RSS

August 7, 2009

Colette Grace Mazzucelli, Hofstra University / New York University, Platinum Contributor (333)

Dear Professor Stock:

Thank you for your commentary. I agree with your analysis. My question concerns the consensus rule in the Union.

Do you believe that this matter will be judged sufficiently threatening to European interests across a series of accession cases in time that some form of abstention in voting may eventually be urged on recalcitrant member states in this vital area?

If this is not the case, what type of leverage in negotiations on other issues could the Union and/or specific member states exert on Greece and Slovenia to change the dynamic with regard to accession for the candidate countries?

In the case of Macedonia and NATO entry, this difficulty continues as the new Secretary General begins his tenure. It will be informative to observe how the issue of institutional enlargement is addressed in this context, particularly as negotiations regarding the new strategic concept evolve.

All the best and greetings from New York, Professor Colette Mazzucelli

August 7, 2009

Dr. Marios Efthymiopoulos

Dear Professor,

Your article and opinions are quite interesting to me. Please allow me to be sincere. I cannot do politics in such cases. Not as an academic nor as a greek, nor as a European or Atlantisist. Negotiating is one thing. Implying something negative in nature is another.

It seems however you are forgetting several important matters that are of concern to all European States including any future for negotations such as FYROM or Croatia. At the same time no need to tell you that there is an ongoing talk about the future of the UN and the UN security Council, which entails that no matter who has what power is no longer as powerful as are rising countries such as India and as much as practical application have the UN security Resolutions.

Now coming back to the matter. and I am not putting more fire to the word "extortion" as you imply, which I consider politically offensive by anyone whether country or person, even more importantly when it becomes public. To what concernts FYROM, allow me to remind you that this country is just another sudden official creation of neighbouring Yugoslavia's dissintegration with unfortunate events and many innocent casualties on any side. Therefore, FYROM's creation as a state is just17 years old and no more. Now who can result or alter history's land about the Geographical location of Macedonia? Macedonia the disputed name over dates back to the times of Ancient Greece, where Greeks spoke still as they are now Greek (yet in less land due to the global events over historical periods) and where the future of the land initially depended on Phillip the first, then phillip the second. Fortunately for their descendents Alexander became "Great" over his conquer of the Middle East, Eastern Balkans, North Africa and Central Asia taking it as far as the borders of Today's Pakistan with India and ancient Babylonia, conquering also Afghanistan. So I am sorry to say but no country, no place, no people can claim the right to alter history as it was written. One descendency based on culture, language, grounds' history ruins. All in Ancient Greek. Macedonia which in fact is spelled with a (k) Makedonia is not the disputte as a land. FYROM includes only a 15 % of the land and no more. If there is one country to be disputting something is its own security, sovereignty, integrity, stability, rule of law, respect of human rights, and respect of neighbouring's rights and history. These issues in turn are practical and not academic and most of them are located within the Acquis Communautaire. Extortion is not an argument neither is the claim of such as glorious right of history.

At the same time people should aknowledge that FYROM's future depends on its own right to govern its people. That is the EU way, we believe in the South-East Europe or otherwise west Balkans. That is a good choice if you think how pround each countryman in these countries is. Otherwise as was the case with Yugoslavia, cases of dissintegration may occur. No need to remind what happened in 2001 in Skopje, no need to remind that there is quite a diversity of different nationalities there. No need to express that without roots to the land no single entity can exist as a state. And that is where the mistake happen. Greece is not offended, nor offends anyone neither do its people. Yet no Greek and defenetely no country such as China or Russia, or France, or Italy or Spain or Britain, with a Great and glorious history can be intimidated. History of the 20th century has proven that over all wars that occured. Greeks are proud to be located in these areas as they were for centuries, whether in the east-west south or north. Instead of their policies to resemble ours were we have a common ground, FYROM embarked in this madness of dillusional policies where they claim that Alexander was from where?

And one more imporant thing. It seems to me that you are trying to include both Croatia and FYROM at the same level. I do not believe this is the case: 1) Croatia was always there 2) Croats do respect every single one country including their neightbours. They did desolve their ability but always worked they way up even better than Greece many times. They were never intimidated and never did sudden allies with other states just to claim more support as FYROM did. They never ever tried to write history as they had one always. FYROM never did. It claims it does just to remain as a democratic and fully consolidating country. Practically Croatia has what was need in terms of the Acquis. Just some simple negotiations and legal interpretations and alterations. This is the case with slovenia-croatia dispute in fact. Lastly, Croatia never claimed the western powers to join in in peacekeeping or peacemaking operations prior than fighting for something they actually believed in. FYROM requested NATO in 2001 to get involved as peace-enforcers. At the same time they used this operation just to claim North Atlantic ideology. I believe this is not enough to join NATO. Not withstanding the fact that they have no money to offer no troops, no stability of the area no rule of law and many more.

It is therefore my belief that Croatia 's case not so important. Croatia will join the EU. This is its destiny. FYROM's case is clear and said to the world. No respect no European future. That is the case. Realistic politics is now applied. First Class teaching was at the Bucharest NATO Summit in 2004. They did not get it. I therefore suggest they do change not only their policies but rather their government if I am allowed to say. Their citizens are not to be blamed. Europe is the future for them for multiple reasons. As was for Greece in 1981.

The idea of being European therefore means respect for all Europe's countries. "Europe" was a godess from mount Olympus. if Greece is not respected then "Europe" is not. How can Europe as today's name for the Union and the organisation and soon its constitution can be respected?

I believe that enough is said. I am certain that in the case of central Makedonia which is called in Greece out of admnistrative government ruling and based on the land's history you shall see that we did not imply the name firstly administratively in 1988 but in Modern Greece since 1912 and prior to this in 123 b.c. That was when Alexander the Great died and his General's in one of their respected gestures gave to a city the name of his sister as she was dying waiting for him in the shores of the land. Today this City is called Thessaloniki. A city that portrays the past and the future. Where Vergina's sun of Alexander's MAkedonian Empire has given glory and a future. What no academic no historian can claim unless he sees or examines them in archeological monuments.

Aristotle the philosopher, who was also a Makedon, from Athitos, Chalkidiki, Makedonia, taught Alexander to be patient, to listen but also to respect and constantly learn. This was written on his first philosphies. These also were taught to Alexander. The language was ancient Greek. This was is still is the language and culture of Makedonia. FYROM's language is in fact close to Bulgarian than Greek.

If they do therefore claim to be Greek please let them say that. Therefore they are Europeans, Atlantisists. Otherwise, they need to learn how to read, to respect and learn, other cultures and civilisations, trade and co-operate, exercise politics as the Athenian City-state did, what alexander the Great applied in his first Alliance ever -the Corinthian- true to the security needs of the Atlantic community today.

I therefore do believe that the flu is in our European border steps as well but not in and not like this. Unless a vaccine is found no entity shall enter. Croatia seems to have found the solution. It is now part of NATO. FYROM is a long way.

I thank you for your attention. I hope you understand the importance of being clear and write on this matter.

August 9, 2009

Clayton Macdonald, , Silver Contributor (35)

To the casual observer, it seems that the E.U. has lost its way. It seems as if it no longer has any interest in building rational, efficient and, especially, democratic governance that transcends parochial interests. It seems as if it no longer is attempting to build a borderless society that favors ensuring for everyone the basics of equity and opportunity. It seems to no longer work toward the development of improved institutions that would enable those conditions, so desired and so natural to most human beings.

Instead, to the casual observer, it seems that the EU is being used as a weapon by callow and craven politicians, by nationalistic egotists, and by economic opportunists to achieve their own, self-aggrandizing visions.

For one who quite simply loves the inspirational foundations and the visionary potential of the EU, it is truly sad to see it flounder and gasp like, well, a flounder, cast upon the shore. Perhaps a more fitting metaphor is to consider the EU to be so like a lovely goose, so promising of providing golden eggs, but, instead, being slowly and steadily killed by a greedy, squabbling, politically motivated rabble.

This appears to be exactly the principle at work in Marios Efthymiopoulos's response of August 7, if I understand his point correctly. What has happened to the vision? What has happened to the focus on the big picture? What has happened to belief in democracy, the belief that the majority is always right?

I acknowledge that we now have no effective institution to determine what the majority wants. And we, the people, aren't even sure of what we want because we have so few objective means of analysis and communication at our disposal. The latter assertion may sound crazy in this age of computers and ubiquitous data transmission, but, amid all the shouting, all the bullying, all the dire predictions, how balanced is anyone's analysis, how equal is anyone's voice?

These are the problems that should remain at the center of the E.U.'s policy making. But, at least to the casual observer, it appears otherwise and the questions remain: Is the E.U. truly interested in building democracy, or does it really prefer the zero sum games of electoral processes based on design dating back at least to the 18th century? Does it really, in the end, prefer stodgy, traditional parochialism and fear of the Other?

Tragedy is when a hero fails and is brought down by internal flaws. In that sense, to the casual observer, the EU's story, at present, is truly tragic, the Lisbon Treaty is symbolic of that tragedy, and the hope of my hero's redemption seems ever dimmer.

August 10, 2009

Hennadiy A. Kovalenko, Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, Bronze Contributor (23)

Dear Professor Stock,

I think that the most dangerous things for whole Europe currently are the separatism of the small countries and the chauvinism of the big ones.

We must understand that ethnical Europe and geographical Europe are two different things. Ethnical clear country is not able to exist within current geopolitical environment.

There are at least three main close-related obstacles on the road of European consolidation:
First – historical background;
Second – current perceptions and stereotypes;
Third – future vision.

Speaking about further expansion of the European Union now, we can see clear example how the EU wants to run before it actually is able to walk properly.

More I read about powerful International organizations, more I believe in necessity of strong primate of internal policy.

Thank you any way.

August 10, 2009

andreas raab, Ohrid Institute for economic strategies and international affaires, (4)

Dear Professor Stock,

thank you very much for flagging out the problems of the blocked EU candidate countries Croatia and Macedonia. One of the reasons for the missing attention is the lack of information about the background of the problem.

Let me add some facts about Macedonia and the dispute with Greece: The Republic of Macedonia, the most southern republic of the former Yugoslavia is a quite a success story since the independence, which was reached peacefully. From the independence on, Macedonia had a multiethnic Government and has today a government in which the parties of all the ethic groups from the biggest to the smallest are included. The constitution was drafted with the help of Robert Badinter (former French minister of Justice) and Roman Herzog (former President of the German constitutional court and former Federal President) and amended after the Ohrid agreement in 2001 with important articles for the rights of the different ethnicities like their political participation in the parliament, the use of their languages and their education in the mother tongue from primary school to university. The institutions of the young state were build up and strengthened with the help of international partners.
I want to mention here as an example the police which was trained and organised very successfully by the Brandenburg police. A confirmation for this work is the recent decision of the EU commission that Macedonia as only country from SEE has undertaken already all measures for border management, policing, successful fight against organised crime, corruption and trafficking to receive from January 2010 the visa-free entry to the Schengen states for her citizens.

Looking to the military sector, this policy is confirmed as well. 1998/99 Macedonia hosted the NATO troops for the Kosovo operation (and 380.000 Kosovo – refugees at the same time!) and changed from a short consumer of international security during the crisis in 2001 which was settled on the negotiation table in Ohrid very fast to a contributor to international security. Macedonian troops were in Iraq and are participating in the EU missions in Bosnia and Lebanon and in the NATO mission in Afghanistan with several hundred troops. Quite significant numbers for a small army of only a few thousand soldiers!

Next to this institutional stability the Macedonian Government had also implemented a careful finance policy with a stable budget, stable currency which is linked to the Euro since years and is therefore the state in SEE hit the least by the financial and economic crisis.

Without the irrational dispute with Greece Macedonia would have no problems to join the NATO and start the accession negotiations with the EU!

Thanks to the article of Dr Efthimopoulos one can understand the absurd Greek position better. In the rest of Europe history and historic figures connect countries, regions and people: for example Karl the Great – Charlemagne Germans and French or the holy Hedwig – Jadwiga Poles and Germans. In Greece ancient and medieval history and personalities are stopped and contained by borders made in the 20th century.
Macedonia has made a lot of important steps to settle the dispute and ensure Greece the peaceful, good neighbourly relations with amendments to the constitution which exclude territorial claims against neighbours or the change of the national flag, which Greece claimed as national symbol.
The change of the state name, but even more the change of the national identity and name of the language of the Macedonian majority population as demanded from Greece would be a dangerous step in a multiethnic society and state, which is based on ethnicity and destabilise what is till today a success model and success story on the Balkans! The EU institutions but also the important European leaders are urgently called to give an answer of the 21.century to this question.

Many thanks to Atlantic-Community for opning this discussion!

August 12, 2009

Goran Popcan

Dear Prof. Stock,

thank you very much for opening this important issue. Common values must be valid for every member state who blocks the integration of other states due to some bilateral problems.

Especially the name issue between Greece and Macedonia.

Like Andreas Raab already mentioned, Macedonia is a leading country in the balkan region, fullfilling all required criteria, but this fact seems to be not important when it comes to the name issue with Greece. An issue, which is absolutely absurd.

The mistake Greece is making is, it is transfering ancient history to the present, without mentioning the 2.000 years of progress, shifts, and other changes, which are in between.
Like the Macedonian, the Greeks as well have no relationship to the ancient people from the ancient time. The are mixed with different people. Unfortunately, Greece's myth of a pure race and nation is still in the heads of the greek people. The Macedonians have the right to call themselves like the country, the territory in which they live. Like other people, the adpoted the name of the land and call them self like it. Like the Pontos-Greek, who came to Greece (New Territories - Macedonia) in the 1920, they today call themselves as Macedonians in a regional sense. This so called Territory Principle has to be used for the Republic of Macedonia as well. The people living there have the right to call themselves Macedonians. Every country on the world has no compliant about this, but Greece. This is the reason, why there cannot be found a solutions. The Macedonians are right, but Greece as a lot of influence.

This great mistake is causing the problem. Politically, the name issue can be solved (www.makedonisch-griechisches-projekt.eu), but unfortunately, the greek public is handling this issue emotionally, not rational. Eliminating these emotions could help both parties to find a solution.

Bearing in mind, that Greece has a big influence within the EU, it was never fined for misbehauvour.
- Greece faked their national monetary statistics for 10 years to meet the criteria to enter the EURO-zone. No fine from the EU!
- Greece is denying all minorities, living in the Hellenic Republic. No fine so far from the EU.
- Greece is blocking the EU strategy for the Balkan and risking instability in the region.

Bilateral conflict can be solved, but they should not be the reason blocking a country.

August 12, 2009

Wolfgang R Stock, Convincet GmbH, (10)

Dear Professor Mazzucelli,
thank you for your thoughts! I am afraid that consensus rule (or more bluntly: veto rights) will stay for a long time – at least in vital questions, including new members. This is understand able, since the EU is a union composed of nation states that have given up their sovereignty voluntarily. The new treaty will bring quite dramatically reduce consensus rule, but not abolish it.
Quite another question is – why do let the other (and bigger) members let Greece and now Slovenia get away with the clear breach of rules and values? My analysis: The other EU members are shying away from conflicts within the EU – and both victims, Macedonia as well as Croatia, have behaved too nicely. They are “Musterknaben”, having done all homework demanded by the EU (in case of Macedonia being host for many hundred thousands of NATO troops employed in, and refugies from, Kosovo – and never been a threat to the West or to regional stability. And Croatia under Ivo Sanader has been a guarantor for stability for years. Both countries are considered to “survive” the hostility of the EU neighbors.
Speaking up within the EU against the of the EU members Greece and Slovenia would mean “war” – because of consensus rule in important topics either country could block EU development. No diplomat would wish this to happen.
Bottom line: The EU lacks instruments and procedures against members that are exploiting it. If this – and I fear that Slovenia proves that it does – the EU is prone to failure.
Best regards from Berlin!
Yours
Wolfgang Stock

August 12, 2009

Wolfgang R Stock, Convincet GmbH, (10)

Dear Dr. Efthymiopoulos,
may I answer on a personal note: When I was a student and member of Paneuropean Youth, I campaigned for Greek membership in EU (the: EEC). Back in 1981, many people inside the EEC then did not believe that Greece was up to it - but I belived that a country that had become democratic, believed in the European values and accepted our values and rules should be entitled to become a member.
Nobody then discussed the name of your cuntry - it was entirely up to you. So be it with Macedonia. I think it unacceptable that a neighboring country presumes the right to judge upon other states culture and name.
Sicne Greece does so, I would, conversely, like to bring up the topic of national minorities. Greece is the only EU country I know that proclaims not to have ANY MINORITIES. This is absurd and could only be explained by forceful assimilations in the 20th century (for which there is much evidence). Ignoring and silencing this evidence would make Greece an unacceptablepartner within the EU - as crimes against minorities in past and present have to be dealt with.
If Greece would account for its past (20th century, not Alexander the Great), it would have a more unbiased view on its neighbor Macedonia.
Best regards from Berlin!
Yours
Wolfgang Stock

August 12, 2009

Colette Grace Mazzucelli, Hofstra University / New York University, Platinum Contributor (333)

Thank you, Professor Stock, for this analysis in response to my questions and for your kind greetings from Berlin, a city I enjoy very much.

As an educator who has followed European integration since the mid-1980s, it strikes me that one of the challenges inherent in successive enlargements is for the larger Union to confront recalcitrant member states. I appreciate your comments as to why this poses such difficulties.

In the past, various mechanisms were devised, core or Kern Europe, multi-speed Europe, concentric circles, etc.. Yet, there was always the issue that one state can hold the rest hostage. Now with more mini-states, the rule that some members are more equal than others does not have the meaning to prevent this consensus blackmail, for lack of a better term to use.

When we discuss a region like the FRY, this is a particularly disturbing phenomenon because the potential for latent conflicts to surface is genuine. This is an area where the developments in the EU operations in recent years, EUFOR ALTHEA, for example, are noteworthy. Yet these investments in manpower and money are at the mercy of the member states that refuse to see the dangers in putting off progress on accession, which keeps vulnerable states in this area fragile.

It is not clear to me that political will is the only answer. The threat must become all too real. As you suggest, the states in question must stop being at the head of the EU class!! What this means though is more conflict and an increased role for the ESDP or perhaps its greater profile within NATO in what must be termed in area operations for the Alliance.

Your thoughts from the German/European perspective?

All the best and kind regards from New York, Colette Mazzucelli

August 14, 2009

David Paet, US-EU Assotiation, (4)

Dear Prof Stock,

your assesment is well founded and addresses one of the EU's actual shortcommings.

My comment is that EU-enlargement is the most effective tool for the European stability and progress, and it should be supported (not obstructed) by both Slovenia and Greece. Narrow minded bilateral issues (Slovenian-Croatian border dispute), as well as irational quarrels (like the Greece's objection against Macedonia) are not relevant in respect of the established Copenhagen standards. Croatia and Macedonia have made important progress and they deserve to be encouraged by the EU.

In addition, EU-members have not only an option, but rather an obligation to contribute to the EU-integration of the candidate countries. Just a short analysis about the long term perspective of the enlargement will clearly show that Slovenia will gain with the Croation EU-membership and Greece will benefit as well with the Macedonian membership into the Union.

Many thanks for opening this topic and best regards,
David

August 14, 2009

Cvetin Cilimanov

Dear Professor Efthimopoulos, you do reveal a lot in your comment, but much more about yourself and your way of thinking, then about the country whose mere existence seems to offended you in some way. Just a short comment on a bit of your comment.
- No need to remind what happened in 2001 in Skopje, no need to remind that there is quite a diversity of different nationalities there. No need to express that without roots to the land no single entity can exist as a state. And that is where the mistake happen. Greece is not offended, nor offends anyone neither do its people. Yet no Greek and defenetely no country such as China or Russia, or France, or Italy or Spain or Britain, with a Great and glorious history can be intimidated. History of the 20th century has proven that over all wars that occured. Greeks are proud to be located in these areas as they were for centuries, whether in the east-west south or north. Instead of their policies to resemble ours were we have a common ground, FYROM embarked in this madness of dillusional policies where they claim that Alexander was from where? -
You mention the diversity of different nationalities, as it is a bad thing. Having recently attended one of the regular joint meetings of the Macedonian Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Evangelical, and yes, both Muslim and Jewish religious leaders, as well as a joint prayer action by the Orthodox and the Muslim communities, I beg to differ. The Muslim and the Chinese communities in Athens which I've met, to speak nothing of other minorities in Greece, in my opinion, should be a source of pride, not of reservation.
On your insistance about the glorious Greek history and the Greek historic location in these areas, they sound earily familiar to anyone who has followed the bloody dissolution of Yugoslavia. Macedonia was part of the Yugoslav Federation, but from your comments, I see that Greece is fertile ground for the nationalist mindset that created the horrors of Yugoslavia

August 27, 2009

Member deleted

Dr. Stock,

Thank you for a very interesting article. I enjoyed your colorful comparison of EU member states blocking further accessions to a virus. I think you bring a good point that if one or two member states such as Greece or Slovenia begin using their influence to prevent nations like Macedonia or Croatia from entering the EU, they will set the example for others to do so as well. It is obviously not in the best interest of the EU as a whole if states act out of their own self interest and cause friction within the complex Union. With the inevitable rise of Asian powerhouses such as China and India in the future, Europe must work together cautiously and effectively if they hope to provide a balance of power. Working as a regional, united power rather than as individual nation states may be in the best interest of each individual member state as well. With each accession the EU has encountered new obstacles, however the benefits often appear to outweigh the cons. Let us hope that nations such as Greece and Slovenia can overlook ethnic, religious, geographic and any other historic or cultural conflict which is blocking further accession of states meeting the "Copenhagen Criteria". If states such as Croatia and Macedonia have successfully proven themselves by meeting the Copenhagen Criteria, shouldn't they be given the same chance to join the EU as Greece and Slovenia were given? Perhaps current member states will have to rethink their own identity. While it is important to maintain traditions and retain a vibrant national culture, it may be in the best interest of EU member states to shift their identity toward "European" rather than Greek or Slovene, thus permitting future growth and prosperity of the region and the European Union.

September 13, 2009

Dr. Efthymiopoulos Marios

Dear Professor and to all who actually critisized my opinion,

I am very much keen to see what will the future for FYROM will be.

I do not believe that they shall not have an EU future. I do not also believe however that it will be an easy task for them to join if they do not accept some simple rules ( you can call them European Conditions or historical apreciations).

I am of firm belief that as was the case with Greece we will keep on supporting their integration as we so rightfully did (Greece has been the most greater financial investor in FYROM for all that may not know it.) I believe this says a lot about GReece's intention.

Yet one thing is certain, We are not to be compared with the effects and dues of other states within the EU. This is the greatness of the EU. All countries are different and expercise different policies. AT the same time they hold different opinions while knowing the own coutnry's realities.

Alow me therefore to know better the differences of ethnic minorities to regional minorities within certain and specific war to peace treaties.

Within the EU policies of immigration we of course have a lot of immigrants to which we help as much as we can. But no need to mistaken them with ethnic minorities.

We do recognise the fact that we have an ethnic minority in FYROM. We also recognise the fact that we have ethnic minorities as pomaks. We also recognise the right to people to hold rights within our states. Besides we were the ones to create Democracy.

We also in fact have to prove whether there are true greeks. Yet in order to be greek you have to fell greek. Said Herodotous.

So no need to say Greece is an uncomparable country. I believe we could embark into philospophical questions and answers and I am pretty sure I would be delighted to hear of your opinions as I also respected them.

But the facts are that we are not to be intimidated. We are also not in a position not to judge. We were judged to become part of the EU. We did comply. So should they. Unfortunately, to what relates NATO, they need to do something else. Burden Sharing, Army interoperability of forces, capacity to deliver operational results. Alliances of the willing which are short term cannot provide a NATO future.

At the same time they need to negotiate with Bulgaria as well. We are the least of their problems. As long however as they portray their nationalist feelings we are not going to take them seriously (on a country basis nothing personal). Europe's ideals are not based on these topics. Their grant to become fully independent was very much appreciated by Greece I believe. You need to put a lot in gepoardy to make this happen. Yet, you do not exchange something for something else. And Especially from our side.

I believe this is the case. I am a supporter of the Euro-Atlantic co-operation but not like this.
I am sorry for all those that you may think this is just another issue or another person that want to be extreme but I can assure you I am not. I am and was there when all this is happening. I live the experience, and I trully do not like to see any of my Prime ministers being compared to hitler in publicities on the road. I am sorry they are not ready yet. So did say the French so did say the Danes.

So will they say other countries. And just last notice no veto was in Bucharest. There was a consensus decision not to allow FYROM to enter as they need to make more amednmends more institutional changes. The name issue and the case with Greece is a good cover-up story.

We were as we are Europeans we will remain as such and at the same time we will defnce European values whatever people say. Greece is the neighbour not Germany nor France nor any other country. Therefore do try to al least judge us not so harshly because we are keen in resolving this issue. If they do not want it is their own choice and problem. We are there. were there always in negotiations. They do not like what they see or hear. I am sorry we already given up too many things. I think it is time they try realistically.

Thanks again for all

Kind Regards
Dr. Marios Efthymiopoulos

October 14, 2009

Angeliki Vourdaki

Dear Sirs,

Even though I am just a student at University, studying politics, I feel really sensitive about the subject of FYROM and Greece. Having read all of the articles above and, being Greek myself, I would like to express my humble opinion, just so that what the youth believes can come to public, at least for once.

In general, from what I've heard, even at University (I am studying in the UK), young people are opposed to FYROM being called 'Macedonia'. And not because of nationalistic feelings and constant brainwashing by the media (we cannot but accept that brainwashing DOES take place concerning the above matter in Greece). The problem is not that 'they want to steal the great Ancient Greek district name'. The problem is that people from FYROM have publicly attacked Greece on the subject. And what are the arguments? That they have the right to their name because of their land and that Great Alexander was son of these lands. Unfortunately, what constitutes any place today (and as it always had) is not only its land and I think that this is unanimously accepted. Culture, language, history and so many other elements give us the right to be called Greeks today, even though we might not have the same blood as our historical ancestors. Finally, we are all human beings and we all share a past.

Therefore, the 'land' is not the problem. I believe that the main problem is the fact that FYROM uses its land to brainwash (accordingly) its people in being fanaticized about the subject. Why do they keep asking for something that we have repeatedly refused? Why didn't they accept the names 'Nova Macedonia' and 'Republic of Macedonia'? What is it about the name 'Macedonia' that could be more special to them than it is to us? What is so special about that name anyway? Do they think it is going to attract more tourism? Or is it all - as a conspiracy theorist would put it - a plan to integrate into the Greek society and way of life? Not that I believe this is the truth. But still, we have to accept that all this persistence is not the most mature thing to do. I have heard people saying that they insist because we continue refusing. But is this what nation-states should do in an increasingly globalizing world? Act as a stubborn teenager who does not get what he/she wants and thus wants it even more? I believe that if FYROM's visions were serious they would accept one of the proposed names. But this is plain veto. It has nothing to do with the economy of the country or with its social development.

And this is why, I believe, the Greek government will not allow the country to be part of the EU. Because finally, this is what democracy is. You have to accept certain rules in order to be part of it. Not that it is fair to block a whole country's development. But we should not give up either. Not because of childish tantrum. But because we feel offended by our neighbours' unwillingness to co-operate.

Thank you very much for reading this. It means a lot to me being read by the people that I admire and want to be like in my life. I would like to know everyone's opinions. I am not sure of my political identity yet and so would not like to be treated as a young nationalist. I do not support Greece in most of its foreign (and internal) policy but this is something that - for once - has united all of my people.


Best regards,
Angeliki Vourdaki

October 23, 2009

Nikola Knezevic, Politehnic Academy, (6)

Dear Sirs,

What you call a virus(nationalism), by us(?) it is called knowledge of deep history and "Present in Sobriety".
What you call Nationalism(with a bad connotation), those who know better, call it an Identity.

Obviously dear Sirs and 'Professors", you do not differentiate conceptions as Nationalism and Chauvinism?! Big mistake.

Nationalism as Identity is contained in the next (and one can not escape from it, no matter what you say or think...or, how you feel):
1) Name and Surname (one James Bond probably can not be Mongolian, or Japanese, or French, Russian,... etc...don't you know that when you meet one? )
2)Language (you hear someone speak mandarin as the first language, probably that one is not Polish, don't you think?)
3)Culture, Tradition, Customs(if you see someone celebrating Thanksgiving and 4th of July, probably that one is not a Brit, or Australian or whatever thou speak English,...the one is American)
4)Religion or Faith (you see someone in Turkey entering Synagogue, don't you know the one is not Turkish, then Jewish no matter if the one have Turkish citizenship, "The Turkish are by default Muslims,..ask them ?)

Do not mix that with Citizenship!!!

Many gave Passport for Citizenship, but no one ever gave Passport for an Identity.
If you relocate an elephant to US, from Africa, THAT IS STILL AN ELEPHANT, not a possum or a raccoon!


No wonder you do not understand old world and Balkan as well

So, Nationalism is love for own Language, Culture, Tradition, Customs, Faith ..etc
To be against my Nationalism is to be against my Name, my Language, my Culture, my Tradition, my Customs, my Faith...MY way of life(does that ring a bell)

Chauvinism on the other hand is HATE for any other Language, Culture, Tradition, Customs, Faith ..etc ...values of others to say.

See, I can be a Nationalist without hating any other Nationalities and its values!!!

Best regards,
One Serbian

October 23, 2009

Nikola Knezevic, Politehnic Academy, (6)

To add

States, regimes or whatever society is structured, come and go. But Identity stays.

To give you little example on problem you try to see so bluntly:
You have NOW some country called Macedonia and some province IN Greece
also called same name Macedonia, named long time ago.
Not now but...
Imagine "Macedonians" 50, 100 or some years from now.
Imagine situation that they teach to their young people, that there is somewhere down in Greece also Macedonia(see the name). What stopping them to simply say: "That was once ours, but Greeks long time ago have taken that from us." The proof: See the name!!!
And that how troubles start.


See, that has happened to Serbs. Word for word. All those minorities we were protecting and cherishing through centuries, recently after Communism start to ask for something that was never theirs.
<<< And now they(Albanians from Kosovo) say, "we were living here errr, forever"
It's simply a lie.

So I ask you

What if in some foreseeable(or not) future, "Macedonians" start to raise political and territorial pretensions toward that Macedonia in Greece, as Albanians from Albania DID toward Serbian Kosovo recently ??? Or they start to do falsification and stealing of history as Croatians did as well? Of course Alexander the Great will not be some Greek, than Macedonian! See...?

Can YOU guarantee now that will not happen????

Or you just try to look smart and knowledgeable, but you do not grasp mistakes of your doing for future generations???
How many people will die than, for what you are doing now???

Best regards