Macedonia and the European Union

[George S.]

Dear Baroness Catherine,
Why have you people appointed an ignaramus for a head of the commission.THe man has no understanding of his history as far as macedonia goes.Macedonians were not slavs as people claim funny that our enemies greece ,bulgaria,or albania all claim & divided macedoinia up as it belonged to them since when since 1912 they all wanted a piece of macedonia.Macedonia is no more slav than greece serbia,albania ,bulgaria or turkey.So the slav label is only used as a derogotary label.Also to say you are less ofn individual than you identify as.All cheap propaganda cheap shots to degrade macedonians & to legitimise all four countries since 1912 hold on macedonia.
Such a degrading fellow should not represent anyone with if he continues degrading ou status.You should remove this man or cause him to be removed from his post as his position is tenable at best.He has not even offered an apology.
george s.
a macedonian

[DedoAleko]

The saga continues.

google translate:

Weekly "Republika" exclusively come to some of the conclusions at which next week in Brussels will run a sharp discussion about the future of Macedonia's EU status. All sources of the "Republic" in Skopje, Brussels and Athens say that the European Council is expected most interesting diplomatic debate in recent years.
"Republic" that analyzes the conclusions of the Republic of Macedonia for the past few years, can recognize unusually strong European willingness to make a date for negotiations on earth, but at the same time, easily visible and the great deal of tension that preceded their final version, which is on Thursday and Friday will be the mass of the European Council.

It is common for several different sources is the phrase "date date" in Brussels that explains a brand new procedure invented Macedonian case according to which Macedonia could get a date, which would have been effected in the course of 2013 we had a solution in the Greek-Macedonian dispute. Until then, Macedonia and Greece will have to sit down and talk serious parallel negotiations. It is important for us is that in the "Battle of the wording" Macedonia as never previously had a number of friends, led by the country achieved results in high-level accession dialogue and European principles did not allow Greece, even before they start to complete the story of Macedonia's EU accession talks, stands in the analysis.


Weekly writes that the objective analysis of news from Brussels, really does not give much room for optimism. New positive moments for Macedonia, which, however, are only one part of the old problem, do not give them the right to be real optimistic, primarily because the main obstacle on our way to the EU has not changed. Greece remains the final obstacle which we must pass to obtain a higher status in evrointgraciite, and she is currently neither wants nor needs to allow it. If the sources of the "Republic" is right, the final conclusions will be discussed at the European Council, will include questions about the success of the High high-level dialogue in the framework of the European Commission (cool), but the council will review and relationship issues candidate with its neighbors, primarily relations with Greece and Bulgaria.

According to several sources, the EC report will be the main document and starting point when making the decision on Macedonia, and it has very little cons that Greece could use in case of a new blockade. According to the scenario you are talking to a few different levels, if Greece fails in her own interests to display as a single paragraph of the Union and explicit public veto, then after a few months, until July 2013, the European Commission will prepare a report that will give accurate assessments of progress in the negotiations for the name of good neighborly relations and, at the same time, will be agreed negotiating framework, and he will run and takanacherenoto "scan" or analysis of Chapters 23 and 24 analyze weekly.

Therefore you can hear the well informed sources from Greece in the process being strongly opposes setting any date when negotiations would begin because in that case they will not be able to delay negotiations imeto.Grchkite officials in Brussels did not want us to hear to start scans of chapters 23 and 24 because they are aware that it will allow the procedure in which Macedonia will meet all criteria that applied to earlier transactions negotiators.

Even there, and announced that Greece to prevent the whole thing could seek EC and further analysis of the positions stated in the annual report of the European Commission, stated in the analysis.

Weekly concluded that only a week after the article "The Republic", confirming the script to include Macedonia in northern Kosovo status settlement.

More on this topic read in the new issue of "The Republic", which came out today

izvor: http://kurir.mk/makedonija/vesti/947...-za-Makedonija

[momce]

I fear for the people...where is the revolutionary army...people are being hoodwinked by consumerism, one day they will wake up to see only fires and deserts...then it will be too late

[DedoAleko]

bUlgaria and gReece Block Macedonia's eu Talks

Greece found an ally in Bulgaria in preventing Macedonia from obtaining a start date for EU accession talks at a Tuesday’s EU meeting in Brussels.

At the EU meeting, where Macedonia had been hoping to obtain a start date for membership talks, Greece justified its blockade once more on the grounds of the bilateral dispute over Macedonia's name.

Bulgaria, meanwhile, said it could not support a country that had failed to nurture good neighbourly relations.

The EU Council concluded that any decision on opening accession talks would be based on the report of the European Commission, which is to be published in spring 2013.

“If those assessments are positive, then the Commission will be preparing the negotiating framework for accession negotiations” Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fule said on Tuesday, following the meeting.

That Commission report will particularly focus on whether Macedonia has made genuine steps forward towards reaching a deal with Greece on its name and on improving relations with both Greece and Bulgaria, as well as on reforms progress inside the country.

Fuele insisted that a small a step forward had been taken. “For the first time [we have] non-static language [in the meeting's conclusions] which creates the conditions for a non-static solution of this issue,” he said.

“We have now a... forward-looking text that clearly spells out the incentives and the further steps to be taken,” Erato Kozakou-Markoullis, Foreign Minister of Cyprus, said.

Macedonia has obtained annual recommendations for a start to EU membership talks from European Commission reports since 2009.

However, Macedonia has never been offered a date for the talks owing to the Greek blockade, related to the dispute over Macedonia’s name.

Greece insists that Macedonia’s name implies territorial claims to its own northern province, also called Macedonia.

Earlier this year the Enlargement Commissioner Fule floated the idea that Macedonia might obtain a start date for talks without a prior deal on the name issue, accompanied with an obligation and a time frame for solving the name dispute in the early stage of the talks.

While the Greek blockade in Brussels had been expected, Bulgaria only emerged this year as an obstacle to Macedonia's hopes.

Bulgaria’s support was “not unconditional” Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev and Prime Minister Boyko Borisov warned earlier this week, accusing Macedonia of waging an anti-Bulgarian campaign and of replacing historical facts.

Before the meeting in Brussels, Bulgaria set out three terms for its neighbour in exchange for its support in the EU, which Macedonia then accepted.

Bulgaria demanded the signing of a friendship and cooperation deal, joint government sessions as well as an agreement for joint celebrations of notable personalities and events “in our common history”.

Unlike Greek-Macedonian relations, relations between Bulgaria and Macedonia have generally been relatively friendly.

Bulgaria was the first country to recognise Macedonia when it proclaimed its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991.

Moreover, Bulgaria, unlike Greece, recognises its neighbour under its constitutional name, the “Republic of Macedonia”.

But Sofia does not recognise the existence of a Macedonian language, separate from Bulgarian, and many Bulgarian historians still maintain that Macedonians are ethnic Bulgarians.

izvor: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/arti...donia-s-eu-bid



google translate:

Macedonia for the fourth time did not get a date to start accession talks

gReece managed with the intention to prevent the Republic of Macedonia to get a date to start accession negotiations with the European Union. Marathon meeting of the General Affairs Council (GAK), undated evening ended with a conclusion and screening for our country, although the European Commission and Commissioner for Enlargement Stefan Fule for the fourth time this year urged Macedonia to start negotiations, especially that meets all reform EU requires it.

If four paragraphs from the conclusion were known previously, the key fifth paragraph has undergone serious changes and instead start date for membership negotiations with the European Union in June 2013 and recording of chapters 23 and 24, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and European Affairs Greece under pressure and partly Bulgaria, eventually agreed to the following:

- In view of the possible decision of the European Council to open accession negotiations with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Council, on the basis of the report that will be presented by the European Commission spring 2013. It will examine the implementation of reforms in the context of accessible high-level dialogue (cool), and the steps taken to promote good neighborly relations and achieving a negotiated and mutually acceptable solution to the name issue, under the auspices of the UN, said in conclusion GAK, where having said that in this perspective, the Council will assess the report during the next presidency.

Further states that provided a positive assessment, the Commission will be invited by the European Council without delay submit a proposal for a framework for negotiations with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, according to the European Council in December 2006 and established practice.

- The EC will need to implement a process of analytical examination of EU legislation beginning with chapters on judiciary and fundamental rights and justice, freedom and security. Council shall take into account the intention of the Commission to carry out the necessary preparatory work in this regard, states end crucial fifth paragraph definitively bury the hopes of Commissioner Füle, the Commission and the majority of Member States that Greece is going to put the whole process hostage enlargement of the Union.

The only thing was not previously disputed the conclusion that "The Council welcomes the progress made in a number of key policy areas, including the legal framework for elections, in the field of freedom of expression and public administration. Council notes the review of the implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement and encourages the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to move quickly to the next stage of consideration. "

Moreover, in another paragraph states that the European Council notes the essential contribution of accessible high-level dialogue (distantly), which states that acts as a catalyst for reform.

- Noting that continuous efforts are needed, the Council calls for reform to proceed with continuous focusing on the rule of law, including freedom of expression, the fight against corruption, inter-ethnic relations and reconciliation. The Council recalls that the implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement remains an essential element of democracy and the rule of law, according to this paragraph of the conclusion of the Republic of Macedonia.

Also, it is not disputed nor that Council largely shares the European Commission's assessment that continuing enough to meet the political criteria and pays attention to the recommendation that accession negotiations should be opened with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. But ministers conducted a small change in the fourth paragraph, which states the following:

- As stated in the conclusions of the European Council of June 2008, maintaining good neighborly relations, including a negotiated and mutually acceptable solution to the name issue, under the auspices of the UN, remains essential. There is a need to bring the protracted talks on the name issue to a definitive conclusion without delay. The Council welcomes the momentum that has been generated by recent contacts / exchange between the two sides, after the Greek draft memorandum of understanding and is encouraged by recent contacts with the United Nations mediator. In the context of the overall importance of maintaining good neighborly relations, the Council also notes the recent high-level contacts between the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria, and translating them into specific actions and expected results, according to this paragraph that most insisted Bulgaria.

Pending a press conference that needs to go to EU Commissioner Fule and Cypriot Foreign Minister Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, it is clear that the European Council summit on Thursday and Friday, the leaders of the member states will only adopt this conclusion which is major defeat for the EU and the enlargement process that was key to getting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo yesterday.

izvor: http://sitel.com.mk/makedonija-po-ch...m-za-pregovori

[George S.]

we allready knew that bulgaria doesn't really support us.It's more of a propaganda that they would hope we accept the bul;garisation of macedonia.

[DedoAleko]

Macedonia and the EU Council Conclusions

Gerald Knaus

To understand whose arguments prevailed – and how to judge what happened – it is important to go beyond facile conclusions and take a closer look at both proposals.

On the one hand there was a majority of member states who favored very positive language. These states were hoping to encourage a proactive Commission to take the initiative and to prepare the ground to launch EU accession talks with Macedonia already in June 2013. They were hoping that in the end both Greece and Bulgaria would agree that this was also in their interest … that this was truly an issue where all sides could win.

In this group’s draft of the Council Conclusions a concrete date – June 2013 – is given for the possible opening of accession negotiations. This version states that the Council examines further progress in Macedonia on the basis of a Commission report before June 2013. It asks the Commission to submit “in due time” (i.e. at its own discretion, meaning it could start work on it right away in early 2013) a proposal for a negotiations framework, to be ready by June. It also invites the Commission to begin the “analytical examination of the acquis” (screening) right away.

Here are the key paragraphs of this maximalist proposal, backed by most member states and the Commission last week:

3. The Council largely shares the Commission’s assessment that the political criteria continue to be sufficiently met and takes note of its recommendation that accession negotiations be opened with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

5. With a view to the possible opening of accession negotiations with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in June 2013, the Council will examine progress in the implementation of reforms in the context of the High Level Accession Dialogue, on the basis of a report to be presented by the Commission in the first half of 2013. The Commission is invited to submit in due time a proposal for a framework for negotiations with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in line with the European Council’s December 2006 conclusions and established practice, which also takes into account good neighbourly relations. Taking into account the new approach to accession negotiations as regards the chapters on the judiciary and fundamental rights, and justice, freedom and security, the Commission is also invited to carry out the process of analytical examination of the EU acquis on these chapters.

Faced with this France, backed by a much smaller number of other EU states, put a counter-proposal on the table late last week. This version assesses progress in Macedonia less positively (the Council no longer “largely” but only “broadly” shares the Commission’s positive assessment).

The minimalist proposal removes any reference to any concrete date. At an unspecified future moment, the European council would once again have to decide and invite the commission to submit a proposal for a negotiations framework. This would happen only “once all the conditions are met”, which is not explained. The minimalist version states that in order to start screening another Council decision would be needed to task the Commission to do so. For now the commission gets no mandate to do anything until further notice.

Here is the full text of the minimalist version:

3. The Council broadly shares the Commission’s assessment that the political criteria continue to be sufficiently met and takes note of its recommendation that accession negotiations be opened with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

5. Before opening accession negotiations with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, a decision which will be considered in due time by the European Council, in line with established practice, the Council will continue to examine progress in the implementation of reforms including in the context of the High Level Accession Dialogue. Once all conditions are met, the European Council will invite the Commission to submit a proposal for a framework for negotiations with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in line with the European Council’s December 2006 conclusions and established practice, which also takes into account good neighbourly relations. Taking into account the new approach to accession negotiations as regards the chapters on the judiciary and fundamental rights, and justice, freedom and security, the European Council will also invite the Commission to carry out the process of analytical examination of the EU acquis on these chapters.

So what actually happened? In all EU negotiations there is usually a give and take. However, if one takes a look at the final text of the Council Conclusions one sees clearly that the maximalist proposal emerged largely victorious.

In the final text the following was agreed:

- the council “largely” (not “broadely”) shares the Commission’s positive view that Macedonia was ready to open talks (the maximalist version).

- The council tasks the Commission already now to produce a report “in spring 2013” “with a view to a possible decision of the European Council to open accession negotiations”.

- The council commits that it will assess this report “during the next presidency”, i.e. before July 2013.

- Provided that the assessment is positive, the Commission will be invited to submit “without delay” (i.e. as quickly as it can) a framework for negotiations.

- Provided that the assessment is positive the Commission will be invited to start screening two chapters, i.e. before accession talks begin.

- The Council even “takes note” that the Commission “will conduct all the necessary preparatory work in this respect” … which means that Commission can start preparing both the negotiations framework and screening right away.

Look at the finally agreed text of the conclusions and the answer whose arguments won the day is obvious:

40. The Council largely shares the Commission’s assessment that the political criteria continue to be sufficiently met and takes note of its recommendation that accession negotiations be opened with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

42. With a view to a possible decision of the European Council to open accession negotiations with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Council will examine, on the basis of a report to be presented by the Commission in Spring 2013, implementation of reforms in the context of the HLAD, as well as steps taken to promote good neighbourly relations and to reach a negotiated and mutually accepted solution to the name issue under the auspices of the UN. In this perspective, the Council will assess the report during the next Presidency. Provided that the assessment is positive, the Commission will be invited by the European Council to: (1) submit without delay a proposal for a framework for negotiations with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in line with the European Council’s December 2006 conclusions and established practice; (2) carry out the process of analytical examination of the EU acquis beginning with the chapters on the judiciary and fundamental rights, and justice, freedom and security. The Council takes note of the intention of the Commission to conduct all the necessary preparatory work in this respect.

The original plan of the Commission and of the member states who supported the maximalist version was to create a new momentum emerging from this Council. In this they succeeded.

- The Commission can immediately begin to prepare its “spring report” which the Council will assess before July 2013.

- The Commission can immediately begin to prepare for the analytical screening of two chapters and draft a proposal for negotiations.

- Once the Council accepts a positive Commission report the Commission will submit the framework for negotiations “without delay”

One basic reality has obviously not changed: Greece will have to agree to the opening of accession talks. Expecting anything else was always unrealistic. The hopes of the friends of opening accession talks were to kick-start a process of finding a solution to the name issue in the first few months of 2013. Both supporters of opening talks soon and minimalists agreed on this paragraph without arguing:

41. As set out in the European Council conclusions of June 2008, maintaining good neighbourly relations, including a negotiated and mutually accepted solution to the name issue, under the auspices of the UN, remains essential. There is a need to bring the longstanding discussions on the name issue to a definitive conclusion without delay. The Council welcomes the momentum that has been generated by recent contacts/exchanges between the two parties, following the Greek proposal for a memorandum of understanding. The Council is, moreover, encouraged by recent contacts with the UN mediator.

The important point is this: if there is a positive European commission report following enough movement on the name issue and on good neighbourly relations all preparations will have been made to launch accession talks in 2013 without delay.

Clearly the pressure has increased further for a serious effort to find a breakthrough in early 2013. This is pressure on everyone: on the Commission, on interested EU member states, but above all on Skopje and Athens. The fact that Greece accepted these conclusions, however, is another small positive sign.

The European Commission’s hope from the very beginning was to energize the search for a mutually agreed solution to the name issue. The commission and most member states wanted a date in the conclusions when accession talks would possibly be opened. Now there are two dates in the conclusions: a report by the commission on progress by “spring” (April) with a view to start accession talks; and a Council assessment of this “before the next presidency” (before July).

An additional paragraph was also inserted upon the initiative of Bulgaria:

In light of the overall importance of maintaining good neighbourly relations, the Council also notes the recent high level contacts between the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria and looks forward to their translation into concrete actions and results.

This means: if there is an agreed solution on the name issue soon, and if there are ‘concrete actions and results’ from high level meetings with Bulgaria till April, the goal to start accession talks in 2013 “before the next presidency” or very early in it remains alive.

These are one big and one (slightly) smaller if. But a focused effort by the Commission and by member states supportive of opening accession talks soon has prepared a more promising playing field for a breakthrough than there has been in a while.

What is needed now is a serious and imaginative solution to the name dispute before the commission reports “in the spring”; a solution that allows both Athens and Skopje to unlock the current destructive stalemate in a manner that both governments can defend before their domestic constituencies.

The Council was a warm up exercise. Now the real game begins. Athens and Skopje face a prisoners dilemma: if neither side believes that a solution is possible, and acts on this, both will lose. If both sides take a calculated risk to take the search for a mutually acceptable solution seriously both can win.

izvor: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/blog...t-step-forward

[Risto the Great]

I feel like there has been real progress on this very important matter. Things have moved from "fuck all" to "stuff all". With progress like this, Macedonia will remain blindly steadfast in its belief that it actually rates as a nation on a path to somewhere. Even though reality clearly indicates the EU disregards that notion.

How pitiful.

[Vangelovski]

I feel like there has been real progress on this very important matter. Things have moved from "fuck all" to "stuff all". With progress like this, Macedonia will remain blindly steadfast in its belief that it actually rates as a nation on a path to somewhere. Even though reality clearly indicates the EU disregards that notion.

How pitiful.

As long as Macedonian's keep setting goals that are contrary to their own interests progress will always be negative. I think its worse then just being stuck nowhere, I think they are actually going backwards.

[Big Bad Sven]

I find it funny how bhulgarian slavs continue to harp on that they really love the macedonian people, and think them as "their own kind" and would never harm them, because apparently we are the "same".

Ironically they are doing everything to wreck the country, and working with their old enemy, greece, to destroy the country. Thats how much they "care" for macedonians.

I wonder if the germans would do the same to the austrians LOL. Its obvious the bhulgarian slavs are not the same as the macedonians, and they dont give a shit about macedonians and the well being of the country and people. They just to destroy it and expand their borders.

If they really cared about macedonia they wouldnt have worked with the shiptars in 2001 in dividing the land.

Bhulgarian slavs showing their true snake faces again, hopefully dumb macedonians stop getting boolgarian passports or going their for a holiday.

[George S.]

Is Lambrinidis the right choice for EU human rights envoy?

Is Lambrinidis the right choice for EU human rights envoy?

By George Vlahov

04 January 2013

http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2905/is-lambrinidis-the-right-choice-for-eu-human-rights-envoy

Non-governmental organization questions the wisdom of assigning the post to a former Greek foreign minister in the context of Greece's consistent human rights violations

During the press conference announcing the appointment of the new European Union human rights envoy, a Macedonian journalist asked the 'responsible' officials about the wisdom of assigning the post to a former Greek foreign minister - Stavros Lambrinidis - in the context of Greece's consistent human rights violations. The country has refused to ratify what are supposed to be foundational EU human rights conventions. His question was simply ignored.



The same journalist also posed a question about the operational parameters of the new human rights representative: would the envoy be empowered to evaluate EU countries? The official replied with an ambiguous answer in which he chose not to explain that the new position is completely focused on 'assessing' non EU countries. Perhaps this was a small sign of humility. Be that as it may, Lambrinidis is someone who allegedly questions the existence of the Macedonian minority in Greece.



He also seems devoted to denying the Republic of Macedonia the right to maintain its self-chosen name. In an interview conducted while he was Greece's foreign minister, he made the contradictory assertion that the Republic of Macedonia in wishing to preserve its right to name itself was "intolerant". Without a shred of justification, the universal right to self-identification was dispensed with by Lambrinidis.



What other pearls of wisdom came from the mouth of the former foreign minister? Well, he said: "Albania understands very well that violating its obligations affects its European future and interests. The growing nationalism in our neighbouring country is a reasonable cause for concern. The condition of the Greek minority is like a barometer for our relations and we have made that clear." For those who are unfamiliar with the facts, this may seem like a reasonable comment.



There are indeed some problems with the Albanian state's treatment of ethnic minority groups but it does recognize their existence and does permit them to preserve aspects of their culture, especially language. In Greece, the preservation of minority culture is a question that simply does not arise. The Greek state refuses even to acknowledge the existence of any ethnic minorities. Lambrinidis' use of the word obligations really stands out. Greece, in numerous ways, has no such obligations because it has refused to ratify the relevant human rights conventions.



The alleged distortion of the EU human rights framework by Lambrinidis reached a high point when he expressed delight in the Greek parliament at a lack of mainstream media interest in an effort by Greece's Macedonian minority to preserve its language, via the launch of a Macedonian to Greek dictionary. Human rights conventions are concerned with, among other things, protecting and preserving minority cultures. They are interested in permitting, encouraging and aiding them - to maintain their existence with dignity.



The Greek to Macedonian dictionary launched by Vinozhito 'Rainbow' - a Macedonian political party in Greece struggling for the recognition of minority rights - in Brussels was and remains an attempt by the Macedonians of Greece to save the Macedonian language from extinction. Extinction, which the Greek state has been striving to achieve for 100 years. In the same parliamentary statement, Lambrinidis went on to claim that the language spoken by the Macedonian minority in Greece was not even related to the Macedonian language, as it is spoken in the Republic of Macedonia. A flagrant and ridiculous statement.



It is just staggering that this person is the EU's choice to represent it as the face of human rights on the world stage. Brussels has responded to the challenge of respecting ethnic difference by accepting Greece's disrespect for ethnic minorities. The union has done nothing about Greece's refusal to ratify the EU's Copenhagen convention, which was designed to protect ethnic minorities. Irrespective of that, one of Greece's favorite sons has been chosen to promote human rights on behalf of Brussels to the world. To say the least, this has been a very disappointing turn of events.



George Vlahov is a member of the Australian Macedonian Human Rights Committee non-governmental organization



Read more: http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/a...#ixzz2H1uW8ggV

[AMHRC]

The full original version of the article appeared in MHR Review no.12 (which can be downloaded here: http://www.macedonianhr.org.au/wip/i...07&Itemid=99):

Editorial: Notes on European Union Hypocrisy – Centres and Peripheries



There is an admirable form of universalism expressed in the EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy. Despite the opposition of some Postmodernists, it needs to be said that certain forms of universalism are useful in promoting a healthy affinity for humanity in general; and to completely abandon all such notions, is fraught with peril. Before discussing this further we will begin by extracting some sentences from the Framework in order to demonstrate the EU’s strong theoretical commitment to human rights:

“Human rights are universally applicable legal norms. Democracy is a universal aspiration. Throughout the world, women and men demand to live lives of liberty, dignity and security in open and democratic societies underpinned by human rights and the rule of law. Sustainable peace, development and prosperity are possible only when grounded upon respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Yet respect for human rights and democracy cannot be taken for granted. Their universal nature is questioned on grounds of cultural differences. Modern information and communications technologies, while facilitating the free exchange of information between individuals, have also massively increased the coercive power of authoritarian states.

The EU is aware of these challenges and determined to strengthen its efforts to ensure that human rights are realised for all. The EU will continue to throw its full weight behind advocates of liberty, democracy and human rights throughout the world.

The EU reaffirms its commitment to the promotion and protection of all human rights, whether civil and political, or economic, social and cultural. The EU calls on all States to implement the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to ratify and implement the key international human rights treaties, including core labour rights conventions, as well as regional human rights instruments. The EU will speak out against any attempt to undermine respect for universality of human rights.”

The postmodernist concern is hinted at in the paragraph which raises the issue of cultural difference. There is authenticity in the postmodern claim that modernity has been and still is possessed of a number of centres, like Washington and Brussels, which often employ their power to enforce an exclusionary and exploitative conformism on the periphery – universalism in the service of disparaging and suppressing difference. The practice of setting normative standards in relation to so called paths of development, especially economic, which have provided ‘justification’ for the implementation of horrendous forms of abuse, particularly in parts of Africa, Asia and the Middle East, over the course of the last five hundred years.

Though it does need to be remembered that the periphery/centre dialectic is more complex than this - that there are peripheries even within the centres themselves and vice versa, and that one can find a good deal of matter to be ambivalent about in the story of Western dominated modernization. A constant one sided underscoring of the negatives denotes a significant amount of myopia.

Moreover, some streams of postmodernism have elevated the concern for difference to the level of an absolute principle, rejecting all forms of universalism as inherently exclusionary and destructive. Thus their project involves an endless deconstruction of all attempts to generalize, via the magnification of that lack of certainty which will always be present in the management of human affairs.

There can be no doubt that the proponents of postmodernism, since the 1960’s, have contributed to toning down Western arrogance. However the extreme version of the postmodernist project, if fulfilled, would not be productive. The complete fragmentation of all grand narratives, like the EU human rights Framework or the UN Universal Declaration would leave centres of power, Western or otherwise, a freer hand to implement policies that are from benign – as any postmodernist would indeed have to accept.

We can go as far as agreeing with the deconstructionist that much of what passes under the name ‘knowledge’ is socially created; that it belongs to particular conjunctures or contexts and therefore, has no claim to permanence or absolute validity. We can also agree that epistemologies are often devised by elites to suit their purposes. But there are generous portions of essentiality contained within the declarations under discussion, both contextual and permanent.

These texts provide a means for action by those who are concerned about challenging the abuses of the powers that be. They are not perfect and they contain aspects which can be misused or that might be irrelevant in certain quarters – but the general categories do permit multiple sub variations which encourage the protection of peripheral difference and dignity.

The Latest Word on EU Human Rights Practice

The insolence and incompetence with which the economic and bureaucratic elites in Brussels continue to manage the EU’s affairs is making it exceedingly difficult to maintain the EU’s emblematic raison d’être as a project striving towards the construction of a nation state which is more inclusive than the traditional national boundaries that have delineated Europe.

The smug rudeness is no better illustrated than by the recently announced appointment of an EU foreign affairs human rights envoy, empowered to travel the world making judgments about the management of human rights in non-EU countries at the same time as foundation members of the EU have yet to ratify essential human rights instruments; not to mention the growing inability of Brussels to maintain popular democratic support for its initiatives - its increased flouting of the citizenry’s will. Something that is evidenced by the results of the various EU referendums held within the boundaries of individual member states.

During the press conference announcing the appointment of the new EU human rights envoy, a Macedonian journalist asked the ‘responsible’ officials about the wisdom of assigning to the post, a recent former Foreign Minister of Greece, Stavros Lambrinidis - in the context of Greece’s consistent human rights violations and its refusal to ratify what are supposed to be foundational EU human rights conventions – his question was simply ignored. The same journalist also aptly posed a question about the operational parameters of the new human rights representative; would the envoy be empowered to evaluate EU countries?

The ‘responsible’ official gave a less than honest ambiguous answer in which he chose not to explain that the new position is completely focused on ‘assessing’ non EU countries. Perhaps this was a small sign of humility!? Be that as it may, what a gift for Lambrinidis – a bigot who denies the existence of the Macedonian minority in Greece and who is also quite devoted to denying the Republic of Macedonia the human right to maintain its self-chosen name:

“Mr. Gruevski has dug in with his intolerance and is holding his country’s European future hostage. The moment has come for him to understand that it is time to write history for his country and not to re-write our [Greece’s] history. All countries want this. We want a solution with a geographic prefix for everyone. Greece is prepared to continue, although we don’t see any positive signs in the current phase, we hope that our neighbours will change their mentality.”

These words were spoken by Lambrinidis before the media while he was Greece’s Foreign Minister. The Republic of Macedonia, in wishing to preserve its right to name itself, is “intolerant”; its desire to maintain its dignity is somehow ‘malevolent’. Without a shred of justification, black is made white and the universalism of the EU Framework is dispensed with, made redundant by the representative of a centre within the periphery. What other ‘pearls of wisdom’ came from the mouth of Foreign Minister Lambrinidis?

“Albania understands very well that violating its obligations affects its European future and interests. The growing nationalism in our neighbouring country is a reasonable cause for concern. The condition of the Greek minority is like a barometer for our relations and we have made that clear.”

For those who are unfamiliar with the facts, this may seem like a reasonable comment. There are indeed some problems with the Albanian state’s treatment of ethnic minority groups; but it does recognise their existence and does permit them to preserve aspects of their culture, especially language. In Greece, the preservation of minority culture is a question that simply does not arise, the Greek state refuses even to acknowledge the existence of any ethnic minorities. Lambrinidis’ usage of the word obligations, really stands out – Greece, in numerous ways, has no such obligations because it has refused to ratify the relevant EU Conventions.

Oh and what about the gift, the grand gratuity rhetorically implied some paragraphs earlier? Lambrinidis now has a job which requires him to ‘assess’ human rights practices in countries like Macedonia, Albania and Turkey, but not Greece – how extraordinarily convenient!

Thus the world is turned upside down by a destructive little centre – Athens, which possesses membership of the main centre; and in response, the latter does little more than nothing. The perversion of the EU Framework by Lambrinidis reached a high point when he expressed malicious delight, in the Greek parliament, at a lack of mainstream interest in an effort to preserve peripheral/minority difference:

“It needs to be noted that the presentation of the “dictionary” and the press conference which followed it, at which the representative of Vinozhito, Pavlos Voskopoulos spoke, attracted a small number of interested parties and that, only sympathizers of the organizers, not more than 40 people at the presentation and around 15 at the press conference, including the journalists of FYROM [sic] and one journalist from ET3. Within the confines of the media in the neighbouring country as within the confines of the European Parliament, the event was nearly unnoticed.”

In human rights declarations, the concern for difference is about protecting and preserving minority cultures; it is about permitting, encouraging and aiding them, to maintain their existence with dignity, while adhering to universal requirements. The Greek to Macedonian Dictionary launched by Vinozhito in Brussels is an attempt by the Macedonians of Greece to save the Macedonian language from extinction, an extinction which the Greek state has been striving to achieve for a hundred years.

In the same parliamentary statement, Lambrinidis, the ignoramus, went on to claim that the language spoken by some people in the part of Macedonia in Greece, is not even related to the Macedonian language, as it is spoken in the Republic of Macedonia. It is just staggering; this delusional anti-Macedonian neurotic is Brussels’ choice to represent it as the face of human rights on the world stage.

The EU, via Brussels central has responded to the challenge of combining respect for cultural difference with universalism, by perverting the intended meaning of words and accepting Greece’s difference; the high level of intolerance for ethno-cultural variation in the mainstream of Greek national culture is to be ‘respected’ – Greece doesn’t need to ratify the Copenhagen Convention, it doesn’t need to adhere to human rights universalism and yes, irrespective of that, one of its favored sons has been chosen to promote said universalism on behalf Brussels, to the non-EU world.

Note well that the myriad of well remunerated EU publicists operating out of Brussels saw to it that none of this information found space in the mainstream media of the West. Instead the focus was on Lambrinidis’ tertiary qualifications as a demonstration of the ‘appropriateness’ of his appointment. This is the power of a centre; the power to present itself as a paragon of virtue, even while actually functioning in a manner that is acutely lacking in principle.

George Vlahov

[Risto the Great]

Clearly he isn't.

[Makedonska_Kafana]

The, reason he was selected was to keep Greece interested nothing more nothing less. Most, things make zero sense thus the norm to international organizations. They, could select ANYONE and the exact same results.

showtime

[momce]

Just keep greece on the hot seat.

[Makedonska_Kafana]

Just keep greece on the hot seat.

well, it helps macedonia more than it hurts - so EU and so lack of understanding of what is right what is wrong. on-going errors

JOKE