ΑΡΘΡΟ ΤΟΥ
Sam Vaknin
ΣΤΗΝ ΕΦΗΜΕΡΙΔΑ
American Chronicle
ΠΟΥ ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΠΤΕΙ ΣΧΕΔΙΟ ΠΕΝΤΕ ΣΗΜΕΙΩΝ ΠΟΥ ΘΑ ΕΦΑΡΜΟΣΤΕΙ
ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΞΕΠΕΡΑΣΤΕΙ Η ΚΡΙΣΗ ΜΕ ΤΑ ΣΚΟΠΙΑ
ΚΑΙ
Η ΕΝΤΑΞΗ ΤΟΥΣ ΣΤΟ ΝΑΤΟ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΝ ΕΕ.
Sam Vaknin Ph.D.
August 26, 2008
According to reliable sources, on September 23, in the presence of the foreign ministers of both countries, Condolenzza Rice, Secretary of State of the United States of America, will present a plan to resolve a festering dispute between
Greece, its (anti-American)
nominal NATO ally, and Macedonia, a member of the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq and Afghanistan and a NATO aspirant. On September 24, the Plan will be submitted to the United Nations Security Council, probably to be passed as a Resolution.
The Greek newspapers Ta Nea and Elefteros Typos published similar news on August 25 and August 21, respectively.
The Plan has been hatched in a series of secret meetings between Greek and American officials, culminating in a June 2008 conference held in Washington,
involving Rice and Dora Bakoyannis, Greek’s feisty Foreign Minister.
The Macedonian government was kept out of the loop and may still be unaware of the existence of the Plan, let alone its contents.
It seems that the Greeks succeeded to convince the Americans that Macedonia is the intransigent party, piling one obstacle after another, in an attempt to avoid a politically unpopular settlement. Lately, the tiny polity’s young Prime Minister, Nikola Gruevski, sought to enlarge the scope of the protracted negotiations to include other bilateral issues, such as the restoration of property to Macedonians expelled from Greece decades ago and the recognition of the Macedonian Orthodox Church by its Greek counterpart.
The Plan includes five elements:
1. The Republic of Macedonia will change its constitutional name
(probably to Northern Macedonia, although that has not been decided yet).
If true, this provision will constitute a major setback for Macedonia. No Macedonian government – let alone the current one – is likely to accept it.
2. Macedonia will be granted a transition period (of up to 10 years, according to some sources) – the time it would need to amend its constitution and to alter its registered name with various international and multilateral institutions.
3. Macedonia will be issued an invitation to join NATO (but not a date to start negotiations with the EU regarding its eventual accession).
4. Both countries will be allowed to use the adjective «Macedonian» (both commercially and non-commercially).
5. The parties will renounce any and all claims to each other’s territory.
The «name issue» involves a protracted dispute over the last 17 years between the two Balkan polities over Macedonia’s right to use its constitutional name, «The Republic of Macedonia». The Greeks claim that Macedonia is a region in Greece and that, therefore, the country Macedonia has no right to monopolize the name and its derivatives («Macedonian»).
The Greeks feel that Macedonians have designs on the part of Greece that borders the tiny, landlocked country and that the use of Macedonia’s constitutional name internationally will only serve to enhance irredentist and secessionist tendencies, thus adversely affecting the entire region’s stability.
Macedonia retorts that it has publicly renounced any claims to any territory of any of its neighbors. Greece is Macedonia’s second largest foreign investor. The disparities in size, military power and geopolitical and economic prowess between the two countries make Greek «fears» appear to be ridiculous. Macedonians have a right to decide how they are to be called, say exasperated Macedonian officials.
The Greek demands are without precedent either in history or in international law. Many countries bear variants of the same name (Yemen, Korea, Germany until 1990, Russia and Byelorussia, Mongolia). Others share their name with a region in another country (Brittany in France and Great Britain across the channel, for instance).
In the alliance’s Bucharest Summit, in April 2008, Macedonia was not invited to join NATO. Macedonia was rejected because it would not succumb to Greek intransigence: Greece insisted that Macedonia should change its constitutional name to cater to Greek domestic political sensitivities.
Thus, Serbia (and its ally, Russia) were left with access to a corridor, through non-NATO Macedonia to
anti-American Greece
and to the sea.
High-placed diplomatic sources in Washington told the Chronicle that the USA will now pressure Macedonia into changing its constitutional name in a way that will be acceptable to Greece and the powerful Greek lobbies in the USA. Should «friendly» persuasion fail, the USA will bare its fangs and may even threaten mild sanctions (the suspension of several military agreements).
Macedonia doesn’t stand a chance of resisting such an onslaught. It will be forced into a humiliating retreat. An invitation to join NATO will promptly follow, in time for its ratification by all the member countries of the moribund Alliance.
Following the country’s ill-advised early elections in June, 2008, the right-wing VMRO-DPMNE was coerced by the international community (read: the EU and the USA) into joining forces with DUI, the political incarnation of erstwhile Albanian insurgents in the northwest of Macedonia, hitherto an anathema as far as Gruevski, the incumbent Prime Minister, was concerned.
Hopping to bed with DUI will likely restrain the government’s freedom of action. Every concession to Greece will be portrayed by jingoistic nationalists in Macedonia as capitulation and the consequence of blackmail by the Albanian parties. To the great consternation of the Macedonians, Albania, Macedonia’s neighbor, has been invited to join NATO. The restive Albanians of Macedonia would like to accede to the Alliance as soon as practicable and at all costs. Understandably, they are less attached to the country’s constitutional name than the non-Albanian (Macedonian) majority.
Sam Vaknin (samvak.tripod.com) is the author of Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited and other books.He served as a columnist for online publications such as Central Europe Review, Global Politician, PopMatters, United Press International (UPI) (as Senior Business Correspondent), editor in The Open Directory and Suite101 and as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia.
Ioannis Michaletos
27 Aug 2008
According to a recent article by Sam Vaknin in the «American Chronicles» that also appeared in the International Analyst Network, a Greek-American plan is due that will resolve the name dispute between the two states.
It is true that a solution is imminent, but it cannot be classified as a joint Greek & American one, but rather as a final resolution of the American policy that came to realize three important factors over the past few months and «Post-Bucharest»
1) Serbia has made a serious turn in its domestic politics and is committed into being accepted in NATO and the EU. That alone greatly diminishes the role of FYR-Macedonia, as yet another NATO candidate
2) Croatia and Albania already took the ticket for an eventual entrance, thus Skopje’s role is far less significant than it was just few months ago.
3) Greece has enacted a series of high profile initiatives with France, Russia, Israel and China over the past year. Therefore the importance of Athens has been elevated for Washington despite some grievances that are being made by middle-ranking officials that cannot comprehend the new emerging scene and mostly fear for their own professional status rather than any real geopolitical gain-loss at stake.
In essence USA views the issue differently making FYROM more acceptable to a final solution, since any other alternative would be highly undesirable for the domestic audience of the latter.
Sam Vaknin dropped a few lines on a suspicious «Greek-Russian» connection that probably obstructs a final solution and that is against NATO interests and so on and so forth.
Greece functions as a perfect example of a communication terrain between Washington & Moscow, a status that is strongly envied by several of Greece’s neighbors that would like feverously to gain such role, to no avail. Actually in times of crisis like nowadays with the boiling Caucasus issue; Greece provides a stabilizing role by being able to synthesize the Russian-American antithesis and attain a meditative role behind the scenes. After all a new «Cold War» does not benefit anyone apart from the Chinese and Muslim world, therefore the Greek contribution is positive in most respects.
Another facet of the issue is the little dependence that Greece has to Russia in comparison to other countries. It is less depended on Russian energy than Germany or Italy, it hasn’t formed joint venture arms companies with Moscow as Spain or France have, neither does it has sold strategic energy utilities as Austria or Italy have done. Furthermore it is a little known fact that Turkey often perceived as a staunch NATO ally; it has procured Chinese missile systems, whilst it currently negotiates with a Korean firm in order to produce its own Main Battle Tank, one without any NATO technology on it.
Lastly Greece was one of the last countries to enact a sort of energy cooperation with Russia, in 1996, by importing small amounts of natural gas, whilst Italy, Germany and other W. European countries have already commenced such activities since the early ’70’s. In a few words Athens feels confident enough to proceed with certain agreements that will also increase its leverage across Eurasia and will ultimately benefit NATO diplomacy if the latter proves itself smart enough to benefit from the opportunities involved.
USA in particular is an oil-based economy that reined the international economic system due to the cheap oil post-war regime. Diversification of energy sources and gradual disorientation from the Middle East is for the long-term interest of the American economy.
What the Administration in FYROM fails to comprehend is that Greece is the only state in the region that can guarantee its security and by being the largest investor it also helps its fragile economy to keep up in the midst of a terrible world climate. The bulk of FYROM’s international trade passes through the Greek port of Thessaloniki and no Greek official has ever tried to negatively disturb this since 1995, although it could have dome it indirectly by means of «employee slow-down» and other «Non-state» means.
In 2001 Athens helped practically the Skopje government and even sent weapons and assistance in all levels, while it hasn’t started to issue Greek passports to the citizens of FYROM as Bulgaria, Serbia, Turkey and Albania frequently do.
In a wider prism, Greece’s role in issues ranging from Iran, Syria, Lebanon, to cooperation in the anti-narcotics strategy and discreet mediation in several crises between Danube and the Hindu River, has made the country a stabilizing factor par excellence for the world community and the West in particular. The aforementioned have been taking place under the radar screen in most cases, since the art of diplomacy is one differentiated from that of public relations and has to be of actual substance.
The name issue is one related to history & culture. In general only three ethno-cultural units have retained and preserved their identity, lingual treasure and collective subconscious, since antiquity: The Greeks, the Jews and the Chinese.
That can’t be of a sheer luck, but it has to do with the stamina to preserve one’s Tradition & History.
Am I right on that Sam?
The answer will ultimately reveal and resolve the issue of the «Name» once and for all I presume.
Μου αρέσει αυτό:
Μου αρέσει! Φόρτωση...
Web Stats
ΝΕΑ ΧΩΡΙΣ ΦΙΛΤΡΟ ΦΕΛΛΟΥ 
