[QUOTE=Vangelovski;61866]Bratot,

If, as you claim, we can be suspended from the UN for withdrawing from the Accord, don't you think that a similar scenario will arise in NATO? If not, why not?

[B]In order to enter NATO, Macedonia would have to CHANGE its name (Greece has made this clear) [/B]and Greece has demanded guarantees to prevent Macedonia from renegading on that CHANGE of name. Macedonia is NOT entering NATO or the EU under the terms of the Accord, even with a "favourable" ICJ decision, [U]simply because the ICJ does NOT have the ability to enforce its decisions.[/U]
[/QUOTE]

Again.

We could be suspended, I can't claim on 100% but it will worse our position in UN since we are practically violating the resolution of our admission to UN and the obligation to look for a mutual solution.

The case in ICJ will decide to implement the IA and Greece has NO rights to block again since the Court has EXECUTIVE right and obligates all sides to acknowledge his decission.

I have gave the link to support what I said. If the decission of ICJ will be broken it will mean breaking International Law which itself with bring repercussions on that side - Greece and their position in UN and as a member in NATO will be questioned or even suspended.
I don't think the other members of NATO will allow this Greek purpose to ignore the ICJ and to prevent us go further than it is right now.

We don't lose anything with any of this but only can get more arguments to support our position. We can't do more than this, by using all the diplomatic tools we have on disposal.

If this doesn't work than we can accept your advice and do as you said, even though in such circumstances we will have to undertake counter measure if any repercussion on us will follow.

[QUOTE]Therefore, if you are unprepared to "risk" UN membership by declaring the Interim Accord 'null and void' now, what makes you think you will risk the 'wrath' of NATO [B]once we are a member under a changed name with a "permanent" agreement superceeding the Accord[/B]?
[/QUOTE]

I don't understand where you came up with "once we are member with changed name" conclussion?

Stop making your insinuations on something never was mentioned nor suggested.



[QUOTE=Rogi;61867]Bratot, you are saying that withdrawing from the Interim Accord, [B]will result in the immediate expulsion [/B]of Macedonia from the United Nations.

But you are saying Macedonia could join NATO and EU and THEN withdraw from the Interim Accord. However, if it is as you say, then even at that point Macedonia should be [B]immediately expelled [/B]from the United Nations and at the same time expelled from the European Union and NATO (who allow membership only to UN Members, and who have also set a precondition of membership that the 'name dispute' be resolved).

[B]If things are as you claim[/B], then your strategy will not work, because if they are as you say, then Macedonia can never withdraw from the interim accord or it loses UN membership and also (if it were a member) its' NATO and EU membership.

[B]But this is simply not the case. Macedonia will not lose its' UN Membership by withdrawing from the Interim Accord - I am not sure where this idea comes from but it is very incorrect.
[/B]

Macedonia CAN withdraw from the Interim Accord, for whatever reason it wishes. In fact, the Interim Accord itself allows for this in Article 23.

This will not mean the withdrawal of Macedonia's UN Membership and is not related to Macedonia's UN Membership.

The Interim Accord was not an official requirement for Macedonia's membership to the UN; that would be against the UN Charter itself.

The Interim Accord was signed only because of Greece's economic embargo, and was signed because of that pressure, but was never made an official requirement for UN Membership.

Indeed it was a political 'requirement', not a legal one and if Macedonia did not cave in to the pressure, the UN would have had no chance but to accept Macedonia's membership since none of the P5 Security Council members were going to Veto Macedonia's UN Membership.

The only official requirements for UN Membership are outlayed in Article 4 of the United Nations Charter. There are no other requirements.


Please note the official Resolution of the United Nations which granted Macedonia's membership to the UN.
[url]http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/a47r225.htm[/url]

It clearly shows that it was decided that Macedonia be accepted as a member AND that it would be provisionally referred to as "the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". It does not say that Macedonia be accepted as a member on the basis of the Interim Accord - the UN couldn't do that, because that goes against its' own Charter.

Macedonia's Membership is not dependant upon the settlement of the so-called name dispute, but rather the name used to reference Macedonia is dependent on settlement of the so-called name dispute.

This needs to be clear to everyone, so that these fallacious assumptions of Macedonia losing UN Membership upon withdrawing from the Interim Accord, are finally put to rest.[/QUOTE]

What is the purpose of withdrawing the IA and keeping the provisional reference ongoing?

The IA is related to the resolution of our admitting in UN and we can surely withdraw IA but even such act has to be processed under ICJ.

If we anull and void the IA without opinion and decission of the ICJ we do risk violating the primary resolution signed by us when joining the UN.

If we withdraw the IA only for the purpose of getting rid of the provisional reference it will NOT work, therefore the next thing we should do by logical schedule is to withdraw our first application to the UN and recognition to join under the provisional name in order to replace it with NEW resolution for re-admission under the Constitutional name.

At this stage we meet SC in order to give recommendation and to allow us enter the UN under our Constitutional name.

The P-5 doesn't require any argumentation if they want to VETO someone, they have done it many times in many occassions. France already backed Greece in 1993 and untill now have proven their support to the Greeks.

You can till try and risk, but what will happen when appears you were wrong in your calculations?

Will you renew your membership under the provisional reference once again hmm? or you think no further conditions shall be expected hmm?

If we unilateraly withdraw IA without respecting the process that has to be done through ICJ we will give counter argument in order to be pointed as a violator of the UN resolution and give further opportunity to be blackmailed if we want to re-join the UN under unknown name at that point.

I didn't mean "immediate expulsion" from UN but the logical development of our effort would be withdrawing the resolution for our recognition under the reference, so at that point we don't have a seat nor we enjoy the rights.

[QUOTE=Vangelovski;61870]And the fact that the Accord was not even conceived until two years later. Unless of course, Bratot will now have us believe that the UN in 1993 had a time machine and knew about the events of 1995.[/QUOTE]

How brilliant, bravo.

The IA is in correlation with the resolution of our admitting to UN dated 7 and 8 april 1993 and that name is transfered to the IA.

Instead of focusing on the question I asked you couple of times already, [B]you still failed to explain how we can release ourself from the provisional reference.[/B]

Explain me the process.

No that is incorrect and those are only your assumptions.

The Republic of Macedonia can withdraw from the Interim Accord and having withdrawn from the Interim Accord, it is not bound by it. You may ask if Macedonia is legally bound by it and whether Greece can pursue some legal recourse if Macedonia withdraws or ends the Interim Accord, but even Article 23 is clear on this point that Macedonia can withdraw (if it sought to withdraw on that basis, rather than by declaring the accord null and void).

This will not affect Macedonia's UN Membership, because Macedonia's UN Membership is not on the basis of the Interim Accord, it is a fully-fledged member. I have explained this in my previous post, and I encourage you to re-read it. Macedonia is also not bound, at this point, to use the Interim name.

Macedonia can then notify the United Nations that it wishes to be referred to, from then onward, as the Republic of Macedonia.

The United Nations will accept this, in the same way as it accepted Myanmar's name change, having changed it from Burma in 1989, despite very strong objections led by powerful countries including the United States.

It only depends on the political dimension as to whether a veto can be used by one of the P5 Security Council members, which most would agree to be highly unlikely, and it depends on that political dimension as to whether the UN 2/3 majority rule requirement may come into play, which is generally only used in very important situations and issues like recommendations on peace and security and the election of Security Council members.

There is nothing stopping RoM from standing firm then?
How shameful , what is it that people are afraid of?

SLOBODA

[QUOTE=Rogi;61879]No that is incorrect and those are[B] only your assumptions.[/B]

The Republic of Macedonia can withdraw from the Interim Accord.
This will not affect Macedonia's UN Membership.

[B]Macedonia can then notify the United Nations[U] that it wishes to be referred to,[/U] from then onward, as the Republic of Macedonia. [/B]

[B]The United Nations must accept this,[/B] in the same way as it accepted Myanmar's name change, having changed it from Burma in 1989, despite very strong objections led by powerful countries including the United States.[/QUOTE]

That is your mistake, unfortunately.

I'm not giving you assumption but already checked options with persons directly involved in the mission in UN.
I can always call on them and in discretion I can provide you a personal contact.

We can withdraw the IA but the provisional reference will stay in use.

In order to change our designation in UN we have to renew our application supported by SC.

If the name depended on what we "wish for" we wouldn't be at this point.

You should be aware of it instead of claiming so confortable how we only need to proclaim our wish in UN how to refer us from now on.

[QUOTE=Rogi;61629]Because they are afraid to, not that they don't want to.

They're so afraid that they wont even commission any sort of internal evaluation or decision tree to calculate the so-called risks and consequences of withdrawing from the Interim Accord - because there might be a leak to the media, or worse, to the foreign diplomats that that Macedonian Government is afraid of, and who pull the real strings in Macedonia.[/QUOTE]

I have always wondered, what are the affraid of? It annoyes me beyond anything to see how we are still in an agreement that we can get rid off. I have no idea why, I really don't understand.

[url]http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2008/db080520.doc.htm[/url]
[QUOTE]Question: Marie, one question. Since the Government of Myanmar has changed the name from Burma to Myanmar, what is the position of the United Nations? Does it call Burma Myanmar or still calls it Burma and Myanmar?

Deputy Spokesperson: It’s Myanmar. On that note, have a good afternoon. Thank you.[/QUOTE]

Sounds easy to me.

The only reasons why the Republic of Macedonia has not withdrawn from the Interim Accord by now is because;

1. It fears the unilateral actions that Greece may take (economic and political)
2. It fears losing diplomatic support and more to the point, international (financial) aid
3. It fears that doing so will permanently close the door to EU Membership (related to #1)
4. It fears that doing so will permanently close the door to NATO Membership (related to #1)


It is not because of any fear that it may lose its' UN Membership. That has never been part of the equation.


[QUOTE]In order to change our designation in UN we have to renew our application supported by SC.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that Macedonia will need to renew its' Membership application in order to change the name it is referred to in the United Nations?

In my very extensive discourse over the last 5 years with many different people who are regarded as experts on the name dispute, and on the United Nations Charter, and on Macedonia's Membership in the United Nations, that is not what I have been told and it is not the case which agrees with my own research on the matter.

Please have a look at how Burma changed its' name to Myanmar in 1989.

Please have a look at how the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UN Member from 2000-2003) had its official name changed to Serbia and Montenegro in 2003.

Please have a look at how Serbia and Montenegro had its' name changed to Serbia in 2006.

Please have a look at how the United Republic of Tanzania had its' name changed and membership continued after the merger of Tanzania and Zanzibar.

Please have a look at how Egypt changed it's name from United Arab Republic to Egypt in 1971.

Please have a look at how Syria changed it's name from Syria to Syrian Arab Republic in 1971.

It was all done with their membership continued and with a simple letter informing the United Nations Secretary-General of the new outcome, not a whole new application to join the United Nations.

[QUOTE=Risto the Great;61890][url]http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2008/db080520.doc.htm[/url]


Sounds easy to me.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Rogi;61891]The only reasons why the Republic of Macedonia has not withdrawn from the Interim Accord by now is because;

1. It fears the unilateral actions that Greece may take (economic and political)
2. It fears losing diplomatic support and more to the point, international (financial) aid
3. It fears that doing so will permanently close the door to EU Membership (related to #1)
4. It fears that doing so will permanently close the door to NATO Membership (related to #1)


It is not because of any fear that it may lose its' UN Membership. That has never been part of the equation.




Are you saying that Macedonia will need to renew its' Membership application in order to change the name it is referred to in the United Nations?

In my very extensive discourse over the last 5 years with many different people who are regarded as experts on the name dispute, and on the United Nations Charter, and on Macedonia's Membership in the United Nations, that is not what I have been told and it is not the case which agrees with my own research on the matter.

Please have a look at how Burma changed its' name to Myanmar in 1989.

Please have a look at how the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UN Member from 2000-2003) had its official name changed to Serbia and Montenegro in 2003.

Please have a look at how Serbia and Montenegro had its' name changed to Serbia in 2006.

Please have a look at how the United Republic of Tanzania had its' name changed and membership continued after the merger of Tanzania and Zanzibar.

Please have a look at how Egypt changed it's name from United Arab Republic to Egypt in 1971.

Please have a look at how Syria changed it's name from Syria to Syrian Arab Republic in 1971.

It was all done with their membership continued and with a simple letter informing the United Nations Secretary-General of the new outcome, not a whole new application to join the United Nations.[/QUOTE]

If all criteria that exist for the other countries were fully implemented in our case we would not have to elaborate so long and this would be a 'catlike cough' problem.

It's clearly underlined that Macedonia was admitted under "unusual circumstances" and we were already ignored 15 months before our application was taken into consideration and the resolution says enough how we are refered, [U]NOT on our wish.[/U]

page 6 in the pdf a little intro of the double standards:
[url]http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pdfmpunyb/wood_1.pdf[/url]

If you are convinced that our case can be equated with all others and if this 2 decade absurdity is not saying enough that we wont be treated as all other countries than be my guests.

We have not been admitted the UN under some name we chosed but a designation chosen for us untill we come up with "mutual accepted" name with Greece and[U] therefore there is no "a name change" since we haven't changed our name [/U]at all but in order to put in use our rightful name we will have to apply as new member - to renew our application under the Constitutional name.

I am surprised how easily you think and evaluate this matter.


Please have a look on which conditions we have been admitted at first place and then reconsider what you suggest.

Macedonia fulfilled all criteria of article 4 in order to be admitted to UN but still her right was violated.

[QUOTE] UN ignored the fact that its own general council in 1948 [B]adopted a resolution which strictly prohibited the introduction of new conditions for entry in this world organization[/B]. [COLOR="Red"][B]This however was done without precedence or legal means prohibiting Macedonia from entering the UN by its chosen name.[/B][/COLOR] This is a classic example of where rights, laws, rules and procedures are circumvented to make room for strong politics. Unfortunately it is this kind of behaviour that caused the Republic of Macedonia to endure economic and social hardships.

The Republic of Macedonia carries its name from 1944, when a Macedonian state was proclaimed. The Republic of Macedonia WAS THE FIRST STATE TO MAKE USE OF THE NAME MACEDONIA and with international rights, rightly defined by “Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure”, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DISPUTE THAT NAME.

By Risto Nikovski [/QUOTE]
But still... we are where we are, why are you so optimistic now, it's hard to understand, maybe you will be kind to explain what changed in the policy toward Macedonia?

Well, it seems that no amount of explaining it to you will be enough for you to look at this correctly, based on the actual processes and legalities within the United Nations, rather than a negatively biased and predisposed assumption of double standards and injustice.