Bulgaria and Greece raise their demands yet again
With the conclusion of the 75th anniversary and NATO Summit in Washington, DC, the unilateral problems that Bulgaria and Greece each have with Macedonia have, once again, come to the fore.
Bulgaria’s problem with Macedonia, although it did not garner as much attention as Greece’s at the summit, was nevertheless highlighted since much of the media, bureaucrats, diplomats, pundits and think tanks alike seem to enjoy talking about both issues at the same time as a way of increasing pressure on Macedonia. Bulgaria’s churlish demand – that Macedonia enshrine in the Macedonian constitution, Bulgarians as a people (all 3,500 of them) – before Bulgaria will agree to allow Macedonia to being EU accession talks, is nothing new. The new Macedonian government has come back with a tacit agreement, but with a request for modest modifications to that demand, including agreeing to it, but implementation being delayed until Macedonia is an EU member.
To this moderate request, Bulgaria refuses to budge. Why? I think it is simply because if Macedonia agrees to this and implements it with a change in its constitution, then Bulgaria will come back with ever more demands. Why? Because it worked for Greece, and it appears – at this point – to be working for Bulgaria. So, from a Bulgarian point of view, why not keep demanding things from Macedonia? This, of course, is an untenable situation for Macedonia. And yet the media, bureaucrats, diplomats, pundits and think tanks dismiss Macedonia’s reasonable requests out of hand and side entirely with Bulgaria.
Greece’s problems with Macedonia have been more front and center during the summit for the simple reason that Prime Minister Mickoski has refused to utter the N word during the summit. The Greek Prime Minister, Greek media and many others have naturally said that Armageddon is just around the corner because the Macedonian Prime Minister (though they themselves never use that adjective) refuses, in his verbal discourse, to use the N word.
While the Greeks accuse Macedonia of violating the so-called Prespa agreement, newly minted Macedonian Foreign Minister Timco Muncunski has a reasonable response telling one media outlet “As a party, we have expressed our position on the Prespa Agreement. From a political point of view, speaking on behalf of the VMRO-DPMNE party, we have stated that this is a shameful and undignified act. At the same time, however, we are aware of the constitutional, legal, and political reality that accompanies this agreement, as well as the obligations undertaken by the state in terms of public international law. We cannot simply ignore these obligations. That is why we have stated that, yes, this is an undignified agreement, but it is an agreement that we have an obligation to respect. Therefore, we take all necessary measures to comply with it. The fact that the prime minister states that he will use the term Macedonia in public speeches within the country does not constitute a violation of the agreement. This is our interpretation of the agreement. Article 7 clearly states that both parties may use both the term Macedonia and the term Macedonia. In this regard, we recognize that we have obligations which we intend to respect and demonstrate in practice that we respect them, both at home and abroad. This is the use erga omnes we are talking about.”
This brings up a few interesting points.
First, Greece has not implemented several of its own obligations according to the so-called Prespa agreement. What is Macedonia to do when Greece refuses to uphold its end of the bargain? Second, Greece repeatedly violated the 1995 Interim Accord signed between Macedonia and Greece. Greece repeatedly violated that agreement, Macedonia took Greece to the International Court of Justice, Greece lost, and nothing happened. Third, there is a provision in the so-called Prespa agreement (Part 3, Article 19, Point #3) “concerning the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement” whereby that or those disputes can be submitted to (brace yourself) the International Court of Justice. My interpretation of what all the above means? Agreements aren’t worth the proverbial paper they are written on.
The elected politicians, the unelected bureaucrats and diplomats, the media, the think tanks, the professional pundits, and academics alike are all going hell-for-leather in their pronunciations that Macedonia a) must agree to Bulgaria’s demands right this very minute and b) must never deviate one bit from the so-called Prespa agreement so that Macedonia’s EU accession talks might begin.
There should be no hurry. Macedonia is a part of NATO. The new government in Macedonia has excellent relations with both Washington, DC and Brussels. The government is focused on the economy, jobs, energy, education, healthcare, fighting corruption, and 101 other more important things. Even if EU accession talks started right this very minute, it would take a minimum of ten years to conclude. In the meantime, Greece and Bulgaria (and maybe a few other countries) would demand new concessions from Macedonia which, in turn, erodes the confidence of Macedonians in the EU and other Western institutions (like NATO) which in turn makes Macedonia, the region, and Europe weaker.
Enough of this foolishness.
If the elected politicians, the unelected bureaucrats and diplomats, the media, the think tanks, the professional pundits, and academics want Macedonia to succeed – and I think they see their own self-interest in Macedonia succeeding – then they need to take a step back, a deep breath, and indulge in one of the great virtues, often neglected – patience. That, and allow Macedonia the time and space to address the issues which concern its citizens the most.