The Sofia Echo/Sofia Echo Media
November 30, 2007

A Sisyphea dispute: Elena Koinova

It has always been turbulent in the Balkans, to the extent that the West coined the term “Balkanisation” to define partition into small hostile states. In the past two decades, this definition has been transliterated many times into various languages, by fate differing little in each, of the former Yugoslav states. And the plethora of transliterations for the word Macedonia across the Balkans gave rise to an enduring name dispute.
The name dispute between Greece and the Former Yugoslav State of the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) having continued for a century, it really took off in 1991 when the tiny region broke away from Yugoslavia to form an independent state. Ever since, it has insisted that the international community officially recognise the new state as Macedonia.
The name dispute has been staged on a number of scenes – through negotiations, lobbying and written discourse. While in the early 1990s it mainly took the form of written discourse through paid advertisements in the New York Times, with the emergence of the internet era it has gone online through many a blog.
Greece, for its part, claimed that Macedonia is the name belonging to the northern part of its country. As the immediate descendants of ancient Greeks, the Greek argument runs, the Hellenic state is the rightful owner of the name of Alexander the Great (the Macedonian) and Macedonia alike. It argues that the FYROM was as keen on the name because it is part of a long-term strategy to return what Greece claims the FYROM believes are regions of its own. According to Greece, Macedonia wants to return to its fold Macedonian-populated areas in Greece, Bulgaria and Albania. “Such irredentist claims” are a threat to Greece’s territorial integrity, the Hellenic nation’s argument runs. Hence, the importance attached to a seemingly immaterial dispute such as the name issue.
The name dispute has seen the sides as steadfast in their positions as to require international intermediation. Matthew Nimetz, appointed by the United Nations (UN) as the special envoy for life on the name dispute between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia, has so far brokered dozens of talks between the sides and has scheduled another round in Athens on December 4-5.
In the past few years, Greece scored a number of interim victories, among them success in persuading the EU into officially referring to the former Yugoslav state as the FYROM. The US too, itself a host of a big Greek diaspora that has predicated the long-standing US preference for the Greek cause on the issue, has only recently showed signs of going from pro-Greek to neutral on the name dispute.
On November 14, the US under-secretary for political affairs, R Nicholas Burns, told the house foreign affairs subcommittee on Europe that Greece should refrain from becoming too radical in its fight over the name Macedonia. Namely, it should not object to the FYROM’s bid for Nato membership. Burns was responding to Greece’s recent warning that should the FYROM not drop its “irredentist claims”, it would be vetoing Macedonia’s request for an invitation at Nato’s Bucharest summit in April next year.
“We ask for a spirit of compromise on both sides,” Burns said in a statement. “The United States cannot impose a solution on either side. Finding a solution acceptable by both countries is something they need to do themselves.”
With rounds of negotiations running in and out and talks hardly making any progress in the past few years, there is little hope for a breakthrough at the December 4-5 meeting. However, there are signs that a long-running stalemate is about to shift, a little, towards a solution.
In mid-November, Greek foreign minister Dora Bakoyannis met Greek prime minister Costas Karamanlis to discuss the name dispute, alongside a five-point plan the EU general affairs council put before member states to accelerate the accession bids of countries from the West Balkans, the FYROM included.
Recent comments by the Greek media have given indirect signs of a change in the status quo. Despite that Karamanlis did not officially back down from the official name dispute position, the opposition’s fear that he might do so is indicative that some changes might yet be ahead. The opposition accused Karamanlis of back-peddalling in mid-November.
According to experts on the issue, the Greek government’s potential new position might be prompted not by changing rhetoric within the government but by growing international pressure to have an economically and politically stable FYROM. As Burns said, “I think we all agree it is in everyone’s interest to see Macedonia become a stable and co-operative neighbour of Greece and part of the Nato alliance.”
The EU has also seen a number of countries gradually using the name Macedonia name instead of the FYROM.
The West being interested in “debalkanising” the Balkans, it remains to be seen how long it will take before the problem is resolved.
The international community recognises that the very essence of the problem rests on artificial grounds. Greece had not a single mention of Macedonia in the name of its provinces until the name issue arose. Besides, experts on the Macedonian issue such as John Shea have pinpointed that a number of people who regard themselves as Macedonians live in northern Greece, Bulgaria and Albania. As such, the Macedonian name belongs to anyone who regards himself as Macedonian just as much as the Bulgarian name does to everyone regarding himself as Bulgarian. On the other hand, there has been little of the Macedonian streak in northern Greece, as Shea notes. He said the region had been predominantly populated by migrants from northern Turkey and people of Macedonian origin, rather than by ethnic Greeks.
This dispute sees the patchy Balkans deserving the “Balkanisation” term. It remains to be seen if it can ever be “debalkanised”.