Zougla.gr

Κυριακή, 26 Οκτωβρίου 2014
Κι εδω διαβαστε πως και γιατι δημιουργηθηκαν οι Σλαβομακεδονες και το κρατος τους σε χρονολογικη σειρα, δυστυχως στα αγγλικα.

Κι εδω διαβαστε πως και γιατι δημιουργηθηκαν οι Σλαβομακεδονες και το κρατος τους σε χρονολογικη σειρα, δυστυχως στα αγγλικα.

Πρώτη καταχώρηση: Κυριακή, 12 Δεκεμβρίου 2010, 09:49


Stefan Verkovich, Bosnian folklorist:

If someone today should ask the Macedonian Slav "what are you?" he would be immediately be told: "I am Bulgarian" and would call his language "Bulgarian". ("Folk Songs of the Macedonian Bulgarian", Vol. 1, 1860)


Kuzman Shapkarev, Bulgarian folklorist, ethnographer and scientist:

But even stranger is the name "Macedonians", which was imposed on us only 10 to 15 years ago by outsiders and not as something by our own intellectuals... Yet the people in (Slavic) Macedonia know nothing of that ancient name, reintroduced today with a cunning aim on the one hand and a stupid one on the other. They know the older word: ‘Bugari’, although mispronounced: they have even adopted it as peculiarly theirs, inapplicable to other Bulgarians. You can find more about this in the introduction to the booklets I am sending you. They call their own Macedono-Bulgarian dialect the ‘Bugarski language’, while the rest of the Bulgarian dialects they refer to as the "Shopski language". (In a letter to Prof. Marin Drinov of May 25, 1888, Makedonski pregled, IX, 2, 1934, p. 55; the original letter is kept in the Marin Drinov Museum in Sofia, and it is available for examination and study)


Stoyan Novakovich, Serbian diplomat:

Since the Bulgarian idea, as it is well known to all, is deeply rooted in (geographical) Macedonia, I think it is almost impossible to shake it completely by opposing it merely with the Serbian idea. This idea, we fear, would be incapable, as opposition pure and simple, of suppressing the Bulgarian idea. That is why the Serbian idea will need an ally that could stand in direct opposition to the Bulgarianism and would contain in it the elements which could attract the people and their feelings and thus sever them from Bulgarianism. This ally I see in the Macedonism or to a certain extent in our nursing the Macedonian dialect and Macedonian separatism. (Novakovich's dispatch to the Serbian Minister of Education in 1888)


Krste Misirkov, Slav-Macedonian philologist and publicist:

Some will ask why I speak of breaking away from the Bulgarians when in the past we have even called ourselves Bulgarians and when it is generally accepted that unification creates strength, and not separation.("On the Macedonian Matters", Sofia 1903)

And, anyway, what sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians?("On the Macedonian Matters", Sofia 1903)

We are more Bulgarian than those in Bulgaria. ("On the Macedonian Matters", Sofia 1903)

We speak a Bulgarian language and we believed with Bulgaria is our strong power. ("On the Macedonian Matters", Sofia 1903)


Edith Durham, British writer, artist and traveller:

I have even met people who believe there is a special race which they call 'Macedonian', whose 'cause' they wish to aid. The truth is, that in a district which has no official frontiers, and never has had any stable ones, there are people of six races, who, as we have seen, all have causes to be considered [...] I shall speak only of the part I have stayed in- the districts of Lakes Ochrida and Prespa. Here there are Greeks, Slavs, Albanians, and Vlahs. Of Turks, except officials and such of the army as may be quartered on the spot, there are few. The Albanians, I believe, are all Moslem. Should there be any Christians they would be officially classed as Greeks. A large part of the land near Lake Prespa is owned by Moslem Albanians as "chiftliks" (farms). ("The Burden of the Balkans", 1905, p. 76)


Ferdinand Schevill, American professor of history:

Although in some areas (of geographical Macedonia) the various groups were all inextricably intermingled, it is pertinent to point out that in other sections a given race decidedly predominated. In the southern districts, for instance, and more particularly along the coast, the Greeks, a city people given to trade, had the upper hand, while to the north of them the Slavs, peasants for the most part working the soil, held sway. These Slavs may properly be considered as a special “Macedonian” group, but since they were closely related to both Bulgars and Serbs and had, moreover, in the past been usually incorporated in either the Bulgar or Serb state, they inevitably became the object of both Bulgar and Serb aspirations and an apple of discord between these rival nationalities. As an oppressed people on an exceedingly primitive level, the Macedonian Slavs had as late as the congress of Berlin exhibited no perceptible national consciousness of their own. It was therefore impossible to foretell in what direction they would lean when their awakening came; in fact, so indeterminate was the situation that under favourable circumstances they might even develop their own particular Macedonian consciousness. ("History of the Balkans": From the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 1922, reprint 1991)


Henry Morgenthau, American politician, ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the First World War:

The Greek War of Independence, which came to a successful conclusion in 1832, affected less than one half of the Greeks in the Turkish Empire. It did not bring freedom to the Greeks of Macedonia and Thrace, of Crete and the Aegean Islands, nor to the more than two million Greeks in Asia Minor and Constantinople […] When the Turks and the Bulgarians left, Macedonia remained a purely Greek region. ("I was sent to Athens", Doubleday, Doran & Company, 1929)


TIME Magazine, December 4, 1944:

For three weeks the Partisan National Liberation Committee had been busy creating, on paper, the new Yugoslavia. Twice Tito had flown to Moscow, conferred with Stalin and the Peoples' Commissar for Foreign Affairs Vlacheslav M. Molotov [...] The new power at once began to expand. Yugoslav Macedonians insisted that Yugoslavia's new Macedonian district should include not only Bulgarian Macedonia but also Greek Macedonia.

Bulgarian Prime Minister Kimon Georgiev, whose country is controlled by the Red Army and Communist-dominated Partisan bands: "I can definitely state Bulgaria will create no difficulties." But Greek Macedonia is the richest of all Greek provinces and includes the big Aegean port of Salonika.


United States Department of State, Foreign Relations Vol. VIII, Circular Airgram (868.014), 26 Dec. 1944:

The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic and Consular Officers The following is for your information and general guidance, but not for any positive action at this time. The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumours and semi-official statements in favour of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This Government considers talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonia "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece.

The approved policy of this Government is to oppose any revival of the Macedonian issue as related to Greece. The Greek section of Macedonia is largely inhabited by Greeks, and the Greek people are almost unanimously opposed to the creation of a Macedonian state. Allegations of serious Greek participation in any such agitation can be assumed to be false. This Government would regard as responsible any Government or group of Governments tolerating or encouraging menacing or aggressive acts of "Macedonian Forces" against Greece.

The Department would appreciate any information pertinent to this subject which may come to your attention.

Department of State


The New York Times, July 10, 1946:

Though once the heart of the empire of Alexander the Great, (Macedonia) has been for centuries a geographical expression rather than a political entity, and is today inhabited by an inextricable medley of people, among whom the Serbs, now Yugoslavs, are certainly the least numerous. But a "Federal Macedonia" has been projected as an integral part of Tito's plan for a federated Balkans [...] taking Greek Macedonia for an outlet to the Aegean Sea through Salonica.

The New York Times, July 16, 1946:

During the occupation [...] a combined effort was made to wrest Macedonia from Greece [...] an effort that allegedly continues, although in altered form [...] The main conspirational activity in Macedonia today appears to be directed from Skopje.

The New York Times, July 26, 1946:

The possible creation of a Macedonian free state within Greece to amalgamate with Marshal Tito's Federated Macedonia State, with is capital in Skopje [...] would fulfil the Slavic objectives of re-uniting the...province of Macedonia under Slavic rule, giving access of the sea to Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.

The New York Times, August 19, 1946:

According to most reliable information, a secret meeting was held yesterday at Comi in southern Bulgaria [...] to draw up plans for a general rising in Greek Macedonia, with the ultimate object of incorporating that region with Salonica in an autonomous Macedonia under Yugoslav hegemony.


Vittore Pisani, Italian linguist:

The (modern) Macedonian language is actually an artefact produced for primarily political reasons. ("Il Macedonico, Paideia, Rivista Letteraria di informazione bibliografica", vol. 12, p. 250, 1957)


Friedrich Scholz, German linguist:

Macedonian national conscience and from that conscientious promotion of Macedonian as a written language, first appears just in the beginning of our century and is strengthened particularly during in the years between the two world wars. ("Slavische Etymologie", 1966)


Stephen E. Palmer, Robert R. King:

The treatment of "Macedonian" history has the same primary goal as the creation of the "Macedonian" language: to de-Bulgarize the Macedonians and create a separate national consciousness." ("Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian Question", 1971)


Elizabeth Barker, English diplomat:

It is the national identity of these Slav Macedonians that has been the most violently contested aspect of the whole Macedonian dispute, and is still being contested today. There is no doubt that they are southern Slavs; they have a language, or a group of varying dialects, that is grammatically akin to Bulgarian but phonetically in some respects akin to Serbian, and which has certain quite distinctive features of its own... ...In regard to their own national feelings, all that can safely be said is that during the last eighty years many more Slav ‘Macedonians’ seem to have considered themselves Bulgarian, or closely linked to Bulgaria, than have considered themselves Serbian, or closely linked to Serbia (or Yugoslavia). Only the people of the Skopje region, in the North West, have ever shown much tendency to regard themselves as Serbs. The feeling of being ‘Macedonians’, and nothing but ‘Macedonians’, seems to be a sentiment of fairly recent growth, and even today is not very deep-rooted. ("Macedonia, Its Place in Balkan Power Politics", London, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1950, pp19-20, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980, p.10)


Henry Kissinger, American diplomat:

Jurnalist: What is your opinion for the problem which Greece has to accept the name Macedonia which the Scopje Government is trying to implement?

Henry Kissinger: Look, I believe that Greece is right to object and I agree with Athens. The reason is that I know history which is not the case with most of the others including most of the Government and Administration in Washington. The strength of the Greek case is that of the history which I must say that Athens have not used so far with success. (Management Centre Europe, Paris, 19 June 1992)


Thomas Niles, American diplomat:

For "Macedonia" to be recognized as an independent state, it would be necessary to change its name [...] It is historically proven that the Yugoslavian Democracy of Macedonia was created by Stalin, Tito and Dimitrov, aiming at the stealthy removal of a large part of Northern Greece. This Democracy was used during the period 1944-1949 in order to destabilise Greece. (Statement on the 23rd June 1992 to the SubCommittee of US Congress, Eleutherotypia newspaper, 24 June 1992)


The Times Guide to the Peoples of Europe:

Macedonian rock groups may claim Alexander the Great as a forefather of their nation but even the recent scholarly histories of the Macedonians spanning three millennia are spurious and only lay the Macedonians open to the ridicule of those who would deny their nationhood; the Macedonian regional name is ancient but contemporary Macedonians are among the newest nations in Europe. (The Times Guide to the Peoples of Europe, Times Books, Jan. 1994, p. 223-224)


Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics:

Macedonian can be called a Bulgarian dialect, as structurally it is most similar to Bulgarian. ("Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics", 1994)


Loring Danforth, American professor of anthropology:

Greek fears that use of the name Macedonia by Slavs will inevitably lead to the assertion of irredentist claims to territory in Greek Macedonia are heightened by fairly recent historical events. During World War II Bulgaria occupied portions of northern Greece, while one of the specific goals of the founders of the People's Republic of Macedonia in 1944 was "the unification of the entire Macedonian nation," to be achieved by "the liberation of the other two segments" of Macedonia. (“How can a woman give birth to one Greek and one Macedonian?” Melbourne, Australia, 1991-92)

The history of the construction of a Macedonian national identity does not begin with Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C. or with Saints Cyril and Methodius in the ninth century A.D. as Macedonian nationalist historians often claim. (“The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World”, Princeton Univ. Press, December 1995, p.56)

Finally, Krste Misirkov, who had clearly developed a strong sense of his own personal national identity as a Macedonian and who outspokenly and unambiguously called for Macedonian linguistic and national separatism, acknowledged that a ‘Macedonian’ national identity was a relatively recent historical development. ("The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World”, Princeton Univ. Press, December 1995, p.63)

The political and military leaders of the Slavs of Macedonia at the turn of the century seem not to have heard Misirkov's call for a separate Macedonian national identity; they continued to identify themselves in a national sense as Bulgarians rather than Macedonians. (“The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World”, Princeton Univ. Press, December 1995, p.64)

Whether a Macedonian nation existed at the time or not, it is perfectly clear that the communist party of Yugoslavia had important political reasons foe declaring that one did exist and for fostering its development through a concerted process of nation building, employing all the means at the disposal of the Yugoslav state. (“The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World”, Princeton Univ. Press, December 1995, p.66)


Edward O'Hara, British politician:

Attention may have been deflected from the danger in that area by the nature of the dispute between Macedonia (FYROM) and Greece, which is seen as being ostensibly over a name, although it amounts to more than that. A name is important as it gives an area an identity. I shall not indulge in a lecture on the ancient identity of the Macedonians and on Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great, but the Greeks were historically correct in the campaign that they launched in the early days of the dispute. Understandably, detached outsiders say, "But that is ancient history, isn't it?" Nor shall I engage in a lecture on the falsification of the history of Slavo-Macedonia since 1944, although that, too, has much hard factual content. I simply remind the House that Tito's renaming of Vardar Banovina as the Republic of Macedonia in 1944 was a political statement. More than that, it was a territorial claim. It laid claim to territory in Greece and in Bulgaria. Notably, the objective was the warm water port of Salonika on the Aegean. The Greeks fought a bloody civil war on that issue between 1945 and 1949, when we were celebrating the peace that was commemorated as recently as yesterday. Clause 49 of the constitution of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia enshrines that claim and subsequent propaganda, especially by a political faction, the VMRO, has kept the claim alive ever since. (House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 May 1995, Column 601)

President Kiro Gligorov may argue that he cannot control the publications of political parties, but I believe that the adoption of the sunburst emblem of Vergina, recently discovered in Greek Macedonia on the coffin of Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, is a wilful act of authorisation of that claim. If hon. Members wish to empathise with the strength of feeling about that emblem, it is as though the thistle were stolen from the Scots and adopted by another country. It is an emblem, but it stirs up passions. President Gligorov has mounted an impressive propaganda campaign about that, which has deflected attention from some of the more substantial issues in that earlier dispute and, in great measure, has succeeded in casting the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the guise of the little victim of the big bully, Greece...

Greece has no territorial dispute with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It is almost unique in the Balkans in having no such territorial claims on any of its neighbours. Greece has demonstrated its desire to have policies of support and co-operation with its neighbours in that part of the world by its breakthrough in its relationship with Albania, on which both Governments deserve congratulations because thereby another potential flashpoint to the south of the Balkans was damped down. Greece is physically located in the Balkans. It wants nothing more than to achieve a similar relationship with the former Yugoslav republic, but it needs support to do so.

It is no wonder that, in matters of politics in the Balkans, Greece feels misunderstood. It cannot understand why, after it stood alone with the United Kingdom against the forces of fascism between 28 October 1940--Ohi day, as it is still called--and 27 April 1941, when Athens finally fell, its former allies now appear to be taking the part of forces against which it stood, especially when, after the second world war, it endured those further four years of civil war to hold the line against the communist advance to the Aegean. That was done for the United States and for the United Kingdom especially--the world powers of the time--and those Governments objected, in 1944, to Tito's change of the name of Vardar Banovina. (House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 May 1995, Column 602)


The New Yorker, January 23, 1995:

(FYROM) was a province of Yugoslavia once known as Vardar Banovina; it was renamed the ‘Republic of Macedonia’ in 1945 by Marshal Tito. Its populace was varied, the largest portion being Slavs, whose ancestors had arrived in the region nearly a thousand years after the most famous Macedonians of all, Phillip II and his son, Alexander the Great. However, Tito -coveting the large Greek region of Macedonia- encouraged the irredentist idea of all Macedonians sharing a distinct ethnic identity. He then supported the Communist-led Democratic Army in the Greek Civil War, a brutal conflict that tore the country from 1946 to 1949. Greece's fears were reawakened in 1991, when the fragment of Yugoslavia declared its independence as the nation of Macedonia; its newly elected President, Kiro Gligorov, was one of Tito's Communist bosses, and had helped propagate the idea of a separate ethnic identity for Macedonians. Gligorov says that his Macedonia has no territorial ambitions, but the Greeks have not been comforted. In 1992 and 1993, Gligorov's government issued new school textbooks that showed "geographical ethnic boundaries" encompassing the whole of Greek Macedonia; the country's flag carries the symbol of the empire of Alexander the Great; and a preamble to its 1991 Constitution pledges to protect Macedonians everywhere. The Greeks do not pretend that the Lilliputian Macedonia, with its two million people, poses any threat to them at the moment, but history has taught them to take the long view. In a scenario that some Greeks project, for example, Macedonians might some day attempt a hostile incursion, in concert with their fellow-Slavs in Bulgaria, which occupied part of Greece during the Second World War.


T.J. Winnifrith, British academic:

Macedonia (FYROM) was also an attempt at a multicultural society. Here the fragments are just about holding together, although the cement that binds them is an unreliable mixture of propaganda and myth. The 'Macedonian' language has been created, some rather misty history involving Tsar Samuel, probably a Bulgarian, and Alexander the Great, almost certainly a Greek, has been invented, and the name Macedonia has been adopted. Do we destroy these myths or live with them? Apparently these 'radical Slavic factions' decided to live with their myths and lies for the constant amusement of the rest of the world!" ("Shattered Eagles, Balkan Fragments", Duckworth, 1995)


Dennis P. Hupchick, American professor of history:

The Macedonian nationalists quite simply stole all of Bulgarian historical argument concerning Macedonia, substituting Macedonian for Bulgarian ethnic tags in the story. ("Conflict and Chaos in Eastern Europe", Palgrave Macmillan, 1995)

The obviously plagiarized historical argument of the Macedonian nationalists for a separate Macedonian ethnicity could be supported only by linguistic reality, and that worked against them until the 1940s. Until a modern Macedonian literary language was mandated by the socialist-led partisan movement from Macedonia in 1944, most outside observers and linguists agreed with the Bulgarians in considering the vernacular spoken by the Macedonian Slavs as a western dialect of Bulgarian. ("Conflict and Chaos in Eastern Europe", Palgrave Macmillan, 1995)


Eugene N. Borza, American historian, has written multiple works on ancient Macedon and is regarded an expert on the overall subject:

Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émigrés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity [...] The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one. They reside in a territory once part of a famous ancient kingdom, which has borne the Macedonian name as a region ever since and was called ”Macedonia” for nearly half a century as part of Yugoslavia. And they speak a language now recognized by most linguists outside Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece as a south Slavic language separate from Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian. Their own so-called Macedonian ethnicity had evolved for more than a century, and thus it seemed natural and appropriate for them to call the new nation “Macedonia” and to attempt to provide some cultural references to bolster ethnic survival. ("Macedonia Redux", in "The Eye Expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity", ed. Frances B Tichener & Richard F. Moorton, University of California Press, 1999)


Thomas Gerard Gallagher, British professor:

Where an overarching identity existed among Slavs in Macedonia, it was a Bulgarian one until at least the 1860s. The cultural impetus for a separated "Macedonian identity" would only emerge later... (Outcast Europe, page 47, Routledge, 2001)


Richard Clogg, British historian:

But, despite the widespread deprivation, the appeal of communism was to be critically impeded by the Comintern's insistence (between 1924 and 1935) that the Greek party should support the idea of a separate Macedonian state, the creation of which would have entailed the detachment of a large area of Northern Greece. (“A Concise History of Greece”, p92, Cambridge, 2002)


Robert D. Kaplan, American journalist:

Experts agree that the Slavic language he (Delchev) spoke - and the one spoken here now – is closer to Bulgarian than to Serbian. But on account of Titos break with Stalin, the Yugoslav government, encouraged by the Serbs, promoted a separate ethnic and linguistic identity for "Macedonian", in order to sever any emotional link between the local population and the one next door in Bulgaria. ("Balkan Ghosts", p.60)


Stefan Nikolov, Bulgarian diplomat:

Every ethnic Macedonian who does not claim Albanian or Serbian origin has the right to declare a Bulgarian origin. This is an individual act in accordance with the historical reality of our common ethnic origin. (Agency for Bulgarians Abroad of the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry in Sofia, AFP report, Sunday 13 August 2006)


Ljubčo Georgievski, former Prime Minister and Vice President of the FYROM:

Why are we ashamed and flee from the truth that whole positive Macedonian revolutionary tradition comes exactly from exarchist part of Macedonian people? We shall not say a new truth if we mention the fact that everyone, Gotse Delchev, Dame Gruev, Gjorche Petrov, Pere Toshev - must I list and count all of them - were teachers of the Bulgarian Exarchate in Macedonia. (In his book "С лице към истината" - "Facing the truth", 2007)


Michael David Rann, Australian politician:

For many years, since the decade of the '90s, we have been making efforts so that the name Republic of Macedonia is not recognized, because no nation should steal the history and symbols of another nation […] For all of us who love History, and know History, Macedonia is as Greek as the Acropolis. (Eleftherotypia newspaper, May 05, 2007)


United States Senate:

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered... (Introduced in Senate)

SRES 300 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. RES. 300 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered Interim Agreement between FYROM and Greece regarding `hostile activities or propaganda' and should work with the United Nations and Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of finding a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

August 3, 2007 Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, and Mr. OBAMA) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered Interim Agreement between FYROM and Greece regarding `hostile activities or propaganda' and should work with the United Nations and Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of finding a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM.

Whereas, on April 8, 1993, the United Nations General Assembly admitted as a member the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), under the name the `Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia';

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 817 (1993) states that the dispute over the name must be resolved to maintain peaceful relations between Greece and FYROM;

Whereas, on September 13, 1995, Greece and FYROM signed a United Nations-brokered Interim Accord that, among other things, commits them to not `support claims to any part of the territory of the other party or claims for a change of their existing frontiers';

Whereas a pre-eminent goal of the United Nations Interim Accord was to stop FYROM from utilizing, since its admittance to the United Nations in 1993, what the Accord calls `propaganda', including in school textbooks;

Whereas a television report in recent years showed students in a state-run school in FYROM still being taught that parts of Greece, including Greek Macedonia, are rightfully part of FYROM;

Whereas some textbooks, including the Military Academy textbook published in 2004 by the Military Academy `General Mihailo Apostolski' in the FYROM capital city, contain maps showing that a `Greater Macedonia' extends many miles south into Greece to Mount Olympus and miles east to Mount Pirin in Bulgaria;

Whereas, in direct contradiction of the spirit of the United Nations Interim Accord's section `A', entitled `Friendly Relations and Confidence Building Measures', which attempts to eliminate challenges regarding `historic and cultural patrimony', the Government of FYROM recently renamed the capital city's international airport `Alexander the Great Airport';

Whereas the aforementioned acts constitute a breach of FYROM's international obligations deriving from the spirit of the United Nations Interim Accord, which provide that FYROM should abstain from any form of `propaganda' against Greece's historical or cultural heritage;

Whereas such acts are not compatible with Article 10 of the United Nations Interim Accord, which calls for `improving understanding and good neighbourly relations', as well as with European standards and values endorsed by European Union member-states; and

Whereas this information, like that exposed in the media report and elsewhere, being used contrary to the United Nations Interim Accord instills hostility and a rationale for irredentism in portions of the population of FYROM toward Greece and the history of Greece: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate

(1) urges the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to observe its obligations under Article 7 of the 1995 United Nations-brokered Interim Accord, which directs the parties to `promptly take effective measures to prohibit hostile activities or propaganda by state-controlled agencies and to discourage acts by private entities likely to incite violence, hatred or hostility' and review the contents of textbooks, maps, and teaching aids to ensure that such tools are stating accurate information; and

(2) urges FYROM to work with Greece within the framework of the United Nations process to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals by reaching a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM.

(The Senate of the United States, Mr. Menendez (for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Obama), August 3, 2007)

[edit] Quotes from officials of the FYROM

Kiro Gligorov, first president of the FYROM:

We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians. (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35)

We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia… Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century (AD). (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992)


Ljubica Acevska, diplomat of the FYROM:

We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great... Greece is Macedonia’s second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nemitz [...] We are Slavs and we speak a Slav language. (On 22 January 1999, in a speech on the present situation in the Balkans)


Gyordan Veselinov, diplomat of the FYROM:

We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian… There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my country. (Ottawa Citizen, 24 February 1999)


Slobodan Casule, politician of the FYROM:

We belong to the same Slav people. (To the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Solomon Pasi, Utrinski Vesnik newspaper, December 29, 2001)


Denko Maleski, politician of the FYROM:

The lack of capability by Macedonists in condition of democracy, also contributes to the vision of their opponents. The creation of the Macedonian nation, for almost half of a century, was done in a condition of single-party dictatorship. In those times, there was no difference between science and ideology, so the Macedonian historiography, unopposed by anybody, comfortably performed a selection of the historic material from which the Macedonian identity was created. There is nothing atypical here for the process of the creation of any modern nation, except when falsification from the type of substitution of the word “Bulgarian” with the word “Macedonian” were made. In a case which that was not possible, the persons from history were proclaimed for Bulgarian agents who crossed into some imaginary pure Macedonian space.

But when we had to encourage the moderate Greek political variant and move into a direction of reconciliation among peoples, our nationalism was modelled according to the Greek one. The direct descendants of Alexander the Great raised the fallen flag on which the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia was written and led the people in the final confrontation with the Hellenes (Greeks), the direct descendants of Greek gods. This warlike attitude of the "winners" which was a consequence of the fear of politician from heavy and unpopular compromises had its price. In those years, we lost our capability for strategic dialog. With Greeks? No, with ourselves. Since then, namely, we reach towards some fictional ethnic purity which we seek in the depths of the history and we are angry at those which dare to call us Slavs and our language and culture Slavic!? We are angry when they name us what we -if we have to define ourselves in such categories- are, showing that we are people full with complexes which are ashamed for ourselves. We lost our capability for reasonable judgment, someone shall say, because the past of the Balkans teaches us that to be wise among fools is foolish. Maybe. Maybe the British historians are right when they say that in history one can find confirmation for every modern thesis, so, we could say, also for the one that we are descendants of the Ancient Macedonians… (Utrinski Vesnik newspaper, October 16, 2006)

The idea that Alexander the Great belong to us, was at the mind of some outsider political groups only! These groups were insignificant the first years of our independence but the big problem is that the old Balkan Nations have been learned to legitimate themselves through their history. In Balkans, if you want to be recognised as a Nation, you need to have history of 3000 years old. So since you made us to invent a history, we invent it! [...] You forced us to the arms of the extreme nationalists who today claim that we are direct descendents of Alexander the Great! (In an interview for Greek TV channel Mega, November 2006)

Τελευταία ενημέρωση: Κυριακή, 12 Δεκεμβρίου 2010, 09:49


Εκτύπωση
Αποστολή
Μέγεθος κειμένου: A A A
Αρχική σελίδα
blog comments powered by Disqus