Mr. Chairman,
Ladies and Gentlemen MPs,
I asked the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defense and Foreign Affairs to convene today’s session – at this delicate and crucial stage in these 15-year negotiations on the definitive name for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – out of consistency with our commitment to firmly pursue achieving the broadest possible consensus on the most critical foreign policy issues that are of concern to the country.
My purpose is to brief you on the latest developments and prospects, but also to hear your thoughts and concerns.
I would like to add that following the same reasoning, we are soon planning to convene the National Council on Foreign Policy.
Ladies and Gentlemen MPs,
As you know, the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General for the Greece-FYROM talks, Mr. Matthew Nimetz, submitted a new proposal – a set of ideas – at the beginning of October. Given that its text has been given by the Foreign Ministry to political party leaders and that it has become widely known, I will not mention its specific elements and details.
I will simply say that this particular proposal, which I stress is not the final one, is not a "take it or leave it" offer; it takes into serious account some important parameters of Greece's position, which remains firm:
A compound name with a clear geographical qualifier, which will be valid for everyone.
Here, I would like to clarify three things:
First of all, the Greek side is using the same language both domestically and abroad. We say the same things in public and in private. The result is that Greece's positions are crystal-clear to everyone.
Secondly, there is only one single and comprehensive negotiation position. We are working towards a definitive solution. We don’t want to leave shadows behind. We are fully aware that the core of this issue lies in irredentist mindsets.
Thirdly, and this is something that Greece has clearly stated: it must be clear to everyone that this is the only negotiation framework. That there cannot be negotiations outside and beyond this framework; the framework defined by the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
And here I would like to add something else:
It is one thing to show an interest in encouraging and supporting negotiations – this is what Greece has been doing in all its international contacts with its partner friends and allies – and any efforts to scorn or undermine these negotiations, either directly or indirectly, is another thing; something completely different.
Ladies and Gentlemen MPs,
This proposal is not satisfactory as it stands. There are a series of points that are either unacceptable, problematic, or unclear. It is only through the necessary clarifications and corrections that this text can become the basis for achieving a solution.
So far, we haven’t communicated our remarks to Mr. Nimetz on what we think should be changed, removed, and clarified in order for this proposal to have a serious chance of leading to a mutually acceptable solution.
We will do this in a detailed manner in the coming time.
We will do this with the same seriousness, constructive spirit, determination, and clarity that has always characterised Greece's stance.
But I should stress that this is not the case with the other side.
Mr. Gruevski – quite consciously – has systematically followed a policy of fostering in the public opinion of his country an extreme nationalism that belongs to another time.
This nationalism of the 19th century is intentionally being fostered in our neighbouring country, where, in the absence of, and for lack of finding, excuses to demonise Greece, such excuses are being fabricated.
This is what happened recently on the occasion of certain scheduled, small-scale military exercises on a training ground that has been used for decades in northern Greece – more specifically, in the region of Florina in Western Macedonia.
There is an urgent need to substantially and steadily improve the environment in which such complex and difficult negotiations are taking place.
The conditions must be in place that will aid and not hinder the prospects for success of the negotiations.
Unfortunately, Mr. Gruevski has consciously opted for intransigence. He made this choice to the detriment of his own country’s and his own people’s European and Euro-Atlantic perspective. Instead, he seems to prefer consolidating and strengthening his personal political domination in his country.
This was confirmed by the recent elections, which were held in a manner that prompted some particularly negative comments and condemnation on the part of all competent international organisations, including, of course, the European Union. The Commission is now finalising its progress report on our neighbouring country.
Messages from Brussels are rather discouraging; they are negative for Skopje. This was confirmed by competent Commissioner Mr. Olli Renn. There does not seem to be any ground to suggest a time for the opening of accession negotiations between Skopje and the European Union.
This apart, Greece's position is well-known. There cannot be an accession perspective when there are serious pending issues of good neighbourly relations with an EU and NATO member state.
The credibility of this position has been tested and confirmed both in Bucharest and in Brussels.
At this point, I would like to send a sincere message of friendship to the people of our neighbouring country.
A message of cooperation, which they, themselves know has always worked in favour of both peoples. Both for Greek investors in their country, but, most of all, for themselves, because Greek businesses offer them thousands of jobs in these difficult times.
This cooperation is gaining new significance in the current global financial crisis and the major recession. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which borders a country – Greece – that is a member of the strong European group of Eurozone countries, could strengthen its cooperation with us.
Ladies and Gentlemen MPs,
There are self-defeating messages and positions on the part of Skopje. There is lack of clarity and coordination.
This is most clearly reflected in the fact that at the meetings between the negotiators, Greece is represented by only one man, who is fully authorised, has clear instructions, has the government's trust and therefore has the necessary leeway, whereas Skopje is represented by two negotiators, and it has been admitted that Mr. Dimitrov represents Mr. Crvenkovski and the second negotiator, Mr. Protunger, represents Mr. Gruevski.
It is obvious that this peculiar dual system of representation does not result in the clarity that is required by these negotiations.
Together with my colleagues, I witnessed this problematic lack of a single position and coordination recently myself. In New York, we were also on the receiving end of successive statements and counterstatements between Mr. Gruevski and the office of the President of FYROM, as to whether or not Mr. Crvenkovski would suggest we meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly’s proceedings.
As you know, such a meeting never took place in the end.
But even now, following the submission of the new set of ideas by the UN, this unclear situation, the contradictory – or, at best, divergent – positions and statements can still be observed in our neighbouring country.
There are, therefore, serious questions as to the credibility and the binding character of the positions that are being put on the negotiating table by the other side.
As long as these issues remain unclear, they will have a negative impact on the negotiation process, the seriousness of which we all – at least this is what Greece believes – want to safeguard.
Skopje’s position cannot continue to lack unity, clarity, and a binding character. I would like to stress that there cannot be an agreement that is accepted provisionally in Skopje.
Ladies and Gentlemen MPs,
It is necessary for us to protect the seriousness, the reliability and the prospects of the UN negotiations and lead them to a successful outcome.
Now, more than ever, everyone must show prudence and a sense of responsibility.
Greece firmly and constructively remains in the negotiations under the auspices of the UN. We sincerely want to find a mutually acceptable solution.
Greece is not dragging its feet, but it is not in a hurry either.
As is its right, Greece demands that the rules of the game to be clarified. It is asking for all provocative conduct on the part of Mr. Gruevski and his government to be brought to an end. In fact, government officials have recently reached the point of falsifying statements by both the NATO Secretary General and the Foreign Minister of Russia.
Greece – unlike Mr. Gruevski himself, apparently – believes in our neighbouring country’s European and Euroatlantic perspective, which we never excluded from our strategic decision to see all of our neighbouring countries join the EU and NATO.
At the same time, Greece believes in and is pursuing the achievement of a mutually acceptable solution on the name issue. To the benefit of our bilateral relations. To the benefit of regional stability and cooperation. To the benefit of our neighbouring country’s European and Euroatlantic perspective.
Our policy is clear. It is crystal-clear and it is sincere. It is based on this policy that we are moving with sobriety and determination. Thank you.”
October 29, 2008