Categories
UMD Voice

JUST ANNOUNCED: A UMD Generation M Initiative in the Fight Against COVID-19 – We Can #TogetherFromHome

Generation M, the United Macedonian Diaspora’s (UMD) young leaders program is proud to announce its new crowdfunding initiative We Can #TogetherFromHome.

“We Can #TogetherFromHome” is a crowdfunding initiative, which aims to unite the public support for the Macedonian healthcare system in the fight against the COVID-19 virus. We strive to simplify and improve the donation process through raising and funneling financial and material contributions by both individual and corporate donors.

We compiled a list of priorities for fundraising in accordance with current requirements, which is regularly updated as per indications from the health authorities and domestic suppliers. The equipment and materials from the list will be shared on our platform and we will begin fundraising to secure those items.

In collaboration with Macedonian (and local) suppliers and according to the published fundraising targets, the donated means directly address the urgent needs of the Macedonian healthcare system. To ensure transparency, you will be able to track the achieved targets on our platform as long as civil support is necessary to satisfy the institutional needs in the fight against COVID-19.

The continuous success of this, as well as like-minded campaigns, will be reflected in improved conditions and supplies of the Macedonian healthcare system and, subsequently, a prompt recovery around our world.

Guided by Mother Theresa’s words: “if you cannot feed 100 people, feed one person”, we place confidence in making a difference together, united in the fight against the invisible enemy. We cordially thank you for contributing to strengthen our healthcare system, both directly and indirectly, and kindly ask you to help spread the initiative.

Any donation will help those who are working tirelessly to protect us. Please consider spreading the message that We Can provide support and assistance #TogetherFromHome.

You can donate and help Macedonia combat this crisis on the following link:
https://secure.everyaction.com/zEJGvK370EaDPjhISFvsPw2

You can also follow us on Instagram: @zaednooddoma

Let’s help Macedonia fight this pandemic!

Categories
UMD Voice

Who steals whose history?

For quite some time, members of the Greek society have held a commonplace belief that Macedonians are constantly “stealing” the history of Ancient Macedonia, which is “rightfully Greek,” and that nobody could believe or support the opposite. Unfortunately, to some extent, this has permeated throughout parts of Western society, for example within areas of academia and politics, where philhellenism prevails. This is a sorrowful double standard, which not only accepts but embraces Greek 19th century romantic nationalism, whilst at the same time it marginalises and attempts to deconstruct its Macedonian counterpart.

History teaches us that both the modern Macedonian and the modern Greek nation are relatively modern social constructs as a result of the “Rise of Nationalism” throughout the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, that both nations gradually differentiated themselves from the Rum Patriarchist Christian “millet,” and respectively formed their own nations in the late and early-middle 19th century. It is a clear and well-established fact that since modern nations are not tribes, neither the Greek nor the Macedonian nation can claim to be the direct and only descendants of the Ancient Greeks or the Ancient Macedonians.

As much as modern Greece has the right to base part of its nation’s historiography and patriotism on the glory of Ancient Greece, on genetic and cultural grounds, so too does the modern Macedonian nation attain that same right in regards to Ancient Macedonia. Indeed, as it was the Ancient Macedonian people who gave us their land and name.

How can it thus be possible for a Macedonian not to feel at least a small amount of connection to Ancient Macedonia when K.P. Misirkov was born in Postol, ancient Pella. Or when one personally has roots from Bitola in Lynkos, from Voden-Edessa or Lychnid- modern day Ohrid, or somewhere near Bylazora?

What people believe about the past is a million times more important than the past itself, for this affects the way they perceive the world. It is therefore important to revisit what the Founders of Greece and Macedonia truly believed about the heritage of Ancient Macedonia.

Sources indicate that the Greek nation’s stance on Ancient Macedonia throughout the early stages of its development in the early to mid 1800s was “mixed.” Dozens of prominent Founding Fathers of the Greek nation considered Ancient Macedonians not only non-Greek barbarians, but conquerors of Ancient Greece as well. Professor Saripolos, for example, considered Macedonians the first enslavers of Greece after whom the Roman and the Ottoman yoke followed.[1] Yakovakis Rizos Neroulos, in the same spirit, proclaimed in 1841 that the biggest crime that Philip committed against Greeks – even bigger than defeating them at Chaeronea – was to give birth to Alexander![2]

Greeks finally started accepting Ancient Macedonians as their “ancestors” in the mid to late 1850s, the exact same time, suspiciously, when the Imperialist “Megali Idea (“great idea”) concept had rooted in the Greek society. This is roughly around the same time when Miladinov commented that “they (the Greeks) want Macedonia to become a Greek land but they cannot understand that She cannot be Greek.”[3]

Furthermore, one can find Macedonian activists mentioning ancient Macedonia and considering them as Macedonian’s ancestors throughout the entirety of Macedonia’s ethnogenesis. For example, when they fought against Greek Patriarchist supremacy, Bulgarian and Serbian assimilation, and during the armed National Liberational Struggle of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (VMRO).

The Russian Slavist V.Gligorovich, who visited many places in Macedonia in the 1840s, mentions that “in all places I’ve been I’ve not heard other names except from those of Alexander the Great and Marko Kralievich.”[4]

The Miladinov Brothers on their collection of folk songs (1861), include two folk tales; one about “Czar Alexander” and one about “Voden, the capital of the Macedonian Czars.”[5]

Kuzman Shapkarev would teach Macedonian schoolchildren in the 1870’s that “the place where we live is called Macedonia,” and “in the old times Macedonia was a strong kingdom that, under Alexander the Great conquered the whole known world.”[6]

Prominent Bulgarian national activist P.R Slaveykov, in 1871 opposed that Macedonians reject Bulgarian assimilation by clinging to Ancient Macedonia. “Many times we have heard from Macedonists that they are not Bulgarians but Macedonians, descendants of the Ancient Macedonians.”[7] Around the same time, Stefan Salgadzhiev mentions a Solun teacher who proclaimed that “I am neither Bulgarian nor Greek, nor am I Cinzar. I am a pure Macedonian as were Philip and Alexander of Macedon and the philosopher Aristotle.”[8]

Macedonia’s VMRO војводини (revolutionaries) also embraced the heritage of Ancient Macedonia and considered Her one the same, as the Ottoman Macedonia they were trying to liberate. Nikola Karev, the president of the Krusevo Republic admitted to a Greek reporter who was ironic to him that, yes, he considers himself to be a descendant of Alexander the Great.[9] Jane Sandanski believed that “the inhabitants of Macedonia are only Macedonians, descendants of the ancient Macedonians of Philip and Alexander, who were not Greeks but a special Macedonian nation that fought against the Greeks and defeated them”.[10] Furthermore, George F. Abbott in 1903 also emphasized that “in their proclamations the leaders of the Slavo-Macedonian Committee appeal to Alexander the Great as a national hero.[11]

Of course, this list is just illustrative and not exhaustive. There remain hundreds, if not thousands, of other examples one could find.  

Ultimately, it should considerably be acknowledged that Macedonia’s history and indeed, 19th century Macedonian romantic nationalism, has been widely appropriated by Greece. I would like to emphasize the following point; Greece’s denial in recognizing Macedonia’s ancient past, and its mistreatment of Macedonia as an alien migratory nation that came from “somewhere afar,” hides only one goal. That goal is the delegitimization of Macedonian’s connection to Macedonia, and furthermore, the moral justification for the displacement and exodus of Macedonians in the 1940s. Not to mention the ongoing political aggression deployed by Greece against the Republic of Macedonia, countlessly discriminating and denying its fundamental rights in the 21st century. 

In order to win the propaganda war that has been inflicted upon Macedonia, all possible means must be used to advance the Macedonian cause within the West. This is especially considering that the future and security of Macedonia in many ways depends on how favorable the West is towards Macedonia. Unfortunately, in the past 30 years the West has proved not be so favorable.

Whenever the so called “name issue” gained media attention, it was presented as primarily a bilateral difference between the two countries. For instance, a border dispute, where both countries stand on equal grounds with equal rights. Indeed, this issue suddenly emerged when Macedonia appeared out of inexistence in 1991 and claimed a “historically Greek” name. It is evident that this stance is fallacious on many grounds.

We, as Macedonians, need to present ourselves within the international sphere as a nation like the Uyghurs, the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Armenians, the Israelis and the Palestinians. This is considering that these nations, although mostly portrayed as small, are proud people who fight for their existence against those powers who have actively sought to wipe them off the world map. Similarly, Macedonian’s face their own David vs Goliath battle and therefore, although different from the above-mentioned peoples, nonetheless withstand similar experiences and struggles. This makes our causes for human rights and recognition more alike than different. 

What is important for the Macedonian youth now, both in the Republic of Macedonia and the Diaspora, is to cultivate a stance towards our ancient past, which is healthy and in accordance with scientific truth. Both claiming direct bloodline from Ancient Macedonians – the extravaganza Greeks are prone to – and ignoring them completely, are wrong. After all, modern Macedonia, what all Macedonians are, was formed in a complex historical process of the amalgamation of the Paleobalkan, Slavic, and Christian culture over the course of hundreds of years.

Any opinions or views expressed in articles or other pieces appearing in UMD Voice are those of the author alone and are not necessarily those of the United Macedonian Diaspora and its young leaders’ program Generation M; the appearance of any such opinions or views in UMD Voice is not and should not be considered to be an endorsement by or approval of the same by UMD and Generation M.


[1] Roumen Daskalov and Tchavdar Marinov: Entagled Histories of the Balkans. Volume 1, page 284

[2] Lithoksoou: On the Ancient Macedonians (Λιθοξόου: Περί των Αρχαίων Μακεδόνων)  Text in Greek and Macedonian : http://www.lithoksou.net/p/peri-ton-arxaion-makedonon-2008

[3] Ibid. 

[4] Виктор Иванович Григорович: Очерк путешествия по Европейской Турции. Page 139

[5] Браќа Миладиновци: Зборник (Блгарски народни песни), Преданија, “Цар Александар” и “Воден” online version: http://macedonia.kroraina.com/bugarash/bnpesni/index.htm

* On why “Zbornik” was officially called “Bulgarian Folk Songs” watch Mario’s History Talks  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-Gzk4JJL0w

[6] Кузман Шапкарев: Първоначялньi познанiя за малечкьiте дечиня по наречiе по-вразумително за Македонскьiте Българьi, page 38

[7] Blazhe Koneski; Towards the Macedonian Renaissance. https://vmacedonia.com/language/towards-the-macedonian-renaissance.html

[8] Ibid. 

[9] Newspaper Ακρόπολις: 8/5/1903 page 1 https://srv-web1.parliament.gr/display_doc.asp?item=47395&seg=67871&fbclid=IwAR24iyqJB1U-iwE1zo9Jd2j6F3M_9FUYbdLP1j6FP1iLY028la3v3YYs9bs

[10] Ελευθέριος Σταυρίδης: Τα Παρασκήνια του Κ.Κ.Ε , page 213

[11] The tale of a tour in Macedonia, by G. F. Abbott. page 278 online version: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044044484319&view=1up&seq=310

Categories
UMD Voice

UMD’s Generation M Expands Australian and European Branches; Appoints Senior Advisor

Generation M, the United Macedonian Diaspora’s (UMD) young leaders program is proud to announce the newest additions to their global leadership team. The newly appointed Representatives and Senior Advisor along with Generation M’s current Board of Directors actively promote the education, empowerment, and unification of Macedonian youth around the world.

The Generation M team has sought inspiration in these uncertain and changing times by strengthening their digital footprint and relations. Recently, Generation M has brought young Macedonians together through social networking events such as online Zoom sessions focusing on personal finance, Macedonian culture, and history, as well as a Macedonian Virtual Trivia night. Generation M has also launched their first-ever mentorship program where they will match young professionals with experienced Macedonians in their field.

Through this expansion and the ongoing commitment of UMD Generation M members, Macedonians around the world will find a community that perseveres during an unprecedented period such as this. One that persists together.

We encourage all young Macedonians to join the ranks of Generation M to continue the advancement of our culture and identity. Email us at generationm@umdiaspora.org to get involved!

To learn more about Generation M you may check out our website by visiting www.generationm.org.

Presenting the newest additions to our team:

UMD’s Generation M has appointed its first-ever representative in Solun, modern-day Greece. For their safety, their identity will be kept anonymous. The Generation M team is overjoyed to have this individual on board and looks forward to continuing to preserve our heritage in such an important and sensitive geographical location for all Macedonians.

Marija Anevska

Vice Chair, Australian Operations

Marija Anevska was born in Melbourne with roots from Bitola, Ohrid, and Mala Prespa. She graduated in 2016 with a B.A from The University of Melbourne, double majoring in Politics & International Studies and Psychology. She is currently in her final year of the Melbourne Juris Doctor. 

As a proud, first-generation Macedonian-Australian, she is excited to see Gen M grow in Australia, continuing to spread our Macedonian cause and culture. 

Izabela Barakovska

Regional Representative, Perth, Australia

Izabela is a first-generation Australian-Macedonian, born in Perth with a heritage from Prilep and Berovo. She has proudly grown up with one foot in each culture and appreciates the perspective and passion it has given her for multiculturalism and international relations, and the interconnected nature of people, languages, culture, history, art, architecture and politics. 

Finishing her secondary education by attending the 2019 United Nations Youth Australia Young Diplomat’s European Tour opened her eyes to various international organisations and issues – the very same which she aims to spend her professional life working in and with. She is currently undertaking her B.A. from The University of Western Australia, majoring in Political Science & International Relations and Management. 

Izabela’s Generation M experience began in 2019 as the Perth Regional Representative. Her current aim is to further establish the Western Australian division of Gen M. 

She loves asking questions and strongly backs their capacity for disillusionment, education, character building, and life-changing conversations. Her experience in public relations, marketing, and journalism over the last half-decade, seamlessly complements her ambitions to improve awareness, opportunities, communication, and engagement (regarding politics, multiculturalism, education, and leadership alike) in local and international communities.

Mitch Belichovski

National Advisor, Australia

Mitch Belichovski joined UMD in 2019. Born and bred in Australia with roots in “Lerinsko”, Aegean Macedonia. He recently achieved his Master of Finance from RMIT in Melbourne and works as a financial adviser at Australia’s largest stockbroking firm. 

Having worked previously at a Macedonian Human Rights organisation he brings experience and a passionate mindset. He hopes to help protect Macedonia’s sovereignty and work towards the recognition of Macedonian minorities in Greece and Bulgaria. In his spare time, Mitch enjoys networking, traveling, and spending time with loved ones.

Filip Jotevski

Senior Advisor

Filip Jotevski is a proud, first-generation Macedonian-American born in Columbus, Ohio with roots from Bitola, Macedonia. Filip lives in Washington, D.C. where he is an Associate Director at the Democratic National Committee. 

He first got his start with Generation M as an International Policy and Diplomacy Fellow for the United Macedonian Diaspora where he helped kick-start the Macedonian youth movement as its first Global Chair in 2015. Following the successes of launching in Canada and the United States, he was then an inaugural participant of Birthright Macedonia where he worked in the Cabinet of Jerry Naumoff, Minister for Foreign Investments, in Skopje.

Filip aims to use his experience in politics and government to advance the Macedonian cause and inspire young Macedonians around the world to do the same. 

He enjoys traveling, playing rugby, and re-watching the Alexander movie on a monthly basis.

Elena Sekulovska

Regional Representative, Melbourne, Australia

Born in Bitola, Elena Sekulovska moved to Melbourne at the age of 10. She is currently in her second year of Bachelor of Arts, she is double majoring in History and Politics & International Studies at the University of Melbourne.  After she completes her degree, Elena aims to earn a Masters degree in International Relations and hopes to pursue a career in either diplomacy, public service, or academia.

Elena has a range of interests which include history, international relations, politics, geography, and learning new languages. She is the current Vice President of the Melbourne University Macedonian Students Society. 

‘I joined Generation M because I believe that Macedonians as a whole cannot advance Macedonian interests without youth engagement, as the future continues from them. Young Macedonians from the diaspora must engage in diplomacy, business, networking and social events which help them solidify their heritage in order to advance Macedonian interests – Generation M is the perfect platform for this.’

Stefani Taskova Miteva

Secretary, Board of Directors; Chair, Australian Operations

Stefani Taskova Miteva is a second-generation Australian-Macedonian born in Melbourne with roots from Veles and Aegean Macedonia. She graduated from Monash University in 2019 with a B.A majoring in International Relations (IR) and Human Rights and is currently pursuing her Masters in IR. Macedonia has always been a big passion of Stefani’s, who has always wanted to live a part of her life there. After completing Birthright Macedonia in 2019, this became a reality. 

She hopes to continue empowering young Macedonians around the world, so that we may all leave a better impact.

‘UMD and Birthright Macedonia have opened doors for me, and my love for Macedonia continues to grow.’

The views of the author may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Macedonian Diaspora and Generation M.

Categories
UMD Voice

Macedonia and the EU – Assessing Bulgaria’s Language Demands

On March 25, 2020, the Council of the European Union issued a written procedure providing updates regarding the enlargement process and potential inclusion of Macedonia and Albania within the EU.  In this brief four-page procedure, Bulgaria details several conditions required to be met before approving Macedonia’s future negotiating framework for EU accession. Among these conditions, the most notable is a peculiar implementation of the “language clause” previously utilized in both the Macedonia – Bulgaria Joint Declaration of 1999 and 2017 Friendship Treaty. More specifically, Bulgaria requested the following:

“Implementation of the “language clause” agreed between Sofia and Skopje in the agreements of the Republic of North Macedonia with the EU, including in the future Negotiating Framework. Thus, the linguistic norm spoken by the population of the Republic of North Macedonia should only be referred to as “the official language of the Republic of North Macedonia” in EU documents/positions/statements, including the future Negotiating Framework. No document/position/statement by the EU and its institutions can be interpreted as recognition of the existence of a separate so-called “Macedonian language”.[1]

In simpler terms, Bulgaria is declaring that the language clause utilized in previous agreements permits an omission of the Macedonian language from future EU correspondence and records. However, this assertion does not seem well-grounded. Even when considering Macedonia’s controversial name change, the language clause itself does not imply that the country’s official language must be called “The official language of the Republic of North Macedonia” instead of the Macedonian language. For clarity, the language clauses from both the 1999 Joint Declaration and 2017 Friendship Treaty have been provided below:

Joint Declaration of 1999

“Done at Sofia on 22 February 1999 in two original copies, each one in the official language of both countries, the Bulgarian language, in accordance with the constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria and the Macedonian language, in accordance with the constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, each text being equally authentic.”[2]

Friendship Treaty of 2017

“Signed in two original copies, each in the official languages ​​of the Contracting Parties – Macedonian language, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia and Bulgarian language, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, with both texts equally important.”[3]

As shown by the above language clauses from 1999 and 2017, the wording states that documents will be printed in the official language of each party in accordance with its constitution – and in both cases the Macedonian and Bulgarian languages are listed. Thus, there is misapplication of the language clause on the part of Bulgaria. Many may wonder why this issue has come up, and the reality is that historical disagreements and political maneuvering have played a factor. Bulgaria has not officially recognized the Macedonian language and continues to deny basic rights to ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria, often rejecting their existence. For example, a 2019 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report on Bulgaria noted the following: “Authorities continued to deny registration of the Macedonian activist group OMO Ilinden, despite a January judgment and 10 prior decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that the denials violated the group’s freedom of association.”[4]

Stepping back to the language issue, even after contentious passage of the Prespa Name Change Agreement between Macedonia and Greece, it did not cause Macedonia to alter its official language.  Thus, Bulgaria has little substance to support an exclusion of the Macedonian language from being mentioned in EU documents. Claiming that “No document/position/statement by the EU and its institutions can be interpreted as recognition of the existence of a separate so-called “Macedonian language” is a significant provocation and goes against the concept of “good neighborly relations” often championed by the Bulgarian government. One fundamental reason the Bulgarian argument lacks merit is because the Macedonian language has been widely recognized for several decades. Additionally, a denial of the Macedonian language by one country should not diminish Macedonia’s presence within the EU. Trying to impose such censorship of the Macedonian language across the EU not only shows poor form but further strains an already delicate relationship between the two countries. Macedonia and Bulgaria have previously addressed their disagreements through the integration of the language clause within the 1999 and 2017 agreements mentioned earlier. With this clause, Bulgaria has been able to bypass official recognition of the Macedonian language, and Macedonia has been able to maintain relative stability with an important strategic partner – even if the actual agreements have been unjust in some respects (e.g. no protected minority status for ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria who do not have Macedonian citizenship). 

To presume that the language clause now changes focus to include only the new (and many would argue illegitimate) name, “The official language of the Republic of North Macedonia”, but not the language recognized by the UN and Prespa Agreement is counterintuitive. Perhaps more curious is the fact that an additional condition set forth by Bulgaria is the “Full implementation of treaties between the Republic of North Macedonia and EU Member States”. This would imply that the Prespa Agreement between Macedonia and Greece (an EU member state) must be fully implemented. If so, then the following clause within Article 1(3)(c) of the Prespa Agreement cannot be disregarded:

Article 1(3)(c)

“The official language of the Second Party shall be the “Macedonian language”, as recognised by the Third UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names, held in Athens in 1977, and described in Article 7(3) and (4) of this Agreement.”[5]

As shown within Article 1(3)(c), the Prespa Agreement recognizes the Macedonian language, as previously established by the UN in 1977. This further accentuates Bulgaria’s misstep – it cannot simultaneously require implementation of the Prespa Agreement while also lobbying against the Macedonian language, a key feature within the Prespa Agreement. 

There is a clear contradiction between the Prespa Agreement and recent demands made in the EU written procedures from March 25, 2020. This situation displays the vast challenges for a smaller country like Macedonia who is simply vying to become more stable and economically secure. Macedonia has been forced to sacrifice vital national interests to unlock the doors to NATO and the EU, yet still finds itself being taken advantage of by neighboring countries. This situation poses important questions regarding what obstacles lie ahead for Macedonia and whether EU membership is ultimately worth the tradeoff. As has often been the case, the principles of self-determination and mutual respect from neighboring countries seem to be overlooked in the case of Macedonia, and this can only contribute to increased tension and instability in the Balkans.

Any opinions or views expressed in articles or other pieces appearing in UMD Voice are those of the author alone and are not necessarily those of the United Macedonian Diaspora and its young leaders’ program Generation M; the appearance of any such opinions or views in UMD Voice is not and should not be considered to be an endorsement by or approval of the same by UMD and Generation M.


[1] “Council of the European Union Written Procedure”. Council conclusions on Enlargement and Stabilisation and Association Process the Republic of North Macedonia and the Republic of Albania. March 25, 2020. https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXVII/EU/01/66/EU_16606/imfname_10969905.pdf

[2] “Review and Implementation of The Concluding Document of The Twelfth Special Session of The General Assembly Strengthening of Security And Cooperation In The Mediterranean Region Sustainable Development And International Economic Cooperation.” United Nations General Assembly 53rd Session. March 1999. https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/53/855

[3] “The Text of the Agreement on Friendship, Good Neighborliness and Cooperation between the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Bulgaria”. July 2017. 

[4] “2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Bulgaria”. U.S. Department of State. 2019. https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/bulgaria/

[5] “The Prespa Agreement” Full text of the Final Agreement on Resolving the Macedonian-Greek Name Dispute and Strategic Partnership2018 https://vlada.mk/node/17422

Categories
UMD Voice

Заблудата на Денко Малески не е заблуда на македонскиот народ

Во една скорешна колумна господинот Денко Малески – првиот министер за надворешни работи на Република Македонија – нареди низа неиздржани и противречни изјави на сметка на македонската нација, со кои тој го легитимизира ултиматумот упатен кон нашата земја од страна на соседна Бугарија.

Колумната на Малески има наслов „Некогаш сме биле еден народ“ со што се предлага дека официјалниот историски и надворешнополитички став на Бугарија кон Македонија, е точен. Иако, секако дека не е, односно, дека постои „сив предел“ за кој може да се преговара и „чист предел“ за кој не треба.

Со кои аргументи ќе ги поткрепи своите ставови г. Малески, кога наспроти нив стојат многу грамадни историски вистини? Имено, во 18 и 19 век соседните држави ги удриле првите темели во формирањето на современа нација на нивните територии.

Доколку македонците и бугарите биле еден народ, немаше Бугарија да се формира во држава на постоечката нејзина територија, немаше Србија да се формира како држава на сегашната територија, ниту Грција на територијата што ја запоседнувала се до 1913 година.

Сите овие земји ќе беа побогати со територија која се меѓи во некоја точка на географска Македонија. Проблемот бил народот што се чувствувал како да припаѓа на ниту еден од овие три народи.

Доколку македонците и бугарите навистина биле еден народ во не така далечното минато, немаше Србија и Грција да претендираат на македонска земја, преку асимилаторски програми поддржани од нивните цркви. Се ќе беше кристално јасно: „во Македонија живееле Бугари кои ќе си ја искажеле својата волја“. Но не било така.

Бугарија, како и другите две соседни држави, морала да дејствува помеѓу народот во Македонија со цел да издејствува врз него одредена (но и мошне површна) национална свест.

Најсилниот удар во тезата дека Македонската нација е настаната од некаков експеримент на Југославија, е фактот што пред и за време на Илинденското востание, Бугарија не испратила ниту еден воен одред за да ги помогне „бугарите“ на територијата што требале да ја ослободат од Османлиската империја.

Зошто Бугарија, која веќе била утврдена како држава и располагала со сериозна армија, едноставно не распоредила дел од своите сили во одбрана на народот на кој оваа земја денес претендира преку историска ретроградност? По крвавото задушување на востанието следела човечка катастрофа на територијата на Македонија, која Бугарската држава ја посматрала од страна.

Потоа, г. Малески го цитира Мисирков, и фразата „национален сепаратизам“ што тој ја срочил, но не наведува дека Бугарската историографија го релативизира монументалното дело на македонскиот деец Мисирков (За Македонцките Работи), тврдејќи дека тој имал само своја „македонстичка фаза“.

Малески се повикува на текстови објавени во „Њујорк Тајмс“ каде што се известува за „бугарско востание“ а не ги спомнува објавите на многу други странски публикации од таа ера, каде што изречито се пишува за Македонци. Македонските иселеници во Австралија на самите почетоци на 20 век, на официјалните документи за прием во таа земја во графата „националност“ пишувале „Македонец“. Ова секако, може лесно да се истражи и дознае.

Бугарскиот поет Иван Вазов објавил песна посветена на Цариград (Истанбул) во која ги набројува народите што ги среќавал на улиците, и нивните карактериски, па така, спомнати се македонци, бугари, грци, ерменци, и така натаму. Оваа песна датира од 1872 година, па очигледно е дека уште во тоа време овие два соседни народи воочувале доволен број различности за да се почувствуваат, имено, sui generis.

Еве една интерсна личност со која г. Малески треба да ја истражи: Христо Трајков, пратеник во собранието на Бугарија, кој во 1932 напишал „Во Пиринска Македонија во името на ослободението и независноста на Македонците, се затнува устата на Македонците, за да молчат и да не расудуваат.“

Трајков додава, „да не се заборави, македонското население во Петричката околија, вака или онака, претставува потиснато национално малцинство, зашто за нас Македонците, Македонија е разделена на три и е поробена во трите дела.

Ова обраќање на кукушанецот Трајков потекнува многу години пред да се формира Југославија, и многу години пред наводното создавање на македонска нација, теза која г. Малески очигледно ја застапува и придонесува до јанѕата што го јаде овој народ долги децении.

Јас не тврдам дека македонците и бугарите немаат ништо заедничко. Тоа не е возможно затоа што македонците, со нивната средишна положеност во овој дел на балканот, ги спојуваат и делат сличности со сите други народи. Наместо овој космополитски потенцијал да се издигне на ниво на национална политика, негирањето на македонската нација од јавни личности во самата земја доведува до создавање на монолитни идентитети на балканот, нешто за кое сум убеден дека се крши со светогледите на г. Малески.

Пред да ставам точка на обраќањето, ќе се повикам на уште еден од спорните делови во колумната на г. Малески, онаму каде тој пишува дека западната научна мисла одамна ја признава модерната македонска нација и нејзиниот јазик.

Тоа е точно, но според ставовите изнесени во колумната сега станува спорно КОЈА македонска нација бидува признаена – онаа што своите протонационални обележја ги истакнува во изминатите три века, или онаа што била конечно официјално востоличена на заседанието на АСНОМ? Сепак, не е сеедно преку чија теза ќе се поима историското битисување на народот што одбрал да сообрази свој идентитет.

Во делот за јазикот и преспанскиот договор, точно е тоа што овој меѓународно признаен договор го ословува јазикот „македонски“ но тоа е дефакто во меѓународните односи и во билатералните односи помеѓу Македонија и други земји.

Доколку пројде бугарското негирање на јазикот во ЕУ, квалификациите во преспанскиот договор ќе важат за ништо, бидејќи официјалната кореспонденција во ЕУ, а која ќе се однесува на македонскиот јазик, ќе гласи на начин што ќе биде непретставителен за припадниците на македонскиот народ.

Единствената валидна поента на г. Малески и дека Бугарија е во позиција да поставува ултиматуми, а тоа ја остава Македонија речиси и без опции како може да ги сочува оние работи без кои нема да биде исто.

Да кажеме дека на крајот, најверојатно исходот ќе зависи од големите држави (и од ЕУ како заедница) кои имаат независен надзор над ова прашање; дали ќе се даде предност на правото или право на предностите, ќе се дознае наскоро, но тоа не значи дека Македонија треба да молчи и да се негира самата себе преку отворените и сокриените ставови на политичарите и јавните личности.

Мартин Анастасовски е поборник за афирмирање на космополитскиот карактер на македонската нација

Any opinions or views expressed in articles or other pieces appearing in UMD Voice are those of the author alone and are not necessarily those of the United Macedonian Diaspora and its young leaders’ program Generation M; the appearance of any such opinions or views in UMD Voice is not and should not be considered to be an endorsement by or approval of the same by UMD and Generation M.

Categories
UMD Voice

Up Close & Personal with VΛSIL

Any opinions or views expressed in articles or other pieces appearing in UMD Voice are those of the author alone and are not necessarily those of the United Macedonian Diaspora and its young leaders’ program Generation M; the appearance of any such opinions or views in UMD Voice is not and should not be considered to be an endorsement by or approval of the same by UMD and Generation M.

Categories
UMD Voice

A Brief Overview of Macedonian-Greek Relations


Macedonia has a history spanning over 4,000 years, and the region has changed hands between many powers since time immemorial and has been a bone of contention between the Great Powers and Balkan states since the turn of the 20th century. For the sake of convenience and political relevance today, this summary will focus on the past 120 years, and mostly on relations with Greece.

At the turn of the 20th century, Macedonia was still directly controlled by a rapidly declining Ottoman Empire. Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia had just gained independence and were still finding their feet as independent regional powers. As each of these newly emergent states were vying for more territory, they all had their sights set on gaining Macedonia for themselves. Macedonians were the targets of large propaganda campaigns, mostly coming from the churches in the region. Each of these states sought to win over the hearts and minds of Macedonia’s people using a variety of methods and varying degrees of persuasion and force.

To represent Macedonia before independence, a revolutionary organization was created by the name of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization and was responsible for creating the resistance movement against the Ottomans. The IMRO led the Ilinden Uprising of 1903 and created the very first, but short-lived Krusevo Republic, which is considered the first independent Macedonian State. The republic was overrun and crushed by the Ottomans ten days after the republic was established, and it is still an extremely symbolic event in Macedonia’s history.

Several territories, including Macedonia, temporarily formed an alliance to drive the Ottomans from the Balkans once and for all in what would be known as the First Balkan War. At the end of the war, the Great Powers the territory of Macedonia was divided. The region known as Vardar Macedonia which is today’s Republic of Macedonia was given to Serbia. Aegean Macedonia was given to Greece, and Bulgaria took the smallest portion of Pirin Macedonia. Bulgaria was not content with the arrangement and instigated the Second Balkan War to take back the whole of Macedonia, but was defeated. The Treaty of Bucharest ended the Second Balkan War.

During each states’ tenure of holding their respective portions of Macedonia, the people of Macedonia had their ethnic identities extremely repressed. In Greece, Macedonians underwent a process of forced Hellenization, or assimilation, and were not allowed to speak their own language. All Macedonian cultural activities and organizations were suppressed by the Greek state. Many villages and towns, as well as Macedonian families also had their names forcibly changed from Macedonian to Greek names. In Vardar Macedonia, Macedonians suffered a similar fate at the hands of the Serbian government, and even the name Macedonia itself was banned. The Serbian and later Yugoslav government resorted to referring to the region as the Vardar Banovina.

Following WWI, the Macedonians were forced to accept their fate as being citizens of the respective states they were living in, and during WWII, they were split between joining resistance movements to the Nazis in Greece and Yugoslavia, and collaborating with them in Bulgaria. A large portion of the Greek Resistance Movement was comprised of roughly 12,000 Macedonians, who later became a large contributor to the KKE’s manpower in the Greek Civil War just after WWII. After WWII, Vardar Macedonia was given the status of a constituent republic of Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito, and eventually became today’s Republic of Macedonia. In Aegean Macedonia, people were not so lucky. The Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia found themselves brutally oppressed during the years prior to and during WWII by dictator Ioannis Metaxas, and thousands of Macedonians were forced into prison camps on Aegean Islands. Many people were brutally beaten, tortured, and forced to drink castor oil simply for identifying as Macedonian or speaking the Macedonian Language.

During the Greek Civil War, the Macedonians sided with the KKE after being promised that they would be united with Vardar Macedonia and allowed a fully united, and independent state of all ethnicities within Macedonia. Unfortunately for the Macedonians, the KKE lost the war, and Aegean Macedonia remained in the hands of Greece. Following the war, over a hundred thousand Macedonians were forced out of Aegean Macedonia and are still no longer allowed to return by order of the Greek government. Minority status still has not been given to Macedonians, and they still are not allowed to conduct business in their own language. Assertion of Macedonian identity is still cause for extreme harassment in Greece, and human rights are still violated in Aegean Macedonia to this day.

Following the independence of the Republic of Macedonia in 1991, Greece placed an economic embargo on the country over the name of the country, as well as the use of Macedonian cultural symbols in their flag. Due to Greece’s continual veto of Macedonian accession to NATO and the European Union over the use of its name, the Macedonian government filed a lawsuit against its neighbor. Both states testified in the Hague in 2011, and fifteen of sixteen judges ruled that Greece had violated international law, as it had earlier agreed to allow Macedonia to join the European Union.

Though Macedonia and Greece have had tension between state leaders and politicians in the past, most Macedonians and Greeks wish to be reconciled and cooperate with each other in peace. The global Macedonian community has been extremely disappointed by the lack of accountability for Greece’s actions in the past, and continued discrimination imposed upon Macedonians today. The Macedonian Community humbly asks that the Macedonian minority of Greece gets the recognition it has long been denied and that those who were exiled be granted permission by the Greek government to return to their homes.

Source of feature photo: Painting of the Macedonian Struggle found in The Museum of the Macedonian Struggle in Skopje, Macedonia

Any opinions or views expressed in articles or other pieces appearing in UMD Voice are those of the author alone and are not necessarily those of the United Macedonian Diaspora and its young leaders’ program Generation M; the appearance of any such opinions or views in UMD Voice is not and should not be considered to be an endorsement by or approval of the same by UMD and Generation M.


Categories
UMD Voice

UMD Voice Interview: Chris Klashoff on 40 Years of Boys From Bouf

UMD sits down with Chris Klashoff, a founding member of the Macedonian band Boys from Bouf, as the group celebrates their 40th anniversary. Klashoff describes how what started with a few men who simply enjoyed making music together turned into the hit group we hear play at many events in the Macedonian community today.

The Boys from Bouf is celebrating 40 years – what a momentous occasion! What does celebrating 40 years mean to you personally?

Although it doesn’t feel like 40 years have passed, (because I’ve been doing it week in and week out without a break); but when I sit down and go through the photographs and memories, it certainly has been a long time! I am most proud of our name/brand “The Boys from Bouf”, and that it has survived this long; it’s not a band of individuals, but a band of musicians working as a team to make music. That longevity is what makes me personally proud of our accomplishments.

Tell us who Chris Klashoff is and why he is an integral part of The Boys from Bouf.

I’m a son of immigrant parents from Aegean Macedonia (villages Bouf and Rakovo, Lerinsko region), born in Hamilton, Ontario. From a young age, listening to Macedonian music was a staple in our household, whether it be records on the phonograph, reel to reel tapes, or the radio – we always had the music playing. I’m not sure if I’m “integral”; I just happen to be an original member that has stuck around for forty years and enjoyed every minute of it! 

How did you decide on the name “The Boys from Bouf”?

In July of 1979, the band officially formed. The members were: Nikola (Laki) Hulev (Tiolishta, Kostursko), Chris Todorovski (Bouf) and Johnny Todorovski (Bouf). After weeks of practicing in our basements, one day my dad asked: “what are you going to call the band?” We looked at each other with blank faces, as we had no idea what to call ourselves. Then he said, “I hope you don’t mind Laki, but since 3 of you are from Bouf, why don’t you call yourselves The Boys from Bouf?” And that’s how we got our name!

How did The Boys from Bouf originally form? 

The man who was instrumental in putting together “The Boys from Bouf” was Nikola Durlov, od selo German (Prespa region, Aegean Macedonia) (current VP of the American Canadian Macedonian Orthodox Church Diocese) and my wife Violet’s, uncle. I had played some small parties with Nikola Hulev, (who was a cousin of Nick Durlov and a drummer). Durlov then said to me one day, “you know the Todorovski brothers?”……well, of course, I “knew them”; from school and church, plus being fellow Boufchani, we would often visit. “Well”, he continued, “Chris bought an organ and Johnny is now learning to play the guitar; maybe you guys should do something together and get Laki to be the drummer”. In the summer of 1979, Sveti Naum had a picnic at Bronte Park, and while Johnny and I were busy playing soccer with the rest of the guys we talked about “getting together and playing some music”; and that’s how it started!

How did you decide what type of music you wanted to play? There was never a question of “what type of music to play”, because we all enjoyed Makedonska narodna muzika (Macedonian national music). Chris and John had a collection of old LP’s played at 78 rpm speed from their grandfather – I also had a bunch of LP’s and 45’s, from my parents and Laki did too…….we spent endless days going through these resources and choosing songs and oros to learn. This was quite the task; there was no Youtube; we would patiently have to wait every week for the Macedonian radio show to air, and would have our tape recorders cued to record the newest music – especially chestitki (congratulatory songs) for weddings – we learned a lot of wedding songs this way! Today’s bands have it very easy!

Has your appreciation and connection to Macedonian culture grown as you have been a part of this band? How do you believe your audiences see The Boys from Bouf?

Yes, it definitely has! The 80’s saw the growth of many music festivals in the republic, like Valandovo, Gocefest, Filigrani, etc., some still exist, but many do not. However, we still have young, talented musicians churning out folk music for future generations to enjoy. I am especially amazed by the transformation of the Macedonian consciousness in Greek occupied Macedonia. Years of discrimination, assimilation, fear-mongering, and other tactics used by the Greek government to eradicate the Macedonians have simply failed! After 113 years of division, the villages and hills are alive with Macedonian music – not just instrumental, but vocal too – songs are being sung, “Kade ste Makedonchinja; Edno ime imame; Biser Balkanski”; the village festivals are crawling with young people attending and performing in dancing groups, featuring all traditional Macedonian dances. I never thought I would see this in my lifetime!! A lot of villagers there say our Boys from Bouf recordings from the 80’s and 90’s inspired them to pay more attention to the patriotic tunes…….our songs “Imeto Makedonsko; Grcite si Zgreshile and Evropo” are very popular and still played there today!

What has been the one most rewarding experience over the past 40 years? 

I can’t pick one, because there have been so many – but perhaps the most successful tour we ever did was when we celebrated our 10th year anniversary, in 1989 and invited Vaska Ilieva, Aleksandar Sarievski, Violeta Tomovska, and Blaga Petreska as special guests. Every hall was filled to capacity, especially St. Clements (Toronto) – we had over 900 people jam into the main hall with the overflow going to the balcony. Borche Kulevski caught every minute on film and our master of ceremonies was fellow Boufchanec Sime Milosevski. What a night! What a tour! It was unbelievable! Other performers we had the pleasure to share the stage with were: Duetot Miteva/Uzunov, Goce Nikolovski, Vojo Stojanovski, Petar Necovski, Orce Stevkovski, Petranka Kostandinova, Ferus Mustafov, Vlatko Miladinovski, Spasen Siljanovski, Nino Velickovski, Krume Spasovski, Aleksandar Sarev, Gjoko Doncev, Janko Uzunov, Fana Somova, Sonja Lozanovska, Smilja Andonovska, Misko Krstevski, Mary Minas, Dragan Mijalkovski, Jonce Hristovski, Tuse, Elena Jovcevska, Novica Vasilevski and many more!

What does the future hold for The Boys from Bouf?

We will continue to perform for those that call upon us – providing authentic, LIVE, Macedonian folk music; and perhaps a new CD as well.  

How can Macedonians abroad preserve our rich Macedonian heritage moving forward? Any advice for the younger generation?

Become involved in your local church or village association; join the board or volunteer; see what it really takes to be a part of the Macedonian community and find your niche and contribute. Attend the events – bring your families and let the kids meet each other and develop relationships. We have a very special heritage and it would be a shame to just let it go for a lack of participating. The republic is, unfortunately, going through some tough times with its illegitimate government; but this means that us Macedonians in the diaspora must be even stronger and more united than ever before, to show the world that we DO exist and our roots extend back to the days of Alexander the Great, Cyril & Methody, Clement & Naum, Samuil, Delchev, Karev, and Chento! We must be the voice of Macedonia and continue our traditions and celebrate our history!

Any opinions or views expressed in articles or other pieces appearing in UMD Voice are those of the author or interviewees alone and are not necessarily those of the United Macedonian Diaspora and its young leaders’ program Generation M; the appearance of any such opinions or views in UMD Voice is not and should not be considered to be an endorsement by or approval of the same by UMD and Generation M.

Categories
UMD Voice

Is Estonia’s Economic Model an Example for Macedonia?

Estonia Successfully Broke Away From its Communist Past. Can Macedonia do the Same?

Each week we run stories on the problems of public indebtedness, large and inefficient public sector, and endemic institutional challenges facing Macedonia. The story of Macedonian economic development after the country’s departure from communist Yugoslavia has been one of disappointment and underutilized potential. Macedonia is surrounded by countries that have had differing experiences in their transition from communism to free market democracy, but it seems like Macedonian leaders have not taken any development cues from the successful transition examples.

Lauded as one of the success stories of post-communist transition, Estonia has long held the title of economic development leader among the former communist countries of Europe. Estonia achieved tremendous progress in the past three decades, despite its unfavorable circumstances in the early 1990s. Much like Macedonia, Estonia broke from a communist regime and sought an independent path to prosperity. As hard as it is to believe, Macedonia and Estonia had much in common early in their transition paths. Both inherited a communist economic framework, a non- existent private sector, and corrupt institutions. Both countries had small populations and were situated geographically among unfriendly neighbors. Even their economic parameters were comparable.

In 1991, Estonia had a GDP per capita rate of 3,400 dollars, whereas Macedonia’s GDP percapita was 2,355 dollars. Much has changed since Macedonia and Estonia had comparable numbers in the early 1990s. Over three decades after the transition process began, Estonia and Macedonia could not be farther apart. In 2018, Macedonia’s GDP per capita was barely over 6,000 dollars, whereas Estonia’s was 23,000 dollars. Estonia reached such high numbers by averaging an annual rate of 10% GDP per capita increase since 1999. Estonia developed strong economic ties with its neighbors, and opened itself to foreign investment early on. Whereas Macedonia struggled with endemic corruption and inefficient public sector, Estonia led a relentless battle against corruption and established a strong system based on the rule of law. In terms of economic policy, Estonia made crucial headways early on in its transition process. On the other hand, Macedonia was stuck in a cycle of economic ruin, corrupt process of privatization and lack of strategic investment in industry-specific development.

There are several economic parameters that Estonian leaders managed to stabilize and use to their advantage in the transition to market economy. The Estonian leadership focused on balancing its budget such that public debt became almost non-existent. The country stabilized its currency and pegged it to the euro, and the government worked hard on promoting a competitive private banking sector capable of supporting service industry development. Furthermore, Estonian leaders early on realized that investors appreciate stability. To this end, Estonia established a long-standing policy of stabilizing its taxation system. The country established a flat tax rate and stuck with it throughout its transition, which contributed to investor confidence and promoted economic growth.

Starting in the early 1990s, Estonia established itself as an attractive investment location by instituting flat taxation and virtually eliminating corruption in its institutions. Finally, successive Estonian leaders directed efforts toward supporting innovation and entrepreneurship, making E- services and internet development central to the country’s economic model. As a result, Estonia became one of Europe’s innovation hubs, a stable and prosperous country with high standards of living and laudable private sector.

Contrary to Estonia, Macedonian leaders switched back and forth between progressive and flat taxation. Although much of the legislative framework implemented by Macedonia was made in conjunction with global financial institutions, Macedonia had substantive issues with implementing its laws and creating stable investment climate in the country. Furthermore, problems with the rule of law, clientelism in the public sector and short-term economic orientation significantly slowed down the Macedonian economy.

Given the comparable size of the countries, it is reasonable to infer that Macedonia could follow Estonia’s economic development model. In order to do so, Macedonian leaders have to look beyond their 4-year terms in power and work on establishing long-term development goals, oriented around growth in the private sector and shrinking of the public sector. Furthermore, Macedonia must commit fully to the rule of law by strengthening its institutional quality and by leading an uncompromising battle against rampant corruption.

UMD recommendations

Much has been written on the Estonian economic transition. The following books and articles shed light on the economic policies that were instituted throughout the transition, as well as the political decisions that were necessary in order for economic activity to reach its current levels in the country. Not only can these books provide insights into breaking from the cycle of underdevelopment, but they can also be used by Macedonian leaders as blueprints for economic policy enactment.

• Mayes, David. Microfoundations of Economic Success. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009.

• Laar, Mart. “The Estonian economic miracle.” Backgrounder 2060 (2007): 1-12.

• Kooskora, Mari. “Perceptions of business purpose and responsibility in the context of radical political and economic development: The case of Estonia.” Business Ethics: A European Review 15, no. 2 (2006): 183-199.

• Nørgaard, Ole, Lars Johannsen, Mette Skak, and Rene H. Sørensen. “The Baltic states after independence.” Books (1999).

• Drahokoupil, Jan. “After transition: Varieties of political-economic development in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.” Comparative European Politics 7, no. 2 (2009): 279-298.

•Pickles, John, and Adrian Smith, eds. Theorizing transition: the political economy of post-communist transformations. Routledge, 2005.

Any opinions or views expressed in articles or other pieces appearing in UMD Voice are those of the author or interviewees alone and are not necessarily those of the United Macedonian Diaspora and its young leaders’ program Generation M; the appearance of any such opinions or views in UMD Voice is not and should not be considered to be an endorsement by or approval of the same by UMD and Generation M.

Categories
UMD Voice

Failed EU Membership and New Elections: Chance for Revival or More of the Same?

The European Union once again shunned Macedonia’s integration aspirations. Despite positive recommendations by the European Commission and the European Parliament, EU leaders failed to reach an accession decision on Macedonian membership. For 15 years and counting, Macedonia has been stuck before EU’s doors. As disappointing as it is, the latest EU letdown has important ramifications for the future of Macedonian politics.

At least three things became clear after the latest membership fiasco. For one, we must understand that in the absence of meaningful reform, no amount of naïve bargaining with the national interest will be enough to bring Macedonia into the EU. Second, multiple rejections and failures to consolidate EU unanimity demonstrate that the EU is unsure about the benefits from Macedonian membership. Finally, the failure to substantively distinguish Macedonia from Albania in terms of accession progress is a reflection of a broken accession process that undermines EU’s credibility.

You cannot substitute lack of meaningful reforms with naïve idealism

Despite the disappointing decision, there is merit to Macron’s resistance to Macedonia’s EU bid. Whereas the government led by Zaev gave in to virtually every demand by our neighbors, little was accomplished in relation to reform priorities. In fact, Macron’s decision to block Macedonian membership was partially driven by the failure of Macedonian officials to successfully reform the country’s institutions and to strengthen the country’s rule of law.

Macron said that new EU members must demonstrate a range of reforms in economic policy, human rights, rule of law and anti-corruption measures. As he made clear, Macedonia has a long journey before substantive progress in these areas is even possible.

The Macedonian leadership, led by the naïve idealist Zaev, believed that satisfying the ultra nationalistic demands of Greece and Bulgaria would be enough to convince European leaders of our readiness to become an equal member of the bloc. At least one European leader was not convinced.

When strategic vision and planning are replaced by naïve idealism and caving to foreign demands, the result is failure. That much became clear after Macron said no to Macedonian membership in the EU.

Zaev focused the entirety of his reign of power on undermining the Macedonian identity according to the demands of our neighbors. We ended up humiliated by aggressive neighbors interested in hijacking Macedonian national heritage and identity.

Zaev believed that bargaining away our Macedonian identity would have surely opened the way for Macedonian EU accession, by demonstrating the country’s readiness to embrace EU values. But without substantive reforms, his rosy idealism quickly turned gray.

Is It to EU’s Benefit to Welcome Macedonia?

The membership rejection has deeper roots than simply citing failures to implement sufficient reforms. After all, what is it that the EU can gain from Macedonian membership?

Of course, enlarging the Union would allow a more cohesive political bloc, one that is capable of deterring outside influences. It would consolidate a region prone to conflict and instability, and would provide ample opportunity for regional development.

But in order for the gains from potential Macedonian EU membership to be felt by all sides, the EU must envision tangible benefits from Macedonian membership. In a situation in which a country has one of the lowest GDP/capita rates in Europe and one of the most corrupt institutions
on the continent, it is difficult to imagine what benefits the EU can reap.

Macedonian leaders must stop and consider this question very carefully. We ought not to see the EU as an ultimate goal or as a reward for foreign policy concessions. EU membership should be based on mutual benefits, where both Macedonia and the EU gain from Macedonian entry. As it stands, adding Macedonia to the EU would create another problem child for the Union, with little benefits for existing member states.

Our path to prosperity does not begin and end with EU membership. Becoming a member state is only one stop on the way to progress. The path to becoming a prosperous country depends on the ability of Macedonia to embrace change and to fundamentally reorient its institutions and its entire system toward democracy, rule of law, and free markets.

If Macedonia hopes to win the approval of European leaders, our nation’s leadership must build successful strategies for addressing all outstanding issues that stand in the way of Macedonian EU membership. Only by doing so would Macedonia unanimously convince Europe that Macedonian EU membership could be beneficial for all sides.

A Broken Process: EU Needs to Decouple Macedonia and Albania

The fact that Macedonia and Albania were lumped into the same category is tragic. It is true that Macedonia has its set of problems, but Albania is in a league of its own. The country has endemic issues with domestic violence, terrorism, torture, a state sponsored drug industry, corruption, police brutality and an openly anti-LGBTQ culture.

At the very least, the naïve Macedonian leadership demonstrated a wholehearted verbal embrace and dedication to European values, even if they failed to translate any of that in practice. Their Albanian counterparts did not even get that far.

Some European leaders, such as Merkel, recognized that Macedonia has done more on its path to

EU membership. Yet this distinction fell short of decoupling Macedonia and Albania as one and the same in terms of EU ambitions. The EU must clearly separate the two countries if we hope to avoid stalemates in Macedonian accession as a result of Albania’s lack of readiness.

In Summary: Upcoming Elections and Macedonia’s Future

Macedonia is left hanging once more. It appears as though we are stuck in a cycle of perpetual political crises, failed EU attempts, and inconsistent governmental mandates. As disappointed as we all are, there is a lot of work to be done. Macedonia has an upcoming election on April 12th
2020, and it will be interesting to observe the political rhetoric and campaigning that happens.

The elections will be a great opportunity for Macedonia to institute substantive changes into the election model and improve its representative parliamentary system. An idea that has received a lot of traction recently is the establishment of a single-member district, which will make parliamentarians more accountable to the electorate as opposed to their political parties. In addition, an open list proportional representation system will give Macedonians a say in selecting candidates directly, as opposed to political parties choosing their own.

Furthermore, Macedonian politicians should prioritize updating the voter registration lists, in order to decrease the possibilities for election fraud. These changes will improve the state of democracy in Macedonia and will strengthen our country’s commitment to democratic norms and values. Instituting these changes will help Macedonia break free from an endless cycle of early elections and will make politicians closer and more accountable to the electorate.

On a broader level, Macedonia has to remain committed to fighting corruption, strengthening the rule of law, and upholding political rights and freedoms. Joining an organization like the EU would certainly aid our efforts to create a prosperous and free country, but substantive changes must come from within.

Macedonia’s dysfunctional institutional system and its difficulties in improving the rule of law are major obstacles on our path to the EU and to general prosperity. Before we see meaningful reform being implemented, our dreams for joining the EU and becoming a thriving country will remain unfulfilled.

Any opinions or views expressed in articles or other pieces appearing in UMD Voice are those of the author or interviewees alone and are not necessarily those of the United Macedonian Diaspora and its young leaders’ program Generation M; the appearance of any such opinions or views in UMD Voice is not and should not be considered to be an endorsement by or approval of the same by UMD and Generation M.