Macedonia: Gruevski Responds Bluntly To NATO’s Decision

[Acco]

Macedonia Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski gave NATO a stinging rebuke on Tuesday (May 22nd) after the organisation passed on the option to extend membership to his country due to Greece’s longtime objections.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/2305201...atos-decision/

Macedonia was snubbed at the recent NATO conference, even though 85% of the country supports membership, the country fulfills all obligations and prerequisites, and already contributes to NATO operations in Afghanistan (more than some other NATO members, like Greece).

The opposition comes from Greece, which thinks that it is reasonable to demand that their neighbor change their name and then blackmail that country's development when they refuse (as any state would). Ironically, but not unexpectedly, Greece's opposition to Macedonia's NATO/EU membership has been feeding popular support to nationalist leader Nikola Gruevski, creating a vicious cycle of idiocy and nationalism.

What do you all think of this predicament? Is NATO setting a good precedent in this case?

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I think we should be clear about the fact that NATO expressed the opinion and will of all members -and not just Greece's. When the naming dispute is solved, all NATO members will answer positively to FYROM's demand.

[Acco]

I think we should be clear about the fact that NATO expressed the opinion and will of all members -and not just Greece's. When the naming dispute is solved, all NATO members will answer positively to FYROM's demand.

No, it is Greece holding everything back. Before the conference, Turkey and Latvia actively affirmed their support for Macedonia's accession, which would appear to contradict your claim. Needless to say, we would be NATO members by now if Greece had adopted a less antagonistic foreign policy.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

No, it is Greece holding everything back. Before the conference, Turkey and Latvia actively affirmed their support for Macedonia's accession, which would appear to contradict your claim. Needless to say, we would be NATO members by now if Greece had adopted a less antagonistic foreign policy.

What I mean is that the decision was taken jointly by NATO. It's not that NATO said 'you are welcome' and Greece jumped in to say 'no, don't come here'. NATO's official stance is that until the naming dispute is solved, FYROM will not participate in entrance talks.

[Acco]

WTF FYROM you have been told in the past and nothing changed since then.
Political opportunism is not a good practice if you want to have good neighboring relations.
Also honestly Acco what's the point of this thread?Criticizing NATO or Greece over a well known decision made 4 years ago?Com' on man you are better than this.
And the bash of Greece starts in 1.2.3.4.....
(Edit:It is the dirty ol' Greeks who are to be blamed as i ve seen.I suggest this thread to get closed.)

You'd have a point if I attacked the Greek people or something, but all I've done is criticized Greek foreign policy. If this is flame-baiting, then so is every thread in this forum...

What I mean is that the decision was taken jointly by NATO. It's not that NATO said 'you are welcome' and Greece jumped in to say 'no, don't come here'. NATO's official stance is that until the naming dispute is solved, FYROM will not participate in entrance talks.

But this is done because of Greece. Otherwise no NATO member has any serious concern with Macedonia joining the organization. One of my questions in the OP was if this policy by NATO is wise. Is it wise to exclude a ready member because of politics and at the cost of Balkan regional security?

he is right but if he thinks nato or eu are going to make his life better maybe they should ask us
i dont want to argue with acco but maybe its time to revise their foreign policy and stop chasing 2500 year old ghosts

You could argue the benefits of the EU (and I won't get into that), but NATO is vital for regional security, especially since there are sources of conflict here.

[neoptolemos]

You'd have a point if I attacked the Greek people or something, but all I've done is criticized Greek foreign policy. If this is flame-baiting, then so is every thread in this forum...

And what exactly changed over the past 4 years in the Greek policy?In NATO policy?
Be my guest and answer me what's the purpose of this thread besides bashing Greece then.Yourself excluded NATO from the responsibility and you are aiming specifically Greece.In a sense you are asking a question or thoughts in your already established way of thinking.

[intel]

But this is done because of Greece FYROM's constant rebuttal of Greece's sane and founded claims.
Is it wise to exclude a ready member keep yourself out of European-wide military alliance because of nationalist politics and at the cost of Balkan regional security?

Fixed for you, Acco

[Manuel I Komnenos]

But this is done because of Greece. Otherwise no NATO member has any serious concern with Macedonia joining the organization. One of my questions in the OP was if this policy by NATO is wise. Is it wise to exclude a ready member because of politics and at the cost of Balkan regional security?

Whether for some of us the issue seems hilarious, stupid or whatever, the NATO recognizes it as an existing diplomatic issue between the two countries and as long as the issue is not solved, it simply can't accept a state which offends another with its policies.

[neoptolemos]

WTF FYROM you have been told in the past and nothing changed since then.
Political opportunism is not a good practice if you want to have good neighboring relations.Gruevski's antiquization and provocative policies have also strengthen the nationalistic rhetoric and political parties in Greece.
Also honestly Acco what's the point of this thread?Criticizing NATO or Greece over a well known decision made 4 years ago?Com' on man you are better than this.
And the bash of Greece starts in 1.2.3.4.....
(Edit:It is the dirty ol' Greeks who are to be blamed as i ve seen.I suggest this thread to be closed soon.)

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Basically, this decision, as I mentioned, has nothing to do with Greece. It was a joint NATO decision.

Source:

[bekiristein]

he is right but if he thinks nato or eu are going to make his life better maybe they should ask us
i dont want to argue with acco but maybe its time to revise their foreign policy and stop chasing 2500 year old ghosts

[hellheaven1987]

Indeed, even it is a stupid issue created by stupid people it is still an issue, and NATO cannot ignore this stupidness of one of its members completely.

[Blaze86420]

Is it really that big of a deal for Macedonia to retain it's name? I usually support Greece on this forum because they get so much unjustified hate but I really cannot comprehend this issue at all. It's just a name.

[Dr. Croccer]

Is it really that big of a deal for Macedonia to retain it's name? I usually support Greece on this forum because they get so much unjustified hate but I really cannot comprehend this issue at all. It's just a name.

This. It's not like Macedonia is the first or last country to name itself after a largely unrelated but geographicaly close historical polity, and it's absurd that major geopolitics are being influenced by this petty squabbling.

[Noobio]

it's not just a name

FYROM (sorry, but i don't know how else to call it) could use the term "Makedonia" (without any other clarifications) for just one of its regions..just like Greece does..i don't think anyone would have a problem with that..

instead

claiming such term / notion / concept / heritage (whatever you wanna call it) as their exclusive national trait and moreover calling their slavic dialect "Macedonian" is not only historicaly / linguisticaly / ethnicaly wrong and false, but also dangerous..
not only for the general balkan stability and the relationships with Greece but also, for the various minorities of the ex-Yugoslavian state

my 2 cents...

nationalists of both sides can ignore this post..all the rest please give it a chance

[The Despondent Mind]

Isn't it even more baffling why is Greece having such attitude to a country just because of a name ?

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Nothing has changed and that is the complaint. You and I both know the name dispute is in a stalemate and unlikely to change soon. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the naming issue in general, using the recent NATO conference as an example of the conflict in its current stage, but anything related to the topic is good.

I haven't excluded NATO. In fact I asked in the OP if they are setting a good precedent. As with every thread, I included my thoughts but the debate is wide open.

The way I see it, FYROM has two options, keep the current name and keep building statues of Alexander and Phillip, which closes the door to NATO, or reach a solution through realistic and honest talk with its neighbor, Greece and be welcomed in NATO.

[Blaze86420]

The way I see it, FYROM has two options, keep the current name and keep building statues of Alexander and Phillip, which closes the door to NATO, or reach a solution through realistic and honest talk with its neighbor, Greece and be welcomed in NATO.

Dude, who cares? Nobody thinks Alexander and Phillip were Slavic.

[frozenprince]

Dude, who cares? Nobody thinks Alexander and Phillip were Slavic.

The nationalistic politicians do, and their opinions are the ones that make any sort of difference.

Unfortunately.

[Rolling Thunder]

The nationalistic politicians do, and their opinions are the ones that make any sort of difference.

Unfortunately.

Wow. I was in FYORM once, I think. They struck me as insane. They tried to arrest me for looking at their MiG-21s.