Macedonia & Greece: Name Issue

[julie]

my head is sore.

I say, lets empower RoM to declare the IA null and void

How can the UN suspend Macedonia from declaring sovereignty? Under MMMMMMM for Macedonia?

And if they do, surely there would be loopholes and laws where we can cry foul and discrimination?

And so bloody hell what if we are not part of the UN

Am so over other countries dangling carrots before the scared bunny.

Let the bunny grow some balls I say.

Am over it. the UN, EU and NATO can jump in the bloody lake and take Grease down with them

Incidentally Turkey would jump to our defence in a second if there was any further revolts

[Vangelovski]

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.

These arguments sound so familiar...Kiro Gligorov, Branko Crvenkovski, Ljubomir Frckovski, Denko Maleski...the ony difference is that these empty-headed treasonous weasels would never argue that we can somehow "pretend" to accept a name change only to revert to our original name after we enter this or that organisation. Nor would they make the idiotic claims you are in relation to our UN membership. They at least recognised that there were TWO options:

1. complete capitulation and the preservation of Macedonia as a vassal state (with their international careers guaranteed) OR

2. declaration of the Interim Accord as 'null and void' and taking RESPONSIBILITY for our own sovereignty.

[Bratot]

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.

I see you can't resist repeating the same bullshit.

If you are so confident in your arrogancy I don't see a point of discussion.

You have NOT answered how will you get rid of the provisional name but you keep picking up sentences out of the whole picture and align the etiquette.

Not mentioning that you claimed the reference is already our second international name and that we should change it back (wtf), only proving you total IGNORANCE and blindly following exactly what the followers of Gligorov have been speading the propaganda of " we are talking only about other name to replace the reference" which is the highest moment in you idiocity, arrogancy and still have the face to point out to me with such accussations.

You are not a stable person to have any further discussion with nor credibile enough to give contours to the arguments on this subject.

These arguments sound so familiar...Kiro Gligorov, Branko Crvenkovski, Ljubomir Frckovski, Denko Maleski.. the ony difference is that these empty-headed treasonous weasels would never argue
1. that we can somehow "pretend" to accept a name change only to revert to our original name after we enter this or that organisation. Nor would they make the
2. idiotic claims you are in relation to our UN membership.

1. I never claimed that, it's you personal invention and obvious insinuation in because you can't deal a discussion on real arguments. I stated that we can prevail in the same way Turkey already does

Turkey as a member of NATO insist in every NATO document to call us Republic of Macedonia



As we get all the countries members in NATO use this example to refer us the provisional reference with time will become senseless, irrelevant and after we streighten our position as a members we can easily abandon the IA and than aply for re-admission to UN under our name.
The membership will provide us more stable ground for this, as at least not having repercussions followed by manipulating the albanian extremist by outsiders.

2. I asked you several times how will you get rid of the provisional reference if not by withdrawing the first recognition iin UN of our country under that name?

Now try to measure your endless idiocity.

[julie]

Julie, you really should STOP AGREEING with everything that on a superficial analysis looks reasonable and take a considered IDEOLOGICAL position. ALL these "TEMPORARY REFERENCES" "INTERIM ACCORDS" AND "FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTS" (akak RAMKOVEN DOGOVOR) should simply be declared as null and void and never legitimised! If you do that, you would not repeatedly have conflicting positions.

As it is, the VASSAL politicians in Mk will do what their masters want and the least we can do is NOT GIVE THEM OUR SUPPORT!

Indigen, abre batko, where have I agreed with the IA?

I have never agreed with the ramkoven odgovor, changing the name, changing the flag or negotiating my name. period.

makedonka majka me rodi , od egey, tatko e od vardarska Makedonia, so kakvo srce jas ke primnam drugo ime koga moya krv e Makedonsko, ti mene ne me znaesh, ama znaj ova, ako treba, jas dushata ke si a dadam da si vidam moyte braka i sestri vo tseli parchina od Makedonia da imat pravi, kako Makedonsti. I mameto da mu ebam Amerikansko, franzusko i Anglichansko, shto mi ya rasparchea moeto zemja Makedonsko. I shto na moyeta familia machena od majka strana, krv shto techeshe za Makedonia da ima prava vo gregaynskata voyna . Jas zhivot bi go dadele denes da mi ja bide Makedonia, samo Makedonia priznata, i jas vervam vo Boga, i sum mnogu bolna, lezham tuka doma pak od bolnitsa. Nemoy da me svatish greshno, jas ne primnuvam glupostvite na predavnitsite, i tie shto se falat oti se reprezentarite od diasporata.

What I would like to see is unity among the mst articulate, well educated group of males I have ever come across, and to work toward empowering the politicians in RoM to bloody well do something.

I do not support and am pissed with Gruevski for calling a referendum, for our name. I am merely trying to placate you boys into working together.
If it meant I was able to fly to RoM to tomorrow and stand and protest or do whatever it took, take a blooming bullet and die for my Macedonian name I would.
I am apalled with the apathy in RoM from the citizens, and cant wait till dad returns from his trip in a couple of months, so I can grill him on the situation there, firsthand

Indigen, you are a very articulate and intelligent man, as are most of you on this forum, I am a peaceful person, unless someone does something to upset me.

You have me worked out all wrong.

[Vangelovski]

Bratot,

I've posted my view over and over again:

DECLARE THE INTERIM ACCORD 'NULL AND VOID' AND REVERSE ITS IMPLEMENTATION.

You have been supporting a SECOND international name throughout this thread, arguing we should join international organisations as FYROM.

I have consistently repeated this:

DECLARE THE INTERIM ACCORD 'NULL AND VOID' AND REVERSE ITS IMPLEMENTATION.

I'll repeat it again for you:

DECLARE THE INTERIM ACCORD 'NULL AND VOID' AND REVERSE ITS IMPLEMENTATION.

Here's YOUR Gligorovist arguments again:

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.

[Bratot]

You are full of empty accussations and full of arrogant ignorance.


I never supported second name, FYROM doesn't exist for your information and if you allude to the provisional reference than your ignorance has been confirmed once again by claiming and equating it as our second international name. ( You basicaly admit it for a second name)

Beside the fact you are full of lies which you can't even support without biased insinuations you can't answer a single question I asked several times.

To make it clear for you(again), as we are already members under the provisional reference in all organisations or most of them, and that fact still provided us opportunity NOT to change our name when we are still arguing about it so there is no question of reverting anything after becoming NATO members but better position to withdraw the IA and for -re-admission in UN under our Constitutional name.

[Vangelovski]

To make it clear for you(again), as we are already members under the provisional reference in all organisations or most of them, and that fact still provided us opportunity NOT to change our name when we are still arguing about it so there is no question of reverting anything after becoming NATO members but better position to withdraw the IA and for -re-admission in UN under our Constitutional name.

Bratot,

If, as you claim, we can be suspended from the UN for withdrawing from the Accord, don't you think that a similar scenario will arise in NATO? If not, why not?

In order to enter NATO, Macedonia would have to CHANGE its name (Greece has made this clear) and Greece has demanded guarantees to prevent Macedonia from renegading on that CHANGE of name. Macedonia is NOT entering NATO or the EU under the terms of the Accord, even with a "favourable" ICJ decision, simply because the ICJ does NOT have the ability to enforce its decisions.

Therefore, if you are unprepared to "risk" UN membership by declaring the Interim Accord 'null and void' now, what makes you think you will risk the 'wrath' of NATO once we are a member under a changed name with a "permanent" agreement superceeding the Accord?

[Rogi]

Bratot, you are saying that withdrawing from the Interim Accord, will result in the immediate expulsion of Macedonia from the United Nations.

But you are saying Macedonia could join NATO and EU and THEN withdraw from the Interim Accord. However, if it is as you say, then even at that point Macedonia should be immediately expelled from the United Nations and at the same time expelled from the European Union and NATO (who allow membership only to UN Members, and who have also set a precondition of membership that the 'name dispute' be resolved).

If things are as you claim, then your strategy will not work, because if they are as you say, then Macedonia can never withdraw from the interim accord or it loses UN membership and also (if it were a member) its' NATO and EU membership.

But this is simply not the case. Macedonia will not lose its' UN Membership by withdrawing from the Interim Accord - I am not sure where this idea comes from but it is very incorrect.


Macedonia CAN withdraw from the Interim Accord, for whatever reason it wishes. In fact, the Interim Accord itself allows for this in Article 23.

This will not mean the withdrawal of Macedonia's UN Membership and is not related to Macedonia's UN Membership.

The Interim Accord was not an official requirement for Macedonia's membership to the UN; that would be against the UN Charter itself.

The Interim Accord was signed only because of Greece's economic embargo, and was signed because of that pressure, but was never made an official requirement for UN Membership.

Indeed it was a political 'requirement', not a legal one and if Macedonia did not cave in to the pressure, the UN would have had no chance but to accept Macedonia's membership since none of the P5 Security Council members were going to Veto Macedonia's UN Membership.

The only official requirements for UN Membership are outlayed in Article 4 of the United Nations Charter. There are no other requirements.


Please note the official Resolution of the United Nations which granted Macedonia's membership to the UN.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/a47r225.htm

It clearly shows that it was decided that Macedonia be accepted as a member AND that it would be provisionally referred to as "the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". It does not say that Macedonia be accepted as a member on the basis of the Interim Accord - the UN couldn't do that, because that goes against its' own Charter.

Macedonia's Membership is not dependant upon the settlement of the so-called name dispute, but rather the name used to reference Macedonia is dependent on settlement of the so-called name dispute.

This needs to be clear to everyone, so that these fallacious assumptions of Macedonia losing UN Membership upon withdrawing from the Interim Accord, are finally put to rest.

[Vangelovski]

It clearly shows that it was decided that Macedonia be accepted as a member AND that it would be provisionally referred to as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". It does not say that Macedonia be accepted as a member on the basis of the Interim Accord - the UN couldn't do that, because that goes against its' own Charter.

And the fact that the Accord was not even conceived until two years later. Unless of course, Bratot will now have us believe that the UN in 1993 had a time machine and knew about the events of 1995.

[indigen]

Indigen, abre batko, where have I agreed with the IA?

I have never agreed with the ramkoven odgovor, changing the name, changing the flag or negotiating my name. period.

Daskalot: "....Vangelovski our name is non-negotiable.
Our government does not seem to do much about that because the accord is still in place and in full force.
There is no better time then right now to pull away from the negotiations and the accord.
Greek is weak and it has a lot of domestic problems...."

Julie: "Absolutely, I agree wholeheartedly, why does RoM do nothing?"


You AGREED with Daskalot on what he stated above but I assumed you had also read what he stated before and as it reads below. In that context, IMO, I was correct to reply to you in the way I did, but on just reading the above passage you replied to, it may be interpreted differently. So I apologise if I got it wrong but I still would like you to think about what I said.

---------------
My reply to Daskalot on previous page (2):
Daskalot: "....My stance on the issue is that Macedonia should enforce Article 23 of the Accord, it is our legal right to do so..."

Daskale, the following post by TV, IME, clarifies a couple of important considerations that should be taken into account when considering your suggestion:

Quote:
Vangelovski: "...The only dignified exit, in my view, can be enacted at any time and that is to declare the Interim Accord 'null and void'. The only thing stopping Macedonian politicians from doing this is their vassal interests. The only thing stopping ordinary Macedonians from demanding this is the vague and unsubstantiated apocalyptic scenarios fed to them by their vassal politicians.

If Macedonia was to withdraw based on Article 23, it would have to recognise the Accord as valid. If it were to recognise the Accord as valid, it would legitimise the Greek argument that we are in fact stealing their history, name, identity etc...."

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...&postcount=125

----------------------

What I would like to see is unity among the mst articulate, well educated group of males I have ever come across, and to work toward empowering the politicians in RoM to bloody well do something.

We need IDEOLOGICAL leadership and a NATIONAL (PATRIOTIC) Movement based on sound NATIONALIST ideology working to develop a political power base in RoM and the OCCUPIED parts of Macedonia as well as amongst the Macedonians in the Diaspora. IMO, we should NOT waste time on artificial "unity" based on disparate and competing/conflicting ideologies! Thus the nationalist (patriotic) ideology (and movement) must prevail for there to be any positive results for the CAUSE of the Macedonian Nation.

You have me worked out all wrong.

I think you read my message wrong! I know you are a Macedonian "Lioness" but I was only suggesting on a SIMPLE method that will never compromise your political integrity vis a vis the said "TR", "IA" and "FA" (RD)!

So pochit,
I.

[Bratot]

Bratot,

If, as you claim, we can be suspended from the UN for withdrawing from the Accord, don't you think that a similar scenario will arise in NATO? If not, why not?

In order to enter NATO, Macedonia would have to CHANGE its name (Greece has made this clear) and Greece has demanded guarantees to prevent Macedonia from renegading on that CHANGE of name. Macedonia is NOT entering NATO or the EU under the terms of the Accord, even with a "favourable" ICJ decision, simply because the ICJ does NOT have the ability to enforce its decisions.

Again.

We could be suspended, I can't claim on 100% but it will worse our position in UN since we are practically violating the resolution of our admission to UN and the obligation to look for a mutual solution.

The case in ICJ will decide to implement the IA and Greece has NO rights to block again since the Court has EXECUTIVE right and obligates all sides to acknowledge his decission.

I have gave the link to support what I said. If the decission of ICJ will be broken it will mean breaking International Law which itself with bring repercussions on that side - Greece and their position in UN and as a member in NATO will be questioned or even suspended.
I don't think the other members of NATO will allow this Greek purpose to ignore the ICJ and to prevent us go further than it is right now.

We don't lose anything with any of this but only can get more arguments to support our position. We can't do more than this, by using all the diplomatic tools we have on disposal.

If this doesn't work than we can accept your advice and do as you said, even though in such circumstances we will have to undertake counter measure if any repercussion on us will follow.

Therefore, if you are unprepared to "risk" UN membership by declaring the Interim Accord 'null and void' now, what makes you think you will risk the 'wrath' of NATO once we are a member under a changed name with a "permanent" agreement superceeding the Accord?

I don't understand where you came up with "once we are member with changed name" conclussion?

Stop making your insinuations on something never was mentioned nor suggested.

Bratot, you are saying that withdrawing from the Interim Accord, will result in the immediate expulsion of Macedonia from the United Nations.

But you are saying Macedonia could join NATO and EU and THEN withdraw from the Interim Accord. However, if it is as you say, then even at that point Macedonia should be immediately expelled from the United Nations and at the same time expelled from the European Union and NATO (who allow membership only to UN Members, and who have also set a precondition of membership that the 'name dispute' be resolved).

If things are as you claim, then your strategy will not work, because if they are as you say, then Macedonia can never withdraw from the interim accord or it loses UN membership and also (if it were a member) its' NATO and EU membership.

But this is simply not the case. Macedonia will not lose its' UN Membership by withdrawing from the Interim Accord - I am not sure where this idea comes from but it is very incorrect.


Macedonia CAN withdraw from the Interim Accord, for whatever reason it wishes. In fact, the Interim Accord itself allows for this in Article 23.

This will not mean the withdrawal of Macedonia's UN Membership and is not related to Macedonia's UN Membership.

The Interim Accord was not an official requirement for Macedonia's membership to the UN; that would be against the UN Charter itself.

The Interim Accord was signed only because of Greece's economic embargo, and was signed because of that pressure, but was never made an official requirement for UN Membership.

Indeed it was a political 'requirement', not a legal one and if Macedonia did not cave in to the pressure, the UN would have had no chance but to accept Macedonia's membership since none of the P5 Security Council members were going to Veto Macedonia's UN Membership.

The only official requirements for UN Membership are outlayed in Article 4 of the United Nations Charter. There are no other requirements.


Please note the official Resolution of the United Nations which granted Macedonia's membership to the UN.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/a47r225.htm

It clearly shows that it was decided that Macedonia be accepted as a member AND that it would be provisionally referred to as "the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". It does not say that Macedonia be accepted as a member on the basis of the Interim Accord - the UN couldn't do that, because that goes against its' own Charter.

Macedonia's Membership is not dependant upon the settlement of the so-called name dispute, but rather the name used to reference Macedonia is dependent on settlement of the so-called name dispute.

This needs to be clear to everyone, so that these fallacious assumptions of Macedonia losing UN Membership upon withdrawing from the Interim Accord, are finally put to rest.

What is the purpose of withdrawing the IA and keeping the provisional reference ongoing?

The IA is related to the resolution of our admitting in UN and we can surely withdraw IA but even such act has to be processed under ICJ.

If we anull and void the IA without opinion and decission of the ICJ we do risk violating the primary resolution signed by us when joining the UN.

If we withdraw the IA only for the purpose of getting rid of the provisional reference it will NOT work, therefore the next thing we should do by logical schedule is to withdraw our first application to the UN and recognition to join under the provisional name in order to replace it with NEW resolution for re-admission under the Constitutional name.

At this stage we meet SC in order to give recommendation and to allow us enter the UN under our Constitutional name.

The P-5 doesn't require any argumentation if they want to VETO someone, they have done it many times in many occassions. France already backed Greece in 1993 and untill now have proven their support to the Greeks.

You can till try and risk, but what will happen when appears you were wrong in your calculations?

Will you renew your membership under the provisional reference once again hmm? or you think no further conditions shall be expected hmm?

If we unilateraly withdraw IA without respecting the process that has to be done through ICJ we will give counter argument in order to be pointed as a violator of the UN resolution and give further opportunity to be blackmailed if we want to re-join the UN under unknown name at that point.

I didn't mean "immediate expulsion" from UN but the logical development of our effort would be withdrawing the resolution for our recognition under the reference, so at that point we don't have a seat nor we enjoy the rights.

[Bratot]

And the fact that the Accord was not even conceived until two years later. Unless of course, Bratot will now have us believe that the UN in 1993 had a time machine and knew about the events of 1995.

How brilliant, bravo.

The IA is in correlation with the resolution of our admitting to UN dated 7 and 8 april 1993 and that name is transfered to the IA.

Instead of focusing on the question I asked you couple of times already, you still failed to explain how we can release ourself from the provisional reference.

Explain me the process.

[Rogi]

No that is incorrect and those are only your assumptions.

The Republic of Macedonia can withdraw from the Interim Accord and having withdrawn from the Interim Accord, it is not bound by it. You may ask if Macedonia is legally bound by it and whether Greece can pursue some legal recourse if Macedonia withdraws or ends the Interim Accord, but even Article 23 is clear on this point that Macedonia can withdraw (if it sought to withdraw on that basis, rather than by declaring the accord null and void).

This will not affect Macedonia's UN Membership, because Macedonia's UN Membership is not on the basis of the Interim Accord, it is a fully-fledged member. I have explained this in my previous post, and I encourage you to re-read it. Macedonia is also not bound, at this point, to use the Interim name.

Macedonia can then notify the United Nations that it wishes to be referred to, from then onward, as the Republic of Macedonia.

The United Nations will accept this, in the same way as it accepted Myanmar's name change, having changed it from Burma in 1989, despite very strong objections led by powerful countries including the United States.

It only depends on the political dimension as to whether a veto can be used by one of the P5 Security Council members, which most would agree to be highly unlikely, and it depends on that political dimension as to whether the UN 2/3 majority rule requirement may come into play, which is generally only used in very important situations and issues like recommendations on peace and security and the election of Security Council members.

[julie]

There is nothing stopping RoM from standing firm then?
How shameful , what is it that people are afraid of?

SLOBODA

[Bratot]

No that is incorrect and those are only your assumptions.

The Republic of Macedonia can withdraw from the Interim Accord.
This will not affect Macedonia's UN Membership.

Macedonia can then notify the United Nations that it wishes to be referred to, from then onward, as the Republic of Macedonia.

The United Nations must accept this, in the same way as it accepted Myanmar's name change, having changed it from Burma in 1989, despite very strong objections led by powerful countries including the United States.

That is your mistake, unfortunately.

I'm not giving you assumption but already checked options with persons directly involved in the mission in UN.
I can always call on them and in discretion I can provide you a personal contact.

We can withdraw the IA but the provisional reference will stay in use.

In order to change our designation in UN we have to renew our application supported by SC.

If the name depended on what we "wish for" we wouldn't be at this point.

You should be aware of it instead of claiming so confortable how we only need to proclaim our wish in UN how to refer us from now on.