Macedonian Think tank!

[Bratot]

The purpose of this thread would be providing reliable opinions and analyses of the main issue concerning Macedonia and Macedonians.

I would like to start with datailed analyse about buiding the destructive public opinion in Macedonia and for what purpose.

It's not difficult to notice the relationship of mutual benefit or dependence of the media and 'intelectual' camps advocating a name change and pushing towards the "Final" Accord.

One example of such propaganda symbiosis between the foundations such as Eliamep, Soros and the media( А1, А2, Алфа, Утрински, Дневник, Време, Шпиц) is the so called "negotiation simulations" delivered of course by A1 TV:

http://a1.com.mk/vesti/default.aspx?VestID=122430

Поранешниот грчки амбасадор во Скопје и во Вашингтон, Алексадрос Малјас и влијателните универзитетски професори Евангелос Кофос и Танос Феринис, ќе го сочинуваат грчкиот преговарачки тим. Професорот Љубомир Фрчковски, пратеникот Стојан Андов се во македонскиот преговарачки тим, а учеството поради здравствени причини во последен момент го откажа Васил Тупурковски.

Бренда Персон, Реј Поуер и аналитичарот Сем Ванкин ќе бидат олеснувачи во оваа симулација, како претставници на Обединетите Нации, Европската Унија и Соединетите Американски Држави.

The Greek representatives are in function of http://www.eliamep.gr/en/eliamep/ and the "Macedonian" pseudo-representatives are only for decoration and to provide link for propaganda placement.

See also:

Кој го плаќа Маљас за да шири пропаганда ?

Како поранешен амбасадор во Македонија и Сад, Александрос Маљас е еден од највлијателните грчки дипломати. Тој, заедно со Евангелос Кофос и Танос Веремис е дел од тројката о на Елиамеп, која во последните 10 години е индиректно инволвирана во долгогодишниот спор меѓу Македонија и Грција.

http://kanal5.com.mk/default.aspx?mI...&eventId=59826

Лицемерно е грчките ставови и црвени линии да се пакуваат и нудат во јавноста како компромисни решенија оцени денеска македонското МНР во реакцијата на изјавите на поранешниот грчки министер Александрос Маљас и Евангелос Кофос од тинк-тенк организацијата „Елиамеп“.

The foreign factors are in same function.

The purpose of the media is not to make you to think that the name must be changed, but to get you into debate - what name would suit us.

For us on MTO very important part of Mallas interview for 'Utrinski' is this:

На прашањето зошто според нив не се успеа да се реши спорот досега покрај толку прифатливи предлози, одговорот беше дека немало „коинциденција на подготвеност“, а имало премногу инволвирани за да се дојде до тоа. Сепак, тие забележаа дека ситуацијата не е идеална и сега, односно ја влошиле Интернетот и блоговите кои имаат влијание врз јавното мислење, а не му приоѓаат на спорот на дипломатски начин.

http://utrinski.com.mk/?ItemID=4A477A5D51A618488B819125DD70DCE8

Translated:
On the question of why they are unable to resolve the dispute so far despite acceptable proposals, the answer was that there was no "coincidence of readiness" and there were too many involved to get to it. However, they noted that the situation is not ideal even now, that is, was deteriorated by the Internet and the blogs who have an impact on the public opinion, and don't approach the dispute by diplomatic means.

...to be continued

[Bratot]

What strategy does these foundations and media use to create the necessary critical mass for realization of their goals?

I will start with first point:

1. They want to create an image of Greece as the stronger and
thrifty neighbour who can provide much of what Macedonia and her
citizens need but who demands something in return.

This image of Greece is the result of its position in international organisations such as the European Union and NATO and constantly used for proving the "necessity" of accepting the Greek demands if we want to see the long expecting economical prosperity of our country.


We can see this in the "simulation" (http://media.a1.com.mk/members/prika...aslov=Internet TV) where I will quote the main propaganda lines:

Brenda Pearson:
1st She said the present moment is the best so far and that another opportunity like this will not come.
2nd These simulations are very important.
3rd The dispute was an emotional issue, but today is pragmatic.
4th There are consequences because the dispute is not resolved.
5th Greece has the superior economic position.

Stoyan Andov:
1st That Greece finally moves to resolve the issues. Which is really good to see from them.
2nd The Macedonian government would do wrong if rejects this invitation.
3rd Greece wants to be a friendly country and be our ally in resolving the name issue.
4th We need to offer our suggestions, and not wait the Greeks to tell them - because it will never happen.

Frchkovski:

1st There final effort as a key to breakthrough in the talks.
2nd Macedonians have a problem with the rhetoric in the state used to describe the problem issue.
3rd Greeks have a broad concept of the question, we have a bit ... different.
4th Adjectives "Macedonian" and "Macedonians" were only technical issues and not a discussion of denial or change of identity, although the adjectives have points of contact with the sensitive question of the language and identity.


Tangos:

1st Greece has a legitimate reason for what happens.
2nd Greece has its own interest in the whole situation.
3rd Greece does not want to destroy a country.
4th Greece does not want to destroy an identity.


Frangopoulos:

1st The economy in Greece doesn't influence the dispute.
2nd There is a problem with the use of a new name with geographic determinant
3rd There is a problem with identity.
4th There is no room for compromise, as things stand.


Everything suggesting a 'name change' with the positive "Can do" attitude as the Greeks are already there waiting for us, we just need to grab their offer...it's one in a life time opportunity.

This is only one example of shaping the public opinion for the benefit of Greece, persons like Andov and Frchkovski and some other quinslings are all part of the same brainwashing machinery.

[Bratot]

Point two:

2. Deceptive terminology and spreading confussion


On many occassions we have read and heard how our politicians are telling us we are "negotiating the provisional reference" or as popularly imposed by Greek side the acronym "FYROM".

By Stavros Ligeros:

Resolution of the Security Council says: find a mutually acceptable name for international use, but "find a mutually acceptable name for the country.

Security Council has not given such mandate, or at least nowhere such a thing is precisely specified!

But does NOT says: find a name for international use.

To tell you the official Greek position. We name that will be used always and everywhere. International use of the name has three levels:
First, officials in international organizations;
Second, the bilateral communication with third countries;
and third, the unofficial international events, the Olympics, even to the song for Eurovision.
And the name for every use, requires changing the Constitution.

http://www.forum.com.mk/mobile/article/3957

Можности да се реши прашањето постојат но ова е македонската црвена линија и добро е што конечно кажана. Затоа што грците поради наше неодговарање ескалираат постојано со уловите што ги поставуваат. Значи Македонија може да преговара за замена на референцата со некое сложено име како што Маљас овде предлагаше и толку нито повеќе - вели Слободан Чашуле, експерт

„Македонија преговара во ОН за своето меѓународно име, за замена на референцата БЈРМ, не за уставното име. Од друга страна знаеме дека во ОН на преку 100 држави членки им се разликува уставното со меѓународното име. На овој начин би се извршило едно суштинско прецизирање кое убедени сме дека ќе помогне и во внатрешната дебата но и во самиот процес. Уставното и би додал историското име на државата е Република Македонија и тоа треба да биде нашата црвена линија“, рече Еленовски на денешната прес-конференција.

http://zurnal.mk/mk/cont.asp?k=21208...&ID=2461013367

Why all of the polls are just testing the question "Are you for joining the EU and NATO on the name Northern Macedonia?" (Or a variation of another international name).

Because they want to manipulate the citizens that the Constitution does not change but the citizens decide on a name that will be for international use only, as the temporarly reference "the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia".

That's another obvious lie and manipulation, since the provisional reference is not a name itself and we are not blocked because of the reference nor the reference is a subject of the discussions.

They try to convince the people to believe that a condition for entry into the EU and NATO is accepting internationally different name, which is NOT the case.

[Bratot]

3. The European Union along with the Organization of United Nations assisting Greek interests in breaking the basic International Laws, the basic Human Rights resolutions and commit unjustice towards Macedonia.


The biggest LIE ever to force Macedonia give over it's name was the manipulation that Macedonia had expansionist ambitions against its neighbours and the causes of this threat must be removed, alluding on the name - Macedonia.

Here is the fragment of European Council Declaration 2 annex on Yugoslavia and the conditions made to Macedonia:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lisbon/li2_en.pdf

As we can all see our recognition by EC as souvereign state by in it's existing borders was conditioned with accepting a name which does NOT include the term - Macedonia!

These conditions violates Article 4(1) of the UN Charter.

The reason for imposing these conditions was given in the preamble of SC Res. 817 (1993) in which the Security Council, after affirming that "the applicant fulfils the criteria for membership laid down in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations", observes that "a difference has arisen over the name of the State, which needs to be resolved in the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and good-neighbourly relations in the region".

This observation of the Security Council was apparently based on the Greek allegation that the name of the applicant "implies territorial claims" against Greece even after affirming in our Constution that Macedonia "has no territorial claims against any of neighboring states", and that its borders can be changed in accordance with the Constitution and "generally accepted international norms", the text of the SC Res. 817 (1993) remained unchanged.

The last 20 years have shown that this claim was quite unfounded since the existence of the Republic of Macedonia under that name has not destabilised its neighbours.
It has demonstrated absolutely no threat to Greece.


The legal aspects were examined by Dr. Igor Janev:

http://www.macedoniainfo.com/United_Nation.htm

2. Legal Freedom of a State in the Choice of its Own Name

The inherent right of a state to have a name can be derived from the necessity that a juridical personality must have a legal identity. In absence of such an identity, the juridical person, such as a state, could to a large extent (or even completely) loose its capacity to interact with other such juridical persons (e.g. conclude agreements, etc.) and independently enter into and conduct its external relations. The name of a state is, thus, an essential element of its juridical personality and, consequently, of its statehood. The principles of sovereign equality of states 12 and the inviolability of their juridical personality 13, lead to the conclusion that the choice by a state of its own name is a basic, inherent right of the state. This right is not alienable, divisible or transferable, and is a part of the right to 'self-determination' (determination of one's own legal identity), i.e. it belongs to the domain of jus cogens norms. External interference with this basic right is inadmissible.

It is also obvious that if such an external interference with the choice of the name of a state would be allowed, even through a negotiation process, it might easily become a legally endorsed mechanism for interference in the internal and external affairs of that state, i.e. a mechanism for degradation of its political independence. From these reasons, the choice by the state of its own name must be considered as an inherent right of the state that belongs stricto sensu to the domain of its domestic jurisdiction. In exercising this right, the states have, therefore, a complete legal freedom. This freedom may in practice be constrained only by considerations of avoidance the overlap of legal identities of two (or more) international juridical persons. (The province 'Macedonia' in Greece, however, is not an international juridical person.)
Based on the principle of separability of domestic and international jurisdiction, the name of a state, which is subject of that state's domestic jurisdiction, does not create international legal rights for that state, nor does it impose legal obligations on other states. Clearly, the name per se does not have a direct impact on the territorial rights of states. Therefore, the earlier mentioned Greek allegation that the name of the applicant implies "territorial claims" has no legal significance. The Arbitration Commission of European Communities on former Yugoslavia also took this position and did not link the name of the country (Republic of Macedonia) to the Greek territorial rights.14 The same view is shared by prominent scholars of international law.15

Interference with matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a state, such as the choice of state's name, is also incompatible with the UN Charter.16 Article 2 (7) of the Charter explicitly extends the validity of this legal norm to the United Nations themselves.17 It appears, therefore, that neither the Greek opposition to the admission of Macedonia to UN membership under its constitutional name, nor the intervention of the UN Security Council in the matters related to the name of the country, are consistent with the Charter.

3. Legal Status of a UN Member under Imposed Admission Conditions

According to the interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Charter given in 1948 18 and accepted by the General Assembly, 19 the conditions laid down in that article are exhaustive (and "not merely stated by way of guidance or example" 20), they must be fulfilled before admission is effected, and, once they are recognized as having been fulfilled by the Security Council, the applicant state acquires an unconditional right to UN membership.
This right is enshrined in Article 4 itself and comports with the universal character of the UN Organization. \
At the same time, and for the same reasons, the Organization has a duty to unconditionally admit such a state to UN membership. The Security Council in the preamble of its resolution 21 recognizes that the applicant state fulfils the required criteria for admission and yet, contrary to the accepted interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Charter, recommends that the applicant be admitted to membership with a temporary reference label (to be used for all purposes within the UN), and imposes an obligation on the future UN member to negotiate with a neighboring state about its own name. The fact that Security Council has ignored the strong objection 22 of Macedonian Government to such formulation of its resolution indicates that it considered the added conditions as necessary for giving the recommendation.

A specific feature of the additional conditions imposed on Macedonia for its admission to UN membership is that their effect begins with the act of admission. Their nature is quite different than that of the conditions laid down in Article 4(1) of the Charter: they need to be fulfilled not before the admission, but after it.

These additional conditions transcend their cause; their nature is obviously not legal, but rather political. According to the ICJ advisory opinion of 1948 23, no "political considerations" can be superimposed on, or added to, the conditions set forth in Article 4(1) that could prevent admission to membership. The broad nature of the prescribed admission criteria already provides space for appreciation of all political factors relevant for the judgement on the fulfillment of these criteria.

With its imposed provisional name (for use within the UN), i. e. with its derogated legal personality, and its obligation to negotiate with a neighboring country over its name, Macedonia has a legal status within UN which is obviously different from that of other member-states. Membership to the UN Organization, as a legal status, contains a standard set of rights and duties that are equal for all members of the Organization ("sovereign equality of the Members" 24). The admission of Macedonia to UN membership with additional, non-standard conditions (that impose on the member certain membership obligations) may be interpreted as "conditional admission", and, consequently, the resulting membership status as 'conditional'. The Charter, however, does not provide for conditional membership in the Organization. Suppose that Macedonia decides at one point in time not to comply anymore with its membership obligation to negotiate with Greece over its name.
What could be the possible UN sanctions for such non-compliance? Expulsion from UN membership would only prove that its present membership status is conditional. Other forms of sanctions would also indicate, in less evident way, the conditional character of the membership status.


Obstruction of the "settlement of the difference" over the name during the negotiating process may be another form of non-compliance with the membership obligation. Such obstruction in the negotiating process may be, however, introduced also by the other negotiating party (from political, economic or other reasons). The fulfillment of the imposed admission obligation may, therefore, depend not only on the good will of the party carrying the obligation, but also on a factor outside of its control. In fulfilling its membership obligations, Macedonia is, thus, not independent, which is another difference of its membership status with respect to the other UN member-states. There is still another important feature of the legal status of Macedonia as a UN member. By imposing the additional condition for admission of using a provisional name for the state within the UN, the legal personality of the future member-state has been heavily derogated by the very act of admission.

The derogated legal personality of Macedonia in the United Nations system is most clearly manifested in the area of representation. In all acts of representation within the UN system, and in the field of UN relations with other international subjects, the provisional, and not the constitutional, name of Macedonia is to be used. This is in violation with the right of states to non-discrimination in their representation in the organization of universal character, expressed in an unambiguous way in Article 83 of the Vienna Convention on representation of states.25 The right to equal representation of states in their relations with the organizations of universal character (such as the UN family of organizations) is only a logical derivative of the principles of sovereign equality of states within the UN Organization and inviolability of their juridical personality.

4. Conclusions

The imposed additional conditions on Macedonia for its admission to UN membership, in direct violation of several Charter's provisions, has created an unusual legal status of Macedonia in its UN membership. This status is characterized by a drastically derogated legal personality of the member (through an imposed legal identity), enlarged membership obligations (the fulfillment of which depend on factors outside of its control), and unequal rights in the area of representation compared with other member-states. Even the very nature of membership status is not quite clear, in view of the imposed sine qua non condition by the act of admission. It is uncontestable that the principle of 'sovereign equality of the members' of the Organization is severely violated in the case Macedonia as UN member.

The absence of any progress in the negotiations with Greece over the name after nine years indicates that the problem is fundamental by its nature. In fact, the dispute over the name appears to be not between Macedonia and Greece, but rather, in an implicit form, between Macedonia and the UN.
In this dispute Macedonia is defending its right to self-determination of its own legal identity. Macedonia obviously considers that right as being sovereign and alienable, and well grounded in the principles of law.


--------------
Another argument about the legal aspect:

The Republic of Macedonia was the FIRST STATE (legal subject) to make use of the name MACEDONIA when proclaiming it's independent republic in 1944 and with international rights, rightly defined by “Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure” - (he who is earlier in time is stronger in law) applies.
This means that the first in time prevails over the others.

This property law is called - Priority of Time

He who has the precedency in time has the advantage in right, is the maxim of the law; not that time, considered barely in itself, can make any such difference, but because the whole power over a thing being secured to one person, this bars all others from obtaining a title to it afterwards.

[Bratot]

As a confirmation of point number 3 the anti-Macedonian politic of the EU doesn't stop even today making this dispute more than just billateraly but it seems we are in conflict with the EU itself and not only Greece.

Again the EU is breaking the international laws and her own by inforcing denomination of a country candidate as a condition to enter the Union.

NGOs and Think-Tanks:

Gerald Knaus - President of European Stability Initiative (ESI),

Gerald Knaus is categorical in saying that if a compromise between Skopje and Athens is reached, then a referendum in Macedonia will be called.

But the Macedonian politicians who may be ready to make concessions over the country's name would do so only on the condition that it would actually ensure the country's EU accession, the ESI director argues.

To "square the circle," the ESI suggests making a constitutional amendment in Skopje that changes the country's name now, allowing Athens to support the start of EU accession talks later this year. But the amendment would only foresee the change's entry into force on the day Macedonia actually joins the EU.

The proposed constitutional change could read: "All references to the Republic of Macedonia in this constitution will be replaced by a reference to XX (a compromise name) on the day this country joins the European Union."

If for some reason Skopje never joins the EU, it will never have to change its name, the ESI paper reads.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/macedonia-name-dispute-inspires-exotic-idea-news-496249

A Proposal for breaking the Macedonian deadlock: A matter of trust

Here is the core problem. Greece realises that its only leverage to ever get the Republic of Macedonia to change its constitutional name is to use its position as a member of the EU to block Macedonia’s path to EU membership. Nothing else – not even Greek pressure to block Macedonia’s NATO accession – will do the trick.


Greece is adamant that any change of name must be erga omnes, i.e. must be part of the Macedonian constitution and used in relations with the entire world, not just with Greece or international institutions. (Some in Greece want to go further and also change the name of the people (“Macedonians”) and the language (“Macedonian”), something that stands very little chance of ever being accepted by Skopje.) In fact, the fear that a concession on the name of the country will only be a prelude to further Greek demands is what keeps leaders in Skopje from making any concession whatsoever.

In other words, both countries are trapped.

Here then is the challenge. Both Greece and Macedonia have a vital interest in ensuring that other enlargement-sceptical countries in Europe not hide behind them and their dispute to undermine the whole Western Balkans accession agenda. Yet Macedonians will only change the name erga omnes if they know that they will then actually join the EU – and that this is the last word. And Greece will only open the road to EU accession (starting with the opening of accession talks) if Macedonia changes the constitution.

http://www.esiweb.org/rumeliobserver/2010/06/17/a-proposal-for-breaking-the-macedonian-deadlock-the-issue-of-trust/

So why are we pushing ourselfs into EU?

[Bratot]

3. The European Union along with the Organization of United Nations assisting Greek interests in breaking the basic International Laws, the basic Human Rights resolutions and commit unjustice towards Macedonia.


The biggest LIE ever to force Macedonia give over it's name was the manipulation that Macedonia had expansionist ambitions against its neighbours and the causes of this threat must be removed, alluding on the name - Macedonia.

Here is the fragment of European Council Declaration 2 annex on Yugoslavia and the conditions made to Macedonia:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lisbon/li2_en.pdf

As we can all see our recognition by EC as souvereign state by in it's existing borders was conditioned with accepting a name which does NOT include the term - Macedonia!

These conditions violates Article 4(1) of the UN Charter.



The last 20 years have shown that this claim was quite unfounded since the existence of the Republic of Macedonia under that name has not destabilised its neighbours.
It has demonstrated absolutely no threat to Greece.


The legal aspects were examined by Dr. Igor Janev:

http://www.macedoniainfo.com/United_Nation.htm

2. Legal Freedom of a State in the Choice of its Own Name

The inherent right of a state to have a name can be derived from the necessity that a juridical personality must have a legal identity. In absence of such an identity, the juridical person, such as a state, could to a large extent (or even completely) loose its capacity to interact with other such juridical persons (e.g. conclude agreements, etc.) and independently enter into and conduct its external relations. The name of a state is, thus, an essential element of its juridical personality and, consequently, of its statehood. The principles of sovereign equality of states 12 and the inviolability of their juridical personality 13, lead to the conclusion that the choice by a state of its own name is a basic, inherent right of the state. This right is not alienable, divisible or transferable, and is a part of the right to 'self-determination' (determination of one's own legal identity), i.e. it belongs to the domain of jus cogens norms. External interference with this basic right is inadmissible.

It is also obvious that if such an external interference with the choice of the name of a state would be allowed, even through a negotiation process, it might easily become a legally endorsed mechanism for interference in the internal and external affairs of that state, i.e. a mechanism for degradation of its political independence. From these reasons, the choice by the state of its own name must be considered as an inherent right of the state that belongs stricto sensu to the domain of its domestic jurisdiction. In exercising this right, the states have, therefore, a complete legal freedom. This freedom may in practice be constrained only by considerations of avoidance the overlap of legal identities of two (or more) international juridical persons. (The province 'Macedonia' in Greece, however, is not an international juridical person.)
Based on the principle of separability of domestic and international jurisdiction, the name of a state, which is subject of that state's domestic jurisdiction, does not create international legal rights for that state, nor does it impose legal obligations on other states. Clearly, the name per se does not have a direct impact on the territorial rights of states. Therefore, the earlier mentioned Greek allegation that the name of the applicant implies "territorial claims" has no legal significance. The Arbitration Commission of European Communities on former Yugoslavia also took this position and did not link the name of the country (Republic of Macedonia) to the Greek territorial rights.14 The same view is shared by prominent scholars of international law.15

Interference with matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a state, such as the choice of state's name, is also incompatible with the UN Charter.16 Article 2 (7) of the Charter explicitly extends the validity of this legal norm to the United Nations themselves.17 It appears, therefore, that neither the Greek opposition to the admission of Macedonia to UN membership under its constitutional name, nor the intervention of the UN Security Council in the matters related to the name of the country, are consistent with the Charter.

3. Legal Status of a UN Member under Imposed Admission Conditions

According to the interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Charter given in 1948 18 and accepted by the General Assembly, 19 the conditions laid down in that article are exhaustive (and "not merely stated by way of guidance or example" 20), they must be fulfilled before admission is effected, and, once they are recognized as having been fulfilled by the Security Council, the applicant state acquires an unconditional right to UN membership.
This right is enshrined in Article 4 itself and comports with the universal character of the UN Organization. \
At the same time, and for the same reasons, the Organization has a duty to unconditionally admit such a state to UN membership. The Security Council in the preamble of its resolution 21 recognizes that the applicant state fulfils the required criteria for admission and yet, contrary to the accepted interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Charter, recommends that the applicant be admitted to membership with a temporary reference label (to be used for all purposes within the UN), and imposes an obligation on the future UN member to negotiate with a neighboring state about its own name. The fact that Security Council has ignored the strong objection 22 of Macedonian Government to such formulation of its resolution indicates that it considered the added conditions as necessary for giving the recommendation.

A specific feature of the additional conditions imposed on Macedonia for its admission to UN membership is that their effect begins with the act of admission. Their nature is quite different than that of the conditions laid down in Article 4(1) of the Charter: they need to be fulfilled not before the admission, but after it.

These additional conditions transcend their cause; their nature is obviously not legal, but rather political. According to the ICJ advisory opinion of 1948 23, no "political considerations" can be superimposed on, or added to, the conditions set forth in Article 4(1) that could prevent admission to membership. The broad nature of the prescribed admission criteria already provides space for appreciation of all political factors relevant for the judgement on the fulfillment of these criteria.

With its imposed provisional name (for use within the UN), i. e. with its derogated legal personality, and its obligation to negotiate with a neighboring country over its name, Macedonia has a legal status within UN which is obviously different from that of other member-states. Membership to the UN Organization, as a legal status, contains a standard set of rights and duties that are equal for all members of the Organization ("sovereign equality of the Members" 24). The admission of Macedonia to UN membership with additional, non-standard conditions (that impose on the member certain membership obligations) may be interpreted as "conditional admission", and, consequently, the resulting membership status as 'conditional'. The Charter, however, does not provide for conditional membership in the Organization. Suppose that Macedonia decides at one point in time not to comply anymore with its membership obligation to negotiate with Greece over its name.
What could be the possible UN sanctions for such non-compliance? Expulsion from UN membership would only prove that its present membership status is conditional. Other forms of sanctions would also indicate, in less evident way, the conditional character of the membership status.


Obstruction of the "settlement of the difference" over the name during the negotiating process may be another form of non-compliance with the membership obligation. Such obstruction in the negotiating process may be, however, introduced also by the other negotiating party (from political, economic or other reasons). The fulfillment of the imposed admission obligation may, therefore, depend not only on the good will of the party carrying the obligation, but also on a factor outside of its control. In fulfilling its membership obligations, Macedonia is, thus, not independent, which is another difference of its membership status with respect to the other UN member-states. There is still another important feature of the legal status of Macedonia as a UN member. By imposing the additional condition for admission of using a provisional name for the state within the UN, the legal personality of the future member-state has been heavily derogated by the very act of admission.

The derogated legal personality of Macedonia in the United Nations system is most clearly manifested in the area of representation. In all acts of representation within the UN system, and in the field of UN relations with other international subjects, the provisional, and not the constitutional, name of Macedonia is to be used. This is in violation with the right of states to non-discrimination in their representation in the organization of universal character, expressed in an unambiguous way in Article 83 of the Vienna Convention on representation of states.25 The right to equal representation of states in their relations with the organizations of universal character (such as the UN family of organizations) is only a logical derivative of the principles of sovereign equality of states within the UN Organization and inviolability of their juridical personality.

4. Conclusions

The imposed additional conditions on Macedonia for its admission to UN membership, in direct violation of several Charter's provisions, has created an unusual legal status of Macedonia in its UN membership. This status is characterized by a drastically derogated legal personality of the member (through an imposed legal identity), enlarged membership obligations (the fulfillment of which depend on factors outside of its control), and unequal rights in the area of representation compared with other member-states. Even the very nature of membership status is not quite clear, in view of the imposed sine qua non condition by the act of admission. It is uncontestable that the principle of 'sovereign equality of the members' of the Organization is severely violated in the case Macedonia as UN member.

The absence of any progress in the negotiations with Greece over the name after nine years indicates that the problem is fundamental by its nature. In fact, the dispute over the name appears to be not between Macedonia and Greece, but rather, in an implicit form, between Macedonia and the UN.
In this dispute Macedonia is defending its right to self-determination of its own legal identity. Macedonia obviously considers that right as being sovereign and alienable, and well grounded in the principles of law.


--------------
Another argument about the legal aspect:

The Republic of Macedonia was the FIRST STATE (legal subject) to make use of the name MACEDONIA when proclaiming it's independent republic in 1944 and with international rights, rightly defined by “Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure” - (he who is earlier in time is stronger in law) applies.
This means that the first in time prevails over the others.

This property law is called - Priority of Time

He who has the precedency in time has the advantage in right, is the maxim of the law; not that time, considered barely in itself, can make any such difference, but because the whole power over a thing being secured to one person, this bars all others from obtaining a title to it afterwards.

If we systematically complete the mosaic it's becoming relatively easy to reveal that all moves of the international factor are leading to: redefining, decomposing, apartioning ...or demacedonization of our state.

The future will show which is the exact intention.

According to the facts, the goal is the Macedonian people to lose their state.

It is certainly the easiest way to close the "Macedonian question", which still is open by all our neighbors.
If there is no Macedonian state, there will be no problems.

The Macedonian Question
A Diplomatic Initiative in the 1990s
By Robin O'Neill CMG
http://www.wpct.co.uk/lectures/1997.htm

Thus, the national identity of Macedonian people, its language, culture, history ... will only be inevitable collateral damage - a result of a lost state.

The events of 2001 had a significant role in the implementation of these plans.
It still seems to us that they were merely a result of the developments in Kosovo and greater Albanian aspirations and nothing more.
But it is not: 2001 is a very important stage in the process of demacedonizing the state.
Ohrid agreement clearly confirmed that.

Throughout this galimatias, Athens is just initiator of this formal process, while the interests in it are significantly wider than the Greek aspirations.

In fact, his top carriers are other (very important) international factors:

1. First step - recognition of the state.
After the breakup of Yugoslavia, the EC Commission estimated that Macedonia has met the conditions for recognition. Brussels ignored it and did not recognize the state. Why?



2. The EC in June 1992 (Lisbon), on the recognition of the country has put impossible condition - not to use the name (word) Macedonia!
This requirement, in one form or another is the current all the time, but especially today: the state can only be accepted if it is not Macedonian. Why?



3. For about 18 months Athens imposed a complete economic blockade, closing the southern border. The north border no longer worked because of the UN sanctions on Yugoslavia. We were left with no rail links with the world. Nobody reacted although it was contrary to the provisions of GATT (Article 5) that internationally guaranteed free transit of (our) goods (by Greece). It took almost two years, which is enough to destroy even much stronger country than ours. The European court dismissed the case pretending that the blockade never happened. Why?

4.
UN, ignoring its own constitution (Charter) did not recognized the existence of a Macedonian state, and questioned its name.
Promise to solve the "problem" in a few months was a pure deceit to swallow the injustice.
They must have been knowing that their plan was not going to be achieved quickly.

http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pdfmpunyb/wood_1.pdf

5. The Interim Agreement, signed in 1995 and deposited at the UN, was in 75 % in favor of Greece, but we got the guarantee clause that will be not block in our Euro-Atlantic integration.
This clause, however, proved to be an obstacle in realization of their plans.
The eventual entry into NATO and the EU, under the provisional reference, would significantly diminish the chances to take off the character of the Macedonian state.
After he(they) realized that that this obligation in the IA will complicate the situation, Nimetz said publicly that the agreement no longer applies!
Why for if not for this clause, which prevents any blockage of our integration into NATO and the EU, and now it is their major triumph card against our country?

We have witnessed many statements where it's clearly underlined to us: "If you want to enter EU/NATO you have to change your name!"

The cards have been slowly opened and the international factor is now without masks: playing with open threats and blackmails.

Their position is accurate: either the state will not be Macedonian, or no membership in NATO and the EU.

[Bratot]

I hope some readers will join practically this thread, it's not read-only thread and I welcome all other reasonable and self-supported analyses which could help in understand the context of this 'problem' and to help all of us to see throu the real intentions made against Macedonia.

In this post I would like to remind the current leadership of VMRO-DPMNE of their position back in 1992 year:




for which they carry the bigger responsibility today!

[Risto the Great]

You are doing a great job all by yourself Bratot!
I particularly like the suggestion that the internet sites and blogs are impacting on the ability for Macedonia to readily prostitute itself by changing its name. Clearly the MTO has a useful purpose indeed.

I have no good answer as to why such a self-destructive agenda seems to exist in the Macedonian media. To suggest they are all sell-outs working for a mysterious foreign controller is too much to bear. I think a combination of foreign influence combined with a lack of pride has caused this modern mindset.

In this post I would like to remind the current leadership of VMRO-DPMNE of their position back in 1992 year:

What has happened to VMRO since getting in government? What influences could possibly have turned them into a diluted version of patriots such that they would willingly change Macedonia's name if no fear of public backlash existed?

[Risto the Great]

5. The Interim Agreement, signed in 1995 and deposited at the UN, was in 75 % in favor of Greece, but we got the guarantee clause that will be not block in our Euro-Atlantic integration.
This clause, however, proved to be an obstacle in realization of their plans.
The eventual entry into NATO and the EU, under the provisional reference, would significantly diminish the chances to take off the character of the Macedonian state.

Bratot, do you agree with the highlighted statement above?

[Bratot]

Bratot, do you agree with the highlighted statement above?

I already went through that option in the thread "Solution to the name dispute" and I wouldn't like to start all over again without constructive debate but of negative labelling.

As we were already NOT allowed to inpractice the Article 11 of the IA in order to enter NATO under the provisional reference says enough about the advatage we could get by runing this dispute within NATO structures.

In that case, the answer is YES, it would significantly diminish the chances to take off the character of the Macedonian state since we have 12 of all 28 NATO members using our name R. of Macedonia and it's a matter of further efforts to be made as it's a case with Turkey, insisting in every official document to be noted that :"Turkey recognizes Macedonia under its constitutional name":



Being a member of NATO will secure two things:

1. Prevention from the Albanian threats, and
2. The psychological pressure on Macedonian citizens would be significantly lifted and they(international factor) would lose their major triumph card against our country in order to blackmail us for the entry.

That's why as I already pointed out, They realize the obstacle in the Article 11 for themselves and now they seek new solution:

To "square the circle," the ESI suggests making a constitutional amendment in Skopje that changes the country's name now, allowing Athens to support the start of EU accession talks later this year. But the amendment would only foresee the change's entry into force on the day Macedonia actually joins the EU.

Actually the whole NATO&EU have violated the IA they imposed on us back in 1995.

The entry in NATO or EU under the provisional reference is not the only variant nor it's the best, there is a risk also, but it could allow better position for us in further dealing this problem.
One can question this opinion another might agree but that's also a matter of personal view and feeling what can be done and how much we could benefit.

The main issue is to deal the expectations of the poluted public opinion, it would be very hard to convince them we don't need EU or NATO because throughout all these 15 years we were being psychically bombarded that the only posibile exit from the miserable economic standard is hiding in their membership.


Ignoring that, beside its counterbalance, the best posibile scenario could be done by:

1. Withdraw the IA with formal demand to ICJ

2. Informing the SC that from now on we want to continue our membership in the UN under the constitutional name or

3. applying for re-admission to UN under our constitutional name


The problem we might face is SC members with the right to veto, but I hope they wouldn't undertake such action to discredit themself so openly, nevertheless we have to take on mind that we have been ALREADY forcelly denominated when we first applicated to UN under the constitutional name and our application have been stored in the UN only under:

" the State whose application is contained in document S/25147 "

instead the name we originally applied - Republic of Macedonia.

So I really doubt we could be treated fairly this time and I think we could undertake some actions proposed by Dr. Janev and most probably we could get the solution that Burma/Myanmar has got, meaning we would enter the UN as R. of Macedonia officially but some members of it could use some different name for us billaterally (Greece & France - for example).

[Vangelovski]

Bratot,

Repeating the same incoherent and contradictory nonsense in a new thread does not make it any more credible the second time around. Refer back to the thread where you supposedly made your case the first time to understand how ridiculous your assertion that membership under FYROM would "save" our identity is.

[Bratot]

Bratot,

Repeating the same incoherent and contradictory nonsense in a new thread does not make it any more credible the second time around. Refer back to the thread where you supposedly made your case the first time to understand how ridiculous your assertion that membership under FYROM would "save" our identity is.

Vangelovski,

you cannot suppress my opinion and I'm not going to exercise your communication inability again on this thread.

I don't think the purpose of this forum was to provide you monopol on every issue related to the Macedonian matters nor you have earned some credibility to be the arbitary on someone else's view.

And if you would like to earn some credibility in our discussions start with decent debating without arrogantly underestimating the different opinion and false insinuations.

That's my frankly suggestion to you, but if you continue with the same low level towards me I will not selfrestrain to answer you in the same manner.

If you try to take this thread in other direction than planned will not discourage me from opening the next thread with same context and reapeating myself as much as I like without your approbation.

[Risto the Great]

Bratot, I was asking a similar question as Vangelovski.
I thought I understood that you thought it was reasonable to join these organisations as FYROM. This is why I was seeking clarification from you.

Your response to the question, in all fairness, basically represents the confusion of all Macedonians in what has become a needlessly complex issue. Your conclusions contradict your original statement in the following fashion:

Actually the whole NATO&EU have violated the IA they imposed on us back in 1995.

Clearly they are not to be trusted.

So I really doubt we could be treated fairly this time and I think we could undertake some actions proposed by Dr. Janev and most probably we could get the solution that Burma/Myanmar has got, meaning we would enter the UN as R. of Macedonia officially but some members of it could use some different name for us billaterally (Greece & France - for example).

The organisations we seek to align ourselves with will not treat us fairly. So we should change our name to enter them so we can be treated more fairly?

As I said before, this situation is needlessly complicated. Why not cut through this Gordian knot by simply asserting ourselves? If the organisations then demand compromise, let them be clear with the terms and Macedonia can deliberate with extreme caution. But seriously, what compromises can these organisations assert? Can they say you do not deserve the rights of other countries for example?

[Vangelovski]

Bratot,

No one is attempting to suppress your opinion. Many, however, have repeatedly demonstrated how flawed and contradictory it is.

[Bratot]

Bratot, I was asking a similar question as Vangelovski.
I thought I understood that you thought it was reasonable to join these organisations as FYROM. This is why I was seeking clarification from you.

Risto,

I'm not sure if you really understand it.

It's 2010 now (2 years after the summit in Bucurest) and we are still "the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia" and obviously we will stay under the provisional reference that long until we undertake the measures within the UN membership.

So what exactly has changed on better since we didn't entered NATO under the provisional reference?

The reasonable for me was to try to prevail our position within NATO structure as I gave the example:

In that case, the answer is YES, it would significantly diminish the chances to take off the character of the Macedonian state since we have 12 of all 28 NATO members using our name R. of Macedonia and it's a matter of further efforts to be made as it's a case with Turkey, insisting in every official document to be noted that :"Turkey recognizes Macedonia under its constitutional name"

In my personal opinion we could than get a far more advantage in the further resolving from the position of being member in NATO.

Your response to the question, in all fairness, basically represents the confusion of all Macedonians in what has become a needlessly complex issue. Your conclusions contradict your original statement in the following fashion:

I don't agree it's about contradictory, it's something else I am pointing.

Yes, they violated the IA they imposed, but I would like you and Vangelovski to answer what was the reason of it, in your opinion, Why have they still blocked us and didn't allowed us to join as "the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia" according to the article 11 of the IA?

Clearly they are not to be trusted.

The organisations we seek to align ourselves with will not treat us fairly. So we should change our name to enter them so we can be treated more fairly?

Risto,

where did I said we should change our name to enter them?

You misinterpret me totally.

Now you agree with me these organisations doesn't treat us fairly even the UN where we are members under the reference, right?

Why would you want us to be members of UN at first place, when it was them to inforce on us the provisional reference, denominated our aplication and have put additional obligations on us to fullfil after we become UN member.

And now it's your contradictory when you argued me how easy it would be to set us free from the provisional reference and to continue our UN membership:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showpost.php?p=61890&postcount=184

I have pointed out on this thread on how many basic issues we were sabotaged by the UN, so why would you think this time will be different?

(That doesn't mean we should not try using the arguments we have on disposal)

* To repeat once again the 'provisional reference' is not a name and we are not discussing it's change, there is nothing we should change back, we are the Republic of Macedonia. Don't equate the 'provisional reference' with some changed name, it's simply not correct and it's producing confusion.

As I said before, this situation is needlessly complicated. Why not cut through this Gordian knot by simply asserting ourselves? If the organisations then demand compromise, let them be clear with the terms and Macedonia can deliberate with extreme caution. But seriously, what compromises can these organisations assert? Can they say you do not deserve the rights of other countries for example?

It's about the preception of the people, how to meet their expectations of the common future in respect to being or not being members of these international organizations.

That's why they use NATO&EU as a triumph card in order to convince the people to accept a name change and that's why it would be significantly harder for them to convince us to accept a name change as after becoming members in NATO.

Now it's a question how to satisfy the voters, since politicaly they are the purpose of the manipulation.
We have to find, to introduce another, new solution as alternative for better perspective not related to the membership in NATO&EU.

Neither we can allow Macedonia to be in some international quarantine, as someone would like to see us, that's why logically we need to look for other alternatives too, we have to offer something as another perspective for Macedonia and Macedonians.

My opinion was in respect to the present situation.

Now let me hear you propositions how to solve these issues, what you offer and how would you made it by being aware of the obstacles we are facing?

And I will try to give my critical opinion on it, where we agree or disagree.

If anyone provide me good logic and convince me with his arguments I have no problems accepting, support it and propagating it to other people.