DISCRIMINATION AND PROTECTORATE574

Basic reasons
In principle, there are at least two reasons, which can defend with equal success the
opinion meaning that any talks regarding the change of the name of Republic of Macedonia, as
well as making any compromises in view of this issue (actually, if seriously considered, it is a
matter of an issue), are entirely displaced.
1. Precedent. It is not a common knowledge in the previous international practice to
carry out talks over the name of a certain state! In this case, if the change of the name of Republic
of Macedonia is subject to talks, it would represent an exemption. However, Macedonia must not
rely on, nor live by the principle of precedent, that is exemption, given that this precedent would
have unforeseeable consequences for the future of the Macedonian state. Republic of Macedonia
must be built on the principles that are applied to every normal and sovereign state.
2. Compromise. The ICG proposal including the making of mutual compromises
between Republic of Greece and Republic of Macedonia must not be accepted, having in mind
that the parties seek to make compromise only in situations when they (in this case the two states)
have diametrically opposite requests that are unable to be settled between the parties, therefore a
tolerable decision must be reached, i.e. a compromise, which would be to the benefit of both
parties!? However, Republic of Macedonia does not request anything from anyone, much less
from Republic of Greece in this sense. For that reason, observed objectively, there is no dispute
(thus no need of compromise), hence the issue over the name is imaginary (constructed), which
after it is imposed on Republic of Macedonia, the state is requested to make concessions, as if the
issue is real, not imaginary, that is to say a pseudo-issue. As a result of this, it is a matter of
imposing issues and dictates. This would be very much similar to the case if someone has
requested Greece to give up Crete and to suggest generously later on to give up just half of its
territory, considering that in doing so it is acting wisely, regardless that Greece does not request
anything from anyone and that the request regarding the territory is completely illegal and
unfounded, thus it violates its integrity and sovereignty.
Analysis of the Report
The matters are becoming more worrying after reading the Report of the ICG in its
entirety. I already mentioned that the Report is titled Macedonia's name: Why the dispute
matters and how to resolve it? The title itself expresses the perfidious method by the ICG.
Namely, the term dispute is used in the very beginning to suggest the alleged existence of a real
dispute between Republic of Macedonia and Republic of Greece. This would be true, of course, if
the natural right of Republic of Macedonia to choose its real name, just like every other state, is
considered to be a dispute. So, the Report through its title suggests the alleged existence of a real
dispute, giving the ICG a chance to generously provide help for the resolution of this dispute. In
this way, it is confirmed once again that the issue was created in the first place, and after that
someone has offered its mediation in the resolution of the dispute!?
In addition, after reading the Report carefully, it can be concluded that behind the
apparent concern to help Republic of Macedonia hides the intention to furthermore incapacitate
Republic of Macedonia to act as a state by taking away all its elementary rights and thus turning
it into a protectorate governed by the international community. The previously stated can be
supported by several examples:
574

The author of this text is PhD Ljubomir Cuculovski professor at the Faculty of Philosophy at St. Cyril
and Methodius University in Skopje. He lectures in Philosophy of Religion. The text is prepared specially
for the purposes of this students project.

1. Pseudo-issue. The ICG believes that the settlement of the dispute would resolve
the security of Republic of Macedonia. This thesis is absolutely naive and can be considered
only by the people who have lost the ability of reasonable judgment, since it diverts the
attention away from the basic issue to the peripheral, banal or occasional issues. The basic
issue of Republic of Macedonia does not lie in the name, but in the existence of the idea of Great
Albania, which leads directly to the separation of Republic of Macedonia. This process is
followed by the international community, through the services of the ICG, however it does not
take any actions. In case it takes some actions, then these are in the interests of the Albanian
separatists, extremists and terrorists. This does not help Macedonia; instead it makes it more
difficult, e.g. the disregard of the basic issue (the separation of Republic of Macedonia) and the
attending to the pseudo-issue, such as the imposed name issue. In other words, the symptoms are
cured, but the illness is not!?
2. Discrimination and protectorate. The Summary of the Report (the part
Recommendations, paragraph 1) states ...at the same time meets Greeces legitimate concerns.
According to this, the Greeces concerns are legitimate!? As a result of this, Republic of
Macedonia is put in an unequal position due to the impossibility of two identical requests being
legitimate in the same time. 575 Moreover, paragraph 2 states that the best prospects ...for
agreement lie in a triangular (Lj.C.) solution. First of all, it is not clear what the dispute is
about, and second, why is it necessary to find a triangular solution. However, later on the matters
are becoming clearer. Namely, as a result of a triangular solution (the third party would be the
international community), Republic of Macedonia is required to make two concessions relating
to ...an invitation for NATO to extend its mission for at least six months beyond March 2002
and an invitation for OSCE to extend its mission for a full twelve months after December
2001, with a mandate to monitor the electoral process at all stages, including full access and
authority to make inquiries and recommendations.576 According to the formulation an
invitation for... there is an impression that NATO and OSCE do not want to stay in Republic of
Macedonia, but the state allegedly wants it and imposes NATO and OSCE to stay in Republic
of Macedonia in spite of their will!? In general, there is a search for a legitimate justification of
their stay in the state and its transformation into a protectorate. In this way, even the electoral
process would be under the jurisdiction of the international community. Republic of Macedonia
thereby eventually loses its sovereignty and is turned into an amorphous para-state territory.
The situation is becoming more worrying when the Report states, among other things, that OSCE
assumes an active, participatory role in the organization of elections, beyond that
envisioned in the Framework Agreement .577 In doing so, the concessions envisioned in the
Framework Agreement are insufficient and they need to be extended.
3. Imposition of Greek interests. The Report is prepared in a manner of imposing only
the interests of the international community and Republic of Greece. For example, on one hand,
it states: Macedonia is committed to securing a formal Parliamentary Declaration on cultural
and historical issues which affirms Macedonias solemn obligation to respect, preserve and honor
the legacy of Hellenic tradition within the territory of the Republic of Macedonia 578, while on
other hand, it does not say anything about the obligations of Republic of Greece in terms of
preservation of the cultural rights and the Macedonian tradition existing for centuries within its
territory. The culmination of the cynicism and of the Macedonian concessions is included in the
opinion that all the concessions made by Skopje would be unilateral and unreciprocated.
For example, the proposal does not provide for the review of Greek textbooks or for a declaration
575

This is in relation to the right of Republic of Macedonia to keep its name and to the request of
Republic of Greece to change it.
576
See the Summary; the part Recommendations, paragraph 3 (Lj.C.).
577
See the Report, Part III, .
578
Ibid.

about Macedonian heritage or an ethnic Macedonian minority that Greece does not
acknowledge.579 In order to explain this part of the Report it should be pointed out that Republic
of Macedonia is requested to invite UNESCO, the Council of Europe or another agreed thirdparty to examine the Macedonian educational curriculum (particularly on the subjects of history
and geography). In this way, Republic of Macedonia has been denied the right to prepare own
educational curriculum as well. This, on its own merits, would imply that Republic of Macedonia
has been denied the right to have its own education and educational system. 580
All in all, the principle upon which the ICG Report has been written is simple: Republic
of Macedonia gets obligations, the others get rights!? In this sense, it is sufficient to quote the
following sentence from the Report: ...this proposal goes a long way to addressing Athens
bedrock concerns.581 And, in the end, I would like to remind once again that: ...all the
concessions made by Skopje would be unilateral and unreciprocated!? Therefore, Republic
of Macedonia gets obligations, the others get rights, and I wonder how this Report can be a wellmeant counseling.

579

See the Conclusion of the Report (Lj.C).

It is becoming clear in this context why the Minister of Education and Science at the time (Nenad
Novkovski) is allowed to do everything. Simply, he is carrying out the plans of the international
community by dismantling the education in Republic of Macedonia and thus ruining one of basic pillars of
its independence and statehood. Otherwise, this person would have been already dismissed.
581
See the Conclusion, paragraph 1 (Lj.C).
580