Macedonia News el
-
(News from real/true Macedonia, Greece [1] , [2])
PRESS RELEASE (Pan-Macedonian Association USA, inc)
“There are no ethnic, social or political
divisions in multiethnic ‘Macedonia’ when it comes to NATO membership”,
said members of the FYROM’s Parliamentary Foreign Policy Committee, who
presented their united position during the Tuesday, March 27, 2012
debate titled: “‘Macedonia’ and NATO: From Security Consumer to Security
Provider”. However nothing of this statement could be further from the
truth.
The entire presentation of the panel (comprised of politicians from the
FYROM: VMRO-DPMNE MPs Antonio Milososki and Pavle Sazdov, SDSM MP Igor
Ivanovski and DUI MP Deshira Imeri), was designed to give the impression
that all of the FYROM’s political forces are in unity regarding
Skopje’s admittance to NATO at the Alliance’s upcoming summit in Chicago
in May 2012. It took place in a small room on the fifth floor at the
Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center (WWC) with an audience of no more
than twenty-five attendees, including several members of the
Greek/American Pan-Macedonian Association USA.
Mr. Milososki started the presentation with an intentional provocative
remark against Greece by stating that when they became a country in
1991, Greece tried to stop them from becoming one under the pretence of
the name. However, since Mr. Milososki and the rest of the speakers
stated later that Greece is one of the biggest investors in their
country we cannot understand their twisted logic......... If Greece did not want
this country to exist why would it go on to become one of its largest
investors? The subtle bashing of Greece continued even by the other
panelists, as much fiction mixed in with a little truth was used in all
their arguments. For those of us who follow the events in the FYROM with
its numerous foreign and domestic problems, vocabulary such as
“‘Macedonia’ … Security Provider” seemed ridiculous to say the least.
Albanians in the FYROM account for about 30% of its population. They
feel they should be a constituent community with equal say, but in
reality they are a beleaguered minority. Just a few weeks ago, a Slav
policeman killed two Albanian youths. In Skopje, fifteen Albanian
schoolchildren were brutally beaten by Slavs because of their ethnic
origin. The desperate state of the Albanian minority inthe FYROM led to a
civil war in 2001, and things have not improved much for them since.
There are talks about following Kosovo’s example and breaking away from
the FYROM and creating a separate entity in order to escape oppression.
Could peace ever prevail in the area if Albanians are treated like
second-class citizens?
During the question-answer period that followed the one-sided
presentation of the panelists, the Pan-Macedonian Association posed a
number of questions directly to the FYROM’s former Minister of Foreign
Affairs and now Parliamentarian, Mr. Antonio Milososki:
“State employees in your homeland use propaganda and promote the dogma
of ‘antiquization’. Students in your capital’s high schools were
interviewed and said that the ‘real’ borders of their country reach
Thessaly, below Mount Olympus in Greece. They insist they learn these
things from their teachers. You yourself said that there was ‘no
Macedonia in Greece prior to 1988’ in an interview for a Greek TV
station, and in Newsweek. Your compatriots are equally provocative
during sporting events abroad and traditional festivals at home, burning
Greek flags and chanting against Greece.
During
the celebration commemorating your country's independence from
Yugoslavia, a huge map of a so-called ‘United Macedonia’ was displayed.
It included territories that belong to your neighbors and full NATO
members, Greece and Bulgaria. A singer performed an irredentist song,
with lyrics asking for Greek and Bulgarian territories to ‘unite’ with
your country, asking for ‘conquerors’ to leave. There are videos of your
Prime Minister and the rest of the political elite enjoying the song,
along with cheering citizens.
A map displaying the concept of a ‘United Macedonia’ also appeared in
an elementary school last December. The Vergina Sun, an official Greek
state symbol that your country is legally prohibited from using, is
frequently placed on such maps. Politicians and diplomats pose proudly
in front of them; there are recent photos from a gathering, in the
presence of your Ambassador to Canada and your Consul General in
Toronto. This symbol is also placed on Alexander the Great’s monument,
which you recently erected in your capital’s square. Alexander the Great
was Greek, according to all top historians in leading universities. Do
you believe that such practices promote security and stability in the
region?”
The panel responded with political non-answers, mixed with a tiny
amount of truth. One of the panelists implied that the Greeks are not
really bothered if Skopje is named “Republic of Macedonia” and he added
that the Greeks are actually the biggest investors in his country. It is
true that Greek businesses provide approximately twenty thousand jobs
for the FYROM’s citizens. On the other hand however, according to recent
polls, 85% of the Greek population does not want the name Macedonia to
be included in their neighboring country’s name. As for irredentism
against Greece emanating from a country that aspires to join NATO, Mr.
Milososki replied that other Balkan states also promote irredentism such
as Bulgaria that desires a “Greater Bulgaria”, and Albania that aims
for a “Greater Albania”. This is irrelevant to the question asked and
even if it was a fact, it does not absolve the FYROM from officially
sponsoring irredentism against its neighbors. All the panelists declared
that the FYROM does not have any irredentist plans in the region, but
when they were asked why they teach their youth that Greece’s northern
region, Macedonia, is under occupation and they need to “unite” parts of
Greek and Bulgarian territories, they did not answer. Throughout the
presentation the phrase “Greece’s irrational stance” was repeated
multiple times. Members of the Pan-Macedonian Association also reminded
the panelists that Greece is the one who has supported their economy so
far. When one member of the Pan-Macedonian asked Mr. Milososki, “what
did your country do to assist in solving the problem?” his reply was:
“we changed our flag”.
However, the delegation’s babble was unsurpassed when Dr. Doug Bandow
from the CATO Institute posed the following question to Antonio
Milososki:
“I understand why the FYROM wants to be part of NATO, but I wondered
what the U.S. interest is in inducting Skopje. Security guarantees are
serious commitments, yet the FYROM is a small nation with no strategic
significance for the U.S. and never was viewed as important during the
Cold War. The U.S. has had to pay to upgrade what remains a very small
military which provides little practical assistance even when deployed,
as in Afghanistan. And this is a country with bad bilateral relations
with another NATO member as well as internal problems tied to earlier
conflicts in the Balkans. Wouldn’t adding FYROM to NATO be a financial
and strategic liability for America rather than an asset?”
The former Foreign Minister’s reply was: “Since all the neighboring
countries such as Albania, Greece and Bulgaria are NATO members, the
U.S. would benefit if ‘Macedonia’ would be a member as well”.
Mr. Milososki’s response was hodgepodge nonsense. Greece has a prime
strategic position in NATO since it is the nexus of east and west, north
and south (with a strategic score of 10/10). Bulgaria and Albania’s
strategic positions are also very good because they facilitate the route
from the Black Sea and Adriatic Sea to Central Europe (strategic score:
7.5/10 respectively). The FYROM’s position is dependent on its
neighbors, which strategically means that its score is about 3 out of
10. Therefore, the FYROM’s position is actually worse than mediocre.
In addition, Mr. Milososki ought to know that the principles of NATO
are clear and require that hopeful members should meet all the
preconditions and criteria for membership that were outlined in Chapter 5
of the NATO Study on Enlargement in 1995. NATO will not even consider
offering membership if a country does not have:
- a) Respect for the OSCE rules and principles, including resolution of ethnic disputes and irredentist claims (both internal and external) via peaceful means
- b) A commitment to social justice and stability
- c) Appropriate democratic and civilian control of the defense force, and
- d) Assurances that resources exist and are devoted to achieving these goals.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Only News