HISTORICAL, CULTURAL AND POLITICAL-ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS

by Nicholas Petropoulos 

Download the complete document in pdf format (~50 mb) by clicking here

With the breakdown of the “Socialist Federal Republic of  Yugoslavia (SFRY)” in 1991 and the declaration of independence  by the “Socialist Republic of Macedonia” which up to then was one of the constituent republics of the SFRY,  the “Macedonian Question” (MQ)  occupied once more the front stage of international relations, with protagonists this time, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(FYROM)  and the Republic of Greece, and  with objects of controversy, not so much territory but cultural heritage and symbols, which in the Balkans also implied territorial claims. Basically, the problem arose when the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia sought international  recognition using names and symbols that constituted an integral part of the historical and cultural heritage of Greece and also used by a region in Northern Greece (Greek Macedonia)...

Left: Map of Macedonia after1913 partition. Right: Map of Macedonia used by slavomacedonian diaspora organizations (See pp. 10 and 63 of the text).

To obtain a more comprehenive understanding of the recent version of the “Macedonian Question”, the author goes back to the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire was accompanied by the  emergence of new states in the Balkans based on ethnicity rather than religion. The paper covers briefly the various factors (the competition among Greeks, Bulgarian and Serbs for the ethnic consciousness of the inhabitants, the separatist movement of the “slavomacedonian intellectuals”,  the  geopolitical interests of czarist Russia, the decision of the Communist International in the 1920s, the Communist resistance movement against Nazis, Yugoslav geopolitical interests etc) that fomented “macedonianism” during the first part of the 20th Century and culminated in the proclamation of the “People’s Republic of Macedonia” within the “Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” in 1944.   The monograph  also describes the various processes and mechanisms (e.g. historical reconstruction, appropriation of common Balkan legacies, construction of a  “new” language that was arbitrarily  labeled “macedonian”, establishment of the “Autocephalous Macedonian Church”,  etc)  to give ethnotic content to a formerly geographical region {Vardarska Banovina}, to legitimate the  new “People’s Republic of Macedonia” within the Yugoslav Federation, and  to project it as the “metropolis” for the "unredeemed" Macedonian lands. Finally, the author accounts for the  tolerance on part of Greek governments regarding the name “People’s Republic of Macedonia” during the 1944-1991 period,  invoking the geopolitical demands of the Cold War, the overconfidence of the Greek intellectual community and the fact that the “People’s Republic of Macedonia”  was a constituent republic of the Yugoslav Federation.

A large part of the monograph is devoted to the period after the declaration of independence in 1991 by the “Socialist Republic of Macedonia”, the attempts by the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” to seek international recognition by the United Nations,  international organizations and the European Community, with the name “Republic of Macedonia”; the reactions (conditions, demonstrations, boycott etc) of the Republic of Greece against the irredentist implications of the new Republic; the signing of the Interim Accord in 1995 that gave priority to economic measures rather than to cultural and symbolic aspects; the impact of the Interim Accord on the economic relations, regional stability, international organization networking by FYROM, cultural-symbolic relations, educational materials, and the course of the UN negotiations on the  name-debate; the attempts by FYROM to attain membership in NATO; the exercise of the Greek veto blocking FYROM’s admission to NATO; the  impacts of the veto within Greece and FYROM (e.g. exploitation as political capital by governing parties,  public opinion, Greek investments in FYROM, the FYROM press, the FYROM Church,  the course of the negotiations for the name;  the conducting of the  June 2008  snap elections and their impacts on FYROM progress toward EU integration and the course of name negotiations.  In this part, coverage is given to the opinions and reactions, not only of government,  the international factors  and the formal  political parties but also to political analysits, NGOs and public opinion, at home and in the diaspora communities, in both countries.

 Top left: Meeting of the  leaders of the Greek parties in April 1992 to formulate nation’s  name policy.  Top right: Meeting of the Leaders of FYROM parties in February 2008 to discuss the Nimitz proposal. Down: Members of the second UN negotiation team (See pp. 48, 112 and  106  of the text).

In concluding the monograph,  the author notes how the 17-year name dispute has taken odyssean dimensions, leading to a “skopianization” of Greek politics and to the “macedonization” of FYROM politics. He calls upon the protagonists to undergo an  introspection process, to  recognize mea culpas for the  past, to realize  that neither country can monopolize the term “macedonia” and to accept the necessity of a compromize. He concludes with a classification  of name proposals that have been made not only by the negotiating team but also by others and proposes an historically-based name (e.g. “Republic of New Macedonia”) that recognizes common bonds between the two Balkan peoples since the Byzantine times, is free of  negative connotations, is more fitting to a multiethnic society and what is more important recognizes the new Republic as a successful social experiment, regardless of its mythological foundations, provided of course that it rids itself in practice of irredentist claims. The author also believes that the Republic of Greece has made great strides  moving from the  maximalist positions in the early 1990s, which by the way are still held by the majority of the Greek people,  to a compromize position whereby it is willing to accept a composite name (e.g. Gorna, North or New, Macedonia), as long as it  would distinguish it from the Greek Macedonia and it would be for all uses(erga omnes).  FYROM, on its part, especially after the strong mandate the new government received in the recent elections,  is also expected to transcend populism and to reciprocate by  accepting a genuinely composite name, contributing in this way to the cutting of the “Gordian Knot”that has tied both nations down during the past 17 years. Finally, the author is of the opinion  that changing the constitution is not tantamount to a loss of ethnic identity. While  governments, politicians and intellectuals of  both countries are responsible for the perpetuation of the problem, the author especially calls upon the politicians, academics and intellectuals of FYROM, to take up the new challenges and contribute to a resolution of the “Macedonian Question” once and for all, contributing at the same time to a consolidation of the new state, as it passes from a Republic within the Yugoslav  Federation to a Republic within the family of nations.

                                                                                  Nicholas Petropoulos
                                                                                  10 August 2008