Interview with Marcus Templar on the Macedonian Issue 2011
Australian Macedonian Advisory Council
July 01, 2011
The Australian Macedonian Advisory Council (AMAC) has exclusively interviewed Prof. Marcus Templar, an expert on issues relating to the region of Macedonia and the Balkans at large.
AMAC: Professor Templar, last year, in October 2010, you presented a number of lectures across Australia on the Macedonian issue and its geopolitical significance today. These lectures were organized by the Australian Macedonian Advisory Council in coordination with Greek-Australian organizations in many Australian cities. Which cities did you visit, and how would you describe your experience?
Marcus Templar: My experience in Australia was unique. The people were very friendly and courteous. The trip made me realize that life on the downside is not bad. I had some difficulties understanding Australian English, but I am sure they had problems with me as well. I suppose, it was the case of an Athenian visiting Macedonia in the old times, or that of an Ozolian from Locris visiting Ionia. To ask for an interpreter would have made me look like those FYROM officials who insist they need one when interacting with the Bulgarians; or like the Croats when dealing with the Serbs. We know it is not necessary!
My presentations in Australia dealt with topics on the History of the South Slavs in the Balkans. The Balkans is a region of great significance, not only because of their geopolitical position, but also because of their subsurface wealth.
I gave nine presentations in six cities: Melbourne, Canberra, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, and Sydney. I found every city to be special, each in its own way. Australia is a diverse country with distinct points of interest. I made many friends, but unfortunately, due to a very heavy schedule, it is not easy for me to maintain ties. I hope they forgive me for this. When I visited Australia I was on a sabbatical, my first in 28 years, and I relished the change. I enjoyed the football match between St. Kilda and Melbourne, the cricket match between India and Australia. I was hoping I would get to watch a rugby match between the Wallabies and the Old Blacks, but I was not that lucky. Perhaps I will be luckier another time. I hope to visit Australia again, although I am not sure when due to my professional obligations that send me off to places of the world which no travel agent would recommend. I really appreciated the hospitality I was met with, and I want to publicly thank all who invited me and made this trip possible.
AMAC: Did you think your presentations were well attended? How strong was the interest in the discussions that followed? What were some of the central topics that were discussed?
Marcus Templar: I was pleasantly surprised by the large turnout. The central topic of my presentations was the history of the Slavs of the South Balkans, which, in essence, is the history of the Slavic people of the FYROM and, partially, of present day Bulgarians and Serbs. I was not particularly surprised by the attendance of members from the FYROM diaspora, just as I was not surprised by their reactions to my presentation. The subject is hot and the facts remain unclear not only to many Greeks and their communities abroad, but especially to the Slavs of the FYROM and their diaspora.
AMAC: Prof. Templar, you oftentimes argue that the system of Nations and Nationalities in communist Yugoslavia included some interesting nodes. What do you mean by that?
Marcus Templar: The architects of post-WWII Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito charted the foundations of the new state of Yugoslavia, after considering all the ethnic groups within communist Yugoslavia. The original name of communist Yugoslavia was People´s Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with each constituent republic bearing the title: People´s Republic. In this form the People´s Republic of Macedonia was established by the Constitution of the People´s Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on August 2, 1944.
The framers wanted to ensure that the ethnic Slavic groups formed the backbone of the country. Simultaneously, they realized that the Serbs, who were more numerous than the other Slavs, were a factor they could not ignore. Tito wanted a politically "balanced" country a Slavic Yugoslavia with communist flavor.
According to the system of Nations and Nationalities, if the mother-country of an ethnic group of people lay outside the country of Yugoslavia, it was defined as a Narodnost or a Nationality, which meant it was an ethnic minority. This was how the Albanians and the Hungarians were classified. But the rest of the six constituent peoples of Yugoslavia – the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, Muslims and "Macedonians," whose mother-countries all lay inside Yugoslavia – were considered ethnic Slavic groups and constituted a Narod, or a Nation. They were not ethnic minorities.
Thus, this system of Nations (ethnic Slavs) and Nationalities (ethnic minorities) had little to do with the size of an ethnic group, and only with whether the origins and mother-country of a specific group was inside or outside Yugoslavia. For example, since only the Slav peoples were allowed to form a Republic, the Montenegrins as Slavs, although fewer in number, formed a nation that was a Republic; whereas the Albanians, despite their greater numbers, were only a nationality (ethnic minority) living in a Province.
So the important question to ask is:
Based upon this system of nations and nationalities as laid down by Tito and his architects, would it have been possible for a group of people to be classified as a Nation in a Republic, had the mother-country and origins of these people been outside the borders of Yugoslavia? Obviously not. And since only Slav peoples could form Republics, and the "People´s Republic of Macedonia" qualified to become a Republic, can we comfortably conclude that the "Macedonians" had to be Slavs? It is obvious that Tito and the framers of Yugoslavia knew this, as did the people too.
AMAC: How did Tito manage to achieve this political balance?
Marcus Templar: Tito´s main concern was not the Slavic ethnic groups, but the non-Slavic minorities within the new state. Looking at the final result of the political framework, we can see that it was the Slavic ethnicity that was at the heart of the new political makeover; after all, the name of the state was Yugoslavia or Land of South Slavs.
The framers of Yugoslavia basically made sure of two things: a. they placed all Slavic populations at a higher political level than the non-Slavic ones; b. they curtailed the power of the more populous Serbs. Territories with heavy Slavic populations, as I just mentioned, were recognized as Republics (i.e. Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and "Macedonia"); while those areas of Serbia with heavy numbers of minorities (such as Vojvodina – with roughly 60% Serbs), or with significant non-Slavic majorities (such as Kosovo – with roughly 90% Albanians), were made into Autonomous Provinces within the Serbian Republic. Yugoslavia included some 26 ethnic groups and, besides the deceptive invention of the "Macedonian" nation, the communists also invented the "Yugoslav" ethnic designation. This "ethnic" group included all who wanted to identify with the new country, including anyone born to parents of mixed marriages.
AMAC: But we have read that the Constitution of 1974 elevated Kosovo´s status. Did this change not affect the rest of the country?
Marcus Templar: In 1974, with Tito unsure of how long he would still be around, the Constitution was changed to slightly elevate the status of the two Provinces in Yugoslavia. He implemented the Collective Presidency: this included one representative from each Republic, one from each Province and the president of the Presidium of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia ex officio. Tito remained in this post as President for Life. Although important constitutional changes took place in the rest of Yugoslavia, the two provinces Vojvodina and Kosovo i Metohija continued to remain Provinces for they had not met the ethnic standard required to qualify as a Republic.
Therefore, based upon the legal system of Nations and Nationalities (national minorities), the People´s Republic of Macedonia having met the necessary criteria, was for the second time awarded by the officials of Yugoslavia the status not of Province (which would have classified its people as a non-Slavic people living within the boundaries of Yugoslavia), but of a Republic, with the new name of "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" (S.R. Macedonia). This clearly endorsed once more the population of "Macedonia" as Slavic and was accepted unanimously by the "Macedonian" parliament itself.
According to this system, the "S. R. Macedonia" as narod, or a Nation, suddenly became the mother-country for every "Macedonian", including those living in adjacent countries. And by taking the name "Macedonians" the Slavic population under Skopje's leadership now had an inherent right to demand union with any other territory that carried this name. This was how the seed of the problem that has reached the proportions we are facing today was planted. Because, for well over two thousand years before this Yugoslavian new-fangled notion, Macedonia Proper, historic homeland of Alexander the Great, was in Greece - outside the territory of Yugoslavia! The same Macedonia Proper from where together with his troops and the rest of his Greek comrades, Alexander embarked on his expedition to Persia in 331 B.C. The FYROM diaspora demonstrated its knowledge of this when its members paraded in Melbourne proclaiming, "Solun [Thessaloniki] will become the Capital of Macedonia again." Since no protests or disclaimers were issued, least of all by their own government in Skopje, suggesting collective support, it is apparent why such provocative claims of "mother-country" that target the northern province of Greece were perceived as an open affront to the Greeks. As a reminder, (besides constituting a territorial claim against Greece), if this were true and the "Macedonians" of Yugoslavia could have traced their origins to Greece, then the "S. R. Macedonia" would have been recognized as a Nationality within Yugoslavia – and not as a Nation; this never happened for the very reason that its people always were (and, naturally, still are) Slavs who came to the Balkans more than 600 hundred years after the death of Alexander. The framers of Yugoslavia, who created their Nation, knew better.
AMAC: Are the people of FYROM aware of this manipulative "Macedonization" process of the Slavs by its politicians?
Marcus Templar: The old generations did know. But not the newer generations, they do not know. On page 19 of the book Stara Srbija i Makedonija, Vol. 1 published in Belgrade in 1890 by Spiridon Gopšević, it is stated by the writer that: "Veselinović delineated Macedonia between Strumica, Demir-kapija, Bitola, and Kastoria, while the north-west of the part, down to the [Adriatic] sea, Montenegro and Serbia, was considered as ´Old Serbia´." Does that not say something?
I want to also add a couple of appropriate statements made by Vulić and a couple made by Denko Maleski published in Utrinski Vesnik. Please add the particulars so people can research them.
Nikola Vulić, a prominent Serbian historian commenting on the demands made by communists from Skopje, said, "It is deceptive to trace your descent to Alexander the Great" (Ivan Katardžiev, Po Visinite na Makedonskata Istorija - по висините на македонската историја [On the heights of Macedonian history], Skopje 1986, pp. 376-377), in Spyros Sfetas, The Birth of ´Macedonianism´ in the Interwar Period (The role of the Communist International in the hatching of the ´Macedonian nation´), page 299-300.
Then we have Maleski´s statement: "In those years [since 1991], we lost our capability for strategic dialogue. With the Greeks? No, with ourselves. Since then, I mean, we´ve reached towards some fictional ethnic purity which we seek in the depths of History; and we are angry at those who dare call us Slavs and our language and culture Slavic! We are angry when they name us what we are, if we have to define ourselves in such categories, showing that we are people full with complexes being ashamed of ourselves." [Denko Maleski, "Историските бедеми на етничкиот национализам во нашата свест" [The Historic Walls of Ethnic Nationalism in Our Consciousness] Utrinski Vesnik, Issue Number 1515, Saturday, March 4, 2006. http://star.utrinski.com.mk/?pbroj=1515&pr=18&stID=18244] and "Misirkov´s words ´we are not a nation, but we will become one´ have come true…. There is nothing atypical here for the process of the creation of any modern nation, except when the falsification was made by substituting the word ´Bulgarian´ with the word ´Macedonian´." [Denko Maleski, "Дилемата на македонското национално единство" [The dilemma of Macedonian National Unity], Utrinski Vesnik, Issue Number 2324, Saturday, March 3, 2007. http://www.utrinski.com.mk/?ItemID=C7A7DD4ECD45C946BF6573284EC01164 ]
This confirms the argument: If the framers of Yugoslavia believed the majority population of the "S. R. Macedonia" to be Macedonian and not Slavic, then the setup in the south part of Yugoslavia would have turned out to be very different. The area of Old Serbia, that is located within the present day FYROM north of Gradsko, would have become part of the Republic of Serbia. The rest of it would have become the "Autonomous Province of Macedonia," within Serbia with its Capital as, possibly, Bitolj (Bitola). This would have indicated that the people living in the area of the "Autonomous Province of Macedonia" were Macedonians, a non-Slavic ethnic group whose mother-country was outside the borders of Yugoslavia - in this case Greece.
But none of the above happened. By elevating Skopje´s territory to a Republic, the framers of Yugoslavia signified that the Skopian majority was Slavic and was recognized by the Yugoslavian government as such. The final conclusion of all of the above: the people of FYROM, who call themselves "Macedonians," are ethnically SLAVS, with their own political past to prove it and have no connection to the Greek Macedonians, neither culturally, nor linguistically.
Interesting too: Only Slavic languages, such as Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, and "Macedonian" had equal legal standing in Yugoslavia; the minority languages were equal only to one another in the areas they were spoken. Thus the recognition of "Macedonian" as an official language of Yugoslavia is another confirmation of its Slavic status.
AMAC: What makes you believe that the ancient Macedonians were one of the Greek tribes?
Marcus Templar: As you know I was born and raised in Macedonia. Going to school in Veria, I would pass by ancient Macedonian ruins, graves, and inscriptions. Anything Macedonian I saw had a Greek stamp on it. Besides, one has to have in mind that the history of Greece as taught in Greek schools has not been written by modern Greeks, but is a development of centuries-long debates; it is an open book. Greece is a functioning democracy in which one of its strengths is free speech. On the contrary, the same Greek history taught in the FYROM as FYROM´s own, has been written by political appointees impersonating historians, whose task it was to write a history in accordance with the communist political - and Skopje´s ethnonationalistic - aims. FYROM´s version of Greek history has never been exposed to any open academic scrutiny regarding its claim of the connection between the FYROM Slavic majority and the ancient Macedonians. There is nothing academic to support this. Very few FYROM ethnic Slavs know the true history of their own people, the so-called "Seven" Slavic Tribes that spread all over the Central Balkans, including the areas of present day Bulgaria and Serbia, but they are afraid to even think of admitting it. Can you imagine what would happen in an academically structured forum with experts of Greeco-Roman Antiquities i.e. classicists, in which an audience would be present, but secluded, in order to avoid hecklers? How far do you think Greek history as taught at present in FYROM will go? It will go nowhere; that is certain. Although not all academics may agree that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, not one of them will agree that the FYROM ethnic Slavs descended from the ancient Macedonians. This is certain, as well!!
Even Borza, well known for his antithesis to the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians, has stated, "First, the matter of the Hellenic origins of the Macedonians: Nicholas Hammond's general conclusion that the origin of the Macedonians lies in the pool of proto-Hellenic speakers who migrated out of the Pindus Mountains during the Iron Age is acceptable." (Eugene Borza, Makedonika, Ethnicity and Cultural Policy at Alexander's Court (Claremont: Regina Books), 149.) Proto-Hellenic or Proto-Greek language is the common ancestor of all known varieties of Greek, which expanded to 204 dialects due to the Hellenic insular and rugged territories. Borza gives as reason that the Macedonians left from the main corpus of the Greeks very early, in the beginning of the Iron Age. However, he also says that the ancient "Macedonians … are unrelated to any modern people" by which he obviously excludes the FYROM ethnic Slavs (Eugene N. Borza, Before Alexander: constructing early Macedonia. (Claremont: Regina Books), 1999, Page 89). The Slavic logic is erratic: "Since we do not consider the ancient Macedonians as Greeks, we are Macedonians." And to cover this illogical logic they invoke alleged testimonies by anonymous "famous" European historians or anonymous world- renowned linguists, although not one linguist has come out to say that the present "Macedonian" language originates from the ancient Macedonian dialect of the Greek language.
The fact is that both Macedonians and Arcado-Cyprians were part of the same pool of proto-Hellenic tribes, although the Arcadians migrated to Cyprus during the Bronze Age and the Macedonians during the Iron Age. Buck alludes to the same, basing his opinion on about 200 Greek names found in Asia Minor. He states, "We may accept now as a matter of record the existence of a Greek colony in Asia Minor as early as the fourteenth century BC". But if the existence of Greek speakers in the 14th century BC in Asia Minor, so far away from the main Greek corpus, determines Greek presence, how is it possible for one to state that the Macedonians, who were much closer to their mother city of Hellas (=Greece), near Ancient Pharsalus in Thessaly, and who left about three and one half centuries later than those Greeks in Asia Minor (c. 1150 BC), cannot be classified as Greeks?
Of course, there are two more arguments/questions that not one opponent of the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians, including Borza, has ever answered: "How can the Arcado-Cypriots be Greek, but not the Macedonians?" Both tribes came out of the same proto-Hellenic pool, but the Arcado-Cypriots left almost three centuries before the Macedonians did.
What about the following statement by Aeschines? "For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was absolutely under his control, joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted." (Aeschines, On the Embassy, 32) The above statement makes Macedonia as Greek as Sparta. It means that the Greeks considered the Macedonians to be Greek, as well. There goes the argument of the FYROM ethnic Slavs and Pasko Kuzman´s antiquization. If he dares, let him argue the above in an international academic journal to the satisfaction of the academic community, not the FYROM diaspora. "Hic Rhodus, hic saltus."
The FYROM´s argument that "Alexander the Great belongs to all, in that way he is also ours," implicitly recognizes the fact that they are not the "owners" of anything connected with Alexander the Great. Since they are not the owners of that history, they can have no say on who can or cannot share that history. It is up to Greece to share or not to share it.
Many countries share Greek History at present. All Balkan, most Middle Eastern, Asian (South, South East, Central Asian) countries share Greek history in one way or another; some Western and Central European countries do so as well. Yet, with the exception of the FYROM, not one of these countries has ever claimed "ownership" of that history. If one looks at an Afghan banknote, one sees Greek history on it; it is a coin of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom displaying the Dioscuri brothers. The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom was established by Alexander the Great´s Macedonian military heirs in that region. It is an honor for the Greeks.
The historical books of the Maccabees and Josephus, for instance, very clearly identify the Macedonians and their leaders as Greek. Since those books constitute part of the history of the Jewish people, their value cannot be marginalized. The ancient Persians and Medes identified the Macedonians as Greek, as well. One can find Greeks from the era of Alexander the Great in Egypt. One of them was Penelope Delta, an ancestor of the present leader of the New Democracy Party of Greece Antonis Samaras. The people of Kalasha still consider King Seleucus as their first leader and founder of their community. The best book I have read on the issue of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom is The Greeks in Bactria and India by W. W. Tarn. The argument that the ancient Macedonians spoke a different language from the rest of the Greeks is absolutely ludicrous. Greek had 204 dialects. So any Greek spoke a dialect different from the rest of the Greeks. The Spartans spoke differently from the Ionians. Even Herodotus says it in book 1.142.3-4. He enumerates four dialects and how close they are to each other.
AMAC: Thank you for this, Professor Templar. Let´s move on to the latest developments on the Macedonian issue affecting the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and Greece. Recently, the Greek PM Mr. Papandreou had another ´high level´ meeting with the FYROM PM Mr. Gruevski, which lasted 45 minutes. These types of one-on-one meetings have been occurring somewhat regularly over the last couple of years between the two PM´s. Do you consider them valuable or a waste of time?
Marcus Templar: These Prime Ministers have thus far met around eight-nine times with no change in their country´s position. Besides a photo-opportunity, I have not seen any positive result and I am not expecting anything. They both do it only because they want to show they are being constructive. Papandreou might want to be there, but I have my reasonable doubts about Gruevski. For as long as the Slavic governments of the FYROM continue their ethnonationalistic path with revanchist overtones, one must not expect any solution on the matter. A mere agreement will not bring the solution or peace. Anyone who believes in such things is hallucinating.
Milovan Djilas, a Yugoslav Communist politician, theorist and author from Montenegro, explained, "The [appropriation] of the symbols of Philip [II] of Macedonia is foolishness, it demonstrates megalomania and raises inexcusable claims… I do not support any claims against Greece. They are not claims based on facts."
AMAC: Also, not too long ago, the FYROM took Greece to the highest U.N. court – the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – seeking a ruling that Athens illegally vetoed its application for NATO membership in 2008 in breach of the 1995 interim agreement to support its membership of international organizations under the name "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." What is your opinion on this development? Does the FYROM have a case?
Marcus Templar: NATO has no such mechanism as veto. I do not see how a court can decide on the procedures of a UN organization as NATO regarding the application of non-member. The ICJ has no jurisdiction over NATO, and no matter what its judgment is going to be, it cannot and may not change anything on the matter of membership.
In a pre-emptive manner the FYROM pursued a counter-productive action against Greece, but also against the United Nations Security Counsel (UNSC). The Interim Agreement was the result of UNSC 817 and 845 Resolutions. In this case any legal decision of the court undermines the UNSC authority and imposes its authority upon an organization for which it has no jurisdiction. The UNSC is an office that offers political judgments. This is not the case of a border dispute that the UNSC would recommend a court decision.
The Agreement is the result of a political dispute as the EU Court has already decided in the 1990s when the EU sued Greece for its embargo against the FYROM. Thus the same ICJ has no jurisdiction over political issues without throwing mud on the UNSC regardless of its judgment. International Law is not statutory, but is based on precedents, various treaties and norms, including decisions of the UNSC. All these instruments are political in nature and derive from political decisions, and that includes wars. There is no judicial review in International Law and the ICJ may not challenge the political decision of the UNSC since it is the only international competent body that deals with the security of the world.
The FYROM´s behavior reminds me of an angry toddler in a tantrum, who, though caught stealing from the cookie jar, is still screaming, "I want it; it is mine, only mine. I want it." Egoism and egotism based on its people´s formal and informal education, coupled with false pride and megalomania for a stolen past are the main characteristics of the country´s Slavic population. I laugh when I see young men wearing ancient military uniforms, wearing Roman helmets, and holding short javelins and shields, bearing -- in violation of article 7 of the Interim Agreement -- the Sun of Vergina. When I was in Australia, I made a comment stating that these uniforms are actually Roman, not Macedonian, and a Greek Australian reminded me, "Since when do the FYROMians care about accuracy in History and historical truth?" He was right!
Apart from creating impressions, the outcome of such actions cannot be positive. It shows political immaturity on behalf of the FYROM leadership, and desperation. I believe it bows to its diaspora; some of its members have spent exorbitant sums for their cause.
NATO membership presupposes certain political and military achievements, such as the following: a functioning democratic political system, democratic civil-military relations, treatment of minority populations in accordance with democratic governance, a functioning market economy, and the ability to make a military contribution to the alliance. After the above preconditions have been met, a candidate country is judged in the form of consensus on the following criteria: relevance to NATO´s ability to project power in areas of likely contingencies; creation of interior and easily defensive borders within the alliance; risks that may accrue from a higher level of commitment to a new ally; and added transaction costs of a new member for the alliance´s cohesion and ability to perform its main missions on the basis of consensus. In the case of the FYROM, NATO added one more precondition, which is the satisfactory solution of the name dispute with Greece, which has been directed by the UNSC Resolution 817, agreed upon by Skopje and Athens, and sealed by UNSC Resolution 845.
As you have seen from the above, the FYROM does not meet the pre-conditions to demand membership. Without meeting the pre-conditions, not one NATO country can support them, including Slovenia. In addition, one must always have in mind the U. S. Naval Support Activity (NSA) at Souda Bay which is strategically located on the northwest coast of island of Crete. It is not a NATO, but a U. S. Naval Base. Look at the map and tell me if the United States would sacrifice that base for Skopje.
If one takes into consideration the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Military Balance 2011, one clearly sees that the FYROM cannot be taken seriously as a NATO member. Their Defense Budget is just €99 million or 1.4% of its GDP. Even Cyprus spends more on defense. FYROM has no money to spend for it to be beneficial to the Alliance, and any money it receives through Foreign Military Aid and the EU including is thrown into antiquization projects. Various countries have donated equipment to the FYROM, including Greece which has provided gratis with 9 Armored Personnel Carriers (Tracked) Leonidas.
I know that the FYROM government and its diaspora believe that they have met the above preconditions and criteria, but it is their sole opinion, which does not count. What counts is the opinion of the 28 NATO countries as a whole, as one body through consensus. If one thinks that the name dispute with Greece will create problems for NATO by keeping the FYROM out of it, one has to consider the strategic position of Cyprus, which is much more prominent than the insignificant strategic position of the FYROM; yet Turkey holds hostage the Alliance for her own political reasons. Turkey has been holding hostage the NATO-EU strategic partnership because of the Republic of Cyprus, creating a good number of adversaries within NATO/EU, especially if one considers Turkey´s unfolding friendship with Iran. A number of NATO countries are members of the EU, as well.
AMAC: Regardless of the outcome of the case at the ICJ, in your opinion what should Greece do next regarding this issue of ´upmost importance´?
Marcus Templar: According to Mrs. Bakoyanni (who, as a an ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece, ought to know) Greece has thus far moved 80% towards FYROM´s positions in the name dispute, while expecting the FYROM to move by 20% towards Greece´s position. No one with pea brain logic would find such a condition acceptable. Greece, in its effort to stabilize the FYROM and the region, is risking to destabilize itself to a dangerous point, considering the activist approach of the FYROM political elite and its surrogate bleeding hearts within Greek territory. Skopje even wants to go beyond the scope of the Interim Agreement demanding recognition of the "Macedonian" language and ethnicity from Greece. I have some bad news for them. Countries recognize other countries; they do not recognize ethnic groups or languages. Nationality in law is a simple membership in a nation or sovereign state. It is to be distinguished from citizenship, a somewhat narrower term that is sometimes used to denote the status of those nationals who have full political privileges. Before an act of the U.S. Congress made them citizens, for example, American Indians were sometimes referred to as "noncitizen nationals." The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states [in article 15 (1)] that "everyone has the right to a nationality" and [in article 15(2)] that "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality." Nationality is of cardinal importance because it is mainly through nationality that the individual comes within the scope of international law and has access to the political and economic rights and privileges conferred by modern states on their nationals. At no time, is nationality is synonymous or interchangeable with ethnicity. U.S. passport holders can see that in the place of nationality is The United States of America. Passports offer the broader legal status of the holder because it is no other country´s business whether the holder has or does not have full citizen´s privileges, i.e. whether s/he votes or not.
The history of Greece is Greece´s property, as many officials of the FYROM have admitted over time. Nikola Gruevski, in an interview to CNN in May 2010, stated that Alexander the Great "is a person who belongs to the world." His compatriots Denko Maleski, the commentator Erol Rizaov, Žarko Trajanovski, columnist for the daily Dnevnik, and many others have mocked their country´s Macedonism. The fact remains that Alexander the Great is an integral part of Greek history. Around the world one sees streets and buildings named after famous Greeks and statues of Greek statesmen and heroes. But when a country that self-proclaims itself "Macedonia", and employs every effort to sell this stolen "Macedonian" heritage through brainwashing, informal education, and the expenditure of exorbitant sums of money (that the country doesn´t have) for monumental statues of borrowed heroes that ´belong to the world´ (to quote its prime minister), even changes history to fit its political aims, then is this county impressing - or is it suppressing - to say nothing of insulting - its very own citizens´ intelligence and that of the world at large?
The FYROM ethnic Slavs take advantage of the tolerant democracy of Greece and have made an art out of blaming Greece for the very crimes they commit themselves, or are about to commit. Greece should never compromise its history and heritage because, in essence, it will compromise not just its national security, but its very existence.
Coming to the matter of the ICJ, I want to say that it is a weak institution. It has noncompulsory jurisdiction prerequisite, which limits its caseload. The case between The FYROM and Greece is a political case and no matter what the Court decides, it is not going to change the way organizations, such as NATO, EU, even the UN, which in essence are closed clubs, operate. Gjorgji J. Mišajlovski in his article "Hunting in the Hague - The Stork and the Snake" (Utrinski Vesnik, Skopje, April 08, 2011 page 13) very correctly stated that Foreign Minister Antonio Milošoski leading the FYROM delegation gave a political character to the lawsuit "while the state in fact insists on the legal character of the problem."
The ICJ hears only a few cases. Between 1948 and 2003 it heard only 101 cases and has issued only 24 advisory opinions. The major issues in the ICJ´s agenda are boundary disputes and, as we saw in the case between Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Court proved to be incapable of enforcing its decision. The assigned tribunal delimited the border in 2002, but demarcation has yet to occur due to Ethiopia's displeasure with the ruling and Eritrea's refusal to engage in diplomatic dialogue without the border first being fully demarcated.
Any decision of the ICJ will not affect Skopje´s membership to NATO or the EU, and will change nothing on the name dispute; it is not even binding. Greeks should ignore the decision and protect their country´s interests and security. No court, no organization, and no person may or can impose any decision on any country if that country feels that, by succumbing to pressure, its own interests and security are in jeopardy. Any negative result of such pressure will be on the heads of those who impose it.
No matter what, Skopje still has to meet the six preconditions and the four criteria before gaining membership in NATO. The preconditions and criteria of the EU will be painful for Skopje because they are sociological. Skopje has sued Greece hoping for a moral victory on a very specific point disregarding that the rejection to its application for NATO membership was the result of its not fulfilling the basic preconditions; however, such a behavior demonstrates desperation, bad faith, harassment, and killing of time while the FYROM keeps on violating the agreement and the UNSC Resolutions 817 and 845. The FYROM continues to coerce other countries to recognize it as "Republic of Macedonia" with one excuse or another. So, here we have a country which violates almost all articles of an agreement and then preemptively charges Greece with a non-existing violation. By the way, five countries went back to calling them "The FYROM."
Greeks, on the one hand, provide funding for the maintenance of the FYROM and, on the other, cannot understand why the solution is out of sight. Yes, you have heard it correctly. I will repeat it until someone in Greece listens and wakes up the rest of them: Greek businesses are operating in the FYROM providing comfort to the adversary with casinos near the Greek border that are filled with euros from those very Greeks, who, while pretending to be poor, are offering sustainment to Skopje. For example, let´s look at Velopoulos with his stores in Skopje. Did he actually sign a contract for his business with the FYROM, or with the Republic of "Macedonia?" This is true for every single company which does business in the FYROM.
As for the Greek politicians, not one of them has risen to the occasion in support of any major national issue. Politicians and their parties still receive bribes as part of doing business in Greece. The more things change, the more things remain the same. In their statements they oscillate between a definite maybe and an absolute perhaps, any time they make pronouncements pontificating they are very clear on Greek foreign policy on Skopje and Turkey! Really? Clear? To whom exactly is the Greek foreign policy clear? Since it is confusing to the Greeks, how can anyone expect it to be clear to non-Greeks? All countries that have recognized the FYROM as "Macedonia," whether erga omnes or bilaterally, did it because the Skopjan MFA did something that the Greek MFA did not do: The Skopjans did their homework. Instead of analyzing and mulling over why these countries have recognized "Macedonia" as such, the Greek MFA should have prevented this by implementing an active foreign policy and diplomacy!!!! Of course, with all the Bakoyannis´ and Pangalos´ in government and with ELIAMEP in its advising role, what else can one expect? One gets out as much as one puts in; in this case it is the old GIGO axiom; garbage in, garbage out. These people have a driver´s license to drive a car and they think they can drive a Boeing 747.
AMAC: Professor Templar, the terms ´upmost importance´ are highlighted in the previous question due to the possibility that this issue could have region-wide implications by affecting the Balkan region as a whole – do you also believe this to be the case?
Marcus Templar: In my opinion, the ICJ decision will have as much implication as Greece wants to give them. On a personal level the answer is no. I just I hope that the issue of the ICJ, and also by seeing now how other governments work, will wake the Greeks up from their laissez faire attitude that they have demonstrated thus far. But I doubt it. The reason that Greece did not sue the FYROM is that Greece´s naïve and oblivious politicians thought that by not doing so they would facilitate a speedy agreement with Skopje. But the issue is not just about reaching an agreement for agreement´s sake; the issue is a comprehensive agreement with verifiable points and, with all our experience of Skopje´s record, when it comes to compliance with anything, the agreement should include the institution of a "special verification police" in order to safeguard it. The laissez faire attitude of the Greek politicians has unfortunately been transplanted to the Greek MFA and all diplomatic missions as well.
AMAC: Can you please explain?
Marcus Templar: The huge gap in knowledge and understanding displayed by the Greeks on what foreign governments base their decisions on is one of the problems that I see. For example, the survey of the FYROM diaspora sponsored by Victoria University last summer, as I understand, was summarily dismissed by the Greek MFA as, "Oh it is nothing." What the responsible desk of the Greek MFA either does know or does not care to know is that those statistics are being studied and used by the Australian MFA to determine whether to recognize the FYROM as "Macedonia" or not. The employees of the Greek MFA must be working with blinders and earplugs in Athens. Although Greeks accuse their governments of the ostrich syndrome, I bring this characterization one step further by stating for the record that the Greek political elite live the life of a ground hog. They do their job underground coming out to breathe only when they smell elections and hand-clapping. Their attitude and indifference is scandalous and criminal, while their political advisors have a collective empirical experience on national security equal to zero.
AMAC: Are you saying that it is bad for academics to advise the Greek government?
Marcus Templar: No, it is not bad for academics to advise the government. What is bad is that the academics in Greece have NO empirical experience. The politicians receive raw information and do not apply any logic to make it practical. Theory is one thing, practice another. Also in Greece the academics that advise the governments are of leftist and globalist affinities. The governments of Greece are supposed to be exposed to all sides of the political spectrum and then implement what is good for the country. Only, at present this is not happening.
AMAC: Greece has indeed problems in its foreign policy. Why do you think this is so?
Marcus Templar: There is confusion of Foreign Policy with Foreign Relations and International Politics in Greece. They are, no doubt, related, but they are not the same and definitely not interchangeable. There are many models/theories on Foreign Policy decisionmaking: Rational model /Realist Perspective, organizational or bureaucratic model/Liberal Perspective, Pluralist model/Radical Perspective. Greece, being unique, has chosen the Defeatist model under the Misery (κακομοιριά) Perspective. In our times the Greek NGO ELIAMEP and the Greek political elite have excelled in implementing the last one. I am not the only one that has a problem with ELIAMEP and its monopoly.
There is only one NGO that the Greek government turns to for advice: ELIAMEP. This is an insane situation. One never puts one´s eggs in one basket. ELIAMEP, its sole advisor on external affairs, is either of globalist or ethnonihilistic affinities. Its members are not even socialists as many Greeks believe. Socialists are patriots. ELIAMEP members have shown no patriotism whatsoever. Greece needs to have more than one NGO specializing in Foreign Affairs with different political inclinations so that there is balance and logic in Foreign Policy. For example Dr. Michael Geokas and Dr. Christos Katsetos of the Think-Tank Demokritos published on April 22, 2007 a research paper under the title «ΖΗΤΕΙΤΑΙ ΥΠΕΡΜΟΝΤΕΡΝΟΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΣ ΠΕΤΡΟΣ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ» stating on page 9 that the monopoly of ELIAMEP has to stop.
Unfortunately, the Helladites do not learn from their own mistakes because they cannot admit that they are wrong. They have done so many things for Skopje, in essence they have kept it alive since 1991 and especially in 2001 (George Papandreou). And yet Skopje takes them to the cleaners. They still philosophize about Skopje´s existence disregarding the potential that Skopje might survive at Greece´s territorial and sociological expense and that includes history, inheritance, heritage, culture, etc.
AMAC: What do you mean?
Marcus Templar: According to Theodoros Pangalos, they are doing it in order to cajole the Skopjans!!! What can one say about such insane thinking? Greek politicians must stop using the "mirror image" in their foreign policy if they want their country to see a bright day. The more Greece gives them, the more they want - and Greece is doing it in order to cajole them? Furthermore, Pangalos said that the reason Greece agreed to offer the name Macedonia as part of the final name is because the Western Allies would not go for a name that excludes the word Macedonia it. Which Western Allies? Really? Who exactly are these so called "allies" and where are they going to be when Greece loses its functional control over Macedonia, Thrace, and Epirus? And why did Greece ask them anyway? But I doubt that it was the reason. These unidentified allies don´t care less what happens to Greece in the future. The reason is that while Pangalos and his cohorts were selling rubbish to their Greek constituencies, they were agreeing with the Western Allies in order to show debonairness and co-operation. They forgot their loyalty should have been to their Greek constituency and not to the EU aristocracy.
Depending on the number of countries that have actually recognized them either erga omnes or bilaterally as "Macedonia," the FYROM will try to bring the matter of the name dispute to the UN General Assembly for a vote, probably after the elections. When the number of the above countries reaches 128 then the FYROM might attempt this move. The countries that recognize the FYROM as "Macedonia" in bilateral relations would play the key role. Those which recognize Skopje either as "Macedonia" or FYROM erga omnes will maintain their vote for or against the recognition of the FYROM by the UNGA as "Macedonia." The other countries with a bilateral recognition would think twice. The last thing these countries would like to do is to anger the Greek constituency and its diaspora. After that, the Interim Agreement would be nullified, and there will be no reason for Greece to keep its borders open to Skopje, or allow them to join NATO or the EU for the duration of Skopje´s short existence. It will be a Pyrrhic victory for the FYROM ethnic Slavs. No Albanian (about 35-40%) would like to live in a country where the ethnic Slavic sick nationalism reigns supreme. The conclusion of a friend of mine is "demographics, equality and human rights played a big part in Kosovo´s independence. Coupled with an unmistakable reality of historic and continued inner-ethnic tension between the Albanian and the Slavic people, the future of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is not any different."
I am sure the Greek government expects the FYROM to bring the issue to the UNGA, but they´re hoping that nobody else in Greece and its diaspora does. The Greek government did the same in August 2004 when they were notified by the US government that it planned to recognize the FYROM as "Macedonia" after the elections. Instead of Molyviatis getting on a plane and hurrying to Washington in order to avert such recognition, and instead of mobilizing the Greek-American diaspora to pressure the US government to avert such a move, he wrote a letter to Colin Powell. And then they all played dumb waiting for November´s elections. Then the Greek diaspora blamed Colin Powell and Bush for it. Not one of them blamed Molyviatis, Bakoyanni, Mitsotakis, Andreas Papandreou, or Karamanlis Jr. and others. It is everyone else's fault, but the Greek politicians´. Greeks treat their politicians as if they are children that can be enticed with a lollypop. This is the Greek mentality and attitude that keeps creating problems in every aspect of Greek life. They better throw both the mentality and attitude into the trash because one day when the Greek people wake up, it will be pitch-dark.
AMAC: What is your opinion about the Greek Press?
Marcus Templar: Greece does not have a responsible Press. Investigative reporting is only in Hollywood movies for them. One has to buy at least five to six newspapers, in order to be in position to guess what is going on in Greece. When in 2007 I stated that Greece was a failed state, people around me could not understand. Now, they are silent. Where exactly was the Greek Press? They all believed that "the government deals with the issues seriously and responsibly." This is my favorite expression. In my book it means, "We have no idea what we are doing or what we should do; we need assistance from our diaspora, but we are too politically polarized that nobody from abroad wants to help us. Besides, we do not want to have a strong diaspora because if we do, we will never be able to pull any of the shenanigans we do. We are too egoistic to ask for help because if we have not thought of it ourselves, it cannot be good."
One man in Brisbane was upset when I said that the Greek Press publishes nothing with substance regarding the foreign and domestic policies. He said, "They write everything." After I pointed out a few items the Greek Press had "missed" to inform its readers, he realized the facts. It is very sad that regarding the name dispute, the news comes from Skopje; and regarding the Aegean, thank God for the Turkish Press. As for the interviews given by various Greek politicians, I watch them when I have insomnia. They are slightly better than sleeping pills. They are dull and vague.
AMAC: With the above statements one could characterize you as a nationalist or racist?
Marcus Templar: Those, who would call me "nationalist," should first go to school in order to learn what "nationalism" is. This statement includes all the degreed, but uneducated individuals, some of whom teach in Greek Universities; the same individuals use the word "nationalism" as if it were bubble gum without knowing its meaning.
As I said in Melbourne, those who consider themselves communists or socialists and believe that patriotism is not for them, I want to remind everyone of what Lenin wrote in his article ´On the National Pride of the Great Russians´: "Is a sense of national pride alien to us, Great-Russian class-conscious proletarians? Certainly not! We love our language and our country, and we are doing our very utmost to raise her toiling masses (i.e., nine-tenths of her population) to the level of a democratic and socialist consciousness."
Furthermore, in "The Valuable Admissions of Pitirim Sorokin" published in Pravda on November 21, 1918, Lenin states, "Patriotism is one of the most deeply ingrained sentiments, hammered by the existence of separate fatherlands for hundreds and thousands of years. One of the most pronounced, one might say exceptional, difficulties of our proletarian revolution, is that it was obliged to pass through a phase of extreme departure from patriotism, the phase of the Brest-Litovsk Peace."
If Lenin saw the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty as an "extreme departure from patriotism," how can the communists and socialists of Greece justify their opposition to patriotism by giving away their own history and heritage? Or is it something else that motivates them, not necessarily their political affinity? These people subscribe to ethnonihilism. They have educated the Greek youth in a Fifth Phalanx manner to become ethnohihilist.
Patriotism is love and pride for one´s country and transcends political ideology. It differs from chauvinism, which is bellicose patriotism and a blind belief in national superiority and glory. When chauvinism develops into political ideology, it turns into nationalism as in the FYROM. Political parties in healthy democracies have no ideology, but platform. As for the racist card, I can say that it will not work on me either. In my family there exist more races, cultures, and languages than the rainbow.
Funny, I do not hear many people calling the FYROM ethnic Slavs "nationalists" or racists, despite the strong FYROM ultranationalism and racism we see, hear, and read of on a daily basis, under the ethnonationalist label of "Macedonism" and the "Macedonian Prayer."
Therefore, I shall close with the adage, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
AMAC: Professor Templar, thank you very much for your time and for sharing with us your thoughts on these important issues.
Marcus Templar: Thank you very much, it´s been my pleasure.
Copyright 2011 Australian Macedonian Advisory Council. All rights Reserved.
www.macedonian.com.au
AMAC: Professor Templar, last year, in October 2010, you presented a number of lectures across Australia on the Macedonian issue and its geopolitical significance today. These lectures were organized by the Australian Macedonian Advisory Council in coordination with Greek-Australian organizations in many Australian cities. Which cities did you visit, and how would you describe your experience?
Marcus Templar: My experience in Australia was unique. The people were very friendly and courteous. The trip made me realize that life on the downside is not bad. I had some difficulties understanding Australian English, but I am sure they had problems with me as well. I suppose, it was the case of an Athenian visiting Macedonia in the old times, or that of an Ozolian from Locris visiting Ionia. To ask for an interpreter would have made me look like those FYROM officials who insist they need one when interacting with the Bulgarians; or like the Croats when dealing with the Serbs. We know it is not necessary!
My presentations in Australia dealt with topics on the History of the South Slavs in the Balkans. The Balkans is a region of great significance, not only because of their geopolitical position, but also because of their subsurface wealth.
I gave nine presentations in six cities: Melbourne, Canberra, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, and Sydney. I found every city to be special, each in its own way. Australia is a diverse country with distinct points of interest. I made many friends, but unfortunately, due to a very heavy schedule, it is not easy for me to maintain ties. I hope they forgive me for this. When I visited Australia I was on a sabbatical, my first in 28 years, and I relished the change. I enjoyed the football match between St. Kilda and Melbourne, the cricket match between India and Australia. I was hoping I would get to watch a rugby match between the Wallabies and the Old Blacks, but I was not that lucky. Perhaps I will be luckier another time. I hope to visit Australia again, although I am not sure when due to my professional obligations that send me off to places of the world which no travel agent would recommend. I really appreciated the hospitality I was met with, and I want to publicly thank all who invited me and made this trip possible.
AMAC: Did you think your presentations were well attended? How strong was the interest in the discussions that followed? What were some of the central topics that were discussed?
Marcus Templar: I was pleasantly surprised by the large turnout. The central topic of my presentations was the history of the Slavs of the South Balkans, which, in essence, is the history of the Slavic people of the FYROM and, partially, of present day Bulgarians and Serbs. I was not particularly surprised by the attendance of members from the FYROM diaspora, just as I was not surprised by their reactions to my presentation. The subject is hot and the facts remain unclear not only to many Greeks and their communities abroad, but especially to the Slavs of the FYROM and their diaspora.
AMAC: Prof. Templar, you oftentimes argue that the system of Nations and Nationalities in communist Yugoslavia included some interesting nodes. What do you mean by that?
Marcus Templar: The architects of post-WWII Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito charted the foundations of the new state of Yugoslavia, after considering all the ethnic groups within communist Yugoslavia. The original name of communist Yugoslavia was People´s Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with each constituent republic bearing the title: People´s Republic. In this form the People´s Republic of Macedonia was established by the Constitution of the People´s Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on August 2, 1944.
The framers wanted to ensure that the ethnic Slavic groups formed the backbone of the country. Simultaneously, they realized that the Serbs, who were more numerous than the other Slavs, were a factor they could not ignore. Tito wanted a politically "balanced" country a Slavic Yugoslavia with communist flavor.
According to the system of Nations and Nationalities, if the mother-country of an ethnic group of people lay outside the country of Yugoslavia, it was defined as a Narodnost or a Nationality, which meant it was an ethnic minority. This was how the Albanians and the Hungarians were classified. But the rest of the six constituent peoples of Yugoslavia – the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, Muslims and "Macedonians," whose mother-countries all lay inside Yugoslavia – were considered ethnic Slavic groups and constituted a Narod, or a Nation. They were not ethnic minorities.
Thus, this system of Nations (ethnic Slavs) and Nationalities (ethnic minorities) had little to do with the size of an ethnic group, and only with whether the origins and mother-country of a specific group was inside or outside Yugoslavia. For example, since only the Slav peoples were allowed to form a Republic, the Montenegrins as Slavs, although fewer in number, formed a nation that was a Republic; whereas the Albanians, despite their greater numbers, were only a nationality (ethnic minority) living in a Province.
So the important question to ask is:
Based upon this system of nations and nationalities as laid down by Tito and his architects, would it have been possible for a group of people to be classified as a Nation in a Republic, had the mother-country and origins of these people been outside the borders of Yugoslavia? Obviously not. And since only Slav peoples could form Republics, and the "People´s Republic of Macedonia" qualified to become a Republic, can we comfortably conclude that the "Macedonians" had to be Slavs? It is obvious that Tito and the framers of Yugoslavia knew this, as did the people too.
AMAC: How did Tito manage to achieve this political balance?
Marcus Templar: Tito´s main concern was not the Slavic ethnic groups, but the non-Slavic minorities within the new state. Looking at the final result of the political framework, we can see that it was the Slavic ethnicity that was at the heart of the new political makeover; after all, the name of the state was Yugoslavia or Land of South Slavs.
The framers of Yugoslavia basically made sure of two things: a. they placed all Slavic populations at a higher political level than the non-Slavic ones; b. they curtailed the power of the more populous Serbs. Territories with heavy Slavic populations, as I just mentioned, were recognized as Republics (i.e. Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and "Macedonia"); while those areas of Serbia with heavy numbers of minorities (such as Vojvodina – with roughly 60% Serbs), or with significant non-Slavic majorities (such as Kosovo – with roughly 90% Albanians), were made into Autonomous Provinces within the Serbian Republic. Yugoslavia included some 26 ethnic groups and, besides the deceptive invention of the "Macedonian" nation, the communists also invented the "Yugoslav" ethnic designation. This "ethnic" group included all who wanted to identify with the new country, including anyone born to parents of mixed marriages.
AMAC: But we have read that the Constitution of 1974 elevated Kosovo´s status. Did this change not affect the rest of the country?
Marcus Templar: In 1974, with Tito unsure of how long he would still be around, the Constitution was changed to slightly elevate the status of the two Provinces in Yugoslavia. He implemented the Collective Presidency: this included one representative from each Republic, one from each Province and the president of the Presidium of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia ex officio. Tito remained in this post as President for Life. Although important constitutional changes took place in the rest of Yugoslavia, the two provinces Vojvodina and Kosovo i Metohija continued to remain Provinces for they had not met the ethnic standard required to qualify as a Republic.
Therefore, based upon the legal system of Nations and Nationalities (national minorities), the People´s Republic of Macedonia having met the necessary criteria, was for the second time awarded by the officials of Yugoslavia the status not of Province (which would have classified its people as a non-Slavic people living within the boundaries of Yugoslavia), but of a Republic, with the new name of "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" (S.R. Macedonia). This clearly endorsed once more the population of "Macedonia" as Slavic and was accepted unanimously by the "Macedonian" parliament itself.
According to this system, the "S. R. Macedonia" as narod, or a Nation, suddenly became the mother-country for every "Macedonian", including those living in adjacent countries. And by taking the name "Macedonians" the Slavic population under Skopje's leadership now had an inherent right to demand union with any other territory that carried this name. This was how the seed of the problem that has reached the proportions we are facing today was planted. Because, for well over two thousand years before this Yugoslavian new-fangled notion, Macedonia Proper, historic homeland of Alexander the Great, was in Greece - outside the territory of Yugoslavia! The same Macedonia Proper from where together with his troops and the rest of his Greek comrades, Alexander embarked on his expedition to Persia in 331 B.C. The FYROM diaspora demonstrated its knowledge of this when its members paraded in Melbourne proclaiming, "Solun [Thessaloniki] will become the Capital of Macedonia again." Since no protests or disclaimers were issued, least of all by their own government in Skopje, suggesting collective support, it is apparent why such provocative claims of "mother-country" that target the northern province of Greece were perceived as an open affront to the Greeks. As a reminder, (besides constituting a territorial claim against Greece), if this were true and the "Macedonians" of Yugoslavia could have traced their origins to Greece, then the "S. R. Macedonia" would have been recognized as a Nationality within Yugoslavia – and not as a Nation; this never happened for the very reason that its people always were (and, naturally, still are) Slavs who came to the Balkans more than 600 hundred years after the death of Alexander. The framers of Yugoslavia, who created their Nation, knew better.
AMAC: Are the people of FYROM aware of this manipulative "Macedonization" process of the Slavs by its politicians?
Marcus Templar: The old generations did know. But not the newer generations, they do not know. On page 19 of the book Stara Srbija i Makedonija, Vol. 1 published in Belgrade in 1890 by Spiridon Gopšević, it is stated by the writer that: "Veselinović delineated Macedonia between Strumica, Demir-kapija, Bitola, and Kastoria, while the north-west of the part, down to the [Adriatic] sea, Montenegro and Serbia, was considered as ´Old Serbia´." Does that not say something?
I want to also add a couple of appropriate statements made by Vulić and a couple made by Denko Maleski published in Utrinski Vesnik. Please add the particulars so people can research them.
Nikola Vulić, a prominent Serbian historian commenting on the demands made by communists from Skopje, said, "It is deceptive to trace your descent to Alexander the Great" (Ivan Katardžiev, Po Visinite na Makedonskata Istorija - по висините на македонската историја [On the heights of Macedonian history], Skopje 1986, pp. 376-377), in Spyros Sfetas, The Birth of ´Macedonianism´ in the Interwar Period (The role of the Communist International in the hatching of the ´Macedonian nation´), page 299-300.
Then we have Maleski´s statement: "In those years [since 1991], we lost our capability for strategic dialogue. With the Greeks? No, with ourselves. Since then, I mean, we´ve reached towards some fictional ethnic purity which we seek in the depths of History; and we are angry at those who dare call us Slavs and our language and culture Slavic! We are angry when they name us what we are, if we have to define ourselves in such categories, showing that we are people full with complexes being ashamed of ourselves." [Denko Maleski, "Историските бедеми на етничкиот национализам во нашата свест" [The Historic Walls of Ethnic Nationalism in Our Consciousness] Utrinski Vesnik, Issue Number 1515, Saturday, March 4, 2006. http://star.utrinski.com.mk/?pbroj=1515&pr=18&stID=18244] and "Misirkov´s words ´we are not a nation, but we will become one´ have come true…. There is nothing atypical here for the process of the creation of any modern nation, except when the falsification was made by substituting the word ´Bulgarian´ with the word ´Macedonian´." [Denko Maleski, "Дилемата на македонското национално единство" [The dilemma of Macedonian National Unity], Utrinski Vesnik, Issue Number 2324, Saturday, March 3, 2007. http://www.utrinski.com.mk/?ItemID=C7A7DD4ECD45C946BF6573284EC01164 ]
This confirms the argument: If the framers of Yugoslavia believed the majority population of the "S. R. Macedonia" to be Macedonian and not Slavic, then the setup in the south part of Yugoslavia would have turned out to be very different. The area of Old Serbia, that is located within the present day FYROM north of Gradsko, would have become part of the Republic of Serbia. The rest of it would have become the "Autonomous Province of Macedonia," within Serbia with its Capital as, possibly, Bitolj (Bitola). This would have indicated that the people living in the area of the "Autonomous Province of Macedonia" were Macedonians, a non-Slavic ethnic group whose mother-country was outside the borders of Yugoslavia - in this case Greece.
But none of the above happened. By elevating Skopje´s territory to a Republic, the framers of Yugoslavia signified that the Skopian majority was Slavic and was recognized by the Yugoslavian government as such. The final conclusion of all of the above: the people of FYROM, who call themselves "Macedonians," are ethnically SLAVS, with their own political past to prove it and have no connection to the Greek Macedonians, neither culturally, nor linguistically.
Interesting too: Only Slavic languages, such as Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, and "Macedonian" had equal legal standing in Yugoslavia; the minority languages were equal only to one another in the areas they were spoken. Thus the recognition of "Macedonian" as an official language of Yugoslavia is another confirmation of its Slavic status.
AMAC: What makes you believe that the ancient Macedonians were one of the Greek tribes?
Marcus Templar: As you know I was born and raised in Macedonia. Going to school in Veria, I would pass by ancient Macedonian ruins, graves, and inscriptions. Anything Macedonian I saw had a Greek stamp on it. Besides, one has to have in mind that the history of Greece as taught in Greek schools has not been written by modern Greeks, but is a development of centuries-long debates; it is an open book. Greece is a functioning democracy in which one of its strengths is free speech. On the contrary, the same Greek history taught in the FYROM as FYROM´s own, has been written by political appointees impersonating historians, whose task it was to write a history in accordance with the communist political - and Skopje´s ethnonationalistic - aims. FYROM´s version of Greek history has never been exposed to any open academic scrutiny regarding its claim of the connection between the FYROM Slavic majority and the ancient Macedonians. There is nothing academic to support this. Very few FYROM ethnic Slavs know the true history of their own people, the so-called "Seven" Slavic Tribes that spread all over the Central Balkans, including the areas of present day Bulgaria and Serbia, but they are afraid to even think of admitting it. Can you imagine what would happen in an academically structured forum with experts of Greeco-Roman Antiquities i.e. classicists, in which an audience would be present, but secluded, in order to avoid hecklers? How far do you think Greek history as taught at present in FYROM will go? It will go nowhere; that is certain. Although not all academics may agree that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, not one of them will agree that the FYROM ethnic Slavs descended from the ancient Macedonians. This is certain, as well!!
Even Borza, well known for his antithesis to the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians, has stated, "First, the matter of the Hellenic origins of the Macedonians: Nicholas Hammond's general conclusion that the origin of the Macedonians lies in the pool of proto-Hellenic speakers who migrated out of the Pindus Mountains during the Iron Age is acceptable." (Eugene Borza, Makedonika, Ethnicity and Cultural Policy at Alexander's Court (Claremont: Regina Books), 149.) Proto-Hellenic or Proto-Greek language is the common ancestor of all known varieties of Greek, which expanded to 204 dialects due to the Hellenic insular and rugged territories. Borza gives as reason that the Macedonians left from the main corpus of the Greeks very early, in the beginning of the Iron Age. However, he also says that the ancient "Macedonians … are unrelated to any modern people" by which he obviously excludes the FYROM ethnic Slavs (Eugene N. Borza, Before Alexander: constructing early Macedonia. (Claremont: Regina Books), 1999, Page 89). The Slavic logic is erratic: "Since we do not consider the ancient Macedonians as Greeks, we are Macedonians." And to cover this illogical logic they invoke alleged testimonies by anonymous "famous" European historians or anonymous world- renowned linguists, although not one linguist has come out to say that the present "Macedonian" language originates from the ancient Macedonian dialect of the Greek language.
The fact is that both Macedonians and Arcado-Cyprians were part of the same pool of proto-Hellenic tribes, although the Arcadians migrated to Cyprus during the Bronze Age and the Macedonians during the Iron Age. Buck alludes to the same, basing his opinion on about 200 Greek names found in Asia Minor. He states, "We may accept now as a matter of record the existence of a Greek colony in Asia Minor as early as the fourteenth century BC". But if the existence of Greek speakers in the 14th century BC in Asia Minor, so far away from the main Greek corpus, determines Greek presence, how is it possible for one to state that the Macedonians, who were much closer to their mother city of Hellas (=Greece), near Ancient Pharsalus in Thessaly, and who left about three and one half centuries later than those Greeks in Asia Minor (c. 1150 BC), cannot be classified as Greeks?
Of course, there are two more arguments/questions that not one opponent of the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians, including Borza, has ever answered: "How can the Arcado-Cypriots be Greek, but not the Macedonians?" Both tribes came out of the same proto-Hellenic pool, but the Arcado-Cypriots left almost three centuries before the Macedonians did.
What about the following statement by Aeschines? "For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was absolutely under his control, joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted." (Aeschines, On the Embassy, 32) The above statement makes Macedonia as Greek as Sparta. It means that the Greeks considered the Macedonians to be Greek, as well. There goes the argument of the FYROM ethnic Slavs and Pasko Kuzman´s antiquization. If he dares, let him argue the above in an international academic journal to the satisfaction of the academic community, not the FYROM diaspora. "Hic Rhodus, hic saltus."
The FYROM´s argument that "Alexander the Great belongs to all, in that way he is also ours," implicitly recognizes the fact that they are not the "owners" of anything connected with Alexander the Great. Since they are not the owners of that history, they can have no say on who can or cannot share that history. It is up to Greece to share or not to share it.
Many countries share Greek History at present. All Balkan, most Middle Eastern, Asian (South, South East, Central Asian) countries share Greek history in one way or another; some Western and Central European countries do so as well. Yet, with the exception of the FYROM, not one of these countries has ever claimed "ownership" of that history. If one looks at an Afghan banknote, one sees Greek history on it; it is a coin of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom displaying the Dioscuri brothers. The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom was established by Alexander the Great´s Macedonian military heirs in that region. It is an honor for the Greeks.
The historical books of the Maccabees and Josephus, for instance, very clearly identify the Macedonians and their leaders as Greek. Since those books constitute part of the history of the Jewish people, their value cannot be marginalized. The ancient Persians and Medes identified the Macedonians as Greek, as well. One can find Greeks from the era of Alexander the Great in Egypt. One of them was Penelope Delta, an ancestor of the present leader of the New Democracy Party of Greece Antonis Samaras. The people of Kalasha still consider King Seleucus as their first leader and founder of their community. The best book I have read on the issue of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom is The Greeks in Bactria and India by W. W. Tarn. The argument that the ancient Macedonians spoke a different language from the rest of the Greeks is absolutely ludicrous. Greek had 204 dialects. So any Greek spoke a dialect different from the rest of the Greeks. The Spartans spoke differently from the Ionians. Even Herodotus says it in book 1.142.3-4. He enumerates four dialects and how close they are to each other.
AMAC: Thank you for this, Professor Templar. Let´s move on to the latest developments on the Macedonian issue affecting the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and Greece. Recently, the Greek PM Mr. Papandreou had another ´high level´ meeting with the FYROM PM Mr. Gruevski, which lasted 45 minutes. These types of one-on-one meetings have been occurring somewhat regularly over the last couple of years between the two PM´s. Do you consider them valuable or a waste of time?
Marcus Templar: These Prime Ministers have thus far met around eight-nine times with no change in their country´s position. Besides a photo-opportunity, I have not seen any positive result and I am not expecting anything. They both do it only because they want to show they are being constructive. Papandreou might want to be there, but I have my reasonable doubts about Gruevski. For as long as the Slavic governments of the FYROM continue their ethnonationalistic path with revanchist overtones, one must not expect any solution on the matter. A mere agreement will not bring the solution or peace. Anyone who believes in such things is hallucinating.
Milovan Djilas, a Yugoslav Communist politician, theorist and author from Montenegro, explained, "The [appropriation] of the symbols of Philip [II] of Macedonia is foolishness, it demonstrates megalomania and raises inexcusable claims… I do not support any claims against Greece. They are not claims based on facts."
AMAC: Also, not too long ago, the FYROM took Greece to the highest U.N. court – the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – seeking a ruling that Athens illegally vetoed its application for NATO membership in 2008 in breach of the 1995 interim agreement to support its membership of international organizations under the name "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." What is your opinion on this development? Does the FYROM have a case?
Marcus Templar: NATO has no such mechanism as veto. I do not see how a court can decide on the procedures of a UN organization as NATO regarding the application of non-member. The ICJ has no jurisdiction over NATO, and no matter what its judgment is going to be, it cannot and may not change anything on the matter of membership.
In a pre-emptive manner the FYROM pursued a counter-productive action against Greece, but also against the United Nations Security Counsel (UNSC). The Interim Agreement was the result of UNSC 817 and 845 Resolutions. In this case any legal decision of the court undermines the UNSC authority and imposes its authority upon an organization for which it has no jurisdiction. The UNSC is an office that offers political judgments. This is not the case of a border dispute that the UNSC would recommend a court decision.
The Agreement is the result of a political dispute as the EU Court has already decided in the 1990s when the EU sued Greece for its embargo against the FYROM. Thus the same ICJ has no jurisdiction over political issues without throwing mud on the UNSC regardless of its judgment. International Law is not statutory, but is based on precedents, various treaties and norms, including decisions of the UNSC. All these instruments are political in nature and derive from political decisions, and that includes wars. There is no judicial review in International Law and the ICJ may not challenge the political decision of the UNSC since it is the only international competent body that deals with the security of the world.
The FYROM´s behavior reminds me of an angry toddler in a tantrum, who, though caught stealing from the cookie jar, is still screaming, "I want it; it is mine, only mine. I want it." Egoism and egotism based on its people´s formal and informal education, coupled with false pride and megalomania for a stolen past are the main characteristics of the country´s Slavic population. I laugh when I see young men wearing ancient military uniforms, wearing Roman helmets, and holding short javelins and shields, bearing -- in violation of article 7 of the Interim Agreement -- the Sun of Vergina. When I was in Australia, I made a comment stating that these uniforms are actually Roman, not Macedonian, and a Greek Australian reminded me, "Since when do the FYROMians care about accuracy in History and historical truth?" He was right!
Apart from creating impressions, the outcome of such actions cannot be positive. It shows political immaturity on behalf of the FYROM leadership, and desperation. I believe it bows to its diaspora; some of its members have spent exorbitant sums for their cause.
NATO membership presupposes certain political and military achievements, such as the following: a functioning democratic political system, democratic civil-military relations, treatment of minority populations in accordance with democratic governance, a functioning market economy, and the ability to make a military contribution to the alliance. After the above preconditions have been met, a candidate country is judged in the form of consensus on the following criteria: relevance to NATO´s ability to project power in areas of likely contingencies; creation of interior and easily defensive borders within the alliance; risks that may accrue from a higher level of commitment to a new ally; and added transaction costs of a new member for the alliance´s cohesion and ability to perform its main missions on the basis of consensus. In the case of the FYROM, NATO added one more precondition, which is the satisfactory solution of the name dispute with Greece, which has been directed by the UNSC Resolution 817, agreed upon by Skopje and Athens, and sealed by UNSC Resolution 845.
As you have seen from the above, the FYROM does not meet the pre-conditions to demand membership. Without meeting the pre-conditions, not one NATO country can support them, including Slovenia. In addition, one must always have in mind the U. S. Naval Support Activity (NSA) at Souda Bay which is strategically located on the northwest coast of island of Crete. It is not a NATO, but a U. S. Naval Base. Look at the map and tell me if the United States would sacrifice that base for Skopje.
If one takes into consideration the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Military Balance 2011, one clearly sees that the FYROM cannot be taken seriously as a NATO member. Their Defense Budget is just €99 million or 1.4% of its GDP. Even Cyprus spends more on defense. FYROM has no money to spend for it to be beneficial to the Alliance, and any money it receives through Foreign Military Aid and the EU including is thrown into antiquization projects. Various countries have donated equipment to the FYROM, including Greece which has provided gratis with 9 Armored Personnel Carriers (Tracked) Leonidas.
I know that the FYROM government and its diaspora believe that they have met the above preconditions and criteria, but it is their sole opinion, which does not count. What counts is the opinion of the 28 NATO countries as a whole, as one body through consensus. If one thinks that the name dispute with Greece will create problems for NATO by keeping the FYROM out of it, one has to consider the strategic position of Cyprus, which is much more prominent than the insignificant strategic position of the FYROM; yet Turkey holds hostage the Alliance for her own political reasons. Turkey has been holding hostage the NATO-EU strategic partnership because of the Republic of Cyprus, creating a good number of adversaries within NATO/EU, especially if one considers Turkey´s unfolding friendship with Iran. A number of NATO countries are members of the EU, as well.
AMAC: Regardless of the outcome of the case at the ICJ, in your opinion what should Greece do next regarding this issue of ´upmost importance´?
Marcus Templar: According to Mrs. Bakoyanni (who, as a an ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece, ought to know) Greece has thus far moved 80% towards FYROM´s positions in the name dispute, while expecting the FYROM to move by 20% towards Greece´s position. No one with pea brain logic would find such a condition acceptable. Greece, in its effort to stabilize the FYROM and the region, is risking to destabilize itself to a dangerous point, considering the activist approach of the FYROM political elite and its surrogate bleeding hearts within Greek territory. Skopje even wants to go beyond the scope of the Interim Agreement demanding recognition of the "Macedonian" language and ethnicity from Greece. I have some bad news for them. Countries recognize other countries; they do not recognize ethnic groups or languages. Nationality in law is a simple membership in a nation or sovereign state. It is to be distinguished from citizenship, a somewhat narrower term that is sometimes used to denote the status of those nationals who have full political privileges. Before an act of the U.S. Congress made them citizens, for example, American Indians were sometimes referred to as "noncitizen nationals." The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states [in article 15 (1)] that "everyone has the right to a nationality" and [in article 15(2)] that "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality." Nationality is of cardinal importance because it is mainly through nationality that the individual comes within the scope of international law and has access to the political and economic rights and privileges conferred by modern states on their nationals. At no time, is nationality is synonymous or interchangeable with ethnicity. U.S. passport holders can see that in the place of nationality is The United States of America. Passports offer the broader legal status of the holder because it is no other country´s business whether the holder has or does not have full citizen´s privileges, i.e. whether s/he votes or not.
The history of Greece is Greece´s property, as many officials of the FYROM have admitted over time. Nikola Gruevski, in an interview to CNN in May 2010, stated that Alexander the Great "is a person who belongs to the world." His compatriots Denko Maleski, the commentator Erol Rizaov, Žarko Trajanovski, columnist for the daily Dnevnik, and many others have mocked their country´s Macedonism. The fact remains that Alexander the Great is an integral part of Greek history. Around the world one sees streets and buildings named after famous Greeks and statues of Greek statesmen and heroes. But when a country that self-proclaims itself "Macedonia", and employs every effort to sell this stolen "Macedonian" heritage through brainwashing, informal education, and the expenditure of exorbitant sums of money (that the country doesn´t have) for monumental statues of borrowed heroes that ´belong to the world´ (to quote its prime minister), even changes history to fit its political aims, then is this county impressing - or is it suppressing - to say nothing of insulting - its very own citizens´ intelligence and that of the world at large?
The FYROM ethnic Slavs take advantage of the tolerant democracy of Greece and have made an art out of blaming Greece for the very crimes they commit themselves, or are about to commit. Greece should never compromise its history and heritage because, in essence, it will compromise not just its national security, but its very existence.
Coming to the matter of the ICJ, I want to say that it is a weak institution. It has noncompulsory jurisdiction prerequisite, which limits its caseload. The case between The FYROM and Greece is a political case and no matter what the Court decides, it is not going to change the way organizations, such as NATO, EU, even the UN, which in essence are closed clubs, operate. Gjorgji J. Mišajlovski in his article "Hunting in the Hague - The Stork and the Snake" (Utrinski Vesnik, Skopje, April 08, 2011 page 13) very correctly stated that Foreign Minister Antonio Milošoski leading the FYROM delegation gave a political character to the lawsuit "while the state in fact insists on the legal character of the problem."
The ICJ hears only a few cases. Between 1948 and 2003 it heard only 101 cases and has issued only 24 advisory opinions. The major issues in the ICJ´s agenda are boundary disputes and, as we saw in the case between Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Court proved to be incapable of enforcing its decision. The assigned tribunal delimited the border in 2002, but demarcation has yet to occur due to Ethiopia's displeasure with the ruling and Eritrea's refusal to engage in diplomatic dialogue without the border first being fully demarcated.
Any decision of the ICJ will not affect Skopje´s membership to NATO or the EU, and will change nothing on the name dispute; it is not even binding. Greeks should ignore the decision and protect their country´s interests and security. No court, no organization, and no person may or can impose any decision on any country if that country feels that, by succumbing to pressure, its own interests and security are in jeopardy. Any negative result of such pressure will be on the heads of those who impose it.
No matter what, Skopje still has to meet the six preconditions and the four criteria before gaining membership in NATO. The preconditions and criteria of the EU will be painful for Skopje because they are sociological. Skopje has sued Greece hoping for a moral victory on a very specific point disregarding that the rejection to its application for NATO membership was the result of its not fulfilling the basic preconditions; however, such a behavior demonstrates desperation, bad faith, harassment, and killing of time while the FYROM keeps on violating the agreement and the UNSC Resolutions 817 and 845. The FYROM continues to coerce other countries to recognize it as "Republic of Macedonia" with one excuse or another. So, here we have a country which violates almost all articles of an agreement and then preemptively charges Greece with a non-existing violation. By the way, five countries went back to calling them "The FYROM."
Greeks, on the one hand, provide funding for the maintenance of the FYROM and, on the other, cannot understand why the solution is out of sight. Yes, you have heard it correctly. I will repeat it until someone in Greece listens and wakes up the rest of them: Greek businesses are operating in the FYROM providing comfort to the adversary with casinos near the Greek border that are filled with euros from those very Greeks, who, while pretending to be poor, are offering sustainment to Skopje. For example, let´s look at Velopoulos with his stores in Skopje. Did he actually sign a contract for his business with the FYROM, or with the Republic of "Macedonia?" This is true for every single company which does business in the FYROM.
As for the Greek politicians, not one of them has risen to the occasion in support of any major national issue. Politicians and their parties still receive bribes as part of doing business in Greece. The more things change, the more things remain the same. In their statements they oscillate between a definite maybe and an absolute perhaps, any time they make pronouncements pontificating they are very clear on Greek foreign policy on Skopje and Turkey! Really? Clear? To whom exactly is the Greek foreign policy clear? Since it is confusing to the Greeks, how can anyone expect it to be clear to non-Greeks? All countries that have recognized the FYROM as "Macedonia," whether erga omnes or bilaterally, did it because the Skopjan MFA did something that the Greek MFA did not do: The Skopjans did their homework. Instead of analyzing and mulling over why these countries have recognized "Macedonia" as such, the Greek MFA should have prevented this by implementing an active foreign policy and diplomacy!!!! Of course, with all the Bakoyannis´ and Pangalos´ in government and with ELIAMEP in its advising role, what else can one expect? One gets out as much as one puts in; in this case it is the old GIGO axiom; garbage in, garbage out. These people have a driver´s license to drive a car and they think they can drive a Boeing 747.
AMAC: Professor Templar, the terms ´upmost importance´ are highlighted in the previous question due to the possibility that this issue could have region-wide implications by affecting the Balkan region as a whole – do you also believe this to be the case?
Marcus Templar: In my opinion, the ICJ decision will have as much implication as Greece wants to give them. On a personal level the answer is no. I just I hope that the issue of the ICJ, and also by seeing now how other governments work, will wake the Greeks up from their laissez faire attitude that they have demonstrated thus far. But I doubt it. The reason that Greece did not sue the FYROM is that Greece´s naïve and oblivious politicians thought that by not doing so they would facilitate a speedy agreement with Skopje. But the issue is not just about reaching an agreement for agreement´s sake; the issue is a comprehensive agreement with verifiable points and, with all our experience of Skopje´s record, when it comes to compliance with anything, the agreement should include the institution of a "special verification police" in order to safeguard it. The laissez faire attitude of the Greek politicians has unfortunately been transplanted to the Greek MFA and all diplomatic missions as well.
AMAC: Can you please explain?
Marcus Templar: The huge gap in knowledge and understanding displayed by the Greeks on what foreign governments base their decisions on is one of the problems that I see. For example, the survey of the FYROM diaspora sponsored by Victoria University last summer, as I understand, was summarily dismissed by the Greek MFA as, "Oh it is nothing." What the responsible desk of the Greek MFA either does know or does not care to know is that those statistics are being studied and used by the Australian MFA to determine whether to recognize the FYROM as "Macedonia" or not. The employees of the Greek MFA must be working with blinders and earplugs in Athens. Although Greeks accuse their governments of the ostrich syndrome, I bring this characterization one step further by stating for the record that the Greek political elite live the life of a ground hog. They do their job underground coming out to breathe only when they smell elections and hand-clapping. Their attitude and indifference is scandalous and criminal, while their political advisors have a collective empirical experience on national security equal to zero.
AMAC: Are you saying that it is bad for academics to advise the Greek government?
Marcus Templar: No, it is not bad for academics to advise the government. What is bad is that the academics in Greece have NO empirical experience. The politicians receive raw information and do not apply any logic to make it practical. Theory is one thing, practice another. Also in Greece the academics that advise the governments are of leftist and globalist affinities. The governments of Greece are supposed to be exposed to all sides of the political spectrum and then implement what is good for the country. Only, at present this is not happening.
AMAC: Greece has indeed problems in its foreign policy. Why do you think this is so?
Marcus Templar: There is confusion of Foreign Policy with Foreign Relations and International Politics in Greece. They are, no doubt, related, but they are not the same and definitely not interchangeable. There are many models/theories on Foreign Policy decisionmaking: Rational model /Realist Perspective, organizational or bureaucratic model/Liberal Perspective, Pluralist model/Radical Perspective. Greece, being unique, has chosen the Defeatist model under the Misery (κακομοιριά) Perspective. In our times the Greek NGO ELIAMEP and the Greek political elite have excelled in implementing the last one. I am not the only one that has a problem with ELIAMEP and its monopoly.
There is only one NGO that the Greek government turns to for advice: ELIAMEP. This is an insane situation. One never puts one´s eggs in one basket. ELIAMEP, its sole advisor on external affairs, is either of globalist or ethnonihilistic affinities. Its members are not even socialists as many Greeks believe. Socialists are patriots. ELIAMEP members have shown no patriotism whatsoever. Greece needs to have more than one NGO specializing in Foreign Affairs with different political inclinations so that there is balance and logic in Foreign Policy. For example Dr. Michael Geokas and Dr. Christos Katsetos of the Think-Tank Demokritos published on April 22, 2007 a research paper under the title «ΖΗΤΕΙΤΑΙ ΥΠΕΡΜΟΝΤΕΡΝΟΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΣ ΠΕΤΡΟΣ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ» stating on page 9 that the monopoly of ELIAMEP has to stop.
Unfortunately, the Helladites do not learn from their own mistakes because they cannot admit that they are wrong. They have done so many things for Skopje, in essence they have kept it alive since 1991 and especially in 2001 (George Papandreou). And yet Skopje takes them to the cleaners. They still philosophize about Skopje´s existence disregarding the potential that Skopje might survive at Greece´s territorial and sociological expense and that includes history, inheritance, heritage, culture, etc.
AMAC: What do you mean?
Marcus Templar: According to Theodoros Pangalos, they are doing it in order to cajole the Skopjans!!! What can one say about such insane thinking? Greek politicians must stop using the "mirror image" in their foreign policy if they want their country to see a bright day. The more Greece gives them, the more they want - and Greece is doing it in order to cajole them? Furthermore, Pangalos said that the reason Greece agreed to offer the name Macedonia as part of the final name is because the Western Allies would not go for a name that excludes the word Macedonia it. Which Western Allies? Really? Who exactly are these so called "allies" and where are they going to be when Greece loses its functional control over Macedonia, Thrace, and Epirus? And why did Greece ask them anyway? But I doubt that it was the reason. These unidentified allies don´t care less what happens to Greece in the future. The reason is that while Pangalos and his cohorts were selling rubbish to their Greek constituencies, they were agreeing with the Western Allies in order to show debonairness and co-operation. They forgot their loyalty should have been to their Greek constituency and not to the EU aristocracy.
Depending on the number of countries that have actually recognized them either erga omnes or bilaterally as "Macedonia," the FYROM will try to bring the matter of the name dispute to the UN General Assembly for a vote, probably after the elections. When the number of the above countries reaches 128 then the FYROM might attempt this move. The countries that recognize the FYROM as "Macedonia" in bilateral relations would play the key role. Those which recognize Skopje either as "Macedonia" or FYROM erga omnes will maintain their vote for or against the recognition of the FYROM by the UNGA as "Macedonia." The other countries with a bilateral recognition would think twice. The last thing these countries would like to do is to anger the Greek constituency and its diaspora. After that, the Interim Agreement would be nullified, and there will be no reason for Greece to keep its borders open to Skopje, or allow them to join NATO or the EU for the duration of Skopje´s short existence. It will be a Pyrrhic victory for the FYROM ethnic Slavs. No Albanian (about 35-40%) would like to live in a country where the ethnic Slavic sick nationalism reigns supreme. The conclusion of a friend of mine is "demographics, equality and human rights played a big part in Kosovo´s independence. Coupled with an unmistakable reality of historic and continued inner-ethnic tension between the Albanian and the Slavic people, the future of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is not any different."
I am sure the Greek government expects the FYROM to bring the issue to the UNGA, but they´re hoping that nobody else in Greece and its diaspora does. The Greek government did the same in August 2004 when they were notified by the US government that it planned to recognize the FYROM as "Macedonia" after the elections. Instead of Molyviatis getting on a plane and hurrying to Washington in order to avert such recognition, and instead of mobilizing the Greek-American diaspora to pressure the US government to avert such a move, he wrote a letter to Colin Powell. And then they all played dumb waiting for November´s elections. Then the Greek diaspora blamed Colin Powell and Bush for it. Not one of them blamed Molyviatis, Bakoyanni, Mitsotakis, Andreas Papandreou, or Karamanlis Jr. and others. It is everyone else's fault, but the Greek politicians´. Greeks treat their politicians as if they are children that can be enticed with a lollypop. This is the Greek mentality and attitude that keeps creating problems in every aspect of Greek life. They better throw both the mentality and attitude into the trash because one day when the Greek people wake up, it will be pitch-dark.
AMAC: What is your opinion about the Greek Press?
Marcus Templar: Greece does not have a responsible Press. Investigative reporting is only in Hollywood movies for them. One has to buy at least five to six newspapers, in order to be in position to guess what is going on in Greece. When in 2007 I stated that Greece was a failed state, people around me could not understand. Now, they are silent. Where exactly was the Greek Press? They all believed that "the government deals with the issues seriously and responsibly." This is my favorite expression. In my book it means, "We have no idea what we are doing or what we should do; we need assistance from our diaspora, but we are too politically polarized that nobody from abroad wants to help us. Besides, we do not want to have a strong diaspora because if we do, we will never be able to pull any of the shenanigans we do. We are too egoistic to ask for help because if we have not thought of it ourselves, it cannot be good."
One man in Brisbane was upset when I said that the Greek Press publishes nothing with substance regarding the foreign and domestic policies. He said, "They write everything." After I pointed out a few items the Greek Press had "missed" to inform its readers, he realized the facts. It is very sad that regarding the name dispute, the news comes from Skopje; and regarding the Aegean, thank God for the Turkish Press. As for the interviews given by various Greek politicians, I watch them when I have insomnia. They are slightly better than sleeping pills. They are dull and vague.
AMAC: With the above statements one could characterize you as a nationalist or racist?
Marcus Templar: Those, who would call me "nationalist," should first go to school in order to learn what "nationalism" is. This statement includes all the degreed, but uneducated individuals, some of whom teach in Greek Universities; the same individuals use the word "nationalism" as if it were bubble gum without knowing its meaning.
As I said in Melbourne, those who consider themselves communists or socialists and believe that patriotism is not for them, I want to remind everyone of what Lenin wrote in his article ´On the National Pride of the Great Russians´: "Is a sense of national pride alien to us, Great-Russian class-conscious proletarians? Certainly not! We love our language and our country, and we are doing our very utmost to raise her toiling masses (i.e., nine-tenths of her population) to the level of a democratic and socialist consciousness."
Furthermore, in "The Valuable Admissions of Pitirim Sorokin" published in Pravda on November 21, 1918, Lenin states, "Patriotism is one of the most deeply ingrained sentiments, hammered by the existence of separate fatherlands for hundreds and thousands of years. One of the most pronounced, one might say exceptional, difficulties of our proletarian revolution, is that it was obliged to pass through a phase of extreme departure from patriotism, the phase of the Brest-Litovsk Peace."
If Lenin saw the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty as an "extreme departure from patriotism," how can the communists and socialists of Greece justify their opposition to patriotism by giving away their own history and heritage? Or is it something else that motivates them, not necessarily their political affinity? These people subscribe to ethnonihilism. They have educated the Greek youth in a Fifth Phalanx manner to become ethnohihilist.
Patriotism is love and pride for one´s country and transcends political ideology. It differs from chauvinism, which is bellicose patriotism and a blind belief in national superiority and glory. When chauvinism develops into political ideology, it turns into nationalism as in the FYROM. Political parties in healthy democracies have no ideology, but platform. As for the racist card, I can say that it will not work on me either. In my family there exist more races, cultures, and languages than the rainbow.
Funny, I do not hear many people calling the FYROM ethnic Slavs "nationalists" or racists, despite the strong FYROM ultranationalism and racism we see, hear, and read of on a daily basis, under the ethnonationalist label of "Macedonism" and the "Macedonian Prayer."
Therefore, I shall close with the adage, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
AMAC: Professor Templar, thank you very much for your time and for sharing with us your thoughts on these important issues.
Marcus Templar: Thank you very much, it´s been my pleasure.
Copyright 2011 Australian Macedonian Advisory Council. All rights Reserved.
www.macedonian.com.au