Republic of Macedonia or North Macedonia?

• Author: Daskalovski, Zhidas
• Position: COMMENTARY - Report

Introduction

Encyclopedia Britannica notes that literally, "Europa" is thought to have meant "Mainland," an appropriate designation of the broadening, extensive northerly lands that lay beyond Greece, lands with characteristics but vaguely known... clearly different from those inherent in the concepts of Asia and Libya, both of which, relatively prosperous and civilized, were associated closely with the culture of the Greeks and their predecessors. Among the lands north of Greece today is also (the Republic of) Macedonia. Or is it? Since its independence in 1991, the country's name has been vigorously disputed by its southern neighbor. For more than twenty years the naming dispute remained unresolved, despite the UN-sponsored talks between the countries on the differences over the name. Last year Macedonia and Greece signed an agreement which regulates that the name of the country is North Macedonia. Has this agreement signed at the Prespa Lake ended the dispute? The answer is no. The name change is illegitimate and essentially unsustainable over the long term, creating only a dangerous precedent by running counter imperative to international legal norms (ius cogens).

The Macedonian Position on the 'Naming Dispute' until 2016

From the Macedonian perspective, the dispute is impossible to solve amicably due to the fact that in essence, it is an argument over cultural-historical identities relating to the right of self-identification of all the peoples in the regions of Macedonia. That is, the right of the majority population of Macedonia to identify itself as 'Macedonian' by ethnonational belonging, and the right of the Greeks and Bulgarians in the Macedonian regions of these countries also to be identified as 'Macedonian.' This element of the dispute also relates to the right to label the Macedonian language as such. Moreover, it also pertains to the "right" to depict ancient Macedon history as being an integral part of the ethnogenesis of the Greek and/or Macedonian nation. This is a clash over historical narratives and the right to claim the origins of the Macedonian ethnic group and nation today and in the ancient past.

The demand on Macedonia to change its name, in effect, is without precedent and any justifiable cause. Macedonia has a legitimate right to its name and identity. This right is based on various arguments, be they legal, moral, historical, or grounded in liberal-democratic ideas. The simplest Macedonian argument regarding the name dispute is that the case is unambiguous as there are no two states claiming the same nationality and the same name; a regional identity [in Greece] should not be mixed with an ethnonational identity in Macedonia. There cannot be confusion between a country and a region; the name "Macedonia" is used by Greece to designate one of its provinces which is not an international legal entity. In that context, there is a simple answer to the question 'who is/can be a Macedonian today?' If we speak about a person's ethnonational belonging, then a Macedonian is someone who lives in the Republic of Macedonia, or in Aegean or Pirin Macedonia, or elsewhere around the world for that matter, and chooses to belong to the Macedonian nation. Macedonians by citizenship, on the other hand, are all those living in the Republic of Macedonia regardless of their choice of ethnonational belongings. A Macedonian is also someone from any of the three regions of Macedonia who chooses to develop a regional Macedonian identity regardless of his/her own citizenship or ethno-national belonging. Thus, Aleksandar from Skopje, Mehmet from Tetovo, Jane from Petrich, Asparuh from Blago-evgrad, Yorios from Thessaloniki, and Atanas from Florina are all Macedonians and there is nothing wrong with that. Thus, while Aleksandar, Jane, and Atanas are all Macedonians sharing the same (ethno) national feelings; only Aleksandar and Mehmet are Macedonians by citizenship, while Asparuh and Yorios are regionally Macedonians who have Bulgarian and Greek national feelings and citizenships respectively. Although Macedonians are most commonly referred to as those with Macedonian ethnonational feelings, there is nothing wrong nor disturbing in the fact that others might be referred to as Macedonians based on their identification with the Macedonian region or citizenship. In addition, it is clear that the Republic of Macedonia has no claims on the larger region by the same name. The country accepts the existing borders and has no territorial claims against any of its neighbors. Even though some extreme Macedonian nationalists may dream about or continue to voice the dream of Great Macedonia, the state does not possess the means to threaten any of its neighbors, let alone challenge the existing territorial status quo. It has publicly, formally, and repeatedly disavowed any territorial claim on Greek lands since the Greeks first made their accusations.

Given this clarification, then, what is the problem with the declared identity of Macedonians? What is the problem with being Macedonian evidenced by the persistent and forceful efforts by the Greek and Bulgarian governments to convince Atanas and Jane that they cannot have Macedonian national feelings? Ever since the partition of Macedonia in the Balkan wars of 1912-1913, Athens and Sofia, and Belgrade until the Second World War, have employed chauvinistic policies to prevent the development and nourishment of a Macedonian national sentiment. To call the dispute a dispute over the name is a euphemism...