[Comment: These two articles together show the expansionist nature of the
>Skopjian constitution. If current borders are inviolable, then they can
>only be expanded! Also, can you imagine people voting to shrink their
>country? Naturally, the articles provide a "Democratic cover" to pursue
>expansionist policies. Neighbors beware!!]

Are you suggesting that no nation has the right to change its borders?
Texas and DDR each freely decided to join an other country.  The two
Yemens joined together resulting in Aden no longer being a Yemani
capital.  Argentina agreed to a Papal ruling and granted three islands
that it claimed to Chile (or was it the other way around?).

The updated version makes it even more clear that there is no
expansionist intent.

>    Article 49:
>    "The R of M cares for the status and rights of macedonian people in
>     neighboring countries as well as immigrants from the R of M; helps
>     their cultural progress and [develops] ties with them. The R of M
>     cares for the cultural and economic rights of its citizens abroad."
>[Modified after complaints] Article 49
>     The Republic cares for the status and rights of those persons
>belonging to the Macedonian people in neighboring countries, as
>well as Macedonian ex-patriates, assists their cultural
>development and promotes links with them.  The Republic shall not
>interfere in the sovereign rights of other states and their
>internal affairs.
>     The Republic cares for the cultural, economic, and social
>rights of the citizens of the Republic abroad.

>[Comment: This article sets the groundwork for the expansionism of
>articles 3 and 74. Note that the neighboring countries Greece, Bulgaria
>(and perhaps Serbia?) refuse the existence of a "Macedonian" nationality.]

Again the updated version clears up these possible readings of the
article.

>Greece still objects to the Intro and Article 49 which remained
>unchanged --- thus not complying with EC's resolution.

>Leo Irakliotis aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu


>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.

The name does not imply this (does "The United States of America" imply
an ethnic group called Americans (or USAns)?  There are people in
Macedonia who feel themselves to be Macedonians and they do seem to
constitute one of the ethnic groups in the country.

>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. 

This is pure fantasy.  There is no such evidence--what Tito and Stalin
wanted 45 years ago does not apply.  They are both dead.

>And in such an event you understant that Greece will defend itself. 

Of course, but the likelyhood is miniscule.  The likelyhood of Greece
going to war in Inner Macedonia is much greater if Turkey, Bulgaria,
Yugoslavia, and Albania stage an international war there.  The
likelyhood of at least some of these fighting there is greatly increased
by Greece's refusal to allow the EC to recognize Inner Macedonia.

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

They have negotiated and made changes to show their peaceful intent.  It
is Greece that is currently rejectionist.

>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?

Has there been such a large objection within the Republic to the name?

>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 governemnt?
>Leo J Irakliotis                 irakliot@eva.lance.colostate.edu
>				  l.irakliotis@ieee.org

No, the circumstances were totally different.


-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Xref: sparky alt.news.macedonia:309 soc.culture.europe:11491 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10750 eunet.politics:1627 talk.politics.misc:70397 misc.headlines:7584 soc.rights.human:5022 soc.culture.greek:12650 soc.culture.bulgaria:2159