Introduction - Part 10

This was probably the starting point of the idea for public debate, which was the topic in the summer of 2013. The idea here was to create more confusion and bring Macedonia closer to capitulation. Reeker took over three years to turn this into a project.

21.5. “I hope you don’t have to spend another two and a half years to come up with a solution to the name issue, which is a condition for receiving your invitation for NATO membership. Macedonia has met the criteria and the country will be given an invitation as soon as the name issue with Greece is resolved. We are disappointed that it is still not resolved. However, the responsibility to find a final solution lies with your leaders and with the people of Macedonia.” (“Nova Makedonija”, November 23, 2010)

No doubt everything depends on us! Reeker opened the cards: Greece has no role here! Nor responsibility for not having a solution! The manager (U.S) knows who needs to capitulate…

21.6. In an interview with “Nova Makedonija” (“If it was up to the United States, the name would have been resolved,” March 26, 2011), Reeker said:

“It is not important to think about the past or the present, but to think of forming a strategy for the future.”

“We have not seen any real discussion taking place about what is acceptable to you, we have heard more about what is not.”

The first quote is part of the constant American deception and fog about the future which requires us to sacrifice our past and present. The second quote is true, but Reeker’s intention is not for Macedonia to come closer to a solution but to start auctioning. When we say what is acceptable to us it will immediately be only the starting point for new concessions. That is the simplest diplomatic technique. Again, Reeker insists on “public debate” about our name!

21.7. “Not to prejudge the decision of the International Court of Justice but the basic situation with NATO is still the same: NATO very clearly stated on numerous occasions and repeatedly that Macedonia will only receive an invitation to join NATO when it resolves the name issue!” (“Dnevnik”, December 3, 2011)

And some “experts” constantly claim that it is the Greeks who are blocking and blackmailing us for NATO membership!?

21.8. “The International Court of Justice has delivered its opinion concerning the dispute between Greece and Macedonia. We hope that both sides take this opinion and resolve the problem. NATO’s position has not changed, which means that after you solve the name dispute, regardless of how you decide to settle it, Macedonia will advance into NATO!”

“We can help, but we cannot make the difficult decisions on your behalf. These are the very things that you have to do!” (“Nova Makedonija”, January 10, 2012)

Our journalists (let alone politicians) never asked Reeker “since when do courts deliver “opinions” and not judgments?” Second, he is clearly saying that the NATO alliance is blocking us! Third, the qualification that “it is us that needs to make the hard decisions” and not Greece, has revealed American intentions. When you are forced to sacrifice something important or precious it is really a tough decision! Normally, Greece is again out of the game!

21.9. “We have offered ideas and the UN is leading a process and would like to come to a solution. If you truly want to go back in history, THE MACEDONIAN QUESTION HAS PLAGUED NOT ONLY THE PEOPLE IN THE REGION BUT ALSO IN WIDER EUROPE. We believe we have the answer to that question, with the current structure and existing boundaries. That is the answer.” (“Dnevnik”, March 29, 2012)

This is an extremely important statement. It is crucial that Reeker, perhaps for the first time, has associated the “name dispute” with the “Macedonian Question”. If it was truly troubling both the people in the region and Europe, as he said, then the Americans are right in trying to shut it down! Is Reeker accidentally showing the roots of the dispute? What did he mean by saying – “we have the answer to that question”? Did he mean – extinction of the Macedonians? Or, why are they constantly pushing us to “agree” with Greece, when they have the answer – there will never be an agreement with Greece unless we are willing to self destruct? Finally, he precisely confirms that the key to the case is in their hand and that Greece is only – extra!

21.10. “Reconciliation is never easy.” (“Dnevnik”, August 23, 2012)

This is how Reeker justified Defense Minister Fatmir Besimi’s unauthorized and secret visit to an NLA monument in Slupchane.

22. Paul Wohlers, current U.S. ambassador to Skopje (2011 - ), is not as aggressive as his predecessor Reeker and gives the impression that he is more sincere and restrained. Wohlers:

22.1 “This is an issue which goes beyond the name, it is about identity.” (“Nova Makedonija”, July 20, 2011)

Wohlers said this while being questioned in Congress, during the confirmation of his nomination as ambassador to Macedonia. And he was right. But what can we do, when Reeker and the others are trying to convince us otherwise, all the time?

22.2. “Greece is going through major political and economic changes and until that process is over it will complicate the progress of other proceedings, not just the name issue.” (“Dnevnik”, November 9, 2011)

If that is the case, and it surely is, why then is the United States insisting almost daily on a quick solution? Is this not pure manipulation and a lie?

22.3. “No institution has the right to tell NATO who to accept and who not to when it comes to membership.” Wohlers, according to “Nova Makedonija” of March 19, 2012, was angry when he said this.

This says it all: NATO is blocking Macedonia, not Greece.

22.4. “You, as citizens of Macedonia, have to decide how to define yourselves and based on what values. You cannot be defined by ethnicity, which is different, nor by faith, which also differs, or by culture, which is similar but not the same.” Wohlers then added: “Some people are trying to create an identity by returning far back in history, but as I said in my speech, it is a dangerous way to create an identity that way because some people may be left out. I think many people in this country feel left out by taking this path. This is why shared values are much better and more important for the future and we should all participate in that debate!?” (“Dnevnik”, November 27, 2013)

At a lecture in Tetovo at the “Stoel” University, Wohlers fully exposed his cards regarding U.S. policy towards Macedonia. He treated the Macedonian people like they were an impersonal object or an amorphous heap which needed renaming. He wanted erasure of Macedonia and the Macedonian people through “public debate”. There can be no more direct appeal to annihilate the Macedonian people. This is the real policy the U.S. has been leading for over 20 years towards Macedonia.

* * *

23. Analyzing statements made by Reeker and comparing them with those of his predecessors in Skopje, ambassadors Aenik, Butler and Milovanovic, we find a striking difference. Reeker’s predecessors never publicly mentioned the name issue. They never asked Macedonia to change the name, to take heavy decisions... to accept capitulation. There was not a single attempt to change our identity, language…

Based on the facts presented we can conclude that America’s policy towards Macedonia brought the dramatic change at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008 regarding its membership. There, through blockade, the doors were closed to NATO (and the EU) for our country, with a parallel imposition of blackmail and an ultimatum - “First the name, then membership!”

It was exactly at the same time, in 2008, when Ambassador Reeker came to Skopje and persistently and aggressively started to implement the new American policy. No space was left for any other solution except total destruction of Macedonia and the Macedonians.

After Bucharest in 2008, all U.S. officials began to sing the same new song... “First the name, then membership!”

If Greece was truly responsible for NATO’s (and the EU’s) policy turnaround in 2008, then why were U.S. officials, all quoted above, so active in pressuring Macedonia to change the name, to make “tough” decisions, to be “brave” and “quickly”, in a few months, to solve the problem...?

Did they do all these things to make Greece happy? Please… let us not be so naïve...

23.1. After Bucharest in 2008, having experienced stagnation and defeat over this issue for the previous 15 years, Washington decided to grab all the strings in its own hands in order to bring a quick solution to the “Macedonian Question”. Once and for all!

* * *

24. Finally, some relevant information that showed interference in Macedonian affairs by foreign diplomats (mostly Ambassadors):

24.1. Zhernovski, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (“Publika”, supplement to “Dnevnik”, March 24, 2012), said:

“Perhaps I shouldn’t say more than is needed, but the first time I heard the idea of a wider joint front against this government was from the international representatives.”

24.2. According to “Nova Makedonija” on June 3, 2010, “The Albanian parties cannot unite, even though foreign diplomats have suggested to them to form a common platform.” The article also said that Selmani, former leader of New Democracy, had written invitations to the DUI and DPA leaders to “unite” in order to resolve outstanding Albanian issues!

Against whom were these Albanians leaders expected to “unite”?

24.3. Vladimir Milchin, executive director of the Soros “Open Society Institute” Foundation, according to “Dnevnik” on August 30, 2010, said that foreign diplomats had tested the option of having a referendum without support from the government!

We might only guess which diplomats suggested a common platform or a wider Albanian front against the Macedonian government, or assign a referendum... They must be from Malta or Senegal... What do you think? Who else would have the interest and would dare to unscrupulously interfere in our affairs?

* * *

At the end, a little “chanson”: “Dnevnik” on October 25, 2012, wrote about the case of the American named Candy Dunlap, who was arrested at the airport in Petrovac on September 28, 2012. Found on her were about 256 ancient coins, two pendants of lead and bronze and a few other items of archaeological value, all priceless. She stayed in Macedonia for only six days and her visit was “humanitarian” in nature, or more precisely, she was here on a “medical” mission. At her trial she claimed that the villagers of Krivolak, Seltse and Lozovo in Shtip Region, in appreciation for her “medical services” gave her the items and that they were only souvenirs!? She thought the coins were buttons!? The court found that she had no permission to provide “medical services” and no written documentation that showed that she was with a humanitarian mission...

It was quite clear that a dangerous swindler and smuggler had been caught. She must have belonged to an organized smuggling ring, stealing our cultural heritage.

What do you think, dear readers, how many years of jail was our dear guest Candy given?

Candy received no time in jail! All she got was a suspended sentence of two years and banishment! Practically, she was found not guilty, like it was some sort of joke. Due to “mitigating circumstances” i.e. being a stranger, a family woman, a mother of six children who has an obligation to take care of them, she was set free to go...!? What kind of message did we send to would be thieves? We will just apologize to you for the inconvenience and send you back home!?

Candy was caught, but how many Americans (and others!), here on “humanitarian” missions, have gotten away with our stolen treasures?

And let us be objective here: do you believe that this court misery and shame was possible without direct interference of the American Embassy in Skopje? Can you imagine that their consuls (and Ambassador!) were enjoying life until a U.S. citizen was on a trial in a country with no name, called by its people -Macedonia? It is simply – impossible.

Nevertheless, it is entirely our fault. We are responsible for making our country a laughing matter.

For a similar crime in the U.S. a Macedonian would be made to sit on the electric chair?

Rightly so!

XI - Closing Remarks

1. It is truly sad and inexcusable that, 20 years later, we still don’t know the reasons of such unacceptable, unchallenged U.S. policy towards Macedonia? Why they reopened the “Macedonian Question”? Why did they do nothing to stop the illegal Greek blockade of our border that lasted almost 2 years destroying Macedonia’s economy? Why did they keep silent? Why didn’t Washington intervene when the European Commission ignored the so-called “Badinter Commission’s” recommendation for Macedonia’s recognition and strongly supported Bosnia and Herzegovina even though it did not meet minimum conditions for recognition? And why they tolerated the 1992 EC’s Lisbon Declaration, prohibiting us to use the word/name Macedonia?

We can conclude through arguments that all these years the United States has done nothing positive or in favour of Macedonia. Perhaps the only exception was in the beginning of the 1990’s when it sent UNPREDEP troops, demonstrating a kind of interest for Macedonia. Unfortunately that too, again and above all, was done for its own (and Albanian) interests. The aim then was to prevent Milosevich from invading and occupying Macedonia and not to strengthen the security of our country. There is nothing else positive.

1.1. A survey of U.S. policy towards Macedonia could have been taken a long time ago. It made no sense to have left Macedonia in the lurch after it had done everything in its power, unique among the ex- republics, to secede from Yugoslavia peacefully. Why was Macedonia not rewarded politically and economically for its constructive behaviour? Then, in 2008 in Bucharest, why did they permit, if not organize, the total turnaround concerning Macedonia leading to her blockade, blackmail and ultimatum – “First the name, then membership”?

1.2. Let us put the question in a different way: what mistakes did Macedonia make to provoke such policies towards it? In Serbia’s case Milosevich, no doubt, brought U.S. wrath upon himself for the way he behaved in the region. But what did Macedonia do? The answer is simple: No matter what Macedonia did or would have done any differently, nothing would have mattered. The outcome would have been the same or similar because the United States had made up its mind a long time ago about what to do in the region and how to go about achieving its goals. Unfortunately for us, Macedonia and the Macedonian people stood in America’s way and they needed to be removed. At issue here is not what Macedonia did or did not do, but what the U.S. wanted to do with regards to its regional geopolitical interests.

2. It is however never too late to effect change, despite the long time lapse. One of the first attempts to be made is to assess the American policies implemented in Macedonia since the breakup of Yugoslavia. The idea here is to inspire today’s Americans to do a more in-depth analysis of what was done in order to pinpoint mistakes made in drafting the U.S. Balkan policy. Were these mistakes made at the State Department or at other relevant institutions is not important. Wherever they were made they need to be reviewed and revised. The Americans need to be guided to face the real situation in Macedonia and in the region, as seen from local objectives and aspects and not from global. It is, in fact, in their interest to understand us better. Pragmatism, which was and remains their strong suit, must prevail in this situation.

3. The findings presented, conclusions reached and opinions given in this write-up are all based on facts, but we have to admit that further research is required for a final conclusion. This needs to be done in order to put all the pieces of the puzzle together and uncover the entire U.S. strategy and policy towards Macedonia and the wider region. It is always possible to make mistakes in politics because you cannot always foresee the real intentions. Sometimes there are hidden goals that cannot be easily detected and can lead to wrong conclusions. And our study here is not excluded. Unfortunately, thanks to all available elements, our judgments are generally correct and speak the truth.

4. We have already explained that U.S. policy toward Macedonia is part of American interests in the Balkans, which are to be realized through the Albanian factor. This inevitably puts into question Macedonia’s territorial integrity. Serbia’s territorial integrity was compromised when Kosovo was separated and made into an Albanian state. Albanian appetites, openly supported by the United States, however, cannot be satisfied without part of Macedonia’s territory. This process is already advanced and in many ways irreversible.

4.1. As a tradition, the Americans do not trust the Slav people in the Balkans. At the same time, most probably they consider the Macedonians as problematic because of their disunity and permanent and traditional mutual confrontations. As such they cannot guarantee stability, security and prosperity for the country and cannot be a solid partner for the U.S., for example. That is why they are building a partnership with the Albanians. There is also the fact that all Albanians have shown loyalty to the U.S. and a willingness to meet all their requirements to the maximum if they are given the opportunity to decisively solve their own national question.

4.1.1. On the other hand, all neighbours have problems with Macedonia and with the Macedonians! Not vice versa! Maybe it looks strange but the fault lies with them not with us. Except maybe for the fact that we are here, that we exist on this territory and that we are what we are. Apart from defending ourselves from outside aggression and aspirations, we have not committed acts of unfriendliness towards our neighbours. Nevertheless, the result is extremely bad: for many, Macedonia is a direct obstacle for the stabilization of the region and for the solution of a nice part of the open questions. This is our historical heritage with which we have to live.

Macedonia has only developed a kind of “defensive instinct” because it has often been the victim of foreign intrigues.

The reason for the situation that Macedonia has been in for a century at least may be summarized by the words of former Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pasich (1945 – 1926) who, according to Iambev Mikhail Leonidovich (“The armed conflict in Macedonia in 2001 and the development of the political situation in the country”), said: “History has shown that he who had Macedonia was always first in the Balkans.”

4.2. From what we have seen, the Albanian leaders in Macedonia have a serious role in the implementation of U.S. policy in the Balkans. Everything started with the 2001 war when, by armed force, new, radical Albanian leaders were brought into Macedonia. If then, in 2001, Ahmeti and his NLA were American protégés implementing their regional interests and policies, and that is a fact, why would they behave differently today? Why would they now ignore American aspirations in our country and the region? Could Ahmeti and his commanders turn their backs on the U.S. today after all that the Americans have done for them including bringing Ahmeti to power? How can they forget their patrons who conceived and organized the 2001 war (also because of their own interests) in favour of the Albanian cause, through which they made inconceivable gains? There is no objective reason to do so. On the contrary!

4.3. There should be no doubt that the cooperation and coordination that was started in 2001 has continued at its full capacity in all kinds of circumstances to this day. So we openly need to ask: Is it possible that the evident lack of loyalty towards Macedonia, so often manifested by the Albanian leaders, even quite openly lately, is done with American blessings? Or are they stimulated to play the role of a Trojan horse, on account of the Macedonians? The answers are clear.

4.4. It is like that because the natural enemy to both Americans and Albanians for finalization of their common “Greater Albania” project is – Macedonia! Only at the expense of Macedonia can they finish what they started in Kosovo in 1999 and continued in Macedonia in 2001, as it was precisely formulated in the first five announcements of the NLA.

Now let us have a look at the latest facts that confirm the above:

- Defense Minister Fatmir Besimi, accompanied by several uniformed officers from his Office, along with the Deputy Prime Minister and a number of government and party people including some DUI functionaries, all Albanians attended an unauthorized and illegal function where they stood before a monument in Slupchane and paid tribute to the dead NLA fighters. Besimi claimed that it was an act of reconciliation. U.S. Ambassador Paul Wohlers immediately backed the minister publicly and used the same words, thus justifying the incident. The same was repeated by Reeker who said he “welcomed Besimi’s message of reconciliation which was not easy to do”;

- In the beginning of the 2012 school year, the Albanian national anthem, instead of the Macedonian, was played in several elementary schools and at the Tetovo University. (“The prosecutor threatened but the anthem echoed on”, “Dnevnik”, September 21, 2012). Wohlers was unresponsive despite the deep dissatisfaction reported by the media;

- The Deputy Prime Minister Musa Xhaferi gave a speech at the “John Hopkins” University in the United States concluding that Macedonia’s future lies in federalization (“Integrating the Shadow of Federalism”, “Gragianski”, October 13, 2012). There was not a word from the U.S. even though Xhaferi had been invited by the Americans to make the speech. And here we thought that the United States had guaranteed our state’s unitary character through the Ohrid Agreement. Does that mean that the Ohrid Agreement is going to go by the way of the Interim Accord which guaranteed that Greece would not impede our way into NATO and the EU? The Ohrid Agreement was “prepared” in the same manner as the Interim Accord. Its treatment shows that the U.S. cares about no agreements that are not in favour of its interests. When the Ohrid Agreement becomes “favourable” for Macedonia then it will be ignored just as the Interim Accord was. Why should we believe that it is any different?

- The same Musa Xhaferi initiated holding a “National Congress of Albanian Mayors from Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo and Montenegro”!? (“Musa Xhaferi gathers Balkan Albanian mayors”, “Nova Makedonija”, January 30, 2012). We could only ask – what for?

- The Chair Municipality in Skopje illegally renamed some schools using the names of fallen NLA fighters. Wohlers, of course, said nothing and did nothing. This is more proof that

albanization of Macedonian territories started with plan “B”, officially called the Ohrid Agreement;

- Former Ambassador Reeker, along with a number of top Albanian politicians, was present during an Albanian nationalist rampage at a basketball game. There was no reaction from any of them. No one did anything to stop it. They just witnessed and maybe enjoyed the Albanian nationalistic hysteria;

- During a ceremony at the Military Academy, Defense Minister Besimi addressed the cadets in Albanian even though Chief of Staff Koteski warned him that the official language in Macedonia was Macedonian. (“Besimi spoke to the cadets in Albanian”, “Nova Makedonija”, October 2, 2012);

- Bekim Fazliu, DPA Albanian party candidate for mayor of Skopje, said: “After our victory we will not allow the song ‘Makedonsko Devoiche’ to be sung in Albanian settlements” inside Macedonia! (“Republika”, December 7, 2012);

- Ziadin Zela, DPA Albanian party candidate for mayor of Struga said: “Vote en masse to show that Struga is in fact an Albanian town!” (“Republika”, April 12, 2013);

- Here are a few statements made by DPA leader Thachi:

“Macedonia is an artificial country, a ‘state experiment’, and it would be good if all Albanians lived in one country!” (“Ours and Kosovo’s Thachi are in line for a Greater Albania”, “Dnevnik”, March 19, 2012);

Thachi called on “Albania and Kosovo to stop the violence against the Albanians in Macedonia.” (“Thachi seeks international intervention”, “Dnevnik”, March 10, 2012); In an interview for “Dnevnik” (“The Tetovo Albanians are traitors because they voted for Ahmeti”, May 17, 2013) Thachi said: “Let’s be honest. We do not want to live in Macedonia; we want to live in another country. But they openly told us that there is no such dream!” (This may seem contradictory but it is not. First, who do you think told them that? Iceland or Norway?! Second, from our analysis it is clear that Washington’s aim is to break up Macedonia from the inside. So the dream remains alive, but it may take slightly longer than expected to achieve it. However, the plan will be achieved in different ways than imagined in 2001. Armed changes of the borders became too risky.).

- During Albania’s 100th anniversary celebration, a monument of Adem Jashari was uncovered in Radusha. Adem Jashari was a member of the KLA in Kosovo and had nothing to do with Macedonia (“Adem Jashari rose in Radusha”, “Dnevnik”, November 19, 2012)

- Berisha initiated the formation of a national soccer league of Albanian clubs in the Balkan countries. It was supported by a “civil” movement in Macedonia called “Awaken”. (“Albanian soccer league is marketing propaganda for Berisha”, “Dnevnik”, January 8, 2013)

The above examples and many others have shown the real face of American politics as well as their relations with local politicians. They support all steps taken by the Albanians that are undermining and destroying our country... At the same time they are signing documents in which the Macedonian language becomes a “state” language...

There are too many “occurrences” and “coincidences” to be ignored and for us to continue to remain naïve and blind.

4.5. When world renowned Albanian writer Ismail Kadare was accused by the press of being a willing anti-Vlach and even a racist, he immediately reacted with a response in the “Shekulli”, published on November 10, 2003, in which he deemed this to be a “vulgar provocation” and reminded everyone to respect all ethnic minorities in accordance with basic European principles. He also stressed that “loyalty to the country where minorities live is necessary and, if it is absent, people need to ring the alarm bells.”

Unfortunately in Macedonia no one has taken Kadare’s “advice” to heart.

5. On the other hand, in addition to the pro-Albanian policy, Washington is aggressively pressing us to negotiate a name solution with Greece, not specifying what constitutes an acceptable solution. Washington knows better than anybody else that the Greek problem is not the name but the existence of the Macedonian nation, which they would like to eliminate. If the Americans already know that, and there should be no doubt that they know it perfectly, then why are they pretending that the problem is not of any great importance? When the question for the Macedonians is practically – to be or not to be? In all their moves, the Americans have completely and consistently supported Greece. Why? While setting ultimatums for Macedonia, so far Washington has never set any condition for Athens. If Washington is truly seeking a solution why has it not made it clear to Greece that it must not demand the impossible?

5.1. The aggressive U.S. insistence that we negotiate with Greece, especially in recent years, is more proof of their real policy towards Macedonia. Washington is undoubtedly also aware that, while Greece is in a deep crisis, no agreement is possible. This was also admitted by Ambassador Wohlers in Skopje, as mentioned before.

If there is no space for a solution that would be minimally acceptable to Macedonia, and there will not be, then the aim of the all United States actions can only be – for Macedonia to capitulate! If someone forces you to take poison, surely they are not wishing you good health.

5.2. Washington knows that the problem is completely asymmetric. The core of it is Greece’s (and the U.S.!), but the consequences are exclusively - Macedonia’s. Here, perhaps, lies our greatest handicap. No matter what we do, we pay the price. Everything falls on Macedonia’s shoulders. That is why no one understands the problem, and blames Macedonia for it.

However, in the end, if there is any justice left in the world, if there is any political accountability and fairness, if there are any principles left and if democracy works... the solution to this problem must also be asymmetrical. Only such a solution can be permanent and lasting without new earthquakes to follow. That is the only way that Macedonia can be saved. Abraham Lincoln once said: “Nothing is completely finished if not resolved fairly!”

5.2.1. Creating the “name problem” did not reflect negatively on Greece, or anyone else. It was used against the fundamental interests of the Macedonian people and their state (UN, NATO, EU...). Thanks to the “name dispute”, Macedonia was left without a full legal international identity; its euro-Atlantic integration was blocked… thus causing our people economic, social and political suffering and further undermining inter-ethnic relations… which were already vulnerable enough...

At the same time, even if Macedonia keeps its historical and constitutional name intact, there will be no consequences for Greece. In other words, Athens has nothing to lose apart from the fact that it unnecessarily wasted a lot of energy and money in the last 20 years or so...

5.2.2. Greece’s initial accusations (1991/1992/1993) that the name “Macedonia” implied irredentism and threatened Greece’s territorial integrity proved to be completely wrong and unsustainable as an argument. Here we are, over 20 years later and nothing has happened. And these were not just ordinary years. All these years Macedonia had been a victim of Greek psychological torment, cold and calculating roadblocks and an endless anti-Macedonian propaganda war; Greek aggression that brought the Macedonian people immeasurable harm. And yet, Macedonia did not retaliate! So if Macedonia did “nothing” to Greece during these 20 or so turbulent years, when will it do it?

Let us one more time mention the EC’s “Badinter Commission”, mentioned a few times earlier in this write-up, which concluded that our name Macedonia in no way has threatened Greece.

6. So that there is no confusion, we must underline that publicly and verbally the Americans are strongly in support of Macedonia’s membership in NATO (and the EU). Unfortunately this turned out to be empty, useless and worthless because it is conditional. The fact is that the U.S. wants to see Macedonia in NATO but - renamed! And the U.S. does not hide that fact. And our response should be loud and clear - NO THANK YOU!!! Please, we beg you; don’t give us your support under such conditions. We don’t want to commit suicide; it is not an option for us. The price set for joining is too high and no normal person in Macedonia will accept it.

Hillary Clinton, according to the magazine “Republika”, November 9, 2012, said: “Everyone wants to see you in NATO as soon as possible and we sincerely hope that the obstacle will be removed (the obstacle for Mrs. Clinton is that we are Macedonians) as soon as possible and a practical and fair solution (she was probably thinking in accordance with the Greek erga omnes ultimatum?) for the name can be found. We are ready to help” (surely with a list of possible new names!)!

According to a friend, Mrs. Clinton is telling us “if my grandmother was the British Queen, I would be a princess”. But then she concludes that “the trouble is that I am not!”

7. The Americans have insisted that we change our country’s name, arguing that it will not compromise the national identity of our people. However, Ambassador Wohlers, before taking office in Skopje, during a talk with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (professionally called “crosstalk” ahead of confirming an office), said: “This is more than a name. This is a question of identity!” (“Wohlers: Dispute and the question of identity”, “Nova Makedonija”, July 15, 2011)

Wohlers was absolutely right: there is no identity without a name!

7.1. The brilliant American analyst and journalist Jason Miko wrote about this American “hypocrisy” in his column entitled “Esoteric concepts of identity” (“Dnevnik”, October 25, 2012). He quoted Ambassador Philip Reeker who, when asked a question on October 19, 2012 at the State Department, replied: “…‘compromise’ is not a bad word and does not include ‘esoteric’ concepts such as identity or anything else…”

Miko said and proved that the expression “esoteric” is senseless and “when someone tells you that your identity is ‘esoteric’ it is an insult”.

Miko also provided his comment regarding a statement made by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon, for “Al Jazeera” in July 2012, when he said that once the problem with the name is solved: “The people will stop being obsessed with it...” Miko said the word “obsessed” is a strong word and “Gordon is trying to belittle the Macedonian people, while his own name and identity are sacred…”

8. From what we have presented in this write-up we can conclude that the U.S. is leading a long-term accurate, consistent and resolute regional policy in the Balkans which, so far, has worked against fundamental Macedonian interests and has threatened Macedonia and the Macedonian people’s existence. There is no real basis to believe that this policy will be ending with some positive surprise for Macedonia. It would be naïve to have such expectations. If the U.S. unleashed a real war against Macedonia in 2001 in order to achieve its objectives how can it suddenly change its policies after all that happened in the last 20 and more years?

What the Americans are doing in Macedonia is an integral part of their regional policy that relies on the implementation of the “Greater Albania” project, which is evidently being implemented.

9. America’s treatment of Macedonia, during the toughest years of its history, judging from all the cited facts, cannot be called -friendly. To also call the U.S. “our partner” or as some say in Macedonia - “our strategic partner” is absolutely wrong, inappropriate and far from the truth and even harmful for the country. America’s overall long-term policy is to sacrifice Macedonia for America’s greater good! 10. There is no doubt that the U.S. is a dominant factor in world politics and will remain as such in the foreseeable future. The U.S. is the chief arbiter in the Balkans as well. At the same time it can be said, without doubt, that Macedonia’s future is entirely in Washington’s hands. Washington is the key that can also open different perspectives for Macedonia. So far, the treatment of our name symbolizes exactly how Washington feels about Macedonia.

11. It must be clear that without the smallest respect from America towards Macedonian aspirations, it will be very difficult for us to succeed. So we need to do everything we can to gain that respect because all roads lead through Washington. We must also not leave out Moscow, Beijing, London, Berlin, Paris and Rome when seeking support for the survival of Macedonia and the Macedonian people. A possible positive reaction from any one of these capitals can influence Washington into becoming a bit more flexible towards us. Athens plays no important role in all this.

We have lost a lot of time and made some serious mistakes but there are still salvation opportunities. It depends on our wisdom and readiness to defend ourselves. Not if we continue like before...

12. There is still room to seek ways and opportunities that would lead to change in the current U.S. policy towards Macedonia. At least concerning the survival of the Macedonian people and our country. We must keep trying, either through direct dialogue or through other channels, to open all American cards for the region and Macedonia. To face all their options. This should be first and main task of our Embassy in Washington.

12.1. The very first move that we need to make must be made at home. It is high time that we re-energize our relations with the United States by using correct terms. Without taking proper steps we will end up going around in circles, with no prospects for progress. The question for us is “to be or not to be” which requires some serious thinking and immediate action. Therefore it is imperative to figure out exactly what the American interests are in and around our country.

12.2. The most efficient way to accomplish this is to formulate a memo which will crystallize America’s positions on many issues of concern relating to Macedonia, even those that have an air of interference in our internal affairs. There should be no problem because the U.S. is already deeply involved in that particular segment of our affairs through the Ohrid Agreement. We need to survey the U.S. and get some straight answers as to what exactly they are looking for with regards to: a) the name of our country, b) the identity of our people c) the Macedonian language and its role in our country, d) the unitary character of our country e) the Albanian position in our country and the extent of use of the Albanian language..., f) our entry into NATO and the EU (in real terms not if…), g) Greek aspirations towards Macedonia, h) Bulgarian aspirations towards our language and people, h) The “Greater Albania” project…

In the document it must be stressed that the Macedonian language must be learned and used by all citizens from the earliest age, in order to be a unifying and cohesive factor of the state.

We need to draft such a document as soon as possible, without delay. As we can easily guess, their initial response might be negative but we must not give up and think that we have done our part. It is we who need them… not the other way around… Persist and we will prevail. For us it is crucial to open a dialogue and put all open questions on the table, as they are from our point of view. That is the way that Macedonia can survive. To succeed, we must definitely remove our heads from the sand.

12.3. If we fail with direct contact, then we will have no other choice but to give publicity to our points, facts and arguments concerning the American policy towards Macedonia. If we don’t show them that we are serious, our chances for success are - zero. Remember what happened in Vietnam. Dedicated but unarmed people won over the world superpower.

The wise Confucius (551-479 BC) once said: “You cannot make joint plans with people who aspire to different aims”! Of course this also applies to countries!

12.4. Once we discover their true intentions we will be able to reason with them as well as seek broader international support for our universally recognized rights.

By knowing exactly what they want from us we can then formulate appropriate policies to deal with the situation realistically and look for ways to get us out of this impasse. Only then, can we start to defend the legitimate rights of the Macedonian people. But until we face the real American plans and goals, we stay in a vicious circle. Once we come face to face with the actual American interests, we will be able to deal with them accordingly – a) to try to become part of them and b) to try to achieve at least a minimum acceptance of the Macedonian legal and universal aspirations.

13. We have enough arguments but they are worthless unless we use them at the right time and in the right place. With much hard work our final aim should be to obtain American support of our views. This is not impossible…

14. The final outcome of the post Yugoslav crisis is still ahead and Macedonia can easily be its main victim. Most probably that is why we have been kept so long neither in the skies nor on the ground. The aim is for Macedonia to stay vulnerable as long as possible, to be available for any risky and dangerous solutions that can completely jeopardize its future.

There are no objective prospects in sight for a sustainable stabilization of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Just the opposite – the centrifugal forces there are more and more dominant and the survival of this federal state is seriously challenged.

Kosovo too, as the new Albanian state, is not likely to sail in calmer waters in the near future and fully establish itself on the international stage. Joining the UN seems unattainable and thus the story remains untold. The fact that five EU member states are not willing to recognize Kosovo means that the EU approach will be limited at best. There are serious challenges for Kosovo, one of which is Serbia’s refusal to recognize it, which does not bode well for its future. The agreement between Dachich and Tachi (2013) is a significant step that will somewhat ease tensions between Belgrade and Prishtina but will not solve their problems.

It would be difficult for Kosovo to join the UN, if not impossible, because both Moscow and Beijing oppose it and have veto power in the Security Council. They have serious reasons for not giving the green light to Kosovo’s precedent.

At the same time, Kosovo will probably get a Stabilization and Association Agreement with the EU without membership. U.S. aid will undoubtedly continue but the question is whether it will be enough for its sustainable development? Status-quo can last for decades, which could lead to increased crime, which will have consequences for the entire region including Macedonia.

15. One more thesis deserves exploring. Do you really think that the U.S. wants to fully settle all the problems in the Balkans? If that happens Washington will lose its role and its services will become unnecessary. The EU, with its economic programs, will become the major factor in the region. There is no argument that such development is acceptable to the United States. Especially when we know that there is serious speculation that Russia is coming back in the Balkans. This is unacceptable to Washington and that is the best guarantee that it is going to stay in the region.

15.1. The Americans invested quite a bit in the Balkans and it will not be easy for them to withdraw. They created Kosovo as a new state, built the Bonsteel military base and a huge embassy in Skopje… The period when the region was at the top of American political commitment, because of the wars that were under way, is over and that is positive. We have to be happy as well because there are no indications for new arms confrontations. Today the Americans are concentrating on problems in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt... and that is normal and logical. Nevertheless, the American interest and presence in the region is permanent. This

is important for all Balkan countries and especially for Macedonia.