Blog

On June 12, 2018, with a phone call from the Macedonian Prime Minister to his Greek counterpart, the text of the Agreement for the solution of the nomenclature of Macedonia was finalized, which was finally officially signed on June 17, 2018 by the Foreign Ministers of the two countries in the village of Psarades in Prespa.

The obvious purpose of the Agreement is the de jure normalization of Macedonia's relations with Greece through the resolution of the nomenclature issue, in order to create conditions for the former's accession to NATO and the EU. 

The Agreement was defended, as was natural, by the Government, which declared that it constitutes a great diplomatic victory through which Greece's geopolitical role in the Balkans is supposedly consolidated and the "red lines" of our national positions, as they have been shaped over the last 20 years or more, are protected. According to other supporters, it limits Turkey's influence and room for manoeuvre in the region in the long term and, through geographical separation, makes clear the Slavic character of its neighbor.
However, the reality is different. Any positive points of the Agreement are nullified in the face of the disadvantages, pending issues and "gray zones" that it presents, ultimately making it historically untenable and nationally dangerous. The fact that it was warmly welcomed by the international community (in addition to Matthew Nimetz, the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg and other officials rushed to greet it) means that while it serves foreign interests (EU, NATO, Americans, Germans), for Greece it continues to be a painful national compromise.
During the 6 months of secret diplomacy and ferment, the popular will repeatedly expressed its opposition to the Agreement. In the crowded and enthusiastic rallies in Athens, Thessaloniki and 22 other cities, the slogans were common: "MACEDONIA IS ONE AND GREEK", "HANDS DOWN FROM MACEDONIA", "THE AGREEMENT IS TREASON", etc., while in articles in the Press and Magazines, in announcements by patriotic Associations and Organizations, in statements even by ordinary people in the media and elsewhere, the Greek People, regardless of party positions but with a common ideology, thundered a new, resounding "NO" to the Agreement, characterized it as a "great political mistake, historical injustice, national humiliation and shame" and demanded that it be expressed freely and legally through a Referendum, in accordance with the procedure provided for by the Constitution. However, "a voice crying in the wilderness." The Greeks protesting in any way were ridiculed and discredited as nationalists, ahistorical and picturesque, and the Government, without the relevant authorization of Parliament as was done in the summer of 2015 with the 3rd Memorandum, proceeded with the signing of this Agreement. If the information suggesting that our concessions for Macedonia through the Agreement were linked to promises by the Europeans for a favorable settlement of the Greek debt is true, that is, if the non-negotiable titles of our cultural heritage, which constitute intangible national property, became the subject of material negotiations for a 7-8-year extension of the repayment of public debt, then there is no other charge for the negotiators-culprits, except that of national inferiority, to say the least.
The burning problem of nomenclature was “solved” by Article 1 (3)(a) of the Agreement, which stipulates that “the official (constitutional) name of the Second Party (i.e. FYROM) shall be “Republic of North Macedonia”, abbreviated as “North Macedonia” and shall be used erga omnes”. However, because the article does not refer to the Slavic version of the name (Severna Makedonija), “North Macedonia” will be translated abroad as “Northern Macedonia” and, later, simply “Macedonia”. This development, in addition to negating erga omnes, creates conditions of confusion and irredentism to the detriment of the unique Macedonia, the Greek one. Erga omnes, however, will be abolished by Skopje's own internal order because, despite assurances, FYROM will "legally" continue to call itself "Macedonia" until the accession negotiations with the EU are completed, that is, in 10-15 years.
The provision of 1(3)(a) of the Agreement is in direct contradiction to that of Article 7(1) which essentially abolishes "North Macedonia", instead introduces for both Contracting Parties the term simply "Macedonia" and, in essence, recognizes the "Macedonian nationality" of the Skopjeans (Macedonians). Further in para. (4) of the same article, FYROM "notes that its official language is Macedonian, belonging to the group of South Slavic languages". These three dominant factors (the name as a tool for claiming territories, language and nationality or citizenship), as they are included and interpreted in the Agreement, encourage the idea of ​​"Macedonianism" that has been creeping into the Balkans since the 19th century and, at the same time, justify the claim of Skopje that in the north, apart from the one and only Greek Macedonia, there is also an "other" that constitutes the heart of modern Macedonia and includes other languages ​​and other peoples, extending all the way to the Aegean (!!).
Geography has always been used to demonstrate that a nation exists divided into two states, one free and the other unredeemed. For example: North-South Ireland, North-South Korea and, until 1990, East-West Germany. For the Greek reality, the Turks call this very Greek region of our country "Western Thrace", because they consider it occupied by Greece and want to counter-divide it (or unite it) with the - according to them - "free" Eastern Thrace. However, the opposite also happens. We Greeks, when we say "Eastern Thrace" we mean the unredeemed remaining part of the unified Greek Thrace. Similarly, we never say “Southern Albania” but “Northern Epirus”, meaning the geographical continuity of the Greek Continent within the foreign state. Based on this international practice, the name “North Macedonia” will inevitably hide and imply the irredentism (expansionism) which will be contained in every other name in the same form. And those who argue that Skopje does not have the capacity to proceed with such irredentist claims are lying, ignoring their post-war history and ignoring the tendency of weak states to become instruments – often insidiously – in the hands of other, more powerful states that aspire to selfish geopolitical rearrangements.
The Greek Foreign Minister, in this regard, has a historical basis and "precedent" regarding the linguistic situation of the Skopjeans, and claimed that during the Third Conference held in Athens in 1977 under the auspices of the UN, the then government of Konstantinos Karamanlis accepted the existence and speech of the "Macedonian language", a name that explicitly refers to the Greek language of Macedonia (ancient, modern and modern). A public response to Mr. Kotzias was given by the linguist and former Rector of the University of Athens, Mr. G. Babiniotis, who took part in the Conference and stated that it (the Conference) was strictly of a technical nature and its exclusive task was the standardization, through transliteration, of the geographical names of countries that do not use the Latin alphabet, such as the former. Yugoslavia, Greece, China, the Arab countries and Israel, the countries of the former USSR and others. And as the countries of the former Yugoslavia (Serbia, Croatia, FYROM) and other Slavic countries used the Cyrillic alphabet, it was agreed that it (could) be transcribed with Latin characters. However – continued Mr. G. Babiniotis – it is one thing to officially recognize a language with a foreign name (specifically the Bulgarian-Serbian of Skopje as “Macedonian”) and another to transliterate from one alphabet (the Slavic Cyrillic) to another (the Latin), as was done at the 1977 Conference. Moreover, the Greek delegation to the Conference had no authority to recognize any language nor any authorization to do so.
The upgrade of the local dialect of the Skopje people to an "official" language will certainly cause problems in Western Macedonia, where in some villages there are well-known bilingual residents who, instigated by the extreme circles of the anti-Greek "Rainbow", will raise the rights of a Slavic minority.
Regarding the citizenship of the citizens of FYROM, they will now be considered "Macedonians", since no one will pay attention to the clarifying asterisk provided for by the Agreement that says "/ Citizens of North Macedonia". And then the people of Northern Greece will certainly have a real problem as to whether they will be able to call themselves "Macedonians" as they wish. The confusion will be obvious and inevitable. The bitter experiences from Skopje to date convince us that even if the Agreement collapses, the "Macedonian" language and ethnicity will remain and be consolidated, with a strong possibility that conflicts with the Greeks will begin again, certainly more intense this time.
Despite this, it is a fact that the Agreement provides in the preamble of the Skopje Constitution for a clear definition that separates the modern Macedonian identity of the inhabitants of FYROM from antiquity and connects it with the Slavic settlements that began in the Balkan region in the 6th century AD, and in Article 7 of the Agreement, the provision is found that "the two sides formulate their mutual understanding that the terms "Macedonia" and "Macedonian/Macedonian" refer to a different historical context and cultural heritage". However, it is observed that Skopje has never claimed that it does not recognize the ancient Greek heritage in Macedonia. What they deny is the Greek character of Macedonia and this they confirm through the Agreement today, securing the "Macedonian" language on their behalf.
The terms (measures) of the Agreement are considered to be front-loaded. As is done in every International Convention, the Greek side should first demand that the irredentist (expansionist) aspirations be removed from the Skopje Constitution (amendment of the preamble, articles 3 and 49 and removal of hints of the existence of minorities) and then allow their accession to NATO and the EU. However, this would be contrary to the interests of everyone, except Greece, which "succumbed", without any substantial compensation. It is certain that the accession negotiations to the EU and the invitation to participate in NATO will proceed without consulting either the Greek People or the Parliament, which will simply be called upon ex post to ratify everything that has been initiated. We are talking about a real trap that Greece has set for itself. The Agreement will produce faits accomplis that will be difficult to reverse in the future and "legal results" that will bind the country, regardless of governments.
And it would be a great utopia to think that, in the event of the Skopjes' failure to comply with the agreements, the two organizations, the EU and NATO, will expel them from their ranks. For this reason, moreover, none of them seem to provide such provisions and expulsion clauses.
With their entry into the EU and especially into NATO, the "Macedonians" will create new complications with Greece by gradually asserting, as a "closed state", rights of exit under International Law in the Aegean, while the Organizations will "wash their hands" indifferently.
A controversial point of the Agreement is the provision of Article 8 which requires both Parties “not to take any irredentist actions against each other”. This practically means that if the Agreement is ratified and implemented, then the trophy so dear to the Greek People “MACEDONIA IS GREEK” should be considered… illegal and condemnable. And the people who enthusiastically publicly sing “MACEDONIA, THE FAMOUS COUNTRY OF ALEXANDER….” should forget about such chants so as not to offend the…“Holy Agreement” (!!) and so that the Skopjeans do not resort, according to Article 19 thereof, to the “good offices of the UN Secretary General”, or even “to the International Court of Justice”.
For those protesting future border changes in the Balkans, the newly minted Agreement could be the “vehicle” that would allow them to exploit the ideology of “Macedonism” to promote the idea of ​​a federal state, such as Belgium is today or Cyprus could be. Nor is it unlikely that the gradual consolidation of the idea of ​​a single identity – the Macedonian one – which, valid separately but in parallel with the Greek one, could become the beginning of the establishment of a new multinational state with the aim of weakening Greece in the context of the reorganisation of the post-war Western world.
SELECTED. The Agreement of June 17, 2018 in Prespa, which attempted to resolve the nomenclature of the neighboring state with many key and profound concessions and admissions on our part, which reduced our national prestige but, at the same time, increased the prestige of the state of Skopje with the substantial acceptance of their name as "Macedonia" and the consolidation of the falsely labeled "Macedonian" language and identity, should only be considered as a "Leontia" in favor of Skopje.
The Agreement was imposed by foreign powers with the aim of removing Greece's objections to FYROM's admission to NATO and the start of negotiations with the EU, disregarding the national damage of Greece, already a member of NATO and the EU, and disrespectfully writing off the three thousand year history of Macedonia.
The consequences of the Agreement that will soon arise will have victims in the Homeland, martyred Macedonia itself and, above all, the entire Greek People who, to their great credit, not only did not believe in the lies and empty promises of the politicians who signed the Agreement, obeying the orders of their foreign masters in exchange for paltry rewards, but also reacted dynamically with rallies and other public events, being ridiculed for this and highly discredited.
For these reasons and many others not listed, it is a national imperative that the struggle of those who love Macedonia and want it free and Greek, continue unabated and by every legal means, so that the vile Prespa Agreement ceases to be valid... erga omnes and its "builders" receive the "reward" they deserve from the Greek People, History and the unfailing Justice, "Divine and human."

see. A typical example is Albania, which, despite being a NATO ally since 2009, continues to challenge Greece over the continental shelf, the EEZ and the non-existent Chams. In addition, NATO is not so naive as to believe that Skopje's accession will prevent Turkish penetration into the Balkans, to the extent that they do not desire it.

<div/>