Countries that recognize Macedonia

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bratot
    replied
    Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
    Bratot,

    I've lost count of how many times and by how many people this has been pointed out to you.
    Aham, let me help you.. it was only you objecting but never offered anything in substance beside your rubish rethoric.

    I have precisely asked what was fraud or malicious in my answer to Julie, you provide nothing.

    Is maybe because I said the both resolution are contrary to the Charter of UN and the IA itself because in it's article 5 is calling on exctly those two resolutions and according to article 103 of UN make them null?



    You need to learn what SOVEREINGTY means and then have a good think about how that applies to the Macedonian people.

    Arguing that we adhere to "laws" developed by an UNELECTED organisation, which has no interest in our political or cultural survival is nothing more than VASSAL politics.
    I know what sovereingty means and I never said we need the UN to provide it.

    But it was not my choice to decide and measure in which international organisations we could benefit as a members, somebody already decide on our behalf.

    Actually, I do agree with your perception of UN.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill77
    replied
    Originally posted by indigen View Post
    Julie, I thought you, like most of us here on MTO, realised that "UMD" is rather irrelevant to Macedonians in the Diaaspora (and very much more so in Australia) and the Macedonian Cause in general and it now becomes perplexing to watch you asking Meto for advice on what course of action Macedonians in Australia should take.
    Indigin,
    I am sure Julie is a big girl now and speak for her self, but i don't think she is looking for advice she has her own opinions and understandings, she is trying to expose Meto's thoughts and have them public and documented. We all including your self have asked UMD questions. It does not mean we are looking for advice.


    Same situation in post 170. She is asking for vangelovski's point of view and not looking for advice which clearly you demonstrated she already has one. She is just wanting to get active and keep this forum active.

    I am not Julie mabe she could confirm what i say is correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • indigen
    replied
    Originally posted by julie View Post
    Thank you Bratot for the explanation, it has given me a greater understanding
    Vangelovski, could you please give me your understanding of what Macedonia needs to do to declare it null and void?
    Cheers guys
    Short memory! :-)

    Originally posted by makedonche View Post
    This is neither news nor politics, this is a game the greeks keep playing in order to keep Macedonia suppressed. There are two ways to put this fire out - douse it with cold water or stop feeding it and it will die down.
    Every time we engage in banter about this non-existent dispute we feed it, why not declare it doesn't exist, refuse to capitulate and ignore it! Instead of coming up with alternatives, suggestions, different names, different solutions - if no problem exists then no solution needs to be found! The very moment you begin to engage in any type of discussion you have become part of the problem! To say it's ok we're only talking about it gives the problem credibility- gives it a life of it's own. This problem Greece has is exactly that, Greece's problem, we need to stop feeding it and giving it credibility!

    Btw - this is the Macedonian truth organisation, not the Greece has got a problem forum!
    Originally posted by julie View Post
    ABre Makedonche, taka e!
    Julie, do you remember saying this? :-)


    Originally posted by Rogi View Post
    I feel that, if nothing else, this quote is most relevant at this point in this thread...

    Benjamin Franklin

    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    Benjamin Franklin (January 17, 1706 [O.S. January 6, 1705[1]] – April 17, 1790) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. A noted polymath, Franklin was a leading author and printer, satirist, political theorist, politician, scientist, inventor, civic activist, statesman, soldier and diplomat.
    Excellent quote above from Rogi and very, very pertinent for Macedonians!

    Some more refreshers for you, Julie:
    Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
    OziMak,

    For someone who admits that they don't know what the ramifications of leaving the Accord may be, you certainly don't shy away from using them to scare people into maintaining the Accord.

    If you're unaware of the damage the Accord has done, I would suggest you do some research - perhaps start by reading the Accord itself.

    I'll give you a clue - it has something to do with deconstructing the sovereignty of the Macedonian state.
    Originally posted by julie View Post
    a necessary evil? LOL, seriously Ozimak, you are joking?
    Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
    Julie,

    I cannot believe how many times we need to go around the same circles (not directed at you).

    However, seeing as you've entered the debate, why do you think an embargo would even be imposed?

    Why do you think that Macedonia cannot declare this Accord 'null and void'? What do you think would happen? And why?

    Did anyone think that estblishing and maintaining an independent state was going to be easy? That everyone would welcome us into the world community? We are ALONE in this and we ALONE are RESPONSIBLE for ourselves. If we, as Macedonians, are not capable or ready to maintain and defend an independent state, then why on earth did we even go down this road? This is one idiotic Accord that can be torn up at any moment, yet the majority seem to be paralysed by the UNSUBSTANTIATED SCAREMONGERING.

    I have absolutely no doubt what our fate would have been, had the Serbs decided to invade Macedonia in the early 90's - if the Macedonians cannot muster the courage to declare an Accord 'null and void', can you imagine them resisting VIOLENTLY an invading army!?!?!?!?!? Their first attempt to do so (the KLA) resulted in a catastrophic capitulation resulting DIRECTLY from our vassal politicians and their lapdogs.
    Originally posted by indigen View Post
    Originally posted by julie View Post
    I am and have always been against negotiations, the EU and NATO, and I have never accepted the bullshit framework agreement and interim accord.
    Then you should stick to that and nothing else as you would also be in line with what Macedonian communities worldwide, and specifically in Australia, voted for in 1993/1995 and 2001!

    How can we fix this?
    Solution is simple but achieving it would be very hard as it requires either a political revolution or a military takeover in Macedonia by a NATIONALIST (PATRIOTIC) MOVEMENT and declaring ALL prior acts of CAPITULATION AND TREASON AS NULL AND VOID.

    Thus we need to start with an ideology and to gather together adherents of that ideology into a national movement that will achieve the set aims and objectives - SOVEREIGN MACEDONIAN STATE for MACEDONIAN NATION! If one does not adhere to our ideology, then they are either political opponents or uninformed/misinformed part of the masses. The former should be neutralised or fought against whilst the latter should be educated/enlightened and won over in as greater number as possible. The quicker one can do this, the stronger the fight for the final aims will be.
    Originally posted by julie View Post
    Indigen, am with you batko


    JULIA, if your were IDEOLOGICALLY CONSISTENT and "with me" (and the others you often "agree with"), you would NOT be asking the question/s you now are above!

    If you want to read an in-depth "debate" between pro "IC" ADVOCATES (Bratot, OziMak and Buktop) vs Vangelovski and other Macedonian patriots opposed to the "IC" (and ALL VASSAL capitulation politics/policies in general!), go to the following link (and avoid off-topic stuff here):
    Last edited by indigen; 10-03-2010, 12:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vangelovski
    replied
    Originally posted by Bratot View Post
    Where are the errors?

    Why don't you point your objections more precisely and try to give the correct deffinition according to you?

    ( You must be the expert)
    Bratot,

    I've lost count of how many times and by how many people this has been pointed out to you.

    You need to learn what SOVEREINGTY means and then have a good think about how that applies to the Macedonian people.

    Arguing that we adhere to "laws" developed by an UNELECTED organisation, which has no interest in our political or cultural survival is nothing more than VASSAL politics.


    Julie,

    As a free and sovereign people (think about these concepts) we ALONE will decide how to run our state and which agreements to adhere to in our own national interest. We do not have to "do" anything and there are no legal or moral obligations to adhere to an illegitimate agreement that violates our national sovereignty and individual natural rights.

    I’m also somewhat amazed that you would seriously consider taking advice on this matter from Meto or his UMD, particularly seeing as they continue openly advocate anti-Macedonian policies.

    For the both of you here are two key concepts that you really need to get your head around, or you will continue to be subject to a slave mentality and governed by fear:

    Individual Natural Rights
    Individual and Collective Self-determination

    Leave a comment:


  • indigen
    replied
    Originally posted by julie View Post
    And UMD too please, what does Macedonia need to do? And how can we in the diaspora facilitate for this to happen before this census which I feel will set Macedonia back
    Julie, I thought you, like most of us here on MTO, realised that "UMD" is rather irrelevant to Macedonians in the Diaaspora (and very much more so in Australia) and the Macedonian Cause in general and it now becomes perplexing to watch you asking Meto for advice on what course of action Macedonians in Australia should take.

    Leave a comment:


  • indigen
    replied
    Originally posted by UMDiaspora.org View Post
    Australia should be the next country to recognize us!
    Is this wishful thinking or are "You" going to make it happen?

    Leave a comment:


  • julie
    replied
    And UMD too please, what does Macedonia need to do? And how can we in the diaspora facilitate for this to happen before this census which I feel will set Macedonia back

    Leave a comment:


  • julie
    replied
    Thank you Bratot for the explanation, it has given me a greater understanding
    Vangelovski, could you please give me your understanding of what Macedonia needs to do to declare it null and void?
    Cheers guys

    Leave a comment:


  • Bratot
    replied
    Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
    Bratot,

    You are right, you are no expert and your opinion is fraught with error and false assumptions. You've had this explained to you time and again, so you either don't understand or you're just been malicious.

    Where are the errors?

    Why don't you point your objections more precisely and try to give the correct deffinition according to you?

    ( You must be the expert)
    Last edited by Bratot; 10-02-2010, 06:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vangelovski
    replied
    Originally posted by Bratot View Post
    I'm not expert on International law but I will try to give you my opinion.
    Bratot,

    You are right, you are no expert and your opinion is fraught with error and false assumptions. You've had this explained to you time and again, so you either don't understand or you're just been malicious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bratot
    replied
    Originally posted by Bratot View Post
    I'm not expert on International law but I will try to give you my opinion.

    Julie, the obligations for "settlement of their difference" refering to the name of Macedonia are not a product of the Interim Accord, but the Resolution 817 (and 845) of UN from year 1993 with our membership in UN.

    If we withdrew the IA we will not cease the negotiations on the name but we will be able to bring back the old flag for example.

    After we withdrew the negotiations under IA, than on the basis of Article 33 of the Charter and other, we'll still have to decide on one of the instruments of Article 33 of the Charter of UN for peaceful settlement of the dispute with Greece:




    If this happen, we'll still need a decission of the International Court of Justice, but we wont have our strong argument that the Interim Accord is "Null and void" because we unilaterally withdrew from it. And I'm afraid we will be forced to continue the negotiations.

    There are two legal options to cease the IA:
    1. Unilateral decission based on the article 23 paragraph 2 of this Agreement, as a option which is guaranteed by the UN envoy signatory on the same IA.
    2. To get a decission from the ICJ that this agreement is 'null and void'
    .(which I prefer)

    I think we both can agree that the Court decission on a paper has always the best possible assertive impact.
    Such decission would release us from the negotiations.

    To prove the IA null and void we have to point out that Article 5 paragraph 1 of this IA is direct violation on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Right which protect the right for a name- identity.

    Also the both resolutions 817 and 845 from 1993 are in a contrary of Article 103 of the UN Charter:



    This article specifies that if a contractual norm is contrary to the norm of the United Nations Charter, apply the standards of the Charter of the United Nations.
    In this particular case the resolutions are inconsistent with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations in paragraph 1 which determine the conditions of membership in UN.

    It is ackowledged that we fullfiled all criteria according to the article 4 to become members of the UN.



    It looks simple, but we can't know every detail behind the curtain.

    I can only hope and guess that our Goverment is trying be ''foxy'' and her appeal in the ICJ for "violation" and not nullification is a strategy to become members of NATO under the currently active IA in order avoid another 'veto' blockade of her application and later after becoming members to use our right as described upper, using either the option 1 or option 2 to cease the IA and both resolutions.

    But I'm not in position to guarantee on their behalf.
    Originally posted by UMDiaspora.org View Post
    Bratot - the Interim Accord states under Article 23:

    "This Interim Accord shall remain in force until superseded by a definitive
    agreement, provided that after seven years either Party may withdraw from this Interim
    Accord by a written notice, which shall take effect 12 months after its delivery to the other Party"

    Macedonia can withdraw at any time.
    Where did I stated the opposite?

    Leave a comment:


  • UMDiaspora.org
    replied
    Australia should be the next country to recognize us!

    Leave a comment:


  • UMDiaspora.org
    replied
    Bratot - the Interim Accord states under Article 23:

    "This Interim Accord shall remain in force until superseded by a definitive
    agreement, provided that after seven years either Party may withdraw from this Interim
    Accord by a written notice, which shall take effect 12 months after its delivery to the other Party"

    Macedonia can withdraw at any time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bratot
    replied
    Originally posted by julie View Post
    The Interim accord is not a conventional perpetual treaty, as it can be superseded or revoked, but its provisions are legally binding in terms of international law.

    if this is the case, PLEASE can someone explain to me why Macedonia does not declare the Interim Accord null and void????
    if Macedonia rejects the interim accord and declares it null and void HOW can its provisions then be legally binding by international law?

    Name negotiations then cease immediately.
    I'm not expert on International law but I will try to give you my opinion.

    Julie, the obligations for "settlement of their difference" refering to the name of Macedonia are not a product of the Interim Accord, but the Resolution 817 (and 845) of UN from year 1993 with our membership in UN.

    If we withdrew the IA we will not cease the negotiations on the name but we will be able to bring back the old flag for example.

    After we withdrew the negotiations under IA, than on the basis of Article 33 of the Charter and other, we'll still have to decide on one of the instruments of Article 33 of the Charter of UN for peaceful settlement of the dispute with Greece:

    Chapter Vl: Pacific Settlement of Disputes
    Article 33
    The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
    The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their disputes by such means.


    If this happen, we'll still need a decission of the International Court of Justice, but we wont have our strong argument that the Interim Accord is "Null and void" because we unilaterally withdrew from it. And I'm afraid we will be forced to continue the negotiations.

    There are two legal options to cease the IA:
    1. Unilateral decission based on the article 23 paragraph 2 of this Agreement, as a option which is guaranteed by the UN envoy signatory on the same IA.
    2. To get a decission from the ICJ that this agreement is 'null and void'
    .(which I prefer)

    I think we both can agree that the Court decission on a paper has always the best possible assertive impact.
    Such decission would release us from the negotiations.

    To prove the IA null and void we have to point out that Article 5 paragraph 1 of this IA is direct violation on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Right which protect the right for a name- identity.

    Also the both resolutions 817 and 845 from 1993 are in a contrary of Article 103 of the UN Charter:

    Article 103 states that members' obligations under the UN Charter override their obligations under any other treaty.
    This article specifies that if a contractual norm is contrary to the norm of the United Nations Charter, apply the standards of the Charter of the United Nations.
    In this particular case the resolutions are inconsistent with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations in paragraph 1 which determine the conditions of membership in UN.

    It is ackowledged that we fullfiled all criteria according to the article 4 to become members of the UN.

    Its really that simple. Then Why is Macedonia continuing with the bullshit name talks?
    It looks simple, but we can't know every detail behind the curtain.

    I can only hope and guess that our Goverment is trying be ''foxy'' and her appeal in the ICJ for "violation" and not nullification is a strategy to become members of NATO under the currently active IA in order avoid another 'veto' blockade of her application and later after becoming members to use our right as described upper, using either the option 1 or option 2 to cease the IA and both resolutions.

    But I'm not in position to guarantee on their behalf.

    Leave a comment:


  • julie
    replied
    The Interim accord is not a conventional perpetual treaty, as it can be superseded or revoked, but its provisions are legally binding in terms of international law.

    if this is the case, PLEASE can someone explain to me why Macedonia does not declare the Interim Accord null and void????
    if Macedonia rejects the interim accord and declares it null and void HOW can its provisions then be legally binding by international law?

    Name negotiations then cease immediately.

    I cant get my head around this, if its null and void, there are no provisions that are legally binding within international law.
    Bratot, Indigen, would really appreciate both your viewpoints, I cant get my head around it.
    Its really that simple. Then Why is Macedonia continuing with the bullshit name talks?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X