Macedonia & Greece: Name Issue

[Bill77]

How can a name change not affect our identity, and our history and our culture? The idea that a name change is possible without it affecting our identity, is a lie.

Pelister,

Do you think Ivanov knows this and which is why he has no intention to change it?
Ivanov agrees with you if you read his statement,

IVANOV
We are fatefully experiencing the old wisdom - nomen est omen - the essence is in the name. Our name reflects an essential part of the Macedonian identity. Our ancestors were faced with much greater pressure, but they have never succumbed, with great difficulty they have left us what we need to preserve today for the future generations.

[Vangelovski]

We have a Metoist in our midst. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and no understanding of the political damage these negotiations are doing to us. The only people that have anything to gain by making a case that the negotiations are 'necessary' (for whatever vague reason), are you enemies.

Regardless of whether Bratot wants to admit it, you are right Pelister - it is Metoist thinking.

In fact, over the course of the last few days, we have essentially had the same debate that we have had numerous previous times with Buktop and other Metovisti and that is Macedonian sovereignty versus accepting thrid party decisions on matters that are ONLY for the Macedonian people to decide on.

[Pelister]

Some good information here, Rogi.

If the Macedonian Government had waited a few more months, in fact just 2 more months, until November 1995 (just 2 months after the Interim Accord was signed which ended the Greek Embargo with a Macedonian capitulation on the name and the Macedonian flag) until the Dayton Agreement was signed and the sanctions against Serbia dropped, and the Macedonian economy and the denar would see a near immediate re-stabilisation, then those who signed over Macedonia's flag and name, would never have had any way to justify themselves with these stories (read: lies) about the Greek embargo forcing Macedonia's hand. Instead of waiting those 2 months for the circumstances to change in Macedonia's favour and never signing the interim accord, the Government at the time, led by Kiro Gligorov, lied to the Macedonian people and said that the Interim Accord would be gone in 3 months.

My thoughts after reading this are that the Macedonians only have themselves to blame. Its been one critical error after another. It is interesting how a number of UMD members on this forum have been trying to make the case in the past that our hands have been tied due to Greek threats, and that the Greek economic embargo was the cause of the capitulations?

[Vangelovski]

I think we have dealt with Ivanov on another thread quite thoroughly - I forget which one it was, but, in my view, he's an imbecile who is attempting to sell a name change as acceptable, necessary and a victory.

[Pelister]

This is a good thread. Its good to weed out the Terms and Clauses of the Interim Accord, what they mean in plain talk.

[Pelister]

Pelister,

Do you think Ivanov knows this and which is why he has no intention to change it?
Ivanov agrees with you if you read his statement,

He also clearly indicated that he intended to change the name. What he hasn't said is WHY our identity is on the negotiating table, and what he hasn't made clear (Gruevski either), is WHY they are negotiating even though the Macedonian people are against it? I personally believe that Gruevski is a Greek stooge, because he is now fully aware of our legal rights, and the obligations of the U.N, but refuses to have our name changed, legally, in that institution. Why would he do that? If there is a way of having our name admitted to the U.N without risk, why hasn't he done it?

[Bratot]

Let us look at the actual consequences.

If Macedonia was to pull out of the negotiations tomorrow, and reinstate the old flag, what would actually happen? The international community will cease interacting with us? Greece will invade Macedonia? How can the current circumstances remain in force if we pull out altogether and make our own path for the future, as opposed to the one the IC is creating for us?

If we withdraw the Interim Agreement on the basis of its provisions, we have given everything to Greece on the basis of the provisional agreement.
We will allow Greece to interfere us at our membership in international organizations and even we have even rewarded her with this termination because after that there is no legal basis to ask Greece not to hinder us in our membership in the international organizations.

That's why in my first post on this thread I asked:
Do you think of ceasing the negotiations as a means, or ceasing of the negotiations as a goal?


Hence the ceasing of the negotiations is not a means but a goal.
It is not a means because if we use the cease of negotiations as a means, we are acting in contradiction with Article 33 of the Charter of UN and create a security problem because we had not suggested any other means of Article 33, for the peaceful settlement of the dispute with Greece. (Greece has already accussed us of being a threat for their security when objecting to our admission in UN)


After we withdrew the negotiations under IA in the way you suggest, than on the basis of Article 33 of the Charter and other, we'll still have to decide on one of the instruments of Article 33 of the Charter of UN for peaceful settlement of the dispute with Greece:

Chapter Vl: Pacific Settlement of Disputes
Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their disputes by such means.

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-un.htm

If this happen, we'll still need a decission of the International Court of Justice, but we wont have our strong argument that the Interim Accord is "Null and void" because we unilaterally withdrew from it.

And we will be forced to continue the negotiations in UN.

If our goal is still of being a member of the UN.

[Pelister]

Regardless of whether Bratot wants to admit it, you are right Pelister - it is Metoist thinking.

In fact, over the course of the last few days, we have essentially had the same debate that we have had numerous previous times with Buktop and other Metovisti and that is Macedonian sovereignty versus accepting thrid party decisions on matters that are ONLY for the Macedonian people to decide on.

I think that Meto and the Metovisti are simply cogs in the wheel of Western liberal hegemony. Its important for them to create an image of a humane legacy (and Meto is a master at it), but when you look at their rhetoric, their 'silences' on the critical issues, we see two faces, at the risk of repeating myself that has always been my assesment of the evidence.

[Vangelovski]

If we withdraw the Interim Agreement on the basis of its provisions, we have given everything to Greece on the basis of the provisional agreement.
We will allow Greece to interfere us at our membership in international organizations and even we have even rewarded her with this termination because after that there is no legal basis to ask Greece not to hinder us in our membership in the international organizations.

That's why in my first post on this thread I asked:
Do you think of ceasing the negotiations as a means, or ceasing of the negotiations as a goal?


Hence the ceasing of the negotiations is not a means but a goal.
It is not a means because if we use the cease of negotiations as a means, we are acting in contradiction with Article 33 of the Charter of UN and create a security problem because we had not suggested any other means of Article 33, for the peaceful settlement of the dispute with Greece. (Greece has already accussed us of being a threat for their security when objecting to our admission in UN)


After we withdrew the negotiations under IA in the way you suggest, than on the basis of Article 33 of the Charter and other, we'll still have to decide on one of the instruments of Article 33 of the Charter of UN for peaceful settlement of the dispute with Greece:



If this happen, we'll still need a decission of the International Court of Justice, but we wont have our strong argument that the Interim Accord is "Null and void" because we unilaterally withdrew from it.

And we will be forced to continue the negotiations in UN.

If our goal is still of being a member of the UN.

This is absolute BS based on YOUR OWN unsubstantiated and flawed assumptions. This has been dealt with so many times over the past few years that even a casual reader of this forum would by now have seen these assumptions for the garbage they are.

[Bratot]

We have a Metoist in our midst. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and no understanding of the political damage these negotiations are doing to us. The only people that have anything to gain by making a case that the negotiations are 'necessary' (for whatever vague reason), are you enemies.

Lets presume you have all understanding, can you prove that presented allegations are wrong and that the steps I provided are going to damage our position?

And if you pay attention and rely on your 'understanding' indeed then you will see that I have NOT suggested to continue the negotiations, but provided a solution to terminate them without later consequences something that you are collectevely not aware of.

And lets give real argumentation instead of those discreditation tactics and ad hominem attacks.

[Vangelovski]

The course of action that you propose does not guarantee "victory" and it does undermine our national sovereignty. Accepting the jurisdiction of a court which is UNACCOUNTABLE to the Macedonian people, the very people it presumes to make judgements on, is UNACCEPTABLE, in my view. Further, accepting the jurisdiction of an unaccountable court opens the possibility of a negative decision.

It is far more important that the Macedonian people FREELY determine their own affairs, and by doing so, can easily declare the IA 'null and void'. Why on earth would you pursue a course of action that:

a) undermines your national sovereignty;
b) is not guaranteed to achieve the desired result;
c) is open to foreign manipulation; and
d) could take years??

Instead the Macedonian people (represented by their government) can declare it 'null and void' today and put an end to the Interim Accord now.

The answer is that YOU either do not understand the fundamental principles surrounding national sovereignty or do not believe in MACEDONIAN sovereignty.

Bratot,

You are avoiding the blatantly obvious in relation to your "strategy", which I have outlined above.

[Bratot]

This is absolute BS based on YOUR OWN unsubstantiated and flawed assumptions. This has been dealt with so many times over the past few years that even a casual reader of this forum would by now have seen these assumptions for the garbage they are.

This proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false to have absolute certainty in what YOU ASSUME!

[Vangelovski]

This proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false to have absolute certainty in what YOU ASSUME!

Yes it has.

Bratot,

All you have done here is show YOUR support for unaccountable third parties making decisions on OUR behalf for matters that ONLY WE can legitimately make decisions on.

[Bratot]

Further, you are still avoiding the real issue, which is whether you support Macedonian sovereignty, and if so, why appeal to unaccountable international courts?

Supporting Macedonian sovereignty doesn't negate the need of International Laws that regulate the disputes between two countries.

You may or may not have noticed, but states such as Greece and Bulgaria generally IGNORE rulings made by international courts. Attempts to have the rights of Macedonian minorities protected through international law have FAILED.

Does this mean that any example of breaking the legal order in a country is an evidence that we shouldn't have such regulations?

If international laws were ignored to the extent you suggest we wouldn't even have Macedonian minority organisations in Greece or Bulgaria.

But you seem to be suggesting that their rights can somehow be protected if Macedonia accepts the jurisdiction of an international court to decide on issues that are a matter for the Macedonian people ONLY??

I asked how will you protect the interest of our minorities?

You basicaly suggested we shouldn't bother at all with them.

Are you going to force another state to respect your minority and how?

[Bratot]

Yes it has.

Bratot,

All you have done here is show YOUR support for unaccountable third parties making decisions on OUR behalf for matters that ONLY WE can legitimately make decisions on.

Ok, then employ your decission to have all countries and institutions (UN, FIBA, FIFA, etc. etc) recognize our name and unblock our assosiation with the international organisations we assumingly want to be part of.

Asking a third party to execute duties of another country is not illegitimate action.