We need a united stance on FYROM
It really defies logic: Crucial issues that have been highlighted time and again by the government – at times of low tensions – without managing to really «move» anyone, are suddenly inflated and brought back to the fore by developments on the world stage. This is precisely what is happening now with the issue of the planned NATO accession of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) – a subject which has been the focus of public debate for at least a year now but is suddenly threatening to engulf everything. Of course, this latest development has not exactly been sudden. There is a pretext: US President George W. Bush is due to visit the Albanian capital Tirana next month for talks with the prime ministers of Albania, FYROM and Croatia – the next three countries slated for NATO accession. And Bush is expected to tell FYROM that it can join NATO under the name «Macedonia.» But Bush’s visit is just a pretext. The USA has already told FYROM that it recognizes it under the name «Macedonia.» So how exactly did we think it would join NATO under a different name than the one the USA has already recognized? Granted, no one is naive enough to overlook the fact that the domestic political «usefulness» of this issue is what has brought it back to the fore; there has been widespread speculation about the government calling early elections over fears that the United Nations will stop mediating between Greece and FYROM in the name dispute. What is really difficult to understand, however, is why the issue did not generate much interest when it was raised during a time of low tensions. The practice of political parties exploiting so-called «issues of national concern» to get their job done is hardly new. It has happened many times before over the past decades. But the problems begin when the country focuses on this issue alone, exploiting the public’s ignorance of the substance of the matter and the broader relevant developments on the global stage. If the Greek political system was really concerned about the essence of this issue, it would be aware that the things likely to fuel the crisis were predetermined long before. Only a few weeks ago, FYROM’s foreign minister, Antonio Milososki, won brownie points from virtually all his counterparts during a NATO summit, with only Greece attempting to apply the brakes on the process, only to be told by Milososki that «of course certain bilateral issues remain unresolved.» In reality, Greece is faced with the task of attempting to block the next planned NATO accession – scheduled to include FYROM along with Albania and Croatia next spring – with virtually all the alliance’s members against it. Is it really ready to do this? Has it achieved any national consensus on this issue? The most important thing is to have a substantial and nationally united stance.
