FYROM Slavmaced claim that theirs nation has right to self-determination and this is true.From the other side , Greece declared it had no claims on FYROM'S territory. Greece's only serious grievance was, and still is, the use by FYROM of the name "Macedonia" and its derivatives.

FYROM Slavmaced claim that theirs nation has right to self-determination and this is true.From the other side , Greece declared it had no claims on FYROM'S territory. Greece's only serious grievance was, and still is, the use by FYROM of the name "Macedonia" and its derivatives.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

GREECE PRESENTED HER CASE AS FOLLOWS [1]:
Usurpation of Greece’s cultural and historical legacy.
Greece considers the use of the constitutional name ‘Macedonia’ as usurpation of a name belonging to Greek history and heritage, which, moreover, have nothing to do with the culture and legacy of the current inhabitants of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, who are descended from Slavs that settled in the region in the 6th century, long after the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia. The Macedonians of the Kingdom of Macedonia, instead, were Greeks, who spoke Greek and took part in the Olympic Games, which was a prerogative of Greeks and denied to all foreigners. For Greece, this historical clarification is crucial, since the name issue is only the tip of the iceberg: in its opinion, the authorities of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” are engaging in a very dangerous exercise of rewriting history, which – more or less deliberately – encourages their citizens to believe they are descendants of the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia, that is of a non-Greek Macedonian ethnic group that settled in the region before the Slavs arrived. This rewriting of history extends to provocative gestures, such as the Gruevski government’s decision to rename Skopje airport ‘Alexander the Great’ in 2007, and numerous other initiatives which started with independence and have come thick and fast since 1997. Moreover, Greece considers “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” responsible for failing to discourage acts by private entities or individuals which could result in animosity, hostility and violence, including abroad.

Risk of leading to territorial claims.
For Greece, the ultimate risk in this type of process is that of opening the door to future territorial claims. It is well aware that “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” introduced constitutional amendments in 1992, explicitly renouncing all territorial claims against its neighbours. However, in its view, obfuscating certain historical facts, or even manipulating them in school or military contexts, may well spark a spirit of revenge among the general public. For example, Greece points out that many of the history and geography books1 used in schools and military academies treat “Macedonia” as a single ethnic and geographical entity. Part of that entity is said to have been partitioned between several states in the region - including Greece - which implies full-scale foreign occupation. Obviously, any suggestion of “occupation” may well provoke irredentist reactions - not necessarily now, but perhaps in the future. Great example was a documentary filmed in Skopje’s schools, which, the Greek authorities claim, is proof of the confusion surrounding “Macedonia’s” ethnic and geographical borders, not just among pupils, but also among teachers.In an unstable and volatile region like the Balkans, the risk of dangerous developments should not be underestimated, especially when ethnic and territorial issues are involved.

Risk of confusion with the Greek region of Macedonia.
In addition,Greece argues that the use of the name ‘Macedonia’ for its northern neighbour creates a risk of confusion with the Greek region of Macedonia and may bring about prejudice to exports of products from this region.

GREECE PRESENTED HER CASE AS FOLLOWS [1]:
Usurpation of Greece’s cultural and historical legacy.
Greece considers the use of the constitutional name ‘Macedonia’ as usurpation of a name belonging to Greek history and heritage, which, moreover, have nothing to do with the culture and legacy of the current inhabitants of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, who are descended from Slavs that settled in the region in the 6th century, long after the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia. The Macedonians of the Kingdom of Macedonia, instead, were Greeks, who spoke Greek and took part in the Olympic Games, which was a prerogative of Greeks and denied to all foreigners. For Greece, this historical clarification is crucial, since the name issue is only the tip of the iceberg: in its opinion, the authorities of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” are engaging in a very dangerous exercise of rewriting history, which – more or less deliberately – encourages their citizens to believe they are descendants of the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia, that is of a non-Greek Macedonian ethnic group that settled in the region before the Slavs arrived. This rewriting of history extends to provocative gestures, such as the Gruevski government’s decision to rename Skopje airport ‘Alexander the Great’ in 2007, and numerous other initiatives which started with independence and have come thick and fast since 1997. Moreover, Greece considers “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” responsible for failing to discourage acts by private entities or individuals which could result in animosity, hostility and violence, including abroad.

Risk of leading to territorial claims.
For Greece, the ultimate risk in this type of process is that of opening the door to future territorial claims. It is well aware that “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” introduced constitutional amendments in 1992, explicitly renouncing all territorial claims against its neighbours. However, in its view, obfuscating certain historical facts, or even manipulating them in school or military contexts, may well spark a spirit of revenge among the general public. For example, Greece points out that many of the history and geography books1 used in schools and military academies treat “Macedonia” as a single ethnic and geographical entity. Part of that entity is said to have been partitioned between several states in the region - including Greece - which implies full-scale foreign occupation. Obviously, any suggestion of “occupation” may well provoke irredentist reactions - not necessarily now, but perhaps in the future. Great example was a documentary filmed in Skopje’s schools, which, the Greek authorities claim, is proof of the confusion surrounding “Macedonia’s” ethnic and geographical borders, not just among pupils, but also among teachers.In an unstable and volatile region like the Balkans, the risk of dangerous developments should not be underestimated, especially when ethnic and territorial issues are involved.

Risk of confusion with the Greek region of Macedonia.
In addition,Greece argues that the use of the name ‘Macedonia’ for its northern neighbour creates a risk of confusion with the Greek region of Macedonia and may bring about prejudice to exports of products from this region.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

FYROM PRESENTED HER CASE AS FOLLOWS [1] :

National identity.
"The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” is a newly-independent state, engaged in the process of consolidating its democratic institutions and overcoming possible ethnic tensions through the reinforcement of a sense of civic citizenship among its population. Over time, not only have its borders varied considerably but also its very existence has had no continuity, even as a non-independent political entity, having been completely wiped off Europe’s map after the Second Balkan War and incorporated by its neighbours. The existence of a ‘Macedonian’ language is questioned by other Slavic countries, and so is the existence of a ‘Macedonian’ ethnicity. Even the independence of the ‘Macedonian’ Orthodox Church is not consensually accepted. Against this background, it is clear that the recognition of its constitutional name has for “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” a crucial meaning: it would be the recognition of its international legitimacy as a state and a nation with its own language and heritage. Internally, recognition of the country’s constitutional name would help to consolidate its national identity. It must also be stressed that, during my visit, both ethnic Macedonian and ethnic Albanian members of parliament expressed the same views on the name issue.

Greek opposition to use of the constitutional name is artificial, and motivated by a desire to deny the existence of a Macedonian minority in Greece.
The basic point is that every country is entitled to the name it chooses. Greece never opposed use of the name ‘Macedonia’, when the latter was one of the six federal entities that made up Yugoslavia (1944-1991) – but the problem arose when it became independent. This change of attitude is disappointing since Greece, as the new state’s neighbour, should have been one of the first to recognise it; on the other hand, it may reflect a simple refusal to recognise the existence of a ‘Macedonian’ nation, and thus the presence of a ‘Macedonian’ minority on Greek territory. This is why Greece rejects the constitutional name – which expresses nationality – but would be prepared to accept a geographical name, such as ‘Upper Macedonia’.This is also the position of the “Rainbow Party” in Greece, which claims to represent the interests of the country’s ‘Macedonian’ minority. This party - which decided not to take part in the last parliamentary elections, and which in the previous ones obtained only marginal support - stresses that the concept of “nation” promoted for centuries by the Greek state sees today’s Greeks as an ethnically homogeneous nation, and Ancient Greece’s only descendants. It claims that, shortly after “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” became independent, the Greek authorities started renaming ministries (the Ministry of Northern Greece became the ‘Ministry of Macedonia and Thrace’), airports (Thessaloniki Airport became ‘Thessaloniki-Macedonia’ Airport), etc, in order to strengthen the idea that use of the name “Macedonia” was a Greek monopoly. In fact, there is documentary proof that there was a “Macedonian” language in Greece – and thus a community which spoke it – even before 1945.Moreover, the Skopje authorities dismiss fears that recognising the country by its constitutional name might legitimise territorial claims as groundless: this has not only been ruled out by the various amendments to the Constitution, but also runs contrary to the foreign policy of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, which aims at integration within the Euro-Atlantic structures in a peaceful and co-operative spirit. According to Skopje, even the Badinter Commission acknowledged that no hostile intent underlay the choice of the constitutional name.

Use of a reference or acronym is offensive.
Skopje argues that using a provisional reference to denote a sovereign state or, even worse, the acronym FYROM or fYROM is disrespectful.

FYROM PRESENTED HER CASE AS FOLLOWS [1] :

National identity.
"The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” is a newly-independent state, engaged in the process of consolidating its democratic institutions and overcoming possible ethnic tensions through the reinforcement of a sense of civic citizenship among its population. Over time, not only have its borders varied considerably but also its very existence has had no continuity, even as a non-independent political entity, having been completely wiped off Europe’s map after the Second Balkan War and incorporated by its neighbours. The existence of a ‘Macedonian’ language is questioned by other Slavic countries, and so is the existence of a ‘Macedonian’ ethnicity. Even the independence of the ‘Macedonian’ Orthodox Church is not consensually accepted. Against this background, it is clear that the recognition of its constitutional name has for “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” a crucial meaning: it would be the recognition of its international legitimacy as a state and a nation with its own language and heritage. Internally, recognition of the country’s constitutional name would help to consolidate its national identity. It must also be stressed that, during my visit, both ethnic Macedonian and ethnic Albanian members of parliament expressed the same views on the name issue.

Greek opposition to use of the constitutional name is artificial, and motivated by a desire to deny the existence of a Macedonian minority in Greece.
The basic point is that every country is entitled to the name it chooses. Greece never opposed use of the name ‘Macedonia’, when the latter was one of the six federal entities that made up Yugoslavia (1944-1991) – but the problem arose when it became independent. This change of attitude is disappointing since Greece, as the new state’s neighbour, should have been one of the first to recognise it; on the other hand, it may reflect a simple refusal to recognise the existence of a ‘Macedonian’ nation, and thus the presence of a ‘Macedonian’ minority on Greek territory. This is why Greece rejects the constitutional name – which expresses nationality – but would be prepared to accept a geographical name, such as ‘Upper Macedonia’.This is also the position of the “Rainbow Party” in Greece, which claims to represent the interests of the country’s ‘Macedonian’ minority. This party - which decided not to take part in the last parliamentary elections, and which in the previous ones obtained only marginal support - stresses that the concept of “nation” promoted for centuries by the Greek state sees today’s Greeks as an ethnically homogeneous nation, and Ancient Greece’s only descendants. It claims that, shortly after “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” became independent, the Greek authorities started renaming ministries (the Ministry of Northern Greece became the ‘Ministry of Macedonia and Thrace’), airports (Thessaloniki Airport became ‘Thessaloniki-Macedonia’ Airport), etc, in order to strengthen the idea that use of the name “Macedonia” was a Greek monopoly. In fact, there is documentary proof that there was a “Macedonian” language in Greece – and thus a community which spoke it – even before 1945.Moreover, the Skopje authorities dismiss fears that recognising the country by its constitutional name might legitimise territorial claims as groundless: this has not only been ruled out by the various amendments to the Constitution, but also runs contrary to the foreign policy of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, which aims at integration within the Euro-Atlantic structures in a peaceful and co-operative spirit. According to Skopje, even the Badinter Commission acknowledged that no hostile intent underlay the choice of the constitutional name.

Use of a reference or acronym is offensive.
Skopje argues that using a provisional reference to denote a sovereign state or, even worse, the acronym FYROM or fYROM is disrespectful.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

Like it is known in the international affairs, every state is free to choose the name it wishes. THE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE ITS NAME, AS WITH ANY RIGHT IN GENERAL, MUST NOT, HOWEVER, IMPEDE THE RIGHTS OF OTHER STATES OR BE ACCOMPLISHED FOR A PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH THE RIGHT WAS ESTABLISHED FOR AND BE TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANOTHER STATE [2]. The prohibition of the abusive exercise of a right is a general principle of justice, which is repeatedly reiterated in international jurisdiction practice and is superior among the rules which govern the exercise of rights of those subject to international justice.

In regards to the specific issue, international practice shows clearly and undoubtedly that the right of states to choose names or symbols may be limited when, owing to these names or symbols, international peace and security is placed in danger. In any case, it is known that the threat against peace is not necessarily linked to the use of violence, but can even be manifested with acts which in the first place clash with international law [3].

FYROM Slavs(leadership and people) need to understand that stability can not be built on irredentism. This is very basic for the return of the whole region into development orbit. At the same time the USA should stop taking advantage of disputes that destabilize the region. These are the fundamental components of a real stabilizing activism.

As the Athens Academy and Senate pointed out (1992):It [FYROM] does not have the right to acquire, by international recognition, an advantage enjoyed by no other state in the world: to use a name which of itself propagandizes territorial aspirations.

Professor Zaikos [4] quoted that in this specific case, THE STANCE OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND OF THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOW THAT THE INSISTENCE OF GREECE THAT THE CHOOSING OF A STATE'S NAME CAN COMPRISE A FORM OF AGGRESSION IS NOT WITHOUT GROUNDS. Consequentially, the theoretical probability that the choice of a name by a state be considered as hostile propaganda against a neighbouring state, given that that name conceals territorial claims, has been recongised.

From this point of view, it is widely known that in FYROM maps have been repeatedly published which modify international borders, thereby portraying that state with expanded geographical and ethnic frontiers which include supposedly unredeemed territories in Greece. It is evident that the maps do not merely aim at geograhical information but at altering the frontiers of territorial sovereignty of states and can constitute an attempt at claiming sovereignty under international law.

FYROM'S TERMINOLOGY--"AEGEAN MACEDONIA"--FOR GREEK MACEDONIA AND THE SO CALL REPRESSION OF "THE MACEDONIANS IN GREECE" WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, WHICH NOT ONLY GENERATES CONFUSION BUT ALSO GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT MEMBERS OF THIS SMALL MINORITY CONSTITUTE THE ONLY OR TRUE MACEDONIANS IN THE REGION. As Loring Danforth point out [5] the usage of the «Aegean Macedonia» is regarded as a non-recognition of current European borders, including the legitimacy of Greek sovereignty over the area.

Like it is known in the international affairs, every state is free to choose the name it wishes. THE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE ITS NAME, AS WITH ANY RIGHT IN GENERAL, MUST NOT, HOWEVER, IMPEDE THE RIGHTS OF OTHER STATES OR BE ACCOMPLISHED FOR A PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH THE RIGHT WAS ESTABLISHED FOR AND BE TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANOTHER STATE [2]. The prohibition of the abusive exercise of a right is a general principle of justice, which is repeatedly reiterated in international jurisdiction practice and is superior among the rules which govern the exercise of rights of those subject to international justice.

In regards to the specific issue, international practice shows clearly and undoubtedly that the right of states to choose names or symbols may be limited when, owing to these names or symbols, international peace and security is placed in danger. In any case, it is known that the threat against peace is not necessarily linked to the use of violence, but can even be manifested with acts which in the first place clash with international law [3].

FYROM Slavs(leadership and people) need to understand that stability can not be built on irredentism. This is very basic for the return of the whole region into development orbit. At the same time the USA should stop taking advantage of disputes that destabilize the region. These are the fundamental components of a real stabilizing activism.

As the Athens Academy and Senate pointed out (1992):It [FYROM] does not have the right to acquire, by international recognition, an advantage enjoyed by no other state in the world: to use a name which of itself propagandizes territorial aspirations.

Professor Zaikos [4] quoted that in this specific case, THE STANCE OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND OF THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOW THAT THE INSISTENCE OF GREECE THAT THE CHOOSING OF A STATE'S NAME CAN COMPRISE A FORM OF AGGRESSION IS NOT WITHOUT GROUNDS. Consequentially, the theoretical probability that the choice of a name by a state be considered as hostile propaganda against a neighbouring state, given that that name conceals territorial claims, has been recongised.

From this point of view, it is widely known that in FYROM maps have been repeatedly published which modify international borders, thereby portraying that state with expanded geographical and ethnic frontiers which include supposedly unredeemed territories in Greece. It is evident that the maps do not merely aim at geograhical information but at altering the frontiers of territorial sovereignty of states and can constitute an attempt at claiming sovereignty under international law.

FYROM'S TERMINOLOGY--"AEGEAN MACEDONIA"--FOR GREEK MACEDONIA AND THE SO CALL REPRESSION OF "THE MACEDONIANS IN GREECE" WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, WHICH NOT ONLY GENERATES CONFUSION BUT ALSO GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT MEMBERS OF THIS SMALL MINORITY CONSTITUTE THE ONLY OR TRUE MACEDONIANS IN THE REGION. As Loring Danforth point out [5] the usage of the «Aegean Macedonia» is regarded as a non-recognition of current European borders, including the legitimacy of Greek sovereignty over the area.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

ACCEPTING OR PROPAGATING THE FYROM-MACEDONIAN VOCABULARY and statistics, outside time, space, and context, not distinguishing between cultural repression, on the one hand, and defense against subversion of territorial integrity, on the other, it has some value but only in an eyewitness, candid-camera, raw-news kind of way.

115 MEMBERS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS, FROM BOTH PARTIES, SUPPORT HOUSE RESOLUTION 356, expressing the "sense of the House of Representatives that FYROM should stop hostile activities and propaganda against Greece, and should work with the United Nations and Greece to find a mutually acceptable official name".

A SIMILAR RESOLUTION, S.R. 300, WAS INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE BY SENATORS ROBERT MENENDEZ, BARRACK OBAMA AND OLYMPIA SNOWE [6] URGES THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACED 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
• 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.

According to international regulations, the name of FYROM is being referred in six official languages of the resolution of the United Nations, among the "names of independent states which are generally recognised by the international community", as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". As a result, the statement of the FYROM delegations that the name 'FYROM', "is a result of Resolution 817 of the Security Council" and that "it is not the real name of the country", besides constituting a direct violation of the Interim Accord, are not accepted by the international bodies. According to international regulations, FYROM is not exempted from its obligation to choose a name after negotiations and agreement with Greece.

FYROM Slavmaced need to understand that international recognition by no means necessarily endows a state with legitimacy, especially when the recognition has been granted in such an impetuous manner in the midst of a crisis and if legitimacy is held to have any connection with a common history and a sense of common destiny as characteristics of the state's population, without which no state can survive.

GREECE HAS CALLED UPON FYROM'S LEADERSHIP TO ACT RESPONSIBLY AND SHOW POLITICAL COURAGE AND MEET GREECE HALF WAY. IT WILL BE A RESPONSIBLE MOVE ON THE PART OF AN ASPIRING CANDIDATE, A MOVE THAT WILL WIN THEM A EUROPEAN FUTURE, A FUTURE OF STABILITY, PEACE AND ECONOMIC PROSPERITY, BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH NATO AND THE EUROPEAN UNION ARE FOUNDED.

NOTES
[1] - Use of the provisional reference “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” at the Council of Europe, Doc. 11524, 8 February 2008
[2] - Á. Kiss, «Abuse of rights», Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume I, 1992, a. 4.
[3] -Ç. Neuhold, «Peace, Threat to», Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. Ill, a. 936.
[4] –Nikos Zaikos in «MacedonianIdentities».
[5] - The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World", Loring M. Danforth, p. 37
[6] - http://www.hancusa.net/content/view/302/35/


SOURCE
http://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/07/fyrom-name-issue-self-determination-or.html

and

http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/forum/macedonia-articles/7716-fyrom-name-issue-self-determination-territorial-aspiration-issue.html#post86475

ACCEPTING OR PROPAGATING THE FYROM-MACEDONIAN VOCABULARY and statistics, outside time, space, and context, not distinguishing between cultural repression, on the one hand, and defense against subversion of territorial integrity, on the other, it has some value but only in an eyewitness, candid-camera, raw-news kind of way.

115 MEMBERS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS, FROM BOTH PARTIES, SUPPORT HOUSE RESOLUTION 356, expressing the "sense of the House of Representatives that FYROM should stop hostile activities and propaganda against Greece, and should work with the United Nations and Greece to find a mutually acceptable official name".

A SIMILAR RESOLUTION, S.R. 300, WAS INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE BY SENATORS ROBERT MENENDEZ, BARRACK OBAMA AND OLYMPIA SNOWE [6] URGES THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACED 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
• 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.

According to international regulations, the name of FYROM is being referred in six official languages of the resolution of the United Nations, among the "names of independent states which are generally recognised by the international community", as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". As a result, the statement of the FYROM delegations that the name 'FYROM', "is a result of Resolution 817 of the Security Council" and that "it is not the real name of the country", besides constituting a direct violation of the Interim Accord, are not accepted by the international bodies. According to international regulations, FYROM is not exempted from its obligation to choose a name after negotiations and agreement with Greece.

FYROM Slavmaced need to understand that international recognition by no means necessarily endows a state with legitimacy, especially when the recognition has been granted in such an impetuous manner in the midst of a crisis and if legitimacy is held to have any connection with a common history and a sense of common destiny as characteristics of the state's population, without which no state can survive.

GREECE HAS CALLED UPON FYROM'S LEADERSHIP TO ACT RESPONSIBLY AND SHOW POLITICAL COURAGE AND MEET GREECE HALF WAY. IT WILL BE A RESPONSIBLE MOVE ON THE PART OF AN ASPIRING CANDIDATE, A MOVE THAT WILL WIN THEM A EUROPEAN FUTURE, A FUTURE OF STABILITY, PEACE AND ECONOMIC PROSPERITY, BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH NATO AND THE EUROPEAN UNION ARE FOUNDED.

NOTES
[1] - Use of the provisional reference “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” at the Council of Europe, Doc. 11524, 8 February 2008
[2] - Á. Kiss, «Abuse of rights», Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume I, 1992, a. 4.
[3] -Ç. Neuhold, «Peace, Threat to», Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. Ill, a. 936.
[4] –Nikos Zaikos in «MacedonianIdentities».
[5] - The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World", Loring M. Danforth, p. 37
[6] - http://www.hancusa.net/content/view/302/35/


SOURCE
http://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/07/fyrom-name-issue-self-determination-or.html

and

http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/forum/macedonia-articles/7716-fyrom-name-issue-self-determination-territorial-aspiration-issue.html#post86475

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

Good material from FOROG(Former Ottoman Republic of Greece) Pop-aganda.
Shall we?

The Macedonians from Greece can paralyze Greece just by lodging a complaint

Macedonia has two strong cards against Greece. The first is the suffering of the Macedonians who by descent are from Aegean Macedonia now under Greek control. The second is International laws which by the Norwegian principles of 1946 can legally force Greece to compensate for its wrong doings undertaken against the ethnic Macedonians in Greece.

Sam Vaknin, an expert in this area, who has experience in analyzing and documenting such situations from the Jewish holocaust, has also analyzed the fate and rights of the Macedonians from Greece.

According to Vaknin, the Republic of Macedonia and the Macedonians from Greece have an exceptionally strong case if the case is supported by the Republic of Macedonia. For this to work two things are vital. First the government of the Republic of Macedonia must immediately offer citizenship to all Macedonians from Aegean Macedonia no matter where they live. And second, the Republic of Macedonia must immediately declare these Macedonians and their inheritors as refugees. Doing that will qualify them to fall under the protection of International law for refugees.

Vaknin thinks the Jewish experience can help the Macedonians because there are close similarities between the two. For example even though Israel did not exist as a state when the holocaust occurred and these Jewish people, citizens of Germany, were not citizens of Israel, the state of Israel was able to help them. Here is what was done;

In 1951 all Jewish organizations got together and held a conference with the Israeli government where all their demands were consolidated and documented. At this point Israel became the guarantor of rights for all Jews. Afterwards the demands were presented to the West Germans and when all the talks were concluded West Germany agreed to pay compensation. From 1953 to 1967 Germany paid 3 billion marks to Israel, 450 million marks to Jewish organizations and 700 million dollars to the holocaust survivors.

It is essential and imperative that Macedonia follows Israel’s example and become the successor-country and protector of all Macedonians.

Following this example the Jews launched around 100,000 disputes against Germany, Swiss banks, insurance companies and other companies which had robbed the Jews of their assets and all of these disputes have been resolved.

Good material from FOROG(Former Ottoman Republic of Greece) Pop-aganda.
Shall we?

The Macedonians from Greece can paralyze Greece just by lodging a complaint

Macedonia has two strong cards against Greece. The first is the suffering of the Macedonians who by descent are from Aegean Macedonia now under Greek control. The second is International laws which by the Norwegian principles of 1946 can legally force Greece to compensate for its wrong doings undertaken against the ethnic Macedonians in Greece.

Sam Vaknin, an expert in this area, who has experience in analyzing and documenting such situations from the Jewish holocaust, has also analyzed the fate and rights of the Macedonians from Greece.

According to Vaknin, the Republic of Macedonia and the Macedonians from Greece have an exceptionally strong case if the case is supported by the Republic of Macedonia. For this to work two things are vital. First the government of the Republic of Macedonia must immediately offer citizenship to all Macedonians from Aegean Macedonia no matter where they live. And second, the Republic of Macedonia must immediately declare these Macedonians and their inheritors as refugees. Doing that will qualify them to fall under the protection of International law for refugees.

Vaknin thinks the Jewish experience can help the Macedonians because there are close similarities between the two. For example even though Israel did not exist as a state when the holocaust occurred and these Jewish people, citizens of Germany, were not citizens of Israel, the state of Israel was able to help them. Here is what was done;

In 1951 all Jewish organizations got together and held a conference with the Israeli government where all their demands were consolidated and documented. At this point Israel became the guarantor of rights for all Jews. Afterwards the demands were presented to the West Germans and when all the talks were concluded West Germany agreed to pay compensation. From 1953 to 1967 Germany paid 3 billion marks to Israel, 450 million marks to Jewish organizations and 700 million dollars to the holocaust survivors.

It is essential and imperative that Macedonia follows Israel’s example and become the successor-country and protector of all Macedonians.

Following this example the Jews launched around 100,000 disputes against Germany, Swiss banks, insurance companies and other companies which had robbed the Jews of their assets and all of these disputes have been resolved.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

The Norwegian principles were adopted immediately after the Nazi trials which recognized the eviction of people from their homes as criminal acts against humanity. “Before the adoption of the Norwegian principles, evicting citizens from their homes was legal,” says Vaknin.

It is interesting to note that most countries that were occupied by the Nazis worked the hardest to settle their accounts with the exiled Jews. Denmark and Norway over the years have paid over 200 million dollars for damages. Besides this, says Vaknin, thousands of Jews who were used as slaves by the German companies like “Mercedes” “BMW”, “Alliance”, “Siemens” and others, were also forced to pay indemnities.

The Macedonians from Greece have been evicted numerous times from Greece between 1913 and today. Many were evicted during the Metaxas dictatorship in 1936 but the most to be evicted was during the Greek Civil War in the late 1940’s. The Norwegian principles are very important for those who were evicted at this time. Also Macedonia was in a better position than Israel to help the Macedonian people because the Peoples’ Republic of Maced was already established at that time and was able to provide the exiled Macedonians with a home.

Now 80 countries subscribe to the Norwegian principles which have become law. The Norwegian principles do not discriminate against ethnic origins, nationality, or citizenship. If people’s assets have been confiscated, it does not matter if Greece has labeled these people Bulgarians or Slavs or if they are Greek citizens or not, the Norwegian principles apply. The key to enforcing these principles lies with the Republic of Macedonia which much choose the role of mother-country, protector and guarantor of rights for all Macedonians.

Let us also not forget that Greece returned assets only to people declared “Greeks by birth” which is discriminatory and according to Vaknin is illegal by US law.

The Norwegian principles were adopted immediately after the Nazi trials which recognized the eviction of people from their homes as criminal acts against humanity. “Before the adoption of the Norwegian principles, evicting citizens from their homes was legal,” says Vaknin.

It is interesting to note that most countries that were occupied by the Nazis worked the hardest to settle their accounts with the exiled Jews. Denmark and Norway over the years have paid over 200 million dollars for damages. Besides this, says Vaknin, thousands of Jews who were used as slaves by the German companies like “Mercedes” “BMW”, “Alliance”, “Siemens” and others, were also forced to pay indemnities.

The Macedonians from Greece have been evicted numerous times from Greece between 1913 and today. Many were evicted during the Metaxas dictatorship in 1936 but the most to be evicted was during the Greek Civil War in the late 1940’s. The Norwegian principles are very important for those who were evicted at this time. Also Macedonia was in a better position than Israel to help the Macedonian people because the Peoples’ Republic of Maced was already established at that time and was able to provide the exiled Macedonians with a home.

Now 80 countries subscribe to the Norwegian principles which have become law. The Norwegian principles do not discriminate against ethnic origins, nationality, or citizenship. If people’s assets have been confiscated, it does not matter if Greece has labeled these people Bulgarians or Slavs or if they are Greek citizens or not, the Norwegian principles apply. The key to enforcing these principles lies with the Republic of Macedonia which much choose the role of mother-country, protector and guarantor of rights for all Macedonians.

Let us also not forget that Greece returned assets only to people declared “Greeks by birth” which is discriminatory and according to Vaknin is illegal by US law.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

There are examples of past agreements that Macedonia can use as arguments to build its case. In 1923 Greece and Turkey signed such an agreement (Treaty of Lausanne) where Turkey was obliged to pay Greece an indemnity for the assets of evicted so called Greeks from Asia Minor. The same year Bulgaria had to pay compensation to Greece for the evicted so called Greeks from Bulgaria. Bulgaria had to pay Turkey for the evicted 350,000 Turks who were evicted by Todor Zhivkov in the period from 1948 to 1949.

With the help of the Republic of Macedonia the Macedonians of Greece living in the USA too can lodge a complaint against Greece under Resolution 562. The United States Congress enacted resolution 562 on October 13th, 1998 and gave it exterritorial powers, which means that USA law under certain conditions can be enforced outside of the USA.

If a Macedonian from Greece launches a dispute against Greece for confiscated property in an American court, Greece, if found guilty will have to pay indemnity otherwise the USA will freeze all Greek assets which are part of the Greek national reserves in the USA. Eighty countries in the world support such laws and among them included are all Western European countries.

There are examples of past agreements that Macedonia can use as arguments to build its case. In 1923 Greece and Turkey signed such an agreement (Treaty of Lausanne) where Turkey was obliged to pay Greece an indemnity for the assets of evicted so called Greeks from Asia Minor. The same year Bulgaria had to pay compensation to Greece for the evicted so called Greeks from Bulgaria. Bulgaria had to pay Turkey for the evicted 350,000 Turks who were evicted by Todor Zhivkov in the period from 1948 to 1949.

With the help of the Republic of Macedonia the Macedonians of Greece living in the USA too can lodge a complaint against Greece under Resolution 562. The United States Congress enacted resolution 562 on October 13th, 1998 and gave it exterritorial powers, which means that USA law under certain conditions can be enforced outside of the USA.

If a Macedonian from Greece launches a dispute against Greece for confiscated property in an American court, Greece, if found guilty will have to pay indemnity otherwise the USA will freeze all Greek assets which are part of the Greek national reserves in the USA. Eighty countries in the world support such laws and among them included are all Western European countries.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

Aegeans in the Government: Our aims are clear



On the occasion of the Association of Child Refugees from Greece holding its 4th World Reunion in Skopje from July 18th to the 21st, the Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski held a meeting with Association representatives to inform them that their concerns regarding their confiscated assets were now relayed to Greece.

“The opening of such a question by the Republic of Macedonia is a giant step for the Macedonians from Greece who have been waiting for a long period of time for this” says Georgi Ajanovski, president of the World Reunion Organizational Committee of the Child Refugee Association of Aegean Macedonians.

Aegeans in the Government: Our aims are clear



On the occasion of the Association of Child Refugees from Greece holding its 4th World Reunion in Skopje from July 18th to the 21st, the Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski held a meeting with Association representatives to inform them that their concerns regarding their confiscated assets were now relayed to Greece.

“The opening of such a question by the Republic of Macedonia is a giant step for the Macedonians from Greece who have been waiting for a long period of time for this” says Georgi Ajanovski, president of the World Reunion Organizational Committee of the Child Refugee Association of Aegean Macedonians.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

What does it say in Resolution 562?



Resolution 562 says “Countries which have not returned wrongly confiscated assets to their rightful owners, or have not made appropriate compensation according to the principles of law, should remove all restrictions which are hampering such compensation or the returning of assets to the people who may or may not be citizens of those countries”.

According to this resolution, Greek law which is requesting that the claimant of compensation declare himself Greek by birth is illegal and contrary to US law.

What does it say in Resolution 562?



Resolution 562 says “Countries which have not returned wrongly confiscated assets to their rightful owners, or have not made appropriate compensation according to the principles of law, should remove all restrictions which are hampering such compensation or the returning of assets to the people who may or may not be citizens of those countries”.

According to this resolution, Greek law which is requesting that the claimant of compensation declare himself Greek by birth is illegal and contrary to US law.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic