Australian Macedonian Human Rights Committee (AMHRC)

[Bratot]

„Поради грешка на техничко ниво, имаше промена во терминолошкиот регистар на Секретаријатот на ОН во врска со јазикот на Поранешната југословенска република Македонија. Таа грешка е направена без политичка намера и не е последица на интервенција на некоја влада. Грешката е поправена со враќање на претходниот термин во регистарот“, истакнува Нимиц во изјавата за програмата Гласот на народот.

http://a1.com.mk/vesti/default.aspx?VestID=130527

What BS, a "technical mistake" changed our language 3 times, the first by deleting, second by replacing "macedonian" with "macedonian of fyrom" and third time put back the original "Macedonian".

Some Greek virus attacked the software of UN, of course Nimietz...

[Makedonska_Kafana]

IS UMD saying that the nationality was correctly designated previously, since 1993? And if it was not, does UMD think we should "ALL" be complaining to the UN or to ORGANISE and MOBILISE in order to FORCE the SKOPJE RAMKOVIST POLITICAL RULERS to end to NAME NEGOTIATIONS ("talks about the differences over the name Macedonia") once and for all and to ask to be admitted into the UN as Macedonia or to refuse membership under any and ALL DEMEANING designations and conditions placed on that membership!?

Macedonians should be very angry at the UMD because they've been told on numerous occasions that the ONLY way Macedonia will be accepted into NATO or the EU is to change our name. No one is being fooled and sooner or later someone will tell us that the UMD was well aware of this from their private talks.

November 20, 2010 11:10 PM (UMD)
- UMD's message to the international community - Macedonia will NEVER change its name, identity, and language!

Help fight the UMD cause by donating?

END TALKS AND BRING THE TROOPS HOME

[George S.]

macedonia is being discriminated because we let them discriminate & they are getting away with wholesale murder.We aren't doing jack shit about it.We may call ourselves a country with no name the way we are treated.Example we did not need to accept a stupid name like fyrom.We didn't need to cave in under pressure from anyone.

[AMHRC]

AMHRC Review

AMHRC Review - issue no.5 December 2010 in Review of Spring

Please click the link for a download option: http://macedonianhr.org.au/06AHMRCReview/

Contents:

*Introduction – George Vlahov
*American and European Foreign Policy Fails Macedonia – MHRMI/AMHRC
*Second Annual Macedonian Film Festival: Melbourne 2010
*Our Name is Macedonia Campaign Gains Momentum – MHRMI/AMHRC
*Реплика на репликата на Бечев – David Vitkov
*St. George Holds Benefit Dinner for the AMHRC
*To and From the Lord Mayor – Dr. Chris Popov
*To the Vice Chancellor of UWA – Dr. Chris Popov and Chris Angelkov
*To “Nurse-on-Call” – Goran Babusku
*Bulgarian National Myths – George Vlahov and Ivan Hristovski
*Action Alert: UN Discrimination against Macedonian Language – AMHRC/MHRMI
*The Macedonians in Bulgaria – Stojko Stojkov
*AMHRC Organises Landmark Study of Macedonian Language in Australia – Dr. Chris Popov
*The Season of Glad Tidings – Jim Thomev
*In Review: Children of the Bird Goddess – Dr. Michael Seraphinoff
*A Declaration to all Media Outlets on the Upcoming Albanian Census
*Impressions of Evangelos Kofos in Skopje – David Vitkov
*Local and Regional Elections in Greece – EFA Rainbow

Please click the link for a download option: http://macedonianhr.org.au/06AHMRCReview/

[Makedonska_Kafana]

Very nice!

[AMHRC]

Introduction to Issue number 5 of the AMHRC Review

By George Vlahov

The “Our Name is Macedonia Campaign” Continues but there are also other Issues

The AMHRC and MHRMI have extended the billboard aspect of the campaign advocating an end to the name “negotiations” with Greece, to the towns of Tetovo and Bitola in Macedonia. In an important and very challenging article that appeared in the last issue of the AMHRC Review, written by MHRMI International Coordinator, Slavko Mangovski, it was metaphorically asserted by him that Macedonia is at “war” - thus emphasising the propaganda siege under which Macedonia finds itself. A siege led by external forces (primarily, but by no means only, Greece and Bulgaria) with the racist aim of destroying Macedonian identity. This metaphorical reference to “war”, was notably soon echoed by numerous others in the Diaspora – which, combined with the massive Diaspora support that AMHRC/MHRMI have received for the “our name is Macedonia” campaign, indicates a high degree of unity of viewpoint (in regard to this issue) among Macedonians residing outside the borders of Macedonia.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the Macedonians in Macedonia – indeed, if one could make a similar assertion about them, then it is unlikely that our campaign would have been deemed a relevant or useful venture. Macedonian society is obviously not entirely at ease with itself and the ongoing corruption issues, also touched upon in Slavko Mangovski’s article, are a factor contributing to the malaise. In spite of the fact that polls indicate a majority of Macedonians implicitly reject the name talks – the numbers that don’t fall into the rejection camp are still substantial. Some in the latter camp have sold their hearts and minds to racist foreign interests. Though there are others in this latter camp that feel impotent and who argue that a “deal” with the name needs to be done in order for the country to be saved from itself, by external institutions like NATO and the EU. However, no amount of outside “aid” (in practice such “aid” often manifests itself as a new form of exploitation) is going to save a society at war with itself – ultimately, the society in question, needs to do this for itself.

There is the obvious point which has been made on numerous occasions that Macedonia is a small country surrounded by much larger states that have little respect for Macedonia. However, the ability of these neighbourhood bullies to tamper with the internal life of Macedonia would be considerably reduced, if rather more serious efforts were made to improve the functioning of Macedonian political, legal and economic structures and thereby, eventually delivering a trust in the social realm that leads to a higher level of internal unity. People in the Diaspora often express the view that it will be enough for a high proportion of Macedonians to somehow patriotically assemble/unite and agree that they will unreservedly protect Macedonia’s integrity and then in general, things will be fine. But how can they reach such a general consensus, if they possess a deep level of distrust in their social structures; a distrust of the public realm full stop? It is too simplistic to view the issues of Macedonian identity and sovereignty in a vacuum; in isolation from all the other social factors at play in Macedonian society. Macedonians are members of a society that reproduces its existence through, among other things, a modernistic bureaucratic state, judiciary and industrial capitalist economic structures. Yet there are serious problems with the functioning of these institutions and this breeds suspicion, distrust and outright disrespect throughout all areas of social/collective concern.

Therefore the argument is that Macedonians in Macedonia need to strive toward strengthening the reforms in connection with the legitimate functioning of legal, political and economic institutions. Easier said than done - the problems with endemic corruption etc. are, in the opinion of this writer, derived from a deep distrust in and lack of respect for, the public realm. Is this an irresolvable “catch 22”?( – the notion that the major social institutions are seriously flawed because of a general ‘malaise’ in the culture and the ‘malaise’ in the culture is perpetuated by the debased social structures, etc). Not quite, though a deep distrust of the social realm beyond the immediate family, has been a feature of Macedonian culture for generations – a feature that received plenty of ‘nourishment’ during the extremely dictatorial and nepotistically corrupt decades of Communist rule. However it would be inaccurate to say that civic concern is unknown in Macedonia; in fact Macedonians regularly make sarcastic jokes about the nature of “business” in Macedonia and this, if nothing else, at least indicates an acute awareness of the problem.

We do not expect this problem which is plaguing most of what used to be the Eastern Bloc, to be solved overnight (one might note here with irony that the malaise of economic corruption and social distrust, is at the moment, probably worse in some EU countries that were never part of the Communist world – especially Greece - which illustrates the point that the EU is not going to be a remedy for a society that lacks trust in itself). Fundamental social change has been historically demonstrated to generally be a lengthy process, spanning across generations and here we are indeed claiming that a major cultural ‘sea-change’ is necessary; a re-organisation of cognition patterns. However, the first steps need to be taken and we call upon both ordinary citizens and authorities in Macedonia, to do more than just resist any further political capitulations to racist foreign pressure. We also call upon them to begin working more ardently on preparing the upcoming generation of Macedonians for the challenge of creating a higher level of trust in their society’s major social structures, or in other words, more trust in themselves. One way of beginning a process that leads in the long term, to a substantial cultural transformation, would be via a concentrated effort involving educational programs designed to equip the younger generations to improve ethical standards in practice, not just theory. The task is to create a citizenry that knows its rights and responsibilities and takes them seriously, so that it can improve upon its social inheritance.

This is a general observation made by an outsider – just how such programs are to be designed and implemented, is for those on the inside to work out: for they possess the intimate knowledge required to make such programs practically workable. One cannot assume for example that because something works in Australia, it can be simply and straightforwardly transplanted to Macedonia – the cultural peculiarities of ‘the local’ need to be taken into account. Of course, outside technical assistance can be very useful, but it would need to be utilised in close collaboration with reliable locals.

To sum up, it is not enough to just focus on the internal politics of Macedonian identity and sovereignty (the disgraceful Interim Accord etc.) and attribute all failings to a lack of care or understanding of these matters. The “lets quickly eliminate the traitors and all will be fine” attitude is not in the long term, going to resolve the problems facing the Macedonian state and the challenges to the survival of Macedonian identity. A society that has little trust in its social realm will always produce a flawed leadership. By all means, effective pressure against those who would permit further deterioration, needs to be maintained (which is precisely one of the reasons why we launched the name campaign) – however, if one takes a ‘bird’s eye view’, it becomes apparent that the problem of loyalty to ‘Macedonianess’ in Macedonia is connected to the whole of society and the functioning of all of its major social structures: the reproduction of its existence. If one focuses on the politics of the identity issue alone (and I am not for a moment suggesting that this issue be in any way neglected), then one is ignoring serious problems inextricably linked to it. Moreover one would be grossly underestimating the breadth/depth of Macedonia’s problems and also overestimating the rapidity with which they could be properly dealt with.

Lastly, and this point might appear to some as very jejune, but at times, the behaviour of certain sections of the Macedonian Diaspora suggests that it needs to be made explicit: nor should those external forces threatening/attempting to undermine Macedonia, be neglected. At every possible juncture, there is an obligation in the Diaspora to resist/combat the lies/racism of those seeking to change the name of the Macedonian state and wipe out Macedonian identity in general – for, among other points that could here be made, it is very unlikely that any Macedonians in Macedonia, would for example be considering a name change, if it wasn’t for the exertions of Macedonia’s neighbourhood bullies. Any easing of the external pressure applied to Macedonia, derived from successful efforts at combating Greek and Bulgarian state racism in the Diaspora, aids the survival and progress of Macedonian society. Such efforts weaken/demoralise the neighbourhood bullies; lead to an increase of social forces located outside Macedonia that are sympathetic to the Macedonian cause and improve morale within Macedonia.

Back to the Our Name is Macedonia Campaign

Some people in Macedonia have complained that in their opinion, it is not appropriate for Macedonians who do not reside in Macedonia, like those in the AMHRC and MHRMI, to voice their objections to the continuing name “negotiations” with Greece. Firstly, our concern is not only the hideous fact of the name negotiations alone; it is that certain sections of Macedonian society are beginning to view them as a “normal” part of life. Of course they are not! By their existence they denote a fundamental breach of a people’s right to maintain control over a domain that is nobody else’s business – the right to name oneself.

We felt that it was necessary to begin to positively encourage people to challenge the “normalness” of the “negotiations” and leave what has for many of them, become a ‘comfort zone’. A ‘comfort zone’, in which one acts as if something that is obviously unacceptable, is somehow permissible. “Strangers” to a society (in this case, non-residents who are both inside and outside at the same time – physically outside but with a strong cultural connection to the inside), precisely because of their distance from it, can sometimes make objective observations that those within might tend to have a blindness for; although we should not exaggerate this point – most anthropologists, with the experience of fieldwork within, argue that to obtain an intricate understanding of a society’s culture, one needs to reside within it.

Thus, in a sense, we are contributing to a process of serious cross cultural communication. And while we do not reside in Macedonia this does not preclude us from offering advice and from pointing out pertinent facts that encourage Macedonians to become pro-active citizens – especially as we have been delivering our message in close cooperation with competent and respected citizens based in Macedonia.

Secondly, decisions in Macedonia, made on this level, will indeed have an impact upon those of us not residing there, as the issue at stake is our identity. We non-residents of Macedonia will be affected and indeed already are affected, by the very existence of the “negotiations”.

Thirdly, many Macedonians in the Diaspora have relatives in Macedonia and are sincerely concerned about their welfare, their dignity and the protection of their rights in general.

Fourthly, is the very pertinent fact that was relayed to the public in Macedonia, via a conference organised by AMHRC/MHRMI in Skopje, that the Macedonian Diaspora is a critical contributor to the Macedonian economy (the figures can be debated, but the general point can not). Thus there is a direct financial connection between Macedonia and the Diaspora which cannot be easily dismissed or ignored by those in Macedonia who are opposed to the message, simply because it has been delivered from the Diaspora.

Finally, on an aspect perhaps not directly related, but still very relevant (considering the Anthropological point made earlier) - we feel that our message is not framed in a manner that talks down to people, or that is in some way abusive. We are not ‘giving orders’. It is simply about firmly and yet, positively encouraging people to stand up for what is right. Some people will always take offence, no matter how a message is delivered. This cannot be helped. However, in general, the feedback we have received from Macedonia so far is that we were correct to have delivered the message in this positive manner. This concurs with our experience, derived from many of the other human rights activities we have undertaken over the years.

At times, the phrase “the medium is the message” has been very popular in journalistic and academic circles and though we will certainly not claim universal applicability for such a dictum (we are not here to try to make cheap philosophy of the kind often seen in the mainstream media), it has in our experience, very often been true. In other words it is important that our message was framed in a respectful manner, for if it wasn’t, it is likely to have been thoroughly ignored – in spite of all of its substantial/legitimate attributes. One may view the matter as involving two points to do with the “medium” in this instance. On the one hand there is the problem of the well known phenomenon of domestic populations rejecting as illegitimate interference, the advice of Diaspora communities. On other hand, we can say that the positive tone of the message, thus far seems to be making an impact, precisely because of its positive framing and in spite of the problem that the original source of the message is located outside the borders of Macedonia.

Also inside this issue of the AMHRC Review

There are some letters: three, by Angelkov, Popov and Vitkov, are in reference to what might be referred to as “nutty professors”; there is a positive response from the Mayor of Melbourne and Babusku advises nurses to focus on nursing and not politics. Language and etymological matters are themes running through pieces by Popov, Thomev, Seraphinoff, Hristovski et al, and there are some photographs highlighting positive community building exercises. Macedonians in Albania, Greece and Bulgaria report on their struggles and in spite of all the unjust difficulties, some success was recently registered in Greece.

Lastly there is a vivid description of an encounter in Skopje between the AMHRC’s International Coordinator, David Vitkov and the infamous Greek historian, Evangelos Kofos. As far as we can ascertain, Kofos launched his academic career in 1964, with the publication of “Nationalism and Communism in Macedonia”. A book, among other things, containing a bigoted account devoted to undermining the legitimacy/existence of a distinct ethnic Macedonian identity – both prior and after WWII. Kofos has more or less continued in this vein right up to the present. His anti-Macedonian prejudice has led him at times, to take up some truly untenable positions. For example, Kofos attempted in an essay (National Heritage and National Identity), to utilise the title and aspects of the content of Benedict Anderson’s classic text on modern nationalism: Imagined Communities, for the purpose of de-legitimising Macedonian ethnic identity. The American anthropologist Loring Danforth has asserted that in this paper, Kofos argues that “Macedonian national identity is only ‘imagined’, while Greek national identity is ‘real’... a clear misuse of Anderson’s work to serve the goals of nationalist historiography”. I agree that this in essence, is a crucial feature of Kofos’ paper.

However, Kofos was not so crude/blunt in his exposition. The argument is implicitly elaborated with considerable subtlety. Its manner is certainly cunning enough to leave the uninitiated with the impression that they have read an objective scholarly account. Never-the-less we are obliged to affirm, that with discriminate usage of the word “imagined”; of inverted commas and with the exclusion of vital historical details, Kofos aims to lead the reader to believe that Greek ethnic identity has more real historical justification than Macedonian ethnic identity; or that Macedonian ethnic identity is more imagined/less legitimate and that it did not even exist prior to the end of WWII.

The main point of Anderson’s phrase, “Imagined Communities,” is that all modern nations are imagined. The argument is that one of the distinguishing features of modern ethnicities/ nations is that they are mass societies inhabited by large numbers of individuals who possess a primary identity marker that unifies them in a manner akin to much smaller communities maintained on the basis of a trust, which was constructed via regular face to face interaction. Indeed, according to the sociological tradition (see for example the work of Toennies), which Anderson has obviously drawn from, that is exactly what defines a “real” community; or put another way, a “real” community is one that has been created on the basis of personal familiarity. Modern nations on the other hand, more or less involve the creation of a similar community-like comradeship among millions of people who have not met and never will. The feeling of affinity among these millions is imagined. All modern nations are real even though their mode of creation and maintenance involves a significant amount of imagining! And yes, the imagining does extend beyond the present, into the past and the future; however, it applies to Greeks as much as it does to Macedonians and all other ethnic/national groups.

In this matter, Kofos revealed himself to be well short of scholarly. Moreover, even though Kofos is generally subtle, his prejudice can at times be crude, as is revealed in an article by David Vitkov in this issue of the AMHRC Review. For now, we shall leave Mr. Kofos with a sentence written in 1918 by Edmond Bouchie de Belle, a French Doctor of Law who spent a significant amount of time in Macedonia during WWI and used some of it to find out about the ethnic sympathies of the local population: “You may ask a peasant from the surrounds of Ostrovo or Bitola, what he feels himself to be and in nine instances out of ten, he will answer you – Macedonian!” (See the 1992 Macedonian translation of Bouchie de Belle’s 1922 French original: Macedonia and the Macedonians published by Makedonska Kniga.)

I hope you enjoy this issue of the AMHRC Review,

George Vlahov.

PS I would like here to send a very special thank you to the administrators and members of the Macedonian Truth Organisation (MTO) internet forum, for their tremendous efforts in support of the “Our name is Macedonia” campaign. Thank you MTO! http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/index.php

[Risto the Great]

I think George's foreword to the the latest AMHRC ePublication is worthy of inclusion here. I have not read the entire eNewsletter but am sure it will be informative and thought provoking as always.

I think some interesting points were raised above and would like to discuss them here over the next few days, weeks, months, years in one way or another. Having said that, I think there are very few Macedonians working for the Cause who are as articulate and informed as our George Vlahov.

[AMHRC]

Thanks Risto,

Here are two more pieces with which we hope to entice people to read the rest of this issue:

POLITE YET DECEPTIVE, GREEK YET “MACEDONIAN”: IMPRESSIONS OF EVANGELOS KOFOS IN SKOPJE

On 20th October 2010 I had an encounter with the notorious “consultant” and “expert” on the Greek perspective on the “Macedonian question”, Evangelos Kofos. He had been invited to speak at a conference in Skopje, the capital city of the Macedonian republic.

My initial reaction upon hearing that he would be in Skopje was one of sheer disbelief. Why, I asked myself, had he been invited? What was there to be gained? Do the organisers of the conference not know who he is and what he represents? I was furious! However as a keen follower of Macedonian affairs, I must admit that I was very curious about the latest thoughts of Greece’s chief ‘academic’ propagandist of the last few decades. Thus, together with a few fellow enthusiasts, I attended the session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s Rose-Roth Seminar where Kofos and others spoke.

During one of the coffee breaks we were presented with an opportunity to meet the “esteemed professor” from Greece. We contemplated whether we should approach him and argued amongst ourselves: “Is there any point to engaging with him?” “Well, he is an academic after all, isn’t he?” “No he isn’t, not really” “Maybe he’ll listen to reason?” etc. In the end we came to a resolution: “Ajde, da vidime shto kje kazhe!” And so we approached him during one of the breaks, just as he was sipping on his coffee. Although the coffee was not the “Elliniko” that I imagine he is accustomed to, nevertheless, he seemed to be enjoying it. “Well, our conversation with him will soon fix that”, someone in our group quipped. After the customary introductions we got down to business and asked him some of the questions that he and indeed the Greek state have consistently refused to answer.

We presented him with a copy of the 1920 Greek census results in which the Macedonian language (not “Slav-Macedonian”, not “Slavic” language, not “Slavic” idiom) is listed as a language spoken by some of the population in Greece. Parts of the official census results were published and therefore officially recognised by the Greek state. Kofos was clearly unsettled. He put on his reading glasses and said with a slight accent, “Let me have a look”. After a very quick scan he paused and claimed, “I am unaware of this”. We all smiled and chuckled ironically, knowing that he is indeed very aware of the existence of this ‘explosive’ document (in fact, in all likelihood he was one of first to have examined the document in the Greek archives decades ago). “OK”, we said, “Well, here it is, you are now aware of it. Does this not render invalid all of your arguments about Tito “inventing” the language in 1944 and the so-called “non-existence” of the Macedonian language in Greece?” He quickly dismissed the contents of the document saying, much to our astonishment, “Well, you must understand, that at that time, any reference to Macedonian was geographic in nature.” I smiled and responded, “Geographic? I beg your pardon. Mr Kofos we are talking about languages. That is the question on the census. Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian are listed as separate languages along side Macedonian on this document.” Kofos stood there in silence, a tacit admission on his part, one might say. After a little more debate he did what Ms Gay McDougall, the UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues, suggested Greece should do in relation to the debate over whether a Macedonian minority exists in Greece; he withdrew and simply walked away, for he had been defeated and his lies had been exposed.

Following our encounter, Kofos entered the conference hall and delivered his presentation and attempted to in his words, “define the various elements of the [Macedonian] problem”. He started out by saying that he was a “native of Macedonia” referring to the fact that he originates from the town of Voden (Edessa in Greek) and that he indeed indentifies as a “Macedonian” as do others in the various parts of Macedonia in Greece. He claimed that this is “the key to enter the labyrinth of our “name issue”.” While he was straight to the point, articulate and very clear in his exposition, I doubt that Kofos convinced the audience (made up of Macedonians and an assortment of foreigners) to accept his position that because there are ethnic Greeks who add the word “Macedonian” as a “regional-cultural” qualifier to their primary ethno-national identity marker (“Greek”), somehow legitimises the attempts of the Greek state to take away the human right of Macedonians to self-identify. Indeed, following his speech a series of questions followed from the audience and at one point Kofos clearly forgot himself. In response to a question on the number of the “Macedonian speakers in Greece”, Kofos stated that “there is no statistical data available” (how could there be such data in a country so racist that it refuses even to acknowledge the existence of any ethnic minorities!?) – none-the-less, this was an implicit admission that such a language does in fact exist in Greece and is of course quite contrary to his usual, and Greece’s official, stance!

And so after a few more very pertinent and well put questions which he evaded answering in a satisfactory manner, a tired looking Kofos concluded his presentation. A feeling of ambivalence came over me after listening to Kofos and part of me began to think that his visit may have been of some use after all. He basically confirmed what many of us knew all along; Greece’s “problem” with the name of the Macedonian state is only the tip of the iceberg. Just below the surface of the “official” name of the state “negotiations”, there is an intention to also interfere with the ethno-cultural identity of Macedonians. Notably, Kofos only mentioned the issue of the name of the state per se, very briefly. Put simply, Kofos and the Greek state, also want to redefine the Macedonian people and the Macedonian language. This has not gone unnoticed in Macedonia; it has created some anger and there is now little doubt in my mind, that Kofos’ last two visits to Macedonia, have actually contributed to an ever growing rejection by Macedonians of the “name negotiations” with Greece (recent polls implicitly indicate that a clear majority of Macedonians now want an end to them) - which explains my ambivalence about the usefulness of Kofos’ visits.

For those in Macedonia and abroad who claim that the ethno-cultural identity issue has been “invented” and that the sole issue at hand is the name of the state have been emphatically proven wrong. This may seem like an obvious point to many Macedonians in the Diaspora, however a significant number of Macedonians here in Macedonia still doubt that the ultimate aim of the Greek state is to wipe out the identity of Macedonians in every sphere and Kofos’ visits have contributed to dispelling this doubt.

By David Vitkov – International Coordinator for the AMHRC.

[AMHRC]

AMHRC Participates in a Landmark Study of the Macedonian Language in Australia

The Macedonian language, in both its standard literary and rich dialectical forms, is a cultural attribute which has been crucial in defining and preserving Macedonian identity. Attempts at the forced assimilation of the Macedonian people in Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia before the Second World War, focused primarily on eradicating the use of the Macedonian language as the first step towards producing “Greeks”, “Bulgarians” and “Serbians” in those parts of Macedonia which were forcibly incorporated into the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian states after the Second Balkan War in 1913. It is for this reason that the description of the Macedonian language as precisely that, was erased from the United Nation’s country profile on Macedonia in mid-November 2010 (before being hastily restored after a world-wide protest by Macedonians and the Macedonian government), at the instigation of those who would seek to erase the Macedonian name and identity and subsequently described as a “technical error”.

The diversity and richness of the Macedonian language is reflected in Australia where the Macedonian community is made up of large numbers of Macedonians from all parts of both Aegean Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia, with smaller numbers of Macedonians for the Pirin part of Macedonia in Bulgaria present as well. However, as with the languages of many ethnic groups in Australia, the Macedonian language and the way in which it is spoken has undergone certain structural, lexical and grammatical changes, under the influence of the dominant English language.

In order to document the extent to which Macedonian is spoken in Australia by the first and second generations and to trace the way in which its spoken form has changed in this country, the Australian Macedonian Human Rights Committee (AMHRC) has decided to participate in a unique study being conducted into the Macedonian language by a leading Australian tertiary institution. The purpose of the documentation to be produced by the study is to provide records and materials both to the Macedonian community in Australia and to the broader Australian community relating to the use of the Macedonian language and the attitudes and motives of those who speak it. In doing so, the AMHRC also seeks to document and record the life stories and experiences of Macedonian migrants to Australia and those of their children.

The AMHRC will support this study into the speech of first and second-generation Macedonian speakers by providing researchers interviews on video of potential participants and to administer and fill out questionnaires seeking information on the use of the Macedonian language. The first interviews have already been conducted and the Macedonian community in Australia has shown by its enthusiastic participation that it recognizes the importance of investigating the factors which both assist and hinder the retention of the Macedonian language in this country. Some of the video results will eventually appear on our website: http://macedonianhr.org.au/index.html.

The AMHRC views this project as an opportunity to build on our existing documentation of the lives of Macedonians in Australia and strongly encourages the Macedonian community to support this significant academic initiative through its active participation. Those Macedonians who wish to find out more about this project or who wish to offer themselves as interviewees are welcome to contact the AMHRC directly. It is estimated that the study will be published in the second half of 2012.

Dr. Chris Popov

[TrueMacedonian]

Great issue AMHRC I appreciate the Vlahov/Hristovski article as well as the rest of the issue.

[George S.]

Good news at last there is light at the tunnel.

[Pelister]

Thanks Risto,

Here are two more pieces with which we hope to entice people to read the rest of this issue:

POLITE YET DECEPTIVE, GREEK YET “MACEDONIAN”: IMPRESSIONS OF EVANGELOS KOFOS IN SKOPJE

On 20th October 2010 I had an encounter with the notorious “consultant” and “expert” on the Greek perspective on the “Macedonian question”, Evangelos Kofos. He had been invited to speak at a conference in Skopje, the capital city of the Macedonian republic.

My initial reaction upon hearing that he would be in Skopje was one of sheer disbelief. Why, I asked myself, had he been invited? What was there to be gained? Do the organisers of the conference not know who he is and what he represents? I was furious! However as a keen follower of Macedonian affairs, I must admit that I was very curious about the latest thoughts of Greece’s chief ‘academic’ propagandist of the last few decades. Thus, together with a few fellow enthusiasts, I attended the session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s Rose-Roth Seminar where Kofos and others spoke.

During one of the coffee breaks we were presented with an opportunity to meet the “esteemed professor” from Greece. We contemplated whether we should approach him and argued amongst ourselves: “Is there any point to engaging with him?” “Well, he is an academic after all, isn’t he?” “No he isn’t, not really” “Maybe he’ll listen to reason?” etc. In the end we came to a resolution: “Ajde, da vidime shto kje kazhe!” And so we approached him during one of the breaks, just as he was sipping on his coffee. Although the coffee was not the “Elliniko” that I imagine he is accustomed to, nevertheless, he seemed to be enjoying it. “Well, our conversation with him will soon fix that”, someone in our group quipped. After the customary introductions we got down to business and asked him some of the questions that he and indeed the Greek state have consistently refused to answer.

We presented him with a copy of the 1920 Greek census results in which the Macedonian language (not “Slav-Macedonian”, not “Slavic” language, not “Slavic” idiom) is listed as a language spoken by some of the population in Greece. Parts of the official census results were published and therefore officially recognised by the Greek state. Kofos was clearly unsettled. He put on his reading glasses and said with a slight accent, “Let me have a look”. After a very quick scan he paused and claimed, “I am unaware of this”. We all smiled and chuckled ironically, knowing that he is indeed very aware of the existence of this ‘explosive’ document (in fact, in all likelihood he was one of first to have examined the document in the Greek archives decades ago). “OK”, we said, “Well, here it is, you are now aware of it. Does this not render invalid all of your arguments about Tito “inventing” the language in 1944 and the so-called “non-existence” of the Macedonian language in Greece?” He quickly dismissed the contents of the document saying, much to our astonishment, “Well, you must understand, that at that time, any reference to Macedonian was geographic in nature.” I smiled and responded, “Geographic? I beg your pardon. Mr Kofos we are talking about languages. That is the question on the census. Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian are listed as separate languages along side Macedonian on this document.” Kofos stood there in silence, a tacit admission on his part, one might say. After a little more debate he did what Ms Gay McDougall, the UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues, suggested Greece should do in relation to the debate over whether a Macedonian minority exists in Greece; he withdrew and simply walked away, for he had been defeated and his lies had been exposed.

Following our encounter, Kofos entered the conference hall and delivered his presentation and attempted to in his words, “define the various elements of the [Macedonian] problem”. He started out by saying that he was a “native of Macedonia” referring to the fact that he originates from the town of Voden (Edessa in Greek) and that he indeed indentifies as a “Macedonian” as do others in the various parts of Macedonia in Greece. He claimed that this is “the key to enter the labyrinth of our “name issue”.” While he was straight to the point, articulate and very clear in his exposition, I doubt that Kofos convinced the audience (made up of Macedonians and an assortment of foreigners) to accept his position that because there are ethnic Greeks who add the word “Macedonian” as a “regional-cultural” qualifier to their primary ethno-national identity marker (“Greek”), somehow legitimises the attempts of the Greek state to take away the human right of Macedonians to self-identify. Indeed, following his speech a series of questions followed from the audience and at one point Kofos clearly forgot himself. In response to a question on the number of the “Macedonian speakers in Greece”, Kofos stated that “there is no statistical data available” (how could there be such data in a country so racist that it refuses even to acknowledge the existence of any ethnic minorities!?) – none-the-less, this was an implicit admission that such a language does in fact exist in Greece and is of course quite contrary to his usual, and Greece’s official, stance!

And so after a few more very pertinent and well put questions which he evaded answering in a satisfactory manner, a tired looking Kofos concluded his presentation. A feeling of ambivalence came over me after listening to Kofos and part of me began to think that his visit may have been of some use after all. He basically confirmed what many of us knew all along; Greece’s “problem” with the name of the Macedonian state is only the tip of the iceberg. Just below the surface of the “official” name of the state “negotiations”, there is an intention to also interfere with the ethno-cultural identity of Macedonians. Notably, Kofos only mentioned the issue of the name of the state per se, very briefly. Put simply, Kofos and the Greek state, also want to redefine the Macedonian people and the Macedonian language. This has not gone unnoticed in Macedonia; it has created some anger and there is now little doubt in my mind, that Kofos’ last two visits to Macedonia, have actually contributed to an ever growing rejection by Macedonians of the “name negotiations” with Greece (recent polls implicitly indicate that a clear majority of Macedonians now want an end to them) - which explains my ambivalence about the usefulness of Kofos’ visits.

For those in Macedonia and abroad who claim that the ethno-cultural identity issue has been “invented” and that the sole issue at hand is the name of the state have been emphatically proven wrong. This may seem like an obvious point to many Macedonians in the Diaspora, however a significant number of Macedonians here in Macedonia still doubt that the ultimate aim of the Greek state is to wipe out the identity of Macedonians in every sphere and Kofos’ visits have contributed to dispelling this doubt.

By David Vitkov – International Coordinator for the AMHRC.

Amazing piece of history. It is important that some record of this encounter with Kofos has been recorded.

[Grotius]

Once again, the AMHRC produces a quality piece of work. Easily the most informative and the best read on Macedonian issues anywhere. There is so much in this Review to digest and no doubt discuss further.

Well done AMHRC - keep it coming.

[Risto the Great]

To sum up, it is not enough to just focus on the internal politics of Macedonian identity and sovereignty (the disgraceful Interim Accord etc.) and attribute all failings to a lack of care or understanding of these matters. The “lets quickly eliminate the traitors and all will be fine” attitude is not in the long term, going to resolve the problems facing the Macedonian state and the challenges to the survival of Macedonian identity. A society that has little trust in its social realm will always produce a flawed leadership. By all means, effective pressure against those who would permit further deterioration, needs to be maintained (which is precisely one of the reasons why we launched the name campaign) – however, if one takes a ‘bird’s eye view’, it becomes apparent that the problem of loyalty to ‘Macedonianess’ in Macedonia is connected to the whole of society and the functioning of all of its major social structures: the reproduction of its existence. If one focuses on the politics of the identity issue alone (and I am not for a moment suggesting that this issue be in any way neglected), then one is ignoring serious problems inextricably linked to it. Moreover one would be grossly underestimating the breadth/depth of Macedonia’s problems and also overestimating the rapidity with which they could be properly dealt with.

This is an interesting paragraph. It makes sense but it also places a burden on the Diaspora that I am not sure it is willing to embrace. The Diaspora is largely concerned with matters pertaining to identity. It is mostly embarrassingly unaware of other issues in Macedonia. In fact, in many instances it does not care.

Having said that, we can't get swept up into a belief that it is a very complex issue. Identity is really quite a simple matter and simple messages are always the best. We need to be very careful about aspiring to mobilise the entire Macedonian community if the message sounds too difficult. The campaign was/is simple and there is no need to make it any more difficult than that. Not that I am suggesting you have plans to change your strategy.

I know this is one paragraph viewed without others in context. But I really feel the message coming from the Diaspora needs to be a simple one. The more complex it becomes, the more questions will be asked by Macedonians in Macedonia about why outsiders are interfering in their internal affairs.

[AMHRC]

Risto,

We agree that the message on the name needs to be kept simple and straight forward and we shall continue to keep it so. It is the best chance of encouraging citizens in Macedonia to become responsible for their society. Moreover, the right to an identity alone is in fact a simple issue. However, the fact remains that it is still an active problem; and the reasons for the fact that it has not been internally and externally solved are many faceted and complex. All social issues at this grand level are complex and we don't pretend to have all the answers - we have merely presented some suggestions. If Macedonian society had a level of cohesion and technical proficiency, comparable say to that of Australia, we very much doubt that there would be many Macedonians in Macedonia, considering a name change. The level of internal unity would be far greater than at present.

Though, this is not to suggest that a heightened level of pro-active citizenship in Macedonia, could not in the foreseeable future, put an end to this problem. However, in the long term, the survival of Macedonian identity and societal integrity, will depend upon the ability of Macedonians to considerably improve upon the functioning of their collective institutions. Trust needs to be built.

Lastly, we do not ultimately place the burden of all this on the Diaspora - actually, time and again, we emphasised that this burden predominantly falls upon the Macedonians in the Macedonian republic. It cannot be otherwise.

Cheers,

AMHRC.