WikiLeaks logo
The Global Intelligence Files,
files released so far...

The Global Intelligence Files

Search the GI Files

The Global Intelligence Files


ROK/LATAM/EU - Paper urges EU, USA, NATO to stop "obstructing" Macedonia over name - US/FRANCE/GREECE/CROATIA/ALBANIA/MACEDONIA/ROK

Released on 2012-10-11 16:00 GMT

Email-ID 779483
Date 2011-12-12 14:33:09

Text of report by Macedonian newspaper Nova Makedonija on 9 December

[Commentary by Darko Janevski: "US, EU, NATO Sabotage Macedonia-Greece

Reactions to the Verdict

"The United States feels that decisions about NATO membership cannot be
delayed due to the problem with the name. Decisions regarding a
membership in the Alliance should be based upon how well candidate
states meet the criteria set forward by NATO," said Tom Kesey, a
spokesman for the State Department, before the NATO summit in Bucharest
in 2008. At the summit itself, George Bush, the President of the United
States, said:

"Tomorrow NATO will reach a historic decision to admit Croatia, Albania
and Macedonia... These countries have walked the difficult road of
reforms and built free societies. They are prepared to contribute to
NATO, and their peoples deserve the security that NATO brings."

These were the words of the State Department and the US president. It is
obvious that there is no mention of the name dispute as a condition upon
which Macedonia's membership to NATO depends. The events that resulted
from the Greek obstruction are well known, and the reason for that was
the failure on Athens' part to accept one of the two possible options:
Macedonia to become a NATO member as either Republic of Macedonia
(Skopje), or as FYROM [Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia].

Bush and Obama

Resulting from this was the position that our country will become a
member of the Alliance once the solution to the name dispute has been
found. This means that without the Greek obstruction the special
condition for Macedonia's membership in NATO would not have existed.
This is the elementary logic regarding the relationship between cause
and consequence. Without the former, the latter would not exist, which
is quite clear. Perhaps not to everyone, but certainly to people of
average rationality! After the Hague court [International Court of
Justice] verdict, according to which Greece was wrong to block the
membership of our country in NATO under the temporary reference name
under which our country had been admitted to the UN, as well as
according to the judges' position that our southern neighbour must not
undertake similar blockages in the future, NATO's conclusion that
Macedonia can join the Alliance after solving the name dispute does not
have its original! reason any more. There must not be a blockage for
"FYROM", said the Hague court, which holds true for the NATO membership
as well, regardless of whether the name dispute has been solved or not.
All of this depends on whether the State Department will respect its
position taken in 2008 by its spokesman Tom Kasey. "Decisions regarding
membership in the Alliance should be based upon how well states meet the
criteria set by NATO." Those criteria were briefly outlined by George
Bush: democratization reforms and creation of free societies. In case
someone forgot, Bush was the president of the United States, the country
that sent us as an ambassador Paul Wohlers, although the administration
in Washington changed and now we have Obama instead.

Therefore, Wohlers' comments on the Hague verdict sound like
flip-flopping. "NATO's position is known and I do not think it has
changed since this morning. Macedonia could become a member of the
Alliance when the name dispute is solved, following the 2008 Bucharest
summit conclusions," Wohlers said in Skopje on December 5.

The ambassador is clearly unclear on a few issues. One is that the
Interim Agreement was signed under US auspices, because the name dispute
was as impossible to solve then as it is today. The purpose of the
agreement was to avoid Greek obstructions, for which Macedonia paid the
price of changing its state flag. Hence, the question is not whether the
name dispute is solved, or how it will be solved, but whether NATO as an
organization that formally promotes democratic values will respect
international law as interpreted in the Hague verdict. That verdict is
based upon the Interim Agreement, which, as stated earlier, was signed
due to the d ifficulty of solving the name dispute, and because then the
Greeks started their obstructions. There is no other philosophy about
it. Either NATO and the United States will respect international law, or
they will not. Either the State Department will stand by its original
position that the membership condition for NATO is des! cribed in its
criteria which, according to George Bush, the Republic of Macedonia
fulfilled, or it will not. There is no third option.

Of course, NATO, the United States, and Wohlers can impose the name as
the additional condition for admitting the Republic of Macedonia, but
only after that has been introduced as a formal criterion for
membership. This would imply an admission that in 2008 NATO, together
with Greece, infringed upon an international document drafted under US
mentorship, at a time when Democrats were in power and that now, as a
result of the new criteria applicable only to our country, it cannot
become a member. [sentence as published]

The same is true of the statement made by Mark Toner, the current
spokesman of the State Department, who says that "the Hague opinion
should be used as an encouragement for future negotiations." Note that
the term he used is "opinion" and not " verdict", which is clearly the
term used in the original document voted on by 15 judges.

A Land Mine

The problem with this position held by the State Department is that it
does not state clearly who Macedonia needs to negotiate with. With
Greece, who does not respect agreements? How can Macedonia sign any kind
of agreement with the south neighbour that would solve the name dispute,
when, judging from current experience, there is no guarantee that Athens
will respect that agreement, especially when world powers, such as the
United States, who wield exceptional power in the UN Security Council
seem not to mind? Some time ago Americans pushed Republic of North
Macedonia as a name for universal use. Had we agreed to that, so the
alleged democrat Obama does not get mad at us, what would have been the
guarantee that in six months the Greeks would not have broken that
agreement? A new solution would have been sought, the US and the EU
would have pressured us into new negotiations, but this time ours would
have been a weaker negotiating position than initially. What ! is the
purpose of negotiations if an agreement cannot be reached, or if, once
reached, one party to it - namely, Greece - supported by the US and the
EU could breach it? Thus, we arrive at a situation in which, on one
hand, the US call upon both parties to negotiate, and on the other, they
do everything to sabotage those negotiations.

Of course, no wiser is the position of official France, led by Nicolas
Sarkozy. France allowed itself to be constructive and called upon the
"political leaders to draw lessons and reestablish dialogue." In
translation, Paris is poking fun at Skopje. What dialogue could be
established with Greece in a situation where they can choose to derail
it at the first opportune moment? This is a country that, when it comes
to dealing with the Republic of Macedonia, has only one rule, and that
is not to respect rules. By the way, the verdict regarding Greek
obstructions and the Interim Agreement was issued by a body called the
International Court of Justice. This is not ironic, but scary, is it

The EU position, articulated by the European Commission, is within the
same bounds. They would not comment the Hague court verdict, although
its wording is quite clear. The European Commission now has to answer
the question: can the initiation of negotiations of Macedonia for an EU
membership be blocked because of the name dispute? The Hague court says
no? The European Commission will not comment. Barroso [European
Commission president], Fule [EU enlargement commissioner], and others
would like to see the dispute resolved before they start talking to us.
This means nothing else than they, like the United States, are forcing
us to negotiate to reach an agreement that will be breached the very
next day. This is unproductive and perhaps provides answers to the
question (outside of this problem) of how the European Union could find
its bearings in such an economic crisis. With such a degree of infantile
behaviour on the part of the leaders of the EU and of key Eur! opean
states, it is pure luck that the things on the Old Continent are not
much worse.

In order to remedy this situation, it is necessary that the United
States, the European Union, and Greece should fix the mistake that they
have been consistently making since 2008, and for which now they have a
written document. That means to stop obstructing Macedonia's accession
to the NATO and the initiation of the negotiations for EU membership. To
the world, and to us, it is clear that these structures do not throw
many coins in the fountain for the blessing of international law. But,
in our case, the problem is much larger.

Source: Nova Makedonija, Skopje, in Macedonian 9 Dec 11 p 4

BBC Mon EU1 EuroPol 121211 yk/osc

(c) Copyright British Broadcasting Corporation 2011