Greek press on the Macedonian issue (news in English)

[Tsontos]

This thread is reserved for news articles in English from Greek newspapers and Greek press agencies.

The main online, English-language Greek news sites are:

Kathimerini English Edition

Athens News Agency - Macedonian Press Agency (ANA-MPA)

ERT Online



















------------------------------------------------------------------


The following was originally posted by akritas


‘We are ready to join NATO as FYROM’

President Branko Crvenkovski talks about the ‘Macedonia’ issue, the UN-mediated talks with Greece and the future status of Kosovo

The substance of a final resolution is more important than solving the problem speedily,’ said FYROM President Branko Crvenkovski with regard to Greece’s objections to his country’s use of the name ‘Macedonia,’ a problem he fears will not be resolved anytime soon.

By Stavros Tzimas - Kathimerini

The government in Skopje is ready to join NATO as the «Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia» (FYROM), its president, Branko Crvenkovski, told Kathimerini in this wide-ranging interview in which he said that Skopje would not back down in any way in the search for a mutually acceptable solution to the dispute with Greece over Skopje's use of the name «Macedonia.»

«We have already made too many concessions,» he said in presenting his government's position amid reports from Greece of the possibility of early elections because of the situation with FYROM.

Crvenkovski does not believe that UN mediator Matthew Nimetz will abandon his mandate to find a solution to the problem. He rejects accusations by Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis of intransigence and irrendentism on FYROM's part. As for FYROM's political priorities in view of its desire to join NATO, he claims that his country is «ready to join NATO under the name used at the UN,» that is FYROM. Given the reference in the interim agreement that Greece will not prevent FYROM's accession to any international organization if it uses that name, this might change Athens's position regarding a possible veto of FYROM's accession to NATO.
As for Kosovo, Crvenkovski said Skopje would unilaterally recognize it as an independent state if recognition were forthcoming from NATO and the European Union.


How did you view the Greek prime minister's recommendations that your government abandon its intransigence over the name issue?

The Republic of Macedonia has adopted a constructive approach and has displayed good will in the talks held in New York. Believe me when I say that we would like more than anyone else in the world to find a solution and to do away with the anachronistic and derogatory term «Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,» and I mean that.

I would like to remind the Greek public that in October 2005, we accepted the last proposal of UN mediator [Matthew] Nimetz as firm ground for further talks. That was not a hasty decision, nor was it easily arrived at but was an indication of our good will.

Unfortunately, Athens did not accept the proposal. In actual fact, we, the Republic of Macedonia and our citizens, have already made too many concessions. We have amended our constitution and changed the state's flag, a decision that hurt us here in Macedonia. Finally, we accepted Nimetz's last proposal as a good basis for talks but unfortunately Greece rejected it and the procedure did not move forward.

Still, Greece appears to desire, justifiably it seems, that you take another step. Even (former prime minister Constantine) Mitsotakis has asked you to meet Athens halfway. Are you willing to do that?

Until now we have taken difficult steps and what I can tell you know is that not only have we come halfway, but half that distance again.

The Greek prime minister, nevertheless, has drawn attention to irredentist acts on the part of Skopje. What is your response to that?

The Republic of Macedonia has no territorial claims on any of its neighbors, including Greece. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, we have clearly stated in our constitution that we will not intervene in the sovereign rights of other countries or in their domestic affairs. I am convinced that there is no reasonable argument that our constitutional name, nor the Republic of Macedonia as a state, could be a threat to Greece's territorial integrity.

As far as I recall, during your premiership you had avoided actions that might have harmed the climate in relations between the two countries. So do you think that renaming Skopje airport as «Alexander the Great,» which as you know raised protests in Greece, was to any purpose?

Our government has publicly explained the reasons that led it to rename the airport. Among those arguments there is not one that could harm our neighbor Greece. Unfortunately, there were strong protests, followed by several harsh accusations and statements. I hope that in the future both sides will be more discreet and rational.

There is the sense in Greece that during US President George W. Bush's visit to Tirana within the next few days, your country's accession to NATO will be sealed. Is that the message you are getting?

The USA and President Bush are enthusiastic supporters of a new enlargement of NATO, hence our ambitions to join the alliance as a full member. Of course, in the near future they expect us to present substantial and tangible results with regard to reforms and to confirm our readiness and ability to join NATO. I believe that the meeting between President Bush and the three prime ministers of the Adriatic nations - Macedonia, Albania and Croatia - in Tirana will result in strong encouragement to proceed with and fulfill the necessary criteria. Nevertheless, the relevant decision will be made at the NATO summit next year.

Would your side agree to join NATO under the name FYROM, which would enable Athens to refrain from exercising a veto?

Naturally, our accession to NATO under our constitutional name would be the most satisfactory for us. Nevertheless, if no solution to the dispute is found before we join NATO, we are ready to become a full member with the name with which we are currently referred to at the UN, as a temporary solution.

As an experienced politician, you know as much as anyone about the dispute with Greece. Do you see the issue being resolved soon, and, if so, how do you think it will remain an open wound in relations between neighbors that in other respects claim to be friends?

The question is a very delicate one, both sides are particularly sensitive about it. So, based on past experience, it is very difficult to be optimistic and foresee a speedy resolution. Considering the great importance of this question for my country, it is clear that the substance of the final outcome is far more important than a speedy solution. It is a question of safeguarding our constitutional name and cultural integrity, issues of the utmost priority for every country.

Nimetz will continue


Based on what you know, do you think it likely that UN mediator Matthew Nimetz will surrender his mandate in the fall and, subsequently, that there will be recourse to the Security Council?

I have no information, at least to date, that such a scenario is likely. On the contrary, given Nimetz's recent statements, I am convinced that he will continue to help both sides within the framework of the mission delegated by the UN secretary-general.

On Kosovo, joint policy with NATO and EU


Are you worried about the apparent stalemate on Kosovo?

I must say that this issue is very important for us, as we are neighbors. We cannot influence developments in Kosovo but we will suffer the consequences as we have a common border. What we wanted is not feasible: That is for Pristina and Belgrade to agree. Nor am I optimistic that this could happen in future since their positions are not only different but completely opposed.

That means that the international community must solve the problem and the best way is with a UN Security Council resolution. In that case, we, as a UN member, will accept the resolution. That will also create the legal framework for an international military and political presence. That is very important because (that) will be a guarantee that the situation can be kept under control. If there is a veto from Russia or for any other reason, then the situation will worsen.

I can tell you what our position will be if there is no resolution. We, as a candidate country for accession to NATO and the EU, will follow the joint policy of those two organizations. However, the situation could become more complicated if NATO and the EU do not formulate a joint policy. I hope that this will not happen, because that will have unforeseeable consequences both for NATO and the EU. Our own interest as a state is to maintain good relations with both Pristina and Belgrade. Our policy is not to build new bridges by knocking down old ones.

If there is no resolution, and the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo declare independence which is then unilaterally recognized by other countries, what will you do then?

As I said, we will follow the joint policy of NATO and the EU. If their position is to open up diplomatic relations and recognize Kosovo, then that is what we will do.

Do you see a risk of complications in your country from negative developments in Kosovo?

We are neighbors but I do not think that domestic developments in Kosovo will affect us directly. However, we are following the situation closely because there is a risk that the destabilization of Kosovo could spread to neighboring countries. If we are talking about stability in our country, then how we deal with interethnic issues is even more important than what happens in Kosovo.

What progress has been made in the Ohrid Accord, the basis of your interethnic relations?

I can tell you that most of it has been implemented and that since 2001 we have made great strides. Today interethnic issues are not the main issue in the country's political life. There is more discussion of economic and social problems and that is a good sign. However, so as not to be misunderstood, I believe that the interethnic issue is particularly important for political stability and should not be underestimated. Although interethnic tension has been reduced, it is still a factor that needs particular attention.

ekathimerini.com | ‘We are ready to join NATO as FYROM’

[Tsontos]

Skopje's friendship offensive - ekathimerini.com | Skopje’s friendship offensive

[Tsontos]

Originally posted by Truth Bearer

FYROM and the name dispute
Kathimerini

Dr Aristotle Tziampiris

As the recent Greek election campaign amply demonstrated, the Macedonian name dispute continues to have the ability to produce headlines and affect voters. Much abused in the past by partisan strategies and personal agendas, it is imperative to take an objective look at the parameters surrounding the issue today based on a realistic assessment of what is feasible. This article will not dwell on the historical and cultural aspects of the dispute (others have done so remarkably well, publishing – in this author’s assessment – very strong arguments in support of various Greek positions). Rather, we will concentrate on the contemporary political and international realities that will determine the possibility for a final resolution of the name issue.

Diplomats and decision makers striving toward achieving such a goal should keep in mind the following:

1. There is no possibility that a Greek government will willingly acquiesce to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) being given a name for international use that is identical to the young republic’s constitutional name. To do so would be to ignore legitimate popular sensitivities and concerns, thus courting serious electoral punishment. Furthermore, politicians are understandably loath to officially endorse with their signature their country’s international humiliation. A compromise is perhaps feasible but not on the basis of an agreement that would be tantamount to the capitulation of the Greek side.

2. On April 13, 1992, the Council of Party Leaders in Athens endorsed a position (with the exception of the Greek Communist Party) according to which FYROM is not to be recognized if the term Macedonia is included in its name. This position appears to have been tacitly updated by various Greek governments. For example, the Simitis administration reportedly pursued a deal on the name “Gornamakedonia” (meaning Upper Macedonia). Also, the previous Costas Karamanlis administration, by accepting as a basis for negotiations the first (March 2005) proposal by United Nations Special Envoy Matthew Nimetz (suggested name: “Republika Makedonija-Skopje”), communicated that it will not necessarily be bound by the April 1992 decision. In other words, it is very probable that any final agreement on the name dispute will be based on a climb-down from Athens’s stricter and popular position of the past. This attitude, however, has not been reciprocated by successive governments in Skopje that have been unwilling to discuss a meaningful compromise on the name issue, steadfastly sticking to a dual name formula according to which the state’s international name should be the same as its constitutional one, Greece alone being allowed to choose another name with Skopje’s concurrence.

3. The popular resonance of the Macedonian name dispute in Greece should not be underestimated. Even if long periods of relative calm and silence are observed, it still has the potential to raise emotions and elicit strong reactions, particularly in Greek Macedonia. The election to Parliament of the right-wing party LAOS and New Democracy’s slim majority (152 MPs out of 300) diminishes the government’s room for diplomatic maneuver and reduces (but does not necessarily negate) the political space for an agreement.

4. Even if an agreement is reached soon, it would be unfair to judge it politically or otherwise, in isolation. There is a long list of failed diplomatic initiatives spanning some 16 years (the Pinheiro package, the O’Neil report, the Vance-Owen plan, the Interim Accord that was inconclusive on the name issue, Nimetz’s two different sets of proposals in 2005). Their careful examination allows certain observations to be made. The tendency has usually been for each successive proposal to be less appreciative and supportive of Greece’s positions. Furthermore, the most recent mediative effort (Nimetz’s second in September 2005) was the worse for Greece. In addition, some 124 countries have recognized FYROM with its constitutional name for use in their bilateral relations, Canada being the latest; and if mediation at the UN level terminates inconclusively, the consequences might prove especially negative for Athens. The conclusion is thus inescapable: Time has not been on Greece’s side on the issue of the name dispute.

5. The recent renaming of Skopje and Ochrid airports (“Alexander the Great” and “Saint Paul” respectively) constitute an unwarranted provocation, probably indicative of a certain degree of arrogance. These are not acts conducive to a resolution of the dispute.

6. The continuation of FYROM’s existence and territorial integrity is in Greece’s best interest, not least because the neighboring republic has the potential of operating as an almost textbook buffer state. At the same time, it should be noted that since the signing of the Interim Accord, the normalized and now excellent economic bilateral relations have not been deemed sufficient to solve the name dispute, although it may be worth pondering what the situation between Skopje and Athens would have been without such an improvement.

7. Greece’s ultimate interest in the Balkans requires regional stability and prosperity. This is why Athens supports the Euro-Atlantic prospects of all the Western Balkan states. Given that FYROM’s NATO membership is likely to be decided in a few months, a certain urgency and potentially huge complication is now added to the name issue.

8. FYROM’s entry into NATO with its provisional name is permissible under the terms of the relevant article of the Interim Accord. This is the formula that allowed FYROM to become a European Union candidate state, and may also resolve the issue of its NATO membership. However, it is increasingly becoming less politically feasible and clear that Athens will sign up to such an outcome, especially when it can be argued that Skopje is violating other articles of the accord. The specter of an impasse and of a Greek veto on the alliance’s enlargement, at a somewhat problematic time for NATO, can thus not be entirely precluded. Given all of the above, a possible way out would involve a third (and possibly final) proposal submitted by Matthew Nimetz at the United Nations level, acceptable to both sides and addressing not only the name issue, but also educational, cultural and economic aspects of the dispute. A genuine bilateral willingness for an agreement would be required, as would international (and especially US) pressure on Skopje.

Time is running out and we are perhaps looking at the last chance for an internationally mediated resolution of the Macedonian name dispute. Given that all previous ones have failed, one can only remain guardedly optimistic.

Dr Aristotle Tziampiris is assistant professor of international relations at the University of Piraeus and a research associate at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP). The views expressed here are strictly personal.

[Tsontos]

Originally posted by Amarantos

Deputy FM warns FYROM on name dispute

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's (FYROM) intransigence in its name dispute with Greece may have serious repercussions in the landlocked republic's course towards Euro-Atlantic institutions, Deputy Foreign Minister Yiannis Valynakis warned from Washington on Thursday, after his meeting with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Daniel Fried.

Greece "means what it says on the issue demanding from all countries which are interested in becoming members of the European Union (EU) or NATO to follow a policy of good neighbourliness and implement the committements they have undertaken," Valynakis said, after his meetings with Fried and Assistant to the Deputy State Secretary Rosemary di Carlo.

Talks also focused on bilateral relations, developments on the Kosovo issue and Greek-Turkish relations.

Valynakis reiterated Greece's position that Turkey can become a full EU member on condition it abides by all criteria and all preconditions set by the Union.

The Greek minister discussed these issues also with State Department Deputy Undersecretary Matthew Braiza during a reception hosted by Greek Ambassador Alexandros Mallias.



In statements after his talks at the State Department, Valynakis said that Greece's role is that of a factor of stability and peace for all countries in the region.



"Our adherrence to our strategic aim, that is to transform Balkans from what it was - a powder-keg of Europe - to a region of cooperation in a European neighbourhood is well known," he said.



On the issue of Kosovo he said he explained to his interlocutors that "we are trying for a solution to be found, a solution which will be mutually acceptable, a solution safeguarding stability in the entire region, a solution based on international legality, that is through UN Security Council resolutions, a solution which will be based also on European principles. That is why it is necessary to give more time to diplomacy, so as for these solutions to be found and we hope that the Troika will contribute towards this direction."

On the FYROM issue, Valynakis said that Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis had made "clear to the American side a few days ago, and I think the message was understood, that intransigence can not lead to any positive result, that intransigence can have serious repercussions on Skopje's course towards Euro-Atlantic institutions."

Deputy FM warns FYROM on name dispute

[Tsontos]

FYROM STANCE

PM tells Merkel Greece will block EU, NATO bids if name solution not found

Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis yesterday impressed upon German Chancellor Angela Merkel Greece’s determination to push for a solution to its dispute with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) regarding the latter’s name before Skopje proceeds with its possible accession to NATO. “It is inconceivable for FYROM to join NATO or the EU without a mutually acceptable solution to the name dispute,” Karamanlis is reported to have told Merkel on the sidelines of a European Council summit in Lisbon. According to sources, Greece’s PM hinted that Athens would exercise its veto if necessary. Karamanlis was due to meet French President Nicolas Sarkozy later yesterday.

ekathimerini.com | In Brief

[Melbourne Patriot]

I was looking at Antenna TV yesterday, they were reading the headlines from the papers, in one paper from memory it may have been Press Time but I may be wrong the headline was "Put in the Veto if you want" we dont care- comments attributed to skop foreign ministers milososki or whatever his name is...

the greek government should now ask FYROM to withdraw its candidacy for NATO and the EU. They should do it on there own. Why wait for Greece to VETO! The skops seem to not want to be in NATO or the EU so how about it- how about they withdraw there candidacies. Or is this just another "Im a victim of big bad Greece" bluff.

Stuff them. VETO them even as FYROM on the basis of failing in terms of good neighborly relations. Renaming airports, propaganda and the rest is more than enough reason. Greece must VETO even the name FYROM.

[nsminc]

Damn right.

[Foti66]

Damn Straight!!!

[Truth Bearer]

The Skopjians think that their great friernds the Yanks,Russians and Chinese will help them....I mean as they give two hoots really!!They are overestimating themselves as usual.

[Amarantos]

PM: Only mutually acceptable solution to 'name issue' possible

Only a definitive and mutually acceptable solution and proof, in action, of the agreements and the principles of good-neighborliness can ensure objective opportunities for an alliance, partnership and solidarity relations with FYROM, Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis stressed on Friday in Parliament, adding that no other path existed for the neighbouring country's accession to Euro-Atlantic institutions.



"This is clear and succinct," Karamanlis said, speaking during his institutional response to the opposition, and in response to a question tabled by Popular Orthodox Rally (LA.OS) leader George Karatzaferis regarding the government's positions on the FYROM "name issue".



Karamanlis said that Athens and Skopje have been engaged in negotiations for approximately 15 years, aimed at finding a mutually acceptable solution on the basis of a composite name.



"There is no change of direction. What exists is frankness, determination and a constructive spirit" on the part of Greece, the Greek prime minister said, adding that "these long-standing negotiations have already entered a new stage, one of great importance".



"Only a definitive and mutually acceptable solution, only active respect of the Agreements and the principles of good neighbourliness can 'unlock' and ensure objective prospects for alliance relations, partnership relations, relations of solidarity with the neighbouring country. There is no other road that leads to its (FYROM's) accession to Euro-Atlantic organisations. This is clear-cut; succinct words," Karamanlis said.



The prime minister further said that any perception that the responsible parliamentary procedure, the procedure set out in the country's Constitution, was a process of "reduced democracy" was "erroneous and dangerous", stressing that Parliament was fully able to ratify a prospective agreement with FYROM on the name issue if such an agreement was achieved.



The Constitution, he explained, "does not rule out the choice of other procedures, such as a referendum', adding that "it does not, however, gradate democratic sensitivity and responsibility".



"If and when a final agreement arises, parliament can responsibly fulfil its own duty," the prime minister stressed.



Nov. 16, 2007. ANA-MPA.

PM: Only mutually acceptable solution to 'name issue' possible