Macedonian League
  • Who We Are
  • Advocacy
  • Media Center
  • Resources
  • Take Action
  • Contact

Turkey likens Syria push to Cyprus intervention

10/14/2019

0 Comments

 
PictureTurkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says Turkey's military offensive into northeast Syria is as "vital" to Turkey as its 1974 military intervention in Cyprus, which split the island in two.

In a speech he delivered in Baku, Azerbaijan on Monday, Erdogan also made clear Turkey would not halt its offensive despite the widespread condemnation it has drawn.

Turkey launched its offensive into northeastern Syria last week to carve out a "safe zone" along its border, ostensibly to push out Syrian Kurdish fighters it considers to be terrorists because of their links to Kurdish militants in Turkey.

Erdogan said: "We are determined to take our operation to the end. We will finish what we started. A hoisted flag does not come down."

Cyprus was divided in 1974 when Turkey invaded after a coup by supporters of union with Greece. Only Turkey recognizes a Turkish Cypriot state on the island's northern third.

​Source: Kathimerini


0 Comments

The Fate of the Earth and Man - A Scientific Essay

9/22/2019

0 Comments

 
By Marcus A. Templar

Originally published: May 1990
University 422 - Geology 
CONTENTS

A. Introduction.
B. Main Aspects of Prognostication.
C. Factors of Prognostication.
D. Global Ecology.
E. Future Changes in the Climate.
F. Be Fertile And Multiply; Fill The Earth And Subdue it."
G. Our Future (?).​
PictureMarcus A. Templar
National Security Advisor, Macedonian League
A. INTRODUCTION.

The growing presence of human activity on the biosphere makes the interaction of its various elements and the structure of the Earth's surface increasingly complicated, with some parts of the earth showing signs of a coming ecological crisis. The seriousness of the problem is fully realized practically all over the world. It explains why world geoscience is mainly concerned with the social results of the man-nature relationship and with geographical prognosis. The latter is viewed as the prognosis of both the development of geoscience and the evolution of the Earth's surface, its individual components, and subsystems. Admittedly, geographical prognostication has fallen far short of society's needs for information. Nevertheless, geographers and geologists, increasingly, stand out in the field as it is noted at many international and national conferences.

The following essay deals with the geographic and geologic research in the field of forecasting about “THE FATE OF THE EARTH AND MAN.


B. MAIN ASPECTS OF PROGNOSTICATION.

The most important, and the most complicated scientific problem today, is the prognostication of the future, which we know nothing more that it is sure to come. The unknown is becoming scientifically predictable thanks to comprehensive research. The wider, the fuller, and the more comprehensive the forecasting, the more accurate it will be. It is precisely in our time, with the launching of major joint research projects, that accurate forecasting has become possible. Prognostication has become an area for special interests, for geoscientists, because geoscience is widely departmentalized and complex science, combining the elements of natural and social sciences. In many countries, hundreds of institutes have been set up to carry out prognostication for an extended period. The number of scientific works forecasting the future is growing, too. In most cases, these projections cover prospects for technological progress, for economic and social development over 15 - 20 (or even 25 - 30) years ahead.

The periods of prognostication (set at 15 - 30 years) are mostly connected to research potential for predicting scientific and technological progress. This prognostication serves as a barrier beyond which lie ill-founded, often fantastic speculations. As a rule, prognostication is supported by new discoveries which engulf "the sperm of the future," by new technology, by the continued development of the economy and new social phenomena. To forecast is to make a correct assessment of a new budding phenomenon and to establish which of the scientific ideas is more progressive and forward-looking.

Prognostication has many dimensions with geoscience playing no small part in it. Thus far, little has been done to put geographical forecasting on a solid footing. The year 2000 is still ten years away, but not too far to give us the license not to think about the future of geoscience over the remaining period of the 20th century. It seems that imagination, and, particularly, scientific imagination, is, in this case, a less dangerous thing than its absence. However, by posting the problem of geographical prognostication of the year 2000, we must turn to such formulations as "expected tendencies of development," "possible variants," "tentative deadlines."

Geographic prognostication could be dealt with in three main interconnected aspects:

1. Prognostication of the development of the earth's surface and the utilization of natural resources by society.
2. Development of methods of geographical prognostication.
3. Prognostication of the development of geoscience.


C. FACTORS OF PROGNOSTICATION.

The present state of the natural environment and of the economic growth of the world, the degree of which has been studied and the rate of their utilization has put the spotlight on the three principal factors that will dominate the ecological situation in the year 2000 -the hydroclimatic factor, the anthropogenic factor, and the natural resources factor.

All these factors are important for the following reasons:


THE HYDROCLIMATIC FACTOR creates the most significant regional distinctions in the state of the environment and has the greatest impact on natural phenomena over thirty years indeed, a short period by geological standards. In its hydrological aspect, this factor can be modified easier, and faster than other natural components. The water reserves tend to be more and scarcer, and the water itself more and more polluted, which increases not only the economic importance of the hydroclimatic factor but also its geographic importance. As it is known, the deficit and surplus of water lead to tremendous changes in the natural environment.

Other natural components will also change, even if man's activity is hypothetically counted out. However, these changes will not be so dramatic, as to transform the entire environment even in a small area. Suffice it to say that man's pressure upon a dynamic component such as vegetation will affect large parts only in several decades (a pine forest can be restored to its full size in some 25 to 30 years). However, it does not detract from the predictive role of other components of the natural environment. It seems that different elements of the environment are effective over periods.

It is why it is important to take into consideration not only certain individual tendencies and processes but also the entire complex of geographic conditions which may emerge in the future. The second important predictive factor which will loom large in the year 2000, namely THE ANTHROPOGENIC FACTOR
, has been much spoken of and written about mostly in popular rather than precise forms.

That anthropogenically modified natural environment develops much faster than 'fundamental nature" is a well-known fact. The rapid acceleration of the modification of the environment, new correlations that emerge between the different rates of its many components, also new quantitative proportions of these elements causes the natural environment to rebel, to avenge itself, and lead to a significant number of "chain reactions" in natural complexes. Thus far such acceleration and dynamism of natural processes and the links between them have not been determined in real terms. These are· only approximate indicators of speed for different types of wind and water erosion and some other processes. The question of how man accelerates and modifies geochemical processes (technogenesis) has risen to prominence.

Man-made landscapes are also increasingly moving into the focus of scientific attention. The problem of discrepancy between the rapidly developing technical possibilities of mankind and profligacy about the natural environment (considering the poor and inadequate assessments of the natural conditions) is becoming gradually more acute. In the beginning, the problem of mineral resources gave most trouble to both scientists and practical workers. Now the question of mineral resources has been put aside, with priority given to the problem of quality and quantity of freshwater, to the problems of atmospheric pollution and a sharp increase in radioactivity in all spheres. Next in line is the issue of preservation and reproduction of biological resources.

Every second three people get born on earth - three highly organized creatures. Human activity is becoming not only comparable in size and scope to natural processes, but it is at times even more efficient in a limited area than the latter. The impact of nature transforming the activity of people is so high that it is becoming a source of concern increasingly, stirring them into action to protect the environment in which they live. In this connection, the geoscientists attach great importance to long, less apparent anthropogenic actions that might harmonize with the natural settings, such as the building up of vast areas leaving wide spaces between housing estates. It can also be achieved by "fitting" engineering structures in with the features of the local terrain, by introducing "special ways" of exploitation of natural resources. All that speaks for increasing the significance of indirect methods of environmental development, and particularly of geoscientific methods.

Moreover, finally, the third important becoming a more predictive factor is THE FACTOR OF "RESOURCES.”
To prognosticate the utilization of natural, labor, material, and technological resources, it is necessary to follow the main directions of the growth and distribution of productive forces over a long term and primarily with an eye to the growing population and rapid scientific and technological progress. Besides, a crucial part in this prognostication will most likely be played by our ability to determine per capita indicators for extraction and consumption of natural resources in the country as a whole and its individual areas by the year 2000.

The territorial aspect of redistribution of different resources is paramount in geographical prognostication. It concerns the transportation of fuel, raw material, energy, water, food, synthetic and organic fertilizers, and so forth. Also increasing in importance are the so-called "geographic conveyors" which take stock of biological spatial distinctions and contrasts: climatic, biological and so on.

Conservation, reproduction, and management of natural resources is a complex problem, and it takes more than one way to resolve it.

With all the requirements of industrial production, power industry, farming, transportation, and housing construction taken into account, these must by no means be regarded as geared exclusively to the interests of production. Of similar importance is the prognostication of the role played by the environment in the life of man, in the protection of his health and in providing him with adequate conditions for recreation.


D. GLOBAL ECOLOGY

Human activity puts increasing pressure on the natural environment. It is clear that any precautionary measures and any effort, however small, to improve production only slightly relieve this pressure and do not completely remove the danger of environmental deterioration for the simple reason that even the most streamlined manufacturing process takes vast areas of land and water out of the natural cycle. This fact must be clear to anyone who gives it a serious thought. It does not follow from this that mankind should wind down production. The old thesis "back to nature" has always been reactionary and the struggle for raising the standard of living calls for steady industrialization and urbanization.

However, there is hardly any grounds for thinking that man's impact on the biosphere and individual biocoenosis will inevitably lead to deterioration of nature. To get a clear picture of this fundamental problem, one should try to understand what a “real” ecosystem is and what a "bad" ecosystem is, what a "good" biocoenosis is and what sort of biocoenosis could be considered a "bad" one. It is hard to answer this question, although intrusively we all understand the difference between the two. In my opinion, a good biocoenosis must meet the following basic requirements:

a) The biomass of all basic links of the food chains is significant. The excess of the phytomass over the zoomass typical of anthropogenic landscapes is not very much in evidence. It assures the synthesis of a large amount of oxygen and the synthesis of a vast number of products of both vegetable and animal origin.

b) The enormous amounts of biomass suggest high biological productivity. The result of "productivity multiplied by the biomass" tends to a maximum. It makes it possible to quickly recoup losses of the biomass at separate trophic levels as the result of accidental, or deliberate external influences. It is particularly important since a large quantitative biomass does not assure the high compensatory activity of biological systems.

c) The structure of the scheme as a whole and heterogeneity of individual trophic levels assure the stability of biocoenosis by a wide range of external conditions. The highest perfection of homeostatic is typical not only of the populations of dominant plant species but an ecosystem as a whole. The maintenance of a biocoenosis in the state of dynamic balance assures the homeostasis of its inanimate inhabitants, including the hydrological status of a given area, and the composition of the atmosphere.

d) Metabolism proceeds at a very rapid pace. Reduction draws into the natural cycle the entire biomass produced by a biocoenosis over several annual cycles. It assures maximum speed in the biological self-purification of the system.

e) The highest degree of productivity and stability of an ecosystem is characterized by its resiliences, by its ability to change the structure of the system rapidly and to effect quick evolutionary transformations of the populations of dominant species. It helps maintain the biocoenosis in an optimal state even when the environmental conditions change.

If the biocoenosis meets the above requirements, there is every reason to consider it “safe" regardless of whether it is developing in natural, or in simulated conditions. Thus it follows that the most important task of global ecology is to work out measures that would help develop good biocoenosis in the conditions of anthropogenic landscapes. On the other hand, this point of view makes it possible to assess the volume of permissible pressure on the environment. If the biocoenosis can sustain itself (as a system) in an optimal state, this means that the degree of anthropogenic pressure does not exceed the potentialities of biological systems, and does not undermine their homeostatic capacity. There are serious theoretical grounds for assuming that this system of assessments coincides in practical terms with medico-sanitary evaluations. The quality of a biocoenosis is a much more sensitive indicator of the state of the environment than any other indicator.

E. FUTURE CHANGES IN THE CLIMATE.

The research carried out by some climatologists and geologists over the past several years suggests a warming-up of climate within the 50 years in consequence of combined action of natural temperature fluctuations and the greenhouse effect of the growing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuel. The conclusion that the climate will warm up shortly is based on the idea of the high sensitivity of the thermal status of the earth to changing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is also contingent on the assumption that the present trend of the growing consumption of fossil fuel will continue present pace over the next several decades.

Natural temperature changes. The modern trend in natural temperature changes has been described with a high degree of accuracy. Measurements of meteoroidal elements give a detailed picture of fluctuations of climatic (including thermal) conditions in the northern hemisphere over the past 100 years. They show that the end of the 19th century was relatively cold and that warming marked the 20th century of which was at its peak in the 1930s and 1940s. After that, a cooling-down period set in to continue to this day. A study of meteorological data for the southern hemisphere shows that south of the equator climatic changes over the past 100 years have recurred with the same regularity and within roughly the same parameters.

These global temperature variations have been accompanied by an alternate rise and drop in the rate of glaciation. In all mountain lands and the Arctic islands, the end of the 19th century saw an expansion of glaciation.

The first half of the 20th century was marked by a recession of glaciers which were at their nadir in the 1930-1940s. In a later period, glacier alimentation began to improve, which led to their stabilization and expansion. In some mountain lands, most glaciers showed considerable growth.

Significantly, both the data yielded by meteorological observations, which can be applied globally and the data on the fluctuation of glaciers cover short periods of' extrapolation within the past hundred years. Most of the other methods of paleoclimatic reconstruction give but incomplete and at times confusing information in which local factors sometimes distort climatic tendencies.

Greenhouse effect. Another component of future temperature changes reflects the effect that anthropogenic factors have on the environment, and amongst them, according to the consensus of climatologists and geologists, the concentration of dust and CO2
in the atmosphere. Changes in the temperature of the air, which are linked to variations in the transparency of the air due to dust, stay within the range of 0.2-0.4° C. Simultaneously, the rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide has by now exceeded the average air temperature by 0.5o C. It is widely believed that the second factor is chiefly responsible for the anthropogenic rise in temperature.

F. "BE FERTILE AND MULTIPLY; FILL THE EARTH AND SUBDUE IT."

The forms and dimensions of man's geochemical activity attach tremendous significance to the future of new geochemical phenomena and processes connected with human endeavor. The human race has geochemically intervened in the environment, notably the problem of the cultural geochemical landscape.

The following are the principal types of such intervention:

1. Today mankind is extracting at an increasing rate colossal amounts of chemical elements totaling millions, or even billions of tons of useful minerals a year. In scope such activity is comparable to many natural geochemical processes).

2. Man's agricultural activities are rated, for the amount of matter drawn into circulation and for the output of goods, by a similar order of magnitude.

3. Worldwide activities linked to engineering work, mining and construction result in the dispersal and transportation of large masses of matter whose volume comes to no less than 1 cu. km. every year, which is comparable to denudation by rivers. ~

4. Numbers measure the transposition of matter linked to both irrigation and soil drainage in the same order of magnitude.

5. Humanity uses all the known chemical elements; Man concentrates and uses their radioactive isotopes and creates new
transuranian elements which do not occur in nature.

6. Man changes the ways and forms of migration of atoms; accelerates their movement; creates substances charged with energy, and therefore unstable on the earth's surface.

7. The latter leads to a secondary dispersal of elements over the face of the earth and makes humanity extract and obtain new substances on a vast scale.

8. Some products of technogenesis are obtained and synthesized for secondary dispersal (fertilizers, toxic chemicals, and so on).

9. Various by-products and industrial waste (gas, smoke. sewage water) also enter the process of active dispersal. The radioactive fallout from atomic explosions gets dispersed worldwide. The concentration of radioactive strontium over the entire surface of the earth in the temperate and subtropical zones of the northern hemisphere has increased three-fold and even four-fold compared to its level in the southern hemisphere and the high (polar) latitudes.

10. In its total technogenesis forms technogenic industrial and agricultural landscapes. The expanding technogenic migration of elements is increasingly changing the face of our earth.

All this shows that technogenesis is a special, active and complex geochemical process which is manageable only in part.


G. OUR FUTURE (?)

The group of technogenic adjustments which includes processes of interaction between society and nature which at present lead to abrupt and mostly irreversible changes in landscapes. These processes are called constructional, technogenic readjustments. These readjustments are used in prognostication as an important indicator whereby ecological- economic regions are distinguished and mapped.

The following are constructional technogenic readjustments:

1. Desertification. It occurs in arid climates with recurring seasonal dry spells and even periods lasting several years. The total area affected by this process is significant and continues to grow at the annual rate of 50-70 thousand sq. km.

2. Destruction of landscapes by erosion. Prevalent in humid and semi-arid climates in woodless and deforested areas with dissected relief and loose deposits. Erosion has affected large areas; in the eastern parts of the United States, for example, erosion has set in over 13% of plow-land, in Argentina 22%, in Uruguay 15%, and so forth.

3. Deforestation. Occurs in areas that were originally woodland. The deforested area is growing all the time. In the equatorial forests of South America, about 4-5% of the total reserve of timber is cut down every year, threatening their destruction in some 20-25 years.

4. Atmospheric oxidation of landscapes. Prevalent in territories with a high concentration of industry, also in areas lying in the path of transfer of air masses. The oxidation of landscapes is a complex of processes linked to the technogenic emission of oxides of sulfur, nitrogen and other compounds created by the burning of fossil fuels. It is furthermore linked to their transport and precipitation in the form of acid rain which has an unhealthy effect on all components of landscapes (growing acidity of the soil and surface water, depression, and destruction of plants and aquatic life).

5. Photochemical smog: Occurs primarily in urbanized areas, also tropics, subtropics and in the southern regions of the temperate summer), especially in the northern Mediterranean, California and with similar climatic conditions.

6. Cryogenic processes. These are on the increase in permafrost areas as the result of the freezing and thawing out of perennially frozen grounds due to the destruction of soil and vegetation through mining operations, construction work and the use of industrial facilities, the building of roads and pipelines.

7. Oil pollution. Occurs primarily in the world oceans, in off-shore waters of the shelf zone. On land, it occurs at sites of oil extraction and transportation.

8. Pollution of streams. Widespread in countries with a high concentration of industry and intensive agriculture with a massive run-off from farm fields. The highest concentrations of pollutants occur in the lower reaches of big rivers, coastal areas, and static lakes. The pollution of streams and other water bodies is a very complex combination of physical and chemical processes linked to the migration, decomposition. Moreover, precipitation of a vast assortment of pollutants - domestic, industrial and agricultural waste - carried into streams.

9. Total technogenic effect. It is an indicator which shows the intensity of the combined effect of technogenic processes on the natural environment. It has been worked out by mathematical conversion of the amount of energy generated per unit of space into tons of reference fuel per 1 sq. km a year.

The types above of constructional readjustments do not cover the full range of problems. The shortage of factual material has prevented me from examining hydro-engineering and some other constructional readjustments (salination, urbanization, land subsidence, and so on). Whether something is going to be done timely to save our planet depends on how fast and how effectively the human race reacts.

Of course, this is only for the future!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bibliography

Burdakova, Iralda. "The Ecology of a Megalopolis." Soviet Life
, April 1, 1990: 40.

Claiborne, Robert. Climate, Man, and History.
New York: W. W. Norton, 1970.

Commoner, Barry. "Why Environmentalism Has Failed." Greenpeace
, Sep-Oct 1989.

Gilluly, James. Principles of Geology (4th Ed.).
San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1975.

Gorbachev, Mikhail. Global Forum on Environment and Development for Survival.
Pravda, January 20, 1990.

Kondracke, Morton. "The Future Energy Crisis." The New Republic
, n.d.

Matthews, William. "Chemically Speaking." Army Times
, April 16, 1990.

Obrhel, Jiří. "Vzajemne pusobení živeho a neživeho v biosfere (Mutual action of animate and inanimate in the
               biosphere)." In Uvod do Paleontologie (Introduction to Paleontology),
Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství
               (SPN),, 1975, 221 - 262.

Paulsen, Monte. "Ten Myths about Our Environmental Crisis." Casco Bay (Maine) Weekly
, January 4, 1990.

Wagner, Robert. Environment and Man.
San Francisco: W. W. Norton, 1975.
0 Comments

The 2019 Macedonian League Annual Assessment with National Security Advisor Marcus A. Templar

7/28/2019

0 Comments

 
In the 2019 Macedonian League Annual Assessment, we talk with Marcus A. Templar for an in-depth analysis of the Prespa Agreement.
Picture
Marcus, the Prespa Agreement is now reality. Before we discuss the agreement briefly explain the number of MP's that voted for the agreement in the Greek Parliament. Why didn’t we see the three-fifths requirement for this issue, as required by the Greek Constitution? And, what do you make of all the noise that followed and sensationalist views in the Greek media?

It is fashionable in today’s world for people to treat logic as the enemy and truth as an inconvenience. Everyone has strong opinions in areas that are out of their academic or professional background. Comprehension is compromised because they base their faulty knowledge on preconceived notions that support their ideology, their beliefs, or what they wish to prove. Nobody seems to remember that in 2008, when Mr. K Karamanlis was the Prime Minister, and Mrs. D. Bakoyanni was the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Athens was discussing the name “Upper Macedonia” or even “New Macedonia” for the FYROM.

For a year now, people bicker about the wrongs of the Agreement and how it can be reversed. I have yet to see anyone’s thoughts on how it is going to be implemented and the future of the region. Under such a mentality, the Agreement becomes the proxy action for one’s decision. As a result, the first question asked is usually “how much did they pay you”? The same individuals see others as they see themselves. Having a very educated opinion that differs from one’s preferred solution and expressing such a view does not mean that one is a “traitor,” “sold” or “paid,”; furthermore, it does not mean what one is talking about.

Should the Prespa Agreement have been ratified by three-fifths of the number of Representatives? Of course, it should. It is an issue of Greece’s core National Interest. In Greece, Constitutions and laws do not mean much, if anything. Nonetheless, there exists a precedent set already by the political elite of Greece and over the years accepted by the people of Greece as they keep voting to office people of similar or identical mindsets. In this manner, the Greek public has legitimized the roots of the political instability. Disinformation runs rampant for the benefit of a political party or the populist “guidance” of political hacks regardless of their partisan orientation. The Greek public even allows actors of third countries to purposely agitate extremist elements on both political sides, aiming at creating havoc. Through this confusion they generate a negative perception against anything that would benefit the country. In reverse they generate a positive perception of the political hacks of one ideology or another.

In your opinion, which parts of the Prespa Agreement give you cause for concern and could such a concern lead to the invalidation of the agreement?

There are some parts in the Prespa Agreement that make sense and others that I see as a compromise. However, one part, the nationality of the people of that republic, I find ill-advised. However nothing makes the Agreement invalid. It is a legally valid diplomatic instrument and in addition it has set the precedent of expression of nationality in international law by using the expression “Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia,” The nationality of the country should have been “North Macedonia” period.

There is NO rule in international law that nationality has to be in an adjectival form. If that is the case, it should have been “North Macedonian”. U.S. passports denote as nationality “The United States of America.”

There is NO rule that passports need to have the “Nationality” clause on them. For instance, the passports of the “Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia” had NO reference to nationality whatsoever. However, logically speaking with the bearer of a U.S. passport which nationality would one expect him to be? There is a very logical explanation for it. The possession of a passport of a particular country makes one a national of that country.

The issue of stateless persons is different since they are not issued a passport, but travel documents according to the “Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons” of September 28, 1954, under the aegis of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). It looks like a passport and Identification Card. A stateless person is someone “who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law.” Usually, stateless persons are those refugees who cannot reach the home country in order to receive a passport.

Whether or not one holds passports of three different countries is irrelevant. One may enter a country using only one passport. Also, it makes no difference to the Immigration Officer of any country, whether one obtained the passport by natural birth or through a naturalization process. The Officer’s job is to check whether the passport is genuine.

In essence, then, all this chatter we hear in Greek media and by certain groups about nullifying the agreement because of a concern like nationality or parliamentary procedure or, even, the ratification process itself has no substance...

Let’s look at the facts. The Interim Accord of 1995 never saw the light of day in the Greek Parliament, but we don’t remember ANY of the elected officials complaining or the same radical elements of the Greek public protest. The same is true for the media. Others demand the nullification of the Agreement knowing full well that the Agreement is final and may not be revoked, but it is safe to make noise for personal promotion.

Both the Interim Accord and the Prespa Agreement are equally binding, and of equal significance. The issue of ratification of both diplomatic instruments by the Parliament of Greece is irrelevant since the first one is already implemented and the second is in force as of February 12, 2019. Under the norms of international law, both are considered ratified, and the gears have started working, the moment they were implemented. Such norms apply to the Prespa Agreement, as well.

The Prespa Agreement was ratified by votes 153 for and 146 against.

“In addition to the 145 SYRIZA MPs, the deal was supported by independent MP and Minister of Tourism, Elena Koundoura (formerly of ANEL), ANEL MP Thanasis Papachristopoulos (who is expected to be expelled from the party following the vote), Deputy Minister of Civil Protection (and former ND minister) Katerina Papakosta, leader of the Democratic Left Party (DIMAR), Thanasis Theocharopoulos (whose decision to back the agreement led to the dismantling of the coalition between DIMAR and PASOK), and three MPs of the centrist party To Potami – leader Stavros Theodorakis, Spyros Likoudis and Yorgos Mavrotas” (Neos Kosmos, Prespa agreement ratified by the Greek Parliament 26 January 2019).

From the beginning of the SYRIZA/ANEL government, everyone blasted only SYRIZA. I wonder, why while SYRIZA was negotiating, the ANEL were silent waiting for the outcome of the negotiations? Nobody can tell me that Kammenos and the rest had no idea that negotiations on Skopje’s name were in full swing. The same goes for all the hypocritical political parties which now are against the Agreement.

Staying on this subject, since ratification, we have seen a remarkable uptick in "experts" discussing the revoking of the Prespa Agreement. Often, it seems that these "experts" are playing on emotions over facts. Can you explain to us, what will happen if Greece or Skopje takes such unilateral action to nullify the Agreement?

The Prespa Agreement went into force on February 12, 2019, according to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. That date is the end of some activities and the beginning of others referred in the Agreement.

The so-called “experts” understand the issue of diplomatic instruments much less than I understand the existence of a universe before the Big Bang. I have yet to see experts on International Law and Diplomacy with personal first-hand knowledge of the issue, suggest this Agreement could be nullified for any legal reason. If miraculously the agreement is revoked, the country whose government cancels it will face severe consequences – I hope that the country is Skopje.

Regardless of the country, a withdrawal from this Agreement will bring it in direct contempt of the International Court of Justice. The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is compulsory because Greece at the time of the adjudication disallowed the jurisdiction of the ICJ only in cases of military action; it should have been in cases of Greece’s national security with prejudice under terms and conditions that Greece would determine herself. National Security is the safeguard of Greece’s national interests and transcends sources and methods that are not restricted to military operations. To put it bluntly, the legal department and/or the politicians of Greece’s MFA had blundered back in the 1990’s. At that time, they saw only the obvious physical aspect of national security disregarding the psychological characteristics of the matter. It is the modern case of the drunk Archias’ statement, "serious business for the morrow" aka «ἐς αὒριον τὰ σπουδαῖα» (Plutarch's Lives/Pelopidas, 10:9).

I had mentioned the issue to a couple of politicians of Greece explaining and proposing a change, but the first one was too busy getting reelected and the other one had no power to propose it. Finally, the modification of the particulars of compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice came about when the Samaras-Venizelos government was in power. Nobody had re-visited the issue of jurisdiction until after Skopje had filed its grievance against Greece. Issues of national interests and national security must be revisited often depending on geopolitical circumstances and definitely when issues of geostrategy arise.

Withdrawing from the Prespa Agreement will constitute contempt of the UNSC decisions of 1993 and of the ICJ which along with the UNSC declared that Greece and The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had to follow such decisions. One must bear in mind that the whole name issue started because of Greece. Whether such an objection was justified or not was and is immaterial to both the UNSC and ICJ. After all, in 1993, Prime Minster, Con. Mitsotakis representing Greece declared that Greece was ready to compromise accepting names as North Macedonia, Upper Macedonia even New Macedonia. In the eyes of the political world Greece was the instigator of the problem by not accepting the name Macedonia. Also, at that time the Balkans were at war and in 2001 the Albanians took up arms against Skopje. Any rejection of the Agreement by Greece will most likely precipitate another armed insurgency in Skopje with the Albanian sector seceding creating a political and economic instability in the region. Such an insurgency would open the gates of hell for Greece unable to stop refugees who once in Macedonia will make it ethnically worse than 1903.

Unless one lives on another planet, one knows that Russia has been trying very hard to dismember the EU and NATO; it is why it feeds the ultra-nationalists (whether fascists or national socialists, i.e., Nazis) by any means, including but not limited the Russian Orthodox Church. Any such upheaval will invite NATO and Russia to a political and information warfare, i.e., cyberwar that could end up in some hot incident with unexpected consequences. But then do not forget Turkey, which is seeking trouble.

It is nice if one is openminded instead of using only tunnel vision.

The inclusion of specific provisions in the Prespa Agreement makes no sense to me, the enclosure of others follow the norms of international law and precedent, and while the insertion of others favor Greece. Looking back at the history of the Slavic population of the Republic of Skopje, I find some provisions of the Agreement need stronger guarantees than they provide (e.g., Articles 3.4, 8.1). In both cases, the parties leave the matter of enforcement to the benevolence and perhaps compassion of their governments. Of course, such stipulations are standard in normalization cases, but regarding Skopje, they are not sufficient. There is an issue of trust.

Most people, including ALL the “experts,” have read the Agreement as if it were a symbiotic arrangement between two ethnic groups, the Slavic and the Greek; instead it is an agreement between two countries. One must bear in mind that, unlike the Greeks in Greece, the Slavs are not a majority in the country that according to the Agreement takes the name “North Macedonia”[sic]. The Republic of Skopje is a multicultural society in which the Slavs are a “majority-minority”. By “majority-minority” I mean that although they constitute the majority of the population against the Albanians when all other ethnic groups are put together, they are a minority.

The Prespa Agreement is the result of Greece’s disagreement over the name of the Republic of Skopje, not Skopje’s independence or existence. The Convention of Montevideo of 1934 is evident in this. Article 3 of the Convention states, “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.” That means that Skopje as a State existed whether anyone had recognized it or not. That was a de facto recognition. A de facto recognition of Skopje said that Greece was represented in Skopje by the Liaison Office, not by an Embassy. Under the current de jure recognition, Greece is represented by an Embassy.

Allow me to regress a little bit. Greece’s objection to the name on the grounds of its national security and the stability of the region was an automatic obstacle to Skopje’s petition to join the United Nations. Skopje could not ascend to UN membership for security reasons. Then the representatives of the EU and permanent members of the Security Council (Britain, France, and non-permanent member - Spain) submitted a plan of confidence-building measures proposing the temporary name “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” without flag raising privileges. The UNSC only then recommended Skopje’s membership to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) which voted unanimously to admit it on April 8, 1993. In the meantime, the current Prime Minister of Greece Constantine Mitsotakis advised the newly elected President of the United States on January 26, 1993, that Greece was ready to compromise on the name issue. Later he revealed that the name of Skopje would be composite and suggested that could be “North Macedonia” “Upper Macedonia” or even “New Macedonia” because in ten years nobody will remember the name Macedonia.

The problem is that in International Law, once the bird gets out of the cage, it does not return to it.

On February 12, 1993, UN forces had already deployed in the territory of Skopje to prevent another regional war. The fact is that the Agreement resulted from the Security Council resolutions 817 (1993) and 845 (1993), and were witnessed by Matthew Nimetz. That alone is enough for one who understands the contemporary political reality. One must bear in mind that the permanent members of the UNSC with veto power are: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. These countries are those who count, and they had sanctioned it.

The Interim Accord of 1995 was designed to afford both countries and the region Confidence-Building Measures which, essentially means it was intended in giving the countries space and time aiming at a slow but gradual in-house cleanup on both sides. The Greek team never took Skopje seriously, treating that state with pity while simultaneously leaving national interests and the national security of Greece unprotected. The Greek side let Skopje run the show leaving the door open to Skopje’s radicalism.

The Communists of Skopje bred the plan of deceit since 1939 basing it on faulty logic and cunning political views. Skopjans weaponized the ancient history of Macedonia (that had nothing to do with any of the Slavic tribes) as a tool for the distraction of the Greek population, and their populist politicians, and still do. Meanwhile, the Skopjans worked (and continue to work) in a similar style that Boris Sarafov had pioneered in 1902. At that time, while Bulgaria supplied the VMRO in its insurrection against the Ottoman Empire, it sent Boris Sarafov to western capitals to win the hearts and minds of high societies and indirectly governments, through propaganda.

However, in 1902, not one Greek thought that the history of ancient Macedonia was the root of the Bulgarian aggression in Macedonia. Not one Bulgarian from within or outside the Principality referred to ancient Macedonian history. Misirkov, the so-called father of Macedonianism, never uttered a statement that connected the Slavs to the ancient Macedonians. After all, he knew better. He was born in Pella and attended a Greek school.

The development of a “Macedonian” society out of the Bulgarian culture started as gradual Bulgarian expansionism, both in the Principality and Macedonia that grew out of a conflation of religion, language, and ethnicity, incorporated into a Bulgarian nationalism while simultaneously Pan-Slavism had been nurtured. However, then, something very thought-provoking happened. The previous convergent state transpired into a dichotomic condition. On the one hand, it enhanced the emergence of a “Macedonian” regionalism out of a Bulgarian background. In turn, the “Macedonian” regionalism espoused Communism as an advocate and vector of equality among the conglomeration of ethnicities of the Ottoman-held region of Macedonia in hopes of gaining their desired objective.

Meanwhile, the Bulgarians of the Principality faithful to their nationalistic sentiment employed every opportunity and privilege that the autonomous political status within the Ottoman Empire afforded to them, and consequently they deployed propagandists to Western European societies seeking assistance in overthrowing the oppressing Ottoman government and replacing it with a “legitimate” Christian lord. Of course, both sides used means of deception aiming solely at achieving their coveted goal, the land of Greek Macedonia. Thus, although the methods of both groups were different, the goal was the same.

Effectively, through the Interim Accord, Greece negotiated anything that proprietarily belonged to her, such as the name Macedonia and Article 7.3, while it allowed Skopje to keep anything it inherited from Yugoslavia, (Interim Accord, Article 12), and also, anything else Skopje’s communist past had provided to it as a matter of precedent. The language of specific provisions in the Interim Accord allowed non-governmental institutions as well as Skopje ultra-nationalistic organizations internally and externally to propagandize against Greece, its culture and inheritance.

The Prespa Agreement, although bilateral, has regional range and one could argue global consequences. It falls under the auspices and mandate of the UNSC for the political side, and after the decision of the ICJ for the legal side, neither State may withdraw from it. Article 3 of the Prespa Agreement solidifies the matter.

I have heard arguments from the “experts” like, “how come the United States had withdrawn from the Convention on Climate Change? Greece could do the same”. The answer here is simple. The people who said such a thing have NOT read the Convention and what it is about. It is a narrow–minded way of seeing things. The Framework Convention on Climate Change (Paris, 30 November to 11 December 2015), provides a stipulation for withdrawal in Article 28. However, Article 20. 9, states, “The provisions of this Agreement shall remain in force for an indefinite period and are irrevocable. No modification to this Agreement contained in Article 1(3) and Article 1(4) is permitted.”

Also, the Prespa Agreement is not voluntary. It derived from the obligation that both parties undertook under the Security Council resolutions 817 (1993) and 845 (1993). Unlike the Municipal Law, which commonly is known as Domestic Law that is based mostly on statutes designed to the particularities of each country, International Law is based on enacted “treaties, international customs, general principles of law as recognized by civilized nations, the decisions of national and lower courts, and scholarly writings, which create many precedents and norms.”

Addressing the specific question, some people believe that if Greece withdraws from this Agreement (I have no idea how), the countries automatically will regress to their Interim Accord. The Interim Accord, which as the word “Interim” alludes to is a Preliminary Agreement between two countries in dispute. They are interconnected.

According to Article 1 of the Prespa Agreement, “[t]his Agreement is final and upon its entry into force terminates the Interim Accord between the Parties signed in New York on 13 September 1995”. That means that Interim Accord is dead – the safety net is gone.

The Interim Accord was never designed nor intended to be the staging point from which the two countries could retreat each time the public opinion on either side nitpicks and waivers its national political choices du jour. Only in the game of Monopoly, one can go backwards – the UNSC is not Monopoly.

Greece’s withdrawal from the Agreement will precipitate celebrations in Skopje and its diaspora. Skopje would return to its “Republic of Macedonia” name while simultaneously getting rid of anything that the Prespa Agreement restrained it from doing; the blame game starts, and every single country in the world will recognize it as Macedonia and eventually Greece will do the same. Domestic instability in Greece could produce mobs who will find and lynch all those who led the country to its potential demise. Skopje will retain all, and everything it inherited from Tito’s Yugoslavia, mainly any bilateral agreements Greece and Yugoslavia signed on June 18, 1959, which includes the Free Zone in Thessaloniki (see Article 12 of the Interim Accord and Article 13 of the Prespa Agreement). Moreover, finally, Turkey will be free to exploit the situation to the fullest. The above is not pure rhetoric – it is genuine.

Returning to the matter of the language, the Agreement on Border Facilitation of June 18, 1959, allowed nationals on both sides of the borders to cross for one day, shop or see relatives without a passport or visa. Political refugees and those communists who committed war crimes in Greece were exempted. Nevertheless, identity cards issued by the Yugoslav side had information printed in Greek, Serbo-Croatian, and “Macedonian” languages. Those given to Greek nationals, the identifications cards included only the Greek and Serb-Croatian languages. The above constituted an indirect, but undisputable recognition of the “Macedonian” language under international law. When you see something wrong, and you do not correct it, you have just accepted a new reality.

As it is now, it is up to Greece to allow or restrain Skopje’s usage of the Free Zone in Thessaloniki. After Greece’s withdrawal from the Prespa Agreement, Skopje could easily demand applicability of the Law of the Sea Article 62.2 “Utilization of the living resources,” Article 69 “Right of land-locked States” and Article 70 “Right of geographically disadvantaged States.” Also, Skopje could easily invoke the Declaration Recognizing the Right to a Flag of States Having no Sea Coast, co-signed in Barcelona April 20, 1921, by Greece and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. Skopje, as an heir of that kingdom, has the right to build its commercial fleet. Also, Convention on the High Seas of 1958, Article 3 refers to states with no coast, e.g., Skopje, have the right to their merchant fleet if they so choose. Such merchant fleet will have the same rights and privileges as the merchant fleet of the littoral states. Whether Skopje is capable of doing it or not is irrelevant at this point.

Greece will not be able to do anything to stop Skopje or Turkey and why not Albania and Bulgaria because it will be the pariah of the world and has NO independent professional lobby in Washington DC to somehow help. I would not expect anything from a “lobby” where members are self-deceived patting themselves on the back. For as long as governments of Greece finance such a "lobby" they choose to include docile people who depend on money but also favors from politicians. The fact is that not one Greek politician wants to see us politically dynamic and united. Not one.

One MUST always bear in mind:

International Law supersedes Municipal Law (aka Domestic Law);

If it’s a treaty or an agreement, especially those that include recognition of international frontiers, it is irrevocable;

If the diplomatic instrument is in force, it is considered ratified. There is NO way back. The Prespa Agreement is in effect as of February 12, 2019.

​In your opinion, what will the next 5 to 10 years look like because of the Prespa Agreement?

It is impossible for anyone to predict the future in general and the outlook of countries, especially the prospect of the region. Nonetheless, I could easily say that I foresee a border adjustment in the area; the question is whether it is going to occur in ten or 20 years from now, what form it is going to have.

I do expect changes in the Republic of Skopje. Whether such changes would be gradual through a series of legislative processes or impetuous as a result of political mishandling of given situations. Only time will tell. It will be an issue of geopolitical and geostrategic necessities of the time. The world political climate is drastically changing, and it will become worse; a mixed bag of populism, sensationalism, and egocentricity diminishes leadership skills among governing behaviors. Education, foresight, and vision will become more and more a thing of the past, giving way to “what is in it for me” attitude of emulously ambitious individuals.

I do feel that as soon as the Albanian population of Skopje becomes the majority of the country, it will hold a referendum for self-determination sanctioned by its own Albanian led government. The foundation for that will be Article 1.3.b of the Prespa Agreement. The next step will be Ilirida as Albanians of Skopje call their region and will unite with Kosovo. Whether these two Albanian led governments will unite with Albania will depend on their citizens and not on the citizens of Albania. The latter culturally has fallen behind as a result of very long-term isolation. Catching up with the Albanians of the former Yugoslavia will take some time. Although international law allows self-determination of a region under certain conditions, it does not permit the region’s secession from the parent country.

Greece, on the other hand, had better be careful, leaving the mentality of «Ωχ, αδελφέ, δε βαριέσαι. Όλοι περαστικοί είμαστε από αυτόν τον κόσμο• μήπως οι άλλοι είναι καλλίτεροι; όλοι αδέλφια, Χριστιανοί είμαστε» leaving it to someone else, or they might not have a country to call home. I fail to see why only Greeks are the bleeding and compassionate hearts.

As it concerns the region, it is time for the Balkan Peninsula to start emphasizing its geostrategic prominence by initiating an international system of waterway/canal (Axios - Morava Rivers) from Belgrade to Thessaloniki for commercial use, diminishing thus the already corroded importance of the Straits and consequently of Turkey. Such a system would allow all countries of Central Europe and the Black Sea to use the Seaport of Thessaloniki as the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea, to Gibraltar, and Suez (Templar 2014). Economic growth is always the window to prosperity. That is what makes people happy.

And, a question specifically for us in the diaspora...will the Greek and Skopje Slav diasporas ever reconcile their differences? What will need to happen for this reconciliation to take place?

To begin with, Diasporas are easier to galvanize than those who live in the home countries. Diasporas tend to keep traditions to resist assimilation by other cultures. Perhaps not much at present because of communications, but in the past, they lived in a time warp. Those of the diaspora that often travel home are milder than those who were born abroad or rarely visited their ancestral land.

Slowly a reconciliation will happen, when all con artists from both sides wise up and find another way to make a living than bilking financially the naïve and emotionally disturbed individuals, save a deplorable incident, they will reconcile their differences. Greeks have to be vigilant. Greeks by culture forget easily; Slavs do not. It will take about 100 to 150 years with the right education to achieve it. It is not love for the country as the extremists proclaim; it is sick egocentricity because whatever has happened, it had not in the fashion they wanted it to happen. Instead of oil, they rub salt on the wounds of the past. When both extremists understand that their home countries must live in peace, then reconciliation will transpire. I am NOT saying it will be easy, but it is a must.

However, for now, we have to deal with political Pharisees, whom St. Matthew suggested to “Stay away from them. They are blind leaders. Moreover, if a blind man leads another blind man, then both men will fall into a ditch” (Gospel of St. Matthew, chapter 15, verse 14).

Although you are very well known in political circles in Greece, why do you think successive Greek governments have never asked for your advice or help?

Politicians of Greece of ALL parties seek and receive advice only from those they know to agree with their shenanigans. One could call such people wishy-washy. Such people are those who somehow depend on various governments of Greece either for monthly income to “promote” the interests of Greece and the Greek culture abroad, but also those who have properties in Greece which somehow happened to have some fiduciary facilitation. Anytime something big is going on in Greece, one sees the same people are sought for advice. Even a downright stupid one would have assessed the perpetual failings of such policy. When one sees the advice one gets from the same people, it is wise to change advisors. However, such a thought would impede the mutual “understanding” of both parties.

About 12 years ago, it was suggested that I help Greece on the issue of Skopje’s name dispute. The message that came from the Greek Embassy in Washington, DC, was, “Μα, αυτός μας βρίζει.” Sidetracking the fact that at that time, social media was nonexistent except e-mails, it seems there were a good number of “well-wishers” that passed my e-mails to the Greek Embassy. Nonetheless, to my knowledge, nobody from the MFA questioned themselves “why” was I cussing them? Had they done something for the benefit of Greece, I would not say anything wrong; I would have applauded them. Mrs. Bakoyanni, Dei gratia Prime Minister Con Karamanlis, was selling Greece to Mr. Milososki, one centimeter per day.

However, political parties in Greece have no national legislative agenda that boosts the standard of living of the Greek populace nor have they a foreign policy that supports and galvanizes Greece’s national interests and national security. The last two institutions are based on the goals the declaration of independence of Greece had set in 1822. Goals or reasons that Greeks declared their independence in Epidavros in January of 1822 were Justice, Personal Freedom, Ownership, and Honor. These goals cannot and have not changed. The [s]elected politicians of the Greek spectrum are those who have not changed their mindset. They still operate under the mentality that the Sultanate allowed them to govern the rayas. The people of Greece have only changed masters from the Sultan to the local kodjabashis and hospodars who from first-tier slaves to the Sultan now they are first tier slaves to their ego and personal prosperity. Moreover, to succeed in their endeavor, they bribe their constituents, awarding them with government positions (θεσούλες) as if the loyalty of the people is to the party and its representatives instead of the country.

I have talked to a couple of politicians who in my personal belief have earnestly tried to do something for the country. Their predicament was that people based on political contacts and connections expected a special treatment to the detriment of others who did not have the privilege to know someone.

These people and their “yes men” entourage have only one goal. When they are in opposition, the only aim they have is to remove the governing party from power. Conversely, when they are in government, their task is to stay in government. So, it comes down to this: it makes NO difference who governs. They govern the same way no matter what the political party. They do anything to achieve such goals. Such is the ONLY policy they have and goes across the political spectrum. Also, the hiring system has nothing to do with merit. It has everything to do with who knows whom.

When I see someone thinking about the national interests and national security of Greece in earnest, I will help, provided I am asked to help, not by a specific political party in power, but to help Greece.

One must keep in mind that politicians have shaped the mentality of the Greek people through the education they’ve enacted. To understand the mindset of the Greek politician, the same politician who “educates” the people of Greece, one must read the book, The Education of a Russian Statesman, the Biography of Nicholas Karlovich Giers, by Charles and Barbara Jelavich, Berkeley: University of California, 1962. The Introduction of Part 2 of the book is especially relevant to the behavior of the Greek politician of today.

Here are a couple of segments found on page 125 of the book above:
​

“However, for the political future of the principalities [Walachia and Moldova], the social system inaugurated under this rule was far more significant than the immediate economic effect of Phanariote corruption. The Greeks in their dealings with the local inhabitants duplicated in tone and performance the attitude which their Moslem overlords adopted toward the subject Christians. Contemporary travelers in the principalities were appalled by the atmosphere of the courts and the "pure despotism exercised by a Greek prince who is himself, at the same time, an abject slave." (William MacMichael, Journey from Moscow to Constantinople in the Years 1817, 1818 (London: John Murray, 1819), p. 107)”.

“The Phanariote princes were overbearing and arrogant toward their subordinates. To make their own fortunes and to meet the payments to Constantinople, they sold the offices under their control and exacted extraordinary taxes and contributions to the fullest extent of their power. Corruption, initiated at the top, extended down to the lowest levels of administration. Since all offices were sold, the holder of any position tried to recoup his losses from those below him. Moreover, even among the few most powerful families, no common accepted standards of conduct existed.

“In the words of a member of a great Phanariote family, Nicolas Soutzos: "[How] to prevail over its competitors and [how] to achieve this, [and] to employ insidious means whose use was only encouraged by the Turks, was the constant occupation of the Greeks of the Phanar: a ceaseless struggle whose stake was always their fortune and often their life." (the original text: "L’emporter sur ses compétiteurs et pour y parvenir, employer les moyens insidieux dont l'usage n'était que trap encourage par les Turcs, telle était la constante occupation des Grecs du Phanar: lutte incessante dont l' enjeu était toujours leur fortune et bien souvent leur vie." Nicolas Soutzo, Memoires du Prince Nicolas Souizo, Grand Logothete de Moldavie, 1798-1871 (Vienna: Gerold, 1899), p. 4.”

Last year the Macedonian League publicly sought the stability of the Greek government. Some agreed. Many fought against the position and attempted to skew our call for stability. Explain the need for stability of the Greek government.

At first, I must explain that the Macedonian League's call for political stability took place about six months before it was announced that a final agreement between Skopje and Athens had taken place. One of the very relevant politicians of Greece thought that I was in favor of Skopje’s name that would include the word “Macedonia.” I gave him a couple of names that I would go for, as Central Balkan Republic, South Slavonia. However, I knew in my heart that it would be impossible because of the position of the Greek MFA since the party of New Democracy (2004–2009), which not only had accepted a name that would include “Macedonia” with a geographic designation, but also Mrs. Bakoyanni (Feb 15, 2006 – Oct. 7, 2009) was entertaining the idea that any name would be for “international use only”.

Greece has seen a lot of instability. Since 1821, Greece had three civil wars, five bankruptcies, a few political upheavals, which had resulted in The National Schism. The latter brought the defeat of the Greek Army in Sangarios River and Afion Karahisar the reasons behind the loss of Smyrna. Another one of the political upheavals in the 1960s brought the seven-year dictatorship (1967-1974) to the stage which was followed by the tilting of Greece, dangerously I might add, to the left. The organization ΑΣΠΙΔΑ (Αξιωματικοί Σώσατε Πατρίδα, Ιδέα, Δημοκρατία, Αξιοκρατία), which until late 1980 was treated as a total lie which was used as an excuse for the 1967 dictatorship. Of course, nobody was talking about the involvement of Andreas Papandreou. In reality, the whole affair was very accurate.

In the middle of March of 1967, at the call of Ενιαία Δημοκρατική Αριστερά (ΕΔΑ) in silent cooperation with Ένωση Κέντρου (ΕΚ), farmers brought tractors, threshing machines and other farming equipment and other vehicles coming from all over had effectively sieged Thessaloniki. Brigadier General Andreas Erselman of the III Army Corps was ordered to send armored units to open all roads leading to Thessaloniki. About one month later, the Colonels took over. I had just turned 19.

Consequently, I do not want to see Greece suffering the consequences of characters with limited understanding of the present world. Tunnel vision is not a way of seeing the world. They should take a few steps back and then they can see. All the clueless individuals lead movements!

My birthplace has suffered enough in the hands of irresponsible politicians since the assassination of Count Ioannis Kapodistrias in September of 1831. The last thing Greece needs at this point is a bunch of egomaniacs who in the name of their pseudo-patriotism are ready to throw the country into chaos and even bloodshed destroying the crumbs of prosperity and dignity the people of Greece have left with, in order to get the desired results for their kicks.

The fact is that the political leadership of the country regardless of political leanings and social capital with their silence have sanctioned the auction of the national interests and endangerment of the national security of Greece since 1950 and especially since 1991. They cared more about their political party and ideology than the welfare of their country.

Greece’s adventures start in the mindset of its citizens who when they enjoy the fruits of corruption, forget that they will pay for their choice in the future. However, when it is time for them to pay, they forget their past choice claiming that it is not their fault. There is a Greek word which encapsulates the behavior of individuals that use no common sense, who instead, repeat the same mistakes many times over while maintaining an attitude of self-righteousness. It is up to the reader to figure it out.

The issue of the Macedonian State goes back to 1924 and specifically regarding Skopje it retrogresses to November 1950 and the normalization process of Greece with Yugoslavia. For those who now scream foul it is too late. Where had they been ten, twenty, or even twenty five years ago? I was yelling “national security,” and their answer was “Alexander the Great was Greek.” I still have the e-mails.

Finally, we also need stability in the diaspora. I received the following message from Melbourne. It refers to the issue of the Melbourne University Macedonian [sic] Student Society - MUMSS and their alliance with the Turk and Albanian students against anything Greek.
​
“Unfortunately, all the good and intelligent members of the community have been disheartened, blocked and have moved away from the Greek Community. Most who get involved have no experience in lobbying. The ones involved with the community are mainly professionals who have a Greek background and want to promote themselves and then the Greek culture. In comparison with the Skopjan lobby groups in America, Australia and Canada, they have been able to sway politicians' minds and made them support the Skopjan narrative. Look at the fine inactivity by our NUGAS, AMAC and Pan Mac organisations in Australia. They still have not taken any action or even made a statement, regarding the Skopjan Student university association!

I suppose they [Greek organizations] are in winter hibernation!

Anyway, dear sir, it will be up to the individuals to take on the might of the Turkish, Albanian and Skopjan Lobby groups head on."

​I concluded with the following statement [to him]: “If
I were to write a book on IMRO and Skopje, leading to the Prespa agreement, I would call it:
Greece’s path to the Prespa Agreement:
A centennial journey through endless governing ineptitude,
political arrogance, institutionalized ignorance and widespread gullibility.
0 Comments

Melbourne University MUMSS students use taxpayer money to fund racial hatred against Greeks

6/1/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
Professor Duncan Maskell
Vice-Chancellor
​The University of Melbourne 

​
​
Dear Professor Maskell,

We are writing to inform you of a serious on-campus event that has breached the peaceful coexistence of different races and ethnic groups within Australia.

A body of University of Melbourne students recently violated the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 [1]. This group has not only challenged the sensitivities of Australian citizens of Greek descent but aimed to incite a forceful response from Greek-Australian students.

​Students from the ‘Melbourne University Macedonian [sic] Student Society - MUMSS' [2] recently displayed the Star of Vergina [3] on a red background (a trademarked World Intellectual Property Organization protected symbol of the Greek Government), via a clubs and societies banner funded by the University of Melbourne Student Union (UMSU) [4][5][6]. Furthermore, they illegally displayed the symbol as the “flag of the country of Macedonia” [sic] and not the officially recognized, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) “flag of the country of North Macedonia [7].”
PictureThe committees of the Macedonian[sic] and Turkish student societies at South Lawn / MUMSS Facebook
The tension over ownership of the Sun of Vergina arose in the early 90’s, when the government of the then Republic of “Macedonia”[sic] replaced its socialist era-flag (that bore the five-pointed star shared by all Yugoslav republics), with a new Vergina star flag, suggesting deeper historical associations and territorial claims over the land of ancient Macedonia – which is an integral part of Greece.

On 16 February 1993, the Greek Parliament passed a law establishing the “Sun of Vergina” (aka Vergina Star) as a Greek national symbol. The law did not specify the background colour to be used, which means the star cannot be used on any background to instil hatred, racism or be the subject of aggravation to others.

Illegal use of the symbol threatened regional peace and stability in the Balkan Peninsula. The UNSC accepted Greece’s objections to the name of the new country, its newly adopted flag and its expansionistic references, and did not allow the Republic of “Macedonia” [sic] to enter the UN. Only after Greece’s approval, did the Security Council (Res 817/1993) unanimously approve the new state’s accession to the UN under the provisional name ‘Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ (FYROM) on 7 April 1993. The approval came with no flag hoisting rights.

In September 1995, an Interim Accord was signed that established the confidence-building measures leading to the current final Agreement between the two countries – the Prespes Agreement [8], signed on 12 June 2018. The new name of the FYROM is “North Macedonia” [sic].  

PicturePresident of the Turkish Society Metin Can along with
President of the Macedonian[sic] Society Alexandra Anastasov / MUMSS Facebook
Use of this flag has therefore been illegal since 1993 (UNSC Res. 817 and 845), and its illegality has been covered by articles 2.3 of the Interim Accord and Article 3 of the Prespes Agreement.

The question we are therefore asking is: why did the students illegally use a Greek national symbol and not the official flag, name, and symbol of their republic?

The answer is simple: racial hatred and political advertising.

The Racial Vilification Act defines racial hatred as being unlawful to insult, humiliate, offend, or intimidate another person or group in public based on their race. Specifically, the Act states: It is unlawful for a person to do an act in public, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people, and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour, or national or ethnic origin of the other person or some or all of the people in the group.

A variety of acts can constitute racial hatred, including speaking, singing and making gestures in public, as well as drawings, images, and written publications such as newspapers, leaflets, and websites.

The student photos and their actions illustrated here, clearly offend, insult, and humiliate the Greek Community and are in direct violation of the Act. They have also violated the use of amenities fees, which should be used in strict accordance with the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and the Administration Guidelines made under the Act.

The students further aggravated, offended, insulted and humiliated the Greek-Australian Community by posing next to Turkish flags with these illegal, expansionist flags. The Vergina star flag was never part of their history, because it represents the Hellenism of Ancient Macedonians.

Professor Maskell, UMSU operations are funded annually by the university and the government on the percentage of votes made every year at student union elections. Under the Higher Education Support Act, providers must confirm with the Australian Government that fees were spent strictly by the Act and the Representation Guidelines made under the Act, and only on allowable services and amenities.

Clearly, funding and displaying a large banner of the WIPO-protected Greek Star of Vergina due to racial hatred and for political advertising contravenes the act. The students and their union should have exercised appropriate caution and not used tax-payer funds to incite racial hatred.

We are therefore requesting that The University of Melbourne urgently investigates this on-campus breach of the Racial Discrimination Act and the Department of Education and Training investigates these allegations of non-compliance under the Higher Education Support Act 2003.

We also want to be advised on the outcome of these allegations and any penalties to be applied for breaching these requirements as soon as possible.

Department of Communications
The Macedonian League

cc:
Department of Education and Training
​President of the University of Melbourne Students Union
President of the Melbourne University Greek Association (MUNGA)
Minister of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Embassy of the Hellenic Republic in Canberra
Consulate General of the Hellenic Republic in Melbourne
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic
General Secretariat of Greeks Abroad
Greek-Australian community associations
Australian politicians

Australian media
  ​
About the Macedonian League
We are an international professional Hellenic advocacy group. Our primary purpose is to advance our interests to informed and responsive governments on issues concerning Greece's national security and territorial integrity.

As of 12 February 2019, the Macedonian League's main focus is on the “Prespes Agreement", as this Agreement is a serious national security issue that threatens the territorial integrity of Greece and the regional stability of the Balkans.

The Macedonian League also focuses on exposing and combating anti-Hellenism and analyzing political developments in Skopje.


For more information, follow us on: Website, Facebook, Twitter

0 Comments

Nation’s new name becomes North Macedonia election issue

4/15/2019

0 Comments

 
[DISCLAIMER: The Macedonian League does not recognize the term North Macedonia as stated in some articles]
PictureThe Prime Minister and leader of the ruling Social Democrats, Zoran Zaev (l) and Stevo Pendarovski (r) presidential candidate greet their supporters during the central electoral rally for the Presidential election in front of the EU info center in Skopje, Sunday.
The Prespes accord has emerged as a hot issue in North Macedonia’s upcoming presidential election.

Center-left candidate Stevo Pendarovski defended the name change at a campaign rally in the capital of Skopje on Sunday. He reminded the rally crowd that it was part of a deal with Greece that paves the way for NATO membership.

Conservative candidate Siljanovska Davkova blamed the current government for the “painful” name change on Saturday and accused it of corruption and nepotism.

North Macedonia and Greece reached a deal last year to end an almost three-decade dispute over the Baklan country’s name. The name change was one of the deal terms.

The election is April 21. North Macedonia’s prime minister is head of government, the president is head of state.

Source: Ekathimerini [via AP]

0 Comments

Petition to the Greek Government

3/8/2019

0 Comments

 
Marcus A. Templar, National Security Advisor | Macedonian League
PictureMarcus A. Templar
National Security Advisor, Macedonian League
Due to the rapid developments following the ratification of the agreement between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on the final and official name of the latter, I appeal to all competent authorities of Greece to keep at all costs what remains of the name Macedonia, its derivatives and whatever implies such a name.

This appeal is of direct and pressing importance for the prevention of abuses, denunciations and other deliberate offenses, particularly from the diaspora of Skopje which, as they show things, intends to follow the old tactics of the challenges and to attract world public opinion that the "Macedonians" passed in the hands of the Greeks. Already there has been such propaganda in Greece.

This appeal publicizes a simple path to address the continued harassment of Greeks abroad, especially those from our Macedonia.

Neither the present nor future governments of Greece should ever relax the oversight and enforcement of the contents of the Prespes agreement.

Regardless of the content of articles 4, 5, and 6 of the agreement and in order to avoid unpleasant, distressing and irritating incidents that the diaspora of Skopje intend to cause, especially in Australia, I would suggest to the Greek government to take some necessary measures in hopes that they will not leave anything to chance.

It is very wise that Greek representatives abroad listen to what the Greek diaspora has and will have to say. When I visited Australia in 2010 for a series of lectures, the Greek diaspora complained that the appropriate department of the Greek MFA was indifferent ignoring their warnings. The Greek diaspora knows the Skopjan diaspora much better than the officials of the Greek MFA. I know from personal experience that the latter have no idea how Governments in other countries work, although they are the first to opine about on the topic making suggestions.

I would respectfully recommend to the pertinent Minister or the designated Department to create a section either by itself or within the Department A3 of the Ministry dealing with the country and the diaspora of Skopje with seriousness and responsibility. The Skopjans in the diaspora have already begun to attack anything Greek in violation of the provisions of articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the agreement in an effort to deprive the right of Greek organizations to include the name Macedonia and mislead the unfamiliar with the issue population of countries they live in claiming that the name Macedonia and its derivatives represent the Slavic history and heritage exclusively.

I predict legal challenges and similar harassment of Greek organizations on the part of organizations and individuals within the diaspora of Skopje through foreign governmental agencies and even judiciary.

​As odd as it may seem, it would be wise to inform the head of Greek diplomatic missions of all countries, and particularly those who have extensive Skopjan diaspora on the contents of article 7 (history, language, heritage, and so on). The recent photo and other indicate how seriously the articles 7 and 8 are taken into consideration by the Skopjan diaspora.

​It is also a reasonable argument for the Greek diplomatic missions to collect and to systematically report to the competent authorities of Greece all breaches of the final agreement (Agreement of Prespes) instigated by the diaspora of Skopje, as well as by representatives of the Government and of Church. The latter is the most likely source of violations. Also, the same service should be watching the movements of "The National Aegean Macedonian Council of Australia", which is a branch of the "World Macedonian Congress," as well as the organization of the "United Macedonian Diaspora." The last one is in alliance with the Heritage Foundation located in Washington, DC.

The entire content of irredentism that under the Prespes Agreement prohibits could easily be duplicated abroad and spread to the diaspora of Skopje. Although local laws of each country protect freedom of speech, it does not mean that actors inciting violence should be protected under the cloak of the same.

About similar activities of Greek organizations, I want to reassure the politicians of Greece that the Greek organizations are harmless. Bark a lot, but they do not bite.

Although the diaspora of Skopje is extraordinarily organized and active, on the contrary, Greek organizations are extremely busy fighting among themselves about who is going to be the Supreme President, what title s/he should have, and which of the organizations involved in the fight should be the prominent within the Greek diaspora and representative of all other organizations.

Also, all extraneous people of the diaspora who «know» everything regarding the "national issues" of Greece although they know absolutely nothing about Greece’s “national interests” and consequently “national security” of Greece, nor understand their true meaning and how they are formed, get together in radio and tv shows to discuss them. At the end of such appearances, the person who swears nastier and yells louder emerges more “Patriot” and of course the “winner.” They who laugh at this nonsense are considered "traitors".

Whether diplomatic officials abroad or officials of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs or generally politicians of Greece are responsible for the ultimate inertia and inaction of Greece regarding the name issue, is an internal matter of the Parliament and the Ministry and it does not involve anyone outside the political world. What counts is that the diaspora needs the help of the home country and not its slap.

Be wise the MFA to take preventive measures to avoid nasty complications in the future. We have been tired with the "Oh, man, don’t bother me - we are all brothers." Something like this applies only to the Greeks, not to the Skopjans. They do not have such expressions in their speech.

About Marcus A. Templar
Professor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Signal Intelligence and All-Source Intelligence Analyst.  During his career as a U.S. Intelligence Officer, besides organizational duties, he discharged the responsibilities of a U.S. Army Observer/Controller, Instructor of Intelligence Courses specializing in Deconstruction of Strategies, Foreign Disclosures Officer, and Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian. 
 
He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.
0 Comments

North Macedonia issues reference guideline for media

2/23/2019

0 Comments

 
[DISCLAIMER: The Macedonian League does not recognize the term North Macedonia as stated in some articles]
Picture
The foreign ministry of North Macedonia on Friday issued a guideline for international media on how to refer to the country and its citizens, based on the elements of the Prespes accord signed with Greece.

The ministry said the official name of the country is “Republic of North Macedonia,” or in short “North Macedonia,” and the nationality (citizenship) is Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia.

The official language is "Macedonian language,” and the country codes are MK and MKD.

It said the adjective “Macedonian” is to be used when relating to “ethnic and cultural identity of the people, our language, history, culture, heritage, territory and other attributes,” noting that such terms “are distinctly different from those used and related to the region of Macedonia in Greece.”

The ministry said proper examples of the use of the word “Macedonia” would include Macedonian ethnic identity, Macedonian language, Macedonian culture, Macedonian territory, Macedonian people, Macedonian history, etc., noting that the adjective “North” should not be used in the aforementioned context.

When writing about state entities, media should refer to the government of the Republic of North Macedonia, the president of North Macedonia, the minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of North Macedonia, North Macedonia’s defence minister, North Macedonia’s municipality of Ohrid, the University of St. Cyril and Methodius of North Macedonia.

Other correct examples of references include the Macedonian economy, the health sector of the Republic of North Macedonia, Macedonian art, Macedonian music, Macedonian agriculture, Macedonian architecture etc.

Source: Ekathimerini English

0 Comments

FYROM NATO accession protocol approved by Parliamentary Committee

2/7/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
The accession protocol for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to join NATO under the new name North Macedonia was approved by a Parliamentary Committee on Thursday.

The protocol is to go the House plenary on Friday for debate followed by a vote which is expected to approve it, bringing FYROM one step closer to joining the alliance.
 
Ahead of the discussion on Thursday, Independent Greeks leader Panos Kammenos, who quit the government over Greece's name deal with FYROM last month, called for an enhanced majority of 180 votes in the 300-seat House for the protocol which, he said, cedes Greek sovereign rights. 

​Source: Kathimerini English

0 Comments

The Macedonia naming dispute, the mass rallies and the hoodlums – The genie is out of the bottle

1/25/2019

0 Comments

 
PictureMarcus A. Templar
National Security Advisor, Macedonian League
By Marcus A. Templar

Political rallies in a democracy are nothing new or unusual, and not illegal. People have the right to express their views peacefully. What I saw the other day was anything but a peaceful political rally.

Organizing a political rally is not an easy task. In general, one must consider obtainment of permits, ensure publicity, ascertain the projected presence of attendees, secure the procurement of visual effects such as appropriate slogans, flags, sound and lighting systems. One must acquire bullhorns for use by designated “cheerleaders” who are responsible for announcing certain slogans on the subject matter and in the case on the Greekness of Macedonia. In addition, the organizing committee is in control to appoint someone to be the Master of Ceremonies (MC) of the rally who would introduce the speakers. The committee should establish that all written scripts of everyone’s remarks (including of the MC) are reviewed, and have an extra copy of all comments about the subject at hand. Also, it is wise to line up backup speakers in case of emergencies. It is advisable to procure transportation mainly busses to avoid unnecessary traffic in and around the area of the rally but also to avoid any inconvenience of the attendees who come from various points of the general area to the specific location.

​
Two significant factors that I would consider as necessary are the traffic marshals and the legislators. The first ones, the traffic marshals are needed to discharge the duties of directing the crowds before, during, and after the rally. It is much advisable to disperse vests preferably yellow with the distinctive insignia of the rally. The responsibility of the traffic marshals includes, but not limited to the control of the crowds from overreacting, and worst, being carried away to violent and unfortunate events. The presence of the marshals is also crucial mainly to avoid the crowds taken advantage by thugs whose designated job is to disrupt the rally and become the center of attention with atrocities that would convert a peaceful rally to an out of control mob. The last, but not least measure is to visit beforehand the legislators who sympathize or even empathize with the cause at hand. Bring them with you, if it is achievable. Appoint them as ad hoc speakers, if it is possible. Most importantly persuade the legislators whose district is the area that the rally takes place to be present.

I only saw some photographs and videos of the political rally of January 20, 2019. It was disappointing at best, disgusting at worst. The organizing committee considering only the purity of the purpose of the rally left almost everything to chance. They should know better. In the last years, it happens anytime a political rally takes place, especially when it has to do with issues of national interests and national security. Don’t they remember what happened at Prespes during the signing of the Agreement?

In this case, the demonstrators were divided into two camps. Those who participated to express their patriotic feelings and the hoodlums, about 30-50 of them who went to the location only to create trouble and havoc. I wonder, what did they think they were going to achieve? The only thing they succeeded in doing was to tarnish the goals of the rally.

The hoodlums were organized and equipped with gas masks, face masks, and some of them with helmets. They were supplied with rocks, paint, flares, fireworks and other objects. Those with the flares had to have very thick gloves to handle the flares since flares get extremely hot seconds after they are lit.

The thugs weaponized the patriotic feelings of the crowd trying to get into the Parliament. I read somewhere that some of them are members of Parliament. If it is the case, and there is evidence to that effect, I hope they are deprived of their parliamentary immunity and charged as common criminals.

One might ask whether the organizing committee put on a façade of a peaceful, patriotic demonstration using these goons to do their dirty work. If that’s the case, the whole thing is a sad comedy perhaps even a nightmare with all patriotic Greeks as they were used as its background actors. However, then, why should the children suffer from the effects of the tear gas? It raises the question, “since the police have used tears gas in the past, why did parents take their children to the political rally?” People should refrain from taking young children to political rallies since they are easily susceptible to trauma.

I am not impressed with the handling of the situation by the police. The police reacted as amateurs, and according to some they acted as if they were collaborators of the attacking hoodlums. I heard that the government had deployed 1,500 policemen. Where were they and doing what? It gave rise to conspiracy theories that the police were in cahoots with the hoodlums. I do not know whether it is true or not; however, what I know is that, in the past, any time the police had arrested a few of the troublemakers they were ordered from higher authorities to let them go. The police know who the scalawags are, but because of political connections, nothing happens to them. As a result, these thugs not only do not learn, but they are emboldened knowing that they are untouchables

"These people here are asleep."

If one thinks that the problem with the name started in 1991, one has no idea what one is talking about. In international law the genie must stay in the bottle; if the genie is out of the bottle, the genie is out of the bottle. Regardless of how one feels about it, there is no return.

It is time that people stop seeing the situation from a partisan prism. Greece is in a bad position because of negligence, indifference, and mainly political tribalism which has positioned it above the country. Such behavior is blamable; it will haunt the country for a long time to come.

Since 1950, ALL political parties, old and new, of ALL political persuasions are equally responsible for the present mess. Each one of them set a stone in the foundation of the problem or contributed by mixing the cement. They had created one problem after another, and then they kicked the can for the other party to deal with it, and the other, and the other and now we are where we are.

The demonstrators demanded that Greeks should hold a referendum on the name issue. I hate to say it, but it is too late. That could happen immediately after Skopje had announced their referendum in 2008 just after Greece had blocked Skopje from membership to NATO; it was the time that the Parliament of Greece was convened to revise the Constitution. Why didn’t the New Democracy Party change Article 44 paragraph 2 of the Constitution to allow voters to demand a referendum? Where were the “super-patriots” at that time? Why did the same people close their mouths when Mrs. Dora Bakoyanni was selling Macedonia to Milososki one centimeter at a time? At that time Constantine Karamanlis was the Prime Minister, and Dora Bakoyanni was the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Furthermore, where were they after the same people realized that Greece gave away the name of Macedonia to the Slavs through the Interim Accord of 1995? I had suggested that we staged demonstrations before the diplomatic missions of Greece; I was turned down flat. Where were these “super-patriots”?

On February 26, 2006, I wrote the article A Lesson on Democracy which was published by the Website Hellenic Communication Service of Christos and Mary Papoutsy. When one reads the article one understands that indifference, negligence, procrastination, and sloppiness do not pay. As a good friend of mine put it, “This immature or infantile or – at the very least – an adolescent way of handling serious issues is becoming a Greek trademark. Where are those heroes, those scrupulous, self-sacrificing patriots who once did everything out of love for Greece?”

I am closing with a quote from a book I have started writing. It refers to the situation in Athens during the Macedonian Struggle.


Such conduct of the MFA, unfortunately, is nothing new. Indifference, negligence, procrastination, and sloppiness employed by the Greek political elite and the bureaucrats of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) only impeded the work of the Greek resistance against the Bulgarians in Macedonia. Besides, such an attitude gave the impression to the Great Powers that the Greek population of Macedonia was non-existent since the only ones fighting for freedom were the Bulgarians.

The behavior and reaction of the Greek political elite between 1878 and 1904 were at best inexcusable. To this effect was Pavlos Melas’ message to Bishop Karavangelis “I have read your report at the Ministry [of Foreign Affairs]. These people here are asleep. What can I do?” The importance of Macedonia was remarked by Pavlos Melas to George Sourlas, the principal of a school at Nymphaion, "Macedonia is the lung of Greece; without it, the rest of Greece would be condemned to death."

0 Comments

​Vote on Prespes name deal expected to take place on Thursday night in Greek Parliament

1/21/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
A vote on the Prespes name deal is expected to take place in Greece's Parliament on Thursday night with debate having started at committee level on Monday afternoon before moving to the plenary, House speaker Nikos Voutsis said Monday.

The decision was preceded by much debate about the composition of the foreign affairs committee which is to examine the accord before it goes to the plenary session in view of several recent changes involving MPs switching leaving the Potami and Movement for Change parties.

As a result, Spyros Danellis, who was ejected from Potami for backing the government in last week's confidence vote, is to sit on the committee as an independent.

Independent Greeks (AN.EL) leader Panos Kammenos, who quit the coalition on January 13, is to replace ANEL MP Konstantinos Katsikis as the party's representative on the panel.

Following the ejection of Thanassis Theoharopoulos from KINAL, the party's second seat on the committee is to be filled by an independent to be chosen by lot.

​With the current balance in the committee, 28 MPs are in favor of the deal with 27 against.

​Source: Kathimerini

0 Comments

Tsipras wins confidence vote with 151 majority, paving way for Prespes deal

1/16/2019

0 Comments

 
PicturePrime Minister Alexis Tsipras speaking
in the Greek Parliament
Following two days of vehement debate in Parliament, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras won a motion of confidence in his government late on Wednesday with 151 votes in favor and 148 against.

Attention now shifts to a vote on the "North Macedonia" name deal, which is expected to come to Parliament early next week and whose passage is less certain. 

In a speech to MPs before the vote, Tsipras said a vote of confidence in his government amounted to a vote for “stability.” “I took the risk showing political courage because what we have ahead of us demands clear solutions,” he said. 

For his part, New Democracy leader Kyriakos Mitsotakis reiterated his call for general elections and warned that a confidence vote in the government was like an “approval of the shipwrecked state of the country over the last four years.” He also said it “will pave the way for the recognition of a so-called Macedonian ethnicity and language, as stated in the Prespes accord.” 

However, Tsipras cited a note verbale issued by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia yesterday which provided further assurances with regard to Greek concerns over the name accord.

Tsipras said the note reaffirms that the term “nationality” refers exclusively to nationality and does not designate or predetermine the ethnicity of FYROM’s people. Moreover, it also groups Macedonian in the Slavic group of languages.

The outlook for a vote on the Prespes deal between Greece and FYROM, which is expected in the coming days, was unclear.

Centrist To Potami leader Stavros Theodorakis did not confirm whether his party would support the pact as it had initially pledged to do. He simply declared that a vote of confidence in the government was tantamount to support for the Prespes deal but contended that the opposite does not apply. “A positive vote for the Prespes deal does not mean a vote of confidence in the government,” he said. 

The outcome of the Prespes vote is largely dependent on how Potami will vote. Tsipras can count on up to 149 votes at the moment – from the 145 SYRIZA MPs, Deputy Citizens’ Protection Minister Katerina Papacosta, who is an independent MP, Spyros Danellis, an independent who was thrown out of Potami, Independent Greeks MP Thanasis Papachristopoulos and Tourism Minister Elena Kountoura. 

The government had also originally counted on Theodorakis, who has described the approval of the deal as a “patriotic duty.”

However, his position is complicated by the fact that two of his MPs – Giorgos Amyras and Grigoris Psarianos – are not only threatening to vote down the deal but also to quit if the party leadership insists on supporting the Prespes deal. If they do quit, the party would be left with three MPs, below the minimum of five required for representation in Parliament.

The party’s political council is to meet today to decide on its position.

The stance of Democratic Left (DIMAR) leader Thanasis Theoharopoulos could also be pivotal. He had also expressed a positive view of the deal in principle but is expected to take a final decision when party officials convene on Sunday.

Government spokesman Dimitris Tzanakopoulos said the administration’s aim was to secure 151 votes, though he added that technically this is not necessary.

Authorities are bracing for a rally on Sunday against the Prespes agreement in Athens as protests last year drew large crowds.

There are concerns about possible violence as tensions have peaked ahead of the Prespes deal vote. Police in the region of Macedonia arrested four people, two in Grevena and two in Kozani, over the past two days for sticking up “wanted” posters of politicians who have expressed support for the agreement. Another six people were detained in Serres after being found with such posters in their possession.

The arrests follow reports of politicians receiving threats warning them not to support the deal. A 62-year-old former navy officer was arrested earlier this week after allegedly admitting to sending threats to Papacosta.

​Source: Kathimerini English

0 Comments

Zaev struggles to secure majority for name change

1/10/2019

0 Comments

 
PicturePrime Minister Zoran Zaev of the FYROM
Prime Minister Zoran Zaev of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) was struggling Thursday to get the required number of lawmakers to finalize constitutional changes that will rename the country “Republic of North Macedonia” and allow its NATO accession under a deal with neighboring Greece.

Zoran Zaev told reporters in Skopje that he has not yet secured support from the required two-thirds of the 120-seat parliament, or 80 lawmakers. A planned parliamentary session on the matter Friday was postponed.

​Zaev’s efforts were complicated when a small ethnic Albanian party demanded that the planned constitutional designation “Macedonian citizenship” be changed to “citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia.”

The party says this will safeguard the identity of ethnic Albanians – about a quarter of FYROM’s 2.1-million population.

Zaev said the reference to “Macedonian citizenship” is key for his country in the deal with Greece. He also said that a group of opposition conservative lawmakers who had initially supported the constitutional changes – and were subsequently ejected by their VMRO-DPMNE party – strongly opposed the ethnic Albanians’ demand.

Hundreds of opposition supporters protested in front of parliament for a second day Thursday against the deal, demanding early elections and the dissolution of parliament.

VMRO leader Hristijan Mickoski addressed the rally, accusing Zaev of “bargaining” with lawmakers to secure the two-thirds majority.

He has claimed Zaev exerted pressure on members of the judiciary on cases involving conservative party lawmakers, or their family members, accused in connection with a violent parliament invasion last year.

“Look how publicly, how openly, this trade is going on with name and identity, like at a market stall,” Mickoski said.

Source: Kathimerini English

0 Comments

Greek passport among most powerful, global index shows

1/9/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
The Greek passport ranks in seventh place among the most powerful in the world, according to global citizenship and residence advisory firm Henley & Partners, which compiles an annual index.

Greeks can go to 184 destinations without aplying for a visa, along with Belgians and Canadians.

The ranking is based on data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which maintains the world’s largest and most accurate database of travel information, and on extensive research by Henley & Partners.

Japan tops the index with its citizens enjoying visa-free/visa-on-arrival access to 190 destinations.

It is followed by Singapore and South Korea in joint second place, with access to 189 destinations around the globe, France and Germany in third place, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Sweden come in fourth, while Spain and Luxembourg are in fifth.

Source: Kathimerini English Edition

0 Comments

Is it a Dialect or is it a Language?

12/13/2018

0 Comments

 
Marcus A. Templar, National Security Advisor | Macedonian League
PictureMarcus A. Templar
National Security Advisor, Macedonian League
It has come to my attention that a few Skopje surrogates in Greece headed by Alexandra Ioannidou wrote an article of some type back in February 2018 insisting that the FYROM Slav speech is a language, not a dialect. The codification of an oral or written speech is a philological issue that follows a political decision. Linguistics deals with the vernacular of speakers of a specific region, a town, or even a neighborhood.

What is the difference?

Usually, I would not care about this, but when I read lame arguments from people who are educated in cognate fields of linguistics as philology and even applied linguistics in order to promote their political pro-Skopje affinities under the cloak of science I perceive it as a personal attack on my intelligence. A true linguist knows that in a strict linguistic sense of the word there is NO difference between a language and a dialect. In order to support their views, Alexandra Ioannidou has brought up scientific issues of pronunciation in hopes that they raise a winning argument to support their political views. The author’s angle was philological at best with a fig leaf of linguistics under the burqa of politics.

The text below is for the benefit of those who might have gotten confused by the politically motivated nonsense of the people in question. I am giving an example of an issue in a more familiar setting to the Greeks.

The ancient Athenian grammarian Aristeas codified the Greek language, and to my knowledge, the whole process lasted about 20 years (285 -265 BC). At that time, over the Greek-speaking world, one would hear Ionic, Doric, and Aeolic as the primary forms of speech, but also the Doric Koine, Northwestern Doric, Attic Koine, and their linguistic offshoots.
i

The Macedonian Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II sponsored the language codification project for strategic cultural and political reasons. Geostrategically speaking, a river and sea thoroughfare offer means of communication with other cultures develop trade, grow the economy, foster language promotion that in turn stimulate the foundations of cultural expansion advances people’s education. In essence, the sky is the limit of what individuals and societies can do.

Over the years, the product of Aristeas’ assignment developed to the point that the Greek language became the beacon of enlightenment to the world. One of the results of such colonization gave rise to the Latin alphabet as the result of such use of the language and culture of the colonists from Euboean town of Cumae (
Κύμη), the spread of Judaism and Christianity, the emergence of the Cyrillic Alphabet.

Then darkness came to the land, the Ottoman Turk oppressed education in the local speech. It lasted until 1830. Governor Capodistrias ordered the establishment as Greece’s literary language the Koine dialect, which was already codified. In 1976, the vernacular was declared the official language of Greece, having incorporated features of Katharevousa and giving birth to Standard Modern Greek, which is used today for all official purposes and in education. That was also a political decision.

Instead of re-inventing the wheel, I chose to copy the opinion of the famous author and true linguist, Mario Pei.

Politically speaking, one might answer that a language is what is officially accepted as the national form of speech, a dialect what does not have such acceptance. This definition would eliminate as languages such tongues as Welsh and Breton, while Lithuanian and Lettish, not having been languages under the Tsars, would have become languages with the creation of the Lithuanian and Lettish Republics at the close of die First World War, and then would again have ceased to be languages as soon as these nations were absorbed by the Soviet Union.

From the literary standpoint, one might say that a language is a form of speech that has given rise to a literature, a dialect one that has not; this would establish Sicilian and Neapolitan, Ozarkian and Brooklynese as languages, while it would eliminate Sardinian and most of the languages of the African and Native Americans.

A third reply is that there is no intrinsic difference between a language and a dialect, the former being a dialect which, for some special reason, such as being the speech-form of the locality which is the seat of the government, has acquired preeminence over the other dialects of the country.

Actually, there is no clear-cut reply to the question. Even linguists shrink from answering it, and rightly. When a language is examined under the microscope, it is found to be infinitely diversified. There is one form of cleavage and stratification along social and cultural lines, which leads to the infinite gradations of standard tongue, vernacular, slang, cant and jargon. There is also a local, geographical division which extends not merely to regions and sections of a country, but also to towns and quarters of towns. Some linguists go so far as to assert that each speaker may be said to have a dialect of his own, as evidenced by the fact that his friends can identify him by his speech (Pei 1949, 46).

Whether a speech is a dialect or a language is always a matter of the criterion one uses. Alexandra Ioannidou chose the political criterion concluding that “Macedonian” is a language, not a dialect.

My background

Before I proceed, let me explain my linguistic background. I was born in an extended family of four languages with Greek being the fifth language as lingua franca. I learned the speech of the Bitola – Prilep, which to me is one of the South Eastern Linguistic Bulgarian group of dialects, from my maternal family from the day I was born. It was my first language, which I heard from my dearest mother. The first alphabet I learned was the Serbian based Cyrillic alphabet of Skopje even before the Greek kindergarten. As far as my mom was concerned, she spoke Srpski or Serbian as she used to call her speech. Why Serbian?

To begin with, at the time of my mother’s birth the region of the FYROM was called South Serbia. Blazhe Koneski standardized the language under the auspices of the Marxist government of Yugoslavia. It was a philological product for political expediency.


The Past

Misirkov suggested that the new country, Macedonia, as visualized by the Socialist fighters of the VMRO and later resolved by communists should recognize the central dialect as its literary language. He did not suggest that the government assign the task to a pro-Serbian linguist who would take it away from the original tongue. I have no idea what happened to the – Шо праиш? Aрнo! (Sho prajish? - Arno!” (How are you? Well!) of the Prilep-Bitola dialect. It has been replaced by the Serbian – “Kako si? – Dobro”. This is only one small example of how Koneski had fixed the new “language.”


However, the language started as part of the Western Bulgarian group of dialects, and through the intervention of politicians, it was navigated towards Serbian away from the original speech. I would never forget my mother telling her first cousin in the 1960s, “What have you done to our language? In a few years, we will not be able to communicate any longer”.

The explanation of whether the language that my mother spoke was called Serbian or Macedonian exists in the annals of the Illyrian Movement. Dragutin Rakovac, author and publicist with degrees in law and philosophy, wrote a fascinating observation in his short essay entitled Mali katekizam za velike ljude (Small Catechism for Grown Men), in which he remarked, and I am translating,


The names of peoples and languages may not and cannot be invented. The Croat, Serb, and Slovene names would, all else being equal, have the greatest right to the common appellation for our language and literature. These three names are hereditary in southwestern Slavia, as the names of the three main branches of the southwestern Slavic people. But we know that a brother does not tolerate a brother's supremacy and experience teaches us that a Croat will never accept a Serb or Slovene name; a Serb will never accept a Croat or Slovene name, and neither will a Slovene accept a Croat or Serb name. (Dragutin Rakovac, Mali katekizam za velike ljude, Zagreb: Illyrian National Press of Dr. Ljudevit Gaj, 1842, p. 16) -- Translation is mine.

Members of the Illyrian Movement knew who the South Slavic tribes were. How is it possible that they missed the Macedonians and their distinct language? That movement gave rise to Yugoslavism and later to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. As it is apparent, ethnicities as Bosnian, Montenegrin, and Macedonian were missing. It was before Communism started implementing The National Question as the tool serving the national interests of Russia under a different administration.

In the sixth paragraph of the Resolution of the Comintern dated 11 February 1934 is stated, “The chauvinists of Greater Serbia, referring to the presence of Serbian impurities in the language of the local Macedonian population, declare this population as one of the tribes of the single Yugoslav nation-state and forcibly serve it.” The tribes the resolution had mentioned were Serbian, Montenegrins, and “Macedonians.” They all spoke the Štokavian dialect during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Alexandra Ioannidou also mentioned something about phonemes and alphabets. There is a difference between the standardized alphabet, which in theory represents the phonemes of a language, and the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). The standardized alphabet of any language is part of philology, although letters, in theory, represent phonemes. The International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), is part of linguistics of that language, but it is not part of philology. Such an alphabet concerns the phonemes of a speech in any conceivable way regardless of how they are presented in the standardized alphabet. For instance, if we take the Greek language, we see that the alphabet does not include letters reflecting the sounds of λ, ν, μ, π, in λαλιά (lj), νιάτα (ŋ), μιά (ɱ ), ποιός (πχ). We can have the r flat or roll, and yet we use only one letter for both. Something similar one can say about the letter L that is known as dark L at the end of a word or light L at the beginning of a word. What can we say about the Pelasgian remnants found in the Greek language as σσ, ρρ? They exist, but their sounds are questionable.

I would expect some candor over the political poppycock from someone who pretends to be a philologist, even in Russian. Such a philologist remind me of a Croat teacher in DLI who insisted that Croatian and Serbian are different languages; then a Bosnian Muslim came into the discussion noticing that Bosnian was a completely different language from the other two. A young Muslim woman from Ženice, Bosnia told me, “Now that we have a country; we have our own language, Bosnian.” Furthermore, their governments of the former Yugoslavia had certified interpreters for communication among themselves. It is ridiculous.

Thus according to the specifications of Alexandra Ioannidou, a country has to have its own language. As late as 1920, an attempt was made to coin the term Unitedstatish to describe the language of the American Union (Pei 1949, 298). This means that if the U.S. Congress had succeeded in passing the law, the official language of the United States would not have been English, but Unitedstatish
language!!! Under the same logic, Americans, Canadians, Australians, Irish, and all other people whose governments have imposed on them English do not have their own language. We have to push for Austrian and Swiss languages. I do not even want to touch the issue of Spanish, French, Portuguese, and a few others. My goodness, billions of people are mute! Are we serious? It is the ultimate extreme of nationalistic inferiority.


Some “linguistic” examples from my life

In the Slavic languages ​​of the same group, in particular, the distinction between languages ​​is more difficult than anyone can imagine. People can easily communicate after they dismount from their nationalistic high horse.

Nevenka was a Serbian refugee who lived at the UN housing at the Votsi area of Thessaloniki. She and my grandmother had befriended each other after an accidental encounter. All the years of friendship, Nevenka used her Serbian jekavski dialect while my grandmother spoke her native Bitola-Prilep-Veles dialect.

In my life, I have attended meetings of Serbs discussing matters with Bulgarians by using the kje (ќ) speech as they had mentioned, i.e., the Bitola-Prilep-Veles dialect. In my presence Croats from Zadar, Dalmatia spoke in ikavski with Serbs from Vojvodina in ekavski of the Što dialect. I have attended conferences and meetings of the people of Yugoslavia back in the 1970s and 1980s. Every single speaker spoke in his or her dialect. They just used the vocabulary of their preference without any problem of understanding each other and that included the Slavonic months that Croats use.

When I attended the U.S. Army certification course of translator/interpreter, one of our teachers was a Croat from Bosnia, one from Montenegro and one from Serbia.

In 1968, near the White Tower of Thessaloniki, where the touring coaches are parked, I spoke Serbian to a group of Slovak tourists who came to see the birthplace of the great brothers Cyril and Methodius. We did not have a communication problem.

In the late 1970s and before I joined the U.S. Army, two women, and I were talking as going to work at Sears Tower in Chicago. One of the women spoke Russian, the other one Polish, and I spoke Serbian. We had no problem communicating.

In 1973 waiting for the train for Zagreb at a Train Station platform in Trieste, Italy, I was speaking Croatian to someone thinking that he was a Croat. As we saw the train coming, the man asked, “Where did not you learn such excellent Bulgarian?” I was stunned. He explained to me that he was a Bulgarian diplomat. He thought I spoke Bulgarian as an educated Bulgarian would. We had spoken for approximately 20 minutes, and yet we never realized that we spoke different languages, both Slavic of the South Slavic group.

In 1984, as a valedictorian student of my Czech Class at the Defense Language Institute, Monterrey, California, I gave my speech in Slovak, not in Czech. To this day, I am the only one who has done so. Nobody had any problem understanding it. I spoke about the city of my birth Thessaloniki and the contributions of its two children (Sts. Cyril and Methodius) to the Slavic enlightenment. Its title was Solún, nevesta Termy (Thessaloniki, the bride of Therme).

In 1993 while in Sofia, I used my maternal dialect of Bitola – Prilep communicating with my Bulgarian collocutors as if we spoke the same language, we actually did speak the same language! I had attended my Sunday liturgy in Bulgarian; no sweat.

I know a woman who works as a cashier in a grocery store nearby; she is from Petrich, Bulgaria. One day I spoke to her in the central Skopjan dialect, per Misirkov. She said to me that my Bulgarian reminded her of her grandmother. To me, it was a compliment.

Politics is Perception

Nevertheless, the issue that Alexandra Ioannidou has raised is not linguistic; it is philological, which means very political. They have made evident that their concern was strictly political as they allied with gods and demons defending not their own country’s national interests and national security, but the adversary’s national interests acting as Skopje’s fifth phalanx and proxies.

Politics is perception. The nationalistic overtones as Alexandra Ioannidou and the Skopje surrogates put it, had to do with slogans like Η Μακεδονία είναι μία και είναι ελληνική. Such slogans perhaps facilitated more Skopje’s positions internationally than strengthening Greece’s rights. Although I fully understand the meaning of “Macedonia is one, and it is Greek,” because I have read Strabo (Ἐστι µέν οὖν Ἑλλάς καί ἡ Μακεδονία), billions of people around the world might have thought that the Greeks wanted to annex Skopje. After all, the republic of Skopje is known to be called “Macedonia” all over the world for 30 years now.

The idea was not to hide into our shell ignoring the world, nor was it a psychological mirror image of the world, i.e., since we see it our way, everyone else sees it likewise. The whole idea was to win both the hearts and minds of the world. Slogans that emanate nationalistic and expansionistic overtones as historically correct, as they were, hindered our objective. A very slight change in the wording would make the essential vital difference. Perhaps, the organizers should consult people who understand advertising and how the market works to prepare slogans that sway people to their destined target.

Nevertheless, I would not be hastened to blame the demonstrators whose region and indeed the country are under attack for the failure of the organizers (leadership and sponsors) of such demonstrations. To me, it is a patriotic sentiment expressed in a misguided mode. In the article by Alexandra Ioannidou, I had not read anything that condemned the truly irredentist slogans, maps, photographs by the WMC, UMD, and other Skopjan Organizations. I am not even touching the issue of Skopje’s official violations of articles 2, 3, 4, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2, 11.1 of the Interim Accord or pre-Agreement if you wish, which include the antiquization project regardless of the intended purpose, always according to Skopje.

As I started writing this paper, Skopje’s Prime Minister has already violated Article 4.3 of the Prespes Agreement (The ink is not dry yet.), article 6.2 of the Interim Agreement, and the Article 2.4 of the UN Charter.

I do agree with Alexandra Ioannidou that the acronym The FYROM was stupid, but not for the reasons they think. It is downright stupid knowing how International Law works.

Greek diplomacy should have known better. The termination of the acronym, i.e., Macedonia gave the right to Skopje to maintain it in the final name. It was also the name responsible for the whole world to call Skopje, Macedonia. It was not an accident that Mr. Vasilakis a fine diplomat and negotiator back in the 1990s had started pushing for the name Republic of Macedonia (Skopje) under the precedent principle of Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa). The argument was simple, “since Greece had accepted the word Macedonia in the Interim Agreement, it shall accept it in the final name. International Law is based on the principle of stare decisis; once a country accepts something, it establishes a new reality even if in the future the new reality proves impractical or detrimental to the country at hand leading to various troubles or being impossible for it to carry on without further complications. We all see the complications now.

The other issue is that people tend to simplify official names of countries that look complex, names such as United States of Brazil, United States of Mexico, and United States of America to respectively Brazil, Mexico, and America. They did the same with Skopje’s stupid acronym.

Many years ago, I read an article of Nova Makedonija in which a journalist was asking, “Who has ever heard a country to adopt the name of its Capital?” The journalist, had never heard countries such as Mexico and Panama that took their name from their Capital. Both cities, Mexico and Panama, preexisted the countries and their names.

Greek blogs very irresponsibly did everything possible to fall for any sensationalist trash prepared by the propaganda experts of Skopje and its diaspora that read online pushing people to react taking away the attention of the Greek population from the real issues of national interests to one shoddy information or another. The sensationalist trash of the Greek blogs, in reality, was a manufactured compost.

Finally, Greek Mass Media recklessly filtered the thoughts, mouths, and hands of those few Greek Vouleftes who wanted to mention something sensible away from the rubbish of their party line. As if they were scandalmonger tabloids, the Mass Media seeking political dirt in order to improve their ratings and revenue started calling such Vouleftes undignified and pejorative names as “dolphins” who wanted to take over the leadership of a Party even when the so-called leadership stank. Obviously, for these media, Article 60.1 of the Greek Constitution is subject to lavatory use.

Misirkov and Today’s Reality

Misirkov, the so-called Father of Macedonism, wrote a book On Macedonian Matters, and some articles and essays. One of his essays and two articles in addition to the book are pertinent to this article.

One of these essays On the Significance of The Moravian or Resavian Dialect for Contemporary and Historical Ethnography in the Balkan Peninsula offers scientific argument that Alexandra Ioannidou in Greece forgot to mention. It is about the Resavian dialect the phonemes of which coincide with the central dialect of the FYROM.

Although the book On Macedonian Matters originally was published in the late autumn of 1903, there are certain words and expressions that suggest some redactions, at least three times. One emerged after 1914. The second redaction occurred after May 1919, i.e., after the formation of the Third or Communist International Association aka Comintern and the third modification ensued after July 1924, i.e., publication of the III Communist International, Fifth Congress Resolution on National Question in Central Europe and Balkans - The Balkans: Macedonian and Thracian Questions.

The above book and the two articles published in Mir in 1925 expressed one and one thing only. The separation of Macedonia from Bulgaria that Misirkov advocated had nothing to do with the existence of the Macedonian people as I am explaining below. Misirkov advocated the separation of Macedonia from Bulgaria in order to stop Bulgarian ideological interference in Macedonia that Misirkov did not like. I am quoting him,

To avoid copying them blindly and transplanting socialism into Macedonia instead of nationalism, as the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization has done. By divorcing our interests from those of Bulgaria we will be saved from aping the merciless acts of the Bulgarians and from having to accept their assurances that Bulgaria is our benefactor and Russia our greatest enemy; thus we will also develop a critical attitude towards our own actions and those of others (Misirkov 1970, 111-2).

Misirkov used the phrase “Macedonian people” in the sense of a Slavic ethnicity, but he recognized the fact that in Macedonia other ethnicities existed, e.g., using the same demonym. Any time he wanted to clarify who were the Macedonians he was writing about, differentiated his “Macedonian” compatriots and of course himself as “Macedonian Slavs” (27 times).

As the Comintern was concerned, Hristo Andonov-Poljanski, a historian and former rector of the University of Skopje, gave the following explanation regarding the definition of the Macedonian people, “In Comintern papers, the expression Macedonian people cover all populations that inhabited the region of Macedonia. That is, all the inhabitants of Macedonia, irrespective of ethnic origin, constituted the Macedonian people” (Hristo Andonov-Poljanski. 1981, v. 2). Such a definition is also evident in Misirkov’s book in which he wanted to see Macedonia as a country with the Macedonian Slavs as its dominant ethnicity and the central Macedonian dialect its literary language for all Macedonia.

He also explained that on March 12, 1925 (Macedonian Nationalism) the Macedonian Slav intelligentsia was scientific in thought, Macedonian in conscience. The first term means that the Macedonian Slav intelligentsia was revolutionary socialist or communist if you wish and the second one means that the revolutionary socialist or communists were compelled to follow the edict of the Comintern issued about nine months earlier.

However, since Alexandra Ioannidou brought up certain phonemes to prove her philological points using some sketchy phonemes, here what Misirkov read into one of the meetings of the St. Petersburg Ethnographic Society and afterward printed in the journal Живая старина (Live Antiquity) of the Society VII Edition; III and IV Sections; V, 482-485 and also in the Bulgarian Review, V, volume I, September 1898, 121-127.

Bearing in mind the role that language plays in the classification of different tribes and larger units, as nations, I draw attention to research that I have done in the South Slavic transitional dialect between the Bulgarian and Serbian languages and currently very important because of the historical ethnography of the Balkan Peninsula. I mean the Moravian or (according to the Karadzić) Resavian dialect, to which more than two-thirds of all the Slavic population in Serbia speak.

The Moravian dialect covers the entire southern, eastern, and central Serbia to the River Kolubara and the tributaries to the left of the River Ibar. [The Moravian dialect] is very near to both Shopski and Skopjan speech indicating the ethnicity of the modern Moravian peasants. Also, taking into account the prevalence of the relationship of the spoken word, the latter understand the speech of those mentioned within the borders of the medieval Serbian kingdom. It seemingly gives us knowledge of the ethnicity of the Slavic tribes, which composed of the kingdom.

Here is what Misirkov articulated:

Instead of the Old Slavonic also known as the Old Bulgarian nasal sound ь as in ръкa, мъка, път the nasal sound converts to y ( = u) as in рука (ruka = hand), мука (muka = torture), пут (put = road).

The voiced л (L) does not exist anymore and instead of l turns into u, e.g., from влк, ябълка, вълна to vuk (wolf), yabuka (apple), vuna (wool).

Old Slavonic dark sounds ъ and ь are replaced by the sound 'a,' which, when it is not emphasized is pronounced on more or less between а and ъ, e. g.: пожаревац and пожаревъц.

Instead of the Old Slavonic шт (sht) and жд (zhd) the sounds of ћ (ć), i.e. between ts and ch; it is a voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate, and ђ (đ pronounce dz - дz), which people older than 30 years of age pronounce it softer, almost palatalized as к and г in кь, гь or к' and г') (Translation is mine).

Based on the above features of the Moravian dialect, its proximity to Bulgarian is higher than to the Serbo-Croatian language. The use [of the Serbian language] at the western limits of the medieval Serbian kingdom, the absence of accurate data on the existence of Serbs in the territory of [modern day] Serbia specifically those speaking the Moravian dialect until the founding of the kingdom of Nemanjić, and finally, because there is indirect evidence pointing at the absence of Serbian tribes in the area of Morava, I came to the following conclusion.


1. That the modern Serbian Slavs from Moravian speech are closer to Bulgarian Slavs than to Serbo-Croats,

2.
That the ancestors of the Moravian Slavs were closer to those Slavs, which afterward formed the Bulgarian nation;

3. The medieval Slavic kingdom founded by Nemanja enlarged but his successors called Serbians was formed by tribes closer to those Slavs, which was initiated Bulgarian kingdom than to Serbo-Croatian tribes

4. That in the Serbian kingdom only the Nemanja dynasty was Serbian.

Misirkov, Importance of Resavian or Moravian dialect of Contemporary and historical ethnography of the Balkan Peninsula, Saint Petersburg, 1897.


The readers can draw their own conclusions. Misirkov continued,

“these principles should guide us in creating our literary language and orthography. These principles entail:


1) The adoption of the Prilep-Bitola dialect, as the central dialect in Macedonia for the purpose of creating a literary language equally different from Serbian and Bulgarian.
2) The adoption of a phonetic orthography with letters as used in this back and with minor concessions to etymology.
3) The collection of lexical material from all the regions of Macedonia”. (Misirkov 1970, 202).

Regarding the speech Misirkov stated,


Each national language has its history and its contemporary variants, dialects, sub-dialects, etc., and our language is no exceptions. The history of our language shows that the present variants are derived from older ones, which is proof that they originate from a common Macedonian language, and that Macedonian comes from the South-Slav group, and so on. On this basis, one may determine which variant or dialect in any particular period was most used in the written language.

The history of Macedonian, like the history of other languages, shows that any dialect, regional variant or accent may be used in literature. The privilege any dialect or regional, accent may enjoy through being made the vehicle of literature as historians of the language might say is not granted on the basis of any aesthetic superiority it may have, but for purely practical considerations, i.e., as a result of historical and cultural circumstances (Misirkov 1970, 194)

Thus when Misirkov mentioned that the Macedonian Slavs could not understand the Bulgarian literary language what he meant was that they could not understand the Eastern dialect of the Bulgarian language. The Eastern dialect employs free intonation and in general sounds like Russian while to long e of the Western dialect becomes
ya in the Eastern dialect.

That is (W) mléko = (E) mlyáko = milk. Under such circumstances, any illiterate, uneducated, or untrained Macedonian Slav was bound not to understand the new literary language.

I could easily contribute some truly linguistic information regarding the pronunciation of the letter ѫсъ aka юсъ большой (big yus) in Russian after its abolition from modern Cyrillic. Although it is not written anymore, it does affect the pronunciation of words that used to include it. This is only the pronunciation in areas mainly of Bulgaria and the FYROM, but also the region of Pirot. The original spelling was
зѫбъ (tooth) and мѫжъ (man) although the pronunciation of the same letter differed. The actual pronunciation of the words зѫбъ (tooth) and мѫжъ (man) in the modern era is зъб, мъж, заб, маж, зуб, муж, зôб, мôж, зоб, мож, зêб, мêж, зъмб, мънж, замб, манж, зôмб, мôнж in different regions of Bulgaria, the FYROM, and Serbia transcending political boundaries.

One cannot judge the linguistic family of a speech and its relationship to other vernaculars by its vocabulary or even by the philological codification, but by its grammar and syntax. Notwithstanding, the literary language of the FYROM grammatically is identical as all Western Bulgarian dialects whereas its vocabulary has been “improved” by insertion of Serbian, Greek, and even Polish words in order to make it a language separate from both Bulgarian and Serbian. If such a move is not political, I have no idea what is.

Alexandra Ioannidou and Skopje’s surrogates in Greece got a chance to mock the Greek public since very few Greeks know the philology and linguistics of the Skopjan Bitola-Prilep-Veles dialect. Alexandra Ioannidou actually in her effort to describe the grammar and syntax of the FYROM literary speech she described the grammar and syntax of ALL Western Bulgarian dialects, but she coined it as “Macedonian.” In their mind, such a criterion makes the Skopjan dialect, a language. Whom are they kidding?

The arguments they have brought could buy them a bravo among the linguistically ignorant people. If we apply identical criteria to Greece, each village and town in Greece along with cities like Athens and Thessaloniki would end up having about 10 to 20 dialects each and not one of them could reach the point of a language unless the government of Greece designates which of them will be Greece’s literary language. That is a political criterion, not a linguistic one. Greece did the same at the beginning of 1982. Indeed each of us has his or her dialect.

Phonological differences make one speech different from another and in this case the grammatical or phonetic differences are in general the characteristics which one may apply or attributed on all of the Western Bulgarian linguistic group that includes more than 30 dialects. We could easily add the transitional dialects or the Torlak group.

Let me add something else that Misirkov wrote:


Hence one ethnic group does not choose a name for itself, but the neighbouring ethnicities make up a name for it, and the [said] ethnic group adopts it. It is the most common and very natural thing that one’s ethnic name first occurs in one of its neighbouring ethnic groups. So, the neighbouring ethnic groups are related like a godfather and a godchild (Misirkov 1970, 168).

I wonder why didn’t Skopje want Greece to baptize their ethnicity? If it were up to me, I would have baptized the country as Yugoslavonia, which would apply as the nationality to all citizens and
Slaviani for the ethnicity of the Slavic population per Misirkov (Misirkov 1970, 168).

Alexandra Ioannidou and the Skopje surrogates in Greece missed Misirkov’s book and essays preferrering Skopje’s absurdities only because they want to support Skopje’ positions, not of their birth country.


Conclusion

I found the explanations of Alexandra Ioannidou and Skopje surrogates in Greece very political, perhaps somewhat philological, but not at all linguistic. As far as linguistics is concerned, what the Skopje surrogates in Greece wrote was,

                                               Από την πόλη έρχομαι και στην κορφή καν' έλα
                                         Ν' ανοίξω το μπαστούνι μου να μην βραχεί η ομπρέλα.


As one of the greatest minds of all times put it, “It is no mark of a man's intelligence to be able to confirm whatever he pleases: but to be able to discern that to be true which is true, and that to be false which is false, is the mark and character of intelligence” (Swedenborg 1912, 334).

If Alexandra Ioannidou and the Skopje surrogates in Greece are behind the recognition of the Macedonian language as referred to in Article 1.3c of the Prespes Agreement and whether the same people had influenced the process or deceived as volunteered experts the Greek negotiators and the political world, the only conclusion one reaches is that Greece lacked negotiating strategy and experts. The country was led like sheep to the slaughter.

I only hope that Skopje keeps violating the Agreement to the point that the blame game starts and the UNSC forces take some action against Skopje. With the present crop in the Greek Parliament regardless of political party, I cannot see any future government taking Skopje to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) requesting cancellation of the Agreement by pressing for the International Law Commission to investigate based on Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter or other pertinent articles of the Vienna Convention.

The question I have is, how is the Greek government going to implement the Agreement. As it is drafted is bound to fuel domestic instability considering the irredentism promoted by external third parties and extremist groups, it undermines Greece’s national interests, and leaves Greece’s psychological aspect of national security undefended; it is a clear threat to Greece’s stability. Usually, a country in psychological disarray seeks solace in some positive aspects of the tragedy. I have no idea what kind of a solace one can reap from the Agreement of Prespes.

Biographical Note

Marcus A. Templar is a Slavicist and former Code Breaker, and Principal Subject Matter Expert in Signal and All-Source Intelligence Analysis serving the U.S. Intelligence Community over 30 years. During his Intelligence career, he has supported U.S. intelligence operations on a national level and served as a professor of Intelligence and National Security Courses in U.S. Intelligence Schools.

His academic research includes the political ideology of Bulgarian intellectuals after the Commune of Paris and the effect of their ideology to the establishment, development, and activities of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) aka VMRO. The research also examines the organization’s activities in order to create a communist regime of Bulgarians in Macedonia at least 20 years before the founding of the USSR. More specifically, his work analyzes the relationship and interaction among members and factions of the organization (IMRO) with contemporary political, pan-Slavic movements and governments, as well as the organization’s political and terrorist activities.

Academically he is intrinsically interested in matters of national security, public governmental policy, and strategy.

Professionally he has been involved in the Order of Battle, Military Doctrine, and Strategic Culture of Turkey, Ukraine, as well as Counter-terrorism in the Horn of Africa.

________
iFor details on the ancient Macedonian dialect of the Greek language family read, https://www.academia.edu/23581922/Hellenic_Migrations_and_Katadesmos_A_Paradigm_of_Macedonian_Speech


0 Comments

Celebrating illegality in Cyprus: Mustafa Akinci, non-‘president’ of a non-entity

11/28/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
On 15 November, Ankara’s mouthpiece in occupied Cyprus Mustafa Akinci ‘celebrated’, as he does every year, the purported establishment of Turkey’s illegal subordinate administration in the northern area of the Republic of Cyprus that Turkish forces arbitrarily seized in 1974. 

​Despite Akinci’s proclamations, the so-called ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ remains the crude product of illegality and mass inhumanity. While Mr Akinci might purport to be its ‘president’, UN resolutions 541 and 550 are clear. The ‘unilateral declaration of independence’ purportedly made on 15 November 1983 is part of a pattern of ‘secessionist acts’.  Furthermore, it is ‘legally invalid’ and must be withdrawn. In the meantime, all states must ‘respect’ the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus.

It is noteworthy that in an Advisory Opinion relating to Kosovo, dated 22 July 2010, the International Court of Justice compared the illegal declaration of independence in the Turkish-occupied zone of the Republic of Cyprus with those relating to ‘Southern Rhodesia’ in 1965 and ‘Republika Srpska’ in 1992. According to the International Court of Justice, ‘the illegality’ of each of these of these ‘declarations’, including the one purportedly made in the Turkish-occupied zone, ‘stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens).’ (Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2010, page 403 at paragraph 81.)

It is a well known fact that in the summer of 1974, the armed forces of Turkey twice invaded the Republic of Cyprus. In the process, as confirmed by a report of the European Commission of Human Rights adopted on 10 July 1976, these forces illegally inflicted various forms of mass inhumanity, including the mass rape of women. And it is clear that Turkey invaded not only in order to forcibly displace the Greeks and Christians who formed the overwhelming majority of the lawful population in what became the occupied areas in the north. Turkey also sought to create a de facto Turkish-populated zone, to colonise it with citizens of Turkey, to eradicate its Hellenic/Christian culture and to manufacture a subordinate local administration fronted by the likes of Mr Akinci.

Thus, the illegal rogue regime in the Turkish-occupied zone is a secessionist, segregationist, supremacist and racist entity. However, it continues to exist on a de facto basis because the world has chosen to appease Ankara rather than implement Resolutions 541 and 550 in practice. As a consequence of this policy of appeasement, the Turkish-occupied zone has become a haven for criminals, fugitives from justice and perpetrators of barbaric practices. For example, the annual US State Department reports on human trafficking, including the 2018 edition, have branded the Turkish-occupied zone as ‘a zone of impunity for human trafficking’, including the trafficking of children exposed to the risk of being subjected to sexual exploitation or forced labour.

President Erdogan and Mr Akinci may choose to ‘celebrate’ illegality and inhumanity. However, the rest of the world must respond by taking concrete steps to terminate, not legalise, the rogue subordinate regime of Ankara and the protracted Turkish occupation which ensures its de facto survival.

Source: Lobby For Cyprus

0 Comments

The ​Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece responds to Turkish government's provocative statements

11/27/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
Turkish provocations undermine the stability of the region at a crucial juncture and demonstrate the weakness of Turkey’s legal arguments.

Greece is not going to be influenced by the neighbouring country’s outbursts of aggressive rhetoric. On the contrary, as a factor of stability and security in the region, Greece will continue, in collaboration with its allies and partners, to defend international law and its own inalienable rights.

Whatever their differences, the rest of the countries in the Eastern Mediterranean recognise that energy must be a bridge of dialogue and cooperation in our region. Instead of insisting on threats and on its illegal claims and challenges, Turkey ought to adhere to this responsible stance.

​Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic


0 Comments

FYROM to seek arrest in Hungary of former prime minister

11/14/2018

0 Comments

 
PictureNikola Gruevski, former prime minister of the FYROM
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) will seek the arrest with an international warrant of conservative former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski after confirming he fled to Hungary to avoid serving a two-year prison sentence for corruption, authorities said Tuesday.

The Interior Ministry responded nearly five hours after Gruevski announced he was in Budapest in a Facebook post, as police continued searches in the capital Skopje to try and locate him.

The 48-year-old Gruevski who ignored a summons on Monday to appear at a Skopje prison to serve a two-year sentence after being convicted influencing officials to purchase a luxury car for government use.

He also faces trial in four other cases that emerged from a wiretapping scandal which erupted in 2015 and plunged the country into a deep political crisis. He has been charged with abuse of office, electoral fraud, criminal association and incitement to violence.

He had surrendered his passport and it was unclear how he reached Hungary.

Gruevski was prime minister from 2006-2016. He is the former leader of the conservative VMRO-DPMNE party, which is the main opposition party which is allied with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's right-wing Fidesz party.

Contacted by The Associated Press, the Hungarian prime minister's office refused to confirm or deny Gruevskis presence, adding that "ongoing asylum procedures" couldn't be commented upon.

Gruevski's flight marks the latest dramatic episode in a volatile confrontation between his conservatives and Prime Minister Zoran Zaev's Social Democrats.

The two sides remain bitterly at odds over a proposed deal to change the republic's name to "North Macedonia" and end a dispute with neighboring Greece that would allow FYROM to join NATO.

Western leaders provided Zaev's government strong backing in supporting the deal, while Russia argued that it was the target of the alliances expansion eastward.

The Social Democrats accused Gruevski of making a "cowardly escape."

Source: eKathimerini [AP]


0 Comments

Ex-prime minister of the FYROM loses appeal over prison term

11/10/2018

0 Comments

 
PictureNikola Gruevski, served as prime minister of the FYROM
from 2006 to 2016
Nikola Gruevski, the former prime minister of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) on Friday lost his final appeal against serving a two-year prison sentence over corruption-related charges.

A panel of judges at the Skopje criminal court said in a statement that they rejected Nikola Gruevski’s appeal after "reviewing all the facts and evidence" in the case.

It was not immediately clear whether Gruevski intended to hand himself in to authorities to serve the sentence.

The former leader of the conservative main opposition VMRO-DPMNE party was sentenced in May to two years in prison for unlawfully influencing Interior Ministry officials over the purchase of a luxury vehicle at an estimated cost of 600,000 euros.

He was ordered to present himself at the capital Skopje’s "Shuto Orizari" prison Thursday, but submitted a last-minute appeal.

The 48-year-old politician, who served as prime minister from 2006 to 2016 and is still a VMRO lawmaker, had requested that the prison sentence be deferred, citing parliamentary duties.

​Earlier Friday, FYROM lawmakers fell short of votes needed to expel Gruevski as a member of parliament. Parliament voted 58-29 to revoke Gruevski’s mandate, but failed to secure the required two-thirds majority in the 120-seat assembly.

Source: Kathimerini

0 Comments

Kate Marie Byrnes nominated next US ambassador to FYROM

11/8/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
Kate Marie Byrnes has been nominated by US President Donald Trump as the next ambassador to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).

Byrnes, a 24-year veteran of the US diplomatic corps and a member of the Senior Foreign Service, currently serves as the Deputy Chief of Mission of the US Embassy in Athens.

​Her previous assignment was Charge d’Affaires, a.i. at the US Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna, where she had also served as the Deputy Chief of Mission since September 2014.

Source: Kathimerini

0 Comments

FYROM parliament to vote on constitutional amendments on Dec. 1

11/2/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
The Parliament of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) will vote on the four constitutional amendments demanded by Greece to wrap up a deal ending a name dispute on December 1.

FYROM Parliament head Talat Xhaferi convened a plenary sitting of the House on  December 1 to vote on the changes.

A simple majority is required for the amendments to be approved, which the government of Prime Minister Zoran Zaev has already secured.

Earlier in the day, the cabinet approved the changes in a meeting.

In Greece, the first meeting of the Joint Interdisciplinary Committee of Experts of Greece and FYROM  on historical, archaeological, and educational issues was held in Athens on Friday.

​
According to a statement by the Foreign Ministry, the committee decided to work on removing irredentist references that were included in the past in school books, fulfilling Article 8 of the Prespes Agreement.

Source: Kathimerini English 

0 Comments

​Ministry of Foreign Affairs seeking investigation of the death of a Greek citizen during an exchange of gunfire in Bularat, Albania

10/28/2018

0 Comments

 
PictureKonstantinos Katsifas
Greek authorities have been in contact with their  Albanian counterparts and are closely following and monitoring the developments related to an incident in the Albanian village of Bularat where a Greek citizen allegedly opened fire on Albanian police with a Kalashnikov as they were attempting to apprehend him.

A short while ago, we were formally informed that Konstantinos Katsifas was killed during an exchange of fire with Albanian police.

We express our deep sorrow on the death of the Greek expatriate, as well as our condolences to his family.

In any case, it is unacceptable that the operation led to the loss of human life.

We await for the Albanian authorities to provide complete clarification about the conditions under which the Greek citizen lost his life, and we shall proceed with all necessary action immediately.

Source: With notes from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic

0 Comments

Macedonia: In the Heart of All Greeks

10/27/2018

1 Comment

 
Marcus A. Templar, National Security Advisor | Macedonian League
​Republished: This speech was given by Marcus A. Templar at an event held on Oct 26 to 28, 2013 in the hall of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America in New York.
PictureMarcus A. Templar, National Security Advisor,
Macedonian League
​Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
 
It is with distinct honor I have accepted to deliver this speech to you. It is about the region where I was born, reared, educated, and served as conscript in the Hellenic Army. Macedonia is my Hellenic homeland and Thessaloniki is the city where I was born.

Ever since Caranus (ΚΑΡΑΝΟΣ), the eleventh descendant of the legendary Hercules, led his people from Pindos to Western Macedonia and from there to the Pierian Mountains, Macedonia has been the heart of Greece. She is indeed in the heart of all Greeks.

Historians have written volumes on Macedonia and its history along with the contribution of Macedonians to the life within the Hellenic world, but also the spread of Hellenic ideals, philosophies, sciences, and in general the Hellenic civilization. Even today, one finds relics and remnants of the Macedonian presence in the cities of Bactria or Balkh, Kavoura or Kabul, Alexandria of Arakhosia or Kandahar, Aria or Herat, and others. All these cities were included in the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and the Greco-Indian Kingdom that lasted close to the Christian era. Actually, the Greco-Indian Kingdom lasted until around the year 10 AD with the defeat of its last king, Menandros. 

In addition, at present, one sees the Dioscuri brothers, Castor and Pollux or Polydeuces, on Afghani banknotes with the Greek inscription “Great King, Eucratides.” Furthermore, millions of Afghanis and Pakistanis wear the Macedonian kausia. The choice of the Dioscuri on the coin of Eukratidies has not been accidental. Oftentimes, Alexander the Great was identified as one of the Dioscuri brothers.

Macedonia was destined to play a very important role in religion and especially in Christianity. From the historical books of the Maccabees to the Apostle Paul, Macedonia has contributed the first Christian Church in Europe established in Kavala and the first European Christian, a woman named Lydia, baptized in Philippi, both cities of Macedonia.

The innovation of the first Slavic alphabet known as Cyrillic and the translation of the Bible by the two Greek brothers from Thessaloniki, Sts. Cyril and Methodius, into what is known as Old Church Slavonic language, had far-reaching implications for the present world which simultaneously meant that the message in the Bible is much more important than the sanctity of any language.

During its long history, Macedonia prospered in the Byzantine Empire despite repeated attacks by Avars, Slavs, Arabs, Bulgarians, Normans, and others. Many barbarities were committed on its people including slavery. Its allegiance was forced under one ruler or another, until it fell into the hands of Ottoman Turks. At the end of the 15th century, Macedonia received about 20,000 Jews driven out of Spain because of the Inquisition. 

In the early 1900’s Macedonia became a battlefield between Bulgarians, who were determined to make Macedonia Bulgarian, and the Greeks, who tried to keep it Greek. That conflict is known as the Macedonian Struggle. 

These are the main points of Macedonia’s past before the Balkan Wars. Today, we are here to commemorate two events that evolved in Macedonia. 

The first event is the celebration of Macedonia’s return to her mother Greece that took place during the two Balkan Wars that ended on August 10, 1913 with the Peace Treaty of Bucharest. The second is the celebration of the beginning of the Greco-Italian war that ended in Greek victory.  

By 1910, the Greek economy had become so dependent on the repatriated funds of Greek immigrants in America that the Greek government could do little to slow emigration, despite continuing, massive losses of work force. Interestingly, during the Balkan War of 1912, more than 40,000 Greek-Americans took note of the Greek government’s pleas and went back to Greece to fight. Overall, between 1910 and 1930, it is estimated that more than half of all Greek immigrants to the United States returned home.

As the First Balkan War broke out, Greece declared war on the Ottoman Empire and expanded its borders. When Eleftherios Venizelos, the Prime Minister at the time, was asked if the Greek army should move towards Thessaloniki or Monastiri, Venizelos replied “Thessaloniki, at all costs!” Because both Greece and Bulgaria wanted Thessaloniki, the Ottoman garrison became the target of both armies. The question was who was going to be the first to push the Ottomans to capitulation. The Greeks made it by one day. Securing Thessaloniki meant the reunification of Macedonia with Greece after centuries of Ottoman yoke. It was a brilliant military move.

On October 24, 1912, the Greek Army crossed the Axios River after the railroad bridge had been modified to accommodate the passage of the army.  One day later, at the urging of the consuls of the Great Powers, Hasan Tahsin Pasha and Crown Prince Constantine began negotiating the surrender of Thessaloniki and the Ottoman garrison.  The talks dragged on for nearly a day and a half, until a protocol of surrender was concluded and on October 26, 1912, the feast day of the city's patron saint, Saint Demetrius, the Greek Army accepted the surrender of the Ottoman garrison at Thessaloniki.  The Seventh Division marched into the city to begin the process of disarming the Ottoman garrison.  In the process, the Greeks took 1,000 Ottoman officers and 26,000 soldiers prisoner.

While the Army was fighting on land, the Greek Navy was triumphant in the sea. For our purpose, I must mention that the Navy Lieutenant Nikolaos Votsis took a small gunboat from Litohoron, got into the Bay of Thessaloniki and sank the Turkish Battleship Fetih-i- Bulend or “Great Conquest.”  

The Bulgarian army arrived one day after the surrender of the city to Greece, asking Tahsin Pasha to surrender the city to them. Tahsin Pasha told the Bulgarian officials "I have only one Thessaloniki, which I have [already] surrendered." About six months later, the excitement turned into mourning when on March 18, 1913 Alexandros Schinas, an alleged anarchist, assassinated George I of Greece in the city.

At the end of the First Balkan War during the London Conference of 1913, the allies signed the Treaty of London on May 30, 1913. Bulgaria requested that one of its units enter Thessaloniki with the excuse that they needed to relax. Crown Prince Constantine allowed one battalion of the Bulgarians to enter the city, but to the surprise of the Greeks, the Bulgarian battalion proved to be a 15,000 men force, which, after the signature of the Treaty of London, refused to disarm. In addition, Bulgaria demanded that Greece relinquish all territories north of the Pieria Mountains, including Thessaloniki.

On June 16, 1913, King Ferdinand I of Bulgaria, without consulting the Bulgarian government and without a declaration of war, directed General Savov to order the attack against Greece and Serbia. The second Balkan war was on. After the Second Balkan War and the defeat of Bulgaria, the Treaty of Bucharest officially granted Thessaloniki and the rest of the Greek portion of Macedonia to Greece in 1913. 

Contrary to popular belief, the Treaty of Bucharest of August 10, 1913, did not set the present borders in the Balkans. What it did was to simply settle ONLY the borders of Bulgaria in relation to its neighbors.  Even those borders were modified later.  

The feeling of the inhabitants of the city is described in the following editorial of the Newspaper “MAKEΔONIA” published on Sunday, October 28, 1912.
​

"With warm tears, tears of joy that floods the chest of the slave who recovers his freedom, tears of gratitude for his liberator that fulfills his existence, we are welcoming the Greek army, which entered the magnificent city of the Thessalonians.

This brilliant trophy of the heroic and victorious Greek Army demolishes the cornerstone of the Turkish state from the Greek Macedonia. Of the state, which, as the kingdoms of ancient monsters were established on layers of bones. Of the state, which has been synonymous to barbarism and dreadfulness. Of the state, which holding in one hand the torch of the arsonist and in the other the dagger of the murderer, burned and slaughtered our life and our honor, our faith and our ethnicity, and anything holy and sacred that we have.

And now the pulverized homeland of Aristotle and Alexander [the Great], whose every hill and every valley, every corner and every span, are soaked in innocent Greek blood and former and recent lamentations of the martyrs of the Faith and Fatherland, throws itself free into the warm and loving arms of Mother Greece.


Thus, the great epic of 1821 continues."

​The Balkan War against the Ottoman Empire attracted Greek and non-Greek volunteers from other parts of the world. Greek Cypriots volunteered and fought on the side of Greece not only in the nineteenth, but also in twentieth century wars for the independence and the creation of modern Greece. They represented the people of Cyprus, their attitudes and their Hellenic ideals.

One of them was a priest who later became the Archbishop of Cyprus, Makarios II. Another notable Cypriot was Christodoulos Sozos the mayor of Limassol who at the age of forty, married and with a child, followed his family’s tradition and secretly volunteered to fight in the first Balkan War. He died fighting at Bizani, Epiros.

In Bizani, Americans fought on the side of Greece, as well. No, I do not mean just Greek Americans that I have mentioned before, but American citizens who had nothing to do with Greece. One of them was Thomas Setzer Hutchinson who, after the end of the Balkan wars, wrote the book An American soldier under the Greek flag at Bezanie; a thrilling story of the siege of Bezanie by the Greek army, in Epirus, during the war in the Balkans. 

Two Balkan Wars, the First World War, the Treaty of London, the Treaty of Bucharest, the Treaty of Neuilly, and other diplomatic instruments brought 90% of the historical kingdom of Macedonia back to Greece. The only areas of the ancient Kingdom that remains outside Greece are two areas of Upper Macedonia, the region of Monastiri, i.e. Bitola and the region of Western Orestis, otherwise known as Korytza, which is the ancient city of Pylion.

In 1915, during World War I, a large expeditionary force of the Triple Entente established a base at Thessaloniki for operations against pro-German Bulgaria. The base ended with the establishment of the Salonika Front.

In August 1916, Greek army officers and civilians, with the support of the Triple Entente, launched the Movement of National Defense creating a pro-Entente provisional government by the name of the "State of Thessaloniki" that controlled the "new lands" in the political sense. The official government of the King in Athens, the "State of Athens," controlled the "old lands" which were traditionally monarchist. The State of Thessaloniki ended up with the political agreement of the two opposing Greek governments under Venizelos, following the abdication of King Constantine on June 11, 1917.

In 1923, as the result of the mandatory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey as well as the voluntary exchange between Greece and Bulgaria, nearly 1.2 million Greeks settled in Macedonia offering new vitality in this vibrant part of Greece. 

While Greece was expecting a time of peace to sort things out, world political events led humanity to another destructive war forcing Greece to participate, although its intention was to remain neutral. 

Seventy three years ago, unexpectedly, Greece was attacked by fascist Italy. At approximately 3:30 am on October 28, 1940, the then Prime Minister of Greece, Ioannis Metaxas, was awoken from bed by his staff and was informed that Count Emanuele Grazzi, the Italian ambassador to Greece, had come to speak with him concerning an urgent matter. Metaxas, who was on friendly terms with Grazzi, hurried down from his bedroom and, still dressed in his pajamas, received the ambassador promptly. Grazzi reluctantly handed Metaxas a letter composed by Mussolini. The letter contained an ultimatum for the Greeks: Metaxas was to grant Axis forces permission to enter Greek territory and allow “certain strategic points” to be occupied by Italian forces; if refused, Greece was to face war. At that time, Metaxas, who suffered from cancer, sat down in stunned disbelief. He quietly asked the ambassador what “strategic points” Mussolini was referring to. To his embarrassment, Grazzi replied that he did not know for this information had not been given to him. With no other reasonable options left to him, Metaxas looked up and declared to Grazzi “Alors, c’est la guerre” (Then, it is war), which in popularized version has been translated to OXI or NO. It was the beginning of the WW II for Greece. Thus, that day has remained in history as the OXI Day. 

History has taught us that power is only nominal until it is tested. Greece simultaneously confronted four armies and resisted the attacks of the Germans, Italians, Bulgarians, and Albanians for 219 days. At least, two of those armies were considered very powerful by world military standards until Greece proved the world wrong. Greece was the first Allied country to defeat an Axis power, sending the message to the world that the Axis was not invincible.

The Germans did not exactly have an easy time taking Greece. Upon capitulation, on April 10, 1941, the Germans expressed their admirations for the Greek soldier, declared that they were honored and proud to have as their adversary such an Army, and requested that the Greek Commanding Officer inspect the German army in a demonstration of honor and recognition! The German flag was raised only after the complete withdrawal of the Greek Army from Fort Roupel, which was incorporated into the Metaxas Line.

In WWII, all Greeks valiantly fought against the invaders, not just in war, but also during the occupation of their homeland. Among the fighting Greek Army, many Romaniote Jews fought for their homeland. One of them was Colonel Mordechai Frizis. He was one of the first Greek senior officers to be killed in action during the war at Kalpaki near Ioannina, fighting against the Italian Giulia Division.

Inspired by the Greek resistance during the Italian and German invasions, Churchill said, "Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks".

The President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, made that clear. He said, "On the 28th of October 1940, Greece was given a deadline of three hours to decide on war or peace but even if three days or three weeks or three years were given, the response would have been the same. The Greeks taught dignity throughout the centuries. When the entire world had lost all hope, the Greek people dared to question the invincibility of the German monster raising against it the proud spirit of freedom." 

But Greece’s adversaries were not detached. On May 4, 1941, in his speech to the Reighstag, Adolf Hitler said, “Nothing is impossible for the German soldier. Historical justice, however, obliges me to say that of the opponents that have taken up arms against us, most particularly the Greek soldiers, have fought with the greatest bravery and contempt of death. They only capitulated when further resistance became impossible and therefore useless.” 

According to Hitler's Chief of Staff, Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, the Fuehrer "wanted to give the Greeks an honorable settlement in recognition of their brave struggle and of their blamelessness for this war: after all the Italians had started it" and he continued, “because of their gallant bearing” Hitler ordered the release and repatriation of all Greek prisoners of war, as soon as they had been disarmed.

During the Axis occupation, Greek citizens were forced to systematic starvation, led to mass executions, dragged to concentration camps, and thrown into torture chambers. The Germans burned or destroyed as many as 1,600 villages and executed some 21,000 Greeks, the Bulgarians 40,000 and the Italians 9,000 in reprisal for armed resistance.

In the beginning of the Greco-Italian War, the Italians heavily bombarded Thessaloniki leaving 232 people dead, 871 wounded. In November 1940 alone the bombardment heavily damaged or destroyed over 800 buildings. Thessaloniki fell into the forces of Nazi Germany on 8 April 1941 and remained under German occupation until 30 October 1944.

During this dark period in Greece’s modern history, the Greeks did their best to protect their Jewish compatriots. The four years of the German occupation of Thessaloniki left behind many bad memories, which one can only describe as nightmares. Thousands of Greek patriots were tortured and executed.  The Nazis forced the Jews into a ghetto near what at present is the Old Railroad Station across the
Serbian Free Zone, and on March 15, 1943 began the deportation of 56,000 Jews to the concentration camps. The Germans deported over 43,000 of the city's Jews in concentration camps, where most were killed in the gas chambers and about 11,000 to forced labor camps where most perished. The inhabitants of the city saw their fellow citizens dragged to trucks and trains destined to their death in Auschwitz (Poland) and Bergen-Belsen (Lower Saxony) concentration camps. Whosoever escaped to the Italian held areas of Greece such as Thessaly returned to Thessaloniki or they chose Aliyah and some emigrated to the United States, Canada, or elsewhere. Only about 1,200 Jews live in the city today. 

Archbishop of Greece Damaskinos instructed the Church to issue false baptismal certificates to all Jews who requested them, thus saving thousands of Jews. In many cases, Greeks saved their Jewish neighbors. Their names are inscribed at the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, Yad Va-Shem, on the list of “Righteous Among the Nations.”  

Upon the end of the war, half of the population of Greece suffered from tuberculosis after a campaign of systematic starvation in which at least 300,000 people perished in Attica alone. We do not have records on the number of people who lost their limbs, nor those who suffered psychological or mental problems. More than 10% of Greece’s population lost their lives, a number that includes 56,000 thousand Greeks of Jewish faith, victims of the Holocaust. I must add that the USSR had come second losing only 2.8% of their population.

Since its establishment, Thessaloniki holds the scepter of the most strategically located city in the Balkan Peninsula, making it the most important trade and business hubs in Southeastern Europe. Its natural port is one of the largest in the Aegean and geographically dominates and commercially facilitates trade not only throughout the Balkans, but also Central European hinterland.

The strategic position of the city has been demonstrated by actions of various powers. Nazi Germany offered the city as a present to Yugoslavia in exchange of the latter to ally itself with the Axis. Upon the capture of the city by German forces, Hitler originally planned to annex Thessaloniki directly to the Third Reich, making it part of German territory, instead of allowing the puppet government in Athens to administer Thessaloniki.

Unfortunately for Greece, its drama continued after WWII. As defiant as Greece was against the black authoritarianism, it remained equally defiant against red totalitarianism. This time the ultimate goal was not just the takeover of Greece, but its dismemberment to force Macedonia’s secession and incorporation into the new communist held state. At the end of the fratricidal struggle, the democratic forces of Greece won and Macedonia was secure once again.

When on February 11, 1934, the Third Communist International Association, also known as the Comintern, decided to recognize a Third Slavic ethnic group in the Balkans besides the Serbian and Bulgarian, the “Macedonian” Slavs, it took into consideration Stalin’s understanding of what constituted a “nation.” The new ethnicity and its language would be the dominant ethnicity and language in the new country, i.e. the Balkan Federation, despite the fact that Macedonia’s population was by far Greek. The new country would include the territory of the newly formed People’s Republic of “Macedonia” or present day the FYROM, the Bulgarian part of Macedonia and, of course, Greece’s region of Macedonia, i.e. Macedonia Proper.

Ivo Banač (2003, xxxix) has hit the nail on the head when he observed,
​
“The growing successes of Tito’s partisans in Yugoslavia created new conditions in the Balkan region, favorable to Yugoslav solutions for such thorny issues as that of Macedonia. Precisely because under the Stalinist dispensation nationhood was the decisive element in territorial claims, it was very important to decide whether the Macedonians were a separate nationality or simply a Bulgarian regional group."

Stalin’s definition of a nation was this: “a nation is a historically evolved, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture”. As you have noticed, the word “ethnicity” is missing from Stalin’s definition.

Tito’s disagreement with Stalin was whether the new state of a Socialist Macedonian Federation should exist. It was not as much on the political system of a Macedonian state, nor was it about the influence of Belgrade versus that of Moscow over the new country; Stalin had already cemented the power in his USSR. Stalin’s comment to Milovan Djilas, a high ranking Yugoslav official, was that Tito was an amateur and the fact that in Moscow he treated Tito in the first months of 1948 with indignation having the opportunity to eliminate him altogether, indicates Stalin’s political security.

In February 1945 in Yalta, Stalin had given his word to both Roosevelt and Churchill that Greece would fall under the influence of the Anglo-American political sphere and because of that, no Macedonian federation could or would include Greek territories. The last thing Stalin wanted was to be seen as untrustworthy. Although it was very important to Stalin that he was perceived as a man of his word, he actually had no choice. In 1948, the reality was that the USSR’s mortars were not by anyone’s wildest imagination a match for the United States’ nuclear bomb. With no help from Moscow, the efforts of Yugoslavia proved fruitless. The democratic forces of Greece won and Macedonia was saved once again. 

During the period from 1949 to 1991, Skopje habitually attempted to destabilize Macedonia and indeed Greece, using hostile means and improvised history offering when necessary new historical “evidence” that the Macedonians were actually Slavs. In the 1970s and 1980s, trips of TV crews travelled to Pakistan and Afghanistan antagonizing each other on who would bring more evidence to Skopje, which somehow supported Vinko Pribojević’s and Mauro Orbini’s historical “truths” that everyone who lived north of Thessaly was a Slav. Of course, that includes the Thracians, the Illyrians, the Greeks of Macedonia, Getai, Celts, Goths, et al.


Twenty-two years after the independence of the FYROM in 1991, not only have relations with Greece not improved, but they have become more hostile as time passes. Skopje has elevated the myth of
Macedonism to a science. The government of the FYROM through informal, non-formal and formal education spreads anti-Hellenism all over the country while it expects NATO and EU membership as a reward for its inimical behavior. Skopje, not being able to respond to Greece’s compelling arguments, has opted to circumvent agreements and understandings. It has employed cyber operations, engaging its diaspora to do the same. The latter works unchecked and unopposed gaining the hearts and minds of the world and indeed the U.S. Congress through misrepresentation of facts and outright lies. The government in Skopje has reached the point of paying journalists, educators, and even contributing to the re-election campaigns of foreign politicians to promote its baseless cause. It is up to us, the Macedonians, to stop them.

Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

One hundred years after the reunification of Macedonia with Greece, our birthplace is still in danger. The geostrategic importance of Macedonia as it gradually increases, develops into the number ONE national security issue for Greece. In his book published in 1886 under the title Makedonia, Ioannis Kallostypis wrote, “Macedonia is the heart of Hellenism…Macedonia is Greece’s boulevard to freedom, the guarantee of its future.” 

At present, Macedonia holds the key to the territorial integrity of Greece. Since nobody has the right to negotiate the national security of Greece, nobody has the right to negotiate the name of Macedonia.  Macedonia is one and it is located in Greece.

​Thank you.
1 Comment

​Memorial to honour fallen Greek soldiers of the Greek-Italian War (1940-1941) to be commemorated at Military Cemeteries in Albania

10/25/2018

0 Comments

 
PictureThe most iconic image of the Greek-Italian War of 1940-1941 showing a son bidding farewell to his mother while she offers her blessings
As part of this year's Oxi Day commemoration events for October 28, two formal Memorial Ceremonies in Honour of the Fallen Greek Soldiers of the Greek-Italian War of 1940-1941 are going to be organised on Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. at the Military Cemetery of Këlcyrë, and at 12:00 p.m. at the Historical Military Cemetery of Bularat, Albania.

This year's commemoration events in Albania are taking place following the completion of the recent search, exhumation, identification and official burial of 673 fallen Greek soldiers who have been laid to rest in the aforementioned Military Cemeteries.

The remains of the 673 Greek soldiers were found in the Dragot region. The search for other fallen Greek soldiers will continue throughout various locations in southern Albania.


For the first time in history, the memorial ceremony will be organised in collaboration with the Albanian government as per the stipulations of the Inter-State Agreement of Cooperation between Greece and Albania “on the search, exhumation, identification and burial of Greek soldiers who fell in battle in Albania during the Greek-Italian war of 1940-1941 and the construction of cemeteries on the territory of the Republic of Albania for their burial.” 

​The Agreement was implemented following the meetings between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Greece and Albania in Crete, in November 2017, and in Korçë in January 2018.

Source: With notes from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic

0 Comments

Name deal vote pivotal for Greek government

10/14/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
With the fate of the Prespes name deal expected to become clear this week, as the pact goes to Skopje’s Parliament Tuesday, attention is to shift to the prospects for Greece’s fragile coalition which the contentious pact has tested.

​
Reports over the weekend suggested that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s Prime Minister Zoran Zaev would be able to draw the 80 votes he needs to push the deal and the constitutional changes it requires through his country’s Parliament, as he urged the political opposition to embrace the agreement as the best possible compromise. In the event that Zaev fails to secure the support he needs, he will face snap elections, most likely on November 25.

Officials in Athens are preparing for both scenarios. The ratification of the Prespes deal will mean that a rift within the coalition over the agreement will come to fore as the stage will be set for the pact to come to Greece’s Parliament.

Defense Minister Panos Kammenos, who leads the junior coalition partner Independent Greeks (ANEL), has repeatedly said he will vote down the deal in Parliament. However, it is increasingly clear that Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras can rely on the support of other MPs both for the Prespes deal and in a potential vote of confidence.

There are doubts over how Kammenos will choose to act. Government sources suggest that he will likely stick with the coalition until the end of the year, partly to claim the credit for retroactive salary payments expected to be made to members of the armed forces in December. Tsipras and Kammenos had agreed to discuss the Prespes deal in March, when it would most likely come to Greece’s Parliament assuming it is ratified in FYROM. However, with political alliances apparently changing ahead of elections next year, and ANEL’s ratings in opinion polls suggesting that the party would not re-enter Parliament, it is unclear what course of action Kammenos will choose.

Kammenos’s apparently unilateral decision to propose an alternative to the name deal during a visit to Washington, and to hail the importance of the US as a strategic partner, was widely seen as a step toward autonomy, at a time when the government is seeking to boost ties with Russia. Tsipras is to visit Russian President Vladimir Putin on December 7. Addressing SYRIZA’s central committee on Saturday, Tsipras said there was no alternative to the Prespes deal.

Source: Kathimerini

0 Comments

Remains of 573 Greek soldiers fallen in Albania in WWII to be buried on Friday

10/11/2018

0 Comments

 
PictureGreek soldiers on the Albanian front during the
Greek-Italian War of 1940-1941
The remains of 573 Greek soldiers who fell in the mountains of Albania during the 1940-1941 Greek-Italian War, at the start of WWII, will finally be laid to rest on Friday and receive a proper burial after 70 years, during a funeral ceremony to be held at a new Greek military cemetery in Kelcyra, Albania at noon.

Their burial meets a long-standing Greek demand for the exhumation, identification and burial of fallen Greek soldiers who fell in the fighting on Albania's mountains.

The Greek demands for the exhumation, identification and burial of fallen Greek soldiers was the result of two long rounds of gruelling negotiations initiated by Greece's Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias with the Albanian government, as part of an effort to resolved outstanding issues between the two countries. The negotiations were held in November 2017 on Crete, Greece and the second in January 2018 in Korce, Albania.


The work of recovering and exhuming the soldiers' remains, which had started in Dragot, Albania in January, was completed and also puts to rest an issue that had long plagued Greek-Albanian relations. The 573 Greek fallen soldiers join another 100 Greek soldiers that have already received burial rites in July 13.

The search for the remains of more Greek soldiers that fell in the battlefields of Albania will continue, the foreign ministry said, in accordance with a decision reached by a joint expert committee responsible for implementing the agreement between Greece and Albania.

Under the agreement, Albania has agreed to build military cemeteries for the Greek soldiers that died on its soil and to seek, exhume, identify and bury their remains.

The Greek-Italian War resulted in Greece's unexpected and surprising victory over the well-equipped military of Mussolini's Italy thus making this the first Allied military victory of World War Two in continental Europe. 

Source: AMNA

0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    Media/News Center

    Keep up to date with the latest news and developments that impact Greece's national security and Balkan regional stability.


    Picture

    Επίσης Διαβάστε

    Τα άρθρα του
    Μάρκου Α. Τέμπλαρ
    στα Ελληνικά εδω.

    Categories

    All
    Annual Assessment
    Current Affairs
    FYROM Watch
    Marcus A. Templar
    Press Releases

    Please Visit & Support

    Picture
    Picture

    RSS Feed

    Highlighted Papers

    Skopje's NATO Adventures: A Conversation on Insanity and Megalomania. The FYROM: Bribing its Way to Membership
    ​
    -- by Marcus A. Templar
    Ilinden: A Story of the Web and the Harpoon - The “People’s Republic of Krushevo”
    -- by Marcus A. Templar
    Fallacies and Facts on the Macedonian Issue
    -- by Marcus A. Templar
    A Synopsis of the FYROM Name Issue
    ​
    -- by Marcus A. Templar
    The Treaty of Bucharest: Borders of the Balkan countries as of 10 August 1913
    ​-- by Marcus A. Templar
    III Communist International, Fifth Congress - June 17-July 8, 1924 "Resolution on National Question in Central Europe and the Balkans" The Balkans: Macedonian and Thracian Questions
    -- Comintern Journal #7
    An Introduction to and Remarks on the Comintern Resolution of 11 January 1934
    -- by Marcus A. Templar
    Eliminating Opposition One Way or Another: The Case of the Expelled Swabian Germans and the Kidnapping of Greek Children
    ​
    -- by Marcus A. Templar
(c) 2014-2022 The Macedonian League