or How the European Union entered the time-travel machine and got back in the 19th century

The 7th of December was supposed to be a crucial date for the Integration of the Republic of Macedonia in the European Union: after the generally positive remarks received from the European Commission on the country’s development (regardless of their objectivity), the Council was supposed to offer the country a date for the beginning of negotiations. Unfortunately, the Republic was not on the agenda. It will be some time in March, hopefully?

The reasons are more than clear. Greece, a member of the Union, has insisted the so called name dispute to be resolved. Its northern neighbor, an important destination for the Greek capital and an important factor for the region’s stability, can not be allowed to enter the EU under its name. Why? Because the name of Macedonia and everything that is Macedonia, in fact belongs to Greece. It has been like that from times ancient, and it should remain like that, official Greek representatives have argued. The Republic of Macedonia should modify its name so it will suit the preferences of the government in Athens. The usage of the name of Macedonia implies territorial appetites in Greece.

The name was the reason Greece objected to the recommendations of the Badinter commission for the recognition of the independence of Macedonia along with Slovenia in 1992, which has arguably affected the country’s development in the years of turmoil following the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Furthermore, the name and the use of antique symbols by Skopje has been the reason for the unlawful economic blockade in 1994, in the times when the wars in former Yugoslav republics have already devastated Macedonian economy. In 1995, Skopje compromised by signing the Interim Agreement, has changed its flag and accepted the “necronym” FYROM, standing for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In 2008, Greece blocked Macedonia’s NATO bid, although the Alliance commissioners have stated that the country has fulfilled all the necessary criteria imposed to the Adriatic Three. The bids of the rest of this group, Albania and Croatia, have been approved.

The infamous “name dispute” is itself a precedent in international politics. The historical background, as briefly as possible, is the following:

Macedonia became official part of the Greek history only in the middle of the 19th century with the redefinition of the previously “barbaric” Ancient Macedonians into Macedonians, the apostles of Classic Hellenism. Half of the territory of the region of geographical Macedonia was annexed by Greece by sword in 1913, while the other two belonged to Serbia and Bulgaria. All this happened less than a century ago. While the territory of the region of Macedonia under Serbia has later become Yugoslav Macedonia, and in the 1990s the independent Republic of Macedonia, and the regions of Macedonia under Bulgaria and Greece remain under their respective control nowadays.

Greek Macedonia, after 1913, has been intensively Hellenized via questionable “demographic policies”, including population exchanges, prohibition of the usage of the language of minorities and even forcing domestic population to paint their dwellings in the Greek national colors. However, only a couple of decades after the annexation, these policies resulted into Greek Macedonia becoming an integral part of Greece. Nowadays, no one opposes to that fact. Greek Macedonia is Greek and it is safe and sound within the Greek borders. The only problem is the general politics of the Greek government not to recognize minorities, which has been an issue in many human rights reports. The official politics of Greece for decades has been to insist on the homogeneity of the Greek nation which in the 21st century is quite a debatable claim. However, it is mostly the responsibility of the Greek government and the international organizations dealing with minorities to do something regarding this question.

Nonetheless, what Greece stresses as crucial for the Macedonian issue in the 20th century is the secessionist tendencies of the Slavic speakers in the 1940s. Yes, that was the case. While in the Republic of Macedonia this is still a taboo, it is an absolved question for world history.

In fact, during the Second World War there was a “Slavo Macedonian People’s Liberation Front”, part of the Greek liberation movement comprised of Slavic speakers from Greek Macedonia, that was tightly cooperating with the Yugoslav partisan movement which supported the idea of United Macedonia, that would include the regions of Macedonia in Greece and Bulgaria. Later, the former volunteers from the Front, backed by Tito, joined the Communists in the Civil War, still preserving their autonomist/separatist tendencies. However, after the Tito-Stalin split, Greek communists allied with Moscow, which has cost them the Yugoslav and the support of the former members of the Front. The US and UK backed Rightists easily won the War, and the measures against Slavic speakers were harsh, as many of them (and among them many young children) have been expelled. I surely do not approve that, but the post-war expel of Slavic speakers has resulted in even less heterogeneous Greek Macedonia.

More or less, that is how the alleged irredentism of “Slavo Macedonians” (later ethnic Macedonians) ended. After the expel of thousands of them, there was not even enough of them to form a critical mass that would contemplate secession. Although among the nationalists in Yugoslav Macedonia and later in the Republic of Macedonia the idea of “unification” has never been abolished, the government of the Republic has explicitly and officially given up any even indirectly irredentist claim towards Greece too. In fact, it would be out of any reason for a country of 2 million people with a significantly weaker army to try to mess up with a powerhouse like Greece. So there is no case of serious Macedonian irredentism – and that is no valid argument in the dispute.

What is also used as an argument by Greece is that the government of the Republic of Macedonia in the last couple of years started exploiting the ancient past in political goals. Official Skopje, in fact, has built monuments, renamed institutions after ancient kings, and has attempted to rewrite ancient history. Partially, it might have been a reaction to Greek pressure, which is not a justification, but a mere reason behind those policies. Regardless, I, alongside many other participants in the public debate, have been constantly objecting, ridiculing and condemning those acts. For me, it is just seeding ethnic nationalism and deploying myths into the public discourse, which in a long term would affect Macedonian society in a very bad manner. However, it is mostly the right of the Macedonian sovereign government to do whatever it wants in terms of monuments and names of institutions, and the only ones that can judge for those measures are the citizens of this country, but not foreign governments.

Anyway, since 1993 the Macedonian government has obliged to talk about a possible name that would fit the interests of both parties. Although it has been considered an ill-decision back home, that was the only way for Skopje to get around the blockades by Greece in the international arena. However, it turns out, the efforts of the Macedonian government are not enough to satisfy official Greece. And they are not indeed! Macedonian leaders have not really made a significant concession so far, because they do not want to be condemned as traitors. In fact, people in Macedonia seem to support politicians that are not willing to change the name and to despise those who are, and somehow that should not be surprising. My point is, if I was in power, I might have solved the name issue long time ago, even at the cost of becoming a persona non grata back home – but that is me, and I doubt I will ever be in a position to do that. The leaders will play hard on this issue, as they want to protect their people’s interest – and it seems that the interest of the people is to keep the name of the Republic of Macedonia.

In fact, the passion towards the name has grown so high that it has overwhelmed the passion towards the European Union. The once 95+% support for the EU by the Macedonian citizens, has been slowly declining because of the name issue. Nationalist groups organized protests in front of the seats of the EU missions in Skopje, telling the Union representatives that they will not give up their country’s name. The dilemma that was raised was “either EU, either the name”. I have argued often that it was a false dilemma, and that it was a result of the misinterpretation of the situation. Now, I am not really sure about its falseness.

The European Union today decided to take part in the name dispute by allowing Athens’s sentiments to override the recommendations of the EC. That meant justifying the positions of Macedonian nationalists that have argued that the European Union will not make a room for a country named “Macedonia”. Many of us here, not buying into nationalist rhetoric, have hoped that somehow Brussels would work a way to isolate the name issue as a bilateral one, and that it would not be the last obstacle for Macedonia to start the accession talks with the EU. Then, Greece and Macedonia would be able to negotiate the issue aside, not affecting Macedonia’s European integration.

However, it seems that the EU decided to play along Greece’s rules. The result of course will be – the perpetuation of sentiments and a possible destabilization of the Balkans. The Macedonian government now has a perfect and legitimate answer for all their failures – it is Greece’s fault, and it is EU’s fault for supporting Greece. It has also an open invitation for becoming radical under the narrative of victimization – as now they have the perfect Other in Greece – the country that bullies Macedonia over its name and does not let Macedonia into the EU, despite the successes Skopje has achieved. Not to say that the pro-EU and pro-western sentiments will decline even more and a Milosevic-like language of self-sufficiency will be used in order to cure the frustration from this outcome. On the other hand, Greece now has gained the momentum for taking initiative and twisting Skopje’s arm as in the 1990s. Furthermore, it has the support of the EU again, to shape a neighboring country’s name, according to its own national project. How EU is that?

Thanks for complicating the things Europe, and welcome to the 19th century. Thanks for supporting both Macedonian and Greek nationalism, and proving them right. I hope you will manage to control what you have just created. Although the official statements say Brussels encourages the solution of the issue, I can only see its worsening and a status quo that will last for ages.