Galery

1

Anastasia Balezdrova

The decision of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, with which Greece was condemned for its veto against Macedonia's NATO membership, obviously caused a new dynamic in the way Athens sees the argument with its western neighbour. Greek experts are for a composite name with a geographical definition that can be used by all regarding the name of Macedonia. This was announced during a discussion organized by the Hellenic Foundation for European and international affairs.

Two of the most experienced diplomats involved in the negotiations said that they are for the immediate impugnment of the 1995 Interim Accord between the two countries and a final agreement should be signed. They condemned the positions of the Greek political parties and called for the adoption of a national strategy, without excesses in favour of party interests. One of them even suggested for a referendum to be held, because he believes that no Greek government will ever be able to bear the political burden of solving this problem. Diplomats stressed that time is in favour of Macedonia, whose leaders accused Greece of acts of irredentism, which is not conducive to successful resolution of the dispute between the two countries.

According to Evangelos Kofos, also called "Mr. Macedonian issue" in the Greek foreign ministry, the decision of the International Criminal court in Hague was pre-signed 16 years ago in New York with the signing of the "dead-end text, also called the Interim Accord. This arrangement avoided the solution with the name and left many questions open, which have violated our sovereignty rights."

He declared his opinion for the immediate start of a process for signing the final agreement on the issue. "Today's severe economic situation and the crisis cannot be an excuse for further delays in addressing national issues," he said. The long-time diplomat said he was surprised by the meeting invitation to the representatives of both countries in New York next week, which was sent by dispute mediator Matthew Nimetz, "after a whole year. I do not want to believe that the resumption of negotiations has anything to do with the decision of the tribunal in The Hague or with the severe economic situation of Greece," he said, and criticized the reaction of the Greek political forces during the announcement of the court’s decision. According to Evangelos Kofos the dispute over Macedonia's name is not legal but political. "It is not only about the name. Let's not forget that for us it is about a quarter of the country’s territory and respectively, with a quarter of its people." The third element, according to him is that Greek objections are not so complicated to understand compared to those who do not understand "the insistence of Greece on the name of a foreign country." The diplomat stressed that the objections relate to the behaviour of a neighbouring country that is trying to monopolize the name Macedonia and its derivatives at an international level, “even though the same name exists in much larger territory and population in the Greek part of Macedonia. And its three regions - Western, Central and Eastern Macedonia - Thrace - are recognized precisely with those names as regions of the European Union."

"Until now we see a continuous attempt by the leadership of the neighbouring country, to create an atmosphere of challenging Greek sovereignty over the territories that define the Greek part of Macedonia. This atmosphere can be created inside, but it indirectly influences the international public opinion. Within its framework are also the attempts for usurpation of what is defined as Macedonian regarding both territory and time - the history of the people, who have inhabited this area and their cultural heritage.

According to Evangelos Kofos Greece’s request should be linked to the practical acknowledgement by Macedonia that the Greek part of Macedonia is an integral part of Greece, as well as to respect the historical and cultural identity of the Greek people and especially the inhabitants of this region. "This means that an end must be out to the already established theories in the curriculum of the Macedonian schools and universities, which say that except for the territory of the Republic of Macedonia, the Greek part of Macedonia, part of south-eastern Bulgaria, and a strip of Albanian territory, are part of a common homeland, as they call it." After citing also the appropriation of historical figures and events that are part of the history of other nations, the veteran diplomat underlined that the efforts of the Greek country should be directed towards the removal of the "Antiquisation" policy, as opponents of the policy of Nikola Gruevski in Skopje call it.

Evangelos Kofos submits his proposal for resolving the on-going conflict over two decades by signing a final agreement, "in which the members of the intermediate agreement will be reserved, but in revised form where necessary." He stressed that the agreement signed in 1995 was based on another text by Cyrus Vance, approved by both sides, which provided the name New Macedonia. "I personally believe that the name should be closer to its citizens and especially to clearly define the territory over which our neighbouring country exercises legal sovereignty. Years ago in one of Matthew Nimetz’s suggestions, proposed names were Northern Macedonia, Upper Macedonia and Vardar Macedonia. For connoisseurs of the history of the Macedonian issue in the 20th century, it is clear that only one of these three names combines all those characteristics."

Evangelos Kofos proposed the creation of a working group in the Greek Foreign Ministry, which should involve current and retired from active duty diplomats, political scientists, businessmen and lawyers. "They, along with scientific institutes, which explore the history of Macedonia, should support state efforts to establish a new environment for good neighbourly relations in the Balkan Peninsula."

The diplomat Alexandros Malias began his speech by talking about the share of responsibility for the policy of Greece on the name dispute of Macedonia. He criticized the position of the Greek political forces after the announcement of the decision of the International Tribunal and called it disappointing, with no trace of introspection, a running away from responsibility and a return to the past.

The first diplomatic representative of Athens in Skopje said that the initiative of Matthew Nimetz to resume negotiations was closely related to "the negative dynamics that the decision in The Hague caused. This is why I believe this is the point at which the dispute has turned from a legal to a political one." The diplomat followed the example of his colleague Evangelos Kofos and proposed that Greece should challenge the transitional arrangement under Article 23, which gives this right to both sides. "Meanwhile, Greece will announce that the 12 months during which the Temporary Agreement will continue to be in effect, are sufficient to find a solution for the name and content of the final agreement." He also referred to the right of the country to request from the UN Secretary General an implementation of a resolution of the international organization that will give it the right to set as the basis for negotiations the plan of Cyrus Vance, presented before the signing of the Interim Accord. "I remind you that the text included a proposal for the name Republic of New Macedonia, as a new constitutional and international name of the country. This was the only time in the history of this controversy that a name proposal was accepted with a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations. In fact, we must recognize that there are no "perfect" suggestions. When we had them, we refused to accept them, mainly based on domestic political reasons." Aleksandors Mallias defined his proposal as correct keeping in mind the international commitments of Greece, but stressed that he cannot guarantee the outcome of this process. The ambassador said that the proposal to hold a referendum on the issue in Macedonia will give the country more diplomatic power. "It is not simply a proposal by the government, the opposition in Skopje has same opinion. So I believe it is time for Greece also to adopt such an initiative, because any subsequent Greek government will have no political power or desire to bear the burden of such decisions," he said in conclusion.

According to New Democracy MEP and former spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs George Koumoutsakos, Greece's veto against the NATO membership of Macedonia restored the balance in the name dispute negotiations. "Despite the decision of The Hague Tribunal, the unanimous decision of the prime ministers of the NATO member states in Bucharest in 2008 remains a valuable precedent and diplomatic resource of the country in its efforts to find a mutually acceptable solution on the name issue of FYROM." The young diplomat did not share the harshness of his older colleagues on the need to immediately challenge the Interim Accord and said he was not sure whether a similar action would help to finally solve the problem. At the same time he agreed to their proposal for the establishment of a working group, which would monitor all aspects of the relations between the two countries. George Koumoutsakos stressed that negotiations should only take place under the auspices of the UN and there should be no formal or informal contacts between the two countries on this issue. "I also believe that the official meetings between the leaders of the two countries are meaningless and unproductive and their sole purpose is to have them just for the sake of having them." He also said that in their assessment the judges have ignored "volumes of evidence that shows Skopje’s irredentism, like textbooks, maps of Greater Macedonia, etc. Their arguments in many cases had flaws and were political rather than legal. I believe this is something we must consider," he said in conclusion.