Should Macedonian leadership raise Treaty of Bucharest ?

[Pelister]

The added annexes are in the Treaty of Bucharest itself. We had the additions of 3 clauses to the original 2 page document. These are the only modifications I know of. None of which state anything regarding any expiration dates etc.

If there is an expiration date, please tell me where in the treaty it states this so I can see it for myself. If you know of any added annexes, please show me them as well.

Thanks

Macedonia was a Church-State up to 1913 (albeit fading by then) where the Church had the functions normally reserved for ''government'' in this day and age, education, schooling, law ...etc.

If you think that something has to be organized in modern political terms to be something of value, then you don't know Macedonia or its history, and you will never have a clue what it has meant to be a Macedonian for thousands of years.

[Demos]

Macedonia was a Church-State up to 1913 (albeit fading by then) where the Church had the functions normally reserved for ''government'' in this day and age, education, schooling, law ...etc.

If you think that something has to be organized in modern political terms to be something of value, then you don't know Macedonia or its history, and you will never have a clue what it has meant to be a Macedonian for thousands of years.

No, it doesn't have to be in modern political terms, but it has to be a state nonetheless. Can Greece annul a treaty signed by the Ottoman Empire and Russia before Greece became a state in 1830 if it negatively affected Greece after its inception?

The answer of course is no...

[Rogi]

Demos,

Please read through my posts again and see what I wrote about any sunset clause / expiration date of the treaty.

[Demos]

Demos,

Please read through my posts again and see what I wrote about any sunset clause / expiration date of the treaty.

Rogi,

The Treaty of Bucharest either has an expiration date or it doesn't. Again, if you have the specific part of the text which clearly states this, please post it for all to see so we can finally put this debate to rest.

Thanks

[Pelister]

According to some who have read the Treaty, all its clauses, addendums ... etc,

If any part of divided Macedonia gains independence - then the other parts are required to join it. I wonder whether someone can confirm or deny this.

If Greece and Bulgaria signed a paper with a clause like this in the fine print - the Macedonians have a legal basis for unification.

[Commander Bond]

According to some who have read the Treaty, all its clauses, addendums ... etc,

If any part of divided Macedonia gains independence - then the other parts are required to join it. I wonder whether someone can confirm or deny this.

If Greece and Bulgaria signed a paper with a clause like this in the fine print - the Macedonians have a legal basis for unification.

Excellent point Pelister. Can anyone confirm this particular clause?

[Rogi]

Demos,

As I said, if you re-read my previous posts you will see that I wrote the Treaty of Bucharest in its entirety does not have a sunset clause / expiration date.

I did say however, that it does contain other clauses and causes for termination of the Treaty. Pelister's last post is coming close to one of them.

One of the ways that the Treaty can be terminated, is by the request of some of the signatories to that Treaty. Bear in mind, the Serbs have lost their Right, it having been inherited by the Republic of Macedonia which is now an Independent State.

Another way is to force Greece into declaring war against the Republic of Macedonia, or in fact the reverse. This would terminate the Treaty of Bucharest as it is signed as a Peace treaty and it specifically includes the terms 'successor states', including what is today the independent Republic of Macedonia.

There are a number of other items in it that I can't remember right off the bat...

[TerraNova]

Another way is to force Greece into declaring war against the Republic of Macedonia, or in fact the reverse. This would terminate the Treaty of Bucharest as it is signed as a Peace treaty and it specifically includes the terms 'successor states', including what is today the independent Republic of Macedonia.

There are a number of other items in it that I can't remember right off the bat...

Really ,Rogi,...if the Treaty of Bucharest was raised,
where would you draw the new borders.... ?

[Rogi]

For the borders to change, in reality it can only be through war and I don't want a war because I know in the end it will be mainly my people who will suffer.

If you were asking me to redefine the borders of the Balkans, ideally I would redefine them by completely removing the borders and having all nations of the Balkan in a border-less Europe where the people are free to move where they please.

But before this can happen in an ideal sense, first some states (namely Greece and Bulgaria) must learn to understand and respect human rights and the self-determined identity of the Macedonian people.

Then, there would be no problems for the Macedonian people and you would see just how forgiving, peaceful and friendly the Macedonian people can be, just as we have been forgiving toward the Turk, despite their 500 years in Macedonia.

I wouldn't draw new borders, I would just remove the existing ones and let freedom reign.

[Demos]

For the borders to change, in reality it can only be through war and I don't want a war because I know in the end it will be mainly my people who will suffer.

If you were asking me to redefine the borders of the Balkans, ideally I would redefine them by completely removing the borders and having all nations of the Balkan in a border-less Europe where the people are free to move where they please.

But before this can happen in an ideal sense, first some states (namely Greece and Bulgaria) must learn to understand and respect human rights and the self-determined identity of the Macedonian people.

Then, there would be no problems for the Macedonian people and you would see just how forgiving, peaceful and friendly the Macedonian people can be, just as we have been forgiving toward the Turk, despite their 500 years in Macedonia.

I wouldn't draw new borders, I would just remove the existing ones and let freedom reign.

Rogi,

Let's be honest for a moment. The Treat of Bucharest expiration date is a myth. It just does not exist. Secondly, no country is interested in raising the Treaty of Bucharest and even if a country did, the others are not interested in negotiating anything (Greece, Bulgaria etc). Lastly, I highly doubt Greeks are interested in creating a Balkan type federation. Most Greeks I know from both right wing and left wing aren't really interested in living with people of different ethnic or linguistic backgrounds, but even from a financial standpoint; why would Greece want to join in with Balkan countries who are very poor with sky high unemployment rates and very low GDPs and GDPs per capita?

We have nothing to gain from any of this and simply are not interested.

[Rogi]

As I said, there is no expiration date. We have moved beyond that, stop being ignorant.

But just humour me for a moment and consider this hypothetical situation...

Macedonia and Bulgaria get past their differences, at least on a political level and the Macedonians in Pirin are given full rights.

From there, a strong relationship develops between Macedonia and Bulgaria and these two nations (signatories and successor-signatories to the Bucharest Treaty) realise that with their 2 signatures, as required, they could annul the Treaty of Bucharest.

Then they work together on changing the borders. Bulgaria agrees to let go of Pirin (in order to achieve greater goals, that being access to the Aegean Sea) and give it to the Republic of Macedonia.

Amongst themselves they work on defining the new borders of the region, and in that Agreement the Republic of Macedonia would go for Solun, while Bulgaria would go for Thrace, so that both nations have access to the Aegean Sea.

Far-fetched now, I know, but as time goes by, many things change, so don't be as ignorant as you portray yourself. I can list you a number of many other such hypothetical scenarios.

[TerraNova]

As I said, there is no expiration date. We have moved beyond that, stop being ignorant.

But just humour me for a moment and consider this hypothetical situation...

Macedonia and Bulgaria get past their differences, at least on a political level and the Macedonians in Pirin are given full rights.

From there, a strong relationship develops between Macedonia and Bulgaria and these two nations (signatories and successor-signatories to the Bucharest Treaty) realise that with their 2 signatures, as required, they could annul the Treaty of Bucharest.

Then they work together on changing the borders. Bulgaria agrees to let go of Pirin (in order to achieve greater goals, that being access to the Aegean Sea) and give it to the Republic of Macedonia.

Amongst themselves they work on defining the new borders of the region, and in that Agreement the Republic of Macedonia would go for Solun, while Bulgaria would go for Thrace, so that both nations have access to the Aegean Sea.

Far-fetched now, I know, but as time goes by, many things change, so don't be as ignorant as you portray yourself. I can list you a number of many other such hypothetical scenarios.

Rogi...your first answer seemed an anti-nationalist's post: "no borders at all."
This one seems more calculating and selfish...
It could be named.."alliance and bargains with Bulgaria ,so as the two buddies to take some Greek lands!"
Border redraws can be possible,ONLY if there is significant population within a specific area to support and justify this.
(see Kossovo,Bosnia etc.)
Both in Greek Macedonia and Thrace,the Bulgarian and Macedonian numbers are really insignificant.

[osiris]

you are right terranova my slavic preistess, where once it was inhabited by macedonians its now the children and grandchildren of ottoman refugees who had no link whatsoever with the land they now so proudly occupy as their own.

they are as indigineous to macedonia as the whites are in australia, and the whites in oz have been there longer than your self appointed greek macedonians. but still you come here tarranova debating the absurd an proving to your self you raelly are a greek.

[Rogi]

Firstly, yes my posts are different, as I said the second case is a purely hypothetical situation, only to help you realise that anything is possible. Ignorance will get you nowhere.

The number of Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia could be insignificant, as you say, or it could be quite significant, as I saw recently whilst there. In any case, we'll never know unless your Government allows us to find out. But don't be surprised if my assessment is more accurate than yours, in fact, I couldn't blame you for your assumption that the numbers are insignificant - it's your Government which has led you to believe this, because it has purposely disallowed that truth and those numbers from being found out or shown.

I'm sure however, the Greek Intelligence knows just how significant the number of Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia is and that's why Greece remains an ardent opponent of the Republic of Macedonia and continually works to keep the Macedonian Republic from seeing any economic and cultural success.

[TerraNova]

In any case, we'll never know unless your Government allows us to find out. But don't be surprised if my assessment is more accurate than yours, in fact, I couldn't blame you for your assumption that the numbers are insignificant - it's your Government which has led you to believe this, because it has purposely disallowed that truth and those numbers from being found out or shown.

No Rogi.
It's my everyday experience whole my life in Greek Macedonia.