On Macedonias
Nov. 5th, 2004 03:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
katsarisI wasn't planning to comment on this really. Some issues are too annoying and too *frustrating*. It's almost like talking about Christodoulos, except even worse: A case where the abstraction of human stupidity and rabid reactionary tribalism seems to take solid form as a one-way track leading to nowhere at best, to a brick wall at 100 km/h most likely, and occasionally all the way down a cliff.
I didn't really want to comment on this, because when discussing these issues I get angry, and then people often get the wrong impression that I'm angry at them for bringing it up, instead of angry at the situation as is. So let me make it clear up front -- all my rage is directed at the situation,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
alternativa, none of it is directed at you. The opposite: I feel flattered that you wanted to know what I think about this. Thanks.
Anyway, you asked me to comment on the recent issue of FYRO Macedonia and her recognition as plain "Macedonia" by the US government. So I'm commenting. But since I'm doing this on request, and not on plan, also expect this post to be much less organized and structured, much more rambling.
My main comment is this, directed to the Greek people: What the HELL else did you expect?
Seriously. What the hell else did you expect? Not from the Bush administration, the Bush administration has nothing whatsoever to do with it. But from the situation in general.
Is anyone stupid enough to think that "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" can be anything other than a temporary name? One hundred years from now, with Yugoslavia probably much more forgotten than Austrohungary is now, did you expect the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to have still stood?
And if we take it as granted that "Former Yugoslav Republic Republic of Macedonia" is a temporary name, doesn't that mean that sooner or later a permanent name that is a tiny bit shorter is gonna be found?
And if we don't participate in finding that permanent name, doesn't that mean they'll find it for us? And since we reject every compromise, doesn't that mean that the permanent name will be one that *isn't* a compromise, namely it will be plain "Macedonia"?
Greek people are now supposedly pissed off at the US government (Greek people are ofcourse always pissed at the US government -- we have the "seething" thing down pat, probably second best in the world about it after the Arab street). And several Greek politicians have said that the US government has now interfered at the process of the negotiations about the name between Greece and FYRO Macedonia. Are you kidding us, Greek politicians? What negotiations? There've not been any meaningful negotiations about the name for a very long time. If there had ever been such.
Any hint of negotiations and the chauvinists that you so heartily embraced, "New Democracy", started spewing nonsense about national betrayals and the need to obey decisions taken in that interparty national council thingy back in the early 1990s. That quite undemocratic interparty national council thingy, btw -- a national agreement between a former prime minister (Mitsotakis) who is now retired, a former prime minister who is now dead (Papandreou), and several minor characters like Damanaki and Papariga who I have no clue why they should be making decisions on a national level -- either way people that any popular mandate they may have had at that time has long since EXPIRED. The thing about representative democracy is that we elect our leaders for 4 years at the most -- the political elite can't make decisions between themselves that still supposedly bind their elected successors 12 years later. The mandate the people provide the government has a *limited* duration.
But all the above paragraph is a digression.
Here's the facts:
1) On our northern border, there's a sizeable Slavic nation that self-identify as Macedonians. That can't change, no matter how we want it. We might make them (with a lot of effort) start identifying as "slav Macedonians" or as "Northern Macedonians" or as "New Macedonians", but they WON'T start self-identifying as "Skopjans" any century soon.
3) Nobody is happy with the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and even if *we* were happy, it's clear that the self-identified Macedonians of Skopje are not.
3) We consider the name Macedonia to be part of Greek national heritage. That doesnt change either.
4) The nation which is currently self-identified as Macedonia has the right to exist. Unlike what groups of Greek neofascists may have hoped in the early 1990s it's NOT gonna be conquered and divided up by a Serbian-Greek military alliance. Nor should it be.
Nonetheless, to have that nation simply be called "Macedonia" is a thorn on the side of most Greek people. It'd be as if Taiwan were to alone use the name "China", and the country nowadays known as China were to lose that name and the name "Chinese" started to be used only by Taiwanese. It'd be a wound on the whole national psyche thing.
A compromise would be good. A compromise would be necessary. The only thing certain is that a permanent name would eventually be found.
Greece, no matter what idiots are currently saying, *wasn't* willing to make any compromise.
We weren't willing to accept "New Macedonia" (which personally I don't much like), which would have hinted to the existence of another Older Macedonia, same way as New York hints to the existence of an older York, and New Mexico hints to the existence of an older Mexico.
We weren't willing to accept "North Macedonia", which would have hinted to the existence of a Southern Macedonia, same way as "East Timor" reminds us that there exists parts of Timor outside that state.
We weren't willing to accept "Macedonia of Scopje" (which I'd find a perfect name btw), we weren't willing to accept "Slavic Macedonia", we weren't willing to accept um... anything at all.
Oh no, the Greek people wanted exclusivity of the name "Macedonia". So instead of a name that'd hint to the existence of a different, Greek, Macedonia, now the Greek people will have to face the fact that not only they won't have exclusivity, they will entirely lose that name, and the name of that nation in our north will be one that instead of causing people to remember Greek Macedonia, will cause people to forget it entirely instead.
You wanted it all, Greek people, and that's why you'll get nothing instead. You could have made an honest and brave compromise, Greek people, and then you'd have gotten much more than you now have or that now you'll ever get.
Blame America? Ha. European Union will be next. Not immediately, not *officially*, because the 25 still try to act with consensus. But you've been pulling the rope, Greece of Karamanlis -- you've made a mess with your finances, you've been vetoing on naval issues, you've fucked up Cyprus' Annan plan, you're even attempting to raise Turkey's issue again -- think you have any more rope left to pull? Think again.
Right now, know what's the thing that has angered me? When New Democracy's press representative came off and listing all the supposed "failures" of George Papandreou, he included Papandreou's brave, *brave* support of the Annan plan. Supposedly George Papandreous should have been ashamed, and supposedly the defeat of the plan should have shown him the error of his ways for bravely supporting something that had no overwhelming popular support. According to New Democracy, that's the definition of statesmanship it seems.
If there's any one comment that shows what a group of political cowards is currently leading Greece, that'd be the one, made today Thursday. It's also the comment that shows that no compromise or negotiations will ever work -- because you'd need guts to make such a political decision that would be protested by people throughout the political spectrum. Guts that you've never shown, New Democracy of Karamanlis.
I didn't really want to comment on this, because when discussing these issues I get angry, and then people often get the wrong impression that I'm angry at them for bringing it up, instead of angry at the situation as is. So let me make it clear up front -- all my rage is directed at the situation,
alternativa, none of it is directed at you. The opposite: I feel flattered that you wanted to know what I think about this. Thanks.Anyway, you asked me to comment on the recent issue of FYRO Macedonia and her recognition as plain "Macedonia" by the US government. So I'm commenting. But since I'm doing this on request, and not on plan, also expect this post to be much less organized and structured, much more rambling.
My main comment is this, directed to the Greek people: What the HELL else did you expect?
Seriously. What the hell else did you expect? Not from the Bush administration, the Bush administration has nothing whatsoever to do with it. But from the situation in general.
Is anyone stupid enough to think that "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" can be anything other than a temporary name? One hundred years from now, with Yugoslavia probably much more forgotten than Austrohungary is now, did you expect the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to have still stood?
And if we take it as granted that "Former Yugoslav Republic Republic of Macedonia" is a temporary name, doesn't that mean that sooner or later a permanent name that is a tiny bit shorter is gonna be found?
And if we don't participate in finding that permanent name, doesn't that mean they'll find it for us? And since we reject every compromise, doesn't that mean that the permanent name will be one that *isn't* a compromise, namely it will be plain "Macedonia"?
Greek people are now supposedly pissed off at the US government (Greek people are ofcourse always pissed at the US government -- we have the "seething" thing down pat, probably second best in the world about it after the Arab street). And several Greek politicians have said that the US government has now interfered at the process of the negotiations about the name between Greece and FYRO Macedonia. Are you kidding us, Greek politicians? What negotiations? There've not been any meaningful negotiations about the name for a very long time. If there had ever been such.
Any hint of negotiations and the chauvinists that you so heartily embraced, "New Democracy", started spewing nonsense about national betrayals and the need to obey decisions taken in that interparty national council thingy back in the early 1990s. That quite undemocratic interparty national council thingy, btw -- a national agreement between a former prime minister (Mitsotakis) who is now retired, a former prime minister who is now dead (Papandreou), and several minor characters like Damanaki and Papariga who I have no clue why they should be making decisions on a national level -- either way people that any popular mandate they may have had at that time has long since EXPIRED. The thing about representative democracy is that we elect our leaders for 4 years at the most -- the political elite can't make decisions between themselves that still supposedly bind their elected successors 12 years later. The mandate the people provide the government has a *limited* duration.
But all the above paragraph is a digression.
Here's the facts:
1) On our northern border, there's a sizeable Slavic nation that self-identify as Macedonians. That can't change, no matter how we want it. We might make them (with a lot of effort) start identifying as "slav Macedonians" or as "Northern Macedonians" or as "New Macedonians", but they WON'T start self-identifying as "Skopjans" any century soon.
3) Nobody is happy with the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and even if *we* were happy, it's clear that the self-identified Macedonians of Skopje are not.
3) We consider the name Macedonia to be part of Greek national heritage. That doesnt change either.
4) The nation which is currently self-identified as Macedonia has the right to exist. Unlike what groups of Greek neofascists may have hoped in the early 1990s it's NOT gonna be conquered and divided up by a Serbian-Greek military alliance. Nor should it be.
Nonetheless, to have that nation simply be called "Macedonia" is a thorn on the side of most Greek people. It'd be as if Taiwan were to alone use the name "China", and the country nowadays known as China were to lose that name and the name "Chinese" started to be used only by Taiwanese. It'd be a wound on the whole national psyche thing.
A compromise would be good. A compromise would be necessary. The only thing certain is that a permanent name would eventually be found.
Greece, no matter what idiots are currently saying, *wasn't* willing to make any compromise.
We weren't willing to accept "New Macedonia" (which personally I don't much like), which would have hinted to the existence of another Older Macedonia, same way as New York hints to the existence of an older York, and New Mexico hints to the existence of an older Mexico.
We weren't willing to accept "North Macedonia", which would have hinted to the existence of a Southern Macedonia, same way as "East Timor" reminds us that there exists parts of Timor outside that state.
We weren't willing to accept "Macedonia of Scopje" (which I'd find a perfect name btw), we weren't willing to accept "Slavic Macedonia", we weren't willing to accept um... anything at all.
Oh no, the Greek people wanted exclusivity of the name "Macedonia". So instead of a name that'd hint to the existence of a different, Greek, Macedonia, now the Greek people will have to face the fact that not only they won't have exclusivity, they will entirely lose that name, and the name of that nation in our north will be one that instead of causing people to remember Greek Macedonia, will cause people to forget it entirely instead.
You wanted it all, Greek people, and that's why you'll get nothing instead. You could have made an honest and brave compromise, Greek people, and then you'd have gotten much more than you now have or that now you'll ever get.
Blame America? Ha. European Union will be next. Not immediately, not *officially*, because the 25 still try to act with consensus. But you've been pulling the rope, Greece of Karamanlis -- you've made a mess with your finances, you've been vetoing on naval issues, you've fucked up Cyprus' Annan plan, you're even attempting to raise Turkey's issue again -- think you have any more rope left to pull? Think again.
Right now, know what's the thing that has angered me? When New Democracy's press representative came off and listing all the supposed "failures" of George Papandreou, he included Papandreou's brave, *brave* support of the Annan plan. Supposedly George Papandreous should have been ashamed, and supposedly the defeat of the plan should have shown him the error of his ways for bravely supporting something that had no overwhelming popular support. According to New Democracy, that's the definition of statesmanship it seems.
If there's any one comment that shows what a group of political cowards is currently leading Greece, that'd be the one, made today Thursday. It's also the comment that shows that no compromise or negotiations will ever work -- because you'd need guts to make such a political decision that would be protested by people throughout the political spectrum. Guts that you've never shown, New Democracy of Karamanlis.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Response to commentary on Macedonia
Date: 2004-11-05 06:21 am (UTC)----------------------------
Very well-said Aris! I agree with almost every single word you have said in your "ramble" about the issue of Macedonia. One would have hoped that after the tragic experience of the 1990s - the lunatic attitudes which the people of the former Yugoslavia paid for with rivers of blood - governments in the region would demonstrate some prudence and responsibility. And what I mean by these words is first throwing all nationalist madness in the dustbin of history and then doing everything we can to place our neigbours under the influence of NATO and the United States of America - the powers that ten years ago, despite their prolonged inaction beforehand, managed to put an end to the carnage in Bosnia and gave us renewed hopes for peace and prosperity throughout the Balkans. President Bush has my warmest congratulations for his decision to recognise Macedonia for what it really is: An independent nation with the city of Skopje as its capital. I just hope the American government will now have the courage to admit our neighbours into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation - that great guardian of security and peace - even if this has to be done over the objections of certain "allies", who have proved themselves unworthy time and again.
George Katsaris, City of Coventry, England.
-------------------------------------------
P.S.: I don't we think we need to be dismayed about George W. Bush being reelected - just have a look at the progress being made in the Middle East: Afghanistan already has a democratically elected President and Iraqi democracy is only a few months away. Like so many times in the past, it is being proved again that America is the greatest force for good that has ever existed on our planet - as long as the U.S. government can act with decisiveness and determination, that is.
Re: Response to commentary on Macedonia
Date: 2004-11-05 06:48 am (UTC)As for America being the "greatest force of good" I still remember all the dictatorships it supported in Latin America (and Greece) during the Cold War, so let's not use hyperbole please. USA has the good thing that (unlike other powers like Soviet Union, China and so forth) the USA *usually* backs democracy, in theory atleast, as opposed to consistently opposing it.
So I'd change that to "greatest force that sometimes is for good". If you are looking for a force that is more *consistently* for good though, I'd suggest the European Union. Less powerful than the US, but less morally dirty as well, the way I see it.
Re: Response to commentary on Macedonia
Date: 2004-11-05 07:40 am (UTC)I'm still proud of my uniform and all, but America is far from perfect.
I don't really have an opinion on FYROM. I went there a few times, and I liked Skopje, but the bootlegged DVDs I bought didn't work :(
I'd agree the EU is cleaner than the US, but not in the same kind of game. I also need to learn more about the EU, and teh only issue bugging me a bit is something about attmepts to make Ireland raise her taxes, and Ireland is my favorite EU nation, plus she has a certain place in my heart, but I want to hear your take on that as you'd be more likely to ask me a question about Economics or Catholicism :)
Re: Response to commentary on Macedonia
Date: 2004-11-06 03:58 pm (UTC)"America is the greatest force for good that has ever existed on our planet" ?!?!? Does he really believe that?
I've been here for more than 2 years, USA goverment and it's people don't give a F.U.C.K about the rest of the world, everything they do, they do it so that they can advance their own interests. Never forget George, US doesn't freaking care about peace or the environment or the non-americans of this planet, it just cares about oil, money, weapons and it's own people (oh and about the last one, the amount of care it has for it's own people increases proportionally with the amount of money they have...)
My $0.02,
stav
Re: Response to commentary on Macedonia
Date: 2004-11-06 04:36 pm (UTC)He'd be an American nationalist really, if he was American -- since he isn't, I can only describe him as its number one fan. His (sorta-kinda) libertarianism also plays a role in his liking of the USA. I'm more of a social-democrat instead, so I think I'll stick with Europe. ;-)
Re: Response to commentary on Macedonia
Date: 2004-11-08 06:27 am (UTC)----------------------------
Thanks a lot Aris for helping to clarify my positions and disperse any doubts as to whether I said these things for real! If anyone who read my comments is still not perfectly clear as to whether I stand, suffice it to say that not only do I want the United States of America to increase its influence around the world, I would actually like to see the entire planet under the direct control of Washington D.C. (a surefire way to make sure we get global democracy, an end to military conscription and no more tragedies like the one currently plaguing the Darfur region of Sudan).
You do have a very valid complaint for America supporing various dictatorships - I do know myself from history that a democratically elected government was overthrown in Guatemala during the 1950s with the help of the CIA, and also that America has actively cooperated with other dictatorial regimes in the past. Mind you however that, within certain limitations, such cooperation can sometimes be justified for the sake of a greater purpose (read that as confronting the Soviet Union, rightly described by the late President Reagan as an 'evil empire'). If you find this unacceptable, would you then be willing to condemn the Allied nations of the World War Two years for supporting Stalinist Russia against the Nazis ? I would certainly put ideology first, but that doesn't necessarily mean we can never have room for some pragmatism as well.
Moving to the current situation in Iraq, as I am writing these lines, the battle for Falluja has began: American forces have already taken control of the main hospital in the west of the city (read that as 'medical facilities can once again be put to work for the benefit of the Fallujan people') and are advancing in other areas as well. It seems all but certain that the city will not be a terrorist outpost for much longer, so maybe we can be somewhat optimistic about the future of Iraq. And if history is a trustworthy guide (as opposed to mindless anti-American rage) here is an interesting question to ponder: Has there ever been a single country, anywhere in the world, which after being occupied by American military forces did not come under the control of a democratically elected government ? I would challenge anyone who disagrees with me to offer some examples!
George Katsaris, City of Coventry, England.
-------------------------------------------
Re: Response to commentary on Macedonia
Date: 2004-11-08 07:14 am (UTC)First of all, NO, "the entire planet under the direct control of Washington " is NOT a surefire way to make sure we get global democracy. When Iraq was under the "direct control" of Washington, Iraqis weren't voting for American officials (I'd actually suggested such a thing once in Rantburg -- how about if Iraqis were to also vote for American president? Was predictably mocked and jeered for such a suggestion -- United States chauvinists were the first to hate such a suggestion - they'd be all for direct control, they'be utterly against a democratic world government though -- they couldn't trust those "unpredictable populations" after all).
When India was under the "direct control" of London, Indians weren't voting for the British Prime Minister. Coming under the "direct control of" a country means colonialism, it has nothing to do with democracy.
Is it just the location of the capital you are interested in? A true global democracy wouldn't be under the "direct control" of Washington, any more than it will be under the direct control of Beijing or Moscow or New Delhi or Brussels. A global democracy will be in the hands of the global community of people --- and I'm not so sure that the globe feels the same way about economical issues or libertarianism as you or even most of the Americans.
If you find this unacceptable, would you then be willing to condemn the Allied nations of the World War Two years for supporting Stalinist Russia against the Nazis ?
There was no threat of a Communist takeover in Brazil when USA supported the dictatorship there -- there was no threat of a Communist takeover in Greece when USA supported the dictaatorship here. It was *democracy* that the USA was opposing, NOT the Soviet Union, in most of its interference in Latin America. Making sure that the American industries would be free to do business in Latin America is NOT the same as opposing the "Soviet threat" -- opposing the Soviet threat was just an *excuse*. Not allowing any nation to choose *neutrality*, regardless of whether such neutrality was right or wrong.
The support of the Soviet Union during WW2 is a ridiculous comparison. You can't compare helping overthrow a democracy in favour of a dictatorship in times of relative peace, with simply providing guns to one of two warring countries in a war that is already taking place. There's a difference between arming Stalin in a direct *current* confrontation against Hitler, versus *creating* half a dozen of small Stalins, helping them overthrow democracies and impose tyrannies because of your supposed belief that it's only dictatorships and not democracies that would be able to stand against communism.
You know, as a sidenote, right now I can't remember a single case where a true democracy was overthrown by communists internally. I remember a Cuban USA-supported dictatorship being overthrown by communists, I remember the USA-supported dictatorship in Vietnam being overthrown by communists. And ofcourse there were the Czars in Russia, some dictatorship (or some emperor) in China, and so forth.
If the USA had cared to install *democracies* instead of dictatorships in Latin America, I think that the Latin America would have been much more democratic and prosperous, Cuba might be free at the moment, and the Cold War might have lasted much less.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-08 02:44 am (UTC)I was hoping that you would make a post about Makedonia, and I'm so happy to see that we share political opinions.
It seems to me that Greece has been in the eye of the tornado for various reasons, the olympics, the cyprus issue, the turkey challenging, Anan, Bush, you name it. But I would least expect Bush to recognise that specific name, not so soon. The fact that he got re-elected is just a shame for them americans, but our leading government ain't be doing better either.
Kostakis climbed on the throne of power and his motto seems to be "Give them a nasty look and they'll do what I want". I voted for another party anyhow...
What infuriated me the most, reading yesterday's Elefterotypia, is that all kind of Neo-nazi, fascistic parties and their youth clubs are now ranting over the name thing. We're talking about people with no usable gray matter here.
And I agree with you. I totally do. What else should we be expecting? That the FYROM would one day changed her name to Republic of Smurfs, for crying out loud? No one saw this coming but you and me ( and your brother:-P)?
They all run around like hamsters now, protesting against the re-naming of FYROM.
I sometimes believe that people are true idiots. And governments, too.
I'd write a shitload of other things too, but I got the flu and my fever is reaching top limits, clouding my way of expressing myself.
Be well Aris, and keep writing posts such as this.
I love reading them.
* Alternativa drags her sick ass back to bed*