Macedonian Truth Forum - Albanianization in Macedonia

[B]Vangelovski[/B]:
Nothing ill intended, if you were introduced to me in person as Vangelovski I would in all likelihood just call you Vangel for short, it's just what I do. Personally I don't consider anyone who cares for the autonomous interests of the Macedonian Ethnos (being my heritage) as a political enemy.

"[I]Which current international political climate are you referring to?[/I]"

My reference to the "International political climate" is basically a reference to the analysis and identification of the political environment on a global scale, basically what I see as a study and categorisation of the manner in which nations (with a particular focus on those of greater influence) interact with one another at a given period of time. I think this environment is ever changing, and is generally respondent to most global events

What the current climate is would be dependent on your own assessment of the way nations, particularly those with greater influence, are currently interacting with one another. I think history can provide a suitable background for the identification or categorisation of trends. The past 100 years has a wealth of trends when you consider what the international political climate was like in the lead up to the great war, what it was like post the great war, what it was like post World War II, what it was like following the collapse of the Soviet Union, what it was like following the events of 11 September 2001 and so on. Although in this instance I am applying this concept on a macro scale, it can also be applied on a micro scale as well, or specific to a region of interest.

In my opinion this is a factor which needs to be taken into account when a state seeks to implement significant change in its policy as it has the potential to impact the successful achievement of the change. It should by no means dictate the pursuit of the goal, but simply be factored in to the strategy set to achieve the goal.

If you concur with this concept, what would be your opinion on the current international political climate?, do you think that a nation should take into consideration such a factor when developing a strategy to implement a policy of significant change?, do you think that any negative implications could arise, therefore jeopardising the success of the change, if such a factor is purposely ignored?, if you are the one designated to lead this change, would it be a factor you would risk ignoring?

I personally have little tolerance in excuses from leadership. In my opinion, as a leader you have a responsibility to ensure you have taken into consideration all possible scenarios and factors when implementing policy or strategy to ensure the successful achievement of the intended outcome. If an error occurs due to underestimating or overestimating a particular factor then such a failure can be understandable, although it would be expected that a contingency plan would be formulated to recover any failure in such a scenario. However if failure occurs as a result of a possible factor purposely being ignored, regardless of its perceived validity, then in my view the excuse of ignorance can in no way be tolerated, particularly when the potential liberty of a nation, of a people is at stake.

In addition, I'd like to add that I am personally in agreement with an ideology which I think was best described by a 19th century educator and revolutionist: "[I]I understand the world solely as a field for cultural competition among nations[/I]". In my opinion, to truly accept this ideology means to accept that the world is constantly in a state of war, I tend to follow the theory that this is defined by either of the following two climates: a "hot war" being of physical confrontation; and a "cold war" being of non-physical confrontation. Hence if leadership chooses to be ignorant to possible factors which may cause a significant impact on the liberty of the people they act on behalf of, whilst in a state of war (whether regarded as cold or hot), then such an act is not only considered antagonistic towards the people but suggestive of treason.

"[I]On a side not, I don’t really accept the validity of ‘international law’, because ultimately, it has been developed by an unelected and unrepresentative body. Further, while some aspects of it may be just and reasonable, others are not.[/I]"

I don't think anyone truly accepts the validity of "international law", particularly since it is subject to interpretation and hence can easily be perverted (as I believe is the case now), however, I do believe the belief in, and agreement to, such a concept/ideology on an international scale is fundamentally necessary, especially if other concepts such as sovereignty and human rights are to remain relevant for all participating parties, for without a set of "guidelines" on how nations are "required" to act with one another, the existence and liberty of a lot of states, including RoM, would not exist. The issue is therefore ensuring that this concept/ideology is kept virtuous.

"[I]I think you give Macedonia too much importance in the eye’s of external powers. It may be of secondary concern to some of our neighbours, but, in my view, it is only a (very) marginal issue for states outside of the Balkan region. I agree though, that there does not appear to be anyone, let alone an organised movement, in Macedonia at the moment that is capable or willing to make any necessary changes.[/I]"

I tend to differentiate between the terms Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia, to me there is only one Macedonia, some people use the term "Geographic" (I believe the MTO's Mission Statement - Macedonian Cause - uses the term "Historical"), to define this entity but I have no tolerance to add further unnecessary identifiers in order to attempt to validate foreign manufactured notions which seek to create divisive factors or imply a variability of the entity, Macedonia is Macedonia. The Republic of Macedonia (RoM) on the other hand is a state within Macedonia which represents the only liberated portion of Macedonia, in other words the only state within the territory of Macedonia which is autonomous and does not fall or serve under the leadership of a foreign/external capital, a capital situated outside of Macedonia. My understanding at its inception was that RoM would be a nation state representative first and foremost of the Macedonian Ethnos. I don't believe that is the case anymore and is essentially where my concern/disagreement lies .

In respect of RoM specifically, I agree that there probably isn't too much importance in the eye's of external powers who have interests in the greater region, other than a trade route and possibly a geographic strategic position, however, in respect of Macedonia, I think it is seen as significantly important to the eyes of external powers, particular those who seek to attain or retain influence in Europe, I think you only need to look to our history for examples to support this belief, and when you consider recent events (I'm referring to the over 200 billion euro bailout of the Republic of Greece, an entity which currently occupies a significant portion of Macedonia), to suggest that Macedonia is regarded as of secondary concern to Europe, may be a slight underestimation in my view.

The fact of the matter is we represent a factor which has the ability to jeopardise Europe's invested interest in the entity which is the Republic of Greece. I am of the opinion that the dissolution of a state is only truly achieved from within, this is particularly the case in a cold war scenario. One must simply encourage and sponsor divisive factors in the entity in order to establish a divide in ideologies and by extension a divide in the people in general. Once this is achieved, it then allows avenues for external influence to intervene in the governance of the state and manipulate the implementation of internal policies. Whichever party's interests best aligns with that of the external party will acquire its support, likewise this also dictates the perception in which the external party will promote its involvement, either the liberator of an oppressed people, or the defender of a people under the threat of terrorism. Both can be interpreted as justifiable actions in the eyes of "international law", so long as the propaganda sufficiently influences or benefits the "right" parties, hence this is how I believe the current system (international law) has become perverted, it is simply becoming a game of perception and it is the conditions of the current international political climate that allows the perversion to take place.

To me, Macedonians are an avenue in which a significant divide could be created within the current entity which is the Republic of Greece, and therefore a specific indigenous Macedonian Ethnos can be regarded as a valid threat to the territorial integrity of the Republic of Greece. The significant potential of this threat, in my view, is supported furthermore on the basis that the Macedonian entity was never a participating party to the agreed official international treaties (and therefore is not bound to the conditions of these treaties) at the time Macedonia seceded from the Ottoman Empire and was eventually partitioned. Should it be desired, there is ample material available to suggest/demonstrate that a specific Macedonian Ethnos or entity existed during this period who desired liberty in the form of an autonomous state, however were chosen to be ignored by all parties involved at the time the fate of Macedonia was ratified by the signing of these agreements/treaties. If a party of greater influence (or Macedonians for that matter) seek to gain power in the region (or destabilise it), a pursuit to re-examine the "Macedonian Question" on the basis of a unique indigenous Macedonian ethnos provides a solid avenue to pursue such a goal and I would opine that Europe is well aware of this, hence the reason why Macedonians (and by extension RoM) are most likely considered a liability. This is just my opinion.

"[I]I don’t think anyone would want to enlist their children into a war for any cause and that is why they seek to deal with the issues themselves – so that their children don’t have to. In my view, Macedonia is going to war whether the people there like it or not and one of the key reasons for that is the Framework Agreement, which has placed the Macedonians and Albanians on to a collision course. The Framework Agreement has become the problem in and of itself and the last ten years has seen segregation and negative competition on the ground like never before. Like I’ve argued many times, I think that there is only a small chance of avoiding war and that is by replacing the Framework Agreement with something much more sensible, as noted in my previous post. That may not work, [U]but doing nothing will definitely not work[/U][/I]."

In respect of the underlined I think truer words could not be spoken. For the record I am personally against the Framework Agreement and concur with your sentiments towards it, but if RoM feels that this type of agreement is necessary to achieve the “kind” of Macedonia they intend to create then it is obvious that there are conflicting ideologies within the Macedonian ethnos as to the “kind” of Macedonia that should be created. As implied in my above comments, I believe Macedonia and particularly RoM, are constantly in a state of war. The type of war they choose to pursue is dependent on which type best facilitates the realisation of their primary goal at a particular period of time. I think timing is crucial to any strategy and should definitely not be influenced by external parties, I personally believe this is the main lesson to be learnt from the Macedonian failure on Iligden. As previously expressed, I don’t think participating in a hot war would produce a favourable result at this point in time as I don't think the mechanisms required to achieve the desired result through this action have been put in place.

I would also like to add that I believe 40 year olds are still considered someone’s children, if you are designated the position of leader in a family, (which is what I think a ruling government of a nation should ultimately see itself as), then committing your people to the act of a hot war should be viewed in the same manner as committing your own family to this act. Basically you don't do it unless you're sure you can achieve and sustain a favourable outcome for your people through this action, or if you are in a position which leaves no other choice (no other options left).

[I]"Just a few points here. Firstly, I don’t think that the Government should be shaping Macedonia. I think that Macedonian society as a whole should be shaping the state – its laws, its institutions and its role." [/I]

The political system in place in RoM is a parliamentary democracy, this particular system provides for the interests/concerns of all citizens of RoM, through their democratically elected representatives, to be expressed and advocated for in parliament. In this model, legislation is to be passed by majority vote of the assembly. The Government is the democratically elected party whose interests, concerns, policies and ideology is considered by the majority of citizens as best aligning with their own. To me this existing system appears to correspond with the requirements of your above view, although if I am mistaken, can you please clarify the type of political system you believe would better suit your stated requirements? or where the current system is lacking?
Also can you please elaborate on what you mean by the term "Macedonian Society" as this may be the point of confusion on my behalf.

"[I]Secondly, the Macedonian constitution mentions a whole host of ‘co-constitutive’ nations, including the Macedonians and ‘others’, which in essence makes it the nation-state of an infinite number of nations – so, its multinational.[/I]"

Do you personally agree that this is how it should be and do you believe that this current form best suits the goals referred to in the MTO's mission statement - The Macedonian Cause?, If not, in what way would you like to see it amended?

"[I]As to the ‘kind’ of Macedonia I would like to see, that’s spelt out in the MTO’s definition of the cause, which I won’t post here to save on repetition. In a nutshell, I’d like to see a Macedonia where Macedonians make their own decisions about their own affairs, i.e., exercising their national sovereignty and inalienable rights. There’s very few options left to the Macedonians, that I can think of, to actually achieve this. The vast majority of other people across the world undertake these actions on a daily basis, including the Albanians living in Macedonia. You mention the ‘international political climate’ and I suppose I’ve already asked you about it above, but can you elaborate on what you mean? I’m wondering if there is something I’ve missed[/I]"

My basic interpretation of the MTO's mission statement is that the MTO's goal is to work towards restoring RoM to its originally intended form, as it was at its inception (along with implementing some other ideological factors), would I be right in abbreviating it in this way? (for the record I essentially agree to the items referred to in this mission statement).
As I mentioned previously, to me the political system in place seems to correspond with the requirements you detailed, unless of course I am mistaken, in which I've asked that you please clarify your view.
I have attempted to elaborate what I was referring to when I mentioned the international political climate, and I hope my explanation made some sense. If you agree to such a concept I would be interested in your own analysis of its current state so that we may identify/examine the factors where our interpretations may differ, that is of course, only if it is of any interest to you. Either way I believe that we are essentially in agreement that the current ideology promoted in RoM is at odds with the Macedonian Ethnos and something needs to be done about it.

[B]Brian:[/B]
I guess it all depends on who you perceive your opponent to be, in view of your comments, I think we may have differing views as to who our opponent encompasses. As I've stated, if I am to have my family participate in a "hot" war, to use your metaphor, I would prefer them to be in the position of the Sledgehammer as opposed to the walnut. It would appear that you identify the opponent as "the Albanians", if this is correct, then in your opinion, who are the Albanians?