Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(FYROM)
-
The Name Issue
-
As provided for by UN Security Council Resolution 817
(1993), which urges the parties to continue to work together
[] to arrive at a speedy settlement of their difference,
Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are
carrying out negotiations under the auspices of the UN
Secretary General, with the objective of finding a mutually
acceptable solution to the name issue. According to Article
5, Paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord, which was signed in
New York, on September 13, 1995, the Parties agree to
continue negotiations under the auspices of the
Secretary-General of the United Nations [] with a view to
reaching agreement on the difference described in []
Security Council resolution 817 (1993).
Henceforth the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia has formally accepted that the name of
its State is an issue for negotiation as provided for in UN
Security Council Resolution 817 (1993).
-
The signing of the Interim Accord was the departure point
for the normalisation of relations between Greece and the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The only issue that
remained pending was that of the name of the new Republic,
which was accepted by the UN with the provisional name
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The two countries
began negotiations under the auspices of the UN on the final
name.
-
Since 1995, the development of Greek-FYROM relations has
been impressive. Greece is one of FYROMs main trade partners
and is first among foreign investors. Bolstering development
and helping to combat unemployment, Greece's economic
presence in FYROM is a stabilising factor.
-
Although a number of efforts have been made in recent years
to settle the name issue on a bilateral level, FYROMs
domestic political state of affairs has hindered the
settlement of the issue in a manner harmful for both sides.
In various instances, however, the two sides came very close
to reaching a settlement.
-
Immediately following the elections, the new government
publicly expressed its willingness to achieve a mutually
acceptable solution, giving new momentum to the UN-mediated
negotiations on the name issue.
-
The Skopje governments submission, on March 22, 2005, of its
application for accession to the European Union is an
opportunity for the settlement of the only outstanding issue
between the two countries at the soonest possible time. At
the first meeting of the EU-FYROM Stability and Association
Council (Brussels, September 12, 2004), the European Union
noted that the difference over the name of the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia still persists and encouraged
the finding of a mutually acceptable solution within the
framework of UNSCR 817/93 and 845/93 by Greece and the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
-
On November 4, 2004, the US shifted its policy and
unilaterally recognised FYROM under its constitutional name.
This unilateral decision undermines the efforts to reach a
mutually acceptable settlement, given that it reinforces
FYROMs inflexibility.
-
There is no chance of FYROM acceding to the EU and NATO
under the name Republic of Macedonia. FYROM itself has
agreed to this stipulation: according to Article 11,
Paragraph 1 of the Interim Accord, Greece agrees not to
object to the application by or the membership of the Party
of the Second Part [FYROM] in international, multilateral
and regional organizations and institutions of which the
Party of the First Part [Greece] is a member; however, the
Party of the First Part [Greece] reserves the right to
object to any membership referred to above if and to the
extent of the Party of the Second Part [FYROM] is to be
referred to in such organization or institution differently
than in paragraph 2 of the
United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993).
-
In the light of FYROMs desire to accede to the EU, it is
necessary that the demands of the Stabilisation and
Association Process and the obligations of the Thessaloniki
Agenda regarding regional cooperation be met. In order to
avoid complications, it is necessary that a mutually
acceptable solution on the name issue be agreed upon before
the European Commission issues its Opinion regarding FYROMs
accession application.
-
In the Joint Press Release of the 2nd EU
Ministerial Forum on the Western Balkans (Brussels, November
22, 2004), all the participants agreed that it was necessary
to find mutually acceptable solutions and for their to be
agreements on pending issues with neighbouring countries.
-
On April 25, 2005, for the first time in many years, the
conclusions of the EU General Affairs and External Relations
Council made reference to recent developments regarding the
issue of the name of the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia. The reference was as follows: The Council noted
the recent developments with regard to the dispute over the
name of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and
specifically the proposals presented by the UN Secretary
Generals Special Representative in support of efforts toward
a solution. The Council urged the two sides to intensify
their efforts, within the context of the negotiations,
toward the finding of a mutually acceptable solution within
the framework of UN Security Council Resolutions 817/1993
and 845/1993.
-
A few months ago, Mr. Nimetz, the UN Secretary Generals
Special Representative, submitted the first comprehensive
proposal for the finding of a mutually acceptable solution
to the name issue.
-
Mr. Nimetz proposed the adoption for international use of
the name Republika Makedonija-Skopje, untranslated. This
name would be valid for use in all the organs of the UN,
which would recommend to other international organizations
and to states that they too adopt this name for official
international use.
-
Greek Foreign Minister Mr. Molyviatis stated on April 4,
2005, that this proposal does not fully satisfy our desires
and aspirations, but we believe that it constitutes a basis
for negotiations.
-
On October 8, 2005, Mr. Nimetz presented a new proposal, the
contents of which have not been made public. FYROM accepted
the new proposal in principle, while Greece returned it as
unacceptable, as it adopts the positions of the FYROM side.
-
Greece continues to be in favour of the UN process provided
for in Resolution 817/93, and states its willingness to
reach a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue.
-
Greece desires a solution that will lead to the complete
normalisation of our bilateral relations, will facilitate
the course of our neighbouring country towards Euro-Atlantic
institutions, and will strengthen stability and cooperation
in our region.
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece: The Name Issue.
Questions and Answers
1. What is the problem?
The
choice of the name Macedonia by FYROM directly raises the issue of
usurpation of the cultural heritage of a neighbouring country. The
name constitutes the basis for staking an exclusive rights claim
over the entire geographical area of Macedonia. More specifically,
to call only the Slavo-Macedonians Macedonians monopolizes the name
for the Slavo-Macedonians and creates semiological confusion, whilst
violating the human rights and the right to self-determination of
Greek Macedonians. The use of the name by FYROM alone may also
create problems in the trade area, and subsequently become a
potential springboard for distorting reality, and a basis for
activities far removed from the standards set by the European Union
and more specifically the clause on good neighbourly relations. The
best example of this is to be seen in the content of school
textbooks in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
For
the first time in their history, in recognition of the problem the
United Nations (Security Council and General Assembly) gave the new
state the temporary name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(FYROM).
2. What caused the problem?
The
problem arose when in 1944 the then Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia under Tito formed a federal state from scratch, to which
it gave the name of a large neighbouring administrative region of
Greece - Macedonia. The present-day independent state has evolved
from the calculations and steps taken in the 40s.
3. How has the problem evolved?
In 1992 the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia tabled an
application to join the United Nations under the name of Republic of
Macedonia. On 7th April 1993 the Security Council noted that
although the country fulfilled the criteria for accession to the UN,
there was nonetheless a dispute over its name, which needed to be
resolved in the interests of maintaining peace and good
neighbourliness in the region. The country was consequently
accepted under the temporary name of Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia.
Security Council Resolution 817/7.4.1993 officially states that the
difference over the name of the State needs to be resolved in the
interest of the maintenance of peaceful and good-neighbourly
relations in the region and calls upon the parties to work together
for a speedy solution to their dispute. The process for solving
this dispute is indicated in Security Council Resolution
817/7.4.1993 and Resolution 845/18.6.1993, which calls upon the
parties to continue their bilateral talks under the auspices of the
UN Secretary-General with the objective of solving outstanding
bilateral issues as soon as possible. Also, on 8th April 1993, the
General Assembly unanimously accepted the accession of the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the United Nations with this
name. Consequently, both the Security Council and the General
Assembly recognised the validity of the Greek arguments on the name
issue.
On 13th September 1995, Greece and FYROM signed an Interim Agreement
which constituted the point of departure for normalisation of their
relations, with the only pending issue being that of the name.
According to the Interim Agreement, the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia has officially accepted that the name of the State is a
subject of bilateral negotiations with Greece, as provided for by
the two Security Council Resolutions, in other words 817/93 and
845/93, and Article 5.1 of the Interim Agreement. It is therefore
clear that the object of the exercise is to replace the temporary
international name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia with a
permanent name acceptable to both parties.
4. Why has the issue not been settled so far?
Over
the past decade the two countries have many times been on the brink
of reaching a solution. Unfortunately, FYROMs intransigence and
more specifically that of the present government has not enabled us
to reach a mutually acceptable solution.
5. Does Greece maybe feel threatened by a small country such as the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia?
There is no question of a military threat to Greece by the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. On the contrary, cooperation
between the two neighbouring countries is developing in many
sectors. The fact, however, that the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia insists on achieving exclusive use of the name Macedonia,
or Democracy of Macedonia on the one hand, is not in accordance with
the respective UN Resolutions (Security Council Resolutions 817/93
and 845/93) and, on the other hand, is directed against the cultural
heritage and historical identity of the Greeks. The visible risk of
future destabilisation in the region should therefore not be
ignored. Moreover, since the Ohrid Agreement, FYROM has changed its
constitutional form and no longer sees itself, as foreseen in the
1991 Constitution, as the state of the Macedonians.
6. Will FYROMs European prospects help settle the issue?
It
is a good opportunity for settling the issue, since good neighbourly
relations are a requirement of states wanting to join the European
Union and do not square with the FYROM Slavo-Macedonians insistence
in standing by their intransigent and negative stance towards
efforts to resolve the issue.
7. Does recognition of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia by
the United States under the name of Democracy of Macedonia make it
more difficult to solve the dispute?
The
United States recognise the need for a mutually acceptable solution
within the United Nations framework, irrespective of the reasoning
that led to their unilateral recognition. As they have repeated on
many occasions, the United States support Mr. Nimetz efforts.
8. What is the current state of play?
For
the first time on 29th March, the UN Secretary-Generals Special
Envoy Mr. Nimetz tabled a global proposal for finding a mutually
acceptable solution to the name issue. Mr. Nimetz proposes that for
international use the name Republika Makedonija-Skopje should be
used in untranslated form. This name would be valid for all UN
bodies, and the UN will propose to other international organisations
and states that they also adopt it for official international use.
On 8th April, Greece announced that she accepted the Nimetz proposal
as a basis for negotiations despite the fact that there were many
points in the proposal which needed to be clarified and amended.
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, on the other hand,
rejected the proposal and insisted on a double name.
On
25 April, 2005, for the first time in many years, the Conclusions of
the E.U. General Affairs Council referred to recent developments on
the issue of the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
as follows: The Council noted recent developments concerning the
dispute as to the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
and, in particular, all of the ideas put forward by the Special
Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations, whose
efforts it supports. The Council encouraged Greece and the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to intensify their efforts with a
view to finding a negotiated and mutually acceptable solution within
the framework of United Nations Security Council Resolutions
817/1993 and 845/1993 as quickly as possible.
On 8
October, 2005, Mr. Nimetz presented a new proposal, the contents of
which have not been made public. FYROM initially accepted this new
proposal. Greece, however, declared it unacceptable as it adopted
FYROMs position.
Greece continues to support the procedure stipulated in UN
Resolution 813/93, stating her readiness to reach a jointly
acceptable solution on the name issue.
Greece has demonstrated her desire to reach a solution that will
lead to the full normalisation of bilateral relations, facilitate
the course of her neighbour towards the Euro-Atlantic institutions,
and consolidate stability and cooperation in our region, which would
be conducive to solving the issue of Kosovo. Greece has also made it
clear that there is no question of her neighbour acceding either to
the European Union or to NATO under the name Republic of Macedonia.
