Blog

Regardless of the acceptance or not of the name "North Macedonia" given to FYROM by this specific agreement, which is immediately rejected by some because it contains the word Macedonia and is tolerated by others under conditions, the content of the agreement has several points that reasonably raise questions, both about why they were agreed upon by the Greek side, and about the sincere intentions of the opposing side.

First of all, regarding “erga omnes”, all countries in the world, without exception, have one name for all uses, that is, “erga omnes” applies to all. Therefore, this should not even be a subject of negotiation. Obviously, it was artfully introduced into the negotiation, already in the preparation phase, so that in the end it would appear that Skopje had given in somewhere. And unfortunately, the Greek side triumphed over the obvious.

However, "erga omnes" will not apply to some selected cases of the agreement, which are indeed important.

Specifically, Article 1, paragraph 3b states that:

«The nationality of the Second Party will be Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, as recorded in all travel documents.».

“Erga omnes” would be if it had been agreed that the citizenship of the Second Party would be “North Macedonian”. The agreed wording with a clarifying tail next to the word “Macedonian”, in addition to the inappropriateness of the expression, is excluded from “erga omnes” and this exception is intended to apply to all travel documents.

Article 1, paragraph 3c states that:

«The official language of the Second Party shall be the “Macedonian language”, as recognized by the Third United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names, held in Athens in 1977, and described in Article 7(3) and (4) of this Agreement.».

Unfortunately, in this particular case, the negotiators did not even resort to the construction of a “North Macedonian language”, but resorted to lies by citing a supposedly recognized by the Third UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names “Macedonian language”. On this, we invoke the scientific opinion of Professor of Linguistics and former rector of the University of Athens, Giorgos Babiniotis: “…..We wrote, explained, documented, argued and thought that one of the leaders who negotiate and make decisions on the Skopje issue would listen to us. Nothing. Now the naive writer of these lines understands why the intelligent minister stubbornly referred to 1977. Why an excuse was sought after the fact for the unjustified. It had apparently been decided in the give and take of the negotiation to recognize and offer as a gift the name of the Slavic language of the Skopjeans as "Macedonian" and a supposed "precedent" and a supposed "historical basis" were sought. Thus, the Skopjeans' diplomatic "argument" (explicitly only since 1991, when FYROM became independent) that their language is "Macedonian", i.e. the use by the Skopjeans of a pseudonymous name for a language which is nothing more than a Bulgarian-Serbian idiom, i.e. a Slavic language, which is therefore written in the Slavic Cyrillic alphabet like all Slavic languages, was widely reproduced by those who know the truth and by others who have no idea of ​​the matter as being unnecessary. Me explaining publicly [Protagon, Ta Nea, Eleftheros Typos, numerous radio interviews and one television interview] what was discussed in 1977, a technical issue of how to standardize exclusively the geographical names of countries with the Latin alphabet (such as Yugoslavia at the time, but also Greece and China and the Arab countries and Israel and the countries of the Soviet Union and many other countries), explaining as a participant that this was the topic of the 3rd United Nations Conference in Athens ("the standardization of geographical names") and some officials (ministers and members of the government) continuing to speak - not the Macedonians! - about our alleged recognition of the language of Skopje as "Macedonian"!... ".

Obviously, Article 1, paragraph 3c, contains a conscious lie about an allegedly recognized “Macedonian language”. This article refers to Article 7 (3) and (4) of this agreement in order to “describe” the “Macedonian language”.

Article 7 (4) states:

«The Second Party notes that its official language, the Macedonian language, belongs to the South Slavic language group. The Parties note that the official language and other characteristics of the Second Party have no connection with the ancient Greek civilization, history, culture and heritage of the northern region of the First Party.».

The question is: Why is the language not once and for all referred to as Slavo-Macedonian, but they insist on "Macedonian" with references to subparagraphs of articles? Obviously, this is a strong indication that they are interested in the plain "Macedonian", as well as the "Macedonian" entries in travel documents. Therefore, it is clear that the agreement was not drawn up in good faith, but the neighbors insist on the stolen goods and are undermining their expansionist intentions beyond the agreed "North Macedonian" borders.

Also, article 7 (3) states:

«With regard to Part Two, these terms mean the territory, language, population and their characteristics, with their own history, culture and heritage, distinctly different from those referred to in Article 7 (2)». (referring to the northern region of the First Part, i.e. Greece).

The term “distinctly different” is general and vague and the interpretations that will be given are not certain to not include sharp criticisms against Greek Macedonia. Furthermore, the word “language” reinforces the “Macedonian” language recognized by Part One and established, and not “North Macedonian” or “Slavo-Macedonian”. On the contrary, in Article 7 (2), which refers to Part One (Greece), the word “language” is not mentioned and in this regard there is no balance in the description of the perceptions of both sides regarding the terms “Macedonia” and “Macedonians”, while the words “history”, “culture” and “heritage” are present in both 7 (2) and 7 (3).

Article 1, paragraph 3e is also exempted from the "erga omnes" since only the country codes for car plates are harmonized, while for all other purposes the country codes remain as assigned by the International Organization for Standardization, which notably defines itself as a non-governmental organization.

Article 1, paragraph 10, which "Regarding the validity of existing documents and materials issued by the Authorities of the Second Party, the Parties agree that there will be two transitional periods, one "technical" and one "political".

This article ensures a reasonable period of time, so that FYROM continues to appear as "Macedonia" and not with the agreed name "North Macedonia", so that it is clear to third parties, states and citizens, that it is "Macedonia" and thus help to weaken the later establishment of "North Macedonia".

Specifically, as regards the "technical" transitional provision, it will concern all official documents and materials of the Public Administration of the Second Party for international use and those for internal use that can be used abroad (e.g. passports, embassy and consulate documents with national emblems and titles as well as embassy and consulate signs) and will be valid for five years from the entry into force of this agreement.

The question is: Why do they want a five-year period for an adjustment that can be made in a few months?

With regard to the "political" transitional period (concerning the interior of the country), Article 1, paragraph 10b, states:

«The "political" transitional period will concern all documents and material for internal use only in Part Two. The issuance of documents and material falling into this category in accordance with Article 1(3) will start at the opening of each EU negotiating chapter in the relevant field, and will be completed within five years from that time.».

Apart from the fact that this "unfolding" of the peculiar process strongly resembles the provisions of the infamous Annan Plan, as well as other points of the present agreement (a fact that "ties" with what is included in an analysis by Amanda Slott, US Assistant Secretary of State under President Barack Obama, for the Brookings Institution in Washington, that: "the Trump administration deserves praise for its quiet involvement that helped bridge the final stretch…The US has engaged in a quiet diplomacy in recent months, led by Under Secretary of State for European Affairs Wes Mitchell and supported by ambassadors in Athens and Skopje…”), It is observed that this particular paragraph is intended to exclude the “erga omnes” within the country for a very long time. That is, as long as “North Macedonia” is outside the EU and as long as the relevant chapters, e.g. of Justice, have not been opened, plus five years, all relevant official documents and materials (from the sign of the Ministry of Justice to all the forms of competence of the Ministry of Justice) will be those currently in force of the “Republic of Macedonia” and if in the meantime the European Union is abolished or decides not to include “North Macedonia” within its borders, the country will operate internally as the “Republic of Macedonia”.

 This means that the neighboring country will have the right, deriving from this agreement, to have within it, perhaps for decades, the "Republic of Macedonia" with the agreement on North Macedonia in force. However, this is opposed by other articles of the agreement that prohibit behaviors that affect the first Party (Greece).

At least the wording of Article 6, paragraph 2, which states that "Each Party shall take effective measures without delay to discourage and prevent acts by private entities that: probably incite violence, hatred or hostility against the other Party... ".

Also, in paragraph 3 of article 6 there is a similar general threat to private entities that probably incite violence, hatred or hostility.. ».

Both of the above paragraphs show at least sloppiness.

Article 8, paragraph 5, provides for the establishment of a Committee "to examine the objective, scientific interpretation of historical events based on authentic, documented and scientifically sound historical sources and archaeological findings…and, if it deems it appropriate, review any school textbooks and auxiliary school materials such as maps, historical atlases, teaching guides used in each of the Parties, in accordance with the purposes of UNESCO and the Council of Europe».

This paragraph provokes laughter but also anger, considering that it is well known to all that we are dealing with a state which is an artificial construct and is based on lies and the falsification of History from its creation to the present day, both towards Greece and towards Bulgaria to some extent. Further comments on this are deemed unnecessary.

It was also agreed to establish a committee in 2019, which will examine the use of trademarks within a three-year period. After FYROM has been transformed into a state with the official name of North Macedonia, the Greek negotiating position on the use of trademarks for products of Greek Macedonia will be lagging behind because the position will be held by someone else and they will tell us that your products are Greek and therefore you do not need to call them Macedonian, since there will be one Macedonian state: the one with Skopje as its capital.

In conclusion and in short, Mr. Kotzias seems to have given beads and mirrors to the natives, while the neighbors received a language and an identity. Skopje officially acquires (and with the permission of the police) the Macedonian language, while those of Bulgarian origin and until recently South Slavs (=Yugoslavs) acquire the golden visa that says: Macedonian Ethnicity!