Introduction - Part 08

17. In Macedonia there was speculation that the government, in collusion with President Tsrvenkovski, did not play well in Bucharest. That Bush was left in the lurch, by not giving him a chance to help us because our people did not come out with a clear position on Nimetz’s latest proposal (“Republic of Macedonia – Skopje”). Unfortunately, all these accusations are baseless because Macedonia had no role in the “high politics” played in Bucharest. It was a play for foreign ideas, plans and interests. So, no matter what our position was the outcome would have been the same... Nimetz’s proposal was unacceptable to Athens and thus the U.S. did not permit Macedonia’s entry into NATO with the reference. Our officials were powerless to change anything. The decisions had already been made in advance.

17.1. A higher level of manipulation was in fact staged in Bucharest to prevent Macedonia’s full integration into the international community. In the UN admission Macedonia was seriously handicapped. Its name was illegally suspended and a reference was imposed. There is only one reason for this: to rename the state and the people. Since attempts to change the name thus far had failed, NATO began to use pressure (blockade, blackmail…) in Bucharest to achieve the American aim. This was done by the same countries that had already impeded Macedonia in the UN. In both cases Macedonia was a victim of secret and illegal policies with no chance of influencing the outcome.

The first time international rules were ignored, with regard to Macedonia, was in 1993 in New York. The first “victim” of abuse was the UN Charter of Rights. The Charter of Rights was ignored in order to “depersonalize” Macedonia.

In 2008 in Bucharest, at the NATO summit, the Interim Accord was ignored because it turned out that it had some favourable items for Macedonia.

17.2. Aside from Macedonia, another collateral victim in Bucharest was President Bush, who showed support for Macedonia. After the Summit, Bush invited Tsrvenkovski and Gruevski for a meeting in Zagreb, where he was visiting. After that, on his initiative, the two countries signed a Memorandum of Security and Cooperation in Washington. This is the best proof that our leaders did not make any wrong moves in Bucharest. These gestures were top honours for Macedonia. We got the special consolation prize!

D. The Hague verdict

18. After the Interim Accord was violated at the Bucharest Summit, Macedonia filed charges against Greece before the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Macedonia needed to take this case to court because it could not afford to sit idle and be bullied. Macedonia was quite surprised that the Court unanimously ruled it its favour. The Court clearly specified that

Greece was in breach of the Accord as it hindered Macedonia’s attempt to join NATO.

18.1. Unfortunately the verdict changed nothing. At first, Washington, followed by Brussels, vehemently opposed starting the Court application and later completely ignored the verdict. That, however, did not diminish its importance. The Court ruling is the strongest weapon in Macedonia’s hands. At the same time it weighs heavily on Washington and Brussels, even though they refuse to acknowledge it. After arranging Macedonia’s illegal admission to the UN, now they are again grossly violating the international legal system.

18.2. There was an article in “Dnevnik”, published on April 10, 2013, under the heading “Serbian to be or not to be” in which the following was written: “Gruevski spoke of having major disagreements and a fight with an ‘important ambassador’ who was angry because the Prime Minister did not accept his recommendation not to file a lawsuit at The Hague.” We are absolutely certain that that “important ambassador” was none other than Philip Reeker, American Ambassador to Macedonia. There should also be no doubt that had something more than a “recommendation” taken place, Reeker would have been very upset. Reeker was known to get into fits of uncontrolled rage when something was done against his will.

18.3. Washington finally tipped its hand concerning Macedonia, with the treatment of its intention to go to The Hague and after that by ignoring the verdict. These gestures definitely confirm that our opposition in the name dispute is not Greece but the U.S.A. We could see that Washington - a) had hidden intentions towards Macedonia, b) would not accept anything that did not fit with its plans, and c) not only managed but also fully controlled the so-called “name dispute”. We can clearly see that there is firm American determination to achieve goals, even at the expense of the Macedonian nation. Washington would not hesitate to violate the UN Charter of Rights, to ignore The Hague ruling or not to take into consideration obligations coming from the Interim Accord, an international agreement prepared just by them! Why else would the U.S. oppose The Hague verdict? 18.4. Looking at this from another angle: why would the United States oppose Macedonia going to The Hague and ignore the Court’s verdict? Because of Greece? Why were the Americans and not the Greeks telling us that we need to solve our problem through dialogue without use of a court? How can we have dialogue with Greece, a country that does not accept that we exist as a separate nation? In fact, how can such a dialogue even be possible with someone who does not respect its contractual obligations even after it was tried in court?

19. If the United States had no ulterior motives and was serious about helping Macedonia, it would have abided by international law. Unfortunately, as much as the United States likes to hide its true intentions, they are still calculatingly hostile and diametrically opposed to Macedonia’s interests. If American intentions were positive towards Macedonia, the United States would have had no logical reason to oppose The Hague verdict. And if the problem was in some U.S. obligations toward Greece then The Hague verdict would have been an excellent opportunity to say – we are very sorry but we must respect the judgment of the court!

20. What do you think, why does the United States, and all the other countries standing behind it, have qualify this problem to be a “political” one? The answer is simple – just to be able to use force in solving it! And, the problems are becoming “political” only in cases when the powerful are – not in the right! The “political problems” tend to be resolved by force, military or otherwise, through a revolution, through a dictatorship, by bombing (Belgrade, for example…), through a coup... Let us not fool ourselves, the world has always been and still is ruled through power. Democracy, diplomacy, etc., are devices designed to serve the powerful. The moment a ruling did not serve their purpose it was no longer valid; including The Hague verdict! If there was really the rule of law then all of us would have been equal, but we are not. That is a fact. The strong and wealthy are always “more equal” than the rest. This is how it was 100 years ago, this is how it is today and this is how it is going to be for a long, long time. There is no difference in what kind of society you live: socialist, capitalist… It is the same everywhere. The ordinary citizen was, is and always will be “less equal”.

21. NATO instantly ignoring The Hague verdict has given us further evidence that Washington, and not Brussels or Athens, was behind the Alliance’s negative attitude towards Macedonia. This was confirmed by NATO Secretary General, Rasmussen, who rejected the verdict just a few hours after it was released. He said it does not apply to or implicate NATO.

The Secretary-General had no mandate to decide about the matter himself. His reaction was possible because he must have been briefed well in advance or instructed on the fly just as the verdict came out – only by Washington. The Alliance could not have a common position because there was not enough time to consult the members! And even if an Alliance meeting was held, there would have been members who would have needed extra time to consult their headquarters. Would there have been a consensus on how to react? It seems certain that Washington wanted no controversy surrounding this issue and made a decision on its own. So in order to avoid any complications, Rasmussen was authorized to distance NATO from the verdict. The job was done and there was nothing more for the member states to say or do. Yet another stab with a knife at democracy…

22. In order to avoid any misunderstandings, let us explain that, formally, The Hague court has no legal authority over NATO. The Alliance is an international organization outside of the UN system and is not under the Court’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless that is only in principle. But, even though NATO acts independently, it still must respect international institutions, international agreements and documents and abide by codes of conduct, rules, principles and procedures... All these also apply to NATO because the Alliance is part of this same international legal order.

22.1. It is important to mention the fact that all NATO members are part of the UN and as such are bound by UN rules and must respect the UN Charter. No country can be admitted to the UN if it refuses to abide by it. UN member states and all UN organs, except for the Security Council, are also bound by the ruling of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Greece is even among 60 or so countries which has additionally committed itself in writing to respect the Court’s verdicts.

22.2. NATO is nothing without its members. Without members, there is no Alliance. NATO consists of countries that are also members of the UN and they all bring with them obligations, commitments and responsibilities already made within the UN. All that must be respected and implemented by NATO as well. NATO cannot ignore The Hague verdicts related to its members. It is a disregard of international law; a practice adhered to by terrorist organizations.

22.3. There are no practical reasons why NATO should ignore the UN obligations and international agreements of its members, especially The Hague verdicts. The Alliance must implement all of them. If this is not done then NATO is disregarding its doctrine and devaluing its international position.

22.4. It would have been different had the Court declared that there was some irregularity with Macedonia’s admission at the Bucharest Summit. Then both Washington and Brussels would have been right, The Hague could not have judged NATO’s actions. However Macedonia never asked for such a ruling and the Court did not follow that path. The Court found Greece guilty of breaching the Accord at a NATO Summit, meaning that the Alliance would have to accept, respect and implement the ruling. Athens received this verdict because of its behaviour at the NATO Summit in Bucharest; not at the Olympic Games in Peking!

22.5. NATO (and Washington) must respect the Court’s judgment even if it comes through member states and not directly from it. If it is not so, why then have Washington and Brussels tried so vehemently to deter Macedonia from initiating proceedings in The Hague? If the Court’s judgment had nothing to do with NATO and the EU, then why did they engage themselves in preventing it? NATO needs to build its policies by respecting the international obligations of its member states, otherwise the Alliance would be working outside of the law. 22.6. NATO should have respected the verdict against Greece and should not have allowed Greece to prevent Macedonia’s membership. If for example, a soccer player from the team “Peniarol” was banned from playing for a year by the Uruguay Football Federation, and if the same player then went to Athens and became a member of “Olympiakos”, a local Greek team, would he be able to immediately start playing for the new team before his sentence had expired?

Of course the soccer Federation of Uruguay, or of any other country, had no authority over the Greek Federation. However, the player, let’s call him Pedro Rodriguez, should not be allowed to play until his sentence expires. The Soccer Federation in Greece must respect the punishment. Such obligations are derived from the International legal codex. Otherwise the world would be thrown into chaos.

22.6.1. Here is another example: Could a Greek man who was married in Greece and moved, say to Germany, Russia, China, or Zimbabwe, marry someone in the new country before he had divorced his spouse in Greece?

Marriage has separate regulations in different countries and no legislation in one country has impact on another country. Yet Vassilakis, let’s call him that, would commit fraud if he were to ignore his present wife and re-marry without a divorce. This is a punishable offense.

So, if on an individual level, no matter where we are, we are obliged to honour our contractual obligations, then how can a country, a member of a serious international organization such as NATO, not do so?

22.6.2. Both examples given have shown that obligations undertaken in one place cannot be ignored in another. Their importance is valid everywhere, unless one happens to be living in a lawless and otherwise unregulated society. Refusal to assume responsibility is not only unacceptable, it is considered criminal behaviour. This also must apply, by all means, to Greece and to NATO... That is why Greece was found guilty by The Hague court. And let us not forget that the examples given here also illustrate how Athens, Brussels and Washington behaved towards the Interim Accord before The Hague judgment. It has been proven by the verdict delivered that their behaviour was indeed illegal… which should have been an embracing slap on their faces. Unfortunately they continued to function as if nothing had happened.

23. NATO’s consensus regarding Macedonia was again reaffirmed during the Chicago Summit in 2012, at a time when the entire Alliance was well-aware of The Hague verdict and Greece’s condemnation by it. On what legal grounds was this consensus reached for the entire Alliance to refuse Macedonia, yet again, from joining NATO? This is another confirmation that NATO is functioning by using force… Chicago confirmed yet again that the Americans care only for their own interests.

24. It is important at this point for us to mention that we all should be happy that Macedonia did not succumb to Washington and Brussels’ fierce pressure not to take Greece to The Hague. It is also important to recall that President Tsrvenkovski, was also against going to the court. What is interesting about this is that after The Hague verdict was announced the same people inside Macedonia ignored the judgment just like the Americans did (Andov called it a decision, or something else, but not a verdict). It is not realistic or logical to assume that those Macedonians, who refused to accept the verdict for what it was, did it without foreign influence. Whether it was politically motivated or purely lucrative for them, only time will tell. Is there anyone who can explain why they were against seeking justice for their own country after it had been exposed to so much injustice? Who were they vying for?

E. What happened further on with the Interim Accord and with Nimetz’s mediation?

25. Athens became a victim of the Interim Accord by being condemned by the International Court of Justice in The Hague for

its breach. The Interim Accord, if we recall, was a document drafted by the United States and imposed on Macedonia through blackmail and by hanging the crippling illegal blockade of the border over its head. So if the United States stood behind the “creation” and “execution” of the Interim Accord, then it surely is guilty of Greece’s condemnation! A lot of questions are opened. Why, for example, did American planners not foresee that the Interim Accord would not only become a bottleneck that would bring Greece international shame, but it would hurt American interests as well? To what extent were the American mistakes connected with their wrong expectations for a quick closure of the “Macedonian question”? Had the U.S. calculations been proved right, the Interim Accord by 2008 would have been part of history and quickly forgotten with no consequences for Athens. Fortunately for us, all measures taken to force Macedonia to capitulate, so far, have shown to be insufficient and unsuccessful. The price for that had to be paid by Athens!

26. The U.S. usually does not leave its allies in the lurch. Greece was well-compensated and received full satisfaction at the NATO Summit in Bucharest when the United States completely reversed its policy towards Macedonia. At the Summit the United States, a) blocked Macedonia’s membership into NATO and imposed a new condition – “first the name, then membership”, and b) by it passed the responsibility for blocking Macedonia’s entry to Brussels, releasing Greece from its obligation.

Thus Athens is no longer directly exposed to blocking Macedonia but its commitment to the Interim Accord still remains in force.

27. By adapting this new attitude towards Macedonia in Bucharest, Washington most probably was hoping to reward Greece for the “trauma” it suffered by America’s recognition of Macedonia by its constitutional name in November 2004. A recognition which did no damage to Greece, except for the short-lasting negative propaganda. Washington’s reversal in Bucharest was another great victory for Greece.

28. We should not be expecting Greece to abandon the Interim Accord. Even though Greece made a couple of announcements to that effect, they were not genuine. Such a move will have negative consequences for Greece because neither Washington nor Brussels would allow it. It will also show that the problem was with Greece. Clearly the Article in the Interim Accord that “guarantees” Macedonia entry into international organizations is as much of a problem for Washington as it is for Athens. And because of that single Article, Athens delegated the problem to the United States to solve. Nimetz, as well, had to deliver an inconvenient public statement and we will have to wait for the next steps to be taken.

29. It should be noted that, even though NATO and the EU are now blocking Macedonia’s membership, as mentioned earlier, Athens is still not completely off the hook from having to continue to impede Macedonia. Greek participation in NATO and the EU consensus against Macedonia means a new violation of the Interim Accord. And if Greece decides to distance itself from making such decisions, which the Interim Accord requires, then there will be no consensus and Macedonia can join NATO. Blocking Macedonia from NATO is not possible without a consensus. And a consensus is not possible without Greece violating the Accord!

30. Macedonia’s efforts would be counterproductive if it now withdrew from the mediation process led by Nimetz or from the Interim Accord. Such unilateral steps would cause serious damage to Macedonia’s interests. Macedonia will gain absolutely nothing by it but it may lose much. Needless to say it would first be confronted by the United States, then by NATO and then by the EU; no doubt to Athens’s delight. By pulling out we would also show that we don’t know what we want or what we are doing!

Article 11 of the Interim Accord is extremely important for Macedonia and it must continue to exist because there will be an Accord violation each time a consensus is reached to not allow Macedonia into NATO or the EU. Each time Greece is part of a consensus against Macedonia and blockades its entry into an international institution, it violates international law for which it could be sued in The Hague. This is where we have support from the law and we must strive not to lose it. If Macedonia does not get a date to start negotiations for EU membership by the end of 2013, which is very likely, then we should immediately, and without hesitation, open new proceedings at The Hague. Justice must be looked for. We must constantly challenge and marginalize the “political character” of this dispute in legal waters. There lies our opportunity. Thus, we will have a verdict for Greece’s blockade in the EU just like we already have one for NATO. A second verdict would further strengthen our position.

And even if all rulings are ignored by the major powers, their burden of disregarding international law will - triple. To this end we need to have a strong and tested team and money must be no object. At stake is the fate of our state and our people.

30.1. Both the mediation process and the Interim Accord need to survive because they are important to resolving the name issue. We should only be canceling them after we develop a new strategy to seek justice. We must also recognize that our main opponent in this fight is the United States, which has the support of the most important international factors in this world.

30.2. Getting out of the mediation process and the Interim Accord is not currently an option. Otherwise, we should find ourselves under severe pressure. Nevertheless, if after some time still there is not any solution to the problem and Macedonia is being isolated or the present blockade and blackmail are continued for a long time, then Macedonia must reconsider its position concerning the mediation and the Interim Accord.

30.3. In such a case Macedonia will be obliged to stop the mediation and ignore the Accord, completely or partially. At the same time a new strategy must be developed. We should always keep in mind that Article 21, paragraph 2 of the Interim Accord does not allow us to initiate an application before the court in The Hague against the Security Council for the irregularities it applied during Macedonia’s admission. To start such a procedure, first we will have to abandon the Interim Accord whose term of cancellation is one year. Only after that period can we start the new initiative. 30.4. Going to court and challenging the Security Council means confrontation with the most powerful. If we are determined to go that way, we will need, beforehand, to build a) domestic consensus about the name issue, even at a minimal level. Today (January 2013) a prospect like this may look unreachable but we will be sunk without one, and b) stronger and more concrete support for such a strategy from important countries like Russia, China, Turkey... Nobody stands behind us…

31. Now to say a few words about the announced referendum on the name, also backed by the opposition.

In principle, such a referendum is essentially unacceptable because it is about fundamental issues relating to universally guaranteed rights, such as the identity of a people and the name of a country which requires no further decision. The argument was that no one in today’s generation of Macedonians has the right or is authorized to test his or her own identity and the identity of their ancestors and all future generations. There are some who said that a referendum carries some risks and they are right. This is especially true for us today having been put under extreme pressure with blockades, blackmail and threats of usurpation... which, for the last 20 years, have placed us under extreme stress.

31.1. Every problem must be looked at and a solution sought through the circumstances in which it was introduced. Not from a theoretical or from some historical and distant point of view. Today, as it has been for the last 20 years, Macedonia is being confronted by arrogant and non-caring international factors who do not hesitate to use force and blackmail to get their way. They don’t care how they achieve their goals and will unscrupulously ignore everything that stands in their way. On the other hand, any support Macedonia receives from them is small, incomplete, occasional, conditional and in many ways not enough. This has been going on for more than 20 years with no end in sight. In fact it has been getting worse. Instead of getting some relief we are continually being put in new situations, in different complexities and under the scrutiny of new factors that work against our country. In December 2012, Bulgaria too came out and firmly stood against Macedonia. Slowly but surely the Albanians are also heading in the same direction, all orchestrated by Washington no doubt. The maneuvering space of our country, instead of widening, is slowly narrowing...

“Indecent” proposals are mounting. Pressure is increasing in geometric proportions. It is becoming obvious that our current strategy is not yielding the desired results and needs to be changed. A referendum can be used to save us but only as a last resort. A referendum must be the last tool to use when there are no other options left. The violent refusal of the referendum demonstrated by Washington, Brussels, Athens... is the best proof that it could be useful for Macedonia. No one will have the right to go against the people’s wishes expressed through a referendum. Surprisingly some Macedonians are also against a referendum just like most Westerners.

31.1.1. Greece calling for a referendum of its own concerning our name is an empty threat or a bluff at best. Greece has no jurisdiction over our name. Can Macedonia call a referendum to decide whether Britain should remain a monarchy or become a republic?

However, if we do, by some chance, arrive at a bilateral agreement with Greece, which the U.S. insists that we do, then Athens can put the proposed agreement to a referendum. Not our name. This is another strong argument why, at all costs, we must avoid arriving at a bilateral resolution with Greece.

31.2. In 1992, 1993 I was in favour of conducting a referendum with a simple question: “Do you agree to change our country’s name?” If people voted “no” then it was going to be a done deal. The same tool can be used today. There should be no doubt that a huge percentage of Macedonians will turn out and vote just like they did in the September 8, 1991 referendum, just to end this indignant humiliation that they are being put through on a daily basis. We should not fear our own people and trust that they will do the right thing… after a properly conducted campaign, of

course... I am sure many Albanians will also give their fellow Macedonians their support, if approached properly…

31.3. Our position, regarding a referendum, must be made very clear: Yes we will hold a referendum but only as a last resort, when there is no other choice, leading to isolation or punishment for the country. Such a situation may be hardly imaginable but it should not be ruled out. We must be prepared for all possibilities.

It is also extremely important that the political opposition stand behind such a plan because it is in the interest of the state and the people.

31.4. During a conversation with a senior U.S. diplomat in the American Embassy in Skopje, sometime in 2011, reacting to his extremely negative perception of the proposed referendum, I explained to him that the U.S.A. cannot force the country into a position to have a referendum! No matter whether the results would be positive or negative the consequences will be catastrophic as the future of the people and the country would be questioned. Macedonia will be brought to a very delicate situation in every aspect, including inter-ethnic relations. In particular, one cannot go back from such a move once it is made. The very fabric of the state will be torn apart. The earth will boil. The divisions between the various political parties would deepen immensely and irreversibly. Inevitably extreme behaviour will be generated that would not be good for the country or the region.

I predict that we will quickly and easily again find ourselves at the beginning of the 20th century..., with rebels, rebel bands, etc…

The diplomat listened very attentively. Let us hope that he sent the message to his superiors and that they understood it. And hopefully they will not be playing the same card!

31.5. It is interesting that in 2003 a book was published in Greece by the publisher Papazisis, entitled “Athens-Skopje, the seven-year agreement (1995-2002)”. It was a joint collaboration between a group of scholars from Northern Greece mentored by professors Evangelos Kofos and Vlasis Vlasidis. (“To Vima”, December 24, 2003.) In part the book reads:

“In those seven years, regulating the name (by the Interim Accord) was not part of the strategic priorities of the Greek side;

Greek diplomacy is content by the fact that it managed to keep “de jure” the name “FYROM” locked in major international organizations for seven years;

After seven years of futile practice, it is completely understandable if Greece decides to use the EU accession process to bring a lasting solution to the problem…”

F. Replacing the reference with a name for use outside of Macedonia is a fatal solution

32. Attempts to replace the reference with a permanent name for external use, with Macedonia’s consent, would be an irreparable mistake.

32.1. According to a telegram sent from Athens to the State Department by the American ambassador, as leaked by WikiLeaks, confirmed by Reeker and others, Washington considers that the name for external use, replacing the UN reference is the right solution! This kind of “encouragement” from Washington is what is convincing political parties, journalists, analysts, experts... in Macedonia to unwittingly commit suicide! They do not understand that it does not mean an acceptable solution for Macedonia but dying miserably, in installments.

33. Unfortunately nothing is clear and there are many fabrications. The best evidence of a great lie is the so-called Greek “red line” which is nothing more than a pure bluff and unscrupulous manipulation. Athens has taken the most extreme stand followed by Washington where they don’t think that their erga omnes can pass. Is there anyone who thinks that they can rename us at home? That we will re-write our Constitution and

call our country “Upper Macedonia” or “Slavo-Macedonia”? They cannot do that even if they occupy us. The Serbians did that for some 30 years… for nothing…

33.1. Their insistence on the impossible is hiding a dangerous trap: planting the seeds for Macedonia’s destruction to be achieved in some sort of “humane” way. They can simply achieve it by replacing the “reference” with a name for external use! We will be happy to get rid of the UN reference and they will achieve their aims! The identity of the Macedonian people will be sacrificed but not immediately, in stages. Practically, they have no other alternative to exterminate Macedonia’s national identity. They have nothing else to offer that Macedonia can swallow, thinking that it is positive while losing everything.

By using its position to the maximum, Greece (not alone) is trying to open space for Macedonia to accept an unacceptable solution, which it considers to be better than its “Red line”.

34. Replacing the reference with a new, permanent name for our country, regardless of how it is used, will undoubtedly mean deletion of the Macedonian national identity. From that moment we will no longer be seen as Macedonians by the world, but rather by the derivative of the new name. In other words, we will become something else, something… not Macedonian. Then Greece will have full international monopoly on the name, the concept, the brand... “Macedonia” with all its adjectives, nouns, verbs... from people, language, history, culture... to products… will all belong to Greece. And the true and genuine 2.5 million “Macedonians” will become fictional characters in this world. “Macedonia” will be their wines, tomatoes, lemons... We the real Macedonians will not be able to export under that brand. That will be the result no matter what Nimetz writes in his proposal. Even if his offer looks good for Macedonia, at first glance, in practice it will be ignored in less than a year! Only the most stupid and most naïve will ask for our identity to be guaranteed. Such guarantees are not worth the paper they are written on!

34.1. From the moment we agree to change our name, all our documents intended for external use will have to bear the new name; from passports, to customs declarations, certificates, personal statements... It would be expected of us as because we have accepted such a solution – a distinct name for abroad. It will no longer be possible to do anything differently. Macedonia will have two names and two identities– one for inside and one for outside our country. At home we will be “Makedontsi” and our language “makedonski”… Outside we will be… well… something else. Then, for example, our national sport teams will certainly be obliged to use the new name even when they play at home! They will register us with the new name for external use no matter where we play. The name cannot change.

34.2. Let’s also not forget that the reference is not a name or a denomination of our country, but an interim code for addressing our country! If we are to change that then everything… conferences, summits, Olympics... and all other international events organized not only outside but also inside our country... will bear our new name. Even at home, in the halls of Skopje, in Ohrid... when we host foreigners we will have to play host under our new name.

And as such we will go from one absurdity to another... At home, in the halls with foreigners we will be one thing and out of the halls –something else! Magicians!

35. If by any chance someone in authority was convinced, paid for, or politically motivated to agree to change the name of our country, then be aware that this person would be committing a serious crime. The acceptance of a new name for external use will undoubtedly lead to the change of our Constitution, putting us in a deliberate position of renaming ourselves.

36. The crucial problem for Washington, Brussels and Athens is the fact that they cannot permanently rename the country, replacing the UN reference, without our consent. Better to say – without our capitulation. That is why we are subject to violent pressure, blockades, blackmail… (Name first, then membership)...

36.1. It should be crystal clear to us that nothing can be changed without our consent and this is our most precious asset that we must not squander. If, however, for some reason we agree to drop the reference in exchange for a “new name” then we must be fully aware that we will actually legalize the irregular admission of our country into the United Nations, with flagrant violation of the UN Charter of Rights. We would give up the possibility of one day legally challenging this violation, as well. Under the current conditions, this may be our last bargaining chip to save our people and our state. Looking at it another way, why should we now, after suffering tremendous damages over so many years, accept to change the reference that was illegally imposed on us by force? What would we gain by it? Or, how can we change something that is not ours and is working against our interests… for something worse?

36.2. It would be a strategic, fundamental and historical error for us to change the reference for a permanent name of our state. The reference for us is not valid and it should not exist. If we accept a permanent name other than Republic of Macedonia we will face many obstacles and it will be the beginning of another traumatic experience for our people. It will be the first step in the final extinction of the Macedonian nation. We will be opening the door for our enemies to do as they please with us, as we will prove that nothing of ours is sacred to us. By doing that we will make it clear to everyone that the Macedonian nation was indeed the problem, and not the name of the country!

36.3. Our goal should be for the reference to depart from diplomacy as soon as possible, without a name change, and enter the halls of history as proof of the abuses, illegal policies and unscrupulous games international factors played with us for many years, inflicting incalculable, massive damage on Macedonia.

37. And we, instead of speculating this and that, must only ask ourselves a simple question: “What is our name for, if not to be recognized in the international arena?”

If anyone, however remote, accepts to change our name, even for external use, history will vehemently condemn them as the biggest traitor guilty of the extermination of the centuries old Macedonian nation… which inevitably will follow.

38. Fortunately, while the deep crisis continues in Greece, the Greeks still refuse to accept a change to the UN reference, for a permanent name of our country for external use. Washington known that very well and continues to put brutal pressure on Macedonia, permitting NATO and the EU to keep the country in front of theirs gates, only to buy them necessary time. For them, only Macedonia is guilty; no one else! To prove that they use “arguments” such as; there is no freedom for the media in Macedonia… there is no political dialogue in Macedonia… the judiciary does not function in Macedonia… which are purely diplomatic maneuvers to full the naïve. Washington and Brussels are capable of triggering a host of such “arguments” at a moment’s notice.

G. U.S. and Bucharest in 2008, The Hague in 2011...

39. As always, all moves made by Washington start and end with U.S. interests. Others, including the Greeks, play a small role if any, except when they are complementary to the Americans. All steps that the United States has taken with regards to Macedonia and its name in the last 20 years are a result of U.S. needs and plans and nobody else’s. U.S. policies are never ad hoc but well-designed and long-term. But at the same time it is also possible for the Americans to be wrong. Our case is a striking example of this. It would be neither the first nor the last.

Madeleine Albright, as U.S. Secretary of State, said that U.S. policy towards Latin America, for many years, was wrong. It would not be a surprise if after 20 years, one of her successors re-evaluates the current American policy towards Macedonia as – mistaken!

40. The dramatic change of NATO policy, in Bucharest in 2008, of course, was a result of discontent from Washington for the failure of U.S. foreign policy in Macedonia. Fifteen years had passed and they had not achieved their goals. Macedonia did not collapse and Nimetz solved nothing. There is no sign of capitulation in Skopje. The opposition, which is prepared to bend its spine, will likely not come to power anytime soon. Probably because of its own poor policies! This of course has prompted Washington to change its approach towards Gruevski’s government. While before they completely ignored him and left him in the street in Washington to improvise a press conference, now in a serious parliamentary and political crisis, caused by the opposition at the beginning of 2013, they openly sided with him. A few years ago, the United States supported SDSM’s boycott of Parliament, even though such an act is unthinkable in a western democracy. But nothing happened so now they are playing the other card. Now they are trying to appease Prime Minister Gruevski and the VMRO-DPMNE, probably hoping to get them to give in a little and change the name of our state and people. It can be argued that this kind of relationship would only bring new failures.

41. Based on the information, assessments and views given here, we can conclude that removing Macedonia and the Macedonian people from the scene appears to be extremely important to the United States. So far the Americans have been risking their own reputation by defying international law and by ignoring international court rulings. Why and how is that possible? It is unimaginable that the United States, backed by NATO and the EU, is doing everything in its power, to rename Macedonia and the Macedonian people! Why? What do they have to gain in return? What is so important that they are willing to risk so much? What are they attempting to achieve? Why are they acting like terrorists towards peaceful little Macedonia who is threatening no one? And in the end, why are we so much in their way? If The Hague, the highest international court on the planet, ruling in favour of Macedonia is not good enough for them to accept the universal aspirations of the Macedonians to stay what they are, what is? What choices are left for the Macedonian people?

For now, there are no answers to these questions.

41.1. The greatest American ambition to make the Albanians a major factor in the region, at least in its southern part, may prove extremely counterproductive. The means by which the Americans were building the “Greater Albania” project will bring them constant and lasting headaches. There will be problems inside, among the Albanians, and outside in the three municipalities in southern Serbia, the four municipalities in Montenegro, in Chamiria, etc. The pan-Albanian plan has no chance of reaching consensus on any issue except on the Albanian national question. When that is completed, and it is on its way now, then fierce fighting among their political leaders will begin, significantly more serious than it is right now. In the internal political field, in the struggle for power, they look at each other only through a gun! The same is the situation in Albania (Berisha-Rama), in Macedonia (Ahmeti-M. Thachi), in Kosovo (H. Thachi-Haradinai)... And then, in Greater Albania, the pie will be much larger and so will the appetite for it… It will be impossible to prevent or control their confrontations and the region will explode, with lasting consequences.

41.1.1. Another thing we should not forget is that the Albanian mafia is growing elsewhere, not just in Western European countries. It generates a lot of money and it knows how to channel it where it is needed. If we add all these ambitions together, which would normally grow over time, then the question will be: Will Washington be able to maintain control of all of this? Will Washington have the ability to direct the Albanian factor in the realization of U.S. interests only?

It would be mission impossible…

Will history also repeat itself? Will the Albanians remain America’s friends or will they do like they did after WWII when they initially were Yugoslavia’s best friends, then the USSR’s and China’s after that. As a rule, the previous best friend became the greatest enemy!

The Balkans was and still is the “European minefield”! Every step must be taken with the greatest of care even today…

41.2. The “Greater Albania” project must be finished with Kosovo. Extirpation of Macedonia and the Macedonians is not possible without a war. No one should be allowed to unnecessarily play with fire.

42. Washington has repeatedly taught us to obey the law, and that is positive. We have been criticized for the situation in our judiciary, and that is also correct. What Washington is not telling us is that they only obey the law when its suits them! The Americans ignore judgments that do not respect their interests! Such judgments simply do not even exist for them. The same way the Americans treat the terrorists: the ones working for them are good guys. The others – bad! The same logic is also valid for dictators…

H. Who is obstructing Macedonia from joining NATO? The U.S. or Greece?