Originally posted by Vangelovski
View Post
First, I never claimed my readings of Risto Stefov's articles as support for Aegean Macedonia being a legitimate Greek entity. My support came from a comparison of the likely number of self-identifying ethnic Greeks living in Aegean Macedonia to the likely number of self-identifying ethnic Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia. I believe that the number of the former is significantly greater. I then made the assumption, based on this significantly greater number of people who identify as ethnic Greek, that, if given the choice by popular vote, the people of Aegean Macedonia would vote for the entire territory of Aegean Macedonia to remain within Greece. These are not wild claims or stretches of the imagination. Thus, because it is highly likely that the majority of people living within Aegean Macedonia would self-determine to stay within Greece, I believe that my claim that Aegean Macedonian constitutes a legitimate entity of Greece is justified.
Certainly, there is probably a disagreement as to what constitutes legitimacy. One can look to historical injustices, such as the territorial division of Macedonia in 1913 and the ethnic cleansing of Aegean Macedonians from well before that point to well after that point, and state that these are enough to de-legitimize the rule of Greece over Aegean Macedonia. I disagree because I don't think historical injustices (solely or mainly) are enough to override the self-determination and will of that land's current population. Though not exactly the same, but containing enough similarities to make the comparison valid, I look to the Native Americans (Indians) in the United States. The fact that tribes of Native Americans (be they the Iroquois or whomever) were cleansed from the land 200-300 years ago and now only form a small minority, in no-way de-legitimizes the self-determination of today's individuals living on former Iroquois territory. I understand the grievances of Native Americans, and I completely disagree with how their ancestors' lands were taken from them (just as in Macedonia's case), but I do not see this as sufficient enough of a reason to go against the will of the majority of the people and make the land I live on Iroquois territory.
However, some also use the justification of the ongoing suppression of Macedonians' rights in Greece to claim that Aegean Macedonia is not a legitimate entity of Greece. I also do not agree with this being enough justification to "free Aegean Macedonia from Greek rule" because a significant majority of the population in Aegean Macedonia would be against it. On the other hand, if Macedonians (or anyone) living in regions and villages of Aegean Macedonia use these current suppressions as their reasoning for wanting to be free from Greek rule, and if the majority of the people living in those regions and villages will to be free from Greek rule, then I would recognize and accept their struggle as legitimate. Further, saying that Aegean Macedonia is a legitimate Greek entity is in no way suggesting that Greece can continue to violate human and political rights and obligations to all of its citizens. The same applies to Native Americans in the United States. I believe that if the majority of the people living on current tribal land want to split from the US, then they should. However, the fact that there are still several ongoing injustices happening against Native Americans is not enough to justify unifying all former Iroquois lands when it would mean going against the legitimate rule and will of the majority.
Now, addressing whether my statement was anti-Macedonian or not: I assume that anti-Macedonian statements and actions, according to MTO members, would entail making statements that contradict and work against the definition of the Macedonian Cause as displayed on this website. The other two ways that I believe my claims can be considered anti-Macedonian by others are if a) the individual addressing my claims has a different notion as to what the Macedonian Cause entails than what's posted on this website; or b), there can be claims which do not circumvent the Macedonian Cause, but are still anti-Macedonian in nature.
Under my reading of the Macedonian Cause, as defined here, I believe my statements are not anti-Macedonian. Of course, a lot of this has to do with definitions and interpretations. When a goal of the Macedonian Cause is "Securing Macedonia as a free, independent and democratic republic," is MTO referring to the Republic of Macedonia, or geographical Macedonia? If it is referring to geographical Macedonia, then I concede as to how one would view my statements as anti-Macedonian and working against the Macedonian Cause...as our ideas of what the Macedonian Cause entails would vastly differ. But if it means the Republic of Macedonia, then my statement hasn't contradicted the Cause. For nothing in the Macedonian Cause, as defined here, suggests that unification of historical Macedonia is part of the Macedonian Cause.
Further, the definition of the Macedonian Cause on MTO distinguishes (though, not clearly) between historical Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia. As an example, Macedonia in the second paragraph likely refers to the Republic of Macedonia while "historical Macedonia" is used in the paragraph second from the end. Moreover, the Macedonian Cause on MTO states:
"The recognition of the Macedonian minorities in the neighboring states of Macedonia as well as the respect for the inalienable rights and freedoms of the Macedonian minorities, as provided for by natural law and as codified by the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other universally codified human rights mechanisms..."
This, indirectly, suggest that Aegean Macedonia is within a neighboring state (as inferred from the use of Macedonia in this case as the "Republic of Macedonia"). Now, perhaps we will have a disagreement as to whether territorial integrity and legitimacy are the same thing, or whether territorial integrity can be a factor in determining legitimacy. However, I don't think it would be appropriate for the Macedonian Cause to invoke the UN Charter with regards to minority issues and then ignore the legitimacy of the UN recognizing the legitimacy of the political borders of countries. Further, I would assume that a non-contradictory view of "respect for the inalienable rights and freedoms of Macedonian minorities" should also entail the respect of the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples. Accordingly, then, we must respect the self-determination and will of the people living with Aegean Macedonia.
Finally, though, I understand where the loophole exists. My interpretation of the above clauses can be de-legitimized because of this paragraph in MTO's definition of the Macedonian Cause:
"The full and unreserved respect of, and the support for, the rights of all people of non-Macedonian descent living in Macedonia and around the world, who share a reciprocal full and unreserved respect for the Macedonian people, their homeland and their state;"
This sentence is probably the catch-all, and it's the one I probably take the biggest issues with. First, while it doesn't advocate a disrespect of all people of a non-Macedonian descent, it qualifies when respect should be given, suggesting that it would be permissible to not respect a person who do not respect us back. While I disagree with this in itself, probably due to "idealistic" (as some would define them) viewpoints, my disagreement is with how one can interpret "unreserved respect for the Macedonian people[s]...homeland." Does the Macedonian people's homeland include all of historical/geographical Macedonia? If it does, how does one disrespect Macedonia's homeland: by stating that historical Macedonia should not be united? by the majority of the people of one region of Macedonia being opposed to a minority's desire of that same region to see it either independent or united with another Macedonian region? I don't know -- it could be interpreted many ways. But what I do know is that as soon as one person disrespects someone else's interpretation of that phrase, it is allowable for the disrespecting party (under MTO's definition of the Macedonian Cause) to be subjugated to disrespect by a Macedonian; again, depending on how he interprets that phrase. So, when someone says Aegean Macedonia is a legitimate Greek entity, and believes he "respects" Macedonians and their state in all other aspects, it is possible for it to be okay for a Macedonian to disrespect that person to any extent he desires.
Thus, under the above view, my claims can be construed as anti-Macedonian, and anti-Macedonian Cause. I believe they are not.
On a side note, notice how I generally calling it "Aegean Macedonia" and not northern Greece. The fact that I use the term Aegean Macedonia should be enough to show that I'm not espousing an anti-Macedonian view. Whether it supports the claim that I'm dependable to advocate rigorously for the Macedonian Cause on MTO is another mater.
Finally, I think it's important to recall that my comments were made within the context of a "United Macedonia," aka uniting Vardar, Pirin and Aegean Macedonia into one political country.
Comment