Modern Macedonian question - What is it all about?

8/14/2019 Modern Macedonian question - What is it all about?

1/17

http://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com

Last Update: 18th Jan 2009

1

Modern Macedonian question - What is it all about?

Introduction[1]

The "Macedonian Question" is a major and many-faceted issue presentingmanifold political, national and historical problems. In recent decades it

has been rekindled and nowadays has acquired perilous dimensions. Thisproblem, however, is not only a concern of our times: it dates back to the

19th c., right after the Greek War of Independence of 1821.

This issue was initially raised by the Bulgarians; mainly by thoseBulgarians of the diaspora who, in attempting to achieve national

rehabilitaion, made territorial claims on Macedonia. These Bulgarian

nationalistic feelings were considerably reinforced by the establishmentof the Bulgarian Exarchate (1870), and in particular by the Treaty of San

Stefano (March 1878), according to which northern and central

Macedonia was annexed to Bulgaria. Of course, the Treaty of Berlin

(June/July 1878) reinstated Ottoman domination in the region, but thetemporary ceding of Macedonian areas to the Bulgarians encouraged

these claims, while the establishment of the Bulgarian Principality (1878)

and the annexation of Eastern Rumelia to Bulgaria (1885) created newcentres of propaganda. By the end of the century there had led to the

formation of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization(IMRO,

1893) and the Central Committee (1985) which adopted systems of

violence and armed intervention often tolerated by the Ottomanauthorities.

Serbia's claims to a free passage to the Aegean sea and its attempts towin over thje Slav-speaking population of NW Macedonia by infiltrating

the Church and Education, as well as Rumanian claims on the Vlach-

speaking Greeks, date back to the end of the 19th c., while the claims ofthe Albanians at the end of the 19th c. included the vilayets of Monastir

and Thessaloniki in their autonomist programme. It must note however

that these situations never supported the existence of a seperate

Macedonian nationality. The crisis deepened at the beginning of the 20thc. and led to the Macedonian Struggle (1904-1908) and to the two Balkan

Wars (1912-13) which resulted in the liberation of Macedonia from the

Turksih yoke nad the recognition of the predominance of Hellenism in thearea through the annexation of the largest part of Macedonia to Greece.

Bulgarian aspirations were pursued in other forms both during the inter-


2/17



2

war period and after World War II. Then a new, radically revised

Yugoslavian communist policy was formulated with an integrated

programme aimed at putting forward the existence of a seperateMacedonian Nation. Today, after the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the

problem has become more acute since the once autonomous Republic ofSkopje now demands to be recognized by the international community asan independent state with the spurious name of Macedonia.

The present document cannot fully examine all the issues that have been

mentioned. However, there is a comprehensive bibliography in spite of thefact that there has not yet been a systematic and objective exploitation

of all the records and other sources. This paperis an attempt to be as

informative as possible and to provide an enlightening historical review of

the problem as it appears from the end of the World War II until today.

The birth of the 'People's Republic of Macedonia'

In Europe there are many place-names which have strong historical

associations, but none more so than Macedonia [2]. It is a measure of the

fame of the ancient Macedonians, that their name has survived for over2,500 years to describe a corner of the Balkan Peninsula, long after they

themselves ceased to play any important part in European history.

Today the geographical boundaries of Macedonia are difficult to define,

however, little is known about the new 'Macedonian question'.

For instance:

How well known is it in the world that in the Balkans there are two

Macedonias, separated by a common frontier?How many people know that the northern small landlocked Slavonic

Macedonia, known officially as the Former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia (FYROM), has a seat at the UN, whereas the historical Greek

Macedonia does not, because it is not a state but only a province ofGreece?

How many people know how and when this multi-ethnic state was created?

In order to forge a new nation-state from a population, various parts of

which possess a different national/ ethnical background or consciousness,


3/17



3

you need three key elements: a political motive, fabricated history and a

fabricated language.

Let's examine how the state of FYROM was created.

The geographical area which makes up FYROM today did not appear as'Macedonia' on any map before the Second World War. Its population is

mainly Slavonic and Albanian. In 1944 Tito announced the creation of the

'People's Republic of Macedonia' in order to provide a launching pad from

which to lay claim to Greek Macedonia and the warm-water port ofThessaloniki [3]. While the Western Allies were busy planning the future

of the Balkans, others had already shaped it. By the last quarter of 1944,

the communists were the indisputable rulers in Yugoslavia and were

working hard to become so in Bulgaria too.

POLITICALLY Tito had turned the old "Southern Serbia" (named as

Vardarska Banovina) into the "People's Republic of Macedonia", withouttaking the trouble to consult his Bulgarian or Greek comrades as he

entertained designs for the incorporation of all parts of geographical

Macedonia into his new federal unit [4]. The 'People's Republic ofMacedonia' was a political creation only, since its population, a polyglot

conglomeration of nationalities, had no substantial "Macedonian" national

consciousness. Tito's Macedonia, with Skopje as its capital, was createdin the same manner as Stalin's Belorussia after the end of the Bolshevik

revolution.

ETHNOLOGICALLY, Tito's new "Macedonian" republic was to be forgedout of a population with ethnic and linguistic ties to Albania, Bulgaria or

Serbia. The 1940 official Yugoslav census recognized only two large

ethnic groups in Vardar Province: Slavs at 69% and Muslims at 31%. In1945, three years after the formation of the 'People's Republic of

Macedonia', the Slavs disappeared from the census and were replaced by66% 'Macedonians'!

By recognizing the existence of a separate 'Macedonian' nation, the

Communist Party of Yugoslavia was able to gain control of Vardar

Macedonia and justify retaining it as part of the Yugoslav federation [5].In order to accomplish this it was necessary to eliminate the sense of

Bulgarian national identity shared by many inhabitants of the area. Since

this was clearly not in the interests of Yugoslavia, and since the inter-war


4/17



4

policy of Serbianization under the Yugoslav Kingdom had failed, the only

alternative was to recognize the Slavs of Vardar Macedonia as neither

Bulgarians nor Serbs, but as something else as.."Macedonians".

Recognizing the 'Macedonian' nation and establishing the 'People'sRepublic of Macedonia' was the most effective way for Yugoslav officialsto integrate Vardar Macedonia securely into the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia. Another motive behind the Communist Party of Yugoslavia's

decision to recognize the existence of a separate Macedonian nation was

its desire to extend Yugoslav control over Bulgarian and Greek Macedoniaas well [6].

LINGUISTICALLY the new nation needed a language and script. Initially

the spoken dialect of northern geographical Macedonia was chosen as thebasis for the "Macedonian" language. To sever the linguistic bonds

between the "Macedonians" and the others slavic speakers (Serbs and

Bulgarians), this new language was fabricated and touted as a separateMacedonian language, the language, it was said, of Alexander the Great!

Hupchick explains: "The new 'Macedonian' literary language intentionallywas based on a dialect spoken in the central Vardar area (Prilep-Bitola

region) to remove it geographically as far as possible from Bulgarian and

Serbian linguistic 'contaminations'. A separate 'Macedonian'Cyrillicalphabet (including wholly new letters & a few Serbiancharacters) was

devised to make the language different from Bulgarian.'Bulgarianisms'

were replaced by folk substitutes, and modern Bulgarian, Serbian or

Russian technical words and modern expressions intentionally wereavoided in favor of Western (including American) terms. Literary

Macedonian was as different as humanly possible from other slavic

languages, being a veritable linguistic hodgepodge approaching the Frenchmeaning of macedoine when referring to a mixed salad" [7].

To complete the charade, Tito's regime commissioned the linguist Blago

Konev (he changed his name later to Blaze Koneski) to devise an newalphabet. Koneski modified the Serbian version of the Cyrillic alphabet

and called it the "Macedonian alphabet". Koneski and his linguistics also

modified the Old Church Slavonic, (now named in the FYROM as "oldMacedonian"), and fabricated the lexicon of the "Macedonian" language

from a mixture of Bulgarian, Serb, Croat, Slovenian, and other Slavic


5/17



5

languages. The alphabet was accepted on 3 May 1945 and the orthography

on 7 June 1945.

The writing of a history for the 'People's Republic of Macedonia' had the

same goal as the creation of the language - to de-Bulgarianize the Slavsof Vardar Macedonia and create a separate national consciousness. SinceMarx claimed to have discovered the immutable laws of history,

communists have considered the "correct" interpretation of history as

the foundation of all social science and a key element of nationality. As

usual in the Balkans, history is a primary ingredient in the development ofnational consciousness. Hence, the Yugoslav communists were most

anxious to mould the history of the Macedonian region to fit their

conception of Slav Macedonian consciousness.

In the 1960s and 70s, the Yugoslavs established committees to concern

themselves with the "Macedonian" language and ethnicity in Yugoslavia

and abroad, trained teachers in the language, and sent linguists toAmerica, Canada, and Australia to teach the language and present

lectures on the existence of a special Slavic race, related to ancient

Macedonians. According to a 1944 U.S State Department Airgram, theU.S considered, "talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland",

or Macedonia "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery

representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revivala possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece"[8].

FYROM Aims [9]

Yugoslav "Macedonia", formed in 1946, consisted of the area previously

called "Southern Serbia" or Vardaska Banovina". Since 1946 the Yugoslavs

call it "Vardar Macedonia" (Vardarska Makedonia), referring to GreekMacedonia as "Aegean Macedonia" (Egeiska Makedonia) and to a small

Bulgarian part as "Pirin Macedonia" (Pirinska Makedonia).

They wanted to give a separate political and national existence to thisnewly-established socialist republic. As we know, the main characteristics

of a nation are unity of country (with the meaning of common fatherland)

and of political organisation, language, religion and heritage, which arejoined by a common past, common consciousness - characteristics which

alone are not enough or indeed necessary but which in combination create

the separate identity of a nation. They tried to give these characteristics


6/17



6

to the new "republic of Macedonia". They wanted, in other words, to

fabricate a nation. The means that they used were the following :

Separate state organization: All the local state organizations whichwere created, with Skopje as the centre, within the framework ofthe federal government of Yugoslavia, were called "Macedonian":"Macedonian government", "Macedonian Parliament", etc. Thus this

term acquired a new political and state dimension, which in the

course of time became established.

Separate language: The Yugoslav Constitution recognized a localdialect as the official language; it was called "Macedonian" and was

considered equal to the Serbo-Croatian and the Slovenian

languages14a. This "Macedonian" dialect, which until then had only

been considered a dialect of the Bulgarian language, "was purged"of lingustic elements which might create disputes in the future,

became the official language of the reagion, and has been taught in

schools ever since. Thus the children started using it and becameaccustomed to it, whichever language or dialect they used at home.

In this way the new postwar generation of the region acquired a

new linguistic instrument which was imposed "from above", by statewill and for political reasons.

Independent Church: Despite the fact that communist ideologydoes not accept religion, religious sentiment was deeply rooted inthe inhabitants of the region and the Church was closely related to

their historical traditions. It is for this reason that the

"Autocephalous Macedonian Church" was founded in 1964, after

communist party intervention, with Ochrid as its seat, despite thestrong reactions of the Serbian Patriarchate. This emancipation

was a blatant violation of the canon law of the Orthodox Church

and was effected in order to reinforce the autonomy of"Macedonia" vis-a-vis Serbia - as autonomy which was expressed by

the slogan "One State, one Church, one Nation". Separate nationality: In order that their political existence could

be consolidated and their general political aims strengthened, itwas essential that the population of the region became consious of

Macedonia as a separate nation. For this reason they attempted to

create and propagate a "Macedonian" national cosniousness amongstthe inhabitants of Southern Yugoslavia. In this endeavour it was

essential to project a separate historical past, to "fabricate" a

"Macedonian" history. Historians were mobilized and an "Institute


7/17



7

of National History" was founded in Skopje. It was instantly

staffed by many scholars who started conducting extensive

research in libraries and archives, gathering a huge amount ofmaterial 16 and publishing books, reviews and journals at an

impressive rate. By means of their studies and publications theyattemped to reconstruct and re-interpret historical data in orderto fulfil their objectives.

Their first aim was and is to cut off every link between the so-called

"Macedonians" and the Bulgarians, as a well as the Serbs, and to convincethe people that they belonged to a separate Slavic nation, the

"Macedonian" one. Therefore the history of the region, as well as the

language, had to be "purged" of all Bulgarian and Serbian elements. All

Bulgarian and Serbian historical data connected to that region - historicalevents, people, activities and intellectual work - were renamed

"Macedonian", so that they could be incorporated into the new

"Macedonian" history which was then being written, or, if they did not fitinto the new historical frame work and guidelines, they were denounced

as hostile.

The second aim was and is to eliminate Greek character of Macedonia and

Macedonian history; and this would be achieved by minimizing the Greek

presence in this region and misinterpreting or falsifying their role,specifically the cultural and intellectual contribution of Hellenism, the

orthodox Greek clergy and Greek schools.

The third aim was and is to search for, fabricate and project thehistorical development of the so-called "Macedonian people", so as to

prove the separate national identity of the "Macedonians", as well as

their cohesion and continuity from ancient times until today. It should benoted that this attempt was the reverse of normal methods: that is, they

studied modern history first and turned to the study of Antiquitylater20.

The fourth aim was and is to create a Great Idea, which would bring

awareness to the masses. So the historians of Skopje started declaring

that Macedonia, as a whole, was a Slavic country both in its historicaltradition and its ethnic composition. For this reason, it had to be united

and form a unified state. After World War II, only the Yugoslavian part

was re-established nationally within the framework of the Yugoslav


8/17



8

Federation. The other two parts, Aegean Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia

would have to be restored, i.e., to be united with Yugoslav Macedonia.

At this point there was a deliberate distortion not only of historical

events but also of contenporary numerical data and statistics referring tothe composition of the population of Greek Macedonia.

FYROM Name issue

Words are of singular importance in the Balkans. Unfortunately, they may

also be understood in different ways by different people. The term

Macedonia, for instance, denotes a geographical region that overlaps theterritory of three separate states. Some 51 per cent of it lies in Greece,

38 per cent in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, or FYROM,

and 11 per cent lies in Bulgaria.

When one of those states put forward an exclusive claim to the name

Macedonia in the early 1990s, barely veiling its underlying revisionistand irredentist ideology that claims the entire region of Macedonia for

itself, there was naturally a reaction; a reaction that was brought before

the UN Security Council. This resolved:

a. UN membership would be granted to the new state under the

provisional name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;

b. negotiations would be initiated to resolve the name issue;c. unresolved, the dispute constitutes a threat to the stability of

Southeast Europe.

These initial negotiations culminated in 1995 in an interim accord between

Greece and FYROM. Based on this agreement, the two countriesestablished diplomatic relations and agreed to work within the framework

of UN-mediated negotiations to quickly resolve the name issue.

Some 14 years have passed since then; 14 years during which Greece in

sincere pursuit of an equitable compromise has sought a middle groundin which the two sides might realistically discuss a mutually acceptable

solution. Meanwhile, a succession of FYROM governments has paid scant

heed to the Interim Accord, thus undermining the intent of the relevant


9/17



9

UN resolutions. Their strategy, as the countrys current leaders both

the President and the Prime Minister have stated, has been to prolong

the negotiations and gain time in which to achieve their countrysaccession to NATO and the EU, at which point they will be able to force

their position on Greece.

Late in 2007, in the light of FYROMs candidacy for NATO membership,

the UN Secretary Generals special envoy to the Greece-FYROM talks,

Matthew Nimetz, attempted to accelerate the process through more

frequent meetings. But when a mutually acceptable solution had still notbeen found in April 2008, the NATO Summit held that month decided

unanimously not to extend a membership invitation to FYROM, given the

non-resolution of the issue ie FYROMs failure to satisfy the criterion

of good neighbourly relations with a NATO member state.

In June 2008, Nimetz put forward a detailed proposal that FYROM

rejected out of hand. Nimetz has since drawn up three additionalproposals and the FYROM side has rejected all three. Greece responded

to all of these proposals with constructive observations and a willingness

to engage in dialogue.

FYROM has opted for propaganda over dialogue, mounting a well-

prepared, calculated smear campaign against Greece, while also trying toinsinuate various non-issues into the negotiations, attempting to turn the

talks into a platform for grievances, demands and claims against Greece.

FYROM has even tried to reopen World War II issues that European

countries have put behind them for good; issues that have no place in ourcommon journey towards ever closer union.

Then, in November 2008, FYROM took its delay tactics to a new level byinstituting proceedings against Greece at the International Court of

Justice, opting for litigation over dialogue and laying bare its lack of willto pursue a mutually acceptable solution.

Athens was neither surprised nor concerned at this last move. It was to

be expected from a government that with its 19th-century mindset

sees a mutually acceptable solution as defeat. A government that prefersthe closed doors of nationalism to the open door of European integration:

a door opened by Greece itself at the 2003 Thessaloniki European

Council, offering FYROM candidate status.


10/17



10

Greece was expecting this move, and in short order we appointed our ad

hoc judge and our legal advisors, setting up support teams andformulating our legal and political strategy. We will neither rush nor dally.

We will choose when to move with great care and careful planning. SinceFYROM has chosen the judicial route, we will make full use of the ICJprocedures.

Nevertheless, we cannot but note the paradox of these proceedings.

After almost two decades of systematically violating UN resolutions andthe Interim Accord, while stubbornly persisting in using its constitutional

name which is what the dispute is all about FYROM has instituted

proceedings at the ICJ under its constitutional name in order to keep its

provisional name from being sullied in the proceedings a provisional nameit has never accepted and never had any intention of using.

Words are of singular importance in the Balkans, but unfortunately they may also be understood differently by different people. Greece

believes that problems can be resolved through dialogue, and we have

shown this. We believe that all the countries of the Balkans belong to theEuropean family, and we have worked to realise this vision. But in the case

of the name issue, we feel we have hit a wall. The other side has

abandoned dialogue in favour of propaganda, delay tactics and thecultivation of intolerance. We will have the opportunity to discuss all of

this in court.

Slav Macedonian minority in Greece

There has never been a Macedonian minority in Greece. Any individual

who claims to belong to a distinct ethnic or cultural group is free to do soand there are no negative consequences resulting from such an expression

of wish. However, subjective claims or perceptions of a small number ofpersons, which are not based on objective facts and criteria, do not

establish by themselves a corresponding obligation of the State toofficially recognize a group as a minority and to guarantee to its

members specific minority rights, additional to those guaranteed by

human rights treaties.


11/17



11

There is a small number of people in Greek Macedonia, mainly in the

prefecture of Florina, who, apart from Greek, speak a Slav dialect, which

is confined to family or colloquial use.

In fact, the non-recognition of a group as a minority, enjoying specificminority rights, on the basis of solid legal and factual grounds, doesnotdeprive persons belonging to such group from the enjoyment of all

civil,cultural, economic, political and social rights, which are recognized

undernational and international law.

Greece has ratified the most important international treaties for

theprotection of human rights and has adopted a series of measures,

legislative and other, for their implementation. The provisions of the

above mentioned international treaties have been fully integrated intothe Greek legislation and once ratified by law, prevail over internal

legislation. Both the judiciary and the administration are bound by the

Greek Constitution to implement these provisions. Moreover, every personwho considers that his or her rights are being breached can take the case

to the Greek courts. They also have the possibility to appeal to the

competent international bodies, as provided forunder the relevanttreaties.

Rainbow party

A political party claiming to represent the so-called Macedonianminority in Greece, called the Rainbow party, was set up in 1994. Since

then it participates freely in both National Elections as well as in the

Elections for the European Parliament. In the 1996 National Elections it

was voted by)13.476 people (percentage of 0,05%). During the April 2000parliamentary elections the party joined other minor parties into a

coalition called OAKKE (Organization for the Reconstruction of theCommunist Party of Greece) which received overall a percentage of0,017% (namely, 1139 votes). During the elections for the European

Parliament of 2004, the coalition of parties to which the Rainbow Party

belonged, received the percentage of 0, 10 (6.138 votes). Most probably,

due to the fact that in the course of the last years the partys number ofvotes has decreased significantly, it decided not to participate in the

National Elections of 2004 and 2007. The small number of votes this

party is receiving at elections taking place in Greece could serve as a


12/17



12

proof that it does not manage to win the support of the people it is

claiming to represent.

With regard to the issue of the sign located at the entrance of

theoffices of the Rainbow Party, depicting the name of the party in theSlavic dialect, it should be noted that the local population, including thosethat the party is claiming to represent, are the first ones to feel

disturbed and the protagonists of the complaints for such a provocative

action, as they do not wish to become tools in serving the interests ofpolitical aspirations and foreign propaganda they do not share.

Cultural and religious freedoms

The Greek Constitution guarantees full protection of human rightsandliberties of all persons residing in Greece, irrespective of their

nationality, language, religious or political affiliation. Everyone is free to

declare his/her origin, speak his/her language, exercise his/her religionand observe his/her particular customs and traditions.

The festivities and cultural events that regularly take place in the regionof Florina are integral part of the local populations culture and should not

bethe vehicle of a small number of people who are trying to usurp thecultural particularity of the region, which is also attributed to its border-character, as well as the cultural and historical heritage of the Greek

Macedonia .

Establishment of Slav Macedonian Cultural Centers in Greece

It is to be noted that the adjective Macedonian is being extensivelyused in the Greek region of Macedonia as well as throughout the country

andthe diaspora by Greeks originating from Macedonia. There are

hundreds ofscientific, business, professional and sports associationswhich bear theMacedonian name to denote their regional and/or cultural

provenance.

The use of the word Macedonian for the denomination of an association

founded by a small number of individuals who attach to it a different


13/17



13

meaning, in terms of culture or origin, would inevitably create great

confusion as to what they actually mean or pursue by using this word. One

would assume that this association is a Greek-Macedonian one, likehundreds of other Greek associations bearing the word Macedonian in

their denomination, while, in fact, it refers to another, different culture.

Moreover, the use of the term Macedonian by an association of asmall

number of people, with a different ethnic and cultural identity, negatively

affects the exercise of the rights of the majority of the population of

the region, which attaches to the term a completely different meaning.Consequently, the exercise of the right of self-identification by a small

number of people could be viewed as a deliberate effort to prevent the

whole population of the region to determine themselves with the name

Macedonian.

The use of the Macedonian language and the obligation to be

introduced in the educational programs in Greek schools

Every person has the right to freely speak the Slavic dialect. In fact,people who wish to do so sing in Slavic at festivities organised regularly

by the local communities. Another expression of the free use of this

dialect in Greece is the fact that the idiom is being developed and is

spoken in different forms in some villages of the region.

Efforts being made by the Rainbow party, seconded by the official

authorities of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, to namethisdialect Macedonian language and claim that it should be introduced

in the educational programs of Greek schools of the region is politically

motivated. Such a claim is not even supported by the small number ofpeople who, apart from Greek, speak the dialect. The use of the

Macedonian language in Greek schools is one of the main priorities for

the Rainbow party, but such an agenda does not seem to be attractive forthe people of the region.

It is surprising to observe the persistence by which the Rainbow Partyand the official authorities in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

are trying to establish the term Macedonian language when referring to

this dialect. Such an effort runs contrary to the fact that scholars in

international linguistic conferences (a) have defined the dialect as well asthe language spoken in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as


14/17



14

being of Slavic character and (b) that the term Macedonian could only

be applied to the Greek dialect spoken in Ancient Macedonia.

It is obvious from the above that efforts to upgrade and rename thesaid

dialect are politically motivated and resulting in harming the culturaldiversity of the region where the dialect is spoken, as well as insulting 2,5million people in Greek Macedonia, who attach to the terms Macedonia

and Macedonian a completely different meaning.

One should also bear in mind that the Slavic idiom spoken in Greek

Macedonia is not identical with the language spoken in the Former

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Given the above, it is clear that the Greek state has no obligation

tointroduce the Slavic dialect in the educational programs of Greek

schools in the region.

The use of the term Macedonia

Exercising the right of self-identification should not result in harming

neighbouring countries, nor should it imply territorial claims against them.

Macedonia is a geographical region which extends beyond onesovereignty, that is Greece, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,

Bulgaria and Albania all include different parts of geographic Macedonia

intheir own sovereign territories.

The problem arises because one country, the Former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia, insists on monopolizing the name of this particular geographic

region as the name of its own state and nation, although a) the FormerYugoslav Republic of Macedonias sovereignty extends only in part (35%)

over this region and b) another state, Greece, which includes 55% ofgeographic Macedonia in its sovereign territory, uses the same name. Notsurprisingly, this name constitutes the foremost element for the self

definition of the Greek population (2,5 million people) in Macedonia, yet

with a completely different content than that in the Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia.

From this perspective, the use of the name Macedonia by the Former

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, without any further clarification or

definition, is totally misleading, because it directs to the erroneous


15/17



15

identification of millions of citizens of one state (Greece) with that of

the citizens of a neighboring state (the Former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia), who have a totally different perception of themselves, theirculture, their ethnic identity and language.

It is more than obvious that a same term for two completely differentcases, provokes only confusion on every level and in every sector

(semantic, symbolic, geographic, ethnological, linguistic, etc.), with

consequences which, in any case, are negative, dangerous and totally

unnecessary for all sides concerned.

Greece does not claim exclusive rights on the geographical region of

Macedonia, but is opposed to efforts of falsification of history, resulting

in monopolizing a certain culture and heritage.

Property issues

Quite recently, FYROM Prime Minister Gruevski undertook - through aseries ofletters addressed to a large number of countries - an effort to

derail andundermine the UN negotiation process, by raising well-known

unacceptable property issues of people that left Greece in the aftermath

of the Second World War.

We recall the reply already given by the Greek Prime Minister to his

counter part of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, stating thatallegations raised by our neighbouring country are unacceptable,

unfounded, politically motivated and disrespectful of the historic reality

of the region.

In any case, any individual could make use of any legal recourse before

the Courts on such issues, including the European Court of Human Rightsin Strasbourg, and does certainly not need to be patronized by the PrimeMinister of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Epilogue

At the outset, it appears that the Greeks reject outright the existence

of a "Macedonian nation", a "Macedonian language" and even a

"Macedonian republic". A more careful study of Greek views, however,


16/17



16

would reveal that the Greeks do not dispute the existence of a nation,

a language or a republic after 1944, but they rather refute the

legitimacy of the appropriation of the Macedonian name for defining a

Slavic population in the Balkans. For the Greeksas for the Bulgarians

the name "Macedonian" is merely a geogra*phical term that appliesequally to any native of the wider Macedonian region, irrespective of hisor her national identity. Unlike the Bulgarians, for the Greeks the name

by itself is a cherished historical feature, an inseparable element of

Greek cultural heritage for well over two and a half millennia.

Understandably, it is highly unlikely to expect them to consent to thearbitrary appropriation of the Macedonian name by a Slavic people across

their frontiers.

NOTES[1]-For more detail read the Macedonian Question by Maria Pelekidoy-

Nystazopoulou in

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9377887/The-Macedonian-Questionor

http://modern-macedonian-

history.blogspot.com/search/label/Macedonian%20Questionor

http://www.hri.org/docs/macque/

[2] - http://www.etymonline.com/. English term of "Macedonia" derivedfrom the Latin Macedonius "Macedonian," from Gk. Makedones, lit.

"highlanders" or "the tall ones," related to makednos "long, tall," makros

"long, large"(see macro-).

[3] - International Organization, Vol. 1, No. 3, (Sep., 1947), pp.494-508.Appointed under the Security Council resolution of December 19, 1946,

the "Commission of Investigation Concerning Greek Frontier Incidents"on May 27, 1947 submitted a report, to the Security Council.The general

conclusion of the UN Commission as about Macedonia issue, was that

Yugoslav and Bulgarian Governments themselves revived and promoted aseparatist movement among the Slav minorities in Macedonia.In making

this finding, the Commission pointed out that some 20,000 Greek citizens

had fled to Yugoslavia and some 5,000 to Bulgaria most of them Slavs
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9377887/The-Macedonian-Questionhttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/search/label/Macedonian%20Questionhttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/search/label/Macedonian%20Questionhttp://www.hri.org/docs/macque/http://www.hri.org/docs/macque/http://www.etymonline.com/http://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/07/report-of-commission-of-investigation.htmlhttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/07/report-of-commission-of-investigation.htmlhttp://www.etymonline.com/http://www.hri.org/docs/macque/http://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/search/label/Macedonian%20Questionhttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/search/label/Macedonian%20Questionhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/9377887/The-Macedonian-Question


17/17



17

and that the treatment of this group by Greek officials had "provided

fertile breeding ground for separatist movements." In Yugoslavia,

Macedonian separatism was the special goal of an organization called theNOF (National Labor Front) which had its headquarters in Skopje and

Monastirion(Bitola).

[4] The Macedonian Question, Britain and the Southern Balkans 1939-

1949, Dimitrios Livanios, page 245.

[5] -Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian Question, Palmer and King ,page 199.

[6]- The Macedonian Conflict, Loring Danforth, page 66.

[7]- Dennis Hupchick, The Balkans from Constantinople to Communism,

2002, p.430.

[8] -US Department, CircularAirgram(868.014/26 Dec. 1944)

[9]- Macedonian Question by Maria Pelekidoy-Nystazopoulou, pages 11-16

Bibliographyhttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/search/label/Books
http://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/08/macedonian-question-britain-and.htmlhttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/08/macedonian-question-britain-and.htmlhttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/06/yugoslav-communism-and-macedonian.htmlhttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/06/yugoslav-communism-and-macedonian.htmlhttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/07/documents-and-macedonia-ii.htmlhttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/search/label/Bookshttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/search/label/Bookshttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/search/label/Bookshttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/07/documents-and-macedonia-ii.htmlhttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/06/yugoslav-communism-and-macedonian.htmlhttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/06/yugoslav-communism-and-macedonian.htmlhttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/08/macedonian-question-britain-and.htmlhttp://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/08/macedonian-question-britain-and.html

Documents

Modern Macedonian question - What is it all about?