Macedonia & Greece: Name Issue

[Soldier of Macedon]

You have the usuals like Greece and France who harp on about the Macedonian name issue and how it is a criteria to gaining entry to the EU and NATO, then you have the so-called well-inentioned like Hungary, and Slovenia, and more recently the Czech Republic, who are claiming that they have changed their name without their identity so Macedonia should to.

http://balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/15765/

Czechoslovakia was established in 1918 as a state that included Slovak and Czech lands together, and stayed as such until 1993 when the two constituent peoples formed their own states.

How exactly have the Czech's changed their name as Alexandr Vonda claims? What were the four names? This is the second leader of a Slavic state (first being Slovenia) that has advocated a name change because it doesn't 'damage' the identity, is it just me or are some of these Slavic politicians in the EU merely slaves in $1000 suits?

[Dimko-piperkata]

The Greek-Macedonian Name Issue as a Moral Dilemma

Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. - 10/28/2008

Imagine the following:

In a bad neighborhood, plagued by outbursts of violent crime, one of the neighbors is wealthy and middle aged. Let us call him Mr. Greece.

His property borders on the ramshackle dwelling of a young adult who is destitute and ill. His name is Mr. Macedonia.

Mr. Greece insists that Mr. Macedonia change his name. He gives many reasons for his unusual request, not the least of which is that "Macedonia" has been the name of some of his forefathers and is the epithet of the south wing of his sprawling property. It is, therefore, part of his identity and heritage.

Mr. Macedonia, having been subjected to a siege of his property by his neighbor, has agreed in the past to tweak his coat of arms, but refuses to alter his name. He claims that the name "Macedonia" has been in his family for generations. Mr. Greece asks that Mr. Macedonia add a qualifier to his name so as to make clear that he has no designs on his neighbor's prosperous property. Mr. Greece suggests: "Mr. down-the-road Macedonia" or "Mr. Macedonia (corner Alm Street)".

Until the issue is resolved, Mr. Greece won't allow Mr. Macedonia to join the city's various civic organizations and clubs, or to enjoy communal services. Should Mr. Macedonia's property be engulfed by flames or immersed in a flood, he is on his own, as he cannot expect the help of the fire brigade or the police (NATO). Mr. Macedonia can't find a job, transact business, or trade without being a member of said associations.

The question is:

Does Mr. Greece have a moral right to ask his neighbor to change his name? Is Mr. Greece right - not in the legalistic, but in the ethical sense - to impose sanctions on Mr. Macedonia?

The answer to this question is not as straightforward as one might wish or intuit.

First, we must ask ourselves: what are the rights possessed by the two parties to the dispute?

Rights - whether moral or legal - impose obligations or duties on third parties towards the right-holder. One has a right against other people and thus can prescribe to them certain obligatory behaviors and proscribe certain acts or omissions. Rights and duties are two sides of the same ethical coin.

This duality confuses people. They often erroneously identify rights with their attendant duties or obligations, with the morally decent, or even with the morally permissible. One's rights inform other people how they must behave towards one - not merely how they should or ought to act morally. Moral behaviour is not dependent on the existence of a right. People should behave morally even in the absence of specific rights. Obligations, however, are dependent on the existence of a right. People are obliged to behave in specific ways only when a right exists.

Let us examine two examples of such confusion:

1. The Right to have One's Life Saved

There is no such right because there is no moral obligation or duty to save the life of a collective or an individual. Thus, when a nation or an individual finds itself attacked unjustly with its life threatened, it has no right to demand assistance from any individual or collective. It is on its own. Individuals and groups may volunteer to come to its aid (as they did, for instance, in the Spanish Civil War), but they are under no obligation or duty to do so.

2. The Right to Terminate One's Life which yields the right to disband, dissolve, secede, and dismantle collective structures such as states (or, in individuals, the right to commit suicide or request euthanasia). All these actions are often considered to be immoral or undesirable. People ought not commit suicide and states should not fall apart. But, the fact is that the right to do so exists and it imposes obligations on others not to interfere with or prevent its exercise by the right-holder.

Back to the feuding neighbors.

Human collectives, such as nations, and individuals clearly possess the following rights (among many others):

RIGHT

The Right to Exist which yields the prohibition against genocide (and murder) and against cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing.

APPLICATION

Mr. Greece unequivocally accepts Mr. Macedonia's right to exist and, therefore, is in compliance with this particular moral duty.

RIGHT

The Right to be Brought to Life and to Maintain one's Identity which imposes obligations on third parties to respect and not to interfere with a collective's will to attain nationhood and, subject to applicable international law, statehood. Similarly third parties must accept free and legal choices made by an individual regarding his or her identity.

APPLICATION

Mr. Greece did not interfere with Mr. Macedonia's wishes to own a house and run it as he sees fit. He is, therefore, in compliance with this part of his moral duty. Mr. Greece, however, rejects Mr. Macedonia's self-promulgated identity and tries to change it on pain of sanctions. In acting so, he is violating Mr. Macedonia's right. Mr. Greece justifies his behavior by resorting to the exception delineated below.

RIGHT

The Right to be Born which yields the principle of self-determination.

APPLICATION

Mr. Greece accepted, though grudgingly and skeptically, Mr. Macedonia's right to live in the neighborhood as an independent homeowner.

RIGHT

The Right to Have One's Life Maintained which yields the principles of non-aggression, the peaceful conduct of international relations, access to humanitarian and medical aid even in times of war, and a host of other rights that guarantee the perpetuation of decent life and its maintenance. These principles apply to interpersonal relationships as well.

APPLICATION

By imposing sanctions on Mr. Macedonia, Mr. Greece has clearly and repeatedly reneged on this moral obligation and, thus, has violated Mr. Macedonia's right to a decent and well-maintained ("good") life. Mr. Greece justifies this prima facie immoral behavior by resorting to the same exception (as per below).

RIGHT

The Right not to be Killed and to Save One's Own Life which yields the right to self-defense (though not the right to preemptive action to fend off a potential or perceived threat).

EXCEPTION

One exception to these rights is:

If the continued existence of a collective (or individual) is predicated on the repeated and continuous violation of the rights of others - and these other people object to such breaches and infringements being perpetrated against them - then the offending collective (or individual) must be punished or even "killed" if that is the only way to right the wrong and re-assert the rights of the collective's (or individual's) victims.

"Killing" in this exception has many manifestations, only few of them physical: the radical alteration or substitution of one's identity, institutions, history, culture, language, territorial integrity, sovereignty, human and civil rights, and other crucial parameters of self-determination is tantamount to effectively "killing" or terminating the collective. In extremis, killing may also include the physical extermination of classes or groups of people (such as war criminals, members of the military, the political echelon, members of resistance movements, hate mongers, terrorists, etc.).

APPLYING THE RIGHTS and EXCEPTION to the case of Mr. Greece vs. Mr. Macedonia

Mr. Greece makes four cumulative claims:

1. That Mr. Macedonia's refusal to modify his name violates Mr. Greece's rights.

2. That the violation is repeated, flagrant and continuous.

3. That changing Mr. Macedonia's name is the only way to right the wrong and re-assert the rights of Mr. Greece.

4. That, because Mr. Macedonia won't change his name, Mr. Greece, resorting to the exception above, has the right to retaliate by, inter alia, abrogating Mr. Macedonia's right to a decent life.

Let us examine each claim more deeply.

What rights of Mr. Greece are violated? Principally, his right to maintain his identity (to exist as the same Mr. Greece whose forefathers were Macedonians and whose house contains a wing called Macedonia).

Yet, Mr. Macedonia's right to maintain his identity (to exist as Mr. Macedonia) are directly challenged by Mr. Greece's insistence that he change his name.

We are, therefore, faced with two identical, equipotent claims. This is known as a moral dilemma. It can be resolved only if we prove that one of the horns of the dilemma has been misstated or is based on falsities. Both Mr. Greece and Mr. Macedonia are trying to do just that: prove that the other side is misrepresenting facts (lying) and is acting out of ulterior motives (does not really feel violated or aggrieved).

Can we right one wrong (the breach of Mr. Greece's rights) by effecting another (the violation of Mr. Macedonia's rights)? Of course not. If the arguments of the two parties have merit, there is no ethical solution to the problem. The calculus of moral rights in this case is insoluble. The issue will be decided in accordance with the balance of might, not the appeal to what's right.

Is changing Mr. Macedonia's name the only way to address the wrong done and re-assert the rights of Mr. Greece?

Again, If Mr. Greece is truthful, the answer is yes. But, then, we will have righted one wrong (against Mr. Greece) by committing another (against Mr. Macedonia). We are back to square one.

Is Mr. Greece justified in violating Mr. Macedonia's right to a decent life in order to force Mr. Macedonia to change its name and thus right the wrong done to Mr. Greece?

No way. Violating another person's right in order to uphold one's own is rarely justified, though such behaviour cannot be condemned. Here we have the flip side of the confusion we opened with: Mr. Greece's behaviour, though understandable and perhaps inevitable, is also morally reprehensible. One should never knowingly violate another person's rights, even if only to force that person to right a wrong.

Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician, Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.
Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com You can download 22 of his free ebooks in our bookstore

http://globalpolitician.com/25245-greece-macedonia

[Risto the Great]

The moral decision is to support the person's name ... not some ancestor's name that is dubious to say the least. Had Greece been named Macedonia instead, there may have been problems that the rest of the world would have found difficult to deal with. But in this case, it is simple.

Good text!

[Bratot]

Come back of the biggest Macedonian antagonist- Samaras!

One of the Karamanlis proposals for the ministry of Culture is Antonis Samaras.

His motivation to decide for Samaras come back as we could hear, were the latelly "agresive" politics by Macedonian government with renaming the highway,airport, sport arenas, squares etc.

Obviously, the intentions of Karamanlis are to answer proportionally and to "Makedonize" the rest of his artificialy Hellenized nation.

Samaras was in the government in the period of 1989-1992, when he promoted himself as the biggest anti-macedonian greek impostor-politician and opposed the Macedonian independence along with the denying of Macedonian identity!


But in one of his interviews in Kathimerini he revealed part of Greek national strategy to "deal" with Macedonians, just read how this arrogant bastard talks in his very own fascistic-greek style:


Since then Skopje has won the battle for international recognition as “Macedonia.” However, as I have been claiming for years, they are losing the more important battle for their survival, for the preservation of their unity.
The first move happened in 2001 when the Albanians of Tetovo in eastern FYROM, rebelled. There was the threat of civil war, averted at the last minute by a compromise, one that was painful for Skopje, in the Ohrid accord.

FYROM essentially stopped being a “national cradle of Macedonians” and became a multi-ethnic state with two separate ethnic components. “Pseudo-Macedonian” irrendentism began to be questioned on the domestic front. What we question from abroad – the existence of an ethnic state of “Macedonians” – is something that the Albanians of Tetovo began to question from within.

The second step is happening now with the secession of neighboring Kosovo from Serbia, making a new crisis with FYROM’s Albanians unavoidable; and it has already broken out.

For Skopje today, the dilemma is whether it will break up or whether – as some are claiming – it will be transformed into a loose multi-ethnic federation (as a way of avoiding dissolution).

In every case, the “Macedonian idea” will have been defeated once and for all. So we need time and must ensure that Greece does not pay the price of the critical developments to come.

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_ell_1_17/03/2008_94483

More of his...briliant "views" can be read here:

http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/OfficialDocuments/Samaras1.html

[Bratot]

Greece: whether Skopje (Macedonia) will break up!?!?


YouTube - Antonis Samaras-Za makedonskoto prasanje

[Dimko-piperkata]

xаxаxаxаxа
е баш тоа што го викат циганчето за нас, токму тоа ним им се десуват

[Bratot]

Ма да му го начукам.

Сепак опасно дрско копиле е, незнам нашиве мекотелци како ќе одговорат.

[Dimko-piperkata]

Ма да му го начукам.

Сепак опасно дрско копиле е, незнам нашиве мекотелци како ќе одговорат.

Pasko Kuzman - hate us but we will payback with archeological love

YouTube - Pasko Kuzman - hate us but we will payback with archeological love

[Soldier of Macedon]

What a great move by Karamanoglou, no point in trying to hide the true colours hey Kostas, now the Greek Government can flaunt their racism freely.

[Pelister]

One of the Karamanlis proposals for the ministry of Culture is Antonis Samaras.

His motivation to decide for Samaras come back as we could hear, were the latelly "agresive" politics by Macedonian government with renaming the highway,airport, sport arenas, squares etc.

Obviously, the intentions of Karamanlis are to answer proportionally and to "Makedonize" the rest of his artificialy Hellenized nation.

Samaras was in the government in the period of 1989-1992, when he promoted himself as the biggest anti-macedonian greek impostor-politician and opposed the Macedonian independence along with the denying of Macedonian identity!


But in one of his interviews in Kathimerini he revealed part of Greek national strategy to "deal" with Macedonians, just read how this arrogant bastard talks in his very own fascistic-greek style:


Since then Skopje has won the battle for international recognition as “Macedonia.” However, as I have been claiming for years, they are losing the more important battle for their survival, for the preservation of their unity.
The first move happened in 2001 when the Albanians of Tetovo in eastern FYROM, rebelled. There was the threat of civil war, averted at the last minute by a compromise, one that was painful for Skopje, in the Ohrid accord.

FYROM essentially stopped being a “national cradle of Macedonians” and became a multi-ethnic state with two separate ethnic components. “Pseudo-Macedonian” irrendentism began to be questioned on the domestic front. What we question from abroad – the existence of an ethnic state of “Macedonians” – is something that the Albanians of Tetovo began to question from within.

The second step is happening now with the secession of neighboring Kosovo from Serbia, making a new crisis with FYROM’s Albanians unavoidable; and it has already broken out.

For Skopje today, the dilemma is whether it will break up or whether – as some are claiming – it will be transformed into a loose multi-ethnic federation (as a way of avoiding dissolution).

In every case, the “Macedonian idea” will have been defeated once and for all. So we need time and must ensure that Greece does not pay the price of the critical developments to come.

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_ell_1_17/03/2008_94483

More of his...briliant "views" can be read here:

http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Of.../Samaras1.html

The Macedonian Leadership need to take a long hard look at this, read it and read it again.

Perhaps that will wake them up.

[Bratot]

I agree Pelister.

Now its pretty clear why Greece was buying time with vetoing us in NATO. They can't allow our membership in the alliance since it would mean total failure of their national interest to erase everything associated with 'Macedonia' and 'Macedonian'.

[Pelister]

I agree Pelister.

Now its pretty clear why Greece was buying time with vetoing us in NATO. They can't allow our membership in the alliance since it would mean total failure of their national interest to erase everything associated with 'Macedonia' and 'Macedonian'.

If there was any doubt that Greece has purposefully and intentionally set out to create doubt about the identity of the Macedonians - then there shouldn't be anymore.

These guys have a strategy to bring the Macedonians down, and I get the feeling based on Samaras's comments that it involves the Albanians in Western Macedonia.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Greeks are secretly funding them.

[Bratot]

I'm convinced in that. There has been going many versions around, that Greeks have given logistic and diplomatic support.

However, Ali Achmeti - the ONA leader, was visiting Greece and had several meetings with Bakoyannis in the last few years only.
It's not hard to think why the Greeks are givin so much attention to him. Especially after his demand to participate in the name-issue proces of negotiations.

[Bratot]

Macedonian A1 TV about the statement of Samaras:

http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/default.aspx?VestID=102842

and the Video (on Macedonian lang.) :

http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/video.asp?Video=09/samaras-10-01.wmv&VestID=102842

[Dimko-piperkata]

its not quarter to 12 for grease its even quarter past 12, they are finished ....can u see/feel it too guys ?