From: rika@informix.com (Rika Tsitsinia)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,alt.news.macedonia
Subject: Re: Ellemann-Jensen on Macedonia
Date: 23 Jan 93 10:03:04 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <ANDERSON.93Jan22154123@sapir.cog.jhu.edu> anderson@sapir.cog.jhu.edu (Stephen Anderson) writes:
>
>Bear with me for a bit, please. I'll get to some points in Mr.
>Irakliotis' post. But first I want to lay out a bit of background, to
>make clear just how naive I am.
>
	I am not very sophisticated myself, but I will try to tell you
    how I see the situation.

>I think that for most people with no special ties to the Balkans, the
>issues surrounding the former Yugoslav province of Macedonia seem
>pretty straightforward, and the reactions of our Greek friends wildly
>irrational. Yugoslav Macedonia is an area which might well be viable
>as an independent state (whatever it's to be called), but because of
>Greek objections to its name has been unable to obtain international
>recognition.  Absent such recognition, it seems quite likely to be the
>next target of Serbian attention, a result that virtually no one would
>welcome. 

	How did you deduce that international recognition makes
    a former Yu territory immune from Serb aggression? It was not
    the case in Croatia and certainly not in Bosnia. Actually,
    international recognition is what started the war in Bosnia.
    I am really puzzled by what you say here. Do you mean to say
    that if war breaks in Skopjie, Greece is to blame? Then, who
    is to blame in Bosnia?


>This province falls within an area not confined to any one
>nation state, a region that is widely called Macedonia: there are,
>ethnically speaking, various kinds of "Macedonians", including Greeks,
>Bulgarians, and residents of the political unit whose capital is
>Skopje.

	Not quite. There are Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians and Serbs.
    The so called Ms are a recent mutation of Bulgarians, but would
    I call them ethnically distinct? I don't know, perhaps.

>Whether this entire area was once inhabited entirely by Greeks
>is beside the point, since all agree that it isn't ethnically uniform
>now, and as far as I know the Greeks aren't claiming that it all
>belongs to them now (are they?).
>
	Greeks certainly don't claim that it belongs to them.
    However, there is a catch. Which area are we talking about?
    You see, the geographic area Macedonia, seems to change
    a lot and for many reasons. What you call Macedonia today
    is a political definition, created with the single purpose
    of "uniting" it for the benefit of a superpower 100 years ago.
    This definition resurfaced (after being dormant follwoing the
    Balkan wars) in 1945 when gen. Tito had plans of uniting it
    and annexing it to Yugoslavia.

	Skopjie, the city, for example, was the capital of Kossovo
    just 70 years ago. As for the ancient times, the area north
    of Greece was called Paionia and Moisia (and Skopjie was
    beyond that, in Dardania.) No shortage of names to choose
    from and actually more specific to the actual geographic bounds
    and history of the new country.

>Inherently, it seems that if the ex-Yugoslav Macedonians were to call
>their state "Macedonia" this would not in and of itself deny the
>distinctness of Greek Macedonia any more than the existence of New
>Mexico denies that of Mexico, or Athens Georgia that of Athens Greece.

	It creates confusion (and we suspect willfully so.)
    It creates the confusion that there is one Macedonia and the
    greek part, or Aegean Macedonia. So, the greek province, becomes
    a sub-part of the whole, which is far, far from the truth,
    because the two are, as you say, distinct. Still, the impression
    counts. It counts for Skopjian nationalists who can create
    trouble in many ways and it counts for our image to foreigners
    who will assume that the whole issue is too complicated and that
    Greece indeed occupies parts of Macedonia that it captured
    during the Balkan wars and then ethically cleansed them.
    And that may justify violence and irridentism.

>As I understand it, the Yugoslav Macedonians have even agreed (with
>some understandable reluctance) to a compromise by which they would be
>know as Macedonia-Skopje or the like (how about "New Macedonia"?).

	Actually they did not agree to a name Macedonia-Skopjie
    or Slavo-Macedonia or anything other than pure "Macedonia".

>The >Greeks will have none of it.  We hear over and over that the very use
>of this name, by virtue of its history, represents a territorial claim
>on the Greek province of Macedonia (as well as on parts of Bulgaria
>and a little bit of Albania, I believe, and for all I know on the land
>occupied by the Macedonia Baptist Church here in Baltimore):
>
>>>>>> On 22 Jan 93 01:19:03 GMT, irakliot@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
>(Leo J. Irakliotis) said (quoting a UPI dispatch from Athens): 
>
>	LJI>         Athens opposes the former Yugoslav republic's use
>	LJI> of the name ``Macedonia,'' which is also the name a
>	LJI> northern Greek province.  Greek analysts say the issue
>	LJI> dates back to the cold war era when Tito and Stalin used
>	LJI> the name ``Macedonia'' for the republic as part of a
>	LJI> conspiracy to seize Greek territory. Tito supported
>	LJI> Communist guerrillas in the Greek civil war of 1947-49.
>	LJI> The analyst said the group now in power in Skopje were
>	LJI> simply continuing the Stalinist-era cold war policies,
>	LJI> and the newly independent republic's use of the name
>	LJI> indicated it still harbored expansionist designs on Greek
>	LJI> territory.
>
>The Yugoslav Macedonians insist, for their part, that they have no
>territorial designs on anyone, and have incorporated this disavowal
>into their proposed constitution. Why do we not take their word for
>it?

	In politics and especially defense, it pays to be pro-active
    rather than reactive. Greeks think: "we don't have to take their
    word for it if we manage to make them drop every allusion to a
    whole Macedonia, occupied by Greece, Bulgaria and, you guessed it,
    Macedonia."

>In fact, there is one possibly relevant argument to which I have
>heard faint allusions, one which is echoed here:
>
>	LJI> Western analysts said Greece has not made its point
>	LJI> lucidly enough to the world community, and has failed to
>	LJI> explain that the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia
>	LJI> was set up by a group responsible for terrorism in the
>	LJI> Balkans before World War II.  Greece's fears are
>	LJI> justified, the analysts said, because the group had won
>	LJI> respectability after coming to power, but hard-liners in
>	LJI> the present Skopje government had to be viewed as
>	LJI> potential troublemakers.
>
>Now in context, the "Western analysts" involved seem to be the same as
>the "Greek analysts" cited just before, so I'm not sure how much
>objectivity I'm willing to credit them with. But still, I would like
>very much to know more about this supposed cabal of terrorist
>"hard-liners in the present Skopje government." What real evidence is
>there that there's a group of violent (neo-fascist? neo-communist?
>well, terrorist anyway) irredentists bent on establishing a greater
>Macedonia by force in despite of international opinion, and that these
>are in fact the ones pulling the strings in Skopje? I'm willing to
>believe it, perhaps, if there's real evidence; and if there is, that
>would constitute a real argument against allowing a state founded
>(albeit covertly) on such principles into the community of nations.
>

	The biggest party is VMRO, a nationalist party, that started
    as a terrorist organization before the Balkan wars. No proof that
    they are terrorists now or harboring terrorists. But they have
    some pretty ardent nationalists among them.

>This would be the first real argument for that conclusion, as far as I
>can tell, since the one from nomenclature alone just doesn't go
>anywhere. And the arguments we hear from history are likewise
>senseless (again, in my opinion). I don't personally care a whit about
>whether Alexander the Great was Greek or not, since he will likely not
>be called on to run the new state of Macedonia(-Skopje).

	The historic arguments are there for other reasons: to show
    the distinctness of the people (a point that you got, but millions
    of others did not,) the fact that the name Macedonia does not
    correspond to a fixed geographic area, but is actually a political
    entity that was created with some very specific purposes in mind
    and that if they have no other names to choose from and they have
    to go to ancient history, they can get the name of the people
    who lived there and who were not Macedonians, but Paeonians
    and Dardanians. But, Macedonia is disputed, loaded with ugly
    history and even today used by some of them, to argue that
    the people who live there should ideally live "united."
    Well, it just ain't so.

	And if you want one more point why the historic arguments
    are appropriate, take a look at what symbol they picked for
    their flag. Utter provocation.


>If the ex-Yugoslavs promise not to snarf any
>parts of the territory of Greece (or Bulgaria, or Albania, or the
>state of Maryland) why does it make so much difference that they want
>to go by the name they've used for at least a while, a name that does
>not seem to be geographically inaccurate [suppose they wanted to call
>themselves "Idaho" for instance: that would be silly, but I don't
>think the citizens of Boise would want to go to war over it], and one
>that makes clear their distinction from Serbia and the other parts of
>the former Yugoslavia?

	The name *is* geographically and historically inaccurate.
    The people of Boise wouldn't go to war over Skopjie taking the
    glorious name Idaho, is the same reason, I actually feel proud
    when I see a US city with a greek name: they are not threatened
    and have never been threatened by the fledgling country in their
    history. The Native Americans, however, might object to the name,
    don't you think so? Even if the true Idahi exist no more.  Even
    though, nobody would confuse the two. Would you call *them*
    unreasonable?

>If indeed we can't take their word for that, as
>suggested by the argument that there's a gang of thugs in control in
>Skopje who've been waiting for a chance to make trouble ever since the
>30's, we should worry: and as I say, I would really like to hear more
>about this. But on the other hand, if that gang of thugs really exists
>and has the goals attributed to them, I can't see that they'll be
>foiled by forcing them to call themselves the Republic of
>Skopje.......
>
>Yours in some genuine puzzlement,
>--Steve Anderson

	I am personally puzzled by some things that you say.

	Georgios