Risto Stefov - Articles, Translations & Collaborations

[George S.]

Far-Right Golden Dawn spokesman hits two female MPs on Greek talk show

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/9316125/Far-Right-Golden-Dawn-spokesman-hits-two-female-MPs-on-Greek-talk-show.html

An arrest warrant has been issued for the spokesman for Ilias Kasidiaris, Greece's far-Right Golden Dawn party after he physically assaulted two female left-wing MPs on live television during a morning political show.



Tempers frayed on the political show on the private Antenna television station during a discussion of the country's politics in the run-up to repeat elections on June 17.

Mr Kasidiaris took offence at a reference by radical left Syriza party member Rena Dorou over a court case that is pending against him.



The 31-year-old bounded out of his seat and hurled a glass of water across the table over Ms Dorou when she said there was a "crisis of democracy when people who will take the country back 500 years have got into the Greek parliament."



He then turned on prominent Communist Party member Liana Kanelli, who had got up out of her chair with a newspaper in hand and appeared to throw it at the Golden Dawn member.

Talk show host Giorgos Papadakis ran over to Mr Kasidiaris to attempt to calm him, shouting "no, no, no!"



But Mr Kasidiaris, who had served in the Greek military's special forces, hit Ms Kanelli around the face three times. A public prosecutor ordered his immediate arrest.

Mr Kasidiaris was elected to Parliament in the country's recent inconclusive polls. Deputies from all seven parties that won parliament seats in the May 6 polls had been invited on the show.

"The government condemns in the most categorical way the attack by Golden Dawn spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris against Liana Kanelli and Rena Dourou," government spokesman Dimitris Tsiodras said. "This attack is an attack against every democratic citizen."



Mr Tsiodras called on Golden Dawn to condemn its member's actions.

Golden Dawn, which vehemently denies the neo-Nazi label, has been accused of being behind violent attacks against immigrants.



The party won nearly 7 percent of the vote on May 6, giving it 21 seats in the 300-member Parliament. It was a radical increase from its showing in the previous elections in 2009, when the party had won just 0.31 percent of the vote.



Greeks reeling from two years of austerity amid their country's vicious financial crisis punished the two formerly main parties, the conservative New Democracy and socialist PASOK at the polls, turning instead to radical smaller parties to the right and left of the political spectrum.

The 300 deputies took up their seats for a day last month before parliament was dissolved and new elections called as no party had won enough votes to form a government on its own, and negotiations for a coalition government collapsed after 10 days.



Source: AP



The article below titled “One in two policemen voted for Golden Dawn” is from the Greek newspaper To Vima (The Herald) of May 11, 2012, is an analysis of the voting results of the designated polls in Athens where members of the Eliniki Astynomia (EL. AS.) or Greek Police voted.



As it is now widely known Golden Dawn is the party of the neonazis in Greece.



“The analysis of the votes received by "Golden Dawn" in 11 polling stations of Athens voting district ‘A’ is impressive. At these polls vote thousands of police officers serving in the General Police Directorate of Attica - based on the special electoral lists’, ……………………………. Shows “the percentage of police officers who vote "Golden Dawn" ranges between 45% and 59%.”

http://www.tovima.gr/afieromata/elections2012/article/?aid=457088

Ενας στους δύο αστυνομικούς ψήφισαν «Χρυσή Αυγή»

Τι δείχνουν τα αποτελέσματα στα εκλογικά τμήματα στα οποία ψηφίζει το προσωπικό της ΕΛ.ΑΣ.

Βασίλης Γ. Λαμπρόπουλος



ΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ: 11/05/2012, 06:21 | ΤΕΛΕΥΤΑΙΑ ΕΝΗΜΕΡΩΣΗ: 11/05/2012, 06:21

Περισσότεροι από ένας στους δύο αστυνομικούς ψήφισαν «Χρυσή Αυγή»! Το εντυπωσιακό αυτό στοιχείο φαίνεται να προκύπτει από την ανάλυση των ψήφων σε εκλογικά τμήματα της πρωτεύουσας-κυρίως στις περιοχές των Αμπελοκήπων και στην Καισαριανή- όπου ψηφίζουν μαζικά περίπου 5.000 αστυνομικοί που υπηρετούν σε αστυνομικές υπηρεσίες της Αθήνας.

Στα περισσότερα από τα τμήματα στα οποία ψηφίζουν οι αστυνομικοί -όπως κι άλλοι πολίτες- το ποσοστό της «Χρυσής Αυγής» κυμαίνεται από 19-24% κι είναι το μεγαλύτερο που παρατηρείται σε ολόκληρη την πρωτεύουσα. Είναι χαρακτηριστικό ότι η οργάνωση σε περιοχές όπως ο Αγιος Παντελεήμονας ή η Κυψέλη, όπου θεωρείται ότι έχει ισχυρά ερείσματα, συγκεντρώνει ποσοστό από 15 έως 18%!

Η ανάλυση των ψήφων που έλαβε η «Χρυσή Αυγή» σε 11 εκλογικά τμήματα της Α΄ Αθηνών είναι εντυπωσιακή. Σ΄αυτά ψηφίζουν - με βάση ειδικούς εκλογικούς καταλόγους- χιλιάδες αστυνομικοί που υπηρετούν στην Γενική Αστυνομική Διεύθυνση Αττικής και σε υπηρεσίες όπως η Άμεση Δράση, η ΔΙΑΣ, η Ασφάλεια Αττικής κι άλλες. Τα τμήματα αυτά- από το 806 ως και το 816 εκλογικό τμήμα-,βρίσκονται στα σχολικά συγκροτήματα στην οδό Αμπελακίων 24 και στην οδό Πανόρμου, κοντά στην έδρα του Μεγάρου της ΕΛ.ΑΣ, στη Λεωφόρο Αλεξάνδρας.



Στα εν λόγω τμήματα η «Χρυσή Αυγή» έρχεται πρώτο κόμμα και το ποσοστό της κυμαίνεται από 18,64% (στο 813ο εκλογικό τμήμα) έως 23,67% (στο 816ο εκλογικό τμήμα). Επιπλέον η «Χρυσή Αυγή» έλαβε ποσοστά 23,08% στο 811ο εκλογικό τμήμα, 22,7% στο 808ο εκλογικό τμήμα και 22,2 στο 806ο.

Είναι χαρακτηριστικό ότι λίγες εκατοντάδες μέτρα πιο κάτω σε εκλογικά τμήματα της οδού Τσόχα, όπου δεν ψηφίζουν οι αστυνομικοί, το ποσοστό της «Χρυσής Αυγής» πέφτει στο 12-14%. Αν συνυπολογισθεί ότι κατά μέσο όρο σε κάθε ένα από αυτά τα τμήματα, όπως προκύπτει εξάλλου και από τους εκλογικούς καταλόγους, ψηφίζουν περίπου 550-700 άτομα κι ο αριθμός των αστυνομικών που ψηφίζουν σ΄αυτά κυμαίνεται από 20% ως 30% επί του συνόλου των ψηφισάντων, τότε με την σχετική αναγωγή το ποσοστό των αστυνομικών που ψηφίζουν «Χρυσή Αυγή» κινείται μεταξύ του του 45% και του 59%.



Εκτός τούτου, σε τέσσερα αστυνομικά τμήματα της Καισαριανής, που βρίσκονται δίπλα στην έδρα των ΜΑΤ, όπου και πάλι ψήφισαν αστυνομικοί της συγκεκριμένης αστυνομικής δύναμης, η «Χρυσή Αυγή» καταλαμβάνει ποσοστό από 13 έως 19%. Το ποσοστό αυτό είναι εξ ίσου εντυπωσιακό αν συσχετισθεί με το γεγονός ότι σε γειτονικά εκλογικά τμήματα στην περιοχή του Βύρωνα η δύναμη της «Χρυσής Αυγής» είναι από 7% ως 10%.

[George S.]

Macedonia Committed To Keeping Soldiers In Afghanistan

By Misko Taleski, SETimes

May 29, 2012

http://www.eurasiareview.com/29052012-macedonia-committed-to-keeping-soldiers-in-afghanistan/#.T8kKhxq4g4M.email

Macedonia’s government said it is committed to keeping its troops as part of the NATO mission in Afghanistan, despite urging from some in the country to withdraw after the organization again chose not to extend membership to Macedonia last week.



“Greece’s policy is merciless towards Macedonia’s soldiers, who risk their lives daily to bring freedom and security to Afghanistan. Irresponsible politicians and resulting policies do not contribute to the security and stability of our region,” President Georgi Ivanov told SETimes.

The small nation lobbied for an invitation to be extended at the Chicago NATO summit, but the organization took no action toward expansion. It’s the second disappointment for Macedonia, which also sought an invite in 2008, but both times were thwarted over a longstanding name dispute with neighbouring Greece.



“Macedonia should rethink whether it is ready to continue participating in Afghanistan and invest funds to be a part of the ‘global partnership’ when itself is faced with the consequences of the economic crisis. If asked, I would counsel to immediately withdraw our soldiers,” Biljana Vankovska, professor at the Institute for Security, Defence and Peace Studies, told SETimes.

She argued that the demand stems from failing to give Macedonia equal treatment and as a result of the increased cost to the country of participation in NATO’s missions. It is better to dedicate time and resources to securing the peace internally, she said.



Macedonia is the fifth-largest contributor of soldiers per capita since it began to participate in NATO’s missions in 2002 in Iraq, Lebanon, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Afghanistan. There are more than 2,000 Macedonian soldiers in Afghanistan, as well as thousands of other Macedonian citizens in various support capacities. Macedonian soldiers are also included in training the Afghan security forces.



Macedonia’s military leaders argue the country should continue the pro-NATO course despite the cost of 120m euros for the NATO missions.



“Withdrawing from the ISAF mission in Afghanistan will be a big political mistake. Problems are not solved by retribution; that way only friends and allies are lost. This, at a time when the Macedonian soldiers are receiving the highest decorations from NATO and the US,” the former chief of staff, General Mistre Arosvski, told SETimes.



The government said it is not planning to increase the number of troops in NATO missions because that would drain the state budget. NATO membership enjoys over 90% support in Macedonia according to latest polls, and citizens are mostly sceptical about calls for troop responsible for US operations in 52 countries. EUCOM is committed to promoting stability, co-operation and prosperity in the region.



“Being revolted at the big powers’ political games, double standards and unjust decisions outside accepted criteria is a human reaction. But long-term, we all believe Macedonia will one day be part of NATO and we should continue the presence of our military in Afghanistan,” Skopje resident Todor Ristovski, 47, told SETimes.



Macedonia has been recognized by more than 100 nations, but is a member of the UN under a “temporary reference” of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Greece objects because it sees a threat toward its own province with the same name. Macedonia says its name is a matter of national identity.



About SETimes



The Southeast European Times Web site is a central source of news and information about Southeastern Europe in ten languages: Albanian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Croatian, English, Greek, Macedonian, Romanian, Serbian and Turkish. The Southeast European Times is sponsored by the US European Command, the joint military command

[George S.]

Macedonia: Gruevski Responds Bluntly To NATO’s Decision

By Misko Taleski, SETimes

May 23, 2012

http://www.eurasiareview.com/23052012-macedonia-gruevski-responds-bluntly-natos-decision/#.T742StuJqwo.email

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.



The rejection was expected by observers, but that didn’t keep Gruevski from bitterly criticising NATO in an interview Tuesday with the Macedonian Information Agency (MIA).



“Such a policy of double standards, unprincipled-ness and moving away from the values they themselves publicly proclaim, I have not seen in a long time as is the case with Macedonia. They are ignoring the International Court of Justice ruling,” Gruevski said, referring to a December 2011 decision in which the court concluded that Greece had violated a 1995 Interim Accord when it vetoed Macedonia’s bid for NATO membership in 2008.



Gruevski’s unusually frank language reflects the disappointment for Macedonians, where recent polls showed that 85% of the population wanted the nation to be a NATO member. Newspaper headlines in Macedonia called the two-day Chicago summit a “disgrace.”



“Finally, somebody expressed that which the people think, being fully aware about the inequalities and realities of international politics. The choice NATO gives Macedonia to appease Greece, is no choice; we will never change nor should change our name. If NATO does not want us in as Macedonia, we should reconsider our commitment to the alliance,” Borche Ristevski, 32, a resident of Skopje, told SETimes.



While criticising some of the Western leaders, Gruevski said the sole culprit is Greece, which he said has used all means at its disposal over the past two decades to slow Macedonia’s development because of the longstanding disagreement over Macedonia’s name.



“These countries [NATO members] I consider our friends, but they are at the same time greater friends of Greece. That is how it was in the past 21 years and that is why Greece succeeds at harassing Macedonia to the maximum, without facing serious consequences,” said Gruevski. Macedonians say anything but the name “Republic of Macedonia” denies the nation’s right of identity. Greece has said the name is an implied threat towards its province of the same name.

Macedonia has been recognised by more than 100 countries and was admitted to the UN in 1993, but in that body — and most other international organisations — is identified as “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.” Macedonia applied for NATO membership in 2005 and believed that it would be accepted in 2008, but Greece blocked a formal invitation

Despite the latest disappointment, Gruevski stressed that Macedonia remains committed to eventual membership. “We will remain dedicated to materialising our strategic goal for NATO membership and will work towards it. If somebody tells the truth, it does not mean he is picking a fight with the strategic partners,” Gruevski concluded.



Most analysts said the speech was a call to unite the country politically and that Gruevski –without question — succeeded.



“Gruevski has struck a chord with the people because he is the first Macedonian leader to state things as they objectively are, despite a potential threat to his position. The interview channeled the pain Macedonians feel while affected in every way possible by Greece’s blockages and obfuscation internationally,” Vladimir Bozhinovski, analyst at the Institute for Political Research, told SETimes.



“The speech also lays the ground for Macedonia to define its ‘red line’ regarding the Greek-imposed name issue,” he added.



Current and former policy makers expressed support, particularly praising the importance domestic policy continues to place on the rule of law as well as international law tenants.

“If Macedonia sends most soldiers to NATO missions per capita; if its soldiers fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq with high-level professionalism as NATO allies; if we have satisfied all standards and criteria, achieved all reforms and are not getting anything in response, then Macedonia is right to be critical about the processes and the behaviour of some states,” Slobodan Chashule, Macedonia’s former foreign minister, told SETimes.



“In the case of Greece, it appears here that NATO and the EU are rewarding bad behaviour. Such an approach is already very costly for the EU, and we hope it will not be similarly costly to NATO,” Chashule said.

[George S.]

The Curious Case of Macedonian Parliamentary Elections: Part II. Causes and Consequences

By Igor Siljanoski - 7/19/2011



On June 4th, 2011 Macedonian citizens living outside of the Republic of Macedonia voted for the first time in a Macedonian parliamentary election. At stake in the second in row early elections were three newly created seats in the “Sobranie,” the Macedonian House of Representatives, all of which were won by deputies from the governing party VMRO-DPMNE. The next day the party won the early parliamentary elections in the country with much diminished share of the national seats.

Weeks before the Macedonian parliamentary elections, the opposition parties publicly stated that the country was not prepared for the June 4th elections in the newly formed election units outside of Macedonia. They went as far as calling the whole process the biggest election falsification and that it could only benefit the ruling establishment of the governing party. They also pointed to the many deficiencies in the process, both technical and democratic.

It is worth asking about the driving force behind a decision to have Macedonia’s first worldwide elections. Why was this decision made? How do we explain the results? What are the consequences of such an election? These are questions that were important for the country to understand. Yet, as soon as the election was over, the entire June 4th affair was largely forgotten by everyone, including the media.

The VMRO connection to the Macedonian Diaspora

The June 4th election was a realization of one time promise given by one person, Nikola Gruevski, then leader of the official opposition party VMRO-DPMNE in 2004 in front of a sizeable audience of Macedonian immigrants in Detroit, Michigan in the United States. The promise was repeated on few more stops in the United States and notably in Melbourne, Australia. His promise was, in his own recollection, made on behalf of his party. It can only be speculated that the promise was preceded by a strong desire and ask by the immigrants present at the meetings or behind closed doors to be represented in the Macedonian parliament and in government.

Before the Macedonian Diaspora could influence the 2011 parliamentary elections it played a key role in forming the original electoral party of VMRO in Macedonia. The party was officially formed in June 1990 but its origins run much deeper. Many Macedonians abroad were victims of persecution either connected with the Greek Civil war that culminated in 1948-49 or in Yugoslavia where the idea of an independent Macedonian state was not in the plans of the federal authorities. Working in exile, these Macedonians carried the ideas formed in the early 20 century in Ottoman occupied Macedonia. The most prominent organization in an extremely turbulent and confusing period was titled Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization IMRO. The Macedonian acronym was VMRO. The name struck a chord in the Macedonian immigrant community and the name survived till 1990. What was a movement became a political party. Although details of the story of the origins of VMRO in North America and Australia remain murky, the 2004 meetings was nonetheless a homecoming of sorts for a new and energetic leader of the party carrying the tradition of the historic VMRO.

The Diaspora’s role in forming the party in Macedonia is not without significance for the current events. At the time of the Macedonian declaration of independence there was hardly any capacity to form an opposition party to the ruling Socialist/Communist party that was left with the disintegration of Yugoslavia. The socialist party was rebranded as Social Democratic Union of Macedonia. The formation of VMRO was the much needed shot of pluralism in the new state. The party was received well by the population and so was the young leader Ljupco Georgievski at its helm. The party was still weak and did not have enough support to win the first election, let alone to muster any of the revolutionary reforms and purges that would remove the former regime from power (like in the Czech Republic two years earlier).

The SDSM was on the surface a social democratic party but winning the election it moved to the right of the political spectrum to become the party of the elites as opposed to the working people in the new republic. The party implemented Macedonia’s first privatization plan with mixed results and disappointed many who expected a more orderly and more just privatization of the socialist enterprises worth saving and being built over many years in the former country.

Eventually, the VMRO party met electoral success but only for a short period of time. Their victory was based on a perception that the party was closer to the ordinary folk and that unlike the SDSM it was less likely to plunder the state treasury for the benefit of its own members. Once in power, however, it did not fare much better than the socialists. In the first place, lacking parliamentary majority it struggled to form a new government. Once established as a government, VMRO was not immune to the possibilities that allowed the government to benefit from the transition.

As a result of their policies, both leading Macedonian political parties in effect prolonged the economic transition to the detriment of economic growth and political stability culminating in 2001 with the Albanian insurgency in Macedonia. In the turmoil of the Macedonian Albanian conflict the VMRO lost the political battle and was forced to cede power to a unity government.

Meanwhile, the Ohrid Agreement, a series of constitutional guarantees won by the Albanian minority parties as a result of the peace deal brokered by the United States, ended the open hostilities and moved the country furthermore into a civic society. The VMRO party was a pan Macedonian national party and Macedonia was healing from an event that brought bitter and deep divisions to the surface that the party could not at the moment bridge or soothe. Its main vision was for Macedonia to be the country of the Macedonian nation. The realization of this vision was untenable without a formal and open recognition of the reality of the ethnic and religious makeup of the Country.

The VMRO’s bridge to the future at the time was Boris Trajkovski, a VMRO backed President that won a close presidential race in 1999. The race was so close the new president could not take the oath of office until all of the appeals to the vote count run their course. Once the crisis entered a post conflict phase Trajkovski’s manner gave everyone from the foreigners, the ambassadors and statesmen in Macedonia and the political parties’ confidence in at least one institution, the Presidency. At the time he received praise for handling the very heated atmosphere following the chaos of the spring and summer of 2001.

Following the loss of power by the party, Nikola Gruevski, previous finance minister to the now embattled leader of VMRO Georgievski managed to win a leadership position in the newly rebranded VMRO-DPMNE. He also managed to keep a large portion of the VMRO supporters in a slight to the original leader. While in opposition, Mr. Gruevski built support for his party. With no pressure that comes with governing he could concentrate on building a wider base for his Party. The wider base at home meant they would take in more educated, respected and more astute candidates, administrators and organizers, something sorely lacking with their first adventure in power. The search for support in the Diaspora was curious but part of the same effort to consolidate and widen his party’s support. This however was not the quest for intellectual power for the party, only for feeling the party roots and soft power over the Macedonians.

The nationalist Macedonian immigrants, a small but vocal minority among the many Macedonians residing abroad have helped with the formation of an alternative all Macedonian party in Macedonia. Now that the party finally gained legitimacy in Parliament and looked poised to replace the SDSM they sought victory for themselves. The new leader won their affection by speaking the same language of uncompromising defense of the Macedonian domain, identity, and name and about economic prosperity for the republic.

The final piece of the puzzle was the engagement of these passionate Macedonians in Macedonian affairs. The promise to have Macedonians everywhere vote in one of the next Macedonian elections sealed the popularity of the leading party with expatriates. The party won the parliamentary elections of 2006. The election was mired with irregularities and the outcome was a minority government let by VMRO. The government was formed with the largest Albanian party as a coalition partner.

The 2011 election call

The political circumstances in the country did not at first appear that dire for early elections so the election call came to Macedonians as a bit of a surprise. The VMRO-DPMNE had a comfortable lead in the parliament and barring one or two smaller affairs (a regular feature in Macedonian politics) it was a rather tranquil time. Then, on January 28, 2011 the opposition party left the parliament in a show of, well, opposition. The official reason was the hard handed approach by the state to the media outlets led by a television station, A1. The officials claimed criminal activity related to unpaid taxes in a series of businesses with a single address at Pero Nakov Street and a common owner, Velija Ramkovski.

In the last months of 2010 Velija seemed to come ever closer to Branko Crvenkovski, the leader of the official opposition. The relationship was not new but the openness and expectation of future political partnership in front of cameras signaled renewed commitment of both to collaborate and the implication was that it would be against the current government, presumably in the next elections.

At the same time, the television station A1 and the affiliated press organizations controlled by Velija continued to relentlessly criticize the government at every opportunity. The offices of the A1 television were raided on December 25, 2010. In a display of state power Velija Ramkovski was arrested along with many of his associates and managers under suspicion of hiding taxes. The Macedonian revenue agency (UJP) was in the lead of the investigation but the heavy police presence protecting the financial inspectors gave the television and opposition parties a visual fodder to accuse the government of attacking the freedom of the media. The opposition immediately painted the arrests as politically motivated. The government promptly denied political motivation and dismissed suppression of the unfriendly media as unfounded. The opposition reacted by walking away from parliament in protest.

This was not a first time that opposition party boycotted the parliament but the lessons from previous times have shown a pattern. The pressure would increase for a compromise and the opposition would win the support of the ambassadors and the EU officials etc. The problem would be portrayed as non-cooperation by the political parties on the European agenda and the pressure would increase for meetings, mediators and warnings from Brussels. In time the result would be the same, Macedonia would succumb under the pressure of others to fix the situation created by those who instigated the boycott and circumvented the institution in the first place by yet another political compromise.

It is difficult to assess whether the plans for opening the election to Macedonian citizens abroad had anything to do with the decision to go to an early election. The estimation that the elections would be low risk affair for the ruling party, however, probably played a significant role. The blame for the early election could be safely passed to the opposition and the three additional seats would help secure the party’s majority in Parliament.

The election showed how fluid the political landscape in the country is, that no one is politically infallible and that trust has to be earned outside elections. The media affair did not help the ruling party. Neither did the display of the previous poor record of the opposition party.

Voters did not care that the opposition left the parliament and wrestled the election by a staged protest. The issues in the election were entirely different. Perception of continuation of the political control over the public security sector and the judiciary by yet another political party seemed like betrayal of trust. The low and not improving living standard made worse by the global recession and rise in commodity prices were a serious issue as well. For all of the projects announced with enthusiasm by the government, the overall marks by the electorate for handling the economy and the euro integration were rather low.

The only saving grace and perhaps a reason for the return of the VMRO-DPMNE to power, albeit diminished one is the overall perception on the law enforcement and anti-corruption front. Not all, but many, saw a small but significant rise in the rule of law as a hopeful sign.

Without admitting it, Macedonians liked the semblance of orderly revenue collection, adherence to regulations and rules and the appearance of budgeted items in the state budget. In short, westernization of the Macedonian fiscal affairs, albeit still weak, was the reason for the support of the current government. Last, but not least, of the reasons for the vote was the remaining perception of the nationalist character of the leading party, something the Macedonians have not yet abandoned as important.

Once the decision to go to an election was made, the elections abroad were a scramble. Questions abounded: Who can be a candidate? How many citizens have to nominate an independent candidate? How do political parties nominate candidates? Who can vote? What documents do you need? Where would you go to register or to vote? Where can you gain information on the candidates and the elections abroad?

Open ended questions of these seemingly simple concepts in the republic were repeatedly asked mere weeks before the vote. The deadline for candidates to be nominated and the voters to be registered was May 6th. Many of the most eager and most informed Macedonian immigrants saw the voter registration forms only days before that date. The church organizations and Macedonian halls in many of the Canadian and US communities with large Macedonian population received the forms barely on time and very little else. The whole election seemed to be an afterthought.

The results of the vote

The June 4th, 2011 election results confirmed that all three of the election districts abroad went to VMRO candidates. According to web sources containing Macedonian population numbers there are anywhere between 600,000 and well over a million Macedonians living outside Macedonia. The Macedonian State Electoral Commission was able to persuade 7573 Macedonian Citizens to register for the vote worldwide. Only 4079 (less than 1% of the most conservative estimate of the Macedonian population living outside the country) actually voted in the three electoral units abroad, labeled 7, 8 and 9. The winners were:

Risto Mancev in Europe with 1578 out of the 2494 votes
Pavle Sazdov in North America with 560 out of 994 votes and
Milorad Dodevski in Australia with 548 out of only 591 votes cast


These numbers reflect a campaign that was too short, too compressed and essentially buried in obscurity as far as the Macedonian citizens living abroad were concerned. Even in these painfully small numbers of Macedonians who voted there is a huge hole in the absence of independent candidates. The elections were a mirror image of the Macedonian political party landscape only with the predominance of one political party. In Macedonia the elections showed a strong electoral split among the available parties.

People were casting votes as easily for the opposition as for the ruling party. The second placed SDSM had a huge electoral victory in the elections, pushing the ruling party numbers into minority territory. In comparison, the external elections were baby steps if described generously. The result, however, was not accidental.

Putting aside the suggestions by numerous articles in the Macedonian media and the arguments of the other political parties that the June 4th elections experienced heavy irregularities in the voting process, lacked legitimacy or that the State Electoral Commission did dismal job with voter lists, it is clear that the outcome was a result of years of work by the ruling party, VMRO-DPMNE to gain the trust and affection of Macedonians abroad. The relationship was nurtured and strengthened by the overt patriotism of the Party and the emotional connection of Macedonians to their land.

Even with an election done by Canadian and Swiss election authorities together the result may have been the same. Even if the voter numbers were much higher and included the more numerous mainstream immigrants, there is a good chance that they would vote for the only party they recognize as the Macedonian national party, something well placed in their sub-conscience.

This is the case despite the fact that the state of Macedonian political organizations abroad, including that of VMRO is almost nonexistent and the fact that the Macedonians are divided, suspicious of each other and highly individualistic. That the turnout was low, the opposition weak and the timelines extremely tight made the result more secure but not more inevitable.

The decision to have an election abroad can then be explained by the calculation of the VMRO-DPMNE that it will win all seats it creates for the members of the Macedonian Diaspora. Politically speaking, it is a logical move for a party that has the strongest support abroad. The decision, however, opens many new questions that have consequences for the Macedonian state. It makes a precedent that will open immigrant issues that may or may not mesh well with the state’s overall policy and interest. It has to be upheld in subsequent elections with considerable cost now made permanent. It opens a new avenue of organizational formation, first of the Macedonian political parties abroad and second of independent movements and organizations that will challenge VMRO-DPMNE at the very next election for the seats and the policy.

The story of the election does not end there. The numerous complaints and cries of anguish by the Macedonian immigrants did not only focus on the technical aspects of the election. There were more fundamental questions raised. Why would anyone be concerned or vote in an election if the outcome has absolutely no effect on their life? This is precisely why many Macedonians abroad silently see the whole affair as an internal Macedonian manipulation for domestic political purposes.

Issues that matter to Macedonians abroad

There are very few but very legitimate issues for Macedonians abroad that were raised in person and in print during the election campaign. One is the Macedonian identity issue. On this issue all Macedonians, virtually of all stripes abroad are united and to the right of any political party in the country. The firm position is that there should be no compromise; no negotiations under any auspices regarding the name of the state or any of the identity qualifiers such as the language, nationality etc. No Macedonian sovereign rights should be ceded in the UN process as it was not legitimate from the very beginning.

No political party in Macedonia promised to walk away from the negotiating table as that would likely spell a serious problem with the EU and its goodwill, money or prospects for entry into the EU. Immigrants, on the other hand do not see the need to pander to these institutions if they don’t recognize the importance of the name to the identity of the Macedonian nation.

Has the VMRO-DPMNE or any other political party in Macedonia addressed this issue in a way that they will be truly supported by the Diaspora? Hardly, and there lies the suspicion expressed by the Macedonian organizations abroad. Their message is simple; we need independent candidates who would legitimately represent our interests. In other words, not one of the major political parties represents or could represent our interests; they would only fall under the rigor of the political party discipline common to a parliamentary system. Worse, they will likely be influenced by the heavy presence of the international community and the will of the European and other world powers. Only independent individuals chosen in a wide and open election may be the only hope for true representation.


Many Macedonians living abroad travel to Macedonia with regular frequency. These Macedonians are responsible for an increasing portion of the Macedonian GDP through their direct foreign currency contributions to the country. Most trips are in the summer months when Macedonian immigrants fill the many gaps in the general tourism demand. Visiting Macedonia is the second most important issue for the Macedonians living abroad.

One problem is the relative obscurity of the country for international travelers. It is hard to reach Macedonia without thorough planning and investment in time and money. The country has done very little to organize trips and travel agencies into a network to negotiate and secure airlines, foreign tour operators and internal transportation for our immigrants to visit Macedonia. Normally, this is not a function of the state but it would be vastly beneficial to Macedonia to have made some efforts to improve its infrastructure and open the possibilities for travel to Macedonia. One development that has the potential to open up Macedonia for foreign travelers, including expatriates is the concession given to the Turkish TAV who is now responsible for the two Macedonian airports. The potential in terms of transportation and economic development is huge and it is yet to sync in with the Macedonians.

The Macedonians living abroad may wish only to reconnect with family and friends or to reconnect with their youth, their ancestral land and village or town but they also have legal, business, familial and other affairs they need to take care of while in Macedonia. The experience and treatment of the Macedonian immigrants by the Macedonian institutions is far from stellar and constitutes the third legitimate electoral issue. The time it takes to do these things in Macedonia can be long and tiring. Access to various professionals such as lawyers, notaries, doctors and many institutions of the system is a sour point and subject of many sad stories.

Macedonians want their representatives to work with the bureaucracy in Macedonia and talk/lobby the government, government institutions and everyone that matters for a better, quicker and more human treatment of fellow citizens living abroad.

Difficulty is that a country that treats its own citizens living in the country a certain way cannot be expected to treat those who visit from abroad much better. If the institutions had the capacity to deal with the workload and the demand as it arises, it would be probably noted in one of the many reports by the EU as a huge success for the country on its way to full EU membership.

The counterargument is often brisk. The visitors are treated worse than locals, as they lack connections, do not know the process and are often taken for a ride and pay more than necessary for anything and everything from a simple taxi ride to a service by a professional.

The expectations from Macedonians about navigating the regulatory system, utilities, postal services and any other services for that matter are arguably high. Yet, corruption in Macedonia is a problem. It is also a way of life. For an immigrant facing this reality it is a great disappointment. Furthermore, it is the specific kind of corruption that is the culprit. It is difficult to accept the normalcy of bribing for services that should be paid above the table when it is absent in someone’s everyday reality elsewhere. It is an indication of the difficult road ahead for Macedonia. The solution coming from abroad, however, can be rather shallow and self-serving: “fix the corruption that we face when in Macedonia and make it go away while I am on vacation.”

If these parliamentary representatives are not independent and are instead part of a Macedonian political party, how can they ask for such a radical change outside of the normal Macedonian speed of change (infinite transition)? The answer is the same. There needs to be a systemic change across the Macedonian republic for the conditions to improve and that can only come from within the country.

An election abroad as an exceptional political act

If this is what the Macedonians want in terms of representation and what they care about in terms of issues it is not untoward to conclude that the elections did not fulfill the promise or the spirit of what was promised to Macedonians abroad. These Macedonians, this time were in the background and a passive observer of the affair. It is a case akin to a mistaken identity. The identity that was mistaken was that of the representatives that were chosen, put into the rink and ascended or acclaimed in parliament. The ones caught holding the bag did not have a chance to understand, assess and act on these elections. If there were ten steps to such an election, the Macedonians abroad were stuck on step one before someone told them that the ten step race was over and done.

The issue of issues in the few days that can be identified as a campaign was not about issues, representation, economic or any other aspect of the life abroad or in the Republic. It was the ability to be identified and counted as Macedonian. The issue was whether one has a Macedonian passport and the ability or chance to vote or be voted for. Having not resolved that issue in 20 years, the Macedonian government of the day showed only that it wished this problem was solved and has thrown only a small bone that was more contentious than useful when chewed. In the process the government threw a wrench in the relationship it had with the Diaspora.

Can anything nice be said about the June 4th elections? If there is solace it comes from the fact that despite its very small economic and political size Macedonia amazingly can and has acted upon an issue above its weight class. Sometimes an attempt speaks of the hidden capability of people. Yes, what an enthusiasm, what effort for only three electoral seats all done largely for one political party, but it was a political act of some complexity nonetheless. It also opened in this author’s opinion one of the most subtle and intuitive sleeper issues for the Macedonian nation if there ever was one. To preserve the nation, its truths and myths in the same measure and to one day seize the day as a true nation among equals, the Macedonian nation ought to connect the Macedonians wherever they are, and they are truly everywhere. It is a tall order but in a new age it is not outside of the realm of the possible.

This preservation must be based on three other tasks. One is that the Macedonians in Macedonia must preserve the unity and viability of the Macedonian state. This can only be done with the will and collaboration of all nationalities that live in the state. Second, it must develop a set of principles that would not be disputable. The conflict over a name of the state has already served in accomplishing this task. It is an affirmation of the strength of will even over substance and economic well-being. Third, it must grow its own unique path to prosperity. Macedonians must have a will to develop despite all of the obstacles they face.

Macedonians need no reminder of the fragile nature of their situation but could take pause to understand what is happening in the world today. The world around the small Macedonian state is changing rapidly. The sanctity of the European experiment is punctured in a major way. The biggest foe of Macedonia in the twenty year independence, Greece is on its economic death bed. They have closed the doors of Europe for the Macedonian Republic but they have, by this act, kept the Republic isolated from the dangers of the two-speed Europe scourge that is consuming the entire southern plank of the continent.

We were not allowed the benefits but also the mistakes or the debt we could have accumulated along the way. In an act that can safely be described as stupidity on its part Greece has spread the word about Macedonia in every corner of the world. If you are ever in a situation to travel very far and speak to ordinary people but also with the elites, the congressmen or parliamentarians in far flung countries and continents, you will not be stranger anymore.

I was recently at a reception deep into the countryside of Michigan and happen to sit with no less than four US congress representatives from Michigan. Once I told them I was Macedonian the conversation was lively and informed. No one questioned the existence of the nation or the country; on the contrary, there was a lot of understanding and respect. One cannot buy such propaganda of your national brand and tiny Macedonia could never afford to.

The success of the Republic nonetheless has to come from within its own borders. The most involved arguments for including immigrants in the conversation may be ultimately about their return to the country or interest in the Republic. The June 4th election was only a small step for Macedonia in being inclusive. It was not done well. It left many Macedonians asking whether this was an open hand of kinship or a slap in the face. The bigger step would be to search deeper for the goals and the proper realization of the next election.

The original question is whether the Diaspora should have a say in Macedonian affairs. Depending on the answer it is possible to construct some options for the next election. If you believe that representation without having a direct and material stake is wrong or that Macedonian immigrants affecting policy for those who actually pay taxes and live in Macedonia is wrong, there should not be another election abroad and the three seats should be scrapped.

If you believe that there is a legitimate need for all Macedonians living anywhere in the world to have a say, you would have to first justify your belief and argue how this benefits the Republic as opposed to only Macedonians living abroad.

The options in having a follow up election would be to repeat the same election, to improve the process with more polling stations, improved information flow etc. or to rethink the entire process and allow for input and feedback by the Diaspora in the creation of the next electoral vote. According to the poor perception this time around, the Macedonians would likely lean toward the last option. Macedonians living outside and inside Macedonia are part of the same people. As such, to borrow a line from a speech by Lincoln, they would all like to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

In the next installment of the Curious Case of the Macedonian Elections Abroad the theme is: Does the Macedonian Diaspora hold the key to Macedonia’s future?



Igor Siljanoski is a policy professional working and residing in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. His previous experience was in the public sector as an economist, economic development consultant and business and financial planner. Igor is lecturing macroeconomics at the St.Clair College of applied arts and science in Windsor, Ontario. Igor holds Masters Degree in Political Science and Honours Bachelor of Arts in International Relations from the University of Windsor, Canada.

[George S.]

The Curious Case of Macedonian Parliamentary Elections: Part II. Causes and Consequences

By Igor Siljanoski - 7/19/2011



On June 4th, 2011 Macedonian citizens living outside of the Republic of Macedonia voted for the first time in a Macedonian parliamentary election. At stake in the second in row early elections were three newly created seats in the “Sobranie,” the Macedonian House of Representatives, all of which were won by deputies from the governing party VMRO-DPMNE. The next day the party won the early parliamentary elections in the country with much diminished share of the national seats.

Weeks before the Macedonian parliamentary elections, the opposition parties publicly stated that the country was not prepared for the June 4th elections in the newly formed election units outside of Macedonia. They went as far as calling the whole process the biggest election falsification and that it could only benefit the ruling establishment of the governing party. They also pointed to the many deficiencies in the process, both technical and democratic.

It is worth asking about the driving force behind a decision to have Macedonia’s first worldwide elections. Why was this decision made? How do we explain the results? What are the consequences of such an election? These are questions that were important for the country to understand. Yet, as soon as the election was over, the entire June 4th affair was largely forgotten by everyone, including the media.

The VMRO connection to the Macedonian Diaspora

The June 4th election was a realization of one time promise given by one person, Nikola Gruevski, then leader of the official opposition party VMRO-DPMNE in 2004 in front of a sizeable audience of Macedonian immigrants in Detroit, Michigan in the United States. The promise was repeated on few more stops in the United States and notably in Melbourne, Australia. His promise was, in his own recollection, made on behalf of his party. It can only be speculated that the promise was preceded by a strong desire and ask by the immigrants present at the meetings or behind closed doors to be represented in the Macedonian parliament and in government.

Before the Macedonian Diaspora could influence the 2011 parliamentary elections it played a key role in forming the original electoral party of VMRO in Macedonia. The party was officially formed in June 1990 but its origins run much deeper. Many Macedonians abroad were victims of persecution either connected with the Greek Civil war that culminated in 1948-49 or in Yugoslavia where the idea of an independent Macedonian state was not in the plans of the federal authorities. Working in exile, these Macedonians carried the ideas formed in the early 20 century in Ottoman occupied Macedonia. The most prominent organization in an extremely turbulent and confusing period was titled Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization IMRO. The Macedonian acronym was VMRO. The name struck a chord in the Macedonian immigrant community and the name survived till 1990. What was a movement became a political party. Although details of the story of the origins of VMRO in North America and Australia remain murky, the 2004 meetings was nonetheless a homecoming of sorts for a new and energetic leader of the party carrying the tradition of the historic VMRO.

The Diaspora’s role in forming the party in Macedonia is not without significance for the current events. At the time of the Macedonian declaration of independence there was hardly any capacity to form an opposition party to the ruling Socialist/Communist party that was left with the disintegration of Yugoslavia. The socialist party was rebranded as Social Democratic Union of Macedonia. The formation of VMRO was the much needed shot of pluralism in the new state. The party was received well by the population and so was the young leader Ljupco Georgievski at its helm. The party was still weak and did not have enough support to win the first election, let alone to muster any of the revolutionary reforms and purges that would remove the former regime from power (like in the Czech Republic two years earlier).

The SDSM was on the surface a social democratic party but winning the election it moved to the right of the political spectrum to become the party of the elites as opposed to the working people in the new republic. The party implemented Macedonia’s first privatization plan with mixed results and disappointed many who expected a more orderly and more just privatization of the socialist enterprises worth saving and being built over many years in the former country.

Eventually, the VMRO party met electoral success but only for a short period of time. Their victory was based on a perception that the party was closer to the ordinary folk and that unlike the SDSM it was less likely to plunder the state treasury for the benefit of its own members. Once in power, however, it did not fare much better than the socialists. In the first place, lacking parliamentary majority it struggled to form a new government. Once established as a government, VMRO was not immune to the possibilities that allowed the government to benefit from the transition.

As a result of their policies, both leading Macedonian political parties in effect prolonged the economic transition to the detriment of economic growth and political stability culminating in 2001 with the Albanian insurgency in Macedonia. In the turmoil of the Macedonian Albanian conflict the VMRO lost the political battle and was forced to cede power to a unity government.

Meanwhile, the Ohrid Agreement, a series of constitutional guarantees won by the Albanian minority parties as a result of the peace deal brokered by the United States, ended the open hostilities and moved the country furthermore into a civic society. The VMRO party was a pan Macedonian national party and Macedonia was healing from an event that brought bitter and deep divisions to the surface that the party could not at the moment bridge or soothe. Its main vision was for Macedonia to be the country of the Macedonian nation. The realization of this vision was untenable without a formal and open recognition of the reality of the ethnic and religious makeup of the Country.

The VMRO’s bridge to the future at the time was Boris Trajkovski, a VMRO backed President that won a close presidential race in 1999. The race was so close the new president could not take the oath of office until all of the appeals to the vote count run their course. Once the crisis entered a post conflict phase Trajkovski’s manner gave everyone from the foreigners, the ambassadors and statesmen in Macedonia and the political parties’ confidence in at least one institution, the Presidency. At the time he received praise for handling the very heated atmosphere following the chaos of the spring and summer of 2001.

Following the loss of power by the party, Nikola Gruevski, previous finance minister to the now embattled leader of VMRO Georgievski managed to win a leadership position in the newly rebranded VMRO-DPMNE. He also managed to keep a large portion of the VMRO supporters in a slight to the original leader. While in opposition, Mr. Gruevski built support for his party. With no pressure that comes with governing he could concentrate on building a wider base for his Party. The wider base at home meant they would take in more educated, respected and more astute candidates, administrators and organizers, something sorely lacking with their first adventure in power. The search for support in the Diaspora was curious but part of the same effort to consolidate and widen his party’s support. This however was not the quest for intellectual power for the party, only for feeling the party roots and soft power over the Macedonians.

The nationalist Macedonian immigrants, a small but vocal minority among the many Macedonians residing abroad have helped with the formation of an alternative all Macedonian party in Macedonia. Now that the party finally gained legitimacy in Parliament and looked poised to replace the SDSM they sought victory for themselves. The new leader won their affection by speaking the same language of uncompromising defense of the Macedonian domain, identity, and name and about economic prosperity for the republic.

The final piece of the puzzle was the engagement of these passionate Macedonians in Macedonian affairs. The promise to have Macedonians everywhere vote in one of the next Macedonian elections sealed the popularity of the leading party with expatriates. The party won the parliamentary elections of 2006. The election was mired with irregularities and the outcome was a minority government let by VMRO. The government was formed with the largest Albanian party as a coalition partner.

The 2011 election call

The political circumstances in the country did not at first appear that dire for early elections so the election call came to Macedonians as a bit of a surprise. The VMRO-DPMNE had a comfortable lead in the parliament and barring one or two smaller affairs (a regular feature in Macedonian politics) it was a rather tranquil time. Then, on January 28, 2011 the opposition party left the parliament in a show of, well, opposition. The official reason was the hard handed approach by the state to the media outlets led by a television station, A1. The officials claimed criminal activity related to unpaid taxes in a series of businesses with a single address at Pero Nakov Street and a common owner, Velija Ramkovski.

In the last months of 2010 Velija seemed to come ever closer to Branko Crvenkovski, the leader of the official opposition. The relationship was not new but the openness and expectation of future political partnership in front of cameras signaled renewed commitment of both to collaborate and the implication was that it would be against the current government, presumably in the next elections.

At the same time, the television station A1 and the affiliated press organizations controlled by Velija continued to relentlessly criticize the government at every opportunity. The offices of the A1 television were raided on December 25, 2010. In a display of state power Velija Ramkovski was arrested along with many of his associates and managers under suspicion of hiding taxes. The Macedonian revenue agency (UJP) was in the lead of the investigation but the heavy police presence protecting the financial inspectors gave the television and opposition parties a visual fodder to accuse the government of attacking the freedom of the media. The opposition immediately painted the arrests as politically motivated. The government promptly denied political motivation and dismissed suppression of the unfriendly media as unfounded. The opposition reacted by walking away from parliament in protest.

This was not a first time that opposition party boycotted the parliament but the lessons from previous times have shown a pattern. The pressure would increase for a compromise and the opposition would win the support of the ambassadors and the EU officials etc. The problem would be portrayed as non-cooperation by the political parties on the European agenda and the pressure would increase for meetings, mediators and warnings from Brussels. In time the result would be the same, Macedonia would succumb under the pressure of others to fix the situation created by those who instigated the boycott and circumvented the institution in the first place by yet another political compromise.

It is difficult to assess whether the plans for opening the election to Macedonian citizens abroad had anything to do with the decision to go to an early election. The estimation that the elections would be low risk affair for the ruling party, however, probably played a significant role. The blame for the early election could be safely passed to the opposition and the three additional seats would help secure the party’s majority in Parliament.

The election showed how fluid the political landscape in the country is, that no one is politically infallible and that trust has to be earned outside elections. The media affair did not help the ruling party. Neither did the display of the previous poor record of the opposition party.

Voters did not care that the opposition left the parliament and wrestled the election by a staged protest. The issues in the election were entirely different. Perception of continuation of the political control over the public security sector and the judiciary by yet another political party seemed like betrayal of trust. The low and not improving living standard made worse by the global recession and rise in commodity prices were a serious issue as well. For all of the projects announced with enthusiasm by the government, the overall marks by the electorate for handling the economy and the euro integration were rather low.

The only saving grace and perhaps a reason for the return of the VMRO-DPMNE to power, albeit diminished one is the overall perception on the law enforcement and anti-corruption front. Not all, but many, saw a small but significant rise in the rule of law as a hopeful sign.

Without admitting it, Macedonians liked the semblance of orderly revenue collection, adherence to regulations and rules and the appearance of budgeted items in the state budget. In short, westernization of the Macedonian fiscal affairs, albeit still weak, was the reason for the support of the current government. Last, but not least, of the reasons for the vote was the remaining perception of the nationalist character of the leading party, something the Macedonians have not yet abandoned as important.

Once the decision to go to an election was made, the elections abroad were a scramble. Questions abounded: Who can be a candidate? How many citizens have to nominate an independent candidate? How do political parties nominate candidates? Who can vote? What documents do you need? Where would you go to register or to vote? Where can you gain information on the candidates and the elections abroad?

Open ended questions of these seemingly simple concepts in the republic were repeatedly asked mere weeks before the vote. The deadline for candidates to be nominated and the voters to be registered was May 6th. Many of the most eager and most informed Macedonian immigrants saw the voter registration forms only days before that date. The church organizations and Macedonian halls in many of the Canadian and US communities with large Macedonian population received the forms barely on time and very little else. The whole election seemed to be an afterthought.

The results of the vote

The June 4th, 2011 election results confirmed that all three of the election districts abroad went to VMRO candidates. According to web sources containing Macedonian population numbers there are anywhere between 600,000 and well over a million Macedonians living outside Macedonia. The Macedonian State Electoral Commission was able to persuade 7573 Macedonian Citizens to register for the vote worldwide. Only 4079 (less than 1% of the most conservative estimate of the Macedonian population living outside the country) actually voted in the three electoral units abroad, labeled 7, 8 and 9. The winners were:

Risto Mancev in Europe with 1578 out of the 2494 votes
Pavle Sazdov in North America with 560 out of 994 votes and
Milorad Dodevski in Australia with 548 out of only 591 votes cast


These numbers reflect a campaign that was too short, too compressed and essentially buried in obscurity as far as the Macedonian citizens living abroad were concerned. Even in these painfully small numbers of Macedonians who voted there is a huge hole in the absence of independent candidates. The elections were a mirror image of the Macedonian political party landscape only with the predominance of one political party. In Macedonia the elections showed a strong electoral split among the available parties.

People were casting votes as easily for the opposition as for the ruling party. The second placed SDSM had a huge electoral victory in the elections, pushing the ruling party numbers into minority territory. In comparison, the external elections were baby steps if described generously. The result, however, was not accidental.

Putting aside the suggestions by numerous articles in the Macedonian media and the arguments of the other political parties that the June 4th elections experienced heavy irregularities in the voting process, lacked legitimacy or that the State Electoral Commission did dismal job with voter lists, it is clear that the outcome was a result of years of work by the ruling party, VMRO-DPMNE to gain the trust and affection of Macedonians abroad. The relationship was nurtured and strengthened by the overt patriotism of the Party and the emotional connection of Macedonians to their land.

Even with an election done by Canadian and Swiss election authorities together the result may have been the same. Even if the voter numbers were much higher and included the more numerous mainstream immigrants, there is a good chance that they would vote for the only party they recognize as the Macedonian national party, something well placed in their sub-conscience.

This is the case despite the fact that the state of Macedonian political organizations abroad, including that of VMRO is almost nonexistent and the fact that the Macedonians are divided, suspicious of each other and highly individualistic. That the turnout was low, the opposition weak and the timelines extremely tight made the result more secure but not more inevitable.

The decision to have an election abroad can then be explained by the calculation of the VMRO-DPMNE that it will win all seats it creates for the members of the Macedonian Diaspora. Politically speaking, it is a logical move for a party that has the strongest support abroad. The decision, however, opens many new questions that have consequences for the Macedonian state. It makes a precedent that will open immigrant issues that may or may not mesh well with the state’s overall policy and interest. It has to be upheld in subsequent elections with considerable cost now made permanent. It opens a new avenue of organizational formation, first of the Macedonian political parties abroad and second of independent movements and organizations that will challenge VMRO-DPMNE at the very next election for the seats and the policy.

The story of the election does not end there. The numerous complaints and cries of anguish by the Macedonian immigrants did not only focus on the technical aspects of the election. There were more fundamental questions raised. Why would anyone be concerned or vote in an election if the outcome has absolutely no effect on their life? This is precisely why many Macedonians abroad silently see the whole affair as an internal Macedonian manipulation for domestic political purposes.

Issues that matter to Macedonians abroad

There are very few but very legitimate issues for Macedonians abroad that were raised in person and in print during the election campaign. One is the Macedonian identity issue. On this issue all Macedonians, virtually of all stripes abroad are united and to the right of any political party in the country. The firm position is that there should be no compromise; no negotiations under any auspices regarding the name of the state or any of the identity qualifiers such as the language, nationality etc. No Macedonian sovereign rights should be ceded in the UN process as it was not legitimate from the very beginning.

No political party in Macedonia promised to walk away from the negotiating table as that would likely spell a serious problem with the EU and its goodwill, money or prospects for entry into the EU. Immigrants, on the other hand do not see the need to pander to these institutions if they don’t recognize the importance of the name to the identity of the Macedonian nation.

Has the VMRO-DPMNE or any other political party in Macedonia addressed this issue in a way that they will be truly supported by the Diaspora? Hardly, and there lies the suspicion expressed by the Macedonian organizations abroad. Their message is simple; we need independent candidates who would legitimately represent our interests. In other words, not one of the major political parties represents or could represent our interests; they would only fall under the rigor of the political party discipline common to a parliamentary system. Worse, they will likely be influenced by the heavy presence of the international community and the will of the European and other world powers. Only independent individuals chosen in a wide and open election may be the only hope for true representation.


Many Macedonians living abroad travel to Macedonia with regular frequency. These Macedonians are responsible for an increasing portion of the Macedonian GDP through their direct foreign currency contributions to the country. Most trips are in the summer months when Macedonian immigrants fill the many gaps in the general tourism demand. Visiting Macedonia is the second most important issue for the Macedonians living abroad.

One problem is the relative obscurity of the country for international travelers. It is hard to reach Macedonia without thorough planning and investment in time and money. The country has done very little to organize trips and travel agencies into a network to negotiate and secure airlines, foreign tour operators and internal transportation for our immigrants to visit Macedonia. Normally, this is not a function of the state but it would be vastly beneficial to Macedonia to have made some efforts to improve its infrastructure and open the possibilities for travel to Macedonia. One development that has the potential to open up Macedonia for foreign travelers, including expatriates is the concession given to the Turkish TAV who is now responsible for the two Macedonian airports. The potential in terms of transportation and economic development is huge and it is yet to sync in with the Macedonians.

The Macedonians living abroad may wish only to reconnect with family and friends or to reconnect with their youth, their ancestral land and village or town but they also have legal, business, familial and other affairs they need to take care of while in Macedonia. The experience and treatment of the Macedonian immigrants by the Macedonian institutions is far from stellar and constitutes the third legitimate electoral issue. The time it takes to do these things in Macedonia can be long and tiring. Access to various professionals such as lawyers, notaries, doctors and many institutions of the system is a sour point and subject of many sad stories.

Macedonians want their representatives to work with the bureaucracy in Macedonia and talk/lobby the government, government institutions and everyone that matters for a better, quicker and more human treatment of fellow citizens living abroad.

Difficulty is that a country that treats its own citizens living in the country a certain way cannot be expected to treat those who visit from abroad much better. If the institutions had the capacity to deal with the workload and the demand as it arises, it would be probably noted in one of the many reports by the EU as a huge success for the country on its way to full EU membership.

The counterargument is often brisk. The visitors are treated worse than locals, as they lack connections, do not know the process and are often taken for a ride and pay more than necessary for anything and everything from a simple taxi ride to a service by a professional.

The expectations from Macedonians about navigating the regulatory system, utilities, postal services and any other services for that matter are arguably high. Yet, corruption in Macedonia is a problem. It is also a way of life. For an immigrant facing this reality it is a great disappointment. Furthermore, it is the specific kind of corruption that is the culprit. It is difficult to accept the normalcy of bribing for services that should be paid above the table when it is absent in someone’s everyday reality elsewhere. It is an indication of the difficult road ahead for Macedonia. The solution coming from abroad, however, can be rather shallow and self-serving: “fix the corruption that we face when in Macedonia and make it go away while I am on vacation.”

If these parliamentary representatives are not independent and are instead part of a Macedonian political party, how can they ask for such a radical change outside of the normal Macedonian speed of change (infinite transition)? The answer is the same. There needs to be a systemic change across the Macedonian republic for the conditions to improve and that can only come from within the country.

An election abroad as an exceptional political act

If this is what the Macedonians want in terms of representation and what they care about in terms of issues it is not untoward to conclude that the elections did not fulfill the promise or the spirit of what was promised to Macedonians abroad. These Macedonians, this time were in the background and a passive observer of the affair. It is a case akin to a mistaken identity. The identity that was mistaken was that of the representatives that were chosen, put into the rink and ascended or acclaimed in parliament. The ones caught holding the bag did not have a chance to understand, assess and act on these elections. If there were ten steps to such an election, the Macedonians abroad were stuck on step one before someone told them that the ten step race was over and done.

The issue of issues in the few days that can be identified as a campaign was not about issues, representation, economic or any other aspect of the life abroad or in the Republic. It was the ability to be identified and counted as Macedonian. The issue was whether one has a Macedonian passport and the ability or chance to vote or be voted for. Having not resolved that issue in 20 years, the Macedonian government of the day showed only that it wished this problem was solved and has thrown only a small bone that was more contentious than useful when chewed. In the process the government threw a wrench in the relationship it had with the Diaspora.

Can anything nice be said about the June 4th elections? If there is solace it comes from the fact that despite its very small economic and political size Macedonia amazingly can and has acted upon an issue above its weight class. Sometimes an attempt speaks of the hidden capability of people. Yes, what an enthusiasm, what effort for only three electoral seats all done largely for one political party, but it was a political act of some complexity nonetheless. It also opened in this author’s opinion one of the most subtle and intuitive sleeper issues for the Macedonian nation if there ever was one. To preserve the nation, its truths and myths in the same measure and to one day seize the day as a true nation among equals, the Macedonian nation ought to connect the Macedonians wherever they are, and they are truly everywhere. It is a tall order but in a new age it is not outside of the realm of the possible.

This preservation must be based on three other tasks. One is that the Macedonians in Macedonia must preserve the unity and viability of the Macedonian state. This can only be done with the will and collaboration of all nationalities that live in the state. Second, it must develop a set of principles that would not be disputable. The conflict over a name of the state has already served in accomplishing this task. It is an affirmation of the strength of will even over substance and economic well-being. Third, it must grow its own unique path to prosperity. Macedonians must have a will to develop despite all of the obstacles they face.

Macedonians need no reminder of the fragile nature of their situation but could take pause to understand what is happening in the world today. The world around the small Macedonian state is changing rapidly. The sanctity of the European experiment is punctured in a major way. The biggest foe of Macedonia in the twenty year independence, Greece is on its economic death bed. They have closed the doors of Europe for the Macedonian Republic but they have, by this act, kept the Republic isolated from the dangers of the two-speed Europe scourge that is consuming the entire southern plank of the continent.

We were not allowed the benefits but also the mistakes or the debt we could have accumulated along the way. In an act that can safely be described as stupidity on its part Greece has spread the word about Macedonia in every corner of the world. If you are ever in a situation to travel very far and speak to ordinary people but also with the elites, the congressmen or parliamentarians in far flung countries and continents, you will not be stranger anymore.

I was recently at a reception deep into the countryside of Michigan and happen to sit with no less than four US congress representatives from Michigan. Once I told them I was Macedonian the conversation was lively and informed. No one questioned the existence of the nation or the country; on the contrary, there was a lot of understanding and respect. One cannot buy such propaganda of your national brand and tiny Macedonia could never afford to.

The success of the Republic nonetheless has to come from within its own borders. The most involved arguments for including immigrants in the conversation may be ultimately about their return to the country or interest in the Republic. The June 4th election was only a small step for Macedonia in being inclusive. It was not done well. It left many Macedonians asking whether this was an open hand of kinship or a slap in the face. The bigger step would be to search deeper for the goals and the proper realization of the next election.

The original question is whether the Diaspora should have a say in Macedonian affairs. Depending on the answer it is possible to construct some options for the next election. If you believe that representation without having a direct and material stake is wrong or that Macedonian immigrants affecting policy for those who actually pay taxes and live in Macedonia is wrong, there should not be another election abroad and the three seats should be scrapped.

If you believe that there is a legitimate need for all Macedonians living anywhere in the world to have a say, you would have to first justify your belief and argue how this benefits the Republic as opposed to only Macedonians living abroad.

The options in having a follow up election would be to repeat the same election, to improve the process with more polling stations, improved information flow etc. or to rethink the entire process and allow for input and feedback by the Diaspora in the creation of the next electoral vote. According to the poor perception this time around, the Macedonians would likely lean toward the last option. Macedonians living outside and inside Macedonia are part of the same people. As such, to borrow a line from a speech by Lincoln, they would all like to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

In the next installment of the Curious Case of the Macedonian Elections Abroad the theme is: Does the Macedonian Diaspora hold the key to Macedonia’s future?



Igor Siljanoski is a policy professional working and residing in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. His previous experience was in the public sector as an economist, economic development consultant and business and financial planner. Igor is lecturing macroeconomics at the St.Clair College of applied arts and science in Windsor, Ontario. Igor holds Masters Degree in Political Science and Honours Bachelor of Arts in International Relations from the University of Windsor, Canada.

[George S.]

Petrov: Greece won't be in current borders if it doesn't recognize Macedonia

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/21201/45/

For the first time in history, Hellas was created in 1821 as a uni-religious nation in which the word "Greek" meant to be a Christian and not an ethnos. Hence we have a paradox where everyone in Greece is Greek despite the fact the country is populated by everyone except Greeks, says the president of the World Macedonian Congress, Todor Petrov.

Greece has a quarrel with our identity, yet it needs to be seriously worried about their own. According to historical facts presented by the WMC when Greece opens up its pandora box about all the ethnicities that live there (this day is approaching fast), the country will be forever changed.

The word 'Greek' is a synonym for being a Christian, explains Todor Petrov.

- 200 years ago Greece had few people, all different ethnicities and no common language. The country was created primarily and only due to the interests of the great powers England, France, Germany and Russia. Greece was created by occupying territories and committing genocides and forced evictions of people who lived in the occupied territories.

- Due to the lack of a 'majority' ethnos, Greece's creators added this as the first law of the Constitution back in 1827 - "Greek is a Christian who lives in Greece". Because of this, the word Greek doesn't mean ethnos, there is no such thing as an ethnic Greek, says Petrov.

- In Macedonia we have already opened the 'minority and ethnicity' question. The day when this occurs in Greece is approaching faster than everyone thinks. When this happens their territory will be divided among the different ethnicities. This is unavoidable, says Petrov.

Petrov discussed the genocide committed against Macedonians since the Balkan Wars which continues to this day. Athens will be held responsible for this, says Petrov.

- In the second world war, Macedonian partisans were tricked by communists in Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. All Macedonians joined the Greek communists in the civil war which unfortunately ended with the installation of Greece's monarcho-fascists matrix by Britain which is governing Greece to this day.

Petrov discusses the creation, protection and maintenance of neo nazi and fascist groups.

- Greece's Neo-Nazi group Golden Dawn is the heart of Ellada. Its existence is very much founded upon hatred, neonazism and anti-Macedonianism. Without nazifascism, Greece as a country wouldn't exist. This nazifascism is continuously supported by Brussels and Strasbourg. Because of this, Athens is requesting we change our name. But, any sort of change will not save Europe, nor the fake Hellas, concludes Petrov.

Petrov through his colleagues in Brussels says that even today Brussels is funding Athens with 2 billion euros a year to roam through Aegean Macedonia and destroy Macedonian artefacts or hide them in secret depots in Athens. The whole idea is to cover up the age old fallacy upon which "New Europe began". Cultural globalism was started by the Macedonians, the Eurocrats in Brussels know this, says Petrov.

The World doesn't begin nor end in Brussels or Strasbourg

The crisis has shown its true head. The project called "Greece" is nearing its end. The financial crisis which saw Athens borrow obscene amount of money which it will never be able to pay back, the unemployed masses, armed men with kalashnikovs entering homes and robbing civilians, failed elections... everything points out to a civil war. When civil war breaks out, there will be international intervention to keep the peace or installation of a military junta. As usual, Brussels will pay the tab for continuing their experiment with Ellada.


The Bilderberg group who recently met in Virginia, USA isn't keen on seeing Greece swim out of their mess. According to the British newspaper 'The Guardian', Greece is already declared 'dead'.

If Athens doesn't recognize Macedonia, Greece will not remain in the current borders, warns the president of the World Macedonian Congress.

[George S.]

Greece's problem is not the name, but Macedonia's statehood - law expert



Skopje, 22 May 2012 (MIA) - Greece has no problem with the name but the existence of Macedonia as a state, says Toni Deskoski, international law professor and member of the legal team that represented Macedonia before The Hague-based International Court of Justice (ICJ).

In the 'Alfa' TV program, Deskoski said the name problem was invented as an insoluble one, namely as a toll that should prevent Macedonia to be an independent state.



Despite the ICJ ruling that Greece's objection to Macedonia's NATO membership at the 2008 Bucharest Summit was illegal and not in line with the international law, NATO member-states reiterated at the Chicago summit declaration the conclusion from Bucharest, namely that the Alliance will extend an invitation to the Republic of Macedonia to join the Alliance as soon as a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue is reached, Deskoski said.

[George S.]

On the Road of Time – Chapter 3 - Part 1



By Petre Nakovski

Translated and edited by Risto Stefov

[email protected]

July 8, 2012



Kostur, compared to ten years ago, has become unrecognizable. The old, timeless market by the lakeshore has been turned into a city park. The only thing that has not changed is the fish market. The stores selling fish have remained as they were a long time ago. They were and still are operated by the fishermen from the village Mavrovo. The city stadium is gone and in its place is a new, recently built square. Part of the square substitutes as a market a couple of times a week. The place is clean and neat and a city government building has been added to it. Thanks to the European Union no doubt.



The winding road along the coast has been widened, paved and crammed with café’s, taverns, restaurants and small shops. There are seventy Orthodox churches in the city, most of which are older that five hundred years and built Byzantine style. This makes the city an exquisite tourist attraction. At the end there is a small square and in front of it, standing high up on a monument, is a statue of Bishop Karavangelis. Painted on the chest of the statue in black paint is the word “executioner”. Beside Karavangelis’s statue is a headless statue of General Van Fleet, the Unites States general who commanded the Greek government generals during the Greek Civil War. But that’s not all; there are also other surprises and skeletons in Kostur.



We ordered coffee at the café (built of wood and decorated with many items made of plastic) next to the lake.



“Two Turkish coffees please,” I said to the waiter.



“If you want Turkish coffee, go to Turkey,” he replied angrily; a pale looking young man possibly suffering from insomnia. “We only serve Greek coffee here,” he added strongly as he swatted a fly on the table with a towel.



After we drank our “Greek” coffee and the free water offered at this café, we left and went to the City Centre.



There were many stores side by side at the Kostur Centre, exhibiting mostly fur in their display windows. The fur trade was the oldest trade in the region and only the people of Kostur had the right to practice it by decree from the Sultan. But in the last thirty years or so the fur trade was taken over by the surrounding villages and towns, mostly by Russians. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russians with big money (only they know where they got it) came to Kostur and the surrounding region and built shops and on them they hung billboards with the inscription “SHUBЫ” (sheaths, furs) and since then the famous and renowned Kostur fur traders have become Russian employees and wage earners.



Out of curiosity we entered one of the stores. We looked at the fur coats and admired them without touching but were surprised and astonished at their very high prices. The talkative clerk, a middle-aged man, followed us around explaining and praising the merchandise in an attempt to make a sale and when we stepped further away from the door, in an almost whispering voice, he asked in Macedonian: “Are you from Serbia?”



“No,” I said. “Serbia is further up, to the north of where we come from.”



“Oh…” he said.



“And you?” I asked



“I am from here, from Macedonia… Greece is further south…” he said quietly and with his hand pointed to the south.



When we exited the store he asked: “From which city are you…”



“We live in a city but we were born in a village here,” I replied.



“Which one?” he asked.



I said, “Polianemon.”



“I know it,” he boasted. “Its old name is Krchishta. Am I right?”



“Yes you are right. And that’s where we are going,” I replied.



“What will you be doing there? There is nothing there except wind after which the village got its new name!” he yelled out loud, stunned. “Nothing, believe me, there is nothing…”



“That’s okay Sir, then we will see nothing…” I answered.



“Χρηστε και Παναγια!...” (Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary) he said in Greek and crossed himself.


* * *


The once terrible, potholed and narrow road leading from Dolno Papratsko to Krchishta has now been widened and paved with asphalt. The road ended where the threshing fields once used to be. On our way we made a stop at a place called Vishomo. Close to there, where the land rises and widens, is a church and all around the church there is nothing, only emptiness. The village Krchishta used to occupy that emptiness. As I stared at the desolate space where my village used to be, I was overwhelmed with a certain sickness and chills ran down my spine. The village was here but now it’s gone, only its name remains, a name given to it a long time ago, a name that means the “crackle” of chestnuts. I remember the old people saying that the name Krchishta was given to the village a very long time ago.



As I recall, a story was told that went something like this: During the Ottoman War against the Poles, which took place in 1689, a Beg (Ottoman officer) distinguished himself as a good fighter during the attack and capture of the city Hochim, so the Sultan rewarded him by giving him five villages and their residents, houses and land. So this Beg, in order to enlarge his fields, ordered the villagers to destroy the chestnut groves and their homes and relocate to a sandy, barren and less productive place. There he ordered them to build new houses for themselves, a house for himself and a mosque. The villagers did as ordered and, in respect of God, would not destroy the village churches. So the only buildings left standing, as markers of where the villages once used to be, were the five churches: Sveta Petka, Sveti Atanas, Sveti Giorgi, Sveti Jovan and Sveti Ilia. These church buildings survived the test of time, rebellions and wars.



There was a grove of tall oak trees to the left of the road from where we were standing. “There,” I said to my wife pointing at the oak trees, “is where the village Dolno Vishomo used to be and under the oaks was the church, Sveta Petka. We walked across the road to the oak grove and stood under its magnificent shade. Unfortunately there was nothing left of the old church, not even its foundation. The only things we found were a couple of rocks, some broken ceramic tiles, remnants of the old church and part of a burned candle stuck in the ground amongst the tiles. It was quiet in the grove except for the sounds made by the rustling leaves of the oak trees in a gentle breeze. A flock of ravens flew over us and disappeared beyond the forest. The sight gave me pain and chills. With a heavy breath we crossed ourselves and silently walked away and headed for my village.



The wide road ended where the village threshing yards used to be. To the left there was a wide metal door and behind it was a wide yard divided by a fence, behind which calves were mooing. There were many calves. On the opposite side was a house. A dog, tied to a post, was barking. A young man came out of the house. He greeted us in Greek and asked, “Are you looking for someone?”



“Yes…” I said, with tearing eyes as I looked over the entire yard…



“For who?” he asked.



I got a lump in my throat, my knees got weak and my chin began to tremble.



“My name is Lefteris. Please come in,” he said inviting us inside the small house.



“First we will walk over to the elms,” I said, “and then we will return…”



We left the car outside the farm (for fattening calves) and at a slow pace we walked on the street so that I could show my wife the village. After taking a few steps I closed my eyes to the emptiness, overgrown grass and weeds and in my imagination replaced them with the homes of the Nanovtsi, Damovtsi, Purdovtsi, Laskini, Popovtsi, Donovtsi, Liapovtsi, Pindzovtsi, Penovtsi, Shkoklovtsi, Trajkovci, Nakovtsi, Pandovtsi, Filiovtsi, Guliovtsi and other families. I imagined the fifty-four houses that existed here, in several rows, under whose roofs once lived over four hundred souls. I tried to imagine the feeling of the fifty or so other souls, who at the time were pechalbars (migrant workers) overseas, gone beyond the great waters, who never got a chance to return to see their homes and to visit with their families.



I spoke at great length, telling my wife about each house and the people who had lived in it, about the streets, about the time of the Greek Civil War during which forty-three people were mobilized from whom twenty-nine were killed. I told her about the fifty-four children that were taken to Eastern European countries and about the seven families who fled to Kostur and Rupishta and all the other families that were exiled and scattered around the world.



“Well,” I said to her, “this emptiness was once a village and this void was once filled with life ...” “And here,” I said, “where we now stand was the house where I was born…” “Here,” I said, “was the large wooden door that was locked from the inside with a thick wooden lever. And there was the garden and behind it was the outdoor oven. Here is where the steps that led to the second floor used to be.” “Here,” I said, “is where my mother Fimka brought eight children into this world of whom three were given rifles, four were collected and sent to the Eastern European countries and one, the youngest, died in Albania. My brother, her third born son, left his soul in Gramos just before reaching his eighteenth birthday. So Fimka was left alone and, abroad where she lived, every night she dreamt the same dream - that some day soon all her children would again be together and have a meal at the same dinner table...”


My thoughts had taken me back to a time gone by, but then, for a moment I returned to reality, to the emptiness which again reawakened more memories, seeming like they were tied together by a chain, flooding back, pushing, scratching, pounding, squeezing, burning and creating sorrow. To calm my spirit I kicked some soil with my foot and out came a broken ceramic tile and underneath it, in the ashes, was a broken stone. I picked it up and blew away the ashes with my warm breath and then placed it near my heart but I could not feel my heart beating, it felt as if it too had turned to stone....



I took my photo album out of my backpack; a photo-album to which I had been adding old photographs year after year and from the photographs life began to sprout. Who were those people in the old photographs? What had dhappened to them? Who went where and who returned from where? Where are they today and what happened to them in the past?



Where!



The images of the people in the photographs seem to float, to come alive, to reflect on the life which now appears to me only in spirit and in shadows. Through the photographs I was able to see the people with their joy, sorrow and pain of what once was. What once was, is now gone. The families are gone. The houses are gone. Everything is gone. Only the ghosts and the shadows of the ghosts remain...


I look at the images in the photographs and imagine the people leaving, taking the road to banishment.



To what country did they go?

To what unknown latitudes of the world did time take them?

When did they leave?

Under what circumstances did they leave?

Did they travel one behind the other?

Did they leave quickly, en masse?



Time…



What is time and what are people in time?

Time kills.

Time wounds.

Time heals.

Time forgets.

Time leaves no footprints.

Time destroys.

Time is a killer.



Is time a witness?

Time passes.

Time brings concerns.

Time remembers.

Time tells.

Time verifies.

Time accepts and rejects.

It is said at this and this time.

During the time of great upheaval.

During the time of war.

During the time of so and so plagues.

We are here. At the empty, naked, scarred place.

Time has passed, it has expired.

And here, now, at this time, today, at this moment of time, we are in a moment of time.

We are at the time divided between now and yesterday.



Time…



Whose and what kind of time?...

We are here in time past, time without people and without homes; we are here in time present without life, only empty fields and flocks of crows.



Time.



Whose time?

What kind of time?

Time for what?

Time measured with what?

Time marked with what and how?

Time lost.

Time brings.



Time brings what?

Time of happiness.

Time of hunger.

Time of fear.

For victims, lies and curses.

Time for cursing, lies and betrayals.

Time for cursing and waiting.

Time compressed between times.



What kind?



Time for remembering.

Remembering what?

Time for existence, time for endurance, time for safeguarding time.



Here time was measured with time for digging foundations, for carving stones, for building walls, for laying roof tiles, for plowing and sowing, for living, for reaping crops, for celebrations, for holidays, for growing and aging, for happiness and sadness, for life…



After that time came time for war. It was a time of bad times, a time of great promises and many lies. It was time to separate the children from their mothers, it was time for eradication. It was a time of silence of the church bells. It was a time without faith in God.



Where did time stop?



Now there is only time for recollection of time past so that time past is not forgotten. Here now there is only now.



Will it last only that much, as long as we remain bowed over the burned out places and foundation remains of our homes?



Time remains in us forever preserved and baked in our memory.

Time over which the fog and dust of forgetfulness whirls and glides.

It is time for the fog to lift.

It is time for the dust that rests in time to be blown off.

It is time for ripening.

It is time to change time.

[George S.]

Address by Athanasios Parisis
to the first International EBLUL Conference

November 15, 2002

See Related Articles:
• Minority Languages, Plea For More Recognition
• Minutes on Linguistic Diversity in Greece
• Macedonians of Greece (MSWord .doc)

Welcoming Address by the President of the Greek branch of the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL), Mr. Athanasios Parisis to the first International EBLUL Conference Thessaloniki, 15 November, 2002

Subject of conference: Promotion of the lesser used languages in Greece

Mr. President, Bojan Brezigar, Honoured guests,

On behalf of the Greek EBLUL Committee I take great pleasure in welcoming you to the first EBLUL international conference dedicated to the various linguistic groups in Greece.

Across the European Union, no fewer than forty million people speak languages in their everyday lives, which are different from the official language of the state in which they are living. At present this figure represents 10% of the total European population, but shortly, with the expansion of the Union, the number of people speaking a different language from the official language of their state will be much, much greater. Greece, too, is no exception; however vigorously the state may deny it, the facts tell their own story. A by no means negligible section of the Greek population is bilingual. It is not possible to provide precise figures, since none of the censuses carried out to date has included a question on language. The one exception was the census of 1920, yet the figures it yielded for the northern regions of the country were never published.

Moreover, the long-standing policy of marginalisation and suppression has succeeded, naturally enough, in reducing the actual number of those speaking the non-official languages. This hostile treatment of heteroglossy in Greece had its beginnings in the early days of the modern Greek state, 170 years ago. In those areas of the country where Arvanitika was prevalent, every effort was made to discourage its use. There was perhaps some justification for this in the desperate efforts being made to unite the regional populations into a single Greek state, using as a means to this end a policy of homogenisation of the various populations.

At the beginning of the 20th century, when new territories were annexed by the Greek state, the process of displacing alternative languages and forcing their speakers to assimilate the Greek language and Greek national ideology - one state, one nation, one language, one religion - assumed new dimensions. The state resorted to violence, persecution, exchanges of populations and the mass 'cleansing' of villages, which refused to submit. Later, in the course of the Civil War, many tens of thousands of individuals, among them whole villages, were forced to flee as political refugees to eastern Europe. Some of the children of these refugees are still living in exile, a situation almost incomprehensible in the context of the modern Europe.

Those of us who remained in Greece were subjected to special schooling, kept in the classroom all day to minimise our contact with our family environment - the environment where our native tongue was spoken. It is worth mentioning that the 1961 census lists just ten child day care centres for the region of Messenia, whereas in the area of Florina no fewer than 48 such centres were in operation. The numbers are, of course, inversely proportional to the size of population in each region actually in need of these centres. The selective policy of the Queen Frederika Foundation, which was accompanied by the movement of 'poor children' - the actual phrase used - to isolated schools in southern Greece, was intended to encourage the children to change their language and thereby further the process of national integration.

In the years which followed the tactics of psychological violence, the undermining of the dignity of the child and the intimidation of the parent - all produced the results the state desired, the 'persuasion' of individuals to deny their own identity, their tradition, their language. And this in a Europe, which claims to respect the ideal, among others, of respect for human rights and the linguistic and cultural disparity of its peoples.

As President of the Greek branch of EBLUL I should like to stress the need to introduce our languages into the Greek educational system. We also seek access for the linguistic communities of our country to the mass media, radio and television.

We very much hope that in this endeavour we shall enjoy the support of the Brussels office, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Council of Europe and all the other agencies of the European Union with an interest in these issues.

Athanasios Parisis

In English
Daily
MakFax
Idividi
MIA
MINA
Skopje Diem
SE Times
Balkanalysis
MILS News
Resources
Google News
Other
Begaltsi (Refugees)
Macedonians in Greece
Macedonians in Bulgaria
Macedonians in Albania

[George S.]

Only in Greece is a Lie the Truth and the Truth a Lie

By Risto Stefov

July 7, 2005

[email protected]


Yes Mr. Giorgos Koumoutsakos it's time to fess-up to the truth about Macedonia!

Why is Greece so afraid of the truth?

Greece has been peddling lies for so long that it has forgotten the truth. I am referring to the most recent Greek attacks on the Republic of Macedonia regarding a map on someone's private website and some high school textbooks used in the Republic of Macedonia. See articles in Kathimerini and ANA.

"Reacting to questions about a story in Tuesday's Kathimerini revealing that the textbooks implied that part of FYROM's territory was under Greek and Bulgarian control, Foreign Ministry spokesman Giorgos Koumoutsakos slammed Skopje. "The time has come for answers to the question of irredentist and dangerous propaganda. Not only does Greece want these answers, it is also a key demand of European political reality," he said. Koumoutsakos said the books were published in 1998 but remain in circulation."

Mr. Koumoutsakos, have you and your state contracted amnesia over 19th and 20th century historic developments in the Balkans? Allow me to refresh your memory;

1. Were there not Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian mercenaries paid by the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian Churches in Macedonia to turn Macedonians into Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians prior to the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars?

2. Were there not Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian teachers and priests in Macedonia, peddling Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian propaganda prior to the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars?

3. Did the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian armies not enter Macedonia in 1912 and occupy Macedonian territory?

4. Did Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia not fight over Macedonian territory in 1913 and partition Macedonia?

Since when does the truth have to be explained?

Would you rather the Republic of Macedonia teach lies in its schools? What exactly is Greece teaching its students?

"The latest instance of an irredentist map and text was apparently detected within the pages of a textbook used by junior high school pupils in FYROM. Specifically, a map showing the Balkans and prominently depicting a region identified as "Macedonia", with the latter including significant portions of modern-day Greece and Bulgaria. Three hands, meanwhile, extending from the south (Greece), east (Bulgaria) and north (Serbia) are seen on the illustration as encroaching on this "greater Macedonia's" territory. Moreover, Albania isn't even demarcated on the notorious map."

Mr. Koumoutsakos, since when has telling the truth become a sin?

1. It is well known how Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia became states during the 19th century. It is also well known that Greece became a state for the first time in 1829.

2. It is well known that geographical Macedonia and the name Macedonia have roots well into ancient times. Macedonia is the oldest name in European history.

3. It is also well known that Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia occupied and partitioned Macedonia in 1913 during the Second Balkan War.

These are well know facts taught everywhere in the free thinking world.

You should know that today's Republic of Macedonia is the part of Macedonia that was occupied by Serbia. You should also know that the so-called "Province of Macedonia" or "Northern Greece" or "New Territories" or "Greek Macedonia", as you like to call it, was part of geographical Macedonia prior to 1912.

The question that begs to be asked is, "Why is Greece so afraid of such a map?" Even if the Republic of Macedonia did have "irredentist" ideas, what could a small state five times smaller than Greece and with a poor economy do?

Not only will the Republic of Macedonia do nothing but it has already amended its constitution, removed certain symbols and now removed the link to the website with the offensive map to satisfy Greece. So what more, Mr. Koumoutsakos, does Greece want from the Republic of Macedonia?

"The time has come for answers to the question of irredentist and dangerous propaganda. Not only does Greece want these answers, it is also a key demand of European political reality,"

What answers are you looking for Mr. Koumoutsakos?

I have an idea for you Mr. Koumoutsakos, why don't you read the following and answer to that!

It is an extract from the Carnegie Inquiry.

Note: Following the Balkan Wars, during the summer of 1913, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace set up a committee to investigate the situation in the Balkans in general and in Macedonia in particular. The results drawn from this investigation were printed in Washington DC in 1914 under the title Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Cause and the Conduct of the Balkan Wars.

"ANASTASIA PAVLOVA, a widow of Ghevgheli.

Shortly before the outbreak of the second [Balkan] war I was staying with my daughter, a school teacher, in the village of Boinitsa. A Greek lady came from Salonica and distributed money and uniforms to the Turks of the place some six or eight days before the outbreak of the second [Balkan] war. She also called the Bulgarians [Macedonian parishioners of the Exarchate Church] of the village together, and told them that they must not imagine that this village would belong to Bulgaria. She summoned the Bulgarian priest [Exarchate priest], and asked him if he would become a Greek. He replied "we are all Bulgarians [Macedonians belonging to the Exarchate Church] and Bulgarians [Macedonians belonging to the Exarchate Church] we will remain." There were some Greek officers with this lady who caught the priest by the beard. Then the men who were standing by, to the number of about fifty, had their hands bound behind their backs, and were beaten by the soldiers. They were told that they must sign a written statement that they would become Greeks. When they refused to do this they were all taken to Salonica. When the men were gone, the soldiers began to violate the women of the place, three soldiers usually to one girl. [She named several cases which she witnessed.] The soldiers came in due course to my house and asked where my daughter was. I said she was ill and had to gone to Ghevgheli. They insisted that I should bring her to them. The Greek teacher of the village, Christo Poparov, who was with the soldiers, was the most offensive of them all.

They threatened to kill me if I would not produce her. The soldiers then came into the room and beat me with the butts of their rifles and I fell. "Now," they said, "you belong to the Greeks, your house and everything in it," and they sacked the house. Then sixteen soldiers came and again called for my daughter, and since they could not find her they used me instead. I was imprisoned in my own house and never left alone. Four days before the war I was allowed to go to Ghevgheli by rail with two soldiers to fetch my daughter. She was really in the village of Djavato. At Ghevgheli, the soldiers gave me permission to go alone to the village to fetch her. Outside the village I met five Greek soldiers, who greeted me civilly and asked for the news. Suddenly they fired a rifle and called out, "Stop, old woman." They then fired six shots to frighten me. I hurried on and got into the village just before the soldiers. They bound my hands, began to beat me, undressed me, and flung me down on the ground. Some Servian soldiers were in the village and interfered with the Greeks and saved my life. My daughter was hidden in the village and she saw what was happening to me and came running out to give herself up, in order to save her mother. She made a speech to the soldiers and said, "Brothers, when we have worked so long together as allies, why do you kill my mother?" The soldiers only answered, that they would kill her too. I then showed them the passport which had been given to me at Boinitsa. I can not read Greek and did not know what was on it. It seems that what was written there was "This is a mother who is to go and find her daughter and bring her back to us." The Greek soldiers then saw that it was my daughter, and not I, who was wanted and my daughter cried, "Now I am lost." The soldiers offered me the choice of staying in the village or going with my daughter to Ghevgheli. I begged that they would leave us alone together where we were until the morning, and to this they agreed. In the night I fled with my daughter, who disguised herself in boy's clothes, to a place two hours away which was occupied by Bulgarian soldiers. I then went myself to Ghevgheli and immediately afterwards, the second war broke out.

The Bulgarians took the town and then retired from it, and the Greeks entered it. The moment they came in they began killing people indiscriminately in the street. One man named Anton Bakharji was killed before my eyes. I also saw a Greek woman named Helena kill a rich Bulgarian [Macedonian belonging to the Exarchate Church] named Hadji Tano, with her revolver. Another, whose name I do not know, was wounded by a soldier. A panic followed in the town and a general flight. Outside the town I met a number of Greek soldiers who had with them sixteen Bulgarian [Macedonian belonging to the Exarchate Church] girls as their prisoners. All of them were crying, several of them were undressed, and some were covered in blood. The soldiers were so much occupied with these girls that they did not interfere with us, and allowed us to flee past them. As we crossed the bridge over the Vardar, we saw little children who had been abandoned and one girl lying as if dead on the ground. The cavalry were coming up behind us. There was no time to help. A long way off a battle was going on and we could hear the cannon, but nobody fired upon us. For eight days we fled to Bulgaria and many died on the way. The Bulgarian soldiers gave us bread. I found my daughter at Samakov. My one consolation is that I saved her honor". (Page 304, 305) George F. Kennan. "The Other Balkan Wars" A 1913 Carnegie Endowment Inquiry in Retrospect with a New Introduction and Reflections on the Present Conflict. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, 1993.

It is time Mr. Koumoutsakos, to come clean and start telling the truth. The Republic of Macedonia is yet another of your victims just like Anastasia Pavlova and all those other women your State has raped.

For comments regarding this article contact the author at [email protected]

[George S.]

Only in Greece is a Lie the Truth and the Truth a Lie

By Risto Stefov

July 7, 2005

[email protected]


Yes Mr. Giorgos Koumoutsakos it's time to fess-up to the truth about Macedonia!

Why is Greece so afraid of the truth?

Greece has been peddling lies for so long that it has forgotten the truth. I am referring to the most recent Greek attacks on the Republic of Macedonia regarding a map on someone's private website and some high school textbooks used in the Republic of Macedonia. See articles in Kathimerini and ANA.

"Reacting to questions about a story in Tuesday's Kathimerini revealing that the textbooks implied that part of FYROM's territory was under Greek and Bulgarian control, Foreign Ministry spokesman Giorgos Koumoutsakos slammed Skopje. "The time has come for answers to the question of irredentist and dangerous propaganda. Not only does Greece want these answers, it is also a key demand of European political reality," he said. Koumoutsakos said the books were published in 1998 but remain in circulation."

Mr. Koumoutsakos, have you and your state contracted amnesia over 19th and 20th century historic developments in the Balkans? Allow me to refresh your memory;

1. Were there not Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian mercenaries paid by the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian Churches in Macedonia to turn Macedonians into Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians prior to the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars?

2. Were there not Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian teachers and priests in Macedonia, peddling Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian propaganda prior to the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars?

3. Did the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian armies not enter Macedonia in 1912 and occupy Macedonian territory?

4. Did Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia not fight over Macedonian territory in 1913 and partition Macedonia?

Since when does the truth have to be explained?

Would you rather the Republic of Macedonia teach lies in its schools? What exactly is Greece teaching its students?

"The latest instance of an irredentist map and text was apparently detected within the pages of a textbook used by junior high school pupils in FYROM. Specifically, a map showing the Balkans and prominently depicting a region identified as "Macedonia", with the latter including significant portions of modern-day Greece and Bulgaria. Three hands, meanwhile, extending from the south (Greece), east (Bulgaria) and north (Serbia) are seen on the illustration as encroaching on this "greater Macedonia's" territory. Moreover, Albania isn't even demarcated on the notorious map."

Mr. Koumoutsakos, since when has telling the truth become a sin?

1. It is well known how Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia became states during the 19th century. It is also well known that Greece became a state for the first time in 1829.

2. It is well known that geographical Macedonia and the name Macedonia have roots well into ancient times. Macedonia is the oldest name in European history.

3. It is also well known that Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia occupied and partitioned Macedonia in 1913 during the Second Balkan War.

These are well know facts taught everywhere in the free thinking world.

You should know that today's Republic of Macedonia is the part of Macedonia that was occupied by Serbia. You should also know that the so-called "Province of Macedonia" or "Northern Greece" or "New Territories" or "Greek Macedonia", as you like to call it, was part of geographical Macedonia prior to 1912.

The question that begs to be asked is, "Why is Greece so afraid of such a map?" Even if the Republic of Macedonia did have "irredentist" ideas, what could a small state five times smaller than Greece and with a poor economy do?

Not only will the Republic of Macedonia do nothing but it has already amended its constitution, removed certain symbols and now removed the link to the website with the offensive map to satisfy Greece. So what more, Mr. Koumoutsakos, does Greece want from the Republic of Macedonia?

"The time has come for answers to the question of irredentist and dangerous propaganda. Not only does Greece want these answers, it is also a key demand of European political reality,"

What answers are you looking for Mr. Koumoutsakos?

I have an idea for you Mr. Koumoutsakos, why don't you read the following and answer to that!

It is an extract from the Carnegie Inquiry.

Note: Following the Balkan Wars, during the summer of 1913, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace set up a committee to investigate the situation in the Balkans in general and in Macedonia in particular. The results drawn from this investigation were printed in Washington DC in 1914 under the title Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Cause and the Conduct of the Balkan Wars.

"ANASTASIA PAVLOVA, a widow of Ghevgheli.

Shortly before the outbreak of the second [Balkan] war I was staying with my daughter, a school teacher, in the village of Boinitsa. A Greek lady came from Salonica and distributed money and uniforms to the Turks of the place some six or eight days before the outbreak of the second [Balkan] war. She also called the Bulgarians [Macedonian parishioners of the Exarchate Church] of the village together, and told them that they must not imagine that this village would belong to Bulgaria. She summoned the Bulgarian priest [Exarchate priest], and asked him if he would become a Greek. He replied "we are all Bulgarians [Macedonians belonging to the Exarchate Church] and Bulgarians [Macedonians belonging to the Exarchate Church] we will remain." There were some Greek officers with this lady who caught the priest by the beard. Then the men who were standing by, to the number of about fifty, had their hands bound behind their backs, and were beaten by the soldiers. They were told that they must sign a written statement that they would become Greeks. When they refused to do this they were all taken to Salonica. When the men were gone, the soldiers began to violate the women of the place, three soldiers usually to one girl. [She named several cases which she witnessed.] The soldiers came in due course to my house and asked where my daughter was. I said she was ill and had to gone to Ghevgheli. They insisted that I should bring her to them. The Greek teacher of the village, Christo Poparov, who was with the soldiers, was the most offensive of them all.

They threatened to kill me if I would not produce her. The soldiers then came into the room and beat me with the butts of their rifles and I fell. "Now," they said, "you belong to the Greeks, your house and everything in it," and they sacked the house. Then sixteen soldiers came and again called for my daughter, and since they could not find her they used me instead. I was imprisoned in my own house and never left alone. Four days before the war I was allowed to go to Ghevgheli by rail with two soldiers to fetch my daughter. She was really in the village of Djavato. At Ghevgheli, the soldiers gave me permission to go alone to the village to fetch her. Outside the village I met five Greek soldiers, who greeted me civilly and asked for the news. Suddenly they fired a rifle and called out, "Stop, old woman." They then fired six shots to frighten me. I hurried on and got into the village just before the soldiers. They bound my hands, began to beat me, undressed me, and flung me down on the ground. Some Servian soldiers were in the village and interfered with the Greeks and saved my life. My daughter was hidden in the village and she saw what was happening to me and came running out to give herself up, in order to save her mother. She made a speech to the soldiers and said, "Brothers, when we have worked so long together as allies, why do you kill my mother?" The soldiers only answered, that they would kill her too. I then showed them the passport which had been given to me at Boinitsa. I can not read Greek and did not know what was on it. It seems that what was written there was "This is a mother who is to go and find her daughter and bring her back to us." The Greek soldiers then saw that it was my daughter, and not I, who was wanted and my daughter cried, "Now I am lost." The soldiers offered me the choice of staying in the village or going with my daughter to Ghevgheli. I begged that they would leave us alone together where we were until the morning, and to this they agreed. In the night I fled with my daughter, who disguised herself in boy's clothes, to a place two hours away which was occupied by Bulgarian soldiers. I then went myself to Ghevgheli and immediately afterwards, the second war broke out.

The Bulgarians took the town and then retired from it, and the Greeks entered it. The moment they came in they began killing people indiscriminately in the street. One man named Anton Bakharji was killed before my eyes. I also saw a Greek woman named Helena kill a rich Bulgarian [Macedonian belonging to the Exarchate Church] named Hadji Tano, with her revolver. Another, whose name I do not know, was wounded by a soldier. A panic followed in the town and a general flight. Outside the town I met a number of Greek soldiers who had with them sixteen Bulgarian [Macedonian belonging to the Exarchate Church] girls as their prisoners. All of them were crying, several of them were undressed, and some were covered in blood. The soldiers were so much occupied with these girls that they did not interfere with us, and allowed us to flee past them. As we crossed the bridge over the Vardar, we saw little children who had been abandoned and one girl lying as if dead on the ground. The cavalry were coming up behind us. There was no time to help. A long way off a battle was going on and we could hear the cannon, but nobody fired upon us. For eight days we fled to Bulgaria and many died on the way. The Bulgarian soldiers gave us bread. I found my daughter at Samakov. My one consolation is that I saved her honor". (Page 304, 305) George F. Kennan. "The Other Balkan Wars" A 1913 Carnegie Endowment Inquiry in Retrospect with a New Introduction and Reflections on the Present Conflict. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, 1993.

It is time Mr. Koumoutsakos, to come clean and start telling the truth. The Republic of Macedonia is yet another of your victims just like Anastasia Pavlova and all those other women your State has raped.

For comments regarding this article contact the author at [email protected]

[George S.]

Greece, Bulgaria and the Macedonian Question

Cutting through the Rhetoric

By Risto Stefov

January 28, 2007
[email protected]

Website: www.Oshchima.com


I have often heard references to the Macedonian question without understanding what it really means. Why is the Macedonian question so elusive and mysterious and why has it been thrown around for so long?

The Macedonian question was not a question that Macedonians have asked but rather a question the Great Powers were asking during late nineteenth century when Macedonia was still occupied by the last remnants of the Ottoman Empire. Simply put the Macedonian question was, "What will happen to the Macedonian territories and the people living on those territories when the Ottoman Empire ceases to exist?"

Obviously the Macedonian question was answered in 1912, 1913 when Macedonia was occupied, partitioned and annexed by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. Or was it?

If the Macedonian question was answered then, why does it still linger on? And better still, why has it evolved? In view of what is happening today with regards to the Greek-Macedonian name dispute and the Bulgarian refusal to recognize the Macedonian ethnicity and language, it's time once again to ask, "What is the Macedonian question of today?"

If the Macedonian question was satisfactorily answered by the division of Macedonia and by declaring that only Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians live in the geographic territories of Macedonia, why then do we today have a sovereign and independent Macedonian State with no less than 1.8 million people declaring themselves to be ethnic Macedonians? Likewise if all those people living in the Macedonian territories that Greece annexed in 1913 were Greeks then why do we today have Macedonians living in Greece? Similarly, if everyone in Bulgarian annexed Macedonia were Bulgarians, why then today do we have Macedonians living in Bulgaria?

We can all bury our heads in the sand and keep on believing "no Macedonians exist" to the satisfaction of Greece and Bulgaria, or we can wake up to the reality that ethnic Macedonians do exist not only in the Republic of Macedonia but in all of geographic Macedonia, including the Greek and Bulgarian annexed territories.

Being made aware of that reality, then what will the "new Macedonian question" be that the new Great Powers should be asking?

Before answering this question, we should take a look at what was done to "answer" the original "Macedonian question" and what has changed to lead to the "new Macedonian question".

Before the breakup of the Ottoman Empire the Great Powers were preoccupied with how to maintain political stability in the region. Being itself a Great Power, as the Ottoman Empire began to break up, the other Great Powers struggled to maintain a balance of power without themselves losing influence and at the same time looking for ways to expand their own influence. There was agreement between the Powers that should the Ottoman Empire collapse they would not allow its replacement to be a single state or another Great Power. Thus the "Eastern Question" was born which simply put stated, "What will happen to the lands and people when the Ottoman Empire ceases to exist?" The only acceptable solution was to replace the Ottoman lands with smaller states that could not possibly unite. In other words "create a number of smaller, equal sized, politically diverse" states that would oppose one another and remain loyal to the Great Powers that created them.

As the Ottoman Empire began to wear down at its fringes, Greece and Serbia were born. As it continued to collapse greater Bulgaria was born but it was a short lived birth. The Powers could not agree on San Stefano Bulgaria because for one, it was much larger than the other two newly created states and being created by Russia, Bulgaria would show loyalty to Russia and would allow Russia, a rival Great Power, greater influence in the Balkans as well as access to the Mediterranean waters, something the Western Powers did not want. Instead, a smaller Bulgaria was created and the Ottoman collapse was somewhat stabilized and its territory in the Balkans reduced to present day geographical Macedonia, Albania, Thrace and European Turkey (the Dardanelles).

By now no one had any doubts that the remainder of the Ottoman Empire was going to collapse, it was a matter of time. This created new worries for the Great Powers, "What to do with the remainder of the lands, especially with Macedonia." This gave birth to the "Macedonian Question". Simply put "what will happen to Macedonia and the Macedonian people" when the Ottoman Empire disappears? Of course, as I mention earlier, the problem was solved by allowing Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria to annex parts of Macedonia and its people. Since Macedonia was an existing entity with defined borders, a long and illustrious history, and with ethnic Macedonians living on it, it was difficult to find dividing lines. So Macedonia's eventuality was decided by conflict. The three states were allowed to simultaneously invade Macedonia and whichever parts they liberated by evicting the Turks they would get to keep for themselves. The invasion took place in 1912 and resulted in the successful eviction of the last remnants of the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately none of the three states were happy with the territories they gained so once again they renewed the conflict in 1913 resulting in the current partition and annexation of Macedonia which exists to this day.

No matter what Greece and Bulgaria claim today about how they acquired their part of Macedonia, it is a well known fact that Macedonian territories were a prize from the spoils of war. The 1913 Treaty of Bucharest, and how it was achieved, is a living testament that Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria fought over Macedonia and gained its lands by conflict. No historical claims were ever made prior to or during the signing of the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest.

It is a well known fact that neither Greece, Serbia, nor Bulgaria ever existed before as sovereign states. Bulgaria and Serbia existed as empires encompassing parts of Macedonian territories but it is well understood that these territories were occupied by force and never belonged to them. Greece on the other hand had never before occupied or owned Macedonian lands. That is why Greece has resorted to using the ancient Macedonians from 2,300 years ago to claim "historic rights" to Macedonian territories. Greece it seems can only claim legitimacy to Macedonian territories and to the Macedonian heritage if it can prove to the world that the "Ancient Macedonians were Greek". While ignoring the reality of how it obtained Macedonian territories, Greece has taken the argument back 2,300 years and is fighting a war of words, semantics, as to who is the real heir to the Macedonian heritage. Greece is ignoring the facts that Macedonians lived in Macedonia for countless generations or at least 1,500 years by its own accounts. Greece knows very well that no one cares about what happened 2,300 years ago. And why does it matter? Why argue semantics while ignoring reality? Arguing semantics suits Greece and Bulgaria perfectly because while the Macedonians are arguing over semantics Greece and Bulgaria (1) continue to make them look like fools and (2) continue to benefit from Macedonia's occupation to the detriment of its true owners the Macedonian people.

Let's clarify some things. First and foremost Macedonians are people with legal rights and privileges no matter what Greece and Bulgaria call them. Second, these people indisputably lived in Macedonia for at least 1,500 years which is more than enough to qualify them as the indigenous people of Macedonia. These people, according to international law, have the right to self identify in whatever way or means they see fit. So what is the problem with Greece and Bulgaria?

The real problem here is not whether Macedonians qualify to be called Macedonians but rather, whether Greece has the right and can prove it has the right to the Macedonian heritage. Does Greece truly have a case by claiming "Macedonia is Greek" on account that the "Ancient Macedonians may or may not have been Greek in 400 BC"? Greece only has a case as long as Macedonians believe it has a case and continue to argue with Greece over frivolous issues! Do the Macedonian people have a case against Greece for losing their lands to Greece because Greece chose to illegally occupy Macedonia by force in 1912, 1913? Yes they do! If Macedonians stop fighting with Greece about 2,400 year old issues and begin to focus their efforts on today's real issues then they can expect to gain international attention and achieve their rights as Macedonians living on this planet!

Even though Macedonia was served on a platter to Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria by the Great Powers in 1913 by the Treaty of Bucharest and again in 1919 by the Treaty of Versailles, does not change the fact that Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria gained Macedonian lands illegally by force and without the consent of the Macedonian people.

Do the Macedonian people have a strong case against Greece and Bulgaria? The answer is yes! Macedonians can prove that Macedonians have been evicted from their lands and their lands have been confiscated only because they are Macedonians. Macedonians can prove that both Greece and Bulgaria have broken treaties which Greece and Bulgaria have signed to provide Macedonians minority rights. Macedonians can prove that Greece and Bulgaria continue to disobey international law by not recognizing the ethnic Macedonians in their respective states. Case and point, the Greek State passed a law in 1988 allowing all Greeks by birth to return to Greece but not the 28,000 Macedonia refugee children, refugees from the Greek Civil War. These were children between the ages of 2 and 14. They are not criminals or agents of foreign states. Greece has yet to explain why these children, who now are all over 60 years old, are not allowed to return. Why is Greece on one hand claiming that everyone who lived in Greece since 1928 is Greek and on the other hand it passes a law that discriminates against non-Greeks who supposedly do not exist? Greece will not allow Macedonians to return to Greece because Greece has confiscated and sold or given away their lands to the colonists it imported from Asia Minor in the 1920s and is still importing to this day.

The name dispute between Macedonia and Greece is a fabricated issue, fabricated by Greece to take attention away from its dismal human rights record towards its minorities, especially its Macedonian minority which Greece has robbed of its heritage. Greece has created this issue to keep Macedonians on the defensive and away from seeking compensation for their lands or to fight for their human rights as ethnic Macedonians and as citizens of that state. There is no international law or precedence that would allow legally or morally for a state to evict people from their lands and rob them of their property and ethnic rights based on 2,400 year old "ambiguous claims". Besides, how do we know for certain and how can we prove that the modern Greeks truly have legitimate rights to the Macedonian lands and heritage? How do we know that the Macedonians themselves who lived in Macedonia for at least 1,500 years have no rights to Macedonian lands and the Macedonian heritage? Are we to take the word of a state who denies the Macedonian peoples' existence? Are we to believe Greece, a state that has robbed the ethnic Macedonians of their ethnic rights? Who has evicted Macedonians from their own homes? Who has changed all the Macedonian names? Who has tried to make Macedonians into Greeks by force? I think not!

Since Macedonians are placed in a position where they have to justify their identity wouldn't you say it is only fair that Greeks be put through the same scrutiny? How can a person by simply saying that they are "Greek" own the right to both the Greek and Macedonian heritage yet a person who says they are Macedonian has no rights at all, not even the right to call him or herself Macedonian?

How did all this start and what has changed since?

As mentioned earlier, Greece is a product of Great Power intervention. It was artificially created for the first time in 1829 from the ashes of the crumbling Ottoman Empire. I am saying "artificially created" because most states when created are modeled after something vibrant and living, like a living culture or a practicing tradition. The language a newly created state adopts for its people is usually a living language or the mother language of the people. If more than one language exists, it's usually the language of the majority that is adopted. Some states to be fair to all people are bi-lingual or even multi-lingual. Greece, on the other hand, was modeled after a dead culture which existed 2,400 years ago. The language the Greek state adopted for its people was also a dead language which was only preserved by the Ottoman administration and the Orthodox Church. The name "Greece" itself is also a non-Greek word. It is a Latin word.

When Greece was created for the first time there was no Greek ethnicity. The 19th century ethnicities that comprised the raw material for the modern Greek state were Albanians, Vlachs, Turks, Macedonians and other Slav speakers, Christians from Asia Minor, Gypsies and other ethnic minorities. Each ethnicity that comprised the so-called "Greek ethnos" was not Greek and each spoke a unique language different from the others.

It is understandable that in order to unify these various people under one nation the Greek state had to undertake some measures in order to keep a balance between the needs of the individual against those of the state. Unfortunately, in its zeal to create a mythical nation modeled after a dead culture which only could be viewed as ideal, Greece went too far. It not only literally destroyed what was real but it also attempted to erase the peoples' collective memory about their current culture, language and history and replace it with an ideal and fictitious one. For example in Macedonia, after Greece consolidated its control over the people, it initiated a denationalization process by eliminating the spoken and written form of the Macedonian language and replaced it with the dead language it adopted for its own people. It destroyed all records, books, monuments, religious icons, even tombstones with Macedonian writing. It changed peoples' names and gave the people new and Greek sounding names. It changed all the names of the cities, towns, villages, lakes, rivers, mountains and roads to make them look "ancient Greek". The prohibition of the Macedonian language and identity as well as the name changes were enforced by the passing of laws which exist and are enforced to this day.

In other words, Greece is Greek today not by birthright or any legal means but simply by enforcing an idea, the idea that everyone who lives in Greece is Greek.

Unlike Greece which created its "ethnos" by destroying the true ethnicities of its people, Macedonia has a living and vibrant Macedonian ethnicity. Ethnic Macedonians in the entire region of geographic Macedonia have a mother tongue comprising of at least 26 dialects. Macedonians have a living language which is at least 1,500 years old. In spite of Greek attempts to eradicate it, the Macedonian language has survived and is widely spoken today. The publication of the Abecedar, a Macedonian language primer, published by the Greek state itself in 1925 is a testament that Macedonians and their Macedonian language existed in Greece.

Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria have refused to join the newly created "ethnos" for various reasons. The primary reason is because they are not Bulgarians or Greeks. Remember Macedonia was occupied and partitioned by foreign forces without Macedonian consent. In other words, no one asked the Macedonians if they wanted their country to be occupied and partitioned. There are no treaties signed by Macedonians giving Greece and Bulgaria permission to annex Macedonian territories. On top of that, no one asked the Macedonians if they wanted to become Greeks or Bulgarians voluntarily. Macedonians were forced into declaring themselves what they were not under duress. They were forced to give up their own ethnic identity for the sake of joining the cult of their occupiers. Yes, "occupiers"!

Let's face reality here. What the Greeks and Bulgarians did was not exactly pleasant for the Macedonian people. Upon their occupation of Macedonian territories, both the Greek and Bulgarian state executed Macedonians on masse, evicted Macedonians from their homes and both states forcibly attempted to denationalize, Hellenize and Bulgarize the Macedonian population. Greece went further and changed the names of people and places and gave away Macedonian lands to foreign colonists. How can Macedonians forget that? Even those Macedonians who chose the "Greek way" were not above been systemically discriminated. Greece has a file on everyone and if a person has Macedonian roots he or she is viewed with suspicion and prohibited from achieving higher education or high positions in the military or in government. So really where is the incentive for Macedonians to turn into Greeks? The 1914 Carnegie report is a testament of what Greece and Bulgaria did upon the occupation and annexation of Macedonia. When war broke out in the Balkans in 1912 and 1913, the Carnegie Endowment dispatched a commission on a fact finding mission. The mission consisted of seven prominent members from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia. Among them was the distinguished journalist Henry N. Brailsford, author of the book "Macedonia its Races and their Future". A report was written and testifies to the atrocities committed by these states against the Macedonian people!

What has changed since then?

Since Macedonia's occupation and partition, Serbian occupied Macedonia saw a resurgence of the Macedonian language and culture as Serbia slowly softened its stronghold on Macedonia. With the advent of the Yugoslav federation, Macedonia took its rightful place as a republic inside Yugoslavia. The people chose to call their republic "The Peoples' Republic of Macedonia" and their language "Macedonian" to which Greece had no objection. There are schoolbooks in Greece that attest to the fact that Greece had no objection with Macedonia calling itself Macedonia. Greek children were taught in school that one of the republics in Yugoslavia was called "Macedonia" and the people living in it spoke "Macedonian". When Yugoslavia disintegrated, the Serbian occupied part of Macedonia became the sovereign and independent state the Republic of Macedonia.

Greece and Bulgaria in the meantime continue to illegally occupy Macedonian territories and refuse to acknowledge the existence of ethnic Macedonians.

Sadly for Greece and Bulgaria, Macedonians do exist and are re-opening the Macedonian question. The days of imperialism and treating people like raw material for Nation Building are over. Macedonians don't want to be Greeks or Bulgarians or any other names Greece and Bulgaria feels like calling them. The Macedonians want to be called Macedonians. They want to be recognized for who they are. The new Macedonian questions should be about recognizing Macedonians as a separate ethnic identity with rights and privileges in accordance with international norms. The new Macedonian question should be about restitution and correcting past wrongs. It should be about long overdue repatriation of long forgotten citizens.

I believe it is time to re-examine the facts, re-open the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest and all associated treaties that have to do with human and minority rights as well as with land claim rights that Greece and Bulgaria have violated. It's time to stop the pursuit of fantasy like the name dispute and face reality like how and under what conditions Macedonia was occupied, partitioned and annexed. It's time to review the atrocities the Greek and Bulgarian states have committed against the Macedonian population in 1912 and 1913 and from 1940 to 1949. It's time for Greece to start making plans to repatriate the Macedonian citizens it evicted for no good reason. It's time for Greece and Bulgaria to recognize those Macedonians living in their states as Macedonians with full rights and privileges in accordance with international law.

Mr. Karamanlis, its time to stop stalling and muddying the waters by one day pretending there are no Macedonians in your country and another day saying everyone who lives in your country is Macedonian and Greek. Mr. Karamanlis it's time for you and your Government to start facing real issues like providing human and national rights to the minorities that live in your country today not 2,400 years ago.

Since Macedonians are refusing to "go away" it's time for you Mr. Karamanlis to deal with them in a civilized and equitable manner.

Mr. Karamanlis, the next time you feel like making statements about how the Macedonians are stealing your "Greek heritage", please take a good look at your own Greek nation and how it was created and decide for yourself who is stealing whose heritage!

----------

[George S.]

Greece, Bulgaria and the Macedonian Question

Cutting through the Rhetoric

By Risto Stefov

January 28, 2007
[email protected]

Website: www.Oshchima.com


I have often heard references to the Macedonian question without understanding what it really means. Why is the Macedonian question so elusive and mysterious and why has it been thrown around for so long?

The Macedonian question was not a question that Macedonians have asked but rather a question the Great Powers were asking during late nineteenth century when Macedonia was still occupied by the last remnants of the Ottoman Empire. Simply put the Macedonian question was, "What will happen to the Macedonian territories and the people living on those territories when the Ottoman Empire ceases to exist?"

Obviously the Macedonian question was answered in 1912, 1913 when Macedonia was occupied, partitioned and annexed by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. Or was it?

If the Macedonian question was answered then, why does it still linger on? And better still, why has it evolved? In view of what is happening today with regards to the Greek-Macedonian name dispute and the Bulgarian refusal to recognize the Macedonian ethnicity and language, it's time once again to ask, "What is the Macedonian question of today?"

If the Macedonian question was satisfactorily answered by the division of Macedonia and by declaring that only Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians live in the geographic territories of Macedonia, why then do we today have a sovereign and independent Macedonian State with no less than 1.8 million people declaring themselves to be ethnic Macedonians? Likewise if all those people living in the Macedonian territories that Greece annexed in 1913 were Greeks then why do we today have Macedonians living in Greece? Similarly, if everyone in Bulgarian annexed Macedonia were Bulgarians, why then today do we have Macedonians living in Bulgaria?

We can all bury our heads in the sand and keep on believing "no Macedonians exist" to the satisfaction of Greece and Bulgaria, or we can wake up to the reality that ethnic Macedonians do exist not only in the Republic of Macedonia but in all of geographic Macedonia, including the Greek and Bulgarian annexed territories.

Being made aware of that reality, then what will the "new Macedonian question" be that the new Great Powers should be asking?

Before answering this question, we should take a look at what was done to "answer" the original "Macedonian question" and what has changed to lead to the "new Macedonian question".

Before the breakup of the Ottoman Empire the Great Powers were preoccupied with how to maintain political stability in the region. Being itself a Great Power, as the Ottoman Empire began to break up, the other Great Powers struggled to maintain a balance of power without themselves losing influence and at the same time looking for ways to expand their own influence. There was agreement between the Powers that should the Ottoman Empire collapse they would not allow its replacement to be a single state or another Great Power. Thus the "Eastern Question" was born which simply put stated, "What will happen to the lands and people when the Ottoman Empire ceases to exist?" The only acceptable solution was to replace the Ottoman lands with smaller states that could not possibly unite. In other words "create a number of smaller, equal sized, politically diverse" states that would oppose one another and remain loyal to the Great Powers that created them.

As the Ottoman Empire began to wear down at its fringes, Greece and Serbia were born. As it continued to collapse greater Bulgaria was born but it was a short lived birth. The Powers could not agree on San Stefano Bulgaria because for one, it was much larger than the other two newly created states and being created by Russia, Bulgaria would show loyalty to Russia and would allow Russia, a rival Great Power, greater influence in the Balkans as well as access to the Mediterranean waters, something the Western Powers did not want. Instead, a smaller Bulgaria was created and the Ottoman collapse was somewhat stabilized and its territory in the Balkans reduced to present day geographical Macedonia, Albania, Thrace and European Turkey (the Dardanelles).

By now no one had any doubts that the remainder of the Ottoman Empire was going to collapse, it was a matter of time. This created new worries for the Great Powers, "What to do with the remainder of the lands, especially with Macedonia." This gave birth to the "Macedonian Question". Simply put "what will happen to Macedonia and the Macedonian people" when the Ottoman Empire disappears? Of course, as I mention earlier, the problem was solved by allowing Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria to annex parts of Macedonia and its people. Since Macedonia was an existing entity with defined borders, a long and illustrious history, and with ethnic Macedonians living on it, it was difficult to find dividing lines. So Macedonia's eventuality was decided by conflict. The three states were allowed to simultaneously invade Macedonia and whichever parts they liberated by evicting the Turks they would get to keep for themselves. The invasion took place in 1912 and resulted in the successful eviction of the last remnants of the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately none of the three states were happy with the territories they gained so once again they renewed the conflict in 1913 resulting in the current partition and annexation of Macedonia which exists to this day.

No matter what Greece and Bulgaria claim today about how they acquired their part of Macedonia, it is a well known fact that Macedonian territories were a prize from the spoils of war. The 1913 Treaty of Bucharest, and how it was achieved, is a living testament that Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria fought over Macedonia and gained its lands by conflict. No historical claims were ever made prior to or during the signing of the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest.

It is a well known fact that neither Greece, Serbia, nor Bulgaria ever existed before as sovereign states. Bulgaria and Serbia existed as empires encompassing parts of Macedonian territories but it is well understood that these territories were occupied by force and never belonged to them. Greece on the other hand had never before occupied or owned Macedonian lands. That is why Greece has resorted to using the ancient Macedonians from 2,300 years ago to claim "historic rights" to Macedonian territories. Greece it seems can only claim legitimacy to Macedonian territories and to the Macedonian heritage if it can prove to the world that the "Ancient Macedonians were Greek". While ignoring the reality of how it obtained Macedonian territories, Greece has taken the argument back 2,300 years and is fighting a war of words, semantics, as to who is the real heir to the Macedonian heritage. Greece is ignoring the facts that Macedonians lived in Macedonia for countless generations or at least 1,500 years by its own accounts. Greece knows very well that no one cares about what happened 2,300 years ago. And why does it matter? Why argue semantics while ignoring reality? Arguing semantics suits Greece and Bulgaria perfectly because while the Macedonians are arguing over semantics Greece and Bulgaria (1) continue to make them look like fools and (2) continue to benefit from Macedonia's occupation to the detriment of its true owners the Macedonian people.

Let's clarify some things. First and foremost Macedonians are people with legal rights and privileges no matter what Greece and Bulgaria call them. Second, these people indisputably lived in Macedonia for at least 1,500 years which is more than enough to qualify them as the indigenous people of Macedonia. These people, according to international law, have the right to self identify in whatever way or means they see fit. So what is the problem with Greece and Bulgaria?

The real problem here is not whether Macedonians qualify to be called Macedonians but rather, whether Greece has the right and can prove it has the right to the Macedonian heritage. Does Greece truly have a case by claiming "Macedonia is Greek" on account that the "Ancient Macedonians may or may not have been Greek in 400 BC"? Greece only has a case as long as Macedonians believe it has a case and continue to argue with Greece over frivolous issues! Do the Macedonian people have a case against Greece for losing their lands to Greece because Greece chose to illegally occupy Macedonia by force in 1912, 1913? Yes they do! If Macedonians stop fighting with Greece about 2,400 year old issues and begin to focus their efforts on today's real issues then they can expect to gain international attention and achieve their rights as Macedonians living on this planet!

Even though Macedonia was served on a platter to Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria by the Great Powers in 1913 by the Treaty of Bucharest and again in 1919 by the Treaty of Versailles, does not change the fact that Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria gained Macedonian lands illegally by force and without the consent of the Macedonian people.

Do the Macedonian people have a strong case against Greece and Bulgaria? The answer is yes! Macedonians can prove that Macedonians have been evicted from their lands and their lands have been confiscated only because they are Macedonians. Macedonians can prove that both Greece and Bulgaria have broken treaties which Greece and Bulgaria have signed to provide Macedonians minority rights. Macedonians can prove that Greece and Bulgaria continue to disobey international law by not recognizing the ethnic Macedonians in their respective states. Case and point, the Greek State passed a law in 1988 allowing all Greeks by birth to return to Greece but not the 28,000 Macedonia refugee children, refugees from the Greek Civil War. These were children between the ages of 2 and 14. They are not criminals or agents of foreign states. Greece has yet to explain why these children, who now are all over 60 years old, are not allowed to return. Why is Greece on one hand claiming that everyone who lived in Greece since 1928 is Greek and on the other hand it passes a law that discriminates against non-Greeks who supposedly do not exist? Greece will not allow Macedonians to return to Greece because Greece has confiscated and sold or given away their lands to the colonists it imported from Asia Minor in the 1920s and is still importing to this day.

The name dispute between Macedonia and Greece is a fabricated issue, fabricated by Greece to take attention away from its dismal human rights record towards its minorities, especially its Macedonian minority which Greece has robbed of its heritage. Greece has created this issue to keep Macedonians on the defensive and away from seeking compensation for their lands or to fight for their human rights as ethnic Macedonians and as citizens of that state. There is no international law or precedence that would allow legally or morally for a state to evict people from their lands and rob them of their property and ethnic rights based on 2,400 year old "ambiguous claims". Besides, how do we know for certain and how can we prove that the modern Greeks truly have legitimate rights to the Macedonian lands and heritage? How do we know that the Macedonians themselves who lived in Macedonia for at least 1,500 years have no rights to Macedonian lands and the Macedonian heritage? Are we to take the word of a state who denies the Macedonian peoples' existence? Are we to believe Greece, a state that has robbed the ethnic Macedonians of their ethnic rights? Who has evicted Macedonians from their own homes? Who has changed all the Macedonian names? Who has tried to make Macedonians into Greeks by force? I think not!

Since Macedonians are placed in a position where they have to justify their identity wouldn't you say it is only fair that Greeks be put through the same scrutiny? How can a person by simply saying that they are "Greek" own the right to both the Greek and Macedonian heritage yet a person who says they are Macedonian has no rights at all, not even the right to call him or herself Macedonian?

How did all this start and what has changed since?

As mentioned earlier, Greece is a product of Great Power intervention. It was artificially created for the first time in 1829 from the ashes of the crumbling Ottoman Empire. I am saying "artificially created" because most states when created are modeled after something vibrant and living, like a living culture or a practicing tradition. The language a newly created state adopts for its people is usually a living language or the mother language of the people. If more than one language exists, it's usually the language of the majority that is adopted. Some states to be fair to all people are bi-lingual or even multi-lingual. Greece, on the other hand, was modeled after a dead culture which existed 2,400 years ago. The language the Greek state adopted for its people was also a dead language which was only preserved by the Ottoman administration and the Orthodox Church. The name "Greece" itself is also a non-Greek word. It is a Latin word.

When Greece was created for the first time there was no Greek ethnicity. The 19th century ethnicities that comprised the raw material for the modern Greek state were Albanians, Vlachs, Turks, Macedonians and other Slav speakers, Christians from Asia Minor, Gypsies and other ethnic minorities. Each ethnicity that comprised the so-called "Greek ethnos" was not Greek and each spoke a unique language different from the others.

It is understandable that in order to unify these various people under one nation the Greek state had to undertake some measures in order to keep a balance between the needs of the individual against those of the state. Unfortunately, in its zeal to create a mythical nation modeled after a dead culture which only could be viewed as ideal, Greece went too far. It not only literally destroyed what was real but it also attempted to erase the peoples' collective memory about their current culture, language and history and replace it with an ideal and fictitious one. For example in Macedonia, after Greece consolidated its control over the people, it initiated a denationalization process by eliminating the spoken and written form of the Macedonian language and replaced it with the dead language it adopted for its own people. It destroyed all records, books, monuments, religious icons, even tombstones with Macedonian writing. It changed peoples' names and gave the people new and Greek sounding names. It changed all the names of the cities, towns, villages, lakes, rivers, mountains and roads to make them look "ancient Greek". The prohibition of the Macedonian language and identity as well as the name changes were enforced by the passing of laws which exist and are enforced to this day.

In other words, Greece is Greek today not by birthright or any legal means but simply by enforcing an idea, the idea that everyone who lives in Greece is Greek.

Unlike Greece which created its "ethnos" by destroying the true ethnicities of its people, Macedonia has a living and vibrant Macedonian ethnicity. Ethnic Macedonians in the entire region of geographic Macedonia have a mother tongue comprising of at least 26 dialects. Macedonians have a living language which is at least 1,500 years old. In spite of Greek attempts to eradicate it, the Macedonian language has survived and is widely spoken today. The publication of the Abecedar, a Macedonian language primer, published by the Greek state itself in 1925 is a testament that Macedonians and their Macedonian language existed in Greece.

Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria have refused to join the newly created "ethnos" for various reasons. The primary reason is because they are not Bulgarians or Greeks. Remember Macedonia was occupied and partitioned by foreign forces without Macedonian consent. In other words, no one asked the Macedonians if they wanted their country to be occupied and partitioned. There are no treaties signed by Macedonians giving Greece and Bulgaria permission to annex Macedonian territories. On top of that, no one asked the Macedonians if they wanted to become Greeks or Bulgarians voluntarily. Macedonians were forced into declaring themselves what they were not under duress. They were forced to give up their own ethnic identity for the sake of joining the cult of their occupiers. Yes, "occupiers"!

Let's face reality here. What the Greeks and Bulgarians did was not exactly pleasant for the Macedonian people. Upon their occupation of Macedonian territories, both the Greek and Bulgarian state executed Macedonians on masse, evicted Macedonians from their homes and both states forcibly attempted to denationalize, Hellenize and Bulgarize the Macedonian population. Greece went further and changed the names of people and places and gave away Macedonian lands to foreign colonists. How can Macedonians forget that? Even those Macedonians who chose the "Greek way" were not above been systemically discriminated. Greece has a file on everyone and if a person has Macedonian roots he or she is viewed with suspicion and prohibited from achieving higher education or high positions in the military or in government. So really where is the incentive for Macedonians to turn into Greeks? The 1914 Carnegie report is a testament of what Greece and Bulgaria did upon the occupation and annexation of Macedonia. When war broke out in the Balkans in 1912 and 1913, the Carnegie Endowment dispatched a commission on a fact finding mission. The mission consisted of seven prominent members from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia. Among them was the distinguished journalist Henry N. Brailsford, author of the book "Macedonia its Races and their Future". A report was written and testifies to the atrocities committed by these states against the Macedonian people!

What has changed since then?

Since Macedonia's occupation and partition, Serbian occupied Macedonia saw a resurgence of the Macedonian language and culture as Serbia slowly softened its stronghold on Macedonia. With the advent of the Yugoslav federation, Macedonia took its rightful place as a republic inside Yugoslavia. The people chose to call their republic "The Peoples' Republic of Macedonia" and their language "Macedonian" to which Greece had no objection. There are schoolbooks in Greece that attest to the fact that Greece had no objection with Macedonia calling itself Macedonia. Greek children were taught in school that one of the republics in Yugoslavia was called "Macedonia" and the people living in it spoke "Macedonian". When Yugoslavia disintegrated, the Serbian occupied part of Macedonia became the sovereign and independent state the Republic of Macedonia.

Greece and Bulgaria in the meantime continue to illegally occupy Macedonian territories and refuse to acknowledge the existence of ethnic Macedonians.

Sadly for Greece and Bulgaria, Macedonians do exist and are re-opening the Macedonian question. The days of imperialism and treating people like raw material for Nation Building are over. Macedonians don't want to be Greeks or Bulgarians or any other names Greece and Bulgaria feels like calling them. The Macedonians want to be called Macedonians. They want to be recognized for who they are. The new Macedonian questions should be about recognizing Macedonians as a separate ethnic identity with rights and privileges in accordance with international norms. The new Macedonian question should be about restitution and correcting past wrongs. It should be about long overdue repatriation of long forgotten citizens.

I believe it is time to re-examine the facts, re-open the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest and all associated treaties that have to do with human and minority rights as well as with land claim rights that Greece and Bulgaria have violated. It's time to stop the pursuit of fantasy like the name dispute and face reality like how and under what conditions Macedonia was occupied, partitioned and annexed. It's time to review the atrocities the Greek and Bulgarian states have committed against the Macedonian population in 1912 and 1913 and from 1940 to 1949. It's time for Greece to start making plans to repatriate the Macedonian citizens it evicted for no good reason. It's time for Greece and Bulgaria to recognize those Macedonians living in their states as Macedonians with full rights and privileges in accordance with international law.

Mr. Karamanlis, its time to stop stalling and muddying the waters by one day pretending there are no Macedonians in your country and another day saying everyone who lives in your country is Macedonian and Greek. Mr. Karamanlis it's time for you and your Government to start facing real issues like providing human and national rights to the minorities that live in your country today not 2,400 years ago.

Since Macedonians are refusing to "go away" it's time for you Mr. Karamanlis to deal with them in a civilized and equitable manner.

Mr. Karamanlis, the next time you feel like making statements about how the Macedonians are stealing your "Greek heritage", please take a good look at your own Greek nation and how it was created and decide for yourself who is stealing whose heritage!

----------

[George S.]

On the Road of Time – Chapter 3 - Part 2



By Petre Nakovski

Translated and edited by Risto Stefov

[email protected]

July 15, 2012



In the middle of the emptiness, a remnant of the bad times, the only building preserved was the Church of Sveta Bogoroditsa (Holy Virgin), which survived the Greek Civil War with only its roof, bell tower and altar demolished. The church was built in 1875 about which my grandfather spoke:



“Then, in Ottoman times, when our village was a chiflik (feudal estate), priests from Bulgaria and from Greece began to arrive. To us, the Christians from time immemorial, some said that we were Bulgarians and others told us that we were Greeks. We did understand some Bulgarian, but Greek not a single word. Both groups promised us many things, they even promised to liberate us from the Ottomans if we agreed to attend their sermons given in the Bulgarian or Greek language.



So the moment they mentioned “liberation”, the village was divided in two. Some wanted to be liberated by the Bulgarians and others by the Greeks. Half the village was received by the Bulgarian priest and the other half by the Greek. The families that were accepted by the Bulgarian priest, to the others, became known as “Bugaromani” and those accepted by the Greek priest, to the others, became known as “Grkomani”. Kostur, very early had fallen under the auspices of the Greek bishop, what was his name? Oh, I remember it was Karavangelis, right? No, no, at that time it was not him. I guess. Now who was it? He had comings and goings with the Ottoman authorities, and our Beg was a close relative of the Kaimakam that’s why he did not allow the “Bugaromani” to build a church in the middle of the village. They were kicked out of the village and were told they could go and pray in the old church of Sveti Atanas outside of the village. Their justification for not allowing the church to be built; Russia was about to declare war on the Ottomans, apparently to liberate Bulgaria…



Then a man was sent, carrying the symbol of the bishop from Kostur, asking the village to send someone so the bishop could speak with him. Such a man was sent and after offering him coffee and a lokum (Turkish delight) the Bishop got right down to business:



“You are saying that there should be a church built in the village centre, but not higher than the Mosque?”



“That is exactly right Father Bishop!” the man answered.



“And that’s the way it’s going to be, my son,” said the bishop, “that’s the way it’s going to be! Here kiss the cross and cross yourself…” replied the bishop, leaning over and taking a sip of coffee and leaning towards the man asked: “Money? I say money because you need money to build a church and not just wishes and prayers. Do you have money or are you expecting the Bulgarians to give it to you?”



“The Beg, Father Bishop, does not want the Bulgarians in the village – in the Chiflik…” replied the man.



“And that’s the way it is, it’s God’s will. Let Him be the glory of heaven. And money, my child, you are telling me you have no money? But if you turn our way, perhaps money could be found. That’s the way it is. Turn our way and maybe with God’s help money could be found in my treasury…” said the bishop.



“And in what language will liturgy be conducted?” asked the man.



“Well my child, in the language of who provides the money,” answered the bishop.



“We will think about it Father Bishop. It is not that easy. I am saying that the “word” and the “voice” are important things, Father Bishop. Our grandfathers left us a sign that in older times liturgy was conducted in the Slavonic language, the language of Kiril and Metodi, that is the way it has always been…” said the man.



“Well, if that’s the way it is my child then go beg the Bulgarians. They swear by Kiril and Metodi… Now go and think about it with your fellow villagers and come back in a few days…” replied the bishop.”



The Beg was in close contact with his people who were in collusion with the bishop and found out about the conversation. Then one day the Beg called my grandfather to his estate and told him the following:



“Be careful, both the Bulgarians and Greeks want your souls and not your faith. They give money to buy souls. We Turks are what we are. My great great great grandfather came here nearly three hundred years ago. He did not and neither did any of my later ancestors attempt to change your religion against your will. You have remained “kauri” (Christians) but you have not raised your hand against the empire. The Greeks and Bulgarians have raised their hand against the empire and what did they gain? They gained mutual hatred and foreign kings. Russia wanted to help them but the Port in Tsari Grad (Constantinople) sent its own people to the European kingdoms and there the Europeans whispered in their ears about “the meaning of Russia”. Those Europeans evaluated the situation from every angle and after measuring the benefits, they sent the Bulgarians and Greeks German kings.



May you live long and may the Supreme Being extend your years and safeguard your memory so that you can mention me for many years. The Greeks and Bulgarians and those Serbians further to the north, in time, will take your language and your souls. And if they don’t succeed in that, they will do everything in their power to diminish you so that even your shadows are not visible… You will disappear. Remember my words – bad people will overpower you and the time will come when you plead with us Turks to be your friends.



I am an educated man and I am giving you the benefit of my wisdom. I can see far and wide. I spent many years at school in Paris and now my sons are being educated there. My sons have written to me that the European kingdoms are spreading information that the Sultan is sick. You understand? The Sultan is sick, meaning the Empire is sick. You understand? You are building a church, build one but be smart about it. But on whose advice will you build it? On the advice of the Exarchates or on the advice of the Patriarchates? All they want to do is to purchase your souls. But your souls are Macedonian. Stay with us, with the Ottomans. The Ottoman Empire will give you autonomy, if you can understand me, and after that, if you are smart, maybe you can create your own country. I am saying if you are smart because you will need to be smart to create a country. The time has come for the large, old empires to collapse and for new small and large countries to be born. Today everyone is working against our empire. The Ottoman Empire will be gone and you will be gone as well…”



This is what the Beg told my grandfather who often used to say:



“Since the Pope came into existence his view has always been to the east, because that’s where the world expands and prospers… The Western kingdoms think the same way…”



In October 1912, the Greek army entered Kostur when it found out that the city had been abandoned by the Ottoman army. It was about the same time that the Beg and my grandfather had another discussion sitting by the fireplace until early morning. In the meantime the women were packing suitcases and crates and loading them on wagons. Then, after shaking the ashes out of his tobacco pipe, Asan Beg said the following parting words to my grandfather:



“The time has come for me to go. The vine which my great ancestor began, receiving this place for showing bravery against the Poles, ends here. I was born here, I grew up here, I was married here and I went to war from here for the glory of Allah and the Sultan. For three hundred years the Raya (Christians) have remained under the shadow of my ancestors and myself. And you have remained Christians for those three hundred years with your own language, faith and name… thirty years ago with my permission, but with Greek money, you built a church in the middle of the village. Since then you have been divided into Patriarchates and Exarchates. You have created a great divide between yourselves and you have done that with their help, with the help of those who pretend to be your friends. How many times have I told you – to be smart about it, to use your good judgment. Under my authority you have not been slaves with regards to your language, faith and souls. Under the authority of your new masters you will be a slave with both your soul and language, even if you become a collaborator and a spy for them. In this fake world, outside of God, nothing is permanent…”



Asan Beg got on his white horse and before leaving he said the following to my grandfather:



“Goodbye Christian, goodbye and remember not to be a slave anymore…”



Asan Beg, riding his horse, took the lead of the ten loaded wagons and took to the road for Kapeshtitsa and from there to Bilishta in Albania. After that we heard that he left for France where his sons were studying at the time. He left and after that he was never heard of again, as if he had drowned.



The church bells were ringing in Kostur, the Grkomani got out their Greek flags and hung them in their windows and on balconies. Without firing a single bullet, the Greek army entered the city and celebrated its great victory. A few days later Greek officials, escorted by the gendarmes, arrived in the city. They carried great big ledgers and in them they entered Turkish and Macedonian names as Greek adding to the old ancestral names: “os”, “is”, “u”. So that Damovski became Damopoulos, Petrovski became Petridis, Filiovski became Filipou…



Did Asan Beg predict all this?



They say that the church Sveta Bogoroditsa has been renovated; it was not the same as I remembered it when I was a child. The wide enclosure of the porch in the yard, under which two sides had been lined with stones, was now gone. The belfry above the two wide halls where the faithful sat after service and where the women served food and drink from baskets for soul, health and prosperity was also gone. The church bell now hung from a beam in the ceiling. The icon of Christ with open arms hanging from the ceiling, protecting the parishioners was also gone. The throne was gone and so were the faithful, all gone… On the altar, tossed in the corner and laden with dust was the christening vessel and beside it were icons, neglected, left there for the worms to make a meal…



I stood in front of the large icon of Sveta Bogoroditsa, lit a candle and crossed myself three times and while staring into her eyes, I whispered: “Bogoroditse you did not protect the living in the past but please do not forsake their souls…”



Lefteris was waiting for us in front of the large metal door leading to the farm that fattens calves. With a warm smile on his face he invited us inside the house. His home was poorly built with clay bricks and covered with sheet metal. An old woman greeted us at the front door. She wore slippers and a wide colourful dress and had a kerchief on her head, tied at the back.



“This is my mother,” said Lefteris and after the introduction, led us to a room. There was a hand-woven carpet on the floor, but all around the room, looking stubby, were the clay walls. In the middle of the room was a sofra (low table) and at the sides were cushioned wall benches. There was a door to the left leading to the kitchen. The woman greeted us one more time, seeming like it was a tradition to greet and shake hands with guests twice and after her second “καλος ηλθατε” (welcome) she sat us down on the benches. She continued to speak to us in Greek but I could detect she did not speak Greek with the proper accent. It seemed like she detected my surprise and said: “We are Prosfigi (refugees [Asia Minor settlers])” and then began to lead us along the road which led her parents with two daughters and four sons, from Turkey to Revani, now called Dipotamia. She said and repeated that she was born eighty years ago and that she had lived in great poverty, but for the last ten years, since they came here and opened the farm for fattening calves they are doing better. Also they now have access to the majority of the fields here, which year after year, through state auctions, they have been able to acquire through bids. She says that the fields are not hers; they belong to those who had to leave because of the war, which she remembers well. She also thanked God for the soil being fertile and for the state purchasing their crops. She said they were not poor now as she pointed to the yard where two tractors, a combine, a passenger car and two trucks were parked. I got the impression that she saw my surprise and hastened to explain why they had not built a new house. She said that the land did not belong to them and then asked: “How can you build a house on land that does not belong to you?”



The hostess suddenly interrupted our conversation, tapped her forehead with her palm and said: “I am sorry I got caught up in the conversation and forgot to be hospitable.”



She went into the kitchen and returned with a dish full of lokumi (Turkish delight) and a tray of glasses full of water.



“Welcome and help yourselves. And will you have some coffee?” she asked.



“Yes,” I replied “And please make it Turkish…”



“Turkish, of course,” she said, “but the coffee you are used to drinking is not real Turkish. I don’t know if you know or not, but if you don’t know I will tell you that real Turkish coffee is not boiled on an open fire or by flames and certainly not by an electric element. Real Turkish coffee is made when you allow the coffee to simmer slowly, to roast and develop a froth on top and the entire room is filled with its aroma, you then set it aside to rest from simmering and slowly pour it in a cup. This is real Turkish coffee, not the kind served in restaurants and cafés.”



“A relative of ours once ordered coffee in town,” she said,” and when he saw that there was no froth on top he complained to the waiter. The waiter took the coffee back to the kitchen and spat in the cup several times. And when he returned he said here is your coffee thick with froth. This is the king of coffee they serve in restaurants, boiled coffee. Real Turkish coffee is slowly roasted and you slurp it slowly when you drink it, inhaling each sip and then exhaling out loud with a long sigh. You then rinse your mouth with water to remove the coffee from your teeth and swallow the water so that the coffee will rest well in your stomach. Real Turkish coffee is very hot and sweet like a kiss...” concluded our hostess, laughing aloud when she went to light the fire.



And while the coffee was roasting on top of the wood stove, I looked into Lefteris’s eyes and asked:



“Lefteris, what happened to the stones of the walls and foundations of our houses?”



There was silence. So I asked again:


“Lefteris, where are the stones of the walls and foundations of our Sveta Petka, Sveti Atanas, Sveti Giorgi, Sveti Jovan and Sveti Ilia Churches?”



Again there was silence. So I asked:



“Lefteris, what happened to the tombstones and slabs that were in the village cemeteries?”



Then after a long and deep silence, torn by a painful sigh, he said:


“They took them away with military trucks...”



“Who took them?” I asked.



“They, who wanted to build new houses…” he replied.


I did not ask who “they” were who took our stones to build new houses for themselves but I did ask myself this: “Who gave them permission to do that?” And my answer was: “They who did not want anything to remain here; to remind people that foundations and churches once existed here because if they existed then someone else might ask to whom did these churches and foundations belong? Who were these people, what happened to them and where did they go?”



We drank our Turkish coffee in silence and after thanking our hosts we bid them farewell and then left the void that was once my village. With us we carried our memories of the warm sunshine and blue sky, the green forest and the swishing sound of the wind, the aroma of chembritsa (thyme), the narcotic taste of mature forest strawberries and the wish that here, under the open sky and in the shade of the almonds, I failed to fulfil a wish to fall asleep and to dream of my childhood memories and of my most secret desires and sorrows.


The bitterness of wormwood, burned like mistletoe, stuck to my lips.



The church bell rang in the village. Was it sending us a prayer or calling us to prayer?


Dolno Papratsko. Two houses and, a little higher, a renovated church. The land looked like it was tilled and the stones crushed. At one spot it looked like someone had torn down the walls of a house looking for its foundation. With heavy hearts we stared at the desolation and remnants of this old village as we passed through and after a few minutes of driving around we took the road to Osheni, now called Inoi.



Inoi was the name of the village from which the newcomers were expelled. I remember Osheni to be a very poor village with houses built of clay brick and roofs covered with dried stalks of rye. The newcomers, the Prosfigi then, knew how to cultivate tobacco, corn and pumpkins. They brought these skills with them from their old Inoi in Turkey. Everything else they needed they bought at the markets in Kostur and Rupishta where they mixed with the locals, the Macedonian population and learned to speak the Macedonian language and not Greek.



The new Inoi, in the past known as Osheni, now looks like a small city. Two and three story houses were built with carved stones and white façade walls and equipped with hydro electric power and telephone lines. The village has a gas station, a café, a pharmacy, streets paved with asphalt, a kindergarten, an elementary and high school and many passenger cars, tractors and combines. There is not a piece of land that is not plowed and if it is not sown with tobacco, corn, or pumpkins then it is sown with wheat.



Moving on to the next village…



In the middle of the village Aia Kiriaki (Sveta Nedela in Macedonian) there is a water spout with three faucets that runs non-stop with pure spring water. Above the faucets is a marble slab with the writing: “Για να ποτιζοντε η ριζες της ποντιακης ιστοριας” (For watering the roots of Pontian history).



There is not a person who would not ask themselves: “What are the roots connected to the shores of the Black Sea doing here?” This metaphoric message is a burning reminder and an untamed memory of the longing for the homeland left for their descendents by the first Prosfigi brought to this village by force, which they never accepted with their hearts.



The new generations born and grown here are only present in body but not in soul, heart and thought. Their souls, hearts and thoughts belong to their ancestral home, a far away place located on the shores of the Black Sea which official Greece calls “χαμενες πατρηδες” (lost homeland). Even though it is a lost homeland, the Prosfigi still keep it alive with their jealously guarded memories and traditions passed on from generation to generation.



The spring flows non-stop as the inscription on the slab above is a constant reminder of a lost homeland. The Greeks call these people “prosvigi (refugees) a constant reminder that they are outsiders and not like the Greeks themselves, subjecting them to ridicule and daily abuse with derogatory and demeaning words and anecdotes. The Prosfigi on the other hand continue to speak the language of their ancestors, a language Greeks don’t understand, not only at home but also in public places, restaurants and cafés.



Here in Sveta Nedela the old memories of the Prosfigi have not faded, they are kept alive with the Macedonian spring that constantly pours water...

[George S.]

On the Road of Time – Chapter 3 - Part 2



By Petre Nakovski

Translated and edited by Risto Stefov

[email protected]

July 15, 2012



In the middle of the emptiness, a remnant of the bad times, the only building preserved was the Church of Sveta Bogoroditsa (Holy Virgin), which survived the Greek Civil War with only its roof, bell tower and altar demolished. The church was built in 1875 about which my grandfather spoke:



“Then, in Ottoman times, when our village was a chiflik (feudal estate), priests from Bulgaria and from Greece began to arrive. To us, the Christians from time immemorial, some said that we were Bulgarians and others told us that we were Greeks. We did understand some Bulgarian, but Greek not a single word. Both groups promised us many things, they even promised to liberate us from the Ottomans if we agreed to attend their sermons given in the Bulgarian or Greek language.



So the moment they mentioned “liberation”, the village was divided in two. Some wanted to be liberated by the Bulgarians and others by the Greeks. Half the village was received by the Bulgarian priest and the other half by the Greek. The families that were accepted by the Bulgarian priest, to the others, became known as “Bugaromani” and those accepted by the Greek priest, to the others, became known as “Grkomani”. Kostur, very early had fallen under the auspices of the Greek bishop, what was his name? Oh, I remember it was Karavangelis, right? No, no, at that time it was not him. I guess. Now who was it? He had comings and goings with the Ottoman authorities, and our Beg was a close relative of the Kaimakam that’s why he did not allow the “Bugaromani” to build a church in the middle of the village. They were kicked out of the village and were told they could go and pray in the old church of Sveti Atanas outside of the village. Their justification for not allowing the church to be built; Russia was about to declare war on the Ottomans, apparently to liberate Bulgaria…



Then a man was sent, carrying the symbol of the bishop from Kostur, asking the village to send someone so the bishop could speak with him. Such a man was sent and after offering him coffee and a lokum (Turkish delight) the Bishop got right down to business:



“You are saying that there should be a church built in the village centre, but not higher than the Mosque?”



“That is exactly right Father Bishop!” the man answered.



“And that’s the way it’s going to be, my son,” said the bishop, “that’s the way it’s going to be! Here kiss the cross and cross yourself…” replied the bishop, leaning over and taking a sip of coffee and leaning towards the man asked: “Money? I say money because you need money to build a church and not just wishes and prayers. Do you have money or are you expecting the Bulgarians to give it to you?”



“The Beg, Father Bishop, does not want the Bulgarians in the village – in the Chiflik…” replied the man.



“And that’s the way it is, it’s God’s will. Let Him be the glory of heaven. And money, my child, you are telling me you have no money? But if you turn our way, perhaps money could be found. That’s the way it is. Turn our way and maybe with God’s help money could be found in my treasury…” said the bishop.



“And in what language will liturgy be conducted?” asked the man.



“Well my child, in the language of who provides the money,” answered the bishop.



“We will think about it Father Bishop. It is not that easy. I am saying that the “word” and the “voice” are important things, Father Bishop. Our grandfathers left us a sign that in older times liturgy was conducted in the Slavonic language, the language of Kiril and Metodi, that is the way it has always been…” said the man.



“Well, if that’s the way it is my child then go beg the Bulgarians. They swear by Kiril and Metodi… Now go and think about it with your fellow villagers and come back in a few days…” replied the bishop.”



The Beg was in close contact with his people who were in collusion with the bishop and found out about the conversation. Then one day the Beg called my grandfather to his estate and told him the following:



“Be careful, both the Bulgarians and Greeks want your souls and not your faith. They give money to buy souls. We Turks are what we are. My great great great grandfather came here nearly three hundred years ago. He did not and neither did any of my later ancestors attempt to change your religion against your will. You have remained “kauri” (Christians) but you have not raised your hand against the empire. The Greeks and Bulgarians have raised their hand against the empire and what did they gain? They gained mutual hatred and foreign kings. Russia wanted to help them but the Port in Tsari Grad (Constantinople) sent its own people to the European kingdoms and there the Europeans whispered in their ears about “the meaning of Russia”. Those Europeans evaluated the situation from every angle and after measuring the benefits, they sent the Bulgarians and Greeks German kings.



May you live long and may the Supreme Being extend your years and safeguard your memory so that you can mention me for many years. The Greeks and Bulgarians and those Serbians further to the north, in time, will take your language and your souls. And if they don’t succeed in that, they will do everything in their power to diminish you so that even your shadows are not visible… You will disappear. Remember my words – bad people will overpower you and the time will come when you plead with us Turks to be your friends.



I am an educated man and I am giving you the benefit of my wisdom. I can see far and wide. I spent many years at school in Paris and now my sons are being educated there. My sons have written to me that the European kingdoms are spreading information that the Sultan is sick. You understand? The Sultan is sick, meaning the Empire is sick. You understand? You are building a church, build one but be smart about it. But on whose advice will you build it? On the advice of the Exarchates or on the advice of the Patriarchates? All they want to do is to purchase your souls. But your souls are Macedonian. Stay with us, with the Ottomans. The Ottoman Empire will give you autonomy, if you can understand me, and after that, if you are smart, maybe you can create your own country. I am saying if you are smart because you will need to be smart to create a country. The time has come for the large, old empires to collapse and for new small and large countries to be born. Today everyone is working against our empire. The Ottoman Empire will be gone and you will be gone as well…”



This is what the Beg told my grandfather who often used to say:



“Since the Pope came into existence his view has always been to the east, because that’s where the world expands and prospers… The Western kingdoms think the same way…”



In October 1912, the Greek army entered Kostur when it found out that the city had been abandoned by the Ottoman army. It was about the same time that the Beg and my grandfather had another discussion sitting by the fireplace until early morning. In the meantime the women were packing suitcases and crates and loading them on wagons. Then, after shaking the ashes out of his tobacco pipe, Asan Beg said the following parting words to my grandfather:



“The time has come for me to go. The vine which my great ancestor began, receiving this place for showing bravery against the Poles, ends here. I was born here, I grew up here, I was married here and I went to war from here for the glory of Allah and the Sultan. For three hundred years the Raya (Christians) have remained under the shadow of my ancestors and myself. And you have remained Christians for those three hundred years with your own language, faith and name… thirty years ago with my permission, but with Greek money, you built a church in the middle of the village. Since then you have been divided into Patriarchates and Exarchates. You have created a great divide between yourselves and you have done that with their help, with the help of those who pretend to be your friends. How many times have I told you – to be smart about it, to use your good judgment. Under my authority you have not been slaves with regards to your language, faith and souls. Under the authority of your new masters you will be a slave with both your soul and language, even if you become a collaborator and a spy for them. In this fake world, outside of God, nothing is permanent…”



Asan Beg got on his white horse and before leaving he said the following to my grandfather:



“Goodbye Christian, goodbye and remember not to be a slave anymore…”



Asan Beg, riding his horse, took the lead of the ten loaded wagons and took to the road for Kapeshtitsa and from there to Bilishta in Albania. After that we heard that he left for France where his sons were studying at the time. He left and after that he was never heard of again, as if he had drowned.



The church bells were ringing in Kostur, the Grkomani got out their Greek flags and hung them in their windows and on balconies. Without firing a single bullet, the Greek army entered the city and celebrated its great victory. A few days later Greek officials, escorted by the gendarmes, arrived in the city. They carried great big ledgers and in them they entered Turkish and Macedonian names as Greek adding to the old ancestral names: “os”, “is”, “u”. So that Damovski became Damopoulos, Petrovski became Petridis, Filiovski became Filipou…



Did Asan Beg predict all this?



They say that the church Sveta Bogoroditsa has been renovated; it was not the same as I remembered it when I was a child. The wide enclosure of the porch in the yard, under which two sides had been lined with stones, was now gone. The belfry above the two wide halls where the faithful sat after service and where the women served food and drink from baskets for soul, health and prosperity was also gone. The church bell now hung from a beam in the ceiling. The icon of Christ with open arms hanging from the ceiling, protecting the parishioners was also gone. The throne was gone and so were the faithful, all gone… On the altar, tossed in the corner and laden with dust was the christening vessel and beside it were icons, neglected, left there for the worms to make a meal…



I stood in front of the large icon of Sveta Bogoroditsa, lit a candle and crossed myself three times and while staring into her eyes, I whispered: “Bogoroditse you did not protect the living in the past but please do not forsake their souls…”



Lefteris was waiting for us in front of the large metal door leading to the farm that fattens calves. With a warm smile on his face he invited us inside the house. His home was poorly built with clay bricks and covered with sheet metal. An old woman greeted us at the front door. She wore slippers and a wide colourful dress and had a kerchief on her head, tied at the back.



“This is my mother,” said Lefteris and after the introduction, led us to a room. There was a hand-woven carpet on the floor, but all around the room, looking stubby, were the clay walls. In the middle of the room was a sofra (low table) and at the sides were cushioned wall benches. There was a door to the left leading to the kitchen. The woman greeted us one more time, seeming like it was a tradition to greet and shake hands with guests twice and after her second “καλος ηλθατε” (welcome) she sat us down on the benches. She continued to speak to us in Greek but I could detect she did not speak Greek with the proper accent. It seemed like she detected my surprise and said: “We are Prosfigi (refugees [Asia Minor settlers])” and then began to lead us along the road which led her parents with two daughters and four sons, from Turkey to Revani, now called Dipotamia. She said and repeated that she was born eighty years ago and that she had lived in great poverty, but for the last ten years, since they came here and opened the farm for fattening calves they are doing better. Also they now have access to the majority of the fields here, which year after year, through state auctions, they have been able to acquire through bids. She says that the fields are not hers; they belong to those who had to leave because of the war, which she remembers well. She also thanked God for the soil being fertile and for the state purchasing their crops. She said they were not poor now as she pointed to the yard where two tractors, a combine, a passenger car and two trucks were parked. I got the impression that she saw my surprise and hastened to explain why they had not built a new house. She said that the land did not belong to them and then asked: “How can you build a house on land that does not belong to you?”



The hostess suddenly interrupted our conversation, tapped her forehead with her palm and said: “I am sorry I got caught up in the conversation and forgot to be hospitable.”



She went into the kitchen and returned with a dish full of lokumi (Turkish delight) and a tray of glasses full of water.



“Welcome and help yourselves. And will you have some coffee?” she asked.



“Yes,” I replied “And please make it Turkish…”



“Turkish, of course,” she said, “but the coffee you are used to drinking is not real Turkish. I don’t know if you know or not, but if you don’t know I will tell you that real Turkish coffee is not boiled on an open fire or by flames and certainly not by an electric element. Real Turkish coffee is made when you allow the coffee to simmer slowly, to roast and develop a froth on top and the entire room is filled with its aroma, you then set it aside to rest from simmering and slowly pour it in a cup. This is real Turkish coffee, not the kind served in restaurants and cafés.”



“A relative of ours once ordered coffee in town,” she said,” and when he saw that there was no froth on top he complained to the waiter. The waiter took the coffee back to the kitchen and spat in the cup several times. And when he returned he said here is your coffee thick with froth. This is the king of coffee they serve in restaurants, boiled coffee. Real Turkish coffee is slowly roasted and you slurp it slowly when you drink it, inhaling each sip and then exhaling out loud with a long sigh. You then rinse your mouth with water to remove the coffee from your teeth and swallow the water so that the coffee will rest well in your stomach. Real Turkish coffee is very hot and sweet like a kiss...” concluded our hostess, laughing aloud when she went to light the fire.



And while the coffee was roasting on top of the wood stove, I looked into Lefteris’s eyes and asked:



“Lefteris, what happened to the stones of the walls and foundations of our houses?”



There was silence. So I asked again:


“Lefteris, where are the stones of the walls and foundations of our Sveta Petka, Sveti Atanas, Sveti Giorgi, Sveti Jovan and Sveti Ilia Churches?”



Again there was silence. So I asked:



“Lefteris, what happened to the tombstones and slabs that were in the village cemeteries?”



Then after a long and deep silence, torn by a painful sigh, he said:


“They took them away with military trucks...”



“Who took them?” I asked.



“They, who wanted to build new houses…” he replied.


I did not ask who “they” were who took our stones to build new houses for themselves but I did ask myself this: “Who gave them permission to do that?” And my answer was: “They who did not want anything to remain here; to remind people that foundations and churches once existed here because if they existed then someone else might ask to whom did these churches and foundations belong? Who were these people, what happened to them and where did they go?”



We drank our Turkish coffee in silence and after thanking our hosts we bid them farewell and then left the void that was once my village. With us we carried our memories of the warm sunshine and blue sky, the green forest and the swishing sound of the wind, the aroma of chembritsa (thyme), the narcotic taste of mature forest strawberries and the wish that here, under the open sky and in the shade of the almonds, I failed to fulfil a wish to fall asleep and to dream of my childhood memories and of my most secret desires and sorrows.


The bitterness of wormwood, burned like mistletoe, stuck to my lips.



The church bell rang in the village. Was it sending us a prayer or calling us to prayer?


Dolno Papratsko. Two houses and, a little higher, a renovated church. The land looked like it was tilled and the stones crushed. At one spot it looked like someone had torn down the walls of a house looking for its foundation. With heavy hearts we stared at the desolation and remnants of this old village as we passed through and after a few minutes of driving around we took the road to Osheni, now called Inoi.



Inoi was the name of the village from which the newcomers were expelled. I remember Osheni to be a very poor village with houses built of clay brick and roofs covered with dried stalks of rye. The newcomers, the Prosfigi then, knew how to cultivate tobacco, corn and pumpkins. They brought these skills with them from their old Inoi in Turkey. Everything else they needed they bought at the markets in Kostur and Rupishta where they mixed with the locals, the Macedonian population and learned to speak the Macedonian language and not Greek.



The new Inoi, in the past known as Osheni, now looks like a small city. Two and three story houses were built with carved stones and white façade walls and equipped with hydro electric power and telephone lines. The village has a gas station, a café, a pharmacy, streets paved with asphalt, a kindergarten, an elementary and high school and many passenger cars, tractors and combines. There is not a piece of land that is not plowed and if it is not sown with tobacco, corn, or pumpkins then it is sown with wheat.



Moving on to the next village…



In the middle of the village Aia Kiriaki (Sveta Nedela in Macedonian) there is a water spout with three faucets that runs non-stop with pure spring water. Above the faucets is a marble slab with the writing: “Για να ποτιζοντε η ριζες της ποντιακης ιστοριας” (For watering the roots of Pontian history).



There is not a person who would not ask themselves: “What are the roots connected to the shores of the Black Sea doing here?” This metaphoric message is a burning reminder and an untamed memory of the longing for the homeland left for their descendents by the first Prosfigi brought to this village by force, which they never accepted with their hearts.



The new generations born and grown here are only present in body but not in soul, heart and thought. Their souls, hearts and thoughts belong to their ancestral home, a far away place located on the shores of the Black Sea which official Greece calls “χαμενες πατρηδες” (lost homeland). Even though it is a lost homeland, the Prosfigi still keep it alive with their jealously guarded memories and traditions passed on from generation to generation.



The spring flows non-stop as the inscription on the slab above is a constant reminder of a lost homeland. The Greeks call these people “prosvigi (refugees) a constant reminder that they are outsiders and not like the Greeks themselves, subjecting them to ridicule and daily abuse with derogatory and demeaning words and anecdotes. The Prosfigi on the other hand continue to speak the language of their ancestors, a language Greeks don’t understand, not only at home but also in public places, restaurants and cafés.



Here in Sveta Nedela the old memories of the Prosfigi have not faded, they are kept alive with the Macedonian spring that constantly pours water...