Skopje’s gateway to the EU and NATO is closing

The elections in Skopje that were attended with violence and violations turned FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) into European and American problem, Greek Ethnos online edition announced. According to the author of the article Macedonia suffered a defeat in disaster dimensions over its prestige in abroad as well as its internal political background. Europeans and Americans plainly have doubts weather Skopje is ready to become EU and NATO member state, the edition pointed out.
New York Times newspaper defined Macedonia as the “new problem child of the Balkans”. According to Ethnos’s article the situation about the name issue dispute with Athens is getting different and Greek foreign policy must use its new opportunities after the elections. There is no more chance for Skopje to join Croatia and Albania and to sigh the agreement for NATO membership on July 9, the edition said.

NATO urges Macedonia to address electoral shortfalls

NATO Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer is deeply concerned by the OSCE Observer Mission's preliminary conclusions that the 1 June elections in Macedonia did not meet key international standards.

The Mission assessed that, despite many positive elements, election day was marred by violent incidents, intimidation and ballot stuffing in predominantly ethnic areas.

"Countries working towards NATO membership must make every effort to meet the democratic standards of the Alliance. Active steps should be taken to address the security and electoral shortfalls, in particular in the context of the repeat of voting to take place in districts where the electoral process had to be halted," Secretary General said in a statement.

NATO will carefully assess the OSCE Observer Mission's final conclusions, once the process is complete.

Macedonia blocks Greek Army at border

The Macedonian Authorities blocked the Greek Army from entering Macedonia earlier today.

The Greek Army had been on their way to Kosovo. Greece voiced their displeasure, however, must now go through Bulgaria, or Albania to get to Kosovo.

Macedonia's constitution doesn't allow for a foreign Army to enter Macedonia's territory. The political situation between the countries also contributed.

Another reason, and this is just a speclation on our part, is the Macedonian Authorities may have feared the Greek convoy could be attacked if people noticed the Greek flag. So far, besides us, only Greek ERT news had reported this.

The Ministry of Interior has informed the local media the Greek Convoy did not have a proper documentation to enter Macedonia. Two convoys were forbidden to enter. The first one had 76 soldiers in a bus for which the Greeks had zero documentation, and the second was 25 vehicles for which the Greek side had a hand written scribble in Greek showing 14 vehicles, even though they had 11 extra. Macedonian Authorities asked for Official NATO documentation in English or French, which the Greeks didn't have. The Greek officers verbally attacked the Macedonian Custom officials once they were told they did not have the proper documentation to enter.

Macedonia's MoFA spokesperson issued a statement: "We have already notified NATO about this, we aren't going to wait for the Greeks to notify Brussels. NATO knows they didn't have the proper, actually didn't have any documentation to enter". said Andonovski.

Violence mars Macedonia poll

Macedonia's hopes of speedy Nato and EU membership were dealt a major blow when its parliamentary elections were hit by widespread violence.

At least one person was killed and several others wounded in gunbattles across the country.

The polling was also hit by allegations of fraud, intimidation and ballot box stuffing.

Most of the violence was between ethnic Albanians, whose two political parties have in recent years descended into a bitter feud. It forced Macedonia's electoral commission to suspend voting in up to 20 polling stations.

The bloodshed is a embarrassment for the Balkan nation, which came within a whisker of civil war in 2001. It was hoping flawless elections would prove its readiness to join the EU and Nato.

Instead, British MP Denis MacShane, who is an observer at the election, said results had been fatally compromised by the violence.

"No government can be formed as a result of this election," he said.

"New polls must be organised in all the districts where violence, intimidation and stuffing of ballot boxes have taken place."

The polls had been called two years early by conservative Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski in the wake of Macedonia's failure to secure Nato membership earlier this year.

Greece blocked Macedonia's Nato bid in April, after the two countries failed to find a solution to their long running dispute over the name Macedonia.

Ancient Macedonia, the homeland of Alexander the Great, stretched over territory which now falls largely within the borders of Greece and its northern neighbour.

Italy supports Macedonia for quick EU and NATO entrance

New Italian Government will do everything in its power for Macedonia, along with Croatia, to soon join the European Union, Italian MEP Marcello Vernova said Thursday in Skopje after meeting Vice-Premier Zoran Stavreski.

- Silvio Berlusconi is Nikola Gruevski's great friend and the new Italian Government will support Macedonia on its road to the EU, NATO. New Foreign Minister Franco Frattini is also Macedonia's friend. Berlusconi will urge Sarkozy, Merkel and Aznar to support Macedonia and recognize the excellent results achieved by Gruevski's Government in meeting the European criteria, Vernova said, adding that a new group of Italian businessmen will visit Macedonia next month.

For Vernova, Macedonia is a prosperous country with a stable government, economy - something that attracts Italian businessmen to invest in the spheres of their interest, such as energy, environment, real estate and tourism.

Vernova announced that the new Italian Government would grant financial support to Macedonia for modernization of the public administration.

Macedonia's future in EU, NATO

The electoral campaign gets under way in Macedonia today.

“We’ve had well-organized elections up to now, and we’ve shown that we can do it. So, it’s not a question of if we can, but whether we sincerely want to, and whether the political will and a sense of responsibility for the future of our country exist,” said Crvenkovski.

The Macedonian president added that irregular elections would be a retrograde step to the only real option for Macedonia—NATO and the EU--and called on citizens to protect their vote, and thus the state.

The former leader of the biggest opposition party, the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM), claimed that, as at the previous elections, he would remain impartial.

“It’s good and important for the SDSM that this young leadership faces up to its own responsibility and this test of political maturity,” he said.

Regarding the talks with Greece over the “name” dispute, Crvenkovski reiterated that the elections would hamper the negotiating process, and that the status quo played into Greece’s hands.

The president added that “Macedonia cannot afford to err or give in to pressure and provocation from the Greek side, by responding with unreasonable moves that will primarily exacerbate economic relations.”

He said that the document on strategic cooperation with the U.S., recently signed in Washington, was further confirmation of the consolidation of mutual trust, but should not be viewed as an alternative to NATO membership.

NATO Slams 'Immature' Macedonia Appeal

NATO says a letter sent by Macedonia urging alliance members not to block the country's NATO membership because of the ‘name’ dispute is 'immature.'

An official from NATO headquarters told Balkan Insight that the alliance’s stance is the same as last week.

“We have clearly stated that Macedonia and Greece have to resolve the name issue and as we concluded at the Bucharest summit, as soon as Skopje and Athens resolve this dispute, Macedonia’s can count on a NATO invitation,” this official said.

“So far, it is up to Skopje now to start immediately negotiations on name dispute”, he added.

Macedonia’s Foreign Minister Antonio Milososki sent the letters to his counterparts in 25 NATO countries, except Greece, on Wednesday, the Associated press agency reported.

“I am confident that you and your country will not allow an imposed bilateral issue to become an additional criteria and a precondition for Macedonia’s membership of NATO” Milososki wrote.

He said Macedonians had been hugely disappointed by the outcome of NATO’s Bucharest summit.

Last week NATO agreed to issue a membership invitation to Croatia and Albania but Macedonia’s bid stumble because of a Greek veto since the ‘name’ row between the two countries remains unresolved.

NATO officials say the fact Macedonia's appeal ignored Athens was 'immature.'
“It was not wise to bypass an ally,” warned the NATO official. “However, the name dispute should remain a bilateral issue and should be resolved under auspices of the United Nations.”

Athens opposes Skopje’s use of the name “Republic of Macedonia” saying it might lead Skopje to make territorial claims over Greece’s own northern province of Macedonia.

Milososki noted his country has already made several concessions to please Greece, including constitutional amendments and changing its national flag. Milososki accused Athens of denying Macedonia its “national identity, language and cultural heritage.”

The increased United States and UN-backed push for finding a compromise to the 17 year-long dispute has so far been in vain. Follow-up talks are expected soon.

Balkan Fix

NATO's summit in Bucharest last week provided limited blessings for the Balkans. Although Albania and Croatia were invited into the alliance, Macedonia was shunted into the waiting room, Serbia remained on the sidelines, and Russia's persistent threats of renewed regional conflict over Kosovo went unchallenged.

Every NATO success in the Balkans seems to unearth a new problem and the Bucharest gathering was no exception. Positive decisions were reached with unanimous support for Croatia's and Albania's accession, as both countries have achieved the standards necessary for membership. In other favorable moves, Montenegro and Bosnia obtained Individual Partnership Action Plans and Intensified Dialogues to prepare them for future NATO entry.

Alliance leaders indicated a readiness to develop closer relations with Serbia after the parliamentary elections in mid-May. But with pro-Western forces divided and losing support, and the Radical Party likely to be included in the next Serbian government, Belgrade is more likely to edge closer to Russia than to NATO after the national ballot.

The most glaring summit negative was the postponed decision on Macedonia's NATO membership. The country's entry was blocked by Greece after years of stalled negotiations over the country's name and the formal usage of that name. The Macedonian appellation without a geographic or political qualifier is viewed in Athens as a direct challenge to Hellenic patrimony and identity, making it impossible for the Greek parliament to ratify Macedonia's NATO entry.

Unfortunately, the Macedonian authorities became overconfident that Washington would prevail as a mediator in the dispute with Athens and failed to adopt an acceptable compromise position. The country's invitation to NATO depends solely on an agreement with Greece – a prospect that may now prove even more elusive than before the summit.

In the wake of NATO's postponement, Macedonian politics is likely to radicalize. The fragile government, already abandoned by its Albanian coalition partners, could be forced to resign if it agrees to a new name that would entail a constitutional amendment. One can expect a flurry of accusations against Athens and a resurgence of nationalist passions. But this would only diminish Macedonia's reputation as a reliable NATO candidate.

Unless a sound strategy is devised in negotiations with Greece, with high-level U.S. involvement, the ensuing political turmoil may encourage leaders of the Albanian minority to push for territorial autonomy in a swath of territory bordering Kosova and Albania. This would capsize the Ohrid agreement painstakingly devised to ensure interethnic co-existence in a unitary state following the Albanian insurgency in the summer of 2001.

The broader regional consequences of not resolving Macedonia could also prove destabilizing. If Skopje does not promptly recognize Kosovo's statehood and fails to conclude a border agreement with Pristina, it could encourage some Albanian militants inside Macedonia to push for territorial adjustments. The militants might also conclude, in the absence of NATO membership, that Macedonia is merely a "temporary state."

Russia will also seek to benefit from Macedonian uncertainties by prodding for closer economic, political and security ties with Skopje and claiming to be a stalwart protector against pan-Albanianism and "Islamic terrorism." The objective will be to add another property on Moscow's expanding Monopoly board and construct a chain of Balkan dependencies stretching toward Central and Western Europe.

Following the summit declaration that NATO was committed to eventual membership for Ukraine and Georgia – though the alliance stopped short of offering them Membership Action Plans – Moscow issued its customary admonitions against expansion and threatened impending insecurity if Kiev and Tbilisi were invited into NATO. Less noticed but certainly more pressing was a statement from the Kremlin claiming that developments in Kosovo had yet to reach their "hottest phase," indicating that NATO and EU operations would be challenged by Serbian resistance and a push toward partition of Kosovo.

Moscow will continue to capitalize on Kosovo's limited international recognition by creating headaches for NATO and forestalling the further expansion of Western influence. Conflicts, frozen or otherwise, provide opportunities for promoting Russia's interests in a region that has still to be fully secured within Western institutions.

If nationalists form the next Serbian government, NATO should expect closer coordination between Belgrade and Moscow in provoking unrest in Kosovo. They may even precipitate the declaration of a separate Serbian administrative entity in the northern municipalities of Kosovo.

The post-Communist elites throughout Southeast Europe remain susceptible to Moscow's financial enticements and stand to benefit personally from opening up their economies to more substantial Russian penetration. Economic entrapment through an expanding Russian-controlled energy network could also entail political acquiescence to the Kremlin's pan-European objectives.

Moscow is pursuing a dual-track strategy toward the West: widening fissures inside Europe in order to expand its influence, and rolling back the American presence to prevent the permanent detachment of Eastern Europe from the Russian orbit. Seen in this broader strategic context, the Bucharest summit registered some successes in the Balkans, but more extensive and enduring commitments are needed in a still volatile and contested region.

Macedonia Looks to Early Election After NATO Snub

The party of Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski said on Wednesday it had agreed to hold an early parliamentary election, after Greece last week blocked the country's bid to join NATO.

A session of parliament was called for Thursday to discuss the initiative, originally tabled by the main ethnic Albanian opposition party, the Democratic Union for Integration (DUI).

Parliament has to first vote to dissolve itself for the country to hold early elections, which must then follow within two months.

The end of Gruevski's ruling coalition, less than two years since it took power, would spell a fresh period of political uncertainty in the Balkan republic. It borders newly independent Kosovo, and was rescued from all-out ethnic civil war in 2001 by NATO and European Union mediation.

"Considering developments in the dispute Greece has with us, our Euro-Atlantic integration, the inefficiency of parliament and events in Bucharest, right now there is no better solution than for the nation to hold early elections," Foreign Minister Antonio Milososki of the VMRO-DPMNE told reporters.

"There will be a new mandate, and greater capacity to carry out reforms for faster Euro-Atlantic integration," he said.

NAME DISPUTE

Greece blocked an invitation at NATO's Bucharest summit last week for Macedonia to join the alliance in a dispute over the country's name, which is the same as that of Greece's northern province, birthplace of Alexander the Great.

The two have been unable to agree on a name change since Macedonia declared independence from Yugoslavia in 1991.

The VMRO-DPMNE executive committee said it had accepted the DUI initiative to hold an early parliamentary election, which would likely be held in June.

Anti-Greek feelings are riding high, and analysts say the conservative VMRO-DPMNE hopes to capitalise on the nationalist sentiment and secure a new, stronger four-year mandate.

Gruevski's main coalition partner, the Democratic Party of Albanians, indicated it would support dissolving parliament.

Albanians form a 25 percent minority in the country of 2 million people.

They were offered greater rights and representation under a 2001 peace accord, brokered by the West to end a six-month ethnic Albanian insurgency that followed Kosovo's 1999 ethnic Albanian guerrilla war for independence.

But the country continues to suffer from high unemployment and lack of economic development that has fuelled fears of renewed ethnic tension.

Macedonia 'To Seize Moment' In 'Name' Row

he US envoy to NATO has said a fresh round of Macedonia-Greece talks over the long running “name” row will be held soon.

We will try to close this issue “within days or weeks, not in months” Victoria Nuland told local media after meeting the Macedonia’s President Branko Crvenkovski and Prime Minister, Nikola Gruevski.

She urged Skopje to “seize the moment” and try to hammer out a compromise with neighbouring Greece while the issue is still in focus in NATO. Nuland said she was satisfied with the talks in Skopje.

This comes after Athens, last week, vetoed Skopje’s NATO invitation at the alliance’s summit in Bucharest. Athens has urged Skopje to change its constitutional name “Republic of Macedonia,” arguing that it might lead Skopje to make territorial claims over Greece’s own northern province of Macedonia.

As a result, NATO said the invitation for the country would be issued as soon as the row is settled.

However, it is not clear who would represent Macedonia and with what legitimacy if the country goes to an early elections soon.

The key Ruling party, VMRO DPMNE, Wednesday announced it will accept the initiative calling for Parliament’s dismissal filed by the main Albanian opposition party, the Democratic Union for Integration. Read more at http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/9253/

The two parties have enough seats in the assembly to adopt the initiative that media report is scheduled to be put to a parliamentary vote on Thursday.

The NATO Summit

The NATO Summit

Dan Fried, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
Foreign Press Center Briefing
Washington, DC
April 7, 2008

QUESTION: Lambros Papantoniou, Greek correspondent, Eleftheros Typos, Greek daily. Mr. Secretary, on the name issue between Athens and Skopje, what happened in Bucharest? What is going to happen from now on, since you are (inaudible)? And why are you supporting the last proposal of Matthew Nimetz, which (inaudible) the proposal of February 19^th? And what was the purpose of the today's telephone call with the Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Of course, the position of the United States is well known. We wanted an invitation to Macedonia, either based on the Nimetz proposal or as FYROM, or as FYROM. Greece didn't accept that; however, Greece has made clear that it wants a solution to the name issue, and the Macedonian Government has made clear that it wants a solution to the name issue. Both sides want to move ahead.

And this became clear during the course of the discussions we had and President had with the Macedonian leaders, and it became clear in the course of conversations that Secretary Rice and I had with the Greek Foreign Minister. It's clear that both governments don't want to get into a cycle of mutual recrimination, and I think that the press in Skopje reflects this. If you see, it is -- the Macedonians do want to move forward. They're obviously disappointed, but I applaud their constructive approach.

And, frankly, I'm quite heartened that the Greek Government seems ready to engage intensely, and it's our intention to try. We're not going to give up. We support the Nimetz process. Nimetz -- well, I can't speak for him, but I believe he is ready to engage, certainly not throw in the towel. We want to move ahead.

QUESTION: And your telephone call to Mrs. Bakoyannis today?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I didn't speak to her today.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MODERATOR: (Inaudible) the microphone.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I will simply say that I confirmed the -- I can speak only for myself -- confirmed America's interest in moving ahead. And I was quite satisfied with that phone call. I think it's important that we prepare to move ahead. There is plenty -- there are ample opportunities for recrimination and paralysis. Let's not take them.

QUESTION: Hi. Apostolos Zoupaniotis, Alpha Television in Greece. Mr. Secretary, I see many similarities in your negotiating tactics on the name issue and 2004, before the referendum, in Cyprus. And I wonder why you kept pushing in Bucharest for a decision and actually, by doing that, you were taking sides with Skopje, when you knew that Greece would veto it and when you knew that the latest proposal of Nimetz was much worse than the previous one in February 19?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, I'm not going to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposal by Ambassador Nimetz. We support the UN process. So does Greece. So does Macedonia. Of course, we thought -- we hoped that there would be an invitation to Macedonia. We said so. That remains our view. I see no reason to apologize for very active American role. We have, as you know, encouraged Skopje to negotiate in good faith. We have encouraged Greece to do the same. We don't take sides. We do -- our side is the side of a resolution on the most favorable terms possible for both sides, mutually acceptable terms. And I'm glad that we have -- that the United States is supporting Nimetz, and we intend to do so in the future.

QUESTION: Thanasis Isitsas, Greek newspaper Elefthe Rotypia. Mr. Secretary, a year ago, regarding Kosovo crisis, you said for the Serbians that nationalism is like a cheap alcohol; first it makes you drunk, then it makes you blind and it makes you kill. A year later, February 27^th, you gave an interview in Radio Kanal 77, before the summit in Bucharest, and you practically justified nationalism coming from the government of the former Yugoslavia of Macedonia. You said that Macedonian patriots have struggled for this moment more than a hundred years to get in Europe Atlantic institutions. Can you tell us, Mr. Secretary, is it a double standard? How come did you call in the first statement the Serbians nationalists and the secondly the Macedonian patriots? Isn't this a kind of double standard? Don't you think you encouraging by certain statements the nationals in FYROM?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Not at all. You completely misunderstood my remarks, and I should explain them to you so you can understand them properly.

Nationalism -- and Greece knows this very, very well -- in the Balkans has generated wars and bloodshed and killing and instability. And I think nationalism is a grave danger. When I spoke of Macedonian patriots, I spoke of a country which is a successful multiethnic state with ethnic Macedonians and ethnic Albanians in the government and in opposition. Thanks to the Ohrid framework, the government in Skopje averted a major domestic problem, perhaps even a civil war. Of all the post-Yugoslav states, Macedonia has been among the most successful in avoiding precisely this kind of extreme nationalism. The government in Skopje, the Macedonian Government, is looking at a future in Europe and a future with NATO, and in doing so it is rejecting exactly the kind of nationalism which has brought so much pain to the Balkans.

In the future, a Macedonia in Europe, a Greece already in Europe, are destined to be good friends and partners. This is the best outcome, and that's the outcome we want. We want to see an outcome where nationalism of the kind that has brought wars is rejected. We want to see a future with irredentism belonging to history, not current-day reality. And I think that Greece has sometimes shown a great vision, a positive vision of this kind of cooperation, and I hope that Macedonia and Greece, FYROM and Greece, as you say, will be able to find this vision. We want to help.

Yes.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I need your attention. A few moments ago, you said specifically, "Ethnic Macedonians" for the first time in history. That means the U.S. Government is recognizing the so-called "Macedonian ethnicity and language."

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I don't think it is so-called. Macedonian language exists. Macedonian people exist. It's not - you know, we teach Macedonian at the Foreign Service Institute. We teach Serbian, we teach Croatian, now we teach Bosnian. There's a debate in Montenegro as to Crnogorski Jezik, the Montenegrin language. All languages - and I speak now as - not as a bureaucrat, but as - you know, a former --a lapsed historian. All languages are - you know, are human creations and, you know, they develop over time and become codified. And it's not up to - you know, there is a Macedonian language.

There is also the historic Macedonian province, which is different from the country. And it's important. It's quite clear that the government in Skopje, what we Americans call the Government of Macedonia, has no claims. We recognize the difference between the historic territory of Macedonia, which is, of course, much larger than the current country. And we're involved in the - we are supportive of the Nimetz process on the name to make - to settle this issue.

QUESTION: What about the ethnicity? You mentioned ethnicity.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I'm not - I did - I did mention that. But, you know, this is an issue - you know, it is for people to define themselves, ultimately, I suppose. The ethnicity is - you know, it's just a fact as far as I can tell. The issue of the name is something that is on the table. And this is something to be discussed. I'm not the negotiator and I'm not, certainly, an anthropologist or an ethno-historian.

All right, thank you.

Beacon falters in fight for freedom

TWO dangerous signals were sent from NATO's Bucharest summit. The first was that Russia has re-established a sphere of interest in Europe, where countries are no longer allowed to pursue their own goals without Moscow accepting them. The other was that all NATO member states are free to blackmail their partners into supporting their own narrow goals.

The first signal was sent when Ukraine and Georgia were denied the Membership Action Plan they sought. Several European heavyweights, led by Germany and France, said no, despite strong support for the idea from the US. The second signal was sent when Greece successfully vetoed membership for Macedonia, a move that reflected the two countries' unresolved conflict over Macedonia's name (which Greece insists must be the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, or FYROM, one of the most disgraceful acronyms harassing international politics today).

The dispute with Macedonia goes back to the early 1990s when Yugoslavia collapsed into independent states. Greece vehemently opposed its tiny northern neighbour with only two million inhabitants using the name Macedonia and symbols from the days of Alexander the Great in its flag and crest. Macedonia at one point agreed to design a new flag and remove the symbols, as well as to amend its constitution to clarify that it had no territorial claims on Greece, but it flatly refused to live under one of the tongue-twisting names suggested by its bigger neighbour.

So there you are: a Greek veto on Macedonia's national aspirations until it has chosen a name that does not make the Greeks shiver in fear of aggression from the north. It sounds ridiculous, but there is another, often overlooked, aspect to the dispute: by its behaviour, Greece is demonstrating a lack of confidence in its NATO partners. With Macedonia in NATO, any adventurous policy that undermined regional stability would certainly be stopped in its tracks. If the Greeks cannot see that, their partners must let them know that there is a price for their obstructive behaviour.

The problem with Ukraine and Georgia is far more serious. In a sense, Russia has behaved like Greece in claiming that NATO enlargement threatens its security. That is nonsense, and Russia knows it. But the Kremlin has found that behaving like a spoiled child gets results: the right to influence developments in ex-Soviet countries. In other words, Russia is being allowed to re-assert its sphere of influence, a concept that should have been superseded by that of Europe Whole and Free, which the entire European Union appeared to have embraced when communism collapsed. But no: 1989 was not the end of history. History threatens to return.

European opponents of a MAP for Ukraine and Georgia argue that neither country is ready for NATO membership. Too many question marks about their national unity are said to exist, too many internal conflicts linger and their records on political and judicial reforms are supposedly dubious.

But the MAP process does not imply an automatic right to NATO membership. On the contrary, MAPs would put heavy demands on Ukraine and Georgia. Both would have to answer a lot of difficult questions and convince others that they are able to live up to NATO's democratic requirements before being allowed to join.

Therefore, it would also be in Russia's interest to see such a process started. Russia has valid concerns regarding the huge Russian-speaking minorities in both countries, and these concerns are best dealt with in the framework of the MAP process, where the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's very strict rules on the treatment of minorities provide the benchmark. Indeed, the MAP process ensured protections for Russian minorities in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: all former Soviet republics that are NATO members.

The crux of the matter is Europe's lack of political will to forge a unified stand towards Russia. This has led Russia to pursue a classic divide-and-rule strategy by tempting some big European countries into bilateral agreements, particularly on energy issues, that preclude a common EU position.

This is sad both for Russia and Europeans because it strengthens the hand of those in Moscow who want to pursue a policy of national pride rather than national interest, and it weakens the possibilities of establishing a real common European foreign and security policy.

But it is saddest for the countries that are once again being left out in the cold. NATO is supposed to be a beacon for countries struggling to establish democracy and freedom. The Bucharest summit suggests that the beacon has been switched off.

Uffe Ellemann-Jensen is a former foreign minister of Denmark.

Fears of Balkan instability after Macedonia rebuff

NATO's decision on Thursday not to ask Macedonia to join the alliance raised fears that the former Yugoslav republic could be destabilized and nationalist and anti-Western feeling could be bolstered in the Balkans.

NATO leaders at a summit in Bucharest invited Albania and Croatia to join the 26-nation Western defense alliance, but did not do the same for Macedonia because of the threat of a veto by Greece in a row over the country's name.

Macedonia, which broke from Yugoslavia in 1991, has the same name as Greece's most northerly province. Athens says Skopje must use a compound name such as "New" or "Upper" Macedonia.

Macedonian Foreign Minister Antonio Milososki said last week that if NATO membership was blocked, Macedonia would probably pull out of U.N.-sponsored talks with Athens.

That could undermine Macedonia's European Union membership bid because Greece can also veto that.

"Acceptance into NATO has been a hugely important symbolic move for all ex-communist countries. This leaves Macedonia without a foothold in what they perceive to be the 'civilized world'," said a strategic analyst with a leading Western think tank who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The Balkans region is already facing increased tension following Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia on February 17.

Macedonia went to the brink of civil war in 2001 between the Slav Macedonian majority and an Albanian minority before an accord brokered by the EU and NATO pulled it back.

"This (NATO decision) will have negative consequences. The Macedonian government will face pressure from inside and outside," Albanian political analyst Mentor Nazarko said of Nato's decision.

Nazarko said NATO's decision would make Macedonia "vulnerable" to regional powers such as Greece and Serbia who he said wanted Macedonia weakened.

SETBACK FOR PRO-WESTERN GROUPS

Macedonia's Albanians, a quarter of its 2 million people, back a compromise with Greece for the sake of NATO and the EU.

They say progress to the West will make them equal partners in a multiethnic society, and help the economy. Most feel uneasy about talk of a glorious ancient history that excludes them.

Aziz Pollozhani, a senior official in Macedonia's largest Albanian party, DUI, said the government had in effect failed at the NATO summit Bucharest .

"It wasn't able to build an appropriate climate, on the contrary made moves seen by Greece as provocative," he said.

Slobodan Casule, a former Macedonian foreign minister, said the delay could create "ethnic tensions and an internal crisis".

He noted that there had been setbacks for pro-Western groups in other parts of the Balkans.

"This will turn into a clear defeat of pro-NATO and pro-EU forces in Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia and elsewhere in the Balkans," Casule said. "It will block reforms and postpone indefinitely the negotiations on Macedonia's EU membership."

Former Prime Minister Vlado Buckovski called for calm, not provocative actions.

"Macedonia should not complicate the situation even more with jerky reactions, like withdrawing from the U.N. talks," he told Reuters.

"We should soberly analyze what our next steps should be. We should send a clear signal we're still ready for negotiations so we can finally receive an invitation."

Political analysts said NATO's decision could play into the hands of Macedonian nationalists, enabling them to say compromises with the Albanian minority had served no purpose.

The analysts said the decision could also strengthen nationalists in Serbia, which holds a parliamentary election next month, and anti-Western parties in Serbia who like to play up their friendly ties with Greece.

"They will start banging the drum to exploit this ahead of the May election, saying Greece can help Serbia over (breakaway Albanian-majority) Kosovo," the analyst said.

Consultations after veto in Bucharest

Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski today will hold separate meetings with DPA leader Menduh Thaci, DUI leader Ali Ahmeti and SDSM leader Radmila Sekerinska.

PM Gruevski will brief the leaders of the three parties about the participation of Macedonian delegation in NATO summit in Bucharest and the Adriatic Group (A3) meeting in Zagreb.

Political leaders will exchange views on further course of activities following Greek veto on Macedonia's admission to NATO.

Today's meeting of political leaders marks the start of consultations among the country's top officials to draw up a common strategy after Greece blocked Macedonia's NATO entry because of the name. Greece also threatens to block Macedonia's EU bid unless the name issue has been resolved.

Macedonia will not quit NATO membership bid and it will continue with reforms. Macedonia will build a strategy on resolution of name differences, said President Branko Crvenkovski and Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski after the meeting with US President George Bush in Zagreb.

During the visit to Zagreb, President Bush pledged support to Macedonia's NATO entry as soon as possible.

Bush sees NATO future for Macedonia

President George W. Bush assured Macedonia on Saturday that the United States wants it in NATO as soon as possible, along with other former Yugoslav republics.

In a speech in Croatia marking its formal invitation to join NATO this week, Bush said he looked forward to seeing all Balkan candidates join the Western alliance which marks its 60th birthday next year.

"America's position is clear: Macedonia should take its place in NATO as soon as possible," he said in a speech attended by Macedonian President Branko Crvenkovski and Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski.

The Macedonians walked out of a NATO summit in Romania when Greece blocked their invitation because of a long-running dispute over the country's name, which is that of Greece's northern province, birthplace of Greek hero Alexander the Great.

Bush welcomed progress by Montenegro and Bosnia towards NATO membership. Along with Croatia and Albania, which also received formal invitations from the NATO summit in Bucharest this week, NATO's Balkan enlargement would take the alliance to 31 members.

The president said he hoped that "soon a free and prosperous Serbia will find its rightful place in the family of Europe, and live at peace with its neighbours".

NATO is "open to all countries in the region", he said.

Presidency Urges Macedonia to Stick to NATO, EU Goal

The Slovenian EU presidency has called on Macedonia "not to lose sight of its strategic national goal of joining the Euro-Atlantic integrations" in view of the decision at the NATO summit in Bucharest, which failed to invite the country to join the alliance because of the name issue with Greece.

The goal of joining the EU and NATO "is essential for country's future, as well as of great importance for the entire region," the presidency states in a press release.

The presidency commends the country for its efforts to pursue reforms, to contribute to regional stability and to build a multiethnic society. It regrets that negotiations on the name issue have not yet produced a successful outcome and urges resumption of talks without delay.

It moreover calls on all political leaders in the country to remain united behind the national consensus on joining the EU and NATO, and to "use well the time available before the autumn Progress Report to intensify reforms in order to meet the conditions necessary towards opening of accession negotiations later this year".

EU urges Macedonia to find solution in name dispute

The Slovenian EU presidency urged Macedonia on Saturday to make progress in finding a solution in the dispute over the Balkan country's name. The EU "regretted" that the negotiations over the future name of the EU candidate country had not led to a solution, Slovenia, which holds the rotating EU presidency, said in a statement.

The presidency urged the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) not to to lose sight of its strategic goal of joining the EU and NATO, which was "essential for the country's future, as well as of great importance for the entire region."

"Talks should now be resumed without delay, with the aim of being concluded sooner rather than later," Slovenia said.

Greece and Macedonia have been in dispute over the latter's name since 1991, when Macedonia declared independence from Yugoslavia. Greece says that the name implies a territorial claim on its own northern province, also called Macedonia.

Leading politicians from both Macedonia's government and opposition were urged to continue efforts to pursue Euro-Atlantic integration before the upcoming progress report in the autumn, in order for accession negotiations to be opened later this year.

Gül regrets Macedonia not invited to join NATO

President Abdullah Gül has said that he regrets NATO's failure to invite Macedonia to join the alliance because of objections from Greece due to a name dispute with the Balkan country.

"NATO's expansion has always been based on the principle of performance. I am disappointed that this principle has been ignored this time and that a bilateral dispute has blocked the membership of a country," Gül told reporters upon his return from a NATO summit in Bucharest.

The Balkan nations of Albania and Croatia were invited to join the alliance during NATO's Bucharest summit, which ended yesterday. Macedonia, however, was rejected at the insistence of Greece, which says the country's name implies a territorial claim to a northern region of Greece, also called Macedonia. Gül said Turkey backed NATO's "open door" policy concerning expansion of the alliance and added that integration of Balkan countries would help stability and security in the region.

While in Bucharest, Gül met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the first meeting between the two leaders, and briefly discussed Turkey's bid to join the European Union with the French leader, a firm opponent of Turkey's membership. "I am happy that we shared our ideas with Sarkozy frankly and sincerely," he said of the meeting. Sarkozy told Gül in their half-hour meeting on Thursday that his country would not block accession talks between the European Union and Turkey during France's six-month term as EU president in the second half of this year.

The process of accession negotiations with Turkey will continue, Sarkozy told Gül on the sidelines of the NATO summit, the Anatolia news agency reported. France, he said, does not oppose the opening of talks on negotiation chapters.

Sarkozy is firmly opposed to Turkey's membership in the EU, saying Turkey does not belong in Europe. France also opposes the opening of accession talks on five chapters that it says are directly related to accession but says talks on other chapters can go ahead. France is taking over the EU's presidency in June from Slovenia, the current holder.

Sarkozy told Gül that some of the chapters could be opened during the French presidency. Gül, for his part, emphasized that Turkey wants full membership in the EU and rejects other alternatives, such as a privileged partnership proposed by German and French politicians.

France is planning a return to NATO's military command, which it quit in 1966. Addressing the NATO summit, Sarkozy said he expected to take a decision on rejoining the integrated military structure after using France's six-month presidency of the EU to build closer European defense integration. Turkey, a NATO member, has raised no immediate objection to French return to NATO's military command. Turkish officials said France's NATO ambition and Paris' objections to Turkey's EU membership are two issues that are considered separately. French plans to return to NATO's military command have led to speculation in Turkey that Ankara might pressure France to drop its objections to Turkish membership in order to help its bid.

While in Bucharest, Gül also met briefly with US President George W. Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Bush reels from NATO setbacks

GEORGE W. Bush was reeling from a summit of setbacks yesterday as his carefully laid plans to invite Ukraine and Georgia into the bosom of the NATO alliance were scuppered by a Russian diplomatic coup.

The expected entry into NATO of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Fyrom) was also blocked by a row over its name.

The twin disasters were not helped when the offers of more NATO troops for the mission in Afghanistan turned out to be more of a trickle than a flow of combat soldiers to take on the Taliban, although Gordon Brown said that there had been encouraging evidence of greater burden-sharing, particularly on civilian projects.

One positive development for Mr Bush was that the Czech Government finally agreed to house a radar system on its soil for the US’s missile defence system, and NATO expressed a desire to bring the whole of Europe under the umbrella of the network.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the head of the NATO alliance, insisted that the summit in Bucharest, the Romanian capital, had been a triumph of decision-making, and declared that even though Ukraine and Georgia were not going to be welcomed yet into the so-called membership action plan — the crucial step to joining the 26-strong organisation — they had been reassured that they would be members one day.

Mr Bush had demanded that Ukraine and Georgia should be offered the membership action plan immediately, but after warnings from President Putin that this would be dangerous for the security of Europe, Germany and France voted to oppose the idea, although they signed up to a compromise offer of eventual membership.

No one was prepared to guess when that may happen. NATO foreign ministers will discuss a possible starting date for the membership plan for the two countries at a meeting in December.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who dined with NATO leaders last night in Bucharest and is due to hold talks with Mr Bush at the Black Sea port of Sochi tomorrow, was being hailed in Moscow as a diplomatic mastermind for dashing Washington’s dream for Ukraine and Georgia.

Germany and France voiced concerns about opening NATO's doors to them partly because of Europe’s growing dependence on Russian energy supplies. Even Mr Brown failed to support the US plan.

President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine tried to hide his disappointment yesterday by saying: “I’m convinced that Ukraine will be in NATO.”

President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia gave warning that snubbing his nation would be a “bad sign” and would undermine his country’s reform process.

Experts in Moscow said the setback for Mr Bush on his last NATO summit was a clear victory for Mr Putin. “Putin has changed the tone of relations between Russia and the West,” Sergei Karaganov, a Russian political analyst with close ties to the Kremlin, said.

Mr Brown’s aides tried to play down the impact of the decision on Ukraine and Georgia, saying that they were content with the compromise. They said that in refusing to stand with Mr Bush over the issue Britain had denied Russia the opportunity to exploit a damaging split within the alliance. They also said that Germany had been forced to accept in principle Nato’s eastward expansion.

The hitch over Fyrom also spoilt what was supposed to be a celebration of three new Balkan countries joining the alliance — Albania, Croatia and Fyrom itself. All three had passed the tests for membership, but Greece vetoed Macedonia on the ground that it had the same name as its northern province.

After failing to reach a compromise, NATO leaders were forced to put the invitation to Fyrom on hold until the clashing names could be resolved. The Macedonian delegation walked out of the summit in protest.

On Afghanistan, Mr Brown’s and Kevin Rudd's call for countries to contribute more troops fell on mostly deaf ears. NATO officials admitted that despite the offer from President Nicolas Sarkozy of France of about 700 extra troops, the mission in Afghanistan would still be two battle groups short of what was needed.

Only a handful of nations pledged extra soldiers. New Zealand promised an extra 18. Portugal, Poland, Romania and Croatia have all signalled extra troops but only Georgia, which has said it might send up to 500, rivalled the French commitment.

In Bucharest a Greek-Macedonian dispute over stability

One of the most important post-Cold War NATO summits is over. The results should be scrutinized by President Bush and his advisors. Actually is was them who sup-ported a specific single-dimensional policy in a number of issues that drove American diplomacy to isolation and brought to the surface, once again, the division within the Atlantic Alliance.

One of these stemmed from the divergent views between Greece and the US over the "Macedonian" issue created by Yugoslav leader in 1945 with the establishment of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, today Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

The issue has been a dormant volcano for decades since Greeks worries about the overt and covert expressions of irredentist claims against its northernmost province Macedonia because of NATO´s policy. NATO supported Tito in its effort to emanci-pate from the Soviet Union and after this became a political reality overlaid Greek worries for 45 years. The need to support the enemy of our enemy prevailed over the legitimate concern of an ally who eventually was used to support the geopolitics of the West.

The "Macedonian Issue", a time-proof dispute in the Balkans, first emerged as a side-effect of the evolution of the "Eastern Question" and the liberation of the Ottoman conquests, namely the Balkan peoples, who gradually rose against the conqueror and attempted to set up their territorial bases with a view to forming nation-states. In a sense it emerged as the result of antagonism among Balkan nation-states that wished to get the lion´s share from the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. Yet, the course to liberation had hardly finished when Balkan peoples turned against each other, in order to secure a greater territorial chunk out of the Balkan peninsula, a policy that led contending Balkan nationalisms to clash. In the inter-war and post second World War era, the dispute was rooted in the rivalry over control of geographical Macedonia.

In the post-Cold War era the re-emergence of the issue triggered heated arguments as to how legitimate Balkan nationalisms were and how they should be treated. The pro-tection of human rights seemed to have clashed with the axiom of respect for the terri-torial status, a trend that established a new "paradigm" in the international political arena. The difficulty in adopting a balanced policy in the post-Cold War Balkans lied in drawing a line between post-communist nationalism and its legitimate aim in estab-lishing or strengthening national identities as a part of the de-communisation process and overt of covert irredentism that threatened the fragile territorial status in the Bal-kans. As a matter of ideology the West acknowledged, to a certain degree, emerging nationalistic trends in the Balkans as an expression of long-suppressed freedom of ex-pression, individual or ethnic, as well as cultural diversification that have been mar-ginalised dramatically under the homogenising cloak of the communist ideology.

The Greek-FYROM conflict over the latter´s constitutional name has two main as-pects. One is political and related to regional security and border stability. The second is historical. This aspect appears to have dominated the approaches of outsiders who have not studied the politics and ethnological features and perplexity of the region. Post-Cold War Balkan nationalism were evaluated as "new and legitimate", yet this evalua-tion did not provide a "ceiling" of legitimacy that would allow analysts to draw a line be-tween "legitimate" and "non-legitimate" nationalism.

Under this spectrum history became the weapon in the hands of nationalists trying to legiti-mize irredentist claims. This to remind everyone that the issue is not primarily or exclusively an issue over historical accuracy and continuity. Originally both sides turned the dis-pute into a fudge over history, while the conflict bears significance in the security level and ought to be seen through the degree of legitimacy of the need of Balkan peoples, living under oppressing communist regimes, to express their cultural identity.

To outsiders it has always been an expression of Balkan irrationality in a region lack-ing natural resources and an advanced political culture. This was rather evident even today in the caricature of the Greek Prime Minister, K. Karamanlis wearing a Nazi outfit published in Skopje or the Greek flag with the Nazi symbols. To the Greek peo-ple it was an act of insult to a nation that has offered so much in the war against Na-zism.

The quest for "historical accuracy" became the sole means of establishing an ethnic identity and a powerful ideological weapon in the hands of nationalists. As pointed out, "at times…modern nationalists propagate by rewriting history and backdating their own modern concepts on to history…In the modern world, nations can in certain circumstances and under certain conditions be seen to be created…a process of eth-nogenesis" (Hugh Poulton, Who are the Macedonians, Hurst & Company, (London, 1995), p.3). However, the suggested ethnogenesis or ethnic emancipation process should not be done at the expense of another national identity, as the "birth" of an ethnic identity may be a threat to another nation. The creation or emancipation of an ethnic group may also take place at the cost of eliminating historical facts, which become the target of nationalism. Here "nationalism" is defined as "an activist ideological movement which aims to unite all members of a given people on the basis of a putative shared culture".

The question that needs to be answered is whether nationalism was behind Slav Ma-cedonian claims over Greek history, and the implied association of Slav Macedonians with Greek Macedonia. It may be so, since "history often assumes enormous signifi-cance for nationalists", who use it "to show the past control of a territory by a state to which the modern nation can claim affinity" (Hugh Poulton ). This may provide expla-nation as to why Slav Macedonian nationalists engaged themselves in a process of rebuilding history, in their own image to fit their political aims. I have been a witness of the insane logic of "liberating" Greek Macedonia as a young student in Toronto Canada (1981) when a man of age told me in perfect Greek that it was "his duty to liberate Greek Macedonia from Greece". It was the first time I had ever heard of the issue and this illustrates that NATO policy to support Tito during the Cold War has been successful. Even Greeks ignored the issue since the Greek governments followed NATO´s dictates and managed to hide an issue that today constitutes the kernel of the Greek-FYROM dispute.

A solution is so much needed and this is to everyone´s interest. However, national identities, whether they are true or constructed, they cannot change overnight even after a political decision. Diasporas operate on a psychological framework that estab-lishes powerful links with the past. Actually this may explain why Slav Macedonians aim at uniting parts of geographical Macedonia and blatantly ignore the fact that the Macedonian ethnicity was established with a Cominform decision and that it was a mater of ideology. Article 2 of the stature of the establishment (April 1926) of the "United I.M.R.O" set the ideological, political and intellectual framework for the creation of a "united and independent Macedonia", which was to become the "Swit-zerland of the Balkans". It propagated that a "the free and independent Macedonian state will be established on the basis of the entire equality of national, political, civil, and cultural rights for all the nationalities which inhabit it".

Comintern attempted to enhance relations among Balkan peoples, in order to boost the so desired "ideological homogeneity" of the Balkans. From the catalytic 1934 Comintern thinking, concerning the "Macedonian Question", that dominated the agenda of the communist gathering, D. Vlahov, leader of VMRO in Bulgaria recalls: "I mentioned earlier that the Comintern itself wanted the Macedonian question con-sidered at one of the consultations of its executive committee. One day I was in-formed that the consultation would be held. And so it was. Before it convened, the inner leadership of the committee had already reached its stand, including the ques-tion of the Macedonian nation,…It was concluded that the Macedonian nation exists" (Dimitar Vlahov, Memoari, Skopjie, 1970), p. 357). It seems that the existence or not of a single "Macedonian nation" became the central issue of a rather philosophical, an-thropological debate, that could not establish its existence through tangible, epistemo-logical criteria, a fact that dictated the recognition of a "Macedonian Nation" through an ideological formulae.

In the process the American administrations expressed their concern over irredentism against Greek Macedonia. This revisionist policy caused immediate American re-sponse to the issue, expressed by Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, who categori-cally denied the existence of a "Macedonian nation", stating: "The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumours and semi-official statements in favour of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implica-tion that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This Government considers talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonian "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive inten-tions against Greece" (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1945, vol. VIII, The Near East and Africa, (Washington, 1969), pp. 302-303).

Again, T. Niles, American ambassador to Athens, made the following statement in 2361992: "the Communist regime of Tito had created the Republic of Macedonia with a view to annexing northern Greece"; (Hearing before the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East, June 23, 1992, Washington: US Government Printing Office, p. 14).

All the above would not matter today if history die not operate as the basis of modern irredentism. Greece and FYROM can and should be parts of the same alliance that has offered so much in European security after the Second World War. Yet, this should be done in a way that does not leave space for future misunderstandings.

The ontological and critical question that rises then is why should Greece deny its neighbours their right to identify themselves as they wish. After all this appears to be linked with the right of a small nation to survive a hostile environment under an im-minent Albanian threat. Greece does nor certainly constitute an actual threat to the country´s survival. It has made substantial compromises although personally I think that name issue is not the most important. What is important is to look ahead into the future and construct it with new material not the leftovers of the communist era. Greece supports the FYROM´s bid for NATO and EU accession not because it is an altruistic state but simply because it serves stability and development in the region. The rules for such a strategic engagement are now clear to everyone, including the US.