Macedonia & Greece: Name Issue

[Vangelovski]

Then follow (though never blindly) Vangelovski's, Aleksandrov's and RTG's (there are others too but these guys are leading exponents on MTO whom I think would NOT REGRESS at the drop of a hat!) ideological lead.

Thank you for you vote of confidence Indigen - I would include yourself and SoM on that list.

[sf.]

FYROM is indeed a Greek invention. I guess it's too difficult for them to say PGDM (ΠΓΔΜ) in Greek or they will swallow their tongues with so many consonants. FYR Macedonia is what the UN document states also in my opinion. i.e. it is Macedonia that used to be under the Yugoslavian state (control).

That's how it was sold to Macedonia/ns. The reference is actually worse than that. It doesn't state that this is the country Macedonia that used to be a republic of Yugoslavia, but rather that this is the state that used to be known as the Republic of Macedonia in Yugoslavia (but is not any longer and a decision on a new name should be found). It's a reference that is used in absence of a name.

Also to note, as I have previously here, why would the Greeks agree to any name that included the word Macedonia, when they even reduce FYROM to its acronym, to avoid the mention of the word?

[julie]

Is it as simple as RoM declaring sovereignty and declaring the IA null and void?
Why does RoM do nothing?

And the scenarios that Bratot proclaims may happen, well , if they do happen, they would happen anyway if we waited another 15 years anyway

Surely RoM would be prepared for any insurgents?

[Buktop]

I am yet to see any real argument from those suggesting a meek approach in order to bide our time, about the actual consequences of ending the negotiations immediately.

I mean, there have been posts here mentioning embargoes and so on, but there has been no analysis at all as to whether Greece really is in the position to unilateraly declare an economic embargo against Macedonia.

If anyone wanted to take this discussion seriously, which has never been done before on any forum, then it would be about evaluating those assumed consequences.

Rogi, you know for a fact that I have posted economic data both from 1994, and from 2008 explaining our Export/energy reliance on the port of Solun. I have completely explained the ramifications of the first embargo as well as possible ramifications of a current one.

I do not wish to say that my analysis is 100% correct, nor do I wish to say that Macedonia is not capable of recovering from economic sanctions, but current economic data indicates a huge impact should those sanctions take place.

This is not an issue that the layman would be able to understand, because there are certain aspects of economic interrelatedness in terms of the affected areas of industry/trade, immediate effects are not easily discerned, nor are their ramifications easily determined.

Whether or not you have viewed my posts or remember them, I cannot say, but if you would like to have a more private conversation where there is less chance for provocation and detraction from the argument, I would be more than willing to do so.

[Bratot]

Bratot,

I've been patient with you, but you are insisting on spreading Gligorovist propaganda which only Buktop and UMD subscribe to these days.

How would declaring the Interim Accord 'null and void' affect our UN membership? How on earth did you come to that assumption? RtG pointed this out so it should give you a clue - do you know when and under what circumstances Macedonia was admitted to the UN? Or are you just spreading more uninformed BS to scare other Macedonians into believing your idiotic scenarios? You're making uninformed assumptions based on inaccurate information and then concluding pre-conceived apocalyptic scenarios accordingly.

Here is a copy of the UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY resolution admitting Macedonia in 1993:

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N93/240/37/IMG/N9324037.pdf?OpenElement

The Interim Accord was signed in 1995.

How does an Accord, signed two years later, have any effect on Macedonian UN membership?

Do you know the difference between the General Assembly and the Security Council? Do you know which of the two has the power to admit new members? Do you know how existing members can be expelled or have their membership rights and privileges suspended? Have you ever read (and UNDERSTOOD) the UN Charter? Or are you just making things up as you go along?

Have you REALLY put any thought and research into the apocalyptic scenarios you predict for Macedonia if it declared the Interim Accord 'null and void' or are you just rehashing 15 year old Gligorovist arguements? Do you know what 'null and void' means? Besides the treasonous name negotiations, do you know what else constitutes the Interim Accord? Can you substantiate any of your claims with evidence-based reasoning?

Vangelovski,

I don't know how more clear can I make it in order you understand.

According to the questioning you tend doing in the Prolet style but not giving your own explanations on it or anything else, I'm convinced you don't know what we are discussing here and how these matter relates to each other.

If one only follows the questions you ask the conclussion of your total ignorance is obvious as you were caught in few times already.

Meanwhile, let me ask you for your evidence-based argumentation on how such situation will be solved according your understanding and knowledge or you just follow your guts in constructing your opinion in this discussion.

I also asked you nicely to restrain accussing me for 'spreading Gligorvist or Grujovist propaganda' cause it's irritating and offensive to me and I wont tolerate it, if I start using the same methodology in dealing you the quality of this debate will go down with the flow.

The Security Council is recomending the application of a member which has to be ratified in the General Assembly, but also only the SC have the ability to block such resolution.

In the case of Macedonia it was like this:

The SC, 07.04.1993

Recommends to the General Assembly that the State whose application is contained in document S/25147 be admitted to membership in the United Nations, this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement ofthe difference that has arisen over the name of the State.

A/RES/47/225 98th plenary meeting 8 April 1993

Admission of the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 to membership in the United Nations

The General Assembly,

Having received the recommendation of the Security Council of 7 April 1993 that the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 should be admitted to membership in the United Nations,

Having considered the application for membership contained in document A/47/876-S/25147,

Decides to admit the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 to membership in the United Nations, this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State.


Adopted by the Security Council at its 3243rd meeting, on 18 June 1993


The Security Council,


Recalling its resolution 817 (1993) of 7 April 1993, in which it urged Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to continue to cooperate with the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia in order to arrive at a speedy settlement of their difference,


Having considered the report of the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to resolution 817 (1993), together with the statement of the Government of Greece and the letter of the President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia dated 27 and 29 May 1993 respectively (S/25855 and Add.1 and 2),


1. Expresses its appreciation to the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia for their efforts and commends to the parties as a sound basis for the settlement of their difference the proposals set forth in annex V to the report of the Secretary-General;


2. Urges the parties to continue their efforts under the auspices of the Secretary-General to arrive at a speedy settlement of the remaining issues between them;


3. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Council informed on the progress of these further efforts, the objective of which is to resolve the difference between the two parties before the commencement of the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly, and to report to the Council on their outcome in good time, and decides to resume consideration of the matter in the light of the report.


--------

The Interim Accord


Article 5
1. The Parties agree to continue negotiations under the auspices of the
Secretary-General of the United Nations pursuant to Security Council resolution 845 (1993) 1
with a view to reaching agreement on the difference described in that resolution and in Security Council resolution 817 (1993). 2

INTERNATIONAL, MULTILATERAL AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Article 11
1. Upon entry into force of this I.iterim Accord, the Party of the First Part agrees not to object to the application by or the membership of the Party of the Second Part
in international, multilateral and regional organizations and institutions of which the Party of the First Part is a member; however, the Party of the First Part reserves the right to object to any membership referred to above if and to the extent the Party of the Second Part is to be
referred to in such organization or institution differently than in paragraph 2 of United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993).

----

The Interim Accord is made according to the Resolution of 1993 by the Security Council.

You can withdraw from the IA anytime but the provisional name will stay in force.

By ceasing the IA the resolution of our admitting to UN is violated since we obligated ourself to reach an agreement.

Therefore if we want to 'anul and void' the provisional name by withdrawing from the IA is not posibile but only with re-admission to the UN - by recomendation of the SC.

The P-5 members of SC have the right to VETO every resolution, as the one supposed for re-admission of Macedonia under it's Constitutional name.

Now let me hear your plan of getting rid of the 'provisional reference' only by abandoning the IA and how according to you will implicate our status in the UN.

I guess I can relay on your capabilities and knowledge how such diplomatic meneuvres have been and can be done.

[Vangelovski]

Bratot,

Looks like we have to go back to basics with you. I'll have to dig up all of my old post, but I'll start with this: Do you understand the concept of state sovereingty?

And just for laughs, when was the last time a UN member was expelled for violating a Security Council Resolution?

[Rogi]

Bratot, are you suggesting that by withdrawing from the Interim Agreement, Macedonia will simultaneously lose its' membership in the United Nations?

[Vangelovski]

Bratot, are you suggesting that by withdrawing from the Interim Agreement, Macedonia will simultaneously lose its' membership in the United Nations?

I rarely use these but @ Bratot

[Bratot]

http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml#m
I looked in the "M" section and could not find Macedonia.
We are not there. So there is nothing to worry about.

I suppose if I look at the "T" section I might see something .... but I don't want to look there. It goes against UN charters. But if I take a peek at the "T" section it says admitted 1993. Which precedes the interim agreement anyway. Therefore I will say nothing will happen whatsoever. It will be the same shit with the UN as has been the case for 17 years. Are you tired of the "provisional" name yet?

I thought you want to withdraw the IA because you are tired of the provisional name, so by doing that you have to follow the path I already described to Vangelovski.

Claiming so comfortably 'that nothing will happen whatsoever' is not serious and of course from this position of no responsibility for the unforeseen concequences I might agree with you, nothing will happen.

Are you really fully convinced about the repercussions and can responsible guarantee that no negative implications will take place and this will better our possition?

I'm not opposing the 'great national pride of resistance and big move' feeling, but I'm afraid it could easily end up like in Serbia example, where also most of the people never believed all those things will happen but yet, their country has been practically devided. And I don't think this tendentions of territorial claims against Macedonia have ever calmed as we are the shooting mark from all sides.

But ok, lets try everything you convincly suggest, this way or other way I'm ready to back off my position and to support the common strive even if we are doomed to a failure. All I wanted was to rethink some of your opinions in order not to repeat the old mistake, as the one for early rising Illinden resurection.

[johnMKD]

That's how it was sold to Macedonia/ns. The reference is actually worse than that. It doesn't state that this is the country Macedonia that used to be a republic of Yugoslavia, but rather that this is the state that used to be known as the Republic of Macedonia in Yugoslavia (but is not any longer and a decision on a new name should be found). It's a reference that is used in absence of a name.

Also to note, as I have previously here, why would the Greeks agree to any name that included the word Macedonia, when they even reduce FYROM to its acronym, to avoid the mention of the word?

Actually I never thought it the way you said (the state that used to be known as the Republic of Macedonia in Yugoslavia), but I guess you're right. For me it was always FYR Macedonia as far as the interim accord is concerned.

Of course the Geeks agree to the acronym just to avoid using the term. FYROM was just perfect for them. I have even seen it like this on Greek maps: Fyrom as if it is a name by its self.

[Vangelovski]

Acutally Bratot,

If you think that Macedonia will be expelled from the UN (and you view this as a dangerous situation) how on earth will you ever justify withdrawing from the Interim Accord, even after your supposed "reforms" are in place? What you have just argued insinuates that the Interim Accord "must" remain in place permanently or we "must" change our name, otherwise we will be in defiance of SC Resolution 817 and we, according to you, will be expelled from the UN, which, according to you, will be Greece's "wet dream" scenario. So, according to you, we either have to change our name or remain in a permanent state of negotiations... This is a new shift from your previous argument that will can withdraw, but not now and only at the "right time".

Further, trying to equate Macedonia with Serbia, which instigated 2 expantionist wars and genocide is completely ridiculous and another typical scaremongering tactic.

[Bratot]

Bratot,

Looks like we have to go back to basics with you. I'll have to dig up all of my old post, but I'll start with this: Do you understand the concept of state sovereingty?

And just for laughs, when was the last time a UN member was expelled for violating a Security Council Resolution?

I'm not here for lecturing nor you gave your answer on the questions I asked.

When your hignness provide the answers than we can continie debating.

Bratot, are you suggesting that by withdrawing from the Interim Agreement, Macedonia will simultaneously lose its' membership in the United Nations?

Rogi,

with withdrawing the IA in purpose of abandoning the provisional name can be done only by withdrawing the primary recognition of our country for membership in UN.

In order to restore all our rights as member state we have to provide support of two-third of all United Nations' members including approval by the Security Council members P-5.

I think we already have reach the two-thirds that have already recognized us but we have to pass the SC P-5 where we confront France as usually.

The Resolution of our admitting in 1993 have obligated us to work finding a mutual solution with Greece, on that relates the IA and by unilateral withdrawing without such decission of the ICJ where we have the case going on, we can only damage our rights in UN and our seat can be suspended.

[Vangelovski]

By ceasing the IA the resolution of our admitting to UN is violated since we obligated ourself to reach an agreement.

Therefore if we want to 'anul and void' the provisional name by withdrawing from the IA is not posibile but only with re-admission to the UN - by recomendation of the SC.

The P-5 members of SC have the right to VETO every resolution, as the one supposed for re-admission of Macedonia under it's Constitutional name.

Now let me hear your plan of getting rid of the 'provisional reference' only by abandoning the IA and how according to you will implicate our status in the UN.

I guess I can relay on your capabilities and knowledge how such diplomatic meneuvres have been and can be done.

The above was actually the UMD plan of attack. I provided a number of examples, in this thread I think, about the process of name changes at the UN.

The Resolution of our admitting in 1993 have obligated us to work finding a mutual solution with Greece, on that relates the IA and by unilateral withdrawing without such decission of the ICJ where we have the case going on, we can only damage our rights in UN and our seat can be suspended.

If you think that Macedonia will be expelled from the UN (and you view this as a dangerous situation) how on earth will you ever justify withdrawing from the Interim Accord, even after your supposed "reforms" are in place? What you have just argued insinuates that the Interim Accord "must" remain in place permanently or we "must" change our name, otherwise we will be in defiance of SC Resolution 817 and we, according to you, will be expelled from the UN, which, according to you, will be Greece's "wet dream" scenario. So, according to you, we either have to change our name or remain in a permanent state of negotiations... This is a new shift from your previous argument that will can withdraw, but not now and only at the "right time".

You've contradicted yourself so many times in this thread, but this one takes the cake.

[Vangelovski]

The Resolution of our admitting in 1993 have obligated us to work finding a mutual solution with Greece, on that relates the IA and by unilateral withdrawing without such decission of the ICJ where we have the case going on, we can only damage our rights in UN and our seat can be suspended.

You heard it here first - Macedonia could be suspended for excercising its sovereignty. Iran and North Korea have not been suspended, various other states have not been suspended for a number of serious violations against humanity, yet Macedonia could be suspended. This, Bratot, has got to be the most compelling evidence for your GLIGOROVIST propaganda.

[Bratot]

Acutally Bratot,

If you think that Macedonia will be expelled from the UN (and you view this as a dangerous situation) how on earth will you ever justify withdrawing from the Interim Accord, even after your supposed "reforms" are in place? What you have just argued insinuates that the Interim Accord "must" remain in place permanently or we "must" change our name, otherwise we will be in defiance of SC Resolution 817 and we, according to you, will be expelled from the UN, which, according to you, will be Greece's "wet dream" scenario. So, according to you, we either have to change our name or remain in a permanent state of negotiations... This is a new shift from your previous argument that will can withdraw, but not now and only at the "right time".
Further, trying to equate Macedonia with Serbia, which instigated 2 expantionist wars and genocide is completely ridiculous and another typical scaremongering tactic.

It's not a new shift, I already stated several times that we have to PREPARE ourselfs for such situation of circumstances.

After we become members in NATO and after we succeed prevailing within ( again the ex. with Turkey) we can more justiciable withdraw the IA and stay members in NATO, which will better our diplomatic position in whole and our international relations if we decide to surpass the resolution for re-admission of our country under the Constitutional name.

In the current position we are basically defenseless in every meaning and we can easily be a subject of worse scenarious.

I'm not equating Macedonia with Serbia in their policies, I'm only suggesting nothing is exaggerared when it comes to the repercussions. We wont be bombed for sure but we are so much vulnerable at this moment that we can be forced into another scenario of Ramkoven.

That will surely lead into worsen development of the situation in the country and yes, than the wet dream of Greece as I already cited Samaras will come true.