FYROM still has a long way to go
SKOPJE – The situation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is still extremely volatile, although the two sides in the ethnic conflict have signed, and declared their intention to abide by, the Ohrid accord, which called a halt to the fighting and created a framework for future harmonious coexistence. However, the war has left deep hatred in its wake between Slav-Macedonians and the country’s ethnic Albanians, a hatred that cannot easily be eradicated. Given the atmosphere, fears are being expressed for the peace accord, which in fact is being implemented only on paper, with the possible exception of the amnesty. As the country embarks on an election campaign – the political parties have agreed to go to the polls on September 15 – the fragile stability is expected to be sorely tested due to the political tension that observers in Skopje fear will ignite political and ethnic passions. Poll results to date give a clear lead to the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia, the party founded by Kiro Gligorov and which ruled the country for six years (1992-1998) with Branko Crvenkovski, just 29 when he took office, as prime minister. The fortunes of the ruling center-right VMRO alliance, under fire for corruption and failing to fulfill election promises, are not so promising this time around. Crvenkovski’s added maturity and the respect he has gained from the international community for his moderation and the skill he displayed during the crisis, is running for prime minister once again under more favorable conditions, at least for the time being. In this interview with Kathimerini, he talks about the Ohrid accord, Greek investments in FYROM, and the still pending issue with Greece over his country’s use of the name «Macedonia.» How is the implementation of the Ohrid accord progressing? Has the danger of a fresh outbreak of conflict passed? What has been shown in Macedonia up until now is that it is much easier to start a war than to restore peace, and that is why I have no doubt that the road to stability is a long one with many pitfalls along the way. There have been incidents and we expect more of them in the future, but we must not allow these incidents to divert us from the path we embarked on in Ohrid. There are some people in your country who do not accept the Ohrid accord, claiming that it was not a product of dialogue but the result of armed pressure from the NLA (the ethnic Albanians’ National Liberation Army). When your party signed the agreement, did you really think it would lead to peace and harmonious coexistence, or did you put pen to paper with (European Union foreign affairs chief) Javier Solana and (NATO Secretary-General) George Robertson holding a gun to your head? We signed in the belief that a political solution was better than a generalized war. Of course the agreement is not ideal; it is nothing more than a compromise, which always has advantages and disadvantages for both sides. Now, as to whether the accord on its own guarantees peace and stability, no it doesn’t, but it does provide the opportunity. Whether we will actually restore peace and stability depends on the general policy followed from now on. But those who do not accept this agreement have no alternative to suggest as a way out of the crisis and to avoid a full-scale war. What do you think of the stance taken by the international community toward the crisis in your country? Are you among those who accuse the West of helping the Albanians? We should examine and analyze the final results. This agreement first of all guarantees the country’s territorial integrity. There are no changes to the borders. Secondly, ethnic problems are not being resolved on a territorial basis, with an exchange of territories, so there is no suggestion of setting up cantons or a federation. Thirdly, the state’s unity is guaranteed. If we look at the situation in this way, then the international community has given its support precisely for the national interests of the Macedonian state. I am certain that the Albanians who started the war did not want this kind of agreement. No Albanian took up arms simply to see more Albanians in the police force, nor did they kill soldiers so that more Albanians could go to university. Wars are fought over territory. What do you think the Albanians really wanted, because they claim they took up arms to defend their rights as citizens of the country? What they wanted was a part of the state to become solely Albanian, to be ethnically cleansed, that is, and annexed to Kosovo. When they realized that the international community had a different view, then they also changed their tactics. If we look at the situation from this point of view, we must conclude that the role of the international community has been positive. It is another thing to consider whether certain decisions were correct and taken in time, and if there were excesses, but the final result is that the stance taken by the international community was positive. Skopje and Athens have declared that their relations are good. Does your platform provide for further improvements? Is there any truth in reports that you are disturbed by the way major Greek investments were made in your country during the Georgievski governments? I agree that relations between the two countries are good and if we form the next government we will do everything we can to make them even better. We have no prejudices about investments, whether they are from Greece or anywhere else. We have made certain comments when these are made without transparency and in a suspect manner. Let me give you some examples. The Titan (cement) company has I believe one of the best investments ever made in our country and we support it. The same holds for the purchase by the National Bank of Greece of our Stopanska Banka, and I can mention more positive examples. However, we believe that the agreement with OKTA, the petroleum refinery, was suspect and we say so publicly. Of course we are not saying that the fault is on the Greek side. After all, it is not up to the Greek side to defend our country’s interests, it is our government’s job to do that. That is why we condemn the way our government sold the refinery. We welcome Greek investments in Macedonia, but at the same time we are against criminal economic activities, irrespective of where they originate, whether in Greece or anywhere else. So if you do form the next government, can we take it that you will want to review the OKTA agreement? No one knows what the agreement actually provides for. It has not been made public, apart from what is known by Georgievski himself, and of course we have a right to find out exactly what it includes. Naturally, in reviewing certain agreements we will try not to do even more damage to the state. Good bilateral relations are still overshadowed by your country’s use of the name «Macedonia.» Athens and Skopje are letting the issue drag on in the hope that eventually it will be forgotten. What is your party’s view on what both sides are calling an «honorable compromise»? The situation is better than it was five or six years ago. We believe that while there is a problem, it should not hinder the development of good relations. However, I believe that this problem cannot be put off forever, and I agree that it should be resolved through an honorable compromise. We want a solution as soon as possible, but one which can in no way offend the dignity of the people of our country. What in your opinion constitutes an «honorable compromise»? Would it be a double name, that is for your country to be recognized as the «Republic of Macedonia» by the international community and for Greece to retain the right to call it something else, which was an idea suggested in the past by Gligorov? It is not only Gligorov’s idea but that of my government. I think this is an honorable position. Greece did not accept it then, but with the passage of time, things might change.
