| Macedonia (region) | |
| Macedonia (Greece) | Republic of Macedonia |
| Greece |
This article is part of the series: |
|
|
|
Constitution
Parliament
Government
Judiciary
Elections
|
|
Other countries · Atlas |
| Republic of Macedonia |
This article is part of the series: |
|
|
|
|
Other countries · Atlas |
A diplomatic dispute over the use of the name Macedonia has been an ongoing issue in the bilateral relations between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia since the latter declared independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. Greece opposes the use of the name without any qualification such as 'northern' of the post-1991 constitutional name of its northern neighbour, citing historical and territorial concerns resulting from the ambiguity between it and the adjacent Greek region of Macedonia. Greece also objects to the publication of maps showing an undivided Macedonia which shows the full outlined region exclusive of external territory, interpreting this as an attempt to claim some of their territory. Greece further objects to the ambiguous use of the term Macedonian for the neighboring country's main ethnic group and language. The dispute has escalated to the highest level of international mediation, involving numerous attempts to achieve a resolution, notably by the United Nations.
The provisional reference the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is used in relations involving states which do not recognise the constitutional name, Republic of Macedonia. Nevertheless, all United Nations member-states, and the UN as a whole, have agreed to accept any final agreement resulting from negotiations between the two countries.
In antiquity, the territory of present-day Republic of Macedonia was approximately equivalent to the kingdom of Paeonia, located immediately north of ancient Macedonia, which roughly corresponds to the modern Greek region of Macedonia. After the conquest of Greece by the Romans in 168 B.C. a large administrative district was created in northern Greece which added Paeonia to other territories outside the original ancient Macedonia, and used the name 'Macedonia' to describe the whole of this new province. This situation lasted, with some modifications, until the eastern Roman Empire was absorbed into the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century. Macedonia then became part of Rumelia, controlled by the Ottoman Empire up to 1913. In 1893 a revolutionary movement against the Ottoman rule began, resulting in the Ilinden Uprising on 2 August 1903 (St. Elias's Day). The failure of the Ilinden Uprising caused a change in the strategy of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) from revolutionary to institutional. It split into two wings (one fighting for autonomous Macedonia inside the Ottoman Empire or inside a Balkan Federation led by Yane Sandanski, and a second Supremist wing supporting the inclusion of Macedonia in Bulgaria). After the Ilinden Uprising the revolutionary movement ceased and opened a space for frequent insurgencies of Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian squads into Ottoman Europe, including the ill-defined territory of the wider Macedonian region. The Bulgarian squads, supported by the local population, often engaged the Turkish army, contributing to the eventual collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The state of conflict in 1912 resulted in the First Balkan War, and the Ottomans lost most of their European lands.
In 1913, the Second Balkan War began in the aftermath of the division of Ottoman Europe among five entities to have secured control over these territories: Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Montenegro (all hitherto recognized); and Albania, in conflict with Serbia, Montenegro and Greece, declared independent in 1912 and striving for recognition. The Treaty of London 1913 placed the region of the Republic of Macedonia in Serbia. In 1914 the First World War started and Bulgaria occupied eastern Macedonia and Vardar Macedonia, helping Austria-Hungary defeat the Serbs to create a front around the Greek part of Macedonia. Thus the present-day Republic of Macedonia was part of Bulgaria between 1915-1918. After Bulgaria signed a capitulation, the borders returned with small adjustments to the situation of 1913, and the present-day Republic of Macedonia became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. This period saw the creation of a separate Macedonian state[1] and the development of nation building[2] by the League of Communists of Yugoslavia on the third congress in Vienna in 1926 and in 1936 Josip Broz Tito took over the leadership of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes changed its name in 1929 to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the present-day Republic of Macedonia was included as South Serbia in a province named Vardar Banovina. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 1941 as a consequence of the Second World War. Bulgaria as part of the Axis powers advanced into the territory of the Republic of Macedonia and the Greek province of Macedonia. The territory of the Republic of Macedonia was included in Bulgaria and Italian Albania.
The Yugoslav People's Liberation War began officially in 1941 in the territory of the Republic of Macedonia. On 2 August 1944 (St. Elias's Day), honoring the fighters of the Ilinden Uprising, the assembly of the people constituted the Macedonian state as a federal state within the framework of the future Yugoslav federation. In 1946 the People's Republic of Macedonia was established as a federal part of the newly proclaimed Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia under the leadership of Josip Broz Tito. The issue of the republic's name immediately sparked controversy with Greece over concerns that it presaged a territorial claim on the Greek coastal region of Macedonia (see Territorial concerns below). The US Roosevelt administration expressed the same concern through Edward Stettinius in 1944.[3] The Greek press and Greek government of Andreas Papandreou continued to express the above concerns confronting the views of Yugoslavia[4] during the 1980s and until the Revolutions of 1989.
The republic in 1963 was renamed the "Socialist Republic of Macedonia", when the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia was renamed the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but dropped the "Socialist" from its name a few months before declaring independence from Yugoslavia in September 1991.
The newly independent republic's accession to the United Nations and recognition by the European Community (EC) was delayed by strong Greek opposition. Although the Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on the former Yugoslavia declared that the Republic of Macedonia met the conditions set by the EC for international recognition, Greece opposed the international community recognizing the Republic due to a number of objections concerning the country's name, flag and constitution. In an effort to block the European Community from recognizing the Republic,[5] the Greek government persuaded the EC to adopt a common declaration establishing conditions for recognition which included a ban on "territorial claims towards a neighboring Community state, hostile propaganda and the use of a denomination that implies territorial claims".[6]
In Greece, about one million[7] Greek Macedonians participated in the 1992 "Rally for Macedonia" (Greek: Συλλαλητήριο για τη Μακεδονία), a very large demonstration that took place in the streets of Thessaloniki in 1992. The point of the rally was to object to "Macedonia" being a part of the name of then newly established Republic of Macedonia. In a following major rally in Australia, held in Melbourne and organised by the Macedonians of Greek diaspora that has a strong presence there,[8] about 100,000 people protested.[9][10] The major slogan of these rallies was "Macedonia is Greek" (Greek: H Μακεδονία είναι ελληνική).[7]
Greece's major political parties agreed on 13 April 1992 that the word "Macedonia" could not be accepted in any way in the new republic's name.[11] This became the cornerstone of the Greek position on the issue. The Greek diaspora was also mobilized in the naming controversy. A Greek-American group, Americans for the Just Resolution of the Macedonian Issue, placed a full-page advertisement in the 26 April and 10 May 1992 editions of the New York Times, urging President George H. W. Bush "not to discount the concerns of the Greek people" by recognizing the "Republic of Skopje" as Macedonia. Greek-Canadians also mounted a similar campaign. The EC subsequently issued a declaration expressing a willingness "to recognize that republic within its existing borders... under a name which does not include the term Macedonia."[12]
Greek objections likewise held up the wider international recognition of the Republic of Macedonia. Although the Republic applied for membership of the United Nations on 30 July 1992, its application languished in a diplomatic limbo for nearly a year. A few states—Bulgaria, Turkey, Slovenia, Croatia, Belarus and Lithuania —recognized the republic under its constitutional name before its admission to the UN.[5] Most, however, waited to see what the United Nations would do. The delay had a serious effect on the Republic, as it led to a worsening of its already precarious economic and political conditions. With war raging in nearby Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, the need to ensure the country's stability became an urgent priority for the international community.[13] The deteriorating security situation led to the UN's first-ever preventative peacekeeping deployment in December 1992, when units of the United Nations Protection Force were deployed to monitor possible border violations from Serbia.[14]
During 1992, the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia all adopted the appellation "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to refer to the Republic in their discussions and dealings with it. The same terminology was proposed in January 1993 by France, Spain and the United Kingdom, the three EC members of the United Nations Security Council, to enable the Republic to join the United Nations.[15] The proposal was circulated on 22 January 1993 by the United Nations Secretary General. However, it was initially rejected by both sides in the dispute. It was immediately opposed by the Greek Foreign Minister, Michael Papacostaninou. In a letter to the Secretary General dated 25 January 1993, he argued that admitting the republic "prior to meeting the necessary prerequisites, and in particular abandoning the use of the denomination 'Republic of Macedonia', would perpetuate and increase friction and tension and would not be conducive to peace and stability in an already troubled region."[16]
The president of the Republic of Macedonia, Kiro Gligorov, also opposed the proposed formula. In a letter of 24 March 1993, he informed the President of the United Nations Security Council that "the Republic of Macedonia will in no circumstances be prepared to accept 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' as the name of the country." He declared that "we refuse to be associated in any way with the present connotation of the term 'Yugoslavia' ".[16] The issue of possible Serbian territorial ambitions had been a long-running concern in the Republic of Macedonia, which some Serbian nationalists still called "South Serbia" after its pre-World War II name.[17] The government in the Republic of Macedonia was consequently nervous of any naming formula which might be seen to endorse a possible Serbian territorial claim.
Both sides came under intense diplomatic pressure to compromise. The support that Greece had received initially from its allies and partners in NATO and the European Community had begun to wane due to a combination of factors that included irritation in some quarters at Greece's hard line on the issue and a belief that Greece had flouted sanctions against Slobodan Milošević's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The intra-Community tensions were publicly exposed on 20 January 1993 by the Danish foreign minister, Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, who attracted the ire of Greek members of the European Parliament when he described the Greek position as "ridiculous" and expressed the hope that "the Security Council will very quickly recognise Macedonia and that many of the member states of the Community will support this."[18]
The Greek Prime Minister, Constantine Mitsotakis, took a much more moderate line on the issue than many of his colleagues in the governing New Democracy party.[5] Despite opposition from hardliners, he endorsed the proposal in March 1993.[19] The acceptance of the formula by Athens also led to the reluctant acquiescence of the government in Skopje, though it too was divided between moderates and hardliners on the issue.
On 7 April 1993, the UN Security Council endorsed the admission of the republic in United Nations Security Council Resolution 817. It recommended to the United Nations General Assembly "that the State whose application is contained in document S/25147 be admitted to membership in the United Nations, this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State."[20] The recommendation was agreed by the General Assembly, which passed Resolution 225 on the following day, 8 April, using virtually the same language as the Security Council.[21] The Republic of Macedonia thus became the 181st member of the United Nations.
The compromise solution, as set out in the two resolutions, was very carefully worded in an effort to meet the objections and concerns of both sides. The wording of the resolutions rested on four key principles:
One additional concern that had to be taken care of was the seating of the Republic of Macedonia in the General Assembly. Greece rejected seating the Republic's representative under M [as in "Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of)"], and the Republic rejected sitting under F (as in "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", which turned the reference into a proper noun rather than a description). Instead, it was seated under T as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and placed next to Thailand.[22]
In due course, the same convention was adopted by many other international organisations and states but they did so independently, not as the result of being instructed by the UN. For its part, Greece did not adopt the UN terminology at this stage and did not recognise the Republic under any name. The rest of the international community did not immediately recognise the Republic, but this did eventually happen at the end of 1993 and start of 1994. The People's Republic of China was the first major power to act, recognising the Republic under its constitutional name on 13 October 1993. On 16 December 1993, two weeks before Greece was due to take up the European Community presidency, six key EC countries—Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom—recognised the Republic under its UN designation. Other EC countries followed suit in quick succession and by the end of December, all EC member states except Greece had recognised the Republic.[19] Japan, Russia and the United States followed suit on 21 December 1993, 3 February 1994, and 9 February 1994 respectively.[23]
Despite the apparent success of the compromise agreement, it led to an upsurge in nationalist agitation in both countries. Anti-Western and anti-American feelings came to the fore in Greece, in response to a perception that Greece's partners in the EC and NATO had betrayed it.[18] The government of Constantine Mitsotakis was highly vulnerable; it had a majority of only a couple of seats and was under considerable pressure from ultra-nationalists. After the country's admission to the UN, the hardline former foreign minister Antonis Samaras broke away from the governing New Democracy (ND) party along with three like-minded deputies who resented what they saw as the prime minister's unacceptable weakness on the Macedonian issue. This defection deprived ND of its slim parliamentary majority and ultimately caused the fall of the government, which suffered a landslide defeat in the general election of October 1993. It was replaced by the PASOK party under Andreas Papandreou, who introduced an even more hardline policy on Macedonia and withdrew from the UN-sponsored negotiations on the naming issue in late October.[18][24]
The government of the Republic of Macedonia also faced domestic opposition for its part in the agreement. Protest rallies against the UN's temporary reference were held in the cities of Skopje, Kočani and Resen. The parliament only accepted the agreement by a narrow margin, with 30 deputies voting in favour, 28 voting against and 13 abstaining. The nationalist opposition VMRO-DPMNE party called a vote of no confidence over the naming issue, but the government survived with 62 deputies voting in its favour.[25]
The naming dispute has not been confined to the Balkans, as immigrant communities from both countries have actively defended the positions of their respective homelands around the world, organising large protest rallies in major European, North American and Australian cities. After Australia recognised the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in early 1994, tensions between the two communities reached a climax, with churches and properties hit by a series of tit-for-tat bomb and arson attacks in Melbourne.[26]
Greece and the Republic of Macedonia eventually formalised bilateral relations in an Interim Accord signed in New York on 13 September 1995.[27] Under the agreement, the Republic removed the Vergina Sun from its flag and allegedly irredentist clauses from its constitution, and both countries committed to continuing negotiations on the naming issue under UN auspices. For its part, Greece agreed that it would not object to any application by the Republic so long as it used only the appellation set out in "paragraph 2 of the United Nations Security Council resolution 817" (i.e. "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"). This opened the door for the Republic to join a variety of international organisations and initiatives, including the Council of Europe, OSCE and Partnership for Peace.[28]
The accord was not a conventional perpetual treaty, as it can be superseded or revoked, but its provisions are legally binding in terms of international law. Most unusually, it did not use the names of either party. Greece, "the Party of the First Part", recognised the Republic of Macedonia under the term "the Party of the Second Part".[5] The accord did not specifically identify either party by name (thus avoiding the awkwardness of Greece having to use the term "Macedonia" in reference to its northern neighbour). Instead, it identified the two parties elliptically by describing the Party of the First Part as having Athens as its capital and the Party of the Second Part having its capital at Skopje.[22] Subsequent declarations have continued this practice of referring to the parties without naming them.[29]
Secretary Cyrus Vance was the witness of Interim Accord as Special Envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.[27]
The naming issue has not yet been resolved, but it has effectively reached a stalemate.[30] Various names had been proposed over the years, for instance "New Macedonia", "Upper Macedonia", "Slavo-Macedonia", "Nova Makedonija", "Macedonia (Skopje)" and so on. However, these had invariably fallen foul of the initial Greek position that no permanent formula incorporating the term "Macedonia" is acceptable.[11][31] Athens had counter-proposed the names "Vardar Republic" or "Republic of Skopje", but the government and opposition parties in Skopje had consistently rejected any solution that eliminates the term "Macedonia" from the country's name.[32] Following these developments, Greece has gradually revised its position and demonstrates its acceptance of a composite appellation, with a geographical qualifier, erga omnes (i.e. the incorporation of the term "Macedonia" in the name, but with the use of a disambiguating name specification, for international and intergovernmental use).[33][34][35][36][37][38] However, a compromise has not been achieved. The inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonia are overwhelmingly opposed to changing the country's name. A June 2007 opinion poll found that 77 per cent of the population were against a change in the country's constitutional name, and 72 per cent supported the Republic's accession to NATO only if it was admitted under its constitutional name. Only 8 per cent supported accession under the reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".[39]
A number of states recognise the Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name. A few had recognised it by this name from the start, while most others had switched from recognising it under its UN reference. By September 2007, 118 countries (61% of all UN member states) had recognised the Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name.[40] Some observers had suggested that the gradual revision of the Greek position means that "the question appears destined to die" in due course.[41] On the other hand, attempts by the Republic to persuade international organisations to drop the provisional reference have met with limited success. A recent example was the rejection by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of a draft proposal to replace the provisional reference with the constitutional name in Council of Europe documents.[42]
The compromise reference is always used in relations when states not recognising the constitutional name are present. This is because the UN refers to the country only as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", although all UN member-states (and the UN itself) have agreed to accept any final agreement resulting from negotiations between the two countries. Moscow's ambassador to Athens, Andrei Vdovin, stated that Russia will support whichever solution stems from the UN compromise talks, while hinting that "it is some other countries that seem to have a problem in doing so".[43]
Most Greeks reject the use of the word "Macedonia" to describe the Republic of Macedonia, instead calling it "ΠΓΔΜ" (Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας), the Greek translation of FYROM, or Skopje and its inhabitants "Slavomacedonians" or Skopians (Greek: Σκοπιανοί), after the country's capital. The latter metonymic name is not used by non-Greeks, and many inhabitants of the Republic regard it as insulting. Greek official sources sometimes also use the term "Slavomacedonian" to refer to the Republic's inhabitants; the US State Department has used the term side by side with "Macedonian", albeit having them both in quotation marks.[44] The name "Macedonian Slavs" (Македонски Словени) is another term used to refer to the ethnic Macedonians. A number of news agencies have used it (although the BBC recently discontinued its use on the grounds that people had alleged it was offensive), and it is used by the Encarta Encyclopaedia. The name has been occasionally used in early ethnic Macedonian literary sources as in Krste Misirkov's work On Macedonian Matters (Za Makedonckite Raboti) in 1903.
Although the two countries continue to argue over the name, in practice they deal pragmatically with each other. Economic relations and cooperation have resumed to such an extent that Greece is now considered one of the Republic's most important foreign economic partners and investors.[45]
In 2005, Matthew Nimetz, UN Special Representative, suggested using "Republika Makedonija-Skopje" [sic] for official purposes. Greece did not accept the proposal outright, but characterised it as "a basis for constructive negotiations". Prime Minister Vlado Buckovski rejected the proposal and counterproposed a "double name formula" where the international community uses "Republic of Macedonia" and Greece uses "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".[35][36]
Nimetz was reported to have made a new proposal in October 2005; that the name "Republika Makedonija" should be used by those countries that have recognised the country under that name and that Greece should use the formula "Republika Makedonija – Skopje", while the international institutions and organisations should use the name "Republika Makedonia" in Latin alphabet transcription. Although the government of the Republic of Macedonia accepted the proposal as a good basis for solving the dispute, Greece rejected the proposal as unacceptable.[46]
In December 2006, the government of the Republic announced the intent to rename Skopje Airport "Petrovec" to "Aleksandar Veliki" (Alexander the Great).[47] Matthew Nimetz was invited to Athens in January 2007, where he commented that the efforts to mediate in the issue over the name were "affected and not in a positive way".[48]
The Republic of Macedonia's aspirations to join the European Union and NATO under its constitutional name have caused controversy in recent years. Under the Interim Accord of September 1995, Greece agreed not to obstruct the Republic's applications for membership in international bodies as long as it did so under its provisional UN appellation. Leading Greek officials had repeatedly stated that Athens would veto the country's accession in the absence of a resolution to the dispute.[49][50][51] The Greek foreign minister, Dora Bakoyannis, stated that "...the Hellenic Parliament, under any composition, will not ratify the accession of the neighbouring country to the EU and NATO if the name issue is not resolved beforehand."[50][51]
The Greek Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis had initially denied ever committing himself unequivocally to exercising Greece's right of veto, stating instead that he would only block the neighbouring country's application for EU and NATO membership if it sought to be admitted as the "Republic of Macedonia",[52] but on 19 October 2007, he stated that without a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue, the country could not join either NATO or the EU.[53]
Negotiations between Athens and Skopje were resumed on the 1 November 2007, continued on 1 December of the same year, and a bilateral meeting was held in January 2008. On 19 February 2008 in Athens, the delegations of the two countries met under the auspices of the UN mediator, Matthew Nimetz. They were presented with a new framework, which they both accepted as a basis for further negotiations. The new framework was intended to be secret so that negotiations could take place, but was leaked early in the press. The full text in Greek was published initially by To Vima and circulated speedily in all major media. It contained 8 points, and the general idea was a "composite name solution" for all international purposes.[54] It also contained five proposed names:[54]
On 27 February 2008, a rally was held in Skopje called by several organisations in support of the name "Republic of Macedonia".[55] Greek nationalist party Popular Orthodox Rally also organised a similar rally in Thessaloniki on 5 March, in support of the name "Macedonia" being used only by Greece.[56] The Greek church and both major Greek parties strongly discouraged such manifestations "during this sensitive time of negotiation".[57][58]
On 2 March 2008 in New York, Matthew Nimetz announced that the talks had failed, that there was a "gap" in the positions of the two countries, and that there would not be any progress, unless there were some sort of compromise, which he characterised as "valuable" for both sides.[59][60] After Greek PM Karamanlis's warnings that "no solution equals no invitation",[61] the Greek media took it for granted that Greece would veto the coming NATO accession talks for the country, in the Foreign Ministers' summit on 6 March 2008 in Brussels.[62][63]
Meanwhile, in a newer poll in Greece, the "composite name that includes the name Macedonia for the country" seemed, for the first time, to be marginally more popular than the previous more hard-lined stance of "no Macedonia in the title" (43% vs 42%). In the same poll, 84% of the respondents were pro-veto in the country's NATO accession talks, if the issue had not been resolved by then.[63][64] All Greek political parties except the small nationalist party Popular Orthodox Rally support the "composite name for all uses" solution, and are vehemently opposed to any "double name" formula which is proposed by the republic.[65] This shift in the official and public position was described by the PM of Greece as "the maximum recoil possible".[61]
Following his visit to Athens in an attempt to persuade the Greek government not to proceed to a veto, the NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer implied that the onus to compromise rested on the Republic of Macedonia.[66] In the same spirit, the EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn, expressed his fear that "it might have negative consequences on FYROM’s EU bid, although it is a bilateral question, Greece — as any other EU member — has the right to veto".[67][68][69] On 5 March 2008, Nimetz visited Skopje to try to find common ground on his proposal, but announced that "the gap remains".[67]
As earlier anticipated, on 6 March 2008, in the NATO Foreign Minister's summit in Brussels, Greek minister Dora Bakoyannis announced that "as regards the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ... , unfortunately, the policy followed by our neighbouring country in its relations with Greece, on the one side with intransigence and on the other with a logic of nationalist and irredentist actions tightly connected with the naming issue, does not allow us to maintain a positive stance, as we did for Croatia and Albania. ... As long as there is no such solution, Greece will remain an insuperable obstacle to the European and Euro-Atlantic ambition of FYROM".[70][71]
On 7 March 2008, the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Daniel Fried, made an unscheduled visit to Skopje, with the message that the two sides must cooperate with Matthew Nimetz to find a mutually acceptable solution for the naming dispute.[72]
Concerns have been expressed in Skopje and Athens on the stability of the governing coalition of VMRO-DPMNE and Democratic Party of Albanians (DPA) and subsequently the negotiating power of PM Nikola Gruevski with regards to the naming dispute, after the leader of DPA Menduh Thaçi accused the government of not complying with its requests about the rights of Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia.[73] Greek media considered the option that the crisis might be a diplomatic way of increasing the pressure on the Greek side.[74] Following a call for cooperation by the president Branko Crvenkovski, the other four major parties agreed to support Gruevski's government until NATO's convention in Bucharest on 4 April 2008.[75][76]
The possibility of a failure of the ascension talks is met with unease by the ethnic Albanian part of the population that places more importance on EU and NATO membership than on the Macedonia name issue.[77]
Following the declaration of Athens for a veto, the press in Skopje reported increased intervention from the United States to solve the dispute, through Victoria Nuland, the US NATO ambassador.[78] Antonio Milošoski announced that "Nimetz's proposal remains unchanged".[78] The daily newspaper Dnevnik reported that diplomatic sources claimed that this would be the last attempt from the American leadership to help in finding a solution, and that the target of this effort would be for the country to retreat from its position in regard to a "double name formula" and for Greece to accept something along these lines.[78] It continued by saying that the US would exercise pressure on both sides to find a solution before NATO's summit, so that the alliance could be expanded.[78] Olli Rehn urged "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to show the correct political will in seizing the opportunity to find an acceptable solution for both parts".[78]
A new meeting between Nimetz and the two parties was arranged on 17 March 2008 in Vienna, in the office of the former US special envoy to Kosovo and ex-president of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari.[79] Nimetz noted that he did not present any new proposals, thanked the United States with whom he said he was in contact, and urged more countries to help in solving the dispute. He also announced that he was more optimistic after this meeting, and that he focused only on the solutions that could be applied by NATO's summit in April.[80]
According to the press in the Republic of Macedonia[81] Nimetz now limited his proposal to three names of the five that were proposed in his original framework:[54]
Of the three, Greek media have reported that the only serious contender is "New Macedonia", being the solution favoured throughout the current round of negotiations by Washington, which regards it as the "most neutral" option.[82] According to some reports, all three proposals were swiftly rejected by Skopje on the grounds that "neither would constitute a logical basis for a solution, given that all had been rejected by one or the other side over the last 15 years".[83] Greek diplomatic sources have intimated that international pressure has now shifted towards the former Yugoslav republic.[84]
A special meeting outside the auspices of the UN was arranged on 21 March 2008, at US ambassador's to NATO Victoria Nuland's house in Brussels, between the two foreign ministers Dora Bakoyannis and Antonio Milošoski and with the presence of the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Daniel Fried.[85][86] Following the meeting, both ministers stressed for the first time their "commitment" for finding a solution until NATO's summit.[85][86]
The first voices seeking compromise have started to be heard in Skopje.[87] The president of the republic, Branko Crvenkovski, announced: "If during the ongoing talks we can reach a rational compromise, which from the one side will defend our ethnic identity, and from the other will enable us to receive the NATO invitation, while at the same time canceling our further EU accession obstacles, then I think that this is something that must be supported, and I personally side with the supporters. Some accuse me that with my stance I am undermining the negotiating position of the Republic of Macedonia, yet I do not agree, because we are not in the beginning, but in the final phase of the negotiations. The one who will tell me that the price is high, is obliged to address the public opinion and announce an alternative scenario on how Macedonia will develop in the next ten to fifteen years."[87][88]
In the same spirit, opposing New Social Democratic Party party leader Tito Petkovski (which by now participates in the governmental coalition until NATO's summit), announced: "I do not hide that we must proceed on an international usage name's change, with some type of addition, which in no way must put our values under question. I do not want to proceed in an auction with the name, because that will be very damaging also for the interests of the neighboring country that disputes it." He added that "the overwhelming majority of the state and the scholars, ask for a solution and for a way out, using something that does not put our identity and our cultural distinction under questioning. I think that such a solution can be found, especially if the greatest lobbyists and supporters of ours, the United States, declare that Macedonia will be safe, with a safe territorial integrity, with financial support and dynamic development. If we declare which name we support, probably there will be more terms".[87][88]
However, governing VMRO-DPMNE party leader, and current prime minister, Nikola Gruevski, when asked to comment on these statements, said: "We have different views from Mr. Petkovski, however there is still time to overcome these differences and reach a solution which will benefit the country".[87][88]
Centre-left Greek newspaper To Vima reported that the two countries were close to an agreement on the basis of the name "New Macedonia" or the untranslated native form, "Nova Makedonija".[89]
Another meeting under the auspices of UN mediator Matthew Nimetz was held in New York on 25 March 2008.[90] Nimetz announced his final proposal, with a name "with a geographic dimension, and for all purposes".[90] He also noted that the proposal was a compromise, and that the ways of implementation were also included in his proposal. The two representatives will urgently return to their countries for consultation on this proposal, given the short timeframe until NATO's summit.[90] According to the latest Greek media reports, Nimetz revived his 2005 proposal, "Republic of Macedonia-Skopje".[91] The news agency for Macedonian private television station A1 reported that the full proposal was:
The Macedonian government has not yet issued a statement on whether the proposal has been accepted or rejected.[92]
Greek foreign minister Dora Bakoyannis told journalists that the proposal does not meet Greece's stated objectives.[93][94]
The Macedonian foreign minister, Antonio Milošoski, stated that any reasonable solution that did not impose on the identity of ethnic Macedonians would be explored. However, he also stated that if Greece were to veto the country's entrance into NATO, compromise talks would be stopped.[95][96][97]
Meanwhile, police in Skopje said they were investigating death threats against academics, journalists and politicians who publicly favour reaching a compromise in the dispute with Greece.[98]
On 3 April 2008, in NATO's summit in Bucharest, Greece presented its case on the non-invitation of the republic. NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer announced the mutually agreed text of the NATO members, which included the following points:
A major concern cited by Greek officials was a number of maps that have circulated by nationalist groups based in Skopje depicting parts of Greece (including Thessaloniki, Greece's second largest city) as being part of a future United Macedonia, and the country's prime minister photographed laying a wreath under such a map just a few weeks before the summit.[102][103][104] Also a poster displayed in Skopje just days before the Bucharest summit by an artist replacing the white cross on the Greek flag with the swastika, as a way of comparing modern Greece to Nazi Germany.[105] and caricatures of Greek PM Karamanlis depicted wearing a Nazi SS uniform,[106] led to vigorous Greek diplomatic protests and international condemnation,[107][108] although the government disassociated itself from the depictions and expressed it has no connection and no authority over artists' works.[109]
According to Greek media reports, the Greek position was strongly supported by France and Spain. Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg, Iceland, Belgium, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Netherlands also showed understanding to the Greek concerns.[100][110][111] The US proposal for inviting the country under its UN provisional reference (FYROM) was backed by Turkey, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, Bulgaria, and Norway.[100] Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada were reported neutral.[100]
According to polls, 95% of Greeks believed the veto appropriate, while only 1% opposed it.[112] Then Foreign Affairs Minister Dora Bakoyannis stated that her country would continue to focus on promoting its neighbour's NATO and EU accession as soon as the naming issue is resolved.[113]
Since the coming to power in 2006, and especially since Macedonia's non-invitation to NATO in 2008, the VMRO-DPMNE government has pursued a policy of "Antiquisation" ("Antikvizatzija") as a way of putting pressure on Greece as well as for the purposes of domestic identity-building.[114] As part of this policy, statues of Alexander the Great and Philip II of Macedon have been built in several cities across the country.[114] In 2011, a massive, 22m tall statue of Alexander the Great was inaugurated in Macedonia Square in Skopje, as part of of the Skopje 2014 remodeling of the city.[114] An even larger statue of Philip II is under construction at the other end of the square. Statues of Alexander also adorn the town squares of Prilep and Štip, while a statue to Philip II of Macedon was recently built in Bitola.[114] Additionally, many pieces of public infrastructure, such as airports, highways, and stadiums have been named after them. Skopje's airport was renamed "Alexander the Great Airport" and features antique objects moved from Skopje's archeological museum. One of Skopje's main squares has been renamed Pella Square (after Pella, the capital of the ancient kingdom of Macedon), while the main highway to Greece has been renamed to "Alexander of Macedon" and Skopje's largest stadium has been renamed "Philip II Arena".[114] These actions are seen as deliberate provocations in neighboring Greece, exacerbating the dispute and further stalling Macedonia's EU and NATO applications.[115] The policy has also attracted criticism domestically, by ethnic Macedonians within the country, who see it as dangerously dividing the country between those who identify with classical antiquity and those who identify with the country's Slavic culture.[114] Ethnic Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia see it as an attempt to marginalize them and exclude them from the national narrative.[114] The policy, which also claims as ethnic Macedonians figures considered national heroes in Bulgaria, such as Dame Gruev and Gotse Delchev, has also drawn criticism from Bulgaria.[114] Foreign diplomats have warned that the policy has reduced international sympathy for the Republic of Macedonia in the naming dispute with Greece.[114]
The Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia voted on 11 April 2008 to dissolve itself and hold early elections within sixty days.[116] Following a meeting with the four major parties, president Branko Crvenkovski announced the continuation of the negotiations for the name, despite the parliament dissolution.[117] The parties agreed that the dispute should not be a matter of heavy political debate before the elections.[117]
Matthew Nimetz visited Skopje on 17 April 2008 and Athens on the following day, initiating a new cycle of negotiations, but without bearing a new proposal yet.[117]
Talks continued in New York from 30 April to 2 May 2008, though Nimetz again did not propose a new compromise name.[118]
According to media from both sides, the main points of the proposal from 8 October 2008 are the following:[119][120]
The cabinet of the President of the Republic of Macedonia, Branko Crvenkovski, announced that the Republic of Macedonia wants "serious changes" in the latest proposal and that the presented set of ideas could not be a basis for the resolution of the dispute. Prime minister Nikola Gruevski agreed with Crvenkovski.[121]
The English edition of the Greek newspaper Kathimerini reported that Greek diplomats, privately, have welcomed the proposals. Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis, however, has not yet made a comment on the newest set of proposals. It is also said, that Athens will not state its position before Skopje.[122] In the mean time, all major opposition parties have already expressed serious concerns about the proposal since it crosses the "red line" that Greece has set on a single name to be used erga omnes.[123]
Before either Athens or Skopje had officially responded to the proposal, the Athenian daily Ethnos published an alleged secret diplomatic correspondence of the US State Department. The leaked document, originally tagged as classified until 2018,[124] was said to detail a behind-the-scenes deal between Washington and Skopje on the main provisions of the Nimetz proposal as early as July.[125] According to the newspaper, the latest UN-sponsored set of ideas were secretly sketched to please Skopje by the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice three months earlier.[126] The report sparked outrage in Greece, with opposition parties accusing the government of tolerating "US interference" in the UN mediation process and calling for Greece's withdrawal from the negotiations.[127] Skopje "strongly and categorically" denied all claims of the existence of a secret deal with Washington.[126]
In November 2008, Skopje instituted proceedings against Athens in front of the UN’s International Court of Justice for what it described as “a flagrant violation of [Greece’s] obligations under Article 11 of the Interim Accord signed by the Parties on 13 September 1995”. The alleged violation was referring to the blockade by Athens to Macedonia's bid for NATO membership.
Following the submissions of memorials and counter-memorials, and the public hearings, the legal positions of the parties were as follows:
Republic of Macedonia requested that:
The Hellenic Republic requested that the Court:
The Court delivered its judgement on 5 December 2011.[128] In its judgment, which is final, without possibility for appeal, and binding on the parties, the ICJ found that:[129]
The ICJ decision was welcomed by the Macedonian foreign minister Nikola Popovski, who stated that Macedonia remains "strongly committed to finding a lasting, mutually acceptable solution to the difference with Greece over the name". On the other hand, the response of the Ministry for foreign affairs of Greece was that they're reviewing the decision and that "Greece will continue to pursue negotiations in good faith to reach a mutually acceptable solution on the name of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".[130] The court however did not grant Macedonia's request that it instruct Greece to refrain from similar actions in the future, nor has there been to date a change in the EU's stance that Macedonia's accession negotiations cannot begin until the name issue is resolved.[131]
The first round of name talks in 2009 took place on 11 February.[138] The UN Mediator Nimetz did not propose a new solution for the name row, but it was agreed that talks should continue after elections in Greece and the Republic of Macedonia, probably in July or August.[139] Republic of Macedonia's new name negotiator Zoran Jolevski told the mediator and the Greek negotiator that if the Republic of Macedonia would receive a NATO membership invitation at the Alliance's next summit in April, this would be positive for the name talks.[139] One week before the fresh name talks, Macedonian foreign minister Antonio Milošoski told German newspaper "die tageszeitung" that a solution could be found "only on bilateral basis". The Republic of Macedonia indicated it could be ready to allow Greece to use another name for the country, such as "Republic of Macedonia (Skopje)", however, its citizens would decide on a referendum for that.[140] In addition, foreign minister Antonio Milošoski sent a letter to the Greek foreign ministry with a proposal of forming a joint committee of scholars from both countries who would work on determining the historical facts of the dispute, but this was promptly dismissed by Athens.[141]
On April 14, 2009, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Conference on the topic of Completing America's Mission in the Balkans moderated by Janusz Bugajski, the Ambassador of Macedonia H.E. Zoran Jolevski stated the following
"Greece, in essence, moved the goal posts further away, and our fear is that they will continue to move the goal posts again, and again, and again. The question then becomes, will they stop? Because, dear friends, the dignity and identity of an entire nation is at stake here that cannot be compromised."
Later on, they moved into an open discussion where the Greek Ambassador in the US Alexandros Mallias stated that Greece would accept the last proposal by the UN Mediator Matthew Nimetz for the international use of "Republic of Northern Macedonia".[142]
On June 22, 2009, the UN Mediator Matthew Nimetz, together with the negotiators from both sides gathered in Geneva to discuss the differences and the problematic points of the dispute. According to Nimetz, the negotiations had made some progress which identified and discussed the issues that had so far stalled the solution process. Both sides were strong on their positions.[143] Mediator Nimetz visited the Republic of Macedonia on July 6 to July 8, then Greece from July 8 to July 10.[144]
In August 2009, UN mediator Matthew Nimetz expressed pessimism regarding the Greek response to the names he proposed in his July meetings. Nimetz said “Efforts to solve the name issue continue, even though Greece’s answer is not positive". According to the Greek representative, Athens would not accept a proposed formulation that was only intended for use in bilateral relations, and insisted that any name that is decided must be used internationally.[145] In late August, Nimetz met Zoran Jolevski, the ethnic Macedonian negotiator who said that "Macedonia is committed to active participation in the talks over the name and we expect a mutually acceptable solution, which will ensure preserving of the identity, dignity and integrity of the Macedonian citizens on the basis of Euro-Atlantic values and democratic principles.”[146] The "name talks" were frozen because of Athens’ rejection of essential points in the most recent proposal and the elections in Greece in October. The actual talks may, it is reported, restart in May 2010 when the new Greek prime minister will have more space for negotiations.[147]
In early April 2010, it emerged that the Greek government considered "Northern Macedonia" a possible compromise name, indicating it was up to the Republic of Macedonia to decide whether to accept that proposal.[148] The Macedonian Prime minister Nicola Gruevski declared he would reject this proposition and called for a vote on the new name.[149]
The June 13th issue of Kathimerini reported that sources claim that Greece and the Republic of Macedonia appear to be close to a solution to their name dispute, and are set to agree on using the name of the Vardar river (the longest river in the Republic of Macedonia) to differentiate the Republic of Macedonia from Greek Macedonia. It is not clear at this stage if this would mean Republic of Macedonia would be called "Republic of Macedonia of Vardar", "Republic of Vardar Macedonia", "Vardar Republic of Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia (Vardar)".[150][151][152]
The Macedonian Human Rights Movement International (MHRMI) and the Australian Macedonian Human Rights Committee (AMHRC) have launched a campaign placing advertisements in newspapers and billboards across Macedonia "demanding an end to all negotiations with Greece over its name".[153]
Reports were released that Antonis Samaras, the leader of New Democracy, will be summoned to the Hague trial issued by Skopje on Greece for breaking the 1995 Interim Agreement, after evidence was found of him addressing the Greek parliament and clearly stating that his Government (New Democracy then in power) vetoed the invitation of the Republic of Macedonia in the 2008 Bucharest NATO summit.[154] Also in this year the dispute was inflamed by the erection of a statue in Skopje of a mounted warrior which copies a portrait of Alexander the Great attributed to the ancient Greek sculptor Lysippus, and the inauguration of a sports stadium named after Alexander's father Philip II.
The following international organisations use the reference adopted by the UN – "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (or a variant thereof) in their official proceedings:
The constitutional name of the country "Republic of Macedonia" and the short name "Macedonia" when referring to the country, can be considered offensive by most Greeks, especially inhabitants of the Greek region of Macedonia. The Greek government officially uses the United Nations' provisional reference for the country ("the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") and by the main international organisations, including the United Nations.[287] The official reasons for this, as described by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, are:
"The FYROM name issue is not simply a dispute over historical facts and symbols. It is a problem with regional and international dimensions, given that FYROM is exercising a policy of irredentism and territorial claims fuelled by the falsification of history and the usurpation of Greece's historical and national heritage. In its current form, the FYROM name issue arose in 1991, when FYROM declared its independence under the name Republic of Macedonia. Historically, the Greek name Macedonia refers to the state and civilisation of the ancient Macedonians, which beyond doubt is part of Greece's national and historical heritage and bears no relation whatsoever with the residents of FYROM, who are Slavs by descent and arrived in region of the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia at a much later stage. Geographically, the term Macedonia refers to a broader region that includes portions of the territories of various Balkan countries (mainly Greece, FYROM and Bulgaria). However, the greater part of geographical Macedonia coincides with the area covered by the ancient Greek Macedonia, which lies within the boundaries of modern Greece. Some 2.5 million Greek citizens currently live in the Greek part of Macedonia, whose inhabitants have called and considered themselves Macedonians since time immemorial. The name issue originated in the aftermath of the Second World War, when Josip Broz Tito separated the area then known as Vardar Banovina (now FYROM) from Serbia, granting it the status of a Republic within the new federal Yugoslavia, under the name Socialist Republic of Macedonia, concurrently promoting the doctrine of a separate Macedonian Nation. Obviously, the most important reason for opting to promote the doctrine of Macedonianism at clear variance with the geographical reality of the broader region of Macedonia was his desire to gain access to the Aegean Sea by cultivating the notion of reunification of all Macedonian territories... The Greek side calls for:
- the adoption of a definitive composite name with geographical qualification of the term Macedonia, for all purposes (erga omnes) and for all uses, so as to avoid confusion with Greek Macedonia and to put an end to the irredentist policy and territorial aspirations of FYROM,
- that FYROM genuinely renounces the usurpation of historical and national heritage of the Greek people,
- Endorsement of the definitive solution by the UN Security Council, so as to ensure respect for its implementation."[33]
The current Prime Minister and leader of the governing party, PASOK, George Papandreou has stated that "in January 2002, when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs, was next to a deal with Skopje leadership about using the name "Горна Македонија" ("Gorna Makedonija" - "Upper Macedonia" in Slavic). The other parties and the President of the Republic, he said, were informed but the solution process didn't work, because the Tetovo crisis broke out."[34] The Academy of Athens concludes:
The adoption of a compound name with a geographic content and with respect for the distinction between ancient Macedonia and the state of FYROM, would serve both the truth and the present-day needs of the geographic region and of the larger area surrounding it. The Greek interest does indicate the concern of public opinion in the face of intransigent provocations on the part of Skopje that tend — as is evident even in the school textbooks — not only to appropriate but even to monopolise the history, the cultural achievements, the symbols — including the ancient ones —, the monuments, and the personalities that were active in the Macedonian area in the past. It is self-evident that the expression of good will on the part of any Greek government is not sufficient to overcome the fact or the effects of nationalist excesses similar to those that were artfully cultivated during the post-war period.[309]
The Greek concerns can be analyzed as follows:
According to historian Eugene Borza the ethnic Macedonians, being a "a newly emergent people in search of a past to help legitimise their precarious present" whose ethnicity developed in the twentieth century had no history and needed one.[310]
Greeks argue that the name Macedonia is historically inseparably associated with Greek culture, ever since the ancient kingdom of Macedonia and the ancient Macedonians. They therefore consider that only Greeks have a historical right to use the name today, since the modern southern Slavs arrived 1,000 years after that kingdom, lacking any relation to ancient Macedonia or its Greek culture.[33] Efforts by ethnic Macedonians to construct a narrative of ethnic continuity linking them to the ancient Macedonians in various ways[311] and symbolic actions underlining such claims, such as the public use of the Vergina sun symbol as a flag of the Republic of Macedonia, or the renaming of Skopje Airport to "Alexander the Great Airport"[312] meet strong criticism from the Greek side, much of the international media that report on the issue, and even from moderate political views in the Republic of Macedonia itself.[313][314][315]
According to news reports there are plans for an "eight-story-high" statue of Alexander the Great on horseback to be built in the center of the city of Skopje.[316] Greece has scornfully characterised the effort, with the foreign ministry commenting on the size of the statue as "inversely proportional to seriousness and historical truth".[316][317] The project received criticism by the European Union, calling it "not helpful"[316] as well as by Skopje architects and ethnic Macedonian academics[317] and politicians[77] commenting on the aesthetic outcome and the semantics of such a move.
Some Greek historians emphasise the late emergence of a "Macedonian" nation, often pointing to 1944 as the date of its "artificial" creation under Josip Broz Tito, discounting earlier roots in the 19th and early 20th century.[318]
The Greek view also stresses that the name Macedonia as a geographical term historically used to refer typically to the southern, Greek parts of the region (including the capital of the ancient kingdom, Pella), and not or only marginally to the territory of today's Republic. They also note that the territory was not called Macedonia as a political entity until 1944.
Several hundred international and Greek classical scholars have lobbied for the historical concerns regarding the name dispute to be reflected in US policy.[319][320]
During the Greek Civil War, in 1947 the Greek Ministry of Press and Information published a book, Ἡ ἐναντίον τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἐπιβουλή (Designs on Greece), including documents and speeches on the ongoing Macedonian issue, many translations from Yugoslav officials. It reports Josip Broz Tito using the term "Aegean Macedonia" on 11 October 1945 in the build up to the Greek Civil War; the original document is archived in ‘GFM A/24581/G2/1945’. For Athens in 1947, the “new term, Aegean Macedonia”, (also “Pirin Macedonia”), was introduced by Yugoslavs. Contextually, this observation indicates this was part of the Yugoslav offensive against Greece, laying claim to Greek Macedonia, but Athens does not seem to take issue with the term itself. The 1945 date concurs with Bulgarian sources.
Tito's wartime representative to Macedonia, General Tempo (Svetozar Vukmanovic), is credited with promoting the usage of the new regional names of the Macedonian region for irredentist purposes. Concerns over territorial implications of the usage of the term "Macedonian" were expressed as early as 1944 by US diplomats.[321]
Greece suspects that the Republic of Macedonia has territorial ambitions in the northern Greek provinces of Macedonia. This has been a Greek concern for decades; as far back as 1957, the Greek government expressed concern about reported Yugoslav ambitions to create an "independent" People's Republic of Macedonia with the Greek city of Thessaloniki as its capital.[322]
Loring M. Danforth ascribes the goal of a "free, united, and independent Macedonia" including "liberated" Bulgarian and Greek territory to a fraction of extreme Macedonian nationalists, whereas more moderate ethnic Macedonians recognise the inviolability of the borders but regard the presence of ethnic Macedonians in the neighbouring countries as an issue of minority protection.[323]
Greek analysts[324] and politicians[325] have expressed concerns that western observers tend to overlook or not to understand the severity of the perceived territorial threat and tend to misunderstand the conflict as a trivial issue over just a name.
The concerns are further reinforced by the fact that extremist ethnic Macedonian nationalists of the "United Macedonia" movement have expressed irredentist claims to what they refer to as "Aegean Macedonia" (in Greece),[322][326][327] "Pirin Macedonia" (in Bulgaria),[328] "Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo" (in Albania),[329] and "Gora and Prohor Pchinski" (in Serbia).[330]
Greek Macedonians, Bulgarians, Albanians and Serbs form the overwhelming majority of the population of each part of the region respectively.
Schoolbooks and official government publications in the Republic have shown the country as part of an unliberated whole.[331][311][332][333]
In April 2008 Foreign Minister of Greece Dora Bakoyannis complained about the prime minister of the Republic of Macedonia Nikola Gruevski appearing in a photograph, by a map of "Greater Macedonia". The complaint was made inside an article published at Wall Street Journal, regarding the NATO ascension talks.[334]
According to both the official Greek position[33] and various public manifestations in Greece[335] and the Greek diaspora,[8] the Greek Macedonians feel that their right to self-determination is violated by what they regard as the monopolisation of their name by a neighbouring country.
The strong regional identity of the Macedonians was emphasised by the Prime Minister of Greece, Kostas Karamanlis, who in January 2007 during a meeting of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg declared that:
I am a Macedonian, just like two and a half million Greeks.[336]
In Greece, the extreme position on the issue suggests that there must be "no Macedonia in the title" of a neighbouring country.[337]
Professor Danforth reports:
From the Greek nationalist perspective, then, the use of the name "Macedonian" by the "Slavs of Skopje" constitutes a "felony", an "act of plagiarism" against the Greek people. By calling themselves "Macedonians" the Slavs are "stealing" a Greek name; they are "embezzling" Greek cultural heritage; they are "falsifying" Greek history. As Evangelos Kofos, a historian employed by the Greek Foreign Ministry told a foreign reporter, "It is as if a robber came into my house and stole my most precious jewels — my history, my culture, my identity".[323]
More moderate positions suggest that a disambiguating element should be added to the name of the neighbouring state and its people (notably Slav, Vardar or New), so as to illustrate the distinction between not just the two, but all groups of self-identifying Macedonians.[33]
| Demographic Macedonia | |
| Macedonians c. 5 million |
All inhabitants of the region, irrespective of ethnicity |
| Macedonians c. 1.3 million plus diaspora[338] |
A contemporary ethnic group, also referred to as Slavomacedonians or Macedonian Slavs[339] |
| Macedonians c. 2.0 million[338] |
Citizens of the Republic of Macedonia irrespective of ethnicity |
| Macedonians c. 2.6 million plus diaspora[340] |
An ethnic Greek regional group, also referred to as Greek Macedonians. |
| Macedonians (unknown population) |
A group of antiquity |
| Macedonians c. 300.000 |
A Bulgarian regional group;[341] also referred to as Piriners. |
| Macedo-Romanians c. 0.3 million[342]* |
An alternative name for Aromanians |
The contemporary region of Macedonia is a wider region in the Balkan peninsula that spans across several modern states, mainly Greece (Aegean Macedonia), Bulgaria (Blagoevgrad province), the Republic of Macedonia, and Albania (around Lake Ohrid). The definite borders of the region are vague, but most contemporary geographers agree on its general location.[343] There are several ethnic groups in this region, mostly living within their respective states, all of which are technically "Macedonians" in the regional sense. The Republic itself, has a substantial minority (25.2%) of ethnic Albanians who are "Macedonians" both in the regional sense, and as legal citizens of the Republic.[338][344] However, in a Balkans where ethnicity rather than nationhood defines peoples' identity, Albanians are never referred to (or refer to themselves) as Macedonians.[345]
The Greek position suggests that the monopolisation of the name by the Republic and its citizens creates semiological confusion, as it becomes increasingly difficult to disambiguate which "Macedonia", which "Macedonians" and what "Macedonian language" are referred to in each occasion.
According to a source Bulgarians living in Blagoevgrad province (Bulgarian Macedonia) are reported to not identify themselves with their regional term "Macedonians", so as not to be confused with the ethnic Macedonians.[341] According to other sources the traditional use of the term "Macedonians" in Bulgaria as a regional designation continues.[346][347]
Macedo-Romanians (Aromanians) are often called "Machedoni" by Romanians, as opposed to the citizens of Macedonia, who are called "Macedoneni".
The Greek Macedonians demonstrate a strong regional identity and identify themselves as plain Macedonians, who live in plain Macedonia, speaking a Macedonian dialect of modern Greek.
Skopje rejects many of Athens' objections due to what it sees as several errors in the Greek claims.
According to the government in Skopje, the preservation of the constitutional name both for domestic and international use is of utmost importance. The country asserts that it does not lay exclusive claim to the term Macedonia either in the geographic or the historic sense.[348] Various demonstrations and protests in the Republic of Macedonia[349] and the ethnic Macedonian diaspora, were held to support their view that their right to self-determination is violated by what they regard as the rejection of the name from the international community. The Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences suggests:
And today Slavs have been living there (Macedonia) for a period of 1,400 years. What is more natural than that the Balkanised Slavs who have lived so long and continuously in Macedonia should be called Macedonians and their language Macedonian"[350]
Ethnic Macedonians state they are descendants of the local inhabitants of Macedonia which existed before the Slavic invasions, and the Slavic peoples who invaded the region in the 6th-8th century A.D., mixing both cultures and traditions.[351]
From a historical perspective, scholars in the Republic of Macedonia blame Greece for claiming ownership over an ancient kingdom which, in their view, was not Greek, claiming historical studies propose there was a considerable degree of political and cultural distance between ancient Greeks and Macedonians. This view contrasts sharply with that of Greek authors, who point to historical data seen as evidence that ancient Macedonians identified as Greeks and spoke Greek. Officially, the ethnic Macedonian claim to continuity with ancient Macedonia is based on Macedonia's population having mixed with the Slavic newcomers after their arrival in the 6th and 7th century, but having retained the Macedonian name, and elements of their traditions and culture.[351] The name Macedonia continued in use as a geographical and political term throughout the Ancient, Roman, Medieval and Modern eras. Moreoever, the former use of the Vergina Sun by the Republic of Macedonia had intended to appeal to all ethnic groups in Macedonia, as an ancient symbol which preceded the ethnic division of the present,[352] The argument of legitimacy also extends to the view that much of today's Greek Macedonia was only fully Hellenised by political and military means in modern times. Since the division of Macedonia in 1913, Greece has carried out a policy of Hellenisation of the local population, forcing name changes, religious affiliation, and writings of church, frescoes and graves to Greek.[353] During the Ioannis Metaxas era, Macedonians were deported or tortured for speaking or claiming to be Macedonian.[354] Slavic-speaking Macedonians argue that they have a more legitimate claim to the name Macedonia to many Greek Macedonians, who are descendents of Greek immigrants and refugees that were settled in Macedonia from regions such as Anatolia, Epirus and Thrace during the early twentieth century.[355]
In the 6th and 7th centuries AD Slavic-speaking populations came into northern Greece and the ethnic composition of the wider Macedonia region,[356] and Slavic languages have been spoken in the area alongside Greek in the region ever since. In parts of northern Greece, in the regions of Macedonia (Μακεδονία) and Thrace (Θράκη), Slavonic languages continue to be spoken by people with a wide range of self-identifications. The actual linguistic classification of these dialects is unclear, although most linguists will classify them as either Bulgarian or Macedonian Slavic taking into account numerous factors, including the resemblance and mutual intelligibility of each dialect to the standard languages (abstand), and the self-identification of the speakers themselves. As however the vast majority of these people don't have a non-Greek national identity, linguists will make their decisions based on abstand alone. The Slavic-speaking minority of northern Greece can be divided in to two main groups: Christians and Muslims. The latter has no reported connection to ethnic Macedonians.
The Christian portion of Greece's Slavic-speaking minority are commonly referred to as Slavophones (from the Greek Σλαβόφωνοι Slavophōnoi - lit. Slavic-speakers) or Dopii, which means "locals" in Greek. The vast majority of them espouse a Greek national identity and are bilingual in Greek. They live mostly in the Periphery of Western Macedonia and belong to the Greek Orthodox Church, which in conjunction with the millet system of the Ottoman Empire which occupied the region until 1913, may explain their self-identification as Greeks. In the 1951 census, 41,017 people claimed to speak the Slavic language. One unofficial estimate for 2000 puts their number at 1.8% of the Greek population, that is c.200,000.[357]
This group has received some attention in recent years due to claims from the Republic of Macedonia that these people form an ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece. Some organisations and academics have stated that there is a minority within the Slavophone community in Greece which self-identifies as ethnic Macedonian.[323][358][359][360][361]
There is a dispute over the size of this alleged minority, with some Greeks denying it outright, and most ethnic Macedonians inflating the numbers substantially. The Greek Helsinki Monitor reports that, "difficult and therefore risky it is to declare a Macedonian minority identity in such an extremely hostile if not aggressive environment in Greece".[358] There are no official statistics to confirm or deny either claims. The Greek government has thus far refused on the basis that there is no significant such community and that the idea of minority status is not popular amongst the (Greek identifying) linguistic community of northern Greece as it would have the effect of them being marginalised.[362]
Professor Danforth reports:
...Finally, the Greek government denies the existence of a Macedonian minority in northern Greece, claiming that there exists only a small group of "Slavophone Hellenes" or "bilingual Greeks," who speak Greek and "a local Slavic dialect" but have a "Greek national consciousness".[323]
A political party promoting this line and claiming rights of what they describe as the "Macedonian minority in Greece" — the Rainbow (Виножито) — was founded in September 1998; it received a minimal support of 2,955 votes in the region of Macedonia in the latest elections (2004).[363]
The name of the Macedonian language as used by the people and defined in the constitution of the Republic of Macedonia is "Macedonian" (Macedonian: Cyrillic: Mакедонски јазик - Latin: Makedonski jazik).[364] This is also the name used by international bodies, such as the United Nations[365] and the World Health Organisation.[366] The name is also used by convention in the field of Slavic Studies.[367]
However, for historical reasons, as well as due to the conflict with Greece, several other terms for the language remain in use. Some of the names use the family to which the language belongs to disambiguate it from the undoubtedly non-Slavic and entirely different ancient Macedonian language, or from the homonymous dialect of modern Greek; sometimes the autonym "Makedonski" is used in English for the modern Slavic language, with "Macedonian" being reserved for the ancient language.[368]
Affirmation of the separateness of Macedonian as a separate language is an issue of some importance for the ethnic Macedonian self-view.[323] In opposition to this, Bulgarian and Greek critics sometimes continue to insist on treating Macedonian as merely a dialect of Bulgarian, pointing to its close structural affinity, its historically late emergence as a separate standard language, and the political motivation behind its promotion in the mid-20th century.
Macedonian is applied to the present-day Greek dialect spoken by Macedonian Greeks.[369][370]
The origins of the ancient Macedonian language are currently debated. It is as yet undetermined whether it was a Greek dialect which was part of or closely related to the Doric[371][372] and/or Aeolic[373][374] dialects, a sibling language of ancient Greek forming a Hellenic[375] (i.e. Greco-Macedonian) supergroup, or an Indo-European language which was a close cousin to Greek and also related to Thracian and Phrygian languages.[376] The scientific community generally agrees that, although some sources are available (e.g. Hesychius' lexicon, Pella curse tablet)[377] there is no decisive evidence for supporting either hypothesis.[378] Nevertheless, Attic Greek, a form of the Greek language, eventually supplanted it entirely in Macedonia from the 5th Century BC, and ancient Macedonian became extinct during the first few centuries AD. Attic Greek evolved into Koine Greek and in turn into Byzantine and modern Greek.[379]
Notice: Hyperlinks and emphasis in the quotations appearing in this article were not in the original source being quoted, but are merely used for disambiguation purposes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||