Last week I was sitting at a dinner in Riga, Latvia, having a lovely piece of shrimp, and talking to on my left, a Swedish “trade unionist” (not sure if he’d like that title) and the President of a local NGO when I was asked this question (having introduced myself as a Greek)
– so what is so wrong with calling FYROM just Macedonia?
I proceeded to be overcome by the following reactions:
- a flash in my mind of Thessaloniki the Macedonian state’s capital
- taken aback
- Overwhelmed
- Underwhelmed
- Passion
- Flabbergasted
And tried to offer up a point of view that was as impartial as possible. I said – “Do you mean why should FYROM still be called FYROM or find an alternate name?”
Having taken part in a peaceful rally in 1992 and then in 1994 in Melbourne (along with over 100,000 others) against the renaming of the country of FYROM for example (logos – t-shirts etc blazing Macedonia is Greek et al), and being a member of the Pan- Macedonian Community Organisation of Melbourne, Australia, gives away my non impartial stance.
When the International Herald Tribune choses to publish an article in its October 2 edition outlining who is winning the current battle in “claiming Alexander the Great” I take issue, and am very surprised at the reasoning.Barring news reports the topic goes back many decades (for some, centuries) and I would not presume to be able to cover it within the confines of these 662 words. What I did want to mention was the current visibility FYROM has had thanks to a recent visit by its leader Branko Crvenkovski to the EU Institutions, NATO the UN and his meeting with the European Commissioner on Enlargement Olli Rehn.
The ambitious President Crvenkovski is currently looking to resurface and build stronger foundations in the EU, a country which Commissioner Rehn describes like this - while welcoming reforms in some areas such as language laws, the police and judiciary, “substantial efforts are still needed,“ he says of the Balkan region. The European Commission has long held the stance, and has reiterated it with statements from President Jose Manuel Barroso that although an EU Candidate country, failing to engage in mutually beneficial talks to resolve an issue with a Member State of the EU means that FYROM does not respect its neighbours. Hence, this Brussels trip bringing a new focus to the issue and a new word – “compromise”.
President Crvenkovski was quoted as saying that he is now willing to come to a “compromise” with Greece on the “name issue”. UN mediated talks this week between Skopje and Athens may be a new path to this, despite President Crvenkovski admitting that he and his Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, do not agree on the way to resolve the issue.
“The Republic is prepared for a fair compromise that will not go against our cultural and national identity and I hope that the Republic of Greece will (also) show some flexibility,” Crvenkovski said in Brussels. The dispute has been ongoing for the last 15 years; most recent culminations were Greece’s vetoing the country’s accession into NATO. “But as I said to the president, in our conversation, it is important and relevant for the Allies and for me as Secretary General that hopefully there will be a solution to the name issue soon. Because… it is the recipe for a secure and stable Western Balkans region” said NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer summing up his meeting with President Crvenkovski at the NATO headquarters in Brussels. The “name issue” from all sides would take thousands of columns to simply chronicle, this has barely scratched the surface, let alone argue – Brussels and Geneva have always been good at exploring political dialogue and, on this emotional and at times flaring issue one hopes that a political exit can be found in the near future and not lead down further endless corridors.