Macedonia would not withdraw the claim against Greece
pavel
[Focus news agency, Skopje, December 29th, 2009]
Macedonia would not withdraw the claim against Greece in the
International Court in Hague, has announced the Macedonian foreign
minister Antonio Milishoski before the Macedonian Parliamentary
commission of foreign policy, - has informed Sitel TV. As known,
Macedonia claims that Greece has violated the UN Charta and the
International law by breaking the Interim Agreement from 1995 with
applying veto on the accession of Macedonia into NATO under its
provisional name "FYROM" in the Bucharest summit.
"According to the law, our national interests, and according to the
Interim Agreement, we have layed a claim against Greece in order to
bring the process to the end. We have serious arguments, and I think
that the realization of that process in the International court in
Hague would mean also a support for the Interim Agreement" - has said
Mr Miloshoski.
Mr Miloshoski relies also on a strong support from allies of Macedonia
that are not satisfied with the Greek veto for a country that has
contributed to the international efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and
to the peace efforts in the region.
gogu
Greece will show that FYROM has first violated the Interim Agreement and
once again FYROM will become tha laughing stock of the whole world!
And even *IF* Fyrom wins, what will change in the Greek veto in NATO and the
EU?!
Nothing!
Nobody can force Greece to accept the little, criminal country in these
organizations!
So once again FYROM will succed...nothing;-)
Have a nice day!
--
E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure
in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi
puttane! F.d.A
Coins, travels and more:
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/
http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html
? "pavel" <pavelma...@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:6e3eb56f-d3ca-4df9...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
pavel
> Good for them!
> Greece will show that FYROM has first violated the Interim Agreement and
> once again FYROM will become tha laughing stock of the whole world!
> And even *IF* Fyrom wins, what will change in the Greek veto in NATO and the
> EU?!
> Nothing!
> Nobody can force Greece to accept the little, criminal country in these
> organizations!
> So once again FYROM will succed...nothing;-)
> Have a nice day!
>
First, I am not pleased with the law suit against Greece. It would be
much better if all issues could be overcomed and the relations would
be improved. Two neighbouring countries in good relations is a better
option in that time of economical crisis.
But on the other hand, Macedonian government has began the law suit
AFTER extensive consultations with some of the allies of Macedonia (in
Afghanistan and Iraq). They have given an advice about that law suit,
promising a support. IF Macedonia wins in that process in Hague, then
the Greek veto would be ILLEGAL according to the International law. It
would be illegal, because it contradicts to and violates the Interim
Agreement, signed by Greece in 1995 under the auspice of the U. N.
Then Greece would have two options: 1) not to apply veto to the
accession process of Macedonia into NATO and EU; or 2) to withdraw
from the Interim Agreement (with all consequences following by such an
act). Greece could not prove any violation of the Interim Agreement
from Macedonian side, because all acts of the Macedonian government in
the bilateral relations with Greece have been carefully consulted with
international lawyers.
gogu
news:01f883cb-987b-43cd...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>On 29 ???, 11:46, "gogu" <Ruminii_Sug_Pul@la_Greci.com> wrote:
>> Good for them!
>> Greece will show that FYROM has first violated the Interim Agreement and
>> once again FYROM will become tha laughing stock of the whole world!
>> And even *IF* Fyrom wins, what will change in the Greek veto in NATO and
>> the
>> EU?!
>> Nothing!
>> Nobody can force Greece to accept the little, criminal country in these
>> organizations!
>> So once again FYROM will succed...nothing;-)
>> Have a nice day!
>But on the other hand, Macedonian government has began the law suit
>AFTER extensive consultations with some of the allies of Macedonia (in
>Afghanistan and Iraq).
!!! I didn't know that those "allies" are providing consultancy to
countries!
More, I didn't know that those alleged allies are supporting a moribund,
criminal, insignificant country like FYROm against an old NATO member, much
richer, much more important like Greece!
Certainly FYROM has a much greater specific weight in the world compared to
the minuscule Greece;-)))
But hey, who can stop you from dreaming;-)
>They have given an advice about that law suit,
>promising a support.
I thought that the Hague Court was an...independent organization but if you
say it's a corrupt organization where a given country can "support" (call me
manipulate;-)) another country against a third country, well, I suppose you
know better;-)
But I think that this is all wishful thinking and your usual neo-commie way
of thinking that everybody is corrupt and can be manipulated!
>IF Macedonia wins in that process in Hague,
That's a big *IF*, given that it's easy to prove that FYROM has violated
*FIRST* the Interim Agreement!
>then
>the Greek veto would be ILLEGAL according to the International law.
Please provide the law so we all can see it!
Truth is that what you say is just BS!
Hague has nothing to do with the interests of a country, Hague cannot
enforce how a country will use her right to veto!
You are just dreaming as you are desperate!
>It
>would be illegal, because it contradicts to and violates the Interim
>Agreement, signed by Greece in 1995 under the auspice of the U. N.
This is what *you* think, not necessarily truth!
>Then Greece would have two options: 1) not to apply veto to the
>accession process of Macedonia into NATO and EU; or 2) to withdraw
>from the Interim Agreement (with all consequences following by such an
>act).
Not that Greece has to withdraw, but even if she does, what "consequences
would be them?!
What will force Greece to don't use the veto?!
You are dreaming!
>Greece could not prove any violation of the Interim Agreement
>from Macedonian side, because all acts of the Macedonian government in
>the bilateral relations with Greece have been carefully consulted with
>international lawyers.
I am right when I say you are a mega-idiot and a propaganda agent!
So according you the rename of the Skopie airport s not a *PROOF* of
violation of the Interim Agreement?!
The rename of that highway to Philip is not a *PROOF* of violation of the
Interim Agreement?!
That mega-statue of Alexander is not a *PROOF* of violation of the Interim
Agreement?!
The various anti-Greek speeches of the FYROM-ian PM is not a *PROOF* of
violation of the Interim Agreement?!
You must be kidding but this is nothing new with you;-)
And bear in mind that it's not possible that those alleged "allies" of your
criminal country to support a minuscule, criminal, moribund country against
Greece but if you want to dream, go on, dreaming is free of charge;-)
Have a nice day!
--
pavel
> Ï "pavel" <pavelmakedon...@yahoo.com> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìánews:01f883cb-987b-43cd...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
You have to learn, that advice and support is not manipulation. Here
is the Interim Agreement (from a Greek source);
http://www.hri.org/docs/fyrom/95-27866.html
C. INTERNATIONAL, MULTILATERAL AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Article 11
1. Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, The Party of the
First Part agrees not to object to the application by or the
membership of the Party of the Second Part in international,
multilateral and regional organizations and institutions of which the
Party of the First Part is a member; however, the Party of the First
Part reserves the right to object to any membership referred to above
if and to the extent of the Party of the Second Part is to be referred
to in such organization or institution differently than in paragraph 2
of the United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993).
2. The Parties agree that the ongoing economic development of the
Party of the Second Part should be supported through international
cooperation, as far as possible by a close relationship of the Party
of the Second Part with the European Economic Area and the European
Union.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some explanation:
The Party of the First Part means "Greece",
the Party of the Second Part means "The Republic of Macedonia",
United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993). see below:
http://www.hri.org/docs/fyrom/S.RES.817.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S/RES/817 (1993)
7 April 1993
RESOLUTION 817 (1993)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 3196th meeting,
on 7 April 1993
The Security Council,
Having examined the application for admission to the United Nations in
document S/25147,
Noting that the applicant fulfils the criteria for membership in the
United Nations laid down in Article 4 of the Charter,
Noting however that a difference has arisen over the name of the
State, which needs to be resolved in the interest of the maintenance
of peaceful and good-neighbourly relations in the region,
Welcoming the readiness of the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee
of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, at the
request of the Secretary-General, to use their good offices to settle
the above-mentioned difference, and to promote confidence-building
measures among the parties,
Taking note of the contents of the letters contained in documents S/
25541, S/25542 and S/25543 received from the parties,
Urges the parties to continue to cooperate with the Co-Chairmen of the
Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former
Yugoslavia in order to arrive at a speedy settlement of their
difference;
Recommends to the General Assembly that the State whose application is
contained in document S/25147 be admitted to membership in the United
Nations, this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes
within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over
the name of the State;
Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council on the outcome
of the initiative taken by the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee
of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also from the Interim Agreement:
E. ECONOMIC, COMMERCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND LEGAL RELATIONS
Article 15
1. The Parties shall strengthen their economic relations in all
fields.
2. The Parties shall in particular support development and cooperation
in the field of capital investments, as well as industrial cooperation
between enterprises. Special attention shall be paid to cooperation
between small and medium-size companies and enterprises.
Article 16
1. The Parties shall develop and improve scientific and technical
cooperation as well as cooperation in the field of education.
2. The Parties shall intensify their exchanges of information and of
scientific and technical documentation, and shall strive to improve
mutual access to scientific and research institutions, archives,
libraries and similar institutions.
3. The Parties shall support initiatives by scientific institutions
and by individuals aimed at improving cooperation in the sciences.
Article 17
1. The Parties shall take great care to avoid dangers to the
environment and to preserve natural living conditions in the lakes and
rivers shared by the two Parties.
2. The Parties shall cooperate in eliminating all forms of pollution
in border areas.
3. The Parties shall strive to develop and harmonize strategies and
programs for regional and international cooperation for protecting the
environment.
Article 18
The Parties shall cooperate in alleviating the consequences of
disasters.
Article 19
1. The Parties shall cooperate in improving and promoting business and
tourist travel.
2. Consistent with the obligations of the Party of the First Part
arising from its membership in the European Union and from relevant
instruments of the Union, the Parties shall make joint efforts to
improve and accelerate customs and border formalities, including
simplification in the issuance of visas to each other's citizens,
taking into account Article 5, paragraph 2, of this Interim Accord.
3. The Parties shall endeavor to improve and modernize existing border
crossings as required by the flow of traffic, and construct new border
crossings as necessary.
Article 20
The Parties shall cooperate in the fight against organized crime,
terrorism, economic crimes, narcotics crimes, illegal trade in
cultural property, offenses against civil air transport and
counterfeiting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. FINAL CLAUSES
Article 21
1. The Parties shall settle any disputes exclusively by peaceful means
in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
2. Any difference or dispute that arises between the Parties
concerning the interpretation or implementation of this Interim Accord
may be submitted by either of them to the International Court of
Justice, except for the differences referred to in Article 5,
paragraph 1.
Article 22
This Interim Accord is not directed against any other State or entity
and it does not infringe on the rights and duties resulting from
bilateral and multilateral agreements already in force that the
Parties have concluded with other States or international
organizations.
Article 23
1. This Interim Accord shall enter into force and become effective on
the thirtieth day following the date on which it is signed by the
representatives of the Parties as set forth below.
2. This Interim Accord shall remain in force until superseded by a
definitive agreement, provided that after seven years either Party may
withdraw from this Interim Accord by a written notice, which shall
take effect 12 months after its delivery to the other Party.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have, through their authorized
representatives, signed three copies of this Interim Accord in the
English language which shall be registered with the Secretariat of the
United Nations. Within two months of the date of signature, the United
Nations is to prepare, in consultation with the Parties, translations
into the language of the Party of the First Part and the language of
the Party of the Second Part, which shall constitute part of the
registration of this Accord.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So IF Macedonia wins the consequences would be moral, but GRAVELY for
the part that has lost. Because if the Party of the First Part
(Greece) has lost, than both opportunities are: 1) Greeks to admit
that their veto in Bucharest has been illegal and they not to apply
any veto in the future; or 2) they to oppose the whole U. N. (to
withdraw from the U. N. mediated Interim agreement). Both ways are not
good. Of course there is also a third option: they to accept the
constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia" - that is they to
capitulate completely.
Renaming of airports, highways, theaters, cultural institutions,
erecting statues, etc. is NOT a violation of the Interim Agreement as
many lawyers-experts have shown. See the Interim Agreement.
http://www.hri.org/docs/fyrom/95-27866.html
The same for the anti-Hellenic speeches of the PM Gruevski. A
violation of the Interim Agreement would be a LEGAL ACT in
contradiction with the agreement. That legal act has been the Greek
veto in Bucharest, in contradiction with Article 11 of the Agreement.
A nice day to everybody.
ADR
I think that this is going to be a long, drawn-out case in which
Greece will definitively show that Skopje has violated both the law
and the spirit of the agreement. It is easy to see the outlines of
the Greek case. The interim accord was struck to allow the countries
to agree on a final name but this suit and the obstructionism by FYROM
as well as the many statements within FYROM by members of the various
governments clearly illustrate that the interim accord is a dead
letter to which FYROM pays no attention. I think that this case will
be won by Greece. What the court needs to decide is what "interim"
means and if "interim" can stand for ever (the way FYROM would like
this agreement to mean). In fact, according to the mechanisms of the
treaty, Greece can withdraw (and should) from this agreement at any
time, rendering the whole issue null and void.
The bad thing with FYROM is that either action (the court case in the
Hague or the shredding of the interim accord) will simply highlight
the dispute between Greece and FYROM and it would make absolutely
clear to the players either in NATO or the EU that there are too many
substantial issues between these countries to allow any association of
them within the confines of a military alliance or a political union.
pavel
I think that indeed there is a problem that evidently has been not
thoroughly thought by PM Gruevski. If some country has the intention
to join an association of another countries as an equal member, then
it presumably has to resolve the existing problems with the already
members. But Gruevski is making the opposite - he is sharpening the
problems with one of the member-countries. How does he think to join
all those associations in a state of ultimate confrontation, that is a
big mistery. Would be possible to use until the end the benevolence of
a few influential members of some of those associations, and would
that benevolence be enough? That is a question which could be answered
in the future. Anyway, the path would be easier without artificial
Gruevski-made obstacles. Maybe it would be better to look into the
future instead into the past, and especially instead of redesigning
the past.
I hope the law suit against Greece in the Hague not to be resolved
during the reign of king Gruevski (king Grouios from the village of
Achlada (Krushoradi), Florina (Lerin) region) and the next more
reasonable and sober rulers of the Republic of Macedonia to find a
path for better relations with Greece. I am an optimist, because as
said: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the
people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of
the time. " Abraham Lincoln, (attributed), 16th president of US (1809
- 1865) .
gogu
news:30a4c156-e9c5-4cad...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On 29 ???, 13:30, "gogu" <Ruminii_Sug_Pul@la_Greci.com> wrote:
>You have to learn, that advice and support is not manipulation.
And you have to learn that the servile submission behavior towards another
country and looking at the US as some kind of G-d by almost all of the
former commie countries is quite evident to every European and that you are
perceived like some kind of third world countries that willingly are giving
up part of their sovereignty in exchange of some obscure feeling of safety.
Trying to (voluntarily) become a...protectorate is only perceived in the
West with contempt! But hey, this is what you've done in your whole history
after all so no surprises here;-)
>Renaming of airports, highways, theaters, cultural institutions,
>erecting statues, etc. is NOT a violation of the Interim Agreement as
>many lawyers-experts have shown.
This is BULL SHIT and you know that!
The I.A is clearly stating that the parties should avoid any kind of
*PROVOCATION* but you are conveniently forgeting to cite the relevant
passage!
As for the rest, ADR has answered you already!
And here is a posting that contradicts you, posted
by...you;-))))))))))))))))
Obviously you are confused when you say that the renaming of the airport etc
is not a violation of the I.A!
Read and see how stupid you look contradicting yourself;-)
----------
Brussels: Renaming of Skopje's Airport to "Alexander the Great" is
against
the Interim Agreement from 1995
(Skopje, Utrinski vesnik daily, October 27th, 2007)
http://www.utrinski.com.mk/?ItemID=99D8FE531EA5A648A5662D310A6C9ECB
The main item in the Progress Report of the Republic of Macedonia in
2007
towards the E. U. is: "Renaming of Skopje's Airport to "Alexander the
Great" is against the meaning of the Interim Agreement from 1995."
That will be
announced officially in Brussels on the 6th of November. The Progress
Report is along the Greek thesis, that with the above renaming the
Republic of
Macedonia has violated the Interim Agreement. Unfortunately that gives
to Greece the right to veto the acceptance of the Republic of
Macedonia
into the N. A. T. O. According to the Interim Agreement from 1995,
Greece has
no right to restrict the acceptance of the Macedonian side in all
international organizations. That is the first mentioning of the name
of the airport
of Skopje in an official document of the E. U. In the document is
written
also that the renaming can be considered as a provocation, and that it
is
against the restriction of deeds that can worsen the relations between
the
Republic of Macedonia and Greece. The document has 69 pages
altogether.
Until now the negotiations about the name issue in New York are not
going forward, as the Macedonian side is insisting the Greek side to
capitulate completely and to accept all Macedonian demands (the name
to be accepted from Greece as the constitutional name "Republic of
Macedonia".)
----------------
>The same for the anti-Hellenic speeches of the PM Gruevski. A
>violation of the Interim Agreement would be a LEGAL ACT in
>contradiction with the agreement.
BULL SHIT!
You know that you are not right but hey, you have to earn your salary;-)
Have a nice day and...cry;-)
ADR
> Renaming of airports, highways, theaters, cultural institutions,
> erecting statues, etc. is NOT a violation of the Interim Agreement as
> many lawyers-experts have shown. See the Interim Agreement.http://www.hri.org/docs/fyrom/95-27866.html
> The same for the anti-Hellenic speeches of the PM Gruevski. A
> violation of the Interim Agreement would be a LEGAL ACT in
> contradiction with the agreement. That legal act has been the Greek
> veto in Bucharest, in contradiction with Article 11 of the Agreement.
> A nice day to everybody.
Pavel, I disagree. Actually, no single action on its own maybe a
violation of the agreement but you know and I know that Greece can
produce volumes and volumes of such actions that can clearly be shown
to violate the provision of "no provocation". The statements on a
united Macedonia, the official encyclopedia of FYROM and other
official actions clearly illustrate that there is a series of
provocations that severely violate the said agreement. Greece can
show that it has proposed many times a name that included the word
"Macedonia" and that those proposals were not agreed to by the
government of FYROM which was supposedly dedicated by the said
agreement to to reach a mutually accepted solution. I think that no
court will find that FYROM has acted in good faith in the
implementation of this agreement. I am virtually certain of this. My
worry about the whole affair is that it perpetuates the crisis and the
whole case is used by the Gruevski government to create an atmosphere
of crisis and confrontation. How does he think this would play within
the confines of an alliance is beyond me.
pavel
All depends on the interpretation. You agree that a single act cannot
be considered as a violation of the Interim Agreement. It is necessary
a legal act to follow. The law suit would be difficult for both sides.
Gruevski relies on some support, as he shares the opinion that Greece
should be punished for not taking the due part in the struggle for
liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq. If the court in the Hague decides
against Greece and if Macedonia is accepted into NATO in spite of the
Greek efforts that would be a great success for Gruevski. But on the
other hand all that is not completely sure, and a lot of efforts have
to be applied.
Let we imagine that if instead of Nikola Gruevski the former leader of
VMRO-DPMNE Ljubcho Georgievski (replaced with Gruevski by mainly US
demand on the party Congress in 2003) were the PM of Macedonia, then
the name issue with Greece would be solved and the relations with
Greece would be good, and Macedonia would be a member of NATO since
the summit in Bucharest. Sometimes the external interference in the
internal deeds in some country is not for good.
See:
[Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung]
www.epp.eu/dbimages/pdf/report1vmrodpmne.doc
"... At the parliamentary elections of 2002, VMRO-DPMNE lost its
majority,
mainly because of the lack in crisis management during the 2001
conflict, while the coalition “Together for Macedonia” of the post-
communist SDSM and a range of smaller parties, won the elections and
then formed a governing coalition with the Albanian Democratic Union
for Integration (DUI) the political successor of the National
Liberation Army.
Following the election defeat of 2002, the party underwent a
significant reform process. At the party Congress of May 2003, the
former Minister for Trade and later of Finance, Nikola Gruevski, was
elected party leader replacing Ljubčo Georgievski. Georgievski
resigned from the party leadership due to the pressure from the
international community (mainly from the US). He was primarily
accused
of nationalistic populism and being equally responsible for the
escalation of the 2001 crisis which led the country to the brink of
civil war. ..."
gogu
news:6a801fb3-23a1-4a49...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On 30 ???, 06:49, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>All depends on the interpretation.
And of course the slav "interpretation" is the correct one;-)
LOL
>You agree that a single act cannot
>be considered as a violation of the Interim Agreement. It is necessary
>a legal act to follow.
Not true!
Show us where it says so!
OTOH, the renaming of the airport is not a...legal act, right?!
What a typical commie-slav way of thinking!
>The law suit would be difficult for both sides.
Not at all!
Greece can easily prove that there is a plan, a whole series of hostile
action from the FYROM-ian leaders which are violating the I.A!
>Gruevski relies on some support, as he shares the opinion that Greece
>should be punished for not taking the due part in the struggle for
>liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Typical servile mentality!
And you are an idiot, as you are unaware that Greece is present in
Afghanistan!
And in the Golf area Greece still has a naval force, so Greece is present
there!
In your provincial and servile way of thinking you believe that if you send
there a bunch of bad trained soldiers that gives you the right to be treated
as a super-power;-)
In your line of thinking, many European countries who have no soldiers there
must be...punished;-)
You can't even understand how stupid and servile you sound!
>If the court in the Hague decides
>against Greece and if Macedonia is accepted into NATO
In what way this will be achieved?!
No Hague can force a NATO member to give away its right to veto!
That's just wishful thinking by a bunch of provincial neo-commie slavs like
Gruevski and you;-)
> in spite of the
>Greek efforts that would be a great success for Gruevski.
Dream on!
>But on the
>other hand all that is not completely sure, and a lot of efforts have
>to be applied.
It is not only completely un-sure, it's also a desperate attempt by a
bankrupt, impoverished, dictatorial country like yours to survive;-)
Dream on!
ADR
Pavel, I do not know what passes for comedy in FYROM but this is
really funny. (a) I think that Greece can show quite convincingly
that there is a whole series of provocations and hostile action by
FYROM that fit a pattern that is not in accordance with the treaty. I
do not think that this is really that difficult; (b) Greece did not
take action in Iraq but in this it did have very good company of
virtually all western european members of the NATO alliance. In fact,
only eastern Europeans joined the US in that action which was not
sanctioned either by NATO or the UN. Greece maintains forces in
Afganistan and has in fact contributed a lot in the humanitarian
effort and in the NATO action. In any case, if Greece is to "be
punished" this is a decision that does not rest on the courts but on
the alliances. The courts cannot render a verdict on this.
> If the court in the Hague decides
> against Greece and if Macedonia is accepted into NATO in spite of the
> Greek efforts that would be a great success for Gruevski. But on the
> other hand all that is not completely sure, and a lot of efforts have
> to be applied.
In the hypothetical case that this happens, Greece would immediately
withdraw from NATO (it has done so in the 70's) which is really way
overdue. In any case, any action by the court does not oblige NATO to
accept FYROM.
> Let we imagine that if instead of Nikola Gruevski the former leader of
> VMRO-DPMNE Ljubcho Georgievski (replaced with Gruevski by mainly US
> demand on the party Congress in 2003) were the PM of Macedonia, then
> the name issue with Greece would be solved and the relations with
> Greece would be good, and Macedonia would be a member of NATO since
> the summit in Bucharest. Sometimes the external interference in the
> internal deeds in some country is not for good.
I agree with this. However, Georgievski had the opportunity of
striking a deal with G. Papandreou (the then FM) and he walked away.
Although those were difficult times at FYROM, it was the best time to
strike a deal as it would have been sidelined by the Albanian revolt.
In any case, Gruevski has made a case of "do or die" and many citizens
of FYROM have bought on to this. So, I do not see Georgievski
anywhere close to the government. All the governments in FYROM have
played the nationalist card. None have shown the astuteness to work
for a deal and to pay some respect to the identity of a quarter of all
Greeks.
So. I would say let the case move on and see what happens. I think
that all in Greece are resigned for a long and tedious struggle to
resolve this problem with the understanding that it may become even
more confrontational as the time moves on.
pavel
The time had been not favorable for reaching an agreement. That had
been the opinion also of the Greek side. Then more important issues
had to be resolved. See what have been the relations of Georgievski
with Papandreou (from a Greek source):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.greekembassy.org/Embassy/content/en/Article.aspx?office=2&folder=317&article=7664
Georgievski, Papandreou discuss latest FYROM developments
20 August, 2001
Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou met with Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski on
Saturday evening at a resort in Crete for talks focusing on the latest
developments in the neighboring country.
Georgievski, who is on holiday in Greece, reportedly requested
economic aid from Greece during the 45-minute meeting, sources said.
Earlier in the day, Papandreou called recent developments in FYROM
positive following the conclusion of a political agreement between the
Skopje government and the two main ethnic Albanian parties.
"I believe that conditions today in FYROM are, of course, better,
although without having overcome the dangers, but there is a new
dynamic. The political agreement, as well as the military agreement
that was concluded in the form of a truce, despite its problems,
should be supported by all forces within the country as well,"
Papandreou said.
He also noted that "we are in constant contact with all the leaders of
Skopje, because we play an important role in the effort not only to
stabilize but to also reconstruct the country, since Greece is a major
investor there."
Source: Athens News Agency
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If it has been possible the relations in 2001 between "The Party of
the First Part with Capital-city Athens" and "The Party of the Second
Part with Capital-city Skopje" to be good, why not to expect that the
time of king Gruevski (Grouios) from the village of Achlada
(Krushoradi) can go away. Maybe some another Georgievski and some
another Papandreou can restore the good neighbourhood in the future.
Happy New Year to all.