MACEDONIA
RESPONSE TO NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC’S ARTICLE ON ALEXANDER THE GREAT – PDF format
Introduction
Macedonia has been claimed by the Slav people of the Vardar region (formerly part of the Kingdom of Serbia) and today called “North Macedonia”) as part of their national identity and consciousness, yet the historical and archaeological evidence shows that Macedonia has no link or relationship with these people.
Ancient Macedonia was a small kingdom located in northern Greece. The region was first inhabited by a tribe called “Mackednoi”, which gave the area its name.
According to the ancient historian, Herodotus, the Mackednoi were the first people to call themselves “Hellenes”. From 359 BC to 323 BC, the small kingdom established an empire through the reign of several kings, and with Alexander the Great, Macedonia would come to conquer many lands and usher in the Hellenistic age in the region and in the known world of the time.
Background
Macedonia has been an integral part of Hellenism since ancient times, going back to 800 BC. The ancient Macedon people are culturally and linguistically part of the ancient Greek world, and this have been substantiated without doubt by both historical and archaeological evidence.
Macedonia was never a country or state or nationality until the 1940s.
It is also worth noting that the “Macedonian” nationality or ethnicity did not exist prior to the formation of post-World War II communist Yugoslavia. Two Ottoman Empire (Turkish) censuses taken in 1904 and 1906, by Hilmi Pasha1 for of the Southern Macedonia make no mention of this nationality.
According to the 1904 census in the Vilaeti of Thessaloniki [Greece] there were 373,227 Greeks and 207,317 Bulgarians. In the Vilaeti of Monasteri [present day Bitola, North Macedonia] the census shows that Monasteri was composed of 261,283 Greeks and 178,412 Bulgarians. In the Santzaki of Skopje [North Macedonia] the number of Greeks was recorded as 13,452 and 172, 735 Bulgarians.
The 1906 census shows that Southern Macedonia’s population was made of: 423,000 (41.7%) Muslims (Turks and Albanians); 259,000 (27.30%) Greeks; 178,000 (18.81%) Bulgarians; 13,150 (1.39%) Serbs; and 73,000 (7.72%) others, mainly Hebrews.
“Macedonia” as a nation-state became an issue upon the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Before Tito, no autonomous region under the name of “Macedonia” existed within Yugoslavia. In fact, the geographic area that currently forms “North Macedonia” is in reality part of historic Serbia and only includes 12 percent of ancient Macedonian land.
It is also worth noting that the “Macedonian” nationality or ethnicity did not exist prior to the formation of post-World War II communist Yugoslavia. Two Ottoman Empire (Turkish) censuses taken in 1904 and 1906, by Hilmi Pasha for of the Southern Macedonia make no mention of this nationality.
There is no evidence in the Turkish archives of the existence of the “Macedonian” nationality. In our view, this is not an omission on the part of the census, because it is highly unlikely that if this nationality existed it would have been recorded as such. It was the policy of the Ottoman Empire to identify the people of different nationalities that lived within its domain and to use the different nationalities in preventing the formation of any resistance against its rule.
The 1926 census of the League of Nations for the people in Southern Macedonia makes similar findings. According to the League’s census there were 1,341,000 (88.8%) Greeks; 2,000 (0.1%) Muslims; 77,000 (5.1%) Bulgarians and 91,000 (6.1%) others, mainly Hebrews. Like the 1904 and 1906 census, this international census shows that the “Macedonian” nationality was not present in the region.
The Yugoslav Federation was formed in 1917 as a single state on the Balkan Peninsula for Europe’s South Slavic people. Yugoslavia literally means land of the South Slavs. The Federation consisted of Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia Herzegovina. They spoke a common language, Servo-Croatian, who had different histories, different beliefs, and distinct identities.
There was no mention of “Macedonia” or the “Macedonian” nationality, as been part of this new country. During and following World War II, Tito communists promoted the formation of new “nationalities” to achieve their political goals. One of those nationalities was “Macedonia”.
This is supported by American diplomatic history.
According to Stettinius, who was US Secretary of State in 1944, “an autonomous Macedonia” emanated from Yugoslav Partisans, led by Tito, as well as others with the idea of including Greek territory in the new projected state.
The post-World War II geopolitics prevented the formation of “autonomous Macedonia” as envisioned by Tito’s communists and had to settle for the creation of an “autonomous” region under the name of “the Socialist Republic of Macedonia” by taking territory from Serbia.
This artificial construct served two purposes: first, the “Macedonian” nationality was given legitimacy; and secondly, Serbia’s influence within the Yugoslav Federation was reduced through the creation of the “Macedonia” autonomous region at its southern territory.
The Dissolution of Yugoslavia and the Birth of FYROM
With the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991, nationalistic tendencies such as the “Macedonian nation”, the “Macedonia fatherland”, or the “Macedonia national consciousness” were revived and small nationalistic groups took upon themselves to realize the creation of a Macedonia nation-state that will encompass the Greek section of Macedonia as well as portions of Bulgaria.
In October 1991, the “Socialist Republic of Macedonia” as was known within the Yugoslav Federation, declared independence from Yugoslavia under the name “Republic of Macedonia”.
Greece objected to the use of the name of Macedonia by the new country, nor was it recognized as such by the international community. International recognition came when the northern country agreed to change its name to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) under the Interim Accord of 1995.
However, countries like Russia, China and United State of America recognized the northern country with its constitutional name, the Republic of Macedonia and not FYROM as was recognized under international law.
What’s in the Name
The use of the name of Macedonia by the FYROM and thereafter by North Macedonia is an “identity theft” of Hellenic heritage and culture and it links heritage to both Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great. In addition, it inherently suggests territorial ambitions beyond the northern country’s existing borders.
Further, the use of the name was an attempt to create a new “nationality” out of a very ethnic and culturally diverse and heterogeneous population (Albanians, Slavs, etc.) and through historical inaccuracies and fallacies give the impression to the international community that it was a legitimate nation-state with good intentions.
Why is the name so important? Because it carries along important derivatives far beyond what it says. It carries “Ghosts or real historical demons. Perhaps war or peace. Nothing and everything”, wrote Leslie H. Gelb in the New York Times (June 12, 1992). The name, of course, is Macedonia, the land of Philip, Alexander the Great and Aristotle; the beautiful land of Mount Olympus and the Greek gods. All these are part and parcel of the Hellenic Civilization, History and Cultural Identity, the collective Hellenic consciousness.
Bill C-443, An Act to recognize the Republic of Macedonia
On July 3, 1996, Canada extended formal recognition to the northern country as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).
On May 16, 2007, the then Federal Ontario Liberal MP Lui Temelkovski introduced. The Bill C-443, An Act to recognize the Republic of Macedonia.
This bill called upon Parliament and the Government of Canada to recognize the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) under its constitutional name – “Republic of Macedonia”.
The Canadian Hellenic Congress (CHC) and its regional branches strongly objected to the Bill.
In a written submission to parliamentarians, the CHC set out the reasons for Parliament not to enact the legislation. Specifically, the CHC noted:
- As Canadians of Hellenic heritage, we respect the right of the people of the southern portion of Serbia, as carved out by Tito, to seek self-determination and statehood, but not at the expense of our historical, cultural, or linguistic ties with ancient Macedonia, which forms an integral part of our Hellenic heritage.
- The name “Macedonia” denotes both historical and cultural links to ancient Macedonia and creates conditions for intolerance, menacing and aggressiveness against other Canadians of Hellenic descent and other peoples.
- It is a historic fact that the Slav people, who are the descendants of most of the people in FYROM, came into the region not before the 6th century AD, and long before after ancient Macedonia and its people was an integral part of the Hellenistic Civilization.
- There is no historic or archaeological evidence connecting the descendants of the people of FYROM with Macedonia.
- Several senior government officials of FYROM, including a former president, have publicly stated they are not or related to the ancient Macedonians.
- “We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century [AD]…we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians,” former President Kiro Gligorov, February 26, 1992, told the Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe.
- On March 15, 1992, the Toronto Star quotes President Gligorov saying that: “[…] we are Slav Macedonians. That’s who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia. […] Our ancestors came here [FYROM] in the 5th and 6th century (AD).”
- On January 22, 1999, FYROM’s Ambassador in Washington, Mrs. Ljubica Acevshka stated, “We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great.” She also stated that “we are Slavs, and we speak a Slavik language.” As Slavs the people of FYROM speak a variation of the Bulgarian language.
- On February 22, 1999, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM’s Ambassador to Canada, told the Ottawa Citizen, “We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people, and our language is closely related to Bulgarian.”
Despite these official pronouncements, nationalistic elements are still pursuing a policy of intransigence and cultural thievery.
In 2007 FYROM’s decision to rename the airports of Skopje and Ohrid to “Alexander the Great” and “St. Paul” has triggered negative reaction among a segment of the Greek population, while others saw these decisions as a further attempt by FYROM to falsify history and appropriate cherished Greek Macedonian identity and cultural heritage.
These actions follow other actions which consecutive FYROM governments have taken such as the erection of statues of Alexander the Great in towns like Shtip and Prilep, which, in our view, are acts of provocation and intolerance against Hellenes and their descendants.
News that the FYROM government plans a series of new monuments to commemorate King Philip II, Alexander’s father, and even the Macedonian born philosopher, Aristotle, Alexander’s tutor, have further exacerbated the relations between these two countries and their respective diaspora.
For instance, people from FYROM who live in Canada and the United States have refused to discontinue the distribution of educational material and ethno-historic data that distorts the historic realities and ferments nationalism, intolerance, and hatred among peoples in this country and in southeast Europe and the Balkans.
The CHC further noted that by recognizing and extending diplomatic relations to this country by its UN name, Canada has given over the years Greece and FYROM an opportunity to resolve their differences through the UN.
For instance, since the signing of the Interim Accord in 1995, bilateral relations between the two countries have normalized and improved impressively, especially on the economic front, though the name dispute has remained unresolved.
In 2005, UN Special Envoy Matthew Nimetz put forth a set of proposals to Greece and FYROM that included the term “Republika Makedonija-Skopje” for international use and addressed cultural and identity issues. Unfortunately, FYROM’s government rejected outright Ambassador Nimetz’s proposals.
Despite this set back FYROM and Greece are still enjoying good economic and political relations and are continuing to seek a diplomatic solution to the name dispute within the UN framework.
Mr. Temelkovski’s rational for Canada to recognize the northern country by its constitutional name was relying on what countries like Russia, China and USA had done. In CHC’s view this was bad public policy to pursue.
The CHC argued that the positions of foreign governments on this matter are not indicative of what is best for Canada and its diverse people. Unlike, US, Russia and China, Canada adheres to the principles and decisions of the UN and promotes the good offices of the UN as the proper framework of resolving disputes among nations, whether old or new ones. Both Greece and FYROM have accepted the UN framework as a means of resolving this particular dispute. Canada should encourage both countries to follow through and should not enact legislation, which is based on nationalistic sentiments or political expediency.
As Canadians of Hellenic heritage, we support the diplomatic efforts established under the auspices of the UN because we strongly believe that the name dispute should only be resolved through mediation and diplomacy.
Ambassador Acevshka said it best: “Greece is FYROM’s second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nimitz.” (January 22, 1999, Speech in Washington).
To this end, we strongly believe that Canada should not take any action, until the matter is resolved through the UN. It should be noted that Canada did not rush to recognize FYROM until the UN had accept it as such.
The Bill C-443 was not enacted by the Canadian Parliament.
The Prespa Agreement
On June 7, 2018, the governments of Greece and FYROM signed a new agreement – the Prespa Agreement – that revoked the Interim Accord of 1995. The Agreement inter alia renamed the northern country as “Republic of North Macedonia”. Supporters of the agreement hailed it as “historic” and a “success story”. Critics saw it as undermining FYROM’s self-determination, violations of the rule of law and democratic principles in order to push forward the name change and geopolitical agenda of United States and Germany. As Oxford professor James Pettifer argued, the talks leading to the Agreement were of a “coercive nature” designed to produce a short-term gain, without considering regional instability and political consequences for the area.
Breaking the Laws to Get to the Prespa Agreement
The Trump Administration and the German government pushed for the signing of the agreement. Trump wanted FYROM in NATO and the name was an obstacle. The United States dictated the terms of the agreement.
According to Professor Francis Boyle, “Greece and Macedonia should be able to agree upon a mutually acceptable name with Macedonia having to sign a 20—page agreement basically drafted by the US State Department that would take a professional international lawyer quite some time to figure out what it meant and what would be the consequences for Macedonia…The Americans have never cared about constitutional requirements when they are trying to get people to swallow an agreement.” [Emphasis Added]
Ratification Process
In FYROM the ratification process was flawed and violated both domestic an international law. The agreement was wrapped in secrecy and the FYROM opposition, its President and the public was kept in the dark.
The agreement was never completed by the FYROM Parliament. On June 20, 2018, the ruling coalition at the time ratified the Agreement with a majority vote (69 votes out of 120, with no consent from the opposition).
President Gjorge Ivanov refused to sign the decree promulgating the law ratifying the agreement, stating that “agreement has no constitutional ground and is not ratified in compliance with the constitution”. The government turned to Speaker Nikola Dimitrov who sign the decree. Dimitrov’s signature violates Article 119(1) of the FYROM Constitution according to which “international treaties are signed by the President of the Republic, in the name of the Republic of Macedonia.”
In the autumn of 2018, the FYROM government put the Prespa changes to a “consultative/advisory” referendum. There were serious breaches of its legislation and the Code of Good Referendum Practices of the Venice Commission. The referendum question was misleading and open to interpretation, and experts wondered how these could be consultation if the agreement was already ratified by the Dimitrov’s signature.
Article 73 of the FYROM Constitution explicitly states that a decision made in referendum is binding, and the decision in a referendum is adopted on condition that more than half of the total number of voters votes (50% +1). The turnout was 37 percent, the constitutional requirement was a 50 percent turnout. The referendum was marred by ballot stuffing in rural areas, and yet a me 31 percent of the registered voters supported the Agreement, including the name change.
Despites breaches of its laws, the FYROM government proceeded with the agreement to make constitutional changes.
On October 18, 2018, the FYROM Parliament voted to start the process of renaming the country “North Macedonia”, after a total of 80 MPs voted in favour of the constitutional changes. On January 11, 2019, the RYM Parliament completed the “legal implementation” of the Prespa Agreement by approving the changes for remaining the country to North Macedonia with a two-thirds votes (81 MPs. According to independent reports, to achieve the necessary majority, “the ruling coalition bribed, intimidated, and blackmailed MPS, made changes to the Criminal Code, and pardoned MPs.” Further, during the ratification process, the Parliamentary Rule Book was violated.
On January 25, 2019, Greece ratified the agreement and immediately informed the EU and NATO that it no longer objects to FYROM’s Euro-Atlantic accession under the new name.
On February 6, 2019, NATO’s 29 members signed the accession protocol with the Republic of North Macedonia.
No to the Prespa Agreement
The Prespa Agreement process was corrupt from the start and represents a gross violation of domestic and international law. The rule law which the United States, UN and EU so dearly hold seems not to apply to this agreement. FYROM and Greece were simply pawns in American geopolitical expediency. The goal was not to mutually resolve the name issue, but to get FYROM in NATO and EU to prevent Russia from forming an alliance with this country.
The talks were based on coercion, bribery and political expediency and short-term gain for the USA, without regard to future consequences. For instance, the 2021 census conducted by the northern country noted only 3,000 ethnic Bulgarians, whereas over 100,000 “Macedonians” have obtained Bulgarian passports, in order to obtain the benefits of an EU passport that allows them to work and travel in the EU countries. According to a report, it is the basis of these numbers that Bulgaria is now claiming rights for a Bulgarian Minority in the northern country.
Several documents note that the Prespa Agreement is deeply flawed that undermines the self-determination of the people of the northern country, imposes a name and language that has no historical meaning to the region, and usurps Hellenic heritage and history. The agreement creates an artificial state by borrowing the historical identity of another country – Greece.
The CHC and the HCCO call for the revocation of the agreement because it has grossly breached not only domestic law, but international law, which the USA constantly reminds everyone in the world that the rule of law is supreme. Yet, when it came to the agreement it turned a blind eye, as it had done on many occasions where its perceived interests prevail.