Macedonian Truth Forum - Macedonia & Greece: Name Issue

People have the right to know!

By Risto Stefov

[email][email protected][/email]

March 6, 2010

In my last week’s (February 26, 2011) article “How serious is Greece about the negotiations?” I revealed wikileaks information that the Macedonian side had in fact proposed changes to Macedonia’s name. A few days later a letter (contained further down in this article) to the United Nations signed by Antonio Miloshoski on February 16th, 2011 which appears to verify that information, was made public.

See for yourself.

The first letter, signed by Dimitris P. Droutsas is addressed to the UN. The second letter signed by Miloshoski is a reply to the first letter. In it is information that reveals the fact, by the following paragraph, that indeed “name changes” had been proposed by the Macedonian side in the past;

“In the course of those negotiations, the Republic of Macedonia accepted a number of proposals put forward by Mr. Nimetz as a basis for a solution, including the proposal of March 2008 of “Republic of Macedonia (Skopje)”, which the Hellenic Republic regrettably rejected.” (This paragraph is included in Miloshoski’s letter to the UN explaining the fact that the Macedonian side HAS proposed name changes in the past).

Here is Droutsas’s letter;

United Nations A/65/667–S/2010/672, General Assembly, Security Council, Distr.: General

30 December 2010, Original: English, 10-71130 (E) 040111, *1071130*

General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Agenda item 117

Implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council

Sixty-fifth year, Letter dated 21 December 2010 from the Permanent Representative of Greece to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General

I have the honour to attach herewith a letter dated 12 November 2010 addressed to you by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic, Mr. Dimitris P. Droutsas, and upon instructions from my Government, I should be grateful if it could be circulated as a document of the General Assembly, under agenda item 117, and of the Security Council (see annex).

(Signed) Anastassis Mitsialis

Ambassador Permanent Representative

A/65/667, S/2010/672, 2 10-71130

Annex to the letter dated 21 December 2010 from the Permanent Representative of Greece to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, 12 November 2010

As you are aware, negotiations under the auspices of your Personal Envoy, Ambassador Nimetz, over the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are going through a delicate phase.

The only viable solution is a mutually agreed settlement. This can be achieved if both parties make reciprocal compromises. Greece has taken a major step of compromise by accepting a compound name with a geographical qualifier for all uses and purposes. It is now upon the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to act.

Guided by the spirit of cooperation for reaching a mutually acceptable settlement, we have initiated a policy of high-level contacts with the leadership of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Our goal is to build a better climate that would contribute to the efforts to achieve a mutually acceptable solution which would promote the country’s Euro-atlantic aspirations.

Unfortunately, our positive stance has not been reciprocated by the Government of our neighbour. Their actions and statements prove that they do not value our constructive efforts and that they are not prepared to embrace the basic idea that reciprocal concessions are essential in order to reach a mutually acceptable solution.

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s leadership has once again recurred to nationalism and old practices of “antiquization”, manifested, this time, in a series of relief representations of prominent Greek historical figures and symbols of Ancient Macedonia, such as the Vergina Sun, as part of the “Skopje 2014” plan.

Such actions constitute a direct violation of the Interim Accord signed between the two countries in 1995, which in article 7, paragraph 2, stipulates that “upon entry into force of the Interim Accord, the Party of the second part (i.e. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) shall cease to use in any way the symbol (i.e. Vergina sun) in all its forms (emphasis added) displayed on its national flag prior to such entry into force”.

In addition, this same article 7, in paragraph 3, requires each party not to use symbols belonging to the historic or cultural heritage of the other party, something that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is doing regarding symbols belonging to the heritage of Greece and refuses to take any corrective actions despite our protests in this respect.

I have to draw your attention to the fact that such actions undermine good neighbourly relations and do not contribute to creating a climate conducive to finding a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue in the context of the United Nations-led negotiations.

This escalating intransigence and provocation is partly due to the fact that the international community failed to get across the right message. Therefore, I am appealing to you, Mr. Secretary-General, to urgently send a clear and strong message to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s leadership, stressing that such rhetoric and practices are a major obstacle to efforts for reaching a mutually acceptable settlement on the name issue, as they negatively affect regional stability and compromise good neighbourly relations.

(Signed) Dimitris P. Droutsas

And here is Miloshoski’s reply:

United Nations, A/65/735–S/2011/76, General Assembly, Security Council, Distr.: General, 16 February 2011, Original: English, 11-23722 (E) 220211, *1123722*

General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Agenda item 117

Implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, Sixty-sixth year, Letter dated 15 February 2011 from the Permanent Representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General

I have the honour to enclose a letter dated 14 February 2011 addressed to you by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia, Antonio Miloshoski (see annex). The letter responds to a letter addressed to you by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic, Dimitris P. Droutsas, dated 12 November 2010, forwarded to you by way of a letter from the Permanent Representative of the Hellenic Republic to the United Nations, Anastassis Mitsialis, dated 21 December 2010 and circulated by you in document A/65/667-S/2010/672, dated 30 December 2010.

I should be grateful if the present letter and its annex could be circulated as a document of the General Assembly, under agenda item 117, and of the Security Council.

(Signed) Slobodan Tashovski

Permanent Representative

A/65/735, S/2011/76, 2 11-23722

Annex to the letter dated 15 February 2011 from the Permanent Representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia addressed to the Secretary-General

I have the honour to address you with regard to the letter from H.E. Mr. Dimitris P. Droutsas, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic, dated 12 November 2010 (see A/65/667-S/2010/672, annex).

By way of introduction, I note the significant delay between the date of the letter (12 November 2010) and its circulation (the letter was forwarded to you by way of a letter from the Permanent Representative of the Hellenic Republic to the United Nations, Anastassis Mitsialis, dated 21 December 2010, and circulated by you on 30 December 2010).

The letter makes a number of factually and legally incorrect assertions concerning my country, to which I must respond. The first inaccurate claim is that the Republic of Macedonia has failed to negotiate in good faith to reach a solution concerning the difference over the name of my country. The second is that we are alleged to have engaged in practices of “antiquization” and “provocation”, in breach of the Interim Accord signed between the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Macedonia in 1995. The Republic of Macedonia strongly rejects both allegations, which are based on fundamental misrepresentations of fact and law.

With respect to the negotiations concerning the difference over the name of my country, the Republic of Macedonia has engaged actively and constructively in good faith negotiations since the adoption of Security Council resolution 817 (1993), through the mediation process led most recently by your Personal Envoy, Matthew Nimetz. In the course of those negotiations, the Republic of Macedonia accepted a number of proposals put forward by Mr. Nimetz as a basis for a solution, including the proposal of March 2008 of “Republic of Macedonia (Skopje)”, which the Hellenic Republic regrettably rejected.

The acceptance of these proposals represented a departure by my country from its preferred position, with the aim of facilitating a mutually acceptable solution. In making these concessions we have sought to address Greek concerns, being guided by a spirit of goodwill and good-neighbourly relations. We have repeatedly reiterated our firm commitment to the negotiation process and our determination to resolve the difference that has arisen over the name. That is why Mr. Nimetz has commended us for our serious efforts in seeking to resolve the difference. As I reiterated to you last time when we exchanged views, we are eager to ensure that the stalled negotiation process is reinvigorated. We were thus very pleased at the scheduling of the recent meeting with your Personal Envoy, which took place in New York on 9 February, and we look forward to the next round of talks.

My country also demonstrated its strong commitment to developing and maintaining good-neighbourly relations with our Greek neighbour, through its participation in a series of high-level bilateral contacts with the Hellenic Republic over the past 16 months. These talks were rendered possible by a welcome change in Greek policy in 2009, permitting the resumption of such contacts. We have approached this parallel process, intended to facilitate the negotiations undertaken under your auspices, with good faith. In order to further develop mutual cooperation between our two countries, and to assist in developing a climate of good neighbourliness conducive to resolving the difference over the name, the Republic of Macedonia has in good faith proposed and retabled a number of initiatives intended to assist the advancement of bilateral relations. Macedonia remains hopeful that the Hellenic Republic will reconsider its initial negative response to those initiatives.

The Republic of Macedonia also remains hopeful that the Hellenic Republic will depart from its self-stated “non-negotiable” “red line” position of seeking unilaterally to impose its demands for “a compound name with a geographical qualifier for all uses and purposes”. Indeed, the Hellenic Republic’s approach to the mediation process envisages an obligation on the Republic of Macedonia to simply acquiesce to unilateral “non-negotiable” demands made by the Hellenic Republic.

Yet a compromise and enduring solution to the difference will be reached only if account is taken of both parties’ positions, as well as of the fundamental principles of international law, including respect for the integrity and equality of sovereign States.

The Hellenic Republic also has sought to impose its demands on the Republic of Macedonia through a strategy of actions intended to limit our Euro-Atlantic and European integration. Pursuant to this strategy, and with the purpose of seeking to pressure our country into accepting its demands in the name of negotiations, the Hellenic Republic objected to the admission of my country to North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership in 2008. That objection is currently the subject of a case before the International Court of Justice, where we seek, inter alia, a declaration that the Hellenic Republic has violated the letter and spirit of the Interim Accord of 1995.

With respect to the Hellenic Republic’s second allegation, it is unclear in what sense “relief representations” constructed “as part of the ‘Skopje 2014’ plan” have any connection to the name negotiations. In any event, the Republic of Macedonia rejects the assertion that it has engaged in practices of “antiquization” or “provocation” in violation of the Interim Accord of 1995 in relation to “a series of relief representations”, or otherwise. It also refutes in the strongest terms the misrepresentation made by the Hellenic Republic that the Republic of Macedonia “refuses to take any corrective actions” pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3, of the Interim Accord. The allegation made by the Hellenic Republic is based on a fundamental misrepresentation of the facts, and of the meaning of article 7, paragraph 2, and 7, paragraph 3, of the Interim Accord.

The facts of the matter are as follows:

On 1 November 2010 the Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs received a note verbale from the Liaison Office of the Hellenic Republic in Skopje, alleging a violation by the Republic of Macedonia of article 7 of the Interim Accord in the form of “a series of relief representations of prominent Greek historical figures of Ancient Macedonia, such as the Vergina sun … on the basis [sic] of the lion statues at the “Goce Delcev” road bridge in Skopje”. The reconstruction of this bridge forms part of the “Skopje 2014” plan, referred to in the letter from the Hellenic Republic.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia, in keeping with its obligations under the Interim Accord, reviewed the matters raised by the Hellenic Republic and responded on 1 December 2010, informing the Hellenic Republic that the symbol formerly displayed on the Republic of Macedonia’s national flag (termed the “Vergina sun” by the Hellenic Republic) had been removed from the statues on the bridge in question. The note verbale read in material part as follows:

“… In accordance with article 7, paragraph 3, of the Interim Accord and in the spirit of good-neighbourly relations, the Ministry is pleased to inform the Liaison Office of the Hellenic Republic that, subsequent to further investigations into the matters raised, it has taken action to ensure that the symbol formerly displayed on the national flag of the Republic of Macedonia will not appear on the completed lion statues at the Goce Delcev road bridge.

As the Liaison Office of the Hellenic Republic may be aware, at the time this matter was raised with the Macedonian Foreign Ministry, and at the time the action by the Foreign Ministry was taken, the lion statues at the Goce Delcev road bridge were still under construction, and remain so to date …”.

As such, the allegation that my country “refuses to take any corrective actions” is plainly without foundation. It was erroneous on 12 November 2010 when the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic penned his letter to the United Nations: as of that date, the Republic of Macedonia had not yet responded to the Hellenic Republic’s note verbale. And it was fundamentally misrepresentative of the facts on 21 December 2010 when it was forwarded to you for distribution: by that date, my country had responded by way of a reply note verbale, setting out the “corrective actions” of which the Hellenic Republic was aware.

This reply note verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia, dated 1 December 2010, refuted the Hellenic Republic’s claim that “relief representations” of historical figures from the region are capable of constituting a breach of article 7 of the Interim Accord. It further invited the Hellenic Republic to explain the basis for such a claim:

“… the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterates its position that artistic representations of important historic figures from the region, such as those which appear on the lions on the Goce Delcev bridge, are in no way inconsistent with the requirements of the 1995 Interim Accord. The Interim Accord does not and was never intended to curtail artistic expression, as the commitment undertaken by both Parties in article 9 makes clear. The Ministry once again expresses its hope that the Hellenic Republic does not seek to undermine the freedom of expression that is reflected in the right of artistic expression in either of our countries.

Insofar as the Hellenic Republic asserts that the artistic depiction of historical figures is capable (1) of amounting to a breach of article 7 of the 1995 Interim Accord or (2) of engaging the provisions of article 7, paragraph 3, of the same accord, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia reiterates its previous request — that remains unanswered — that the Hellenic Republic clarify the basis for that assertion …”.

It is unclear why the Hellenic Republic chose not to engage in dialogue conducive to the promotion of good-neighbourly relations, by responding to the questions raised in the Republic of Macedonia’s note verbale. Instead, the Hellenic Republic sought to escalate the matter, by writing to you on the basis of a misperception of the facts and law. I regret very much this approach, which appears to be connected with the pending case before the International Court of Justice.

In closing, I wish to emphasize that my Government remains fully and firmly committed to all the undertakings enshrined in the 1995 Interim Accord, and to the United Nations negotiation process under your auspices relating to resolution of the name issue. We hope that the difference over the name can be brought to a swift and successful conclusion. The Republic of Macedonia remains ready and willing to reach a mutually acceptable resolution.

(Signed) Antonio Miloshoski

Interview with Ambassador Risto Nikovski the name dispute with Greece

Greater awe me eat that Hague ruled ambiguous

"If they take such a step (mn suit in The Hague) will come out nedovetni. An international document is not respected, not only from Greece but also by NATO and the EU, two world institutions. If we ever learn about the rule of law and respect for international agreements, and they do not do it, what is that? "said Nikovski

The Ambassador Risto Nikovski talking about, you can already tell, the eternal theme - the name dispute. As ambassador of the Republic of gathering experience in London, Tirana and Moscow. Earlier, in the former Yugoslavia, served in diplomatic missions in China, Cuba, Indonesia and Malaysia. That experience has today transformed into columns and analysis of Macedonian foreign policy. Considers that in the next three to five years is biased to expect a solution to the dispute on the name. Although the dispute seems to be almost insoluble, however, Nikovski considered by bridging the differences may be a solution.
News: Milososki letter to Ban Ki-moon recognized that in 2008 in Bucharest, Macedonia adopted the name change. The government argues that it accepted the name to go to referendum. But, is not it a kind of "Catch 22" because we know that Greece would not accept any kind is a solution if there is a possibility or uncertainty that may not pass the referendum?
Nikovski: In any case, it was wise in our Bucharest went by accepting the proposal from the Republic of Macedonia (Skopje). On the one hand, was quite certain that Greece does not accept, and on the other hand, our logging that it would go to a referendum, no one can deny. The referendum is the ultimate democratic act. And for such an issue as not only the identity of the people but also the future of the state, any political elite, it should not, but they can afford to solve alone.
West: But nobody said it openly. Somehow I was hiding, and now re-actualized. We back in 2008, before the summit, said that top officials had accepted that proposal, but somehow after some time as to forget that this is so.
Nikovski: The breakup of Yugoslavia, the name issue with us is a taboo subject. Unlike us, the Greeks have mobilized all available facilities in the country and abroad who can assist in getting the dispute. For us it was so, and all of this happened during and after Bucharest, is de facto part of that practice is wrong and bad for us.
West: Do you think it means that the process name should be more open? Because there are claims that if you open up the process and reveal the strategy, it will be useful for Macedonia.
Nikovski: Exactly. It has two sides. One is that a certain transparency should have, in the section where we will concentrate first on the track, second to analyze everything that happens and some adjustment of our strategy of all these events. That part should be as open to everyone can help with your ideas. The second side of the medal is that from the outset the problem should be resolved discreetly, especially today's decision may be sought through public statements, exchanges only through secret diplomacy.
News: The lawsuit in The Hague, can you predict the outcome, the result, given that this process there has been in secret, under the rules of court?
Nikovski: Personally great awe me eat. In general, I have no confidence in the Court, because all those courts, in certain ways, more or less politically charged. Let us remember only the case of the blockade of our borders at the beginning of the 1990s, which destroyed our economy. Fourteen members of the then European Community added Greece to the European Court in Luxembourg. Court nearly two years nothing has taken, and each day was disastrous for our economy. Do not take anything from a purely political reasons. I fear that the same will happen with this court. And that eventually, although it is absolutely clear that we are right, they will make a decision or verdict to be ambiguous. And on the other side and make a decision indisputably in our favor, who will realize that? Although, formally, these decisions are binding, it depends on the members of the Security Council of UN, which are the same that we have disputed name, supporting Greece, which did not sign the Interim Agreement. If you bring a positive and clear decision in our favor, it would be our strong point and a moral boost for us. But such a solution would hardly help us to resolve the dispute and get a solution that would be acceptable and permanent.
News: Does this mean that they are wasting time and energy to appeal to the Court in The Hague?
Nikovski: If you take this step we will take nedovetni. An international document is not respected, not only from Greece but also by NATO and the EU, two world institutions. If we ever learn about the rule of law and respect for international agreements, and they do not do it, what is that? It is neprincipielnost if it is tolerated, we will show that we do not know what we want.
West: In your column I wrote that resolved there can be no Washington without a role to Brussels. The dispute was initiated by the Athens and Brussels and Washington just zakrchkale. Does this mean that Skopje should further engage?
Nikovski: Here, unfortunately, a confusion reigns and emphasizes the bilateral nature of the dispute. It is indisputable that this is a bilateral dispute over its base. But from the outset it is internationalized. When a bilateral dispute involves a third party, he is no longer bilateral. Here are several parties involved from the very beginning. So, we can not talk about bilateral nature of the dispute and, therefore, we can not go directly to the solution with Athens. He is on the international agenda, deal with it the world's multilateral institutions, and only thus can not continue. For example, the Security Council nor the UN name and deny us the imposed reference and Greece there was not a member. Or the EU, even in Lisbon in 1992 said he must not use the word Macedonia in its name. Therefore, the solution can be sought elsewhere than in Washington because the United States are not only major in the world, the only superpower, but are key in this case.
West: Related to this, you will fight for offensive diplomacy on the issue. Does Macedonia capacity to perform such a thing?
Nikovski: Macedonia has no major diplomatic facilities, it is reality. Because our diplomacy is young. Some facilities have, if they use the maximum, it will be done. I, personally, it is necessary in this case to seek help from international experts, because the problem is new, unusual, not only for us but for the world practice. We do not have enough experts who know all the mechanisms and the UN and the Court in The Hague, and the EU. Therefore we need in the near future to engage consultants, lawyers and other experts that can help us in seeking a just solution.
West: Did you see the capacity to solve the country of such a thing? Because we see everything around dispute goes somewhat lukewarm, without specific guidelines, with no particular strategy.
Nikovski: Our biggest handicap is the division in the country and the readiness of certain political forces to accept the name change and, as they say, to bend the spine. That indicates to us that there is readiness for, so to say, capitulation, and all politicians in the normal world it would take. Doing, and why we are driven to this deredzhe because we put roadblocks and blackmail to accept something that is unacceptable. There should be no doubt, the identity name. Identity no name no. Because all the deception that we will smenele name on the outside do not know about where you are and will remain that we are unsustainable. Yes, we will remain Macedonians, but only for us and for anyone else. Any substantial change in the name of the northern, new, old, Upper Macedonia, will lead to the depersonalization of the Macedonian people and he does not already exist on the international list of recognized nations. That, in turn, will create not only great turbulence in the country but around the region.
West: But like all of this seems very pessimistic. It turns out that'll never come to a solution. Greece seeks to change its name, with a changing identity, we do not give the identity concede at any price, does that mean that there is no escape?
Nikovski: No, I do not agree that it is pessimistic. We should first do not doubt that the main, basic, the only goal of Athens is to prove that no Macedonians outside Greece. Objectively, it is possible quickly to expect a solution, a compromise that will be lasting, valid and acceptable to both sides. We must therefore bridges this problem for Macedonia to continue with its integration into NATO and the EU. To prevent the destabilization of the country and the region. In parallel, to maximize efforts to permanently solve the problem. We must not forget that the crisis in Greece prevents any flexibility from their side. It will take at least three to five years, probably longer, That's the key right now. No politician in Greece that in these circumstances would accept any compromise.
West: The Strategy of VMRO-DPMNE name writes that the solution to the dispute must not touch the identity, and that decision will go to referendum. SDSM also believes that the decision not to go into the identity, but disagreed about the referendum. What is your opinion, the problem, why can not make a state strategy, we have almost identical views on the issue of the main parties?
Nikovski: I agree. Basically, the differences are not great. The problem is that no political will to build a common position. It speaks of our political capacities. And instead here to make efforts, the agreement in principle that there can be blended into an understanding, joint position, joint, we continue to knees, spit with each other, and it helps foreigners. The referendum is not as important, although it should be a referendum. He is the only motive to be annoyed. Is the responsibility of all political forces, because the name, instead of us wake up, to create a feeling of threat, because the Macedonian nation and Macedonian state in question, and it sploti us, we are still divided and those divisions are deepening . Do not communicate among themselves, are declared traitors and do not know what, that's a big handicap.
West: The European Commission characterized the language as a state. I picked up a powder for this, especially from the government and demanded an apology and the like. But last year the government did not respond to the same problem, although given candidate status. Does the blame here can be found in the government because there did not work in time to prevent it?
Nikovski: Absolutely. By tolerating expressions that are unfavorable to us, we, de facto, make concessions. We had a case of four ambassadors, including Fuere Reeker, signed a letter prekrstija Macedonian language in public. Let's not fool anyone that it was accidental or by negligence. It is a clear intention to destroy everything that is Macedonian. Each precedent multiplies.
News: Nelly in such cases should no longer see the first of what can we do? We can expect from them, but, right, the error must first be sought at home? For a few years ago it happened. Are we not doing enough, if we do not lobby enough, there may be riots?
Nikovski: Sure, it's our mistakes. And there are numerous. Now even hear that there are some instructions not to use the word negotiation. It undermines our position because 20 years of talking about negotiations, and negotiations will not. Negotiations are completely different way of communication. This happens through the Nimitz is a classic mediation. This discussion, mediation which seeks to create a site where you approximate positions of the two countries, and when you come to such a situation, then act negotiations, present all the details, the agreement is signed, or has a resolution of the Council Security ... Undertake negotiations mean that we accept that something is falichno, talks Sun In all of the documents stand SB calls, effort, nowhere does it mention the word negotiation. Except in the Interim Agreement that was made under heavy pressure from the Greeks. This expression is irrelevant because there is said to continue negotiations about the name difference, and there were no negotiations, and if there was something, it can not continue.
West: I wrote that a possible solution by changing the Constitution, but with preservation of identity.
Nikovski: Insisting that we should change our Constitution is a strong argument. Constitutions, however, are changing. We've made it even too many times. If we fail to reach a solution that will not jeopardize the identity of the people who will not handicapped us in the international arena as a country, as it is now, which will allow entry into NATO and the EU, which will be the solution in relations with Greece as an important neighbor, and if such a solution requires a change to the Constitution, but unnecessary, should not be a hindrance. If you come to such a text, to such an understanding, to such an agreement, the constitution should not be a hindrance.
West: But that means, practically, this solution?
Nikovski: First and first, the name must not be changed, there is no dilemma. We must remain Macedonia. And when you go to writing conferences Macedonia, and when you go to the Olympics defiles writing Macedonia. We must not deviated from that. So, do not change the name, but with something to satisfy the other hand, something that will not unnecessarily brings us to question us as Macedonians. It is time now to bids, but such solutions have. If we achieve the main goal, which now seems almost unattainable, a possible change to the Constitution which, in any case, I would not change anything important, should not be a bigger problem.
Darko Duridanski
[url]http://www.vest.com.mk/default.asp?ItemID=933FBCED65D8C94DA47F468FB314B6EC[/url]