Legal and Political Aspects of Partition of Macedonian Territory

[Vangelovski]

I more or less agree with what you said SOM, only part I disagreed with was the legal aspect and the positions put forth by Pelister.

What do you mean 'only'? That is basically everything that has been posted so far.

[Voltron]

Figure of speech, I understood what SOM was trying to point out to me. Thats all.

[Onur]

Voltron is right about one thing. It was obvious that Macedonia was going to be divided to several pieces and claiming that the people in Macedonia didn't know that `till 1913 would be quite naive.

Russians would never allow all Macedonia to go under Greek domination (meaning British at that time) and British empire would never allow Aegean Macedonia to go under Russian domination whether in the name of Serbia, Bulgaria or as an independent state. This competition between the west and Russia was the reason of Macedonia remained inside Ottoman empire as late as 1913, otherwise Macedonia`s fate would be decided in 1878 as latest but not delayed `till 1913. Macedonia remained inside Ottoman empire `till 1913 because if it would be separated earlier than that, then it would be a Russian satellite. British empire didn't want that happen and didn't allow Russians to set sail in Aegean&Mediterranean sea for the incoming WW-1. They wanted from Turks to continue to block Russian advance from the bosphorus of Istanbul and never allow Russians to bypass Turkey by using Aegean Macedonia.

There was pro-Bulgarian, pro-Serbian, pro-Greek and pro-Macedonian factions in Macedonia, constantly killing each other, committing assassinations in the name of their masters in Athens, Sofia and their common enemy was Turks. When you have this condition in any country, the only result in a case of war would be separation and division, nothing else.

Turks also knew that in any case of war, Macedonia was going to be divided to pieces. That was an hot discussion in the Ottoman political scene as early as 1890s. Even Ataturk wrote poems about the carving of Macedonian territory.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Even Ataturk wrote poems about the carving of Macedonian territory.

Can you share one of those poems with us, or a source?

[Onur]

Can you share one of those poems with us, or a source?

I found this one from google. Ataturk wrote this poem in 1905;

BEŞİKE HÂDİSESİ İÇİN
Çıkıyor gönüllere istimdadı
Sâmiamda vatanın feryâdı
Çıkıyor gönüllere istimdadı
Yaralı bir ananın evlâdı
Etmesin mi anaya imdadı?

Rumeli can veriyor yok mu ilaç.
Edelim sıhhatini istimzaç;
Etmeyelim kimseyi izaç?

Zırhlılar her yeri tehidt ediyor,
Makedonya bunu tes'it ediyor.
İnkırazı bize teyit ediyor.

Yemenin purişi malumu cihan
Ne için eyledi millet isyân?
Zulme ister mi bu yoldan burhan
Turuşkalar bile aldı meydan

Hani kânun-u adaâlet nerede?
Mülk-ü millette himâye saadet nerede?
Haricen mülk-ü himaye nerede?
Bizde evvelki şecaat nerede?

Gelse Ertuğrul şöhret-i pervas
Eder elbette tahayyür ibraz
Vatanın feyzine kâdir olamaz
Yeniden fethine verseydi cevâz...

Yıldırım görse şu ahvâlimizi
Ateş kahrı yakar hâlimizi,
Af eder mi bizim efâlimizi,
Mahveder cumle-i emsâlimizi,

Ey büyük Fâtih'i İstanbul'un...
Bu revş olmadı mı makbulün
Sây ile toplanılan mahsulün
Berhava oldu fakat meçhulün...

Yazık oldu Vatana âh yazık...
Her ağızdan çıkıyor: Eyvâh yazık!..
Acısın bizlere, âh yazık!

MUSTAFA KEMAL
· Sinop 25 Kânunu Evvel 321 (1905)

http://guldeste.blogcu.com/mustafa-k...-siirler/63163

Green colored verses;

Rumelia is dying, perishing with it`s soul, there is no remedy?
Lets mend it`s welfare
and do not dishonor anyone.

Armored panzers are crushing and crumbling everywhere
and Macedonia is cheering for that,
but it`s decadence and dissolution day by day, gives us the power of resistance.

*****
*****

Our motherland is becoming ruined and spoiled
And everyone says; Alas!, too bad.
(God) mercy to us, oh, what a shame!

In 1905, Rumelia only means Macedonia and Thrace because other parts were already separated from Ottoman empire earlier than that. He is talking about armored panzers and dissolution, so he meant Macedonia at that time, not Thrace. Probably he wrote Rumelia at first and then Macedonia for more vocabulary variety in the poem.

While he says "motherland" in the last verse, he meant Macedonia again, not Anatolia.

[Pelister]

The experts in international law that I quoted had something to say about the seizure of a foriegn territory.

I have quoted some of them here.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showpost.php?p=126052&postcount=11

When one nation invades the territory of another nation, if it cannot produce a "just cause" why it invaded, then the invasion is illegal. That is to say that it has no legal right to the territory, and everyone living in it. In this context, the New Greeks do not have a legal right to be occupying Macedonian territory. They do not have a legitimate title to the territory (let alone the name) (in international law), because:

1. It was seized through an illegal use of force
2. The Macedonian nation had given the Nation of New Greeks no provocation
3. It was seized by force, against the wishes of the Macedonian people
4. The New Greeks (as the invading force) did not have nor obtain the consent of the Macedonian people
5. It denied the rights of the conquered, and has failed to keep up with the law for a century now. In international law, if a nation fails to keep up with the law, as it relates to the rights of a conquered people, it forfeits its "right" to govern them.

These are some of the issues in international law relating to the illegal invasion and partition of Macedonian territory.

[Risto the Great]

I think you would have to define a "nation" using the same laws in amongst this.

Kosovo is an example of why laws are ridiculous when it comes to the will of the Great Powers.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I found this one from google. Ataturk wrote this poem in 1905

Thanks Onur.

[Pelister]

I think you would have to define a "nation" using the same laws in amongst this.

Kosovo is an example of why laws are ridiculous when it comes to the will of the Great Powers.

I don't understand what you mean here.

A Macedonian nationality existed. It was attacked by a foriegn force and Macedonian territory was seized by force. The legal issue is whether that attack was "just". Did the New Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians have a "just cause" for seizing territory and ignoring the wishes, and grievances of the Macedonians?

[Risto the Great]

I don't understand what you mean here.

A Macedonian nationality existed. It was attacked by a foriegn force and Macedonian territory was seized by force. The legal issue is whether that attack was "just". Did the New Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians have a "just cause" for seizing territory and ignoring the wishes, and grievances of the Macedonians?

I am saying you are relying on specific laws to turn the tide of 100 years of occupation. I think it would be logical to refer to the definition of "nation" among the same laws.

For example, maybe the international laws you are referring to would insist on a nation having its own Parliament etc.

I don't expect much opposition to the suggestion that Macedonia was a latecomer to the concepts of nationalism in a modern context.

[Pelister]

I am saying you are relying on specific laws to turn the tide of 100 years of occupation. I think it would be logical to refer to the definition of "nation" among the same laws.

For example, maybe the international laws you are referring to would insist on a nation having its own Parliament etc.

I don't expect much opposition to the suggestion that Macedonia was a latecomer to the concepts of nationalism in a modern context.

No No, that is not what I am doing.

All I aim to do is raise the issue of justice and the attendant ideas of responsibility and naked aggression.

For example, what were some contemporaries saying about the partition. Lord Grey (1862-1933) wrote that the Balkan Wars was an event that "was not one of justice, but one of force." This comment about the 'justice' and the use of 'force' in the seizure of foriegn territory is a reference to international law.

Source: Keith Robbins, ‘British Diplomacy and Bulgaria, 1914-1915’, Slavonic and East European Review, 49, 117 (1971), p.564

There is a branch of international law that applies to the seizure of a foreign territory by force occupied by another people - the idea about whether the Australian Aborigines constituted 'a nation' or the American Indians (based on someone's personal definition in the West, in a land far away) is irrelevant, because they had their own customs, their own tribal laws, their own social hiearchay, their own customs...etc. A 'nation' simply refers to shared political and social and cultural characteristics. The Aborigines did not need to demonstrates a Parliamentary system, based on Western democracy, to constitute a nationality. That would be ridiculous. I think your talking about political recognition? I am not talking about 'nationalism' which is a movement toward Statehood (in Western system), rather a 'nationality' which is related but different, and which refers to shared social, political and cultural characteristics. The question of seizing a foreign territory by force, one that is occupied by another nationality, in this case the Macedonian one, is the key question.

[George S.]

Pelister the following may seem like crazy questions but:
Pelister seeing it was a illegal occupation can something be done under international law.??
Also those treaties signed away without asking the people do they still apply or can we do something to negate them.??This is 2012 can we take greece to the world court for the unjust & illegal occupation of macedonia??.What our chances??What will the world court achieve for us.?

[Pelister]

Pelister the following may seem like crazy questions but:
Pelister seeing it was a illegal occupation can something be done under international law.??
Also those treaties signed away without asking the people do they still apply or can we do something to negate them.??This is 2012 can we take greece to the world court for the unjust & illegal occupation of macedonia??.What our chances??What will the world court achieve for us.?

George,

I am not a big fan of the world court.

I think that the Macedonians have to stand up for their rights in the Macedonian Republic. It is the only place in the world where the Macedonians should be able to live and prosper. If the politicians aren't doing anything for the Macedonians, or letting foriegn interlopers, trespassers and aggressors into closed meetings and behind close doors - then nothing can save them. Throughout the world equality is a natural right, but not for the Macedonians. The European Union is treating equality as a privilige, which they are not prepared to extend to the Macedonians. Withholding recognition is unlawful, but who gives a damn about the law. Keeping the Macedonians on the fringe of the law, "positioning" them outside the protection of the law is part of the conquest.

I raised the points in this thread, because there are questions about the invasion of the country and its partition which have never been asked.

What I do know is that there is a conquest happening right now, and unless the Macedonians shape up things are going to get worse for them.

There is no doubt that the seizure of the territory amounted to naked aggression. It was robbery, plain and simple. It was partitioned through an illegal use of force against the wishes of the Macedonians. The Macedonians were forcibly dispossessed. Greece has failed to keep up with the law as it relates to the governance of 'minorities'. But it can't be reversed, although there are a few cases in history where a partitioned country has been unified again (eg, Poland and Germany), this will never happen with Macedonia. Greece cannot be taken to court over it. In history, when someone invaded another nations territory, for example, the Iroqui Indian nations of North America, or the New Zealand Maori's, in cases where the natives put up resistance, the hostilities usually ended with the signing of a Treaty. The Treaty basically recognised the native people, and gave them limited rights. When the Ottomans conquered Macedonia, the Macedonian became Ottoman subjects but the Macedonians retained some rights - they retained limited rights to property and limited rights to religious and culture. This was the norm in international law. The difference between the Indians of north America or the Maori's or the Ottoman invasion of Macedonia is that in 1912 and 1913 Macedonian culture was the principal target of Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. Most conquerors went to war to arrest the land. They wanted to get rich from resources, and use cheap labour. If you look at the situation of the Negro slave in American history in terms of 'right's (they had none), the Macedonians are no better off. The Macedonians are treated as "migrants" with no status. They have no legal status, and no legal protection as Macedonians. They don't even have property rights as Macedonians. Only as 'Greeks'...etc. I don't think anything can be done about it, except perhaps to change attitudes in Greece and elsewhere.

If people can be convinced that the partition was unjust, and illegal, it might bring some foreigners around to the Macedonian side. As it stands, the Greek version of history entirely dominates all information about the 'Macedonians' in the West. In this history, we are constantly referred to as "Slavophones", a characterisation that some Macedonians here are trying to push on us for their own selfish reasons.

[George S.]

Thanks pelister i had a feeling that it would be an open & shut case.Macedonia has enemies & problems from within unless those are sorted out it can't really demand restitution as such But who knows what the future might bring like the greeks going bankrupt that will weaken the greek economy.There is a saying where there is a will there is a way.

[damian]

Not to mention the Greeks were not universally welcomed when they entered Macedonia. I was reading an article some time ago from the Greek Army planning during the Balkan Wars and originally their territorial goals were much more modest in Macedonia then what they ended up with. Kostur, Lerin for example were taken purely sponataneously. I will try to find the article and post it. When you scratch the surface the real purpose of carving up Macedonia was economic,i.e: new taxpayers, agriculture land, ports, trading stations, railroads etc. I think even the most powerful Greek "ciftliks" were pro-Ottoman. I will post more on this.


Greeks and Greek state have no business being on our territories. Ditto Serbia and Bulgaria. Ditto Ottomans. Why people cannot understand that?