Tweet
Originally posted by Rogi
View Post
-
I have always wondered, what are the affraid of? It annoyes me beyond anything to see how we are still in an agreement that we can get rid off. I have no idea why, I really don't understand. -
Sounds easy to me.Question: Marie, one question. Since the Government of Myanmar has changed the name from Burma to Myanmar, what is the position of the United Nations? Does it call Burma Myanmar or still calls it Burma and Myanmar?
Deputy Spokesperson: It’s Myanmar. On that note, have a good afternoon. Thank you.Risto the Great
MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
"Holding my breath for the revolution."
Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.comComment
-
The only reasons why the Republic of Macedonia has not withdrawn from the Interim Accord by now is because;
1. It fears the unilateral actions that Greece may take (economic and political)
2. It fears losing diplomatic support and more to the point, international (financial) aid
3. It fears that doing so will permanently close the door to EU Membership (related to #1)
4. It fears that doing so will permanently close the door to NATO Membership (related to #1)
It is not because of any fear that it may lose its' UN Membership. That has never been part of the equation.
Are you saying that Macedonia will need to renew its' Membership application in order to change the name it is referred to in the United Nations?In order to change our designation in UN we have to renew our application supported by SC.
In my very extensive discourse over the last 5 years with many different people who are regarded as experts on the name dispute, and on the United Nations Charter, and on Macedonia's Membership in the United Nations, that is not what I have been told and it is not the case which agrees with my own research on the matter.
Please have a look at how Burma changed its' name to Myanmar in 1989.
Please have a look at how the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UN Member from 2000-2003) had its official name changed to Serbia and Montenegro in 2003.
Please have a look at how Serbia and Montenegro had its' name changed to Serbia in 2006.
Please have a look at how the United Republic of Tanzania had its' name changed and membership continued after the merger of Tanzania and Zanzibar.
Please have a look at how Egypt changed it's name from United Arab Republic to Egypt in 1971.
Please have a look at how Syria changed it's name from Syria to Syrian Arab Republic in 1971.
It was all done with their membership continued and with a simple letter informing the United Nations Secretary-General of the new outcome, not a whole new application to join the United Nations.Last edited by Rogi; 07-01-2010, 05:53 AM.Comment
-
Originally posted by Risto the Great View PostIf all criteria that exist for the other countries were fully implemented in our case we would not have to elaborate so long and this would be a 'catlike cough' problem.Originally posted by Rogi View Post
It's clearly underlined that Macedonia was admitted under "unusual circumstances" and we were already ignored 15 months before our application was taken into consideration and the resolution says enough how we are refered, NOT on our wish.
page 6 in the pdf a little intro of the double standards:
If you are convinced that our case can be equated with all others and if this 2 decade absurdity is not saying enough that we wont be treated as all other countries than be my guests.
We have not been admitted the UN under some name we chosed but a designation chosen for us untill we come up with "mutual accepted" name with Greece and therefore there is no "a name change" since we haven't changed our name at all but in order to put in use our rightful name we will have to apply as new member - to renew our application under the Constitutional name.
I am surprised how easily you think and evaluate this matter.
Please have a look on which conditions we have been admitted at first place and then reconsider what you suggest.
Macedonia fulfilled all criteria of article 4 in order to be admitted to UN but still her right was violated.
But still... we are where we are, why are you so optimistic now, it's hard to understand, maybe you will be kind to explain what changed in the policy toward Macedonia?UN ignored the fact that its own general council in 1948 adopted a resolution which strictly prohibited the introduction of new conditions for entry in this world organization. This however was done without precedence or legal means prohibiting Macedonia from entering the UN by its chosen name. This is a classic example of where rights, laws, rules and procedures are circumvented to make room for strong politics. Unfortunately it is this kind of behaviour that caused the Republic of Macedonia to endure economic and social hardships.
The Republic of Macedonia carries its name from 1944, when a Macedonian state was proclaimed. The Republic of Macedonia WAS THE FIRST STATE TO MAKE USE OF THE NAME MACEDONIA and with international rights, rightly defined by “Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure”, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DISPUTE THAT NAME.
By Risto NikovskiLast edited by Bratot; 07-01-2010, 07:01 AM.The purpose of the media is not to make you to think that the name must be changed, but to get you into debate - what name would suit us! - BratotComment
-
Well, it seems that no amount of explaining it to you will be enough for you to look at this correctly, based on the actual processes and legalities within the United Nations, rather than a negatively biased and predisposed assumption of double standards and injustice.Comment
-
Bratot,
I'm no longer sure if you have completely misunderstood the facts surrounding this issue or if you are maliciously attempting to cloud them in order to save face. I can assure you, however, that the only people you are deluding at this point is yourself and some random deadheads that may be surfing this thread.If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14
The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John AdamsComment
-
Originally posted by Rogi View Post
I regret entering this discussion at first place.
All you alleged can be used for you as well and since you are convinced in yourself keep that way.
I gave my best to provide reasonable arguments and since no matter what I use to backup my position this way or another will be rejected as biased and predisposed assumtion I will leave this discussion and you can have all the space in promoting patriotic naive narrow thinking.
You failed to save your own so it's not up to you to be my arbitery.Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
I wont be part of this discussion anymore therefore by quoting me will be no replay. Enjoy the monopoly.The purpose of the media is not to make you to think that the name must be changed, but to get you into debate - what name would suit us! - BratotComment
-
I agree with B. in that Macedonia has had extra conditions attached to its membership, thanks to Gligorov and Co for agreeing to such a sellout deal, and that it is NOT just a case of informing the UN about exercising its right to use its rightful and historical name - Macedonia (or the long form/official name Republic of Macedonia).
The Igor Janev way - ICJ is one option to pursue, the General Assembly resolution may be another (but I am not sure about the validity of this method) and the the exit and reapply under our rightful name - Macedonia is the other obvious choice.Last edited by indigen; 07-01-2010, 06:58 AM.Comment
-
Indigen,Originally posted by indigen View Post
The Accord does not allow for either side to pursue the matter at the ICJ - the Igor Janev proposal is not an option unless Macedonia withdrew from the Accord as proposed by Rogi or declared it 'null and void'.
Further, I do not agree that Macedonia would be penalised (other than a harshly worded statement or a further SC Resolution to resolve differences peacefully, backed by "political pressure") for such a trivial matter. I wouldn't want to give a number or percentage without further research, but a significant amount of SC Resolutions are regularly ignored by many states with regard to much more serious matters and the UN has been unable to respond to these breaches other than churning out further SC Resolutions reaffirming earlier ones.
When looking at the number of SC Resolutions adopted on an annual basis, very few indeed have actually had any action taken with regards to them. Examples include the ridiculous number of resolutions on Cyprus, Somalia, the Middle East, Ivory Coast, Chad, Bosnia Hercegovina, East Timor, Israel or the even more ludicrous resolutions on thematic issues such as human rights, child soldiers etc.
This is a result of over-stretch and underfunding. With real issues like Iran, Iraq, Gaza, Afghanistan, civil wars across Africa, North Korea, the last matter of concern to the UN (and its financial and military backer, the US) is some pitty name dispute between two Balkan backwaters with no natural resources of any interest and no serious breach of international law such as crimes against humanity, nor even the remotest of chances that armed conflict would breakout between the two states.
I also disagree that Macedonia cannot simply inform the UN that it will be referred to under its state name, regardless of these 'extra conditions'. Precedence (with serious opposition from the United States as Rogi pointed out) is one reason. A second reason is that Macedonia would not reasonably suffer any real consequences if it took this course. I highly doubt any state (other than Greece and maybe Cyprus) would vote for suspension, let alone expulsion. Thirdly, at the end of the day, this is an organisation of equals in which there is no mechanism for a state to compel another to do anything (as long as that does not breach the Charter, and Macedonia's name in no way breaches the UN Charter).
Finally, what is the UN worth? Not even the pitty arguments that are made in favour of EU/NATO membership can be made for the UN. There are also a number of highly successful states that are not, or were not until recently, members of the UN.If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14
The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John AdamsComment
-
Tom, what I wrote about is only in regards to the "TR" ("Temporary Reference") and is unrelated to the "IA" ("Interim Accord"). I agree with you on that if revoked, by declaring it null and void, the "IA" will have no effect on UN membership! But, as you rightly point out, observing the "IA" prevents Macedonia from applying to join international organisations and bodies under her rightful name - Macedonia (or with the long form/official name Rep. of Macedonia) wherever (which is most places) the Hellenic Republic is also a member and objects (which is always). As you also rightfully point out, Macedonia is also prevented from going to the ICJ to seek redress about extra conditions applied to her UN membership application whilst adhering to the "IA"!
As it is, the "IA" brought many extra conditions (concessions and capitulations) and deconstruction for the Macedonian state and nation and you are probably the best expert on articulating those that I know of. Also bear in mind that some things, if they fall within the domain of the protected sections requiring "majority vote of the MPs representing the non-majority communities", may not be undone as a result of the FA (Ramkoven Dogovor of 2001) and the effective VETO of the Ghegs in relation to changing parts of the constitution (which turned Macedonia from a Macedonian state into a multi, multi-ethnic non-Macedonian one). Thus the FA also needs to go and that, IMO, will not be possible without a military reckoning with the UCK.
Lastly, the "TR" at the UN will remain in force after the "IA" is declared null and void (or revoked by another method), as (the only thing) Bratot correctly states, and that was what I commented on above. A separate action needs to be undertaken to remedy that 17-yea-old wound.
-----------------
VIII. ИЗМЕНА НА УСТАВОТ
Член 129
Уставот на Република Македонија се изменува и дополнува со уставни амандмани.
Член 130
Предлог за пристапување кон измена на Уставот на Република Македонија може да под-
несат претседателот на Републиката, Владата, најмалку 30 пратеници или 150.000 граѓа-
ни.
Член 131 *)
Одлука за пристапување кон измена на Уставот донесува Собранието со двотретинско
мнозинство гласови од вкупниот број пратеници.
Нацртот за измената на Уставот го утврдува Собранието со мнозинство гласови од вкуп-
ниот број пратеници и го става на јавна дискусија.
Одлука за измена на Уставот донесува Собранието со двотретинско мнозинство гласови
од вкупниот број пратеници.
Измената на Уставот ја прогласува Собранието.
*)Со точката 1 на Амандманот XVIII е додаден нов став 4 на членот 131.
А М А Н Д М А Н XVIII
1. Одлука за измена на Преамбулата, членовите за локална самоуправа, членот 131, која би-
ло одредба што се однесува на правата на припадниците на заедниците, вклучувајќи ги осо-
бено членовите 7, 8, 9, 19, 48, 56, 69, 77, 78, 86, 104 и 109, како и одлука за додавање која
било нова одредба која се однесува на предметот на тие одредби и тие членови, ќе биде пот-
ребно двотретинско мнозинство гласови од вкупниот број пратеници во кое мора да има
мнозинство гласови од вкупниот број пратеници кои припаѓаат на заедниците што не се мно-
зинство во Република Македонија.
2. Со овој амандман се додава нов став 4 на член 131 од Уставот на Република Македо-
нија.Last edited by indigen; 07-02-2010, 09:09 PM. Reason: added some constitutinal references from 2001 (UCK) Constitution.Comment
-
I tend to agree with you in general regarding what the government has been doing right or wrong in addition to trying to maintain an image of being reasonable and diplomatic on the international stage. And whether or not Gruevski is a traitor intending to sell us out or Milisoski is a bulgaroman etc etc I'm not going to speculate but I know enough to understand that politics more than anything is about perception, compromise, and trying to keep the confidence from all ends of the spectrum. A very difficult job to do which from time to time will require someone who can look right at you with a straight face and lie. Not something I have much respect for, however in fairness, we're not in the back room to know all the secrets, what deals are being drafted and how much pressure exists. The main responsibility we have in the diaspora as well as Macedonians living in RoM is to make it perfectly clear to any and all politicians: 'DO NOT CHANGE OUR NAME OR ELSE!'Originally posted by Rogi View Post
Now what I've been saying in this thread because I believe very strongly that ending the Interim Accord must be done soon to protect our sovereignty is that arguments like what Bratot and others supply us are based on the perception that whatever road we want to go down will be a dead end. Instead, they offer us paths which always lead us right to our enemies: France and 'Greece'. They want to keep us always worrying about how one of these sickos can and will try to hurt us. That's always been a effective way to hold back the Macedonians but as time goes on we become wiser and more resolved. They are now losing this battle with us.
Isn't the fact that France is still one of the permanent members on the UN Security Council not a clear indicator of an ineffectual, outdated, irrelevant and useless bureaucracy? The perception in the west is 'Yes, France is one of the five members, how wonderful la di da' but the reality is that France is a racist jealous troublemaker and everyone knows it. So jealous of its nuclear vassal status that it is in bed with Iran, in bed with Syria, in bed with the 'Greeks' and god knows who else. As long as France and their minority hating allies 'Greece' are involved with any particular something then we should know better and not get involved ourselves.
Finally, we need to shatter the modern perceptions in the world regarding our enemies. They have done too much damage as we all know and are wanting to finish the job before anyone finds out what's really going on. When I speak of perception 'Greece' is always two or three steps ahead of us. Take for instance the hated sentence attached to all news articles related to the name negotiations ''Greece' fears that the name Macedonia implies territorial claims on it's northern province also named Macedonia'. Do you not think the Arvano-Vlachs used quite a lot of those cash filled garbage bags to have that sentence added to every story from all western media outlets? How else can the same thing be repeated over and over? To put an end to this it's time to tear up the Interim Accord and let the world see where the real irrational and psychotic behavior is coming from. Soon after it will be very clear to the world that for the sake of peace and security 'Greece' will have to be changed by force. It's the only way.Comment
-
Daskalot, great post. I'm a big football fan and UEFA.com has recently been calling us FYROM and I wrote them a complaint that FYROM was an invented word by the Greeks and they have no right to call us FYROM and I sent them the link to the original document that never mentions the word FYROM. If you look on UEFA.com's website, they have us listed as FYROM under member associations and FYROM was listed under the Macedonian teams that are competing in the Europa League and it's been getting worse lately. Even game logs and the Women's U-19 Championships which were held in Macedonia used the term FYROM. I ask everyone here to write a complaint to them as this has got to stop. Enough is enough.Originally posted by Daskalot View PostHere is the original document of the Interim Accord as found on the United Nations' webpage.
Please notice that the interim name is "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and not FYROM.
If the name should be shortened it should be written like this, FYR Macedonia. This is my humble opinion.
Here is their website: http://en.uefa.com/index.html
Member associations link: http://en.uefa.com/memberassociations/index.html
If you scroll down on select a country, we are listed after France as FYROM.
Here is a link to Rabotnicki's home page: http://en.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/...601/index.html
Below the team, they use FYROM as the country from where the team comes from.
This is wrong and we have to speak up to stop this injustice.Last edited by makalek; 07-01-2010, 04:23 PM.Comment
-
Well said Silver.Originally posted by Silver View Post
Clearly nothing is easy, but Macedonians have not been prepared to suffer for a second at this point.Risto the Great
MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
"Holding my breath for the revolution."
Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.comComment
-
Now that it has been clearly established that withdrawal from the Interim Accord will cause no damage whatsoever to Macedonia's UN Membership, albeit with the temporary name reference remaining until Macedonia's second move to rectify this.
It is time to put a complete spanner in the works
I'm doing this, to play the devil's advocate and purely so that we can get more arguments out into the open - which in turn helps us really analyse all potential outcomes and scenarios.
The following may be a near impossible scenario, or the most unliekely; if it were not Greece we were talking about.
Could Greece pretend to interpret Macedonia's withdrawal from the Interim Accord, and Macedonia notifying the UN of it's name change to the Republic of Macedonia, as a provocation so much so that Greece declares war on the Republic of Macedonia - a fake war, done for the purpose of Greece being able to implement a 'War Tax' on its' citizens, in order to raise the billions it needs to save itself from the weight of it's debts? Is that an unrealistic far-fetched scenario, even for an illogical and unreasonable Greece?Comment
-
Good question.
It would be impossible because Macedonia would need to amend its constitution to even imply territorial claims.
Next.Risto the Great
MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
"Holding my breath for the revolution."
Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.comComment
Comment