Introduction - Part 09

43. Summarizing this section we need to conclude that the assessment that Greece is blocking Macedonia from joining NATO and the EU is a big mistake. There is no doubt that they play a role, but pointing at Greece means hiding the real manager of the project. The blockade and blackmail for joining NATO (and the EU), after Bucharest in 2008, are coming from Brussels not from Athens. That is the best proof that shows that the back of this case is completely different than it appears.

43.1. Greece never was in a position to set up blockades and blackmail in Brussels. No member of NATO or the EU has that much authority or is able to impose its own policies. It is theoretically impossible.

44. The only exception is the U.S. role in NATO. The U.S. is the only NATO member that can pull off something like this. No one else...

The U.S. role is specific because America is a major NATO financier and has an important role in ensuring Europe’s safety. Not one of America’s main NATO partners in Europe today has the clout or the nerve to challenge or to oppose U.S. policies regarding NATO. As a matter of fact it happened once when we

had “New” and “Old” Europe. Nevertheless, all NATO members, one way or another, depend on Washington. Of course the United States looks after the fundamental interests of its partners and its excellent diplomatic service takes maximum care to avoid any confrontation with them.

45. The established practice of first joining NATO and then the EU is inconvenient for Macedonia. Thus we must first pass through the sieve set by Washington before we can join the EU. Had it been the other way around or if NATO was not there, it would have been less of an ordeal. When Washington develops a policy for NATO it is a done deal, the other members are not given much of a choice other than to rubber stamp it. These countries are also members of the EU and, in practice, whatever is adopted in NATO is also valid in the EU. This is a kind of solidarity.

46. To leave no doubt we must underline that if the U.S. does not share Greek interest for extermination of Macedonia and the Macedonian people, or is against such a plan, then it is absolutely certain that such policies would have never passed. According to the standards by which the Alliance operates, there is no chance of substantial change in policy - without U.S. approval. So, what took place in Bucharest, in the least, meant that it was a coincidence that Athens and Washington had similar interests. If Washington was not behind the whole project it would have been absolutely impossible for peace and stability to be achieved in the region, which is still extremely vulnerable, and can/will be jeopardized by a small and corrupt country like Greece.

46.1. Let us ask the question a little differently: If the United States firmly believed and worked for Macedonia to join NATO in Bucharest in 2008, could Greece (or any other country) have prevented it? The answer is simple: Definitely not! This shows that, even in the least, the U.S. was not interested in Macedonia joining NATO. If it really was, then it would have bulldozed everyone out of its way and got what it wanted!

I. Will membership in NATO deliver better security for Macedonia?

47. At the end of this segment we will try to determine whether joining NATO would bring Macedonia better security or not? There is no doubt that belonging to NATO in principle, and from a ceremonial point of view, is a plus for Macedonia. You are a member of an eminent and respectable company. The membership is an important recommendation and reference for the country on economic, political and security plans. Nevertheless, given the irregularities and obstacles placed before us, we need to ask ourselves: Will membership in NATO bring any new qualities to our stability and security?

It is known that NATO guarantees security for its members from outside threats (an attack against one member state is an attack against all member states). However, it does not guarantee internal threats which are common inside Macedonia. Internal security remains the responsibility of each member state. If that is the case then: Are there any threats made against Macedonia from the outside? Or, more accurately, who is threatening Macedonia from the outside?

47.1. Given that Bulgaria, Greece and Albania are NATO members themselves, we can assume that they will not invade Macedonia without agreement from the Alliance?! In other words, there is no conceivable threat unless approved by Washington or perhaps Brussels. Similar to what happened to Serbia in 1999.

47.2. The only other neighbours are Kosovo and Serbia.

47.2.1. We were attacked from Kosovo once but those attacks were with the agreement and cooperation of the U.S. If they attacked us before, there is no reason why they won’t do it again if it serves their interests. This could happen even if Macedonia joined NATO. Who will guarantee that the 2001 scenario won’t be repeated again if the Americans will it? It wouldn’t be important at all if the destabilization of the country comes from

Kosovo, as it did before, or from inside Macedonia. Let us remind you that “the main Albanian factors in Macedonia today (DUI) are the same people that effected the war in 2001”, managed by the Americans. We would be extremely naïve to believe that their relations are no longer very close. Of course, the new possible destabilization would again be in the name of “human rights”, just like it was the last time.

47.2.2. The biggest danger to Macedonia is the repetition of the Serbian scenario, when Kosovo was separated. Fortunately for us the differences between Macedonia and Kosovo are huge. The conflict in Kosovo was maintained within its border. That will not work in Macedonia. If a war is started to fragment Macedonia it would become a regional war. Macedonia managed to avoid it after the Yugoslav breakup because the “powers” did not want a regional and out of control war. That is the main reason why the U.S. did not want an escalation of war that would include Macedonia, and that was and still is the best guarantee for the security of the country. And this is why the U.S. has taken the slow and peaceful way of attempting to break up Macedonia from the inside. From that point of view the aspirations for Macedonia coming from Bulgaria and Greece can be deemed positive!? Practically, they are preventing Macedonia from breaking up into pieces! As long as there are fears of a new and wider Balkan war “Greater Albania” plans and aspirations are at a standstill and limited at best. And that is why the U.S. has chosen to “albanize” Macedonia from the inside. But, it is certain that this process will not work because, even though the Macedonian people are tolerant and patient, but they will explode if pushed too far. It looks like their time is coming nearer and nearer...

From what we have already said above it is clear that the situation in and around Macedonia will not be stabilized anytime soon and therefore, for us, it is crucial that we understand in depth what is going on and monitor and analyze the situation so that we are not again surprised by what is logically to follow.

47.2.3. Our other neighbour, Serbia, has no intention of joining NATO anytime soon. As we saw at the end of 1992, UNPREDEP, including several hundred American soldiers, were sent to Macedonia to make sure Serbia did not make a move on it. This was not done in order to defend Macedonia and the Macedonians. The reason was valid then and it is valid now; the Americans do not want a Serbian occupation of Macedonia because it is not in the interest of the Albanians!!!

For now the U.S. is continuing to play the card that dismisses any threat from the north. How long will that last, is entirely another matter.

The aspirations of the Serbian Orthodox Church towards the Macedonian Orthodox Church are still there and remain current. They are objectively there to make room for Serbia should it one day want to further its political ambitions towards Macedonia, depending on the local situation. In case Macedonia is being divided… again…

47. 2.4. Albanizing parts of Macedonia is obviously a project supported by the U.S. It is a serious step in finalizing the “Greater Albania” project. Should Washington decide to formalize the existence of “free Albanian territories” tomorrow, the first step would be – federalization. Then, if followed by tearing out Macedonian territories, besides those for Bulgaria and Greece, there must also be a portion of “cake” for Serbia. Can such a partition take place without a prior agreement? – is not important.

Yes, all this sounds good but it cannot be achieved without a new war. Let’s not forget that the Allies of the First Balkan War in 1912 fought each other over Macedonia in the Second Balkan War, in 1913. This kind of confrontation of the neighbours was also repeated during WWI and WWII for the same reason, to get more of Macedonia! History has a tendency to repeat itself.

47.3. This, of course, is only a hypotheses, but nonetheless a realistic scenario. Who expected the USSR and Yugoslavia to break up, let alone for Kosovo to break away from Serbia? You can be sure that all this was planned somewhere and by someone. The strategy planners always have a lot of impossible scenarios on their tables…

47.4. In other words, we can objectively conclude that, for now, there is no immediate and real threat to Macedonia from the outside. So in general we can say that there are no major security gains for Macedonia from becoming a NATO member. From what we said earlier, it should be clear that Macedonia’s territorial integrity is not under any direct external threat. Or rather, there is no direct external threat without NATO or American participation. In other words, any threat to Macedonia would have to be approved by NATO and behind NATO stands the U.S.

U.S. dominance in the region, conducted in partnership with the Albanians, can generate but also control hazards in Macedonia. Of course this is done in accordance with American interests. For now the generator is very active!

47.4.1. It is a fact that current trends are negative for Macedonia. Washington so far has worked against Macedonian interests. Fortunately their plans are unrealistic and dangerous for the region. It is a matter of time before they will have to be reassessed. Our goal, therefore, should be to “convince” the United States to come to this conclusion as soon as possible.

47.4.2. If we agree that the territorial integrity of our country, for now, is not threatened from the outside, then the key security elements for Macedonia are its constitution and its unitary character and their guarantor, over the Ohrid Agreement, is the U.S.

If the Americans are true to their word then our country’s future is guaranteed. If not...

Past experience, based primarily on the Interim Accord, has shown not to be very promising.

47.5. On the other hand, dormant dangers are a reality for Macedonia’s security. We are witness to many roundabout steps that clearly question Macedonia’s existence and threaten Macedonia’s survival. Today all these activities are supported, or better to say are led, by the U.S. Some of them even openly! Some come from the outside but most come from the inside. That is the case because the only guarantor we have is the unitary character of our state, which so far is permanently, continuously and unscrupulously being ignored. Part of it has been elaborated in this text. At the same time the Constitutional order of the country has been questioned with direct initiative for fundamental changes (Musa Xhaferi for federalization; albanizing municipalities...)…

47. 6. If we started this section with a hypotheses then let’s finish it the same way. The question is: Did the U.S. hinder Macedonia’s accession into NATO in order to have a free hand in restructuring the future of our country and the region as the final outcome to the post-Yugoslav crisis?

Even though there are no clear cut answers to that question, many facts point in that direction…

For now, the only certain thing is that the key to Macedonia’s future is held in Washington.

IX – Washington’s role in relations between Skopje and Sofia

In order for us to fully clarify America’s policy towards Macedonia, we need to look at one more important event.

1. On January 15, 1992 Bulgaria was the first to recognize independent Macedonia. It was an extremely important move for us, especially since we knew that Sofia would not accept the existence of a Macedonian nation, language... From Bulgaria’s point of view however, what Bulgaria in fact was recognizing was probably a second Bulgarian state populated by Bulgarians who had not yet realized that they were Bulgarians. Diplomatic relations were not immediately established because Sofia suddenly got cold feet. From then on Bulgaria took the wait and see position - is Macedonia going to survive?

2. Because Sofia considered that the Macedonian language did not exist and is a Bulgarian dialect, relations between the two countries stagnated. There were 22 agreements drafted and waiting because bilaterally they needed to be signed in both languages. But since mention of the Macedonian language was needed, unacceptable to Bulgaria, the agreements could not be signed.

Years passed without any movement.

3. Finally there was a breakthrough in 1999. The stalemate was broken only because of American “interference” forcing Macedonia to concede on very important strategic issues. This happened under Stroub Talbot’s watch, a well known American diplomat, then Deputy Secretary. This was when Sofia and Skopje signed the famous 1999 “Declaration of Friendship and Cooperation”. In a statement to Bulgarian television, Talbot “revealed” that he was being helped by the U.S. ambassadors (Christopher Hill) in Skopje and (Avis Bolin) in Sofia.

4. By looking at the Declaration we can see that, without any doubt, we have allowed our language to be devalued and to be treated as if it were invented. Talbot’s participation in this matter “proves” that the devaluation of the Macedonian language was done with American assistance and with strong U.S. pressure. According to the formulation used, the Declaration was signed under the words “relevant official languages of the two countries, in accordance with the terms used in the Bulgarian Constitution for Bulgaria and the terms used in the Macedonian Constitution for the Republic of Macedonia”! The Bulgarian language has no bearing because it is not in dispute. For the Macedonian language this meant that the language was not timeless and indigenous but belongs to a constitutional category and as we all know constitutions can be changed.

5. The second, completely unnecessary Macedonian concession made refers to the section in the Declaration that says: “Nothing in the Macedonian constitution could be interpreted as grounds for interference in Bulgarian internal affairs, in terms of defending the status of people in Bulgaria who are not citizens of the Republic of Macedonia.”

6. According to popular Bulgarian analyst, Kamen Minchev, Macedonia, with this Declaration, has made two concessions and Bulgaria has made only one. (“Relations between Bulgaria and Macedonia following their joint declaration signed on February 22, 1999”, from the Weekly Commentary, March 1-5, 1999) According to Minchev, Sofia “recognized” that the Macedonian language was used on Macedonian territory but not on Bulgarian territory. He considers that as a step positive for Macedonia. However, so that there is no confusion, Minchev concluded that: “With this, Bulgaria does not recognize the Macedonian language or the Macedonian people.”

Minchev assesses that with the second part - “Macedonia declares that it has no longer the right to say that a Macedonian minority exists in Bulgaria and to insist that it is granted certain rights and freedoms.” Minchev immediately recalled that this was contrary to Article 49 of the Macedonian Constitution, with which Macedonia was obliged to look after the rights of the Macedonian minority in Greece and Bulgaria. In the end, Minchev cited Marin Raikov, current interim Bulgarian Prime Minister (at the beginning of 2013), then Deputy Foreign Minister, who led the Bulgarian delegation in the Declaration negotiations, who said: “We have achieved more than we expected.”

If he was honest to the end he would have cried like the Croatians: “Thank you, Talbot! Thank you, USA!”

7. We should be comforted that no matter what we sign, the Macedonians in Bulgaria cannot just be erased; they are a reality that cannot be ignored. For now and for the sake of the ones who have survived.

However, it is never that easy.

When their country of origin gives them up because they live as a minority in another country, their chances of survival are reduced to practically zero. The process of erasing the Macedonians in Bulgaria has been ongoing for a long time and without us formally renouncing them. From the hundreds of thousands who existed in the past, it remains to be seen if tens of thousands still remain Macedonian in Bulgaria today?

However, the fact is that regardless of its constitutional obligation, Macedonia up to now has done nothing for the Macedonians in Bulgaria, during and after the Yugoslav Federation. So, the concessions made in the Declaration, are on the top of irresponsible policies that are bringing disastrous historical consequences for that part of the Macedonian national fabric.

8. Both concessions made in the Declaration are of strategic importance for Macedonia. The “credit” for devaluing the legitimacy of the Macedonian language and for giving up on the Macedonians in Bulgaria, without a doubt, belongs completely to the U.S. Nevertheless, the guilt is ours because we signed the Declaration. The U.S. gave Sofia more than it would have ever dreamed (according to Raikov) - with our consent.

9. With the formulation used, the Macedonian language was put in an inferior position to all other languages. It looks as if it is not real and is defined only by our Constitution. By signing the Declaration, Macedonia, in fact, has accepted grounds for the Macedonian language to be disputed. Unfortunately, this precedent carries severe consequences. Through it, Bulgaria will never allow the Macedonian language to be registered as such during Macedonia’s EU accession, if that ever happens. The Bulgarians will insist on the use of the wording as specified in the signed Declaration. After all, we have given them our consent. Thus, in the EU nomenclature we will find languages registered as French, Croatian, English, Bulgarian... and in place of “Macedonian” we will find “in accordance with the terminology of the state’s Constitution”. Meaning fictional and artificial...

10. In the Interim Accord with Greece, we signed that the name of the state is a problem! In the Declaration with Bulgaria we accepted that our language is a problem... We entered the UN without a name. In the EU they will only accept us if we change our name and give up our identity and language… Where does it all end? All that is missing now is for someone to sign a document that says that the Macedonian people were invented by Tito... and we alone will end our story…

11. One thing however is clear: The common denominator of all these procedures has been the United States. Time after time the U.S. has studiously and persistently clipped Macedonia’s wings and cut Macedonia’s roots one by one. The days when Macedonia can no longer fly and will dry up and wither away are not far off. Unless we wake up in time and together say -“ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!”

12. If Washington was a “partner” and a “friend” as many Macedonians still claim it to be, then why did it force us into this position, knowing very well Bulgaria’s attitude towards Macedonia? Looking at the problem from another angle, the U.S. has insistently and persistently put Macedonia in a lose-lose situation, wearing it down until it capitulates! So far the U.S. has done everything in its power to destroy Macedonia… its policy has been nothing but consistent… Pressuring Macedonia to sign the Declaration of Friendship and Cooperation with Bulgaria in 1999 was part of the same goal… to weaken Macedonia by all means possible… This time by attacking its language! Not a “random coincidence”! They want us to change our name for external use, replacing the UN reference. At home, they “permit” us to call our country – Macedonia. Now they want us to do the same with our language; Macedonian for internal use only! What great coordination! Do you still think these are “random coincidences”, or are there powerful forces at work, in parallel, behind all these issues? How many times do we need to be shot before we understand that they are trying to kill us?

What more validation and evidence would you need, to not see the same scenario repeated again and again under different circumstances and coming from the same centre?

13. Nowadays (late 2012) the 1999 Declaration has again resurfaced. Bulgaria, logically, wants to raise the Declaration to the level of an “Agreement of Friendship and Cooperation”. “Declarations” and “agreements” are completely different documents. It’s like comparing a Mercedes 350 to a Fiat Uno. Both are cars, but... One cannot put in the same basket an “Agreement of Friendship and Cooperation” with any other accord. It is a top document signed between two countries confirming that there are no open issues between them. We know very well that with Bulgaria there are unresolved issues of fundamental importance for Macedonia. So the question here is: Is Sofia insisting on signing such a document to confirm that everything is fine between the two countries? In other words, that we agree to being “Bulgarians” with our language as a dialect of Bulgarian?

13.1. There must be another reason for attempting to impose such an agreement. Are we to assume that Sofia is “concerned” that the “Declaration” is not a strong enough document for Brussels to register our language in accordance with the formulas used in it? Even though, according to diplomatic practices, the precedent with the declaration is enough. So to be sure that our language will be “devaluated” Bulgaria wants an iron clad “agreement”, not just a simple “declaration”… Bulgaria wants a “guarantee” which only comes with a solid “agreement” and not by waving some declaration in Brussels... 14. Declarations are never subject to parliamentary ratification. A Cooperation Agreement must pass parliamentary procedure, otherwise it cannot be enforced. And if we do that then we will confirm, in a much stronger way to Bulgaria, all the embedded strategic concessions we made in 1999. It will then mean that the Macedonian state would finally and officially abandon its language and the Macedonians living in Bulgaria. You can also be sure that Sofia will not sign the Agreement without the wording it wants to see on it.

If, however, we accept, sign and ratify such a text, we will definitely show the world that we are incapable of holding and managing our own Macedonian state.

15. Sofia is dissatisfied because Macedonia has not implemented the 1999 Declaration. It is our duty to constantly remind them that everything that was imposed by force, everything that was dishonestly, unfairly and abnormally imposed... cannot succeed. We have to stress to them that even, God forbid, through blackmail, blockades, etc., if we are again forced to accept unacceptable and non-reciprocal agreements it will also remain as only text on paper. Unfortunately this document will leave deep traces in the Macedonian people and our relationships will slide. It’s pure physics. Macedonians will be angry about the Bulgarian intimidations and they will not be forgiving.

Sofia is wasting time. The Bulgarians are needlessly making fools of themselves, asking for the impossible. Even if they are healing their hang-ups with it, they are wrong. They cannot take what is ours. Even if they take it, it will never be theirs. Neither the people nor the language... They are creating enemies unnecessarily...

Both nations are close in so many ways. Languages, traditions... History also connects us in so many ways. In many events it could be treated even as common. When there was no Macedonian state, many extraordinary Macedonians lived and worked in Bulgaria. A large number of the top Macedonian intellectuals, revolutionaries and activists studied, lived and worked in Sofia and throughout Bulgaria. There are dozens of events that we have to celebrate together but as two separate nations, as we are. We are not, nor have we ever been Bulgarians. We are Macedonians and speak the Macedonian language.

In the past many people declared themselves Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Macedonians, Muslim Turks... because they had no other choice. No one officially accepted them as Macedonians. All of the neighbours were pretending that they were their own people… My grandfather, Itso Pope, in Resen, during the Serbian occupation, at a census taking was asked: “Your nationality?” He replied: “Macedonian!” Very angry, they told him there was no such thing. He then said: “Then write down whatever you want!” We can imagine that the same was happening in Bulgaria.

After Bulgaria understands and swallows all this, and its historic syndromes are dumped onto the compost heap, then it will be time for new unlimited horizons to open between our two countries and our two peoples.

Until then... Sofia will be on the move.

X – Statements

1. Jan de Hoop Scheffer, NATO Secretary General (“Utrinski Vesnik”, July 16, 2008):

“You have to realize that our friends in Skopje want to join NATO, and not vice versa. You know, Greece is inside and Skopje is not. In other words, flexibility is needed from everyone but it should not be forgotten that a country aspires to join NATO. And that is the issue.”

At one time the same rule applied to the blacks. The issue, according to Scheffer, was that there was no other reason other than they were black! The statement is pure racism!

2. Dean Pitman, assistant to Secretary of State John Kerry (“Republika”, September 27, 2013):

“The name issue falls into the category of frozen conflicts, the same as the territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan.” “...I know this is not a small matter because if it was it would have been resolved by now.”

This statement was made during a briefing before the UN General Assembly. Pitman actually verified (for us) that a quick solution to the problem is not possible! From what it looks like, he showed us Washington’s true assessment. So here we are left to wonder… why are Reeker, Wohlers... constantly speaking about a quick solution to the dispute?

3. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO Secretary General (“Dnevnik”, February 17, 2012):

“First a solution to the name, then membership!”

In Athens, Rasmussen, was trying to please the Greeks.

4. Soon after that (“Nova Makedonija”, March 1, 2012) both Ambassador Wohlers and Rasmussen, obviously in a coordinated way, informed us that we should not expect anything from the NATO summit in Chicago in May, 2012. The pretext was the same; “First change your name then membership!” According to Rasmussen, “The decision was made in Bucharest in 2008 and is still valid!”

These statements confirm and make it crystal clear that the blockades were not Greek but from NATO and the EU.

5. German Chancellor Angela Merkel (“Nova Makedonija”, February 15, 2012):

“The name issue must be resolved... because without a solution it would be difficult to achieve consensus on the country’s entry into NATO and start negotiations with the EU.” Merkel also said: “The Hague verdict is an undeniable success for the Macedonian Government.” And added that: “The verdict should be recognized because obligations for Greece will arise from it!?”

This statement was made after Merkel’s talks with Prime Minister Gruevski. It is confusing because Merkel at the same time calls for consensus and for the Court judgment to be recognized by Greece, as well. If that happens there will be no consensus! She also did not say why Germany tolerates Greece ignoring and not implementing The Hague judgment. She is also responsible for that. The final conclusion is that Merkel just showed how much the Court’s verdict is weighing heavily on everyone. When The Hague sentence is mentioned they don’t know where to look or what to say.

6. Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission (“Dnevnik”, October 29, 2010):

“The time has come for Macedonia to not miss this historic opportunity. Identity issues are certainly important, but more important is for the past to not hold the future hostage.”

After that statement, who now can truly say that this problem is “only” about Macedonia’s name and nothing else? Barroso spoke on behalf of the European Union and, in fact, called on our

people to change their own identity… for the sake of the future… right!!!!?

7. Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State of the United States responsible for Europe, and former ambassador to NATO (“Nova Makedonija”, November 15, 2013):

“I, myself in the past, especially in 2008 at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, personally rolled up my sleeves on behalf of Macedonia. I remember meeting with Prime Minister Gruevski and with the Greek leaders in my office where we were trying to resolve the dispute. I believe that there are two or more formulations which should be acceptable to both sides. We are working to bring dialogue, leadership and make options for the two parties to choose from.”

Well now, who are we to believe? While Reeker, Wohlers and others have repeatedly assured us that the U.S. will not interfere in the dispute and that this is a job for the two countries to work out, Vicky here has assured us to the contrary; that she personally rolled up her sleeves to solve it!? And the “two or more formulations” that should be “acceptable to both sides”, you can be sure are not Greek but American solutions to the problem. In any case, the fact is that between the U.S. and Greece there are “differences” which are not strategic, but only technical. Greece, for example, wants to close the issue immediately through erga omnes while the U.S. is more committed to our gradual annihilation. In stages that may take several years, through replacing the reference with a permanent name for international use! They insist that this process will be “less painful” and easier for us to cross the torrent.

8. Ivo Dalder, U.S. Ambassador to NATO (“Nova Makedonija”, June 19, 2013):

“The U.S. has a big task and is investing a lot of diplomatic effort, including people at the highest levels, to find a solution together with the Greek and Macedonian governments. One can only guess as to why this has not already happened.”

This must be a revelation for who is handling this case: The U.S. with all its bulldozers at the “highest level” has failed to wipe out little Macedonia!

9. James Steinberg, Deputy Secretary of State (“Nova Makedonija”, June 10, 2010):

“We understand that Prime Minister Gruevski has to make a heavy decision which is always difficult in situations like this. But I think it is important for the Macedonian leadership to focus on going forward with a solid future in NATO and the EU, which is tempting!?”

There is no ambiguity in the American position - they are openly asking for our capitulation. There is no bilateral agreement with Greece and no mediation... Macedonia must die… everything else is for show.

10. Hillary Clinton (“Dnevnik”, July 10, 2011):

“The government in Skopje needs to know that it will not be able to make progress in its European integration until it resolves the name issue and, on the other hand, it is obvious that Greece must be ready to accept that solution!”

It cannot be said any clearer: a) in the name of the United States, Mrs. Clinton has told us point blank, “no NATO and EU” as Macedonia!, b) In parallel she also told us that Greece must accept the solution! This means that we need to be ready to serve Greece as well! Of course when the time comes, if it ever comes! And now why should we talk to Athens and not directly to its manager, the U.S., who set the conditions?

11. WikiLeaks: “U.S. supports an international name with a geographic qualifier” (“Dnevnik”, March 30, 2011). According to a telegram sent from U.S. Ambassador to Athens, Daniel Speckhard, the Obama administration believes that the main element in deciding on the name is using “a name with a geographic determinant for general use internationally without

having to tamper with the identity (and the identity is not to be mentioned until certain stages of the EU integration process)!”

Thanks to WikiLeaks the American game and trap have been revealed. Trap us and annihilate us step by step. First change our name for international use. Then change our identity. Of course, in “stages” and no hurry.

12. Lawrence Eagleburger, former U.S. Secretary of State, to MRTV:

“If Macedonia decides to keep its constitutional name there is no power which can force it to change it. It is up to you to decide whether you want to change your name or not!”

This is the strongest card in Macedonia’s hand. No one can change our country’s name and identity without our consent. Except for the person(s) who will authorize the renaming…

13. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, for the 20th anniversary of independence on September 8, 2011, decided not to send her congratulations to Macedonia’s leaders. It is common practice to send congratulations through the embassies of countries. Ignoring the Macedonian leadership, she sent her greetings directly to the Macedonian citizens through the State Department web page! This was not only unprecedented but an insult to the Macedonian leadership, illustrating American displeasure with Macedonia’s unwillingness to capitulate.

This was during the period when Washington was openly boycotting Gruevski’s government. In February 2011, while visiting the U.S. and in meetings with the State Department, Gruevski was forced to organize a press conference on the street...

13.1. U.S. hostility towards Macedonia’s government peaked when Reeker (“Gruevski ignores messages from Washington”, “Dnevnik”, March 4, 2011) said: “The situation in Macedonia has not changed even though we voiced our concerns to the

Prime Minister at the meetings in Washington. On the contrary, after February 16 U.S. concerns have spiked!”

14. Thomas Countryman, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, during his visit to Skopje (“Dnevnik”, October 27, 2010): “Washington is still interested in Macedonia’s membership in NATO. With all this waiting it is Macedonia who is losing and not Greece. There is no long-term damage from failure to resolve the dispute for Athens.”

What more can we look for? Is it possible to get any “stronger support” from our “strategic partner”?!

15. Philip Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, in an address to the Foreign Affairs Senate Subcommittee, talking about the prospects of Balkan countries for NATO membership (“Nova Makedonija”, May 20, 2011): “Macedonia will join after the name issue is resolved.”

If the U.S. was not blocking Macedonia why would Gordon have to explain to the Senate who is obstructing Macedonia’s entry into NATO? Is the problem consensus or...? The most important thing to notice here is that he did not distance the U.S. from that policy!

16. Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State (“Dnevnik”, October 28, 2008): “Take Nimetz’s latest proposal and make a bright future for your children. They will be grateful for it. After Macedonia accepts the name change, the EU will pressure Greece to respond positively!”

Regarding Macedonia’s insistence on preserving its identity, Fried said: “Success of the country is its best proof of identity!?” He also added: “I would rather be a hero 100 years later than be a hero now!”

This is the most beautiful anatomy of American politics yet: a) you accept first and then Greece will accept! And if Greece does not accept, which is most possible, then what? Greece is not likely to accept anything outside of our permanent demise! Then will follow the next stage. What we have accepted would be only a starting point for new concessions. Logical, isn’t it? b) How can the United States affirm that after our acceptance, the “EU will push Greece ...?” How do they know that the EU will push Greece? Isn’t this an excellent confirmation that Washington is indeed managing this dispute?! c) Is there anyone who would prefer to be a hero 100 years from now instead of today?

17. Sean McCormack, spokesman for the U.S. State Department (“Utrinski” September 11, 2008): “Macedonia has said that it wants to be called Macedonia and we recognized that name. If Macedonia tells the international community that it wants to be called by a different name, which will be fully supported by the Macedonian people and the government, then I do not believe that the U.S. would oppose it.”

He said that the U.S. did not suggest any solutions but has participated in finding one. How? Are they waiting for someone else to make suggestions?

This is indeed another confirmation that without our consent there can be no name change. The spokesman, it seems, did not understand that Macedonia does not want to change its name. If it did it would have happened a long time ago.

The statement confirms as well that the U.S. will be the first country to use the new name, if Macedonia capitulates.

18. Philip Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State (“Nova Makedonija”, July 11, 2012):

“In Macedonia’s case, NATO members have made it clear that an invitation will only be offered after the name issue is resolved.”

What more do we need to say? Our NATO membership is definitely not decided by Greece alone. Greece may bear responsibility for Macedonia’s predicament but others are behind it…

19. According to “Nova Makedonija” (“Wishes one, sincerity another”, February 24, 2012), James Steinberg, a high level State Department employee, in 2009 said: “To simplify the matter, come to an agreement and what has been agreed will be confirmed by UN resolution. This will apply to everyone in the international community.”

With whom can we agree? With Greece? There is the problem. Everything else is easier. Indeed, that is why we are always sent to Athens!

20. Aivo Orav, Head (Ambassador) of the EU Mission in Macedonia, speaking about the Ohrid Agreement to the European Parliament (“Dnevnik”, November 17, 2012): “This agreement is very important for the government coalition between the ethnic Albanians and the Slav Macedonians, even though the ethnic communities may understand it differently.”

He used the term “Slav Macedonians” a few times. What do you think, the idea of renaming us to “Slav Macedonians” was his or ordered by Brussels? We can guarantee that it was not his personal choice! So do you still think our identity is not at stake? We have been told a thousand times that the identity, the language… are not part of the problem. When are you, “Slav Macedonians”, going to understand that?!

21. Now will follow statements by Philip Reeker, first as ambassador to Macedonia (2008-2011) and then as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs in Washington.

(From 1997 to 1999, Reeker was a diplomat in Skopje and spokesman for Ambassador Hill, who was special envoy to President Clinton on Kosovo. Through Hill, Reeker was directly involved in the various wars of the time. Both Hill and Reeker attended the Rambouillet Conference where Reeker acted as spokesman. Everything possible was prepared for the Serbians to reject the offensive and unacceptable proposed agreement with the Albanians from Kosovo, in order to make way for bombing Serbia, including Belgrade. So we can conclude that Reeker has

been directly involved in the “Greater Albania” project since the late 1990’s).

21.1 “This is a young country; it became independent for the first time only 18 years ago. There is evidence of this in the UN and around the world. What needs to be addressed here is what is referred to as “the name dispute”. Your country needs to find a name with which to start moving further towards full integration. Your identity is yours, with every individual and with every group. This is something that cannot be negotiated.”

“Something can be found that will strengthen Macedonia’s European identity, to resolve the name issue so that the country can join institutions and become a true member of the Euro-Atlantic community.”

“For us Americans being bilingual or multilingual is an asset, something from which the people of this country can benefit. It should be borne in mind that diversity can also bring benefits here and you will be more secure if you accept the other languages and cultures that exist in Macedonia.”

The quotes shown here were taken from an interview with U.S. Ambassador Reeker entitled “The identity is not negotiable” given for “Dnevnik” on June 8, 2009.

Reeker told us almost everything: that our country is only 18 years old (he doesn’t recognize Macedonia’s statehood during the period of Yugoslavia?!); that we should change the name of our country; that our identity is not and cannot be negotiable, which is absolutely true. But what he did not tell us is that the name change automatically leads to identity change: that we need to build a European identity (something that Wohlers repeated in December 2013 in Tetovo!); that Macedonians should learn Albanian (for personal benefit!)… He did not mention that the Albanians need to learn Macedonian! The Albanians have no need to become more “secure”, as per Reeker’s advice to the Macedonians. They are, of course, protected by the Americans...

This interview is a kind of summary of American policy implemented in Macedonia after 2008.

21.2. “I believe it is possible to have a solution relatively quickly ... focus on what needs to be done and that is finding A NAME FOR INTERNATIONAL USE, to which both sides would agree.” (“Nova Makedonija”, January 18, 2010)

This is the biggest scam, trap and hook for Macedonia. …give us a name for home use and rename us, or erga omnes, for outside which can never be achieved. But if it is done with our consent for external use, it will not be long before it becomes erga omnes for all! We may conclude that the Americans want us to choose a name for international use to which Greece will agree!? Why should Greece be Macedonia’s godfather?

21.3. “This is a very important spring for Macedonia; the name issue should be resolved in the next few months.” (“Nova Makedonija”, March 4, 2010)

No pressure here!

21.4. According to “Dnevnik” (“Public to help government with the name issue”, August 30, 2010) Reeker said: “I think the public should stand up and take responsibility and become interested in the issues, listen to what people have to say.”