Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Torontezos Guys we need to think diplomatically here, we have to keep in mind that they need to agree to a name as well.
I think Republic of North Macedonia will work provided there are stipulations that:
They do not EVER:
regard Greek Macedonia as the same nation or land
attempt to link ancient Macedonia with this new republic
proclaim in any way, shape or form, directly or indirectly ambitions upon Greek territory
assist or promote, directly or indirectly any form of civil disorder/terrorism within Greek territory
Violation of any of these stipulations should result in a complete embargo of borders and business from Greece.
Of course neutral countries should sign the agreement as witnesses |
I believe that any kind of mixed names with the word macedonia,hide behind problems in the long term future.In any way north-,vardar-,....combined names make their state the direct reference to anything macedonian and not Greece.The rules in favour of Greece's position don't secure anything again in the long term.We know that interests of neutral countries change,and so does their policy as regard to exterior to them matters.We should secure the whole issue ,without leaving undefined margins.Of course all this depends on how our diplomacy works.
As far as the possibility of an embargo is concearned in case they'd play dirty ,reading it i remembered the words of E.kofos:
"In the end, however, it was Papandreou’s brinkmanship in applying the embargo on FYROM that raised havoc and
shifted the focus of the debate from the issues of Greece’s security and the Greeks’ perceptions of identity-heritage to issues of human rights and regional Balkan security considerations. Thanks to the Greek government’s bonanza offering, FYROM propagandists adroitly exploited a pro-underdog mentality among Western European and American human rights activists, to augment the ranks of their supporters.Criticism of the Greek government’s policies over the recognition of FYROM and its name, sparked certain human rights groups to focus their polemics on the issue of an alleged national “Macedonian” minority in Greece. (Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, Denying Ethnic Identity: The Macedonians of Greece, New York, April 1994, 85pp.) Their one-sided and frequently exaggerated reports indicate that the minority issue had been concocted to put additional pressure on the Athens government in order to abandon its maximalist position vis-a-vis FYROM. For a critical analysis: Vlassis Vlassidis and Veniamin Karakostanoglou, “Recycling Propaganda: Remarks on Recent Reports on Greece’s ‘Slav-Macedonian’ Minority”, Balkan Studies, Vol. 36/1, Thessaloniki 1995, pp. 151–170. Similar was the case of certain American anthropologists, neophytes in the Macedonian issue, who tried to assume the ex cathedra role of supreme arbitrers for social, political and historical cleavages in the volatile Macedonian terrain. On the rather light side, it suffices to observe that one of them, apparently lacking the historical background to comprehend the issues at hand, sought to construct his “own” revisionist history of Macedonia, by conveniently ignoring, misquoting or even degrading specialist historians of long standing. (Loring Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict. Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, Princeton University Press, 1995). For an overall assessment of this phenomenon, see Professor Ioannis Koliopoulos’ “Introduction”, in the Greek translation (Thessaloniki, “Paratiritis” 1996, pp. 7–17) of Elizabeth Barker’s Macedonia; Its Place in Balkan Power Politics, London, R.I.I.A., 1950."
Evangelos Kofos.(Greece’s Macedonian Adventure: The Controversy over FYROM’s Independence and Recognition)
The whole situation would end up to be a vicious circle!!!
Linear Mode
