Athens, 28 March 2008

A talk with Greek Foreign Minister Bakoyannis: The anachronism of Skopje rekindles tensions

Journalist: Greece is threatening to block its northern neighbour’s accession to NATO. Is there a possibility of a compromise that would enable “Macedonia” to join NATO under its constitutional name?

Ms. Bakoyannis: A compromise is exactly what we are working on. We are talking about a geographical area that is called Macedonia and is located in the heart of the Balkans – a very sensitive region, burdened with its history. The name “Macedonia” is not associated with a single country. It has always been used to refer to a larger geographical region of which about 51% belongs to Greece, 38% to FYROM and 9% to Bulgaria. What Greece is saying is that a single state’s monopolizing the name “Macedonia” does not contribute to regional stability, and that is why the geographical reality must be borne in mind. This is also reflected in two UN Security Council resolutions and one from the UN General Assembly. We are pressing our friends in Skopje to arrive jointly, with us, at a long-overdue, mutually acceptable compound name that will include the geographical term “Macedonia”, but will clearly differentiate it from the broader geographical region.

Journalist: Following his meeting with you in Athens, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stated that while Greece has the right to oppose the accession of a new member to the Alliance, candidate states are automatically granted membership. Is it your impression that the other member states of NATO will support Greece on this issue?

Ms. Bakoyannis: Without a doubt. Greece has always been a reliable and consistent supporter of its neighbours’ Euro-Atlantic perspectives. At the NATO Summit in Bucharest we will gladly support membership invitations for Croatia and Albania. In previous rounds of enlargement, the Alliance always insisted that candidate countries satisfy the criterion of good neighbourly relations. NATO has also consistently promoted the full normalization of relations not only between candidate countries, but also with neighbouring, third countries that were not members of the Alliance. But now a country wants to join without having resolved an outstanding issue that undermines good neighbourly relations and has a negative impact on relations with an ally that has been a member of NATO for over half a century.

Journalist: The UN mediator, Nimetz, has made a number of proposals, including “Upper Macedonia” and “New Macedonia”. Are these proposals acceptable to Greece?

Ms. Bakoyannis: The negotiations have not been completed yet. Greece is participating constructively and openly in these negotiations. We have shown great flexibility in seeking a solution from which both sides have gains to make. The Greek government has gone two thirds of the way on its own, and we hope that our friends in Skopje will now meet us somewhere. The names mentioned can serve as the basis for discussions.

Journalist: FYROM Foreign Minister Milososki says that by Greece’s reasoning, Belgium, too, can ask Luxembourg to change its name, as there is a Belgian province called Luxembourg.

Ms. Bakoyannis: Is Luxembourg claiming that a part of its territory is under Belgian occupation? Do Luxembourg’s schoolbooks contain maps with information on a kind of greater homeland that includes parts of neighbouring countries? Skopje has set off such fireworks in recent years. We made a conscious decision not to reply. What is important is not an exchange of empty rhetoric aimed at putting a good face on things for 24 hours for the benefit of public opinion in our country. Oversimplification does not help us move ahead. We need a realistic solution for a very real problem.

Journalist: Some politicians in Athens allege that Skopje has irredentist designs on the Greek region of Macedonia. Are there specific examples of this stance that has been attributed to Skopje?

Ms. Bakoyannis: There are serious and widely disseminated examples. Just a few weeks ago, Prime Minister Gruevski was photographed laying a wreath at a monument on which there was a map of so-called Greater Macedonia that included a significant portion of Greece, up to Thessaloniki and the Aegean. This kind of anachronistic posturing rekindles tensions and distrust in our relations. Something along these lines might have served political ends for personal gain a half a century ago, during the Cold War. But it has no place in today’s Europe. What is more, it conflicts with our endeavour to make Southeast Europe a model of peaceful coexistence and prosperity of various nations.

This is not a battle; it is negotiations. It isn’t win or lose, glory or shame. This is about a compromise from which both sides can profit. The citizens of FYROM can profit from the conclusion of an agreement with Greece, so that we can leave this bitter problem behind us. Greece is FYROM’s largest foreign investor and one of its major trade partners. The Greek economy has created over 20,000 jobs in our neighbouring country. From a political standpoint, Greece can and must be FYROM’s natural ally and most trusted supporter. We have to focus on issues that bring us together, rather than on issues that push us apart.