LEVERAGING THE GREEK POWER OF VETO

Dusan Sinadinoski

Those who hold the view that a mutually acceptable agreement between Greece and Macedonia on the
use of the Macedonian constitutional name is not only possible but it is within the reach are either
misguided about what is being negotiated or they are not seriously considering the resulting consequences
following an eventual compromise on the name issue. In either case, what those people fail to
acknowledge is that a mutually acceptable agreement between Greece and Macedonia is out of question
as long as Greece feels no need to negotiate in good faith. However, if Macedonia gives up her
constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia by agreeing to the Greek demands, as Macedonia is
being urged to do it, the “agreed” compromise would essentially spell out elimination of the Macedonian
nation as is currently known. Ironically, Greece would be extremely happy if the current name of
Republic of Macedonia is replaced by rogue names such as long as the terms “Macedonia’ and
“Macedonian” are completely eliminated from designating the Macedonian state and its nationality. Their
derogatory treatment of the Macedonians is not an issue of which the Greeks feel they ought to be
ashamed off. In any case, the price to Macedonia for Pax Hellenes would be too great to pay and that
alone makes a compromise on the name very unlikely. Henceforth, these negotiations have no useful
purpose for Macedonia and a need for a fresh start is long overdue.

Any reasonable solution to the name dispute between Greece and Macedonia that is mutually acceptable
for both means that each country’s expectations would be met as the result of such an agreement.
However, in the current Greek-Macedonian negotiations Macedonia would be left without an option of
even retaining its original status quo, i.e. the position in which Macedonia was before the name issue was
imposed on her by Greece. Hence, it is very disheartening when many leading Macedonian politicians
and foreign diplomats publically “encourage” Macedonia to find a quick solution to the name issue even
though it is quite obvious to everyone that any such solution would lead Macedonia to compromise on its
constitutional name in exchange for a membership in NATO and EU. In such a scenario, if Macedonia’s
preference of choice is a membership in these Euro-Atlantic organizations over its constitutional name,
assuming that Greece is not willing to concede, then what such an encouragement really means is asking
Macedonia to de facto surrender its sovereignty. Therefore, the resulting agreement between Greece and
Macedonia will amount to nothing less than a bilateral peace treaty between Greece and Macedonia
where the terms and conditions of such an agreement call for elimination of the Macedonian nation.

It is difficult to imagine a situation where two disagreeing countries consent to a mutually acceptable
solution to a given problem where one of the parties in the conflict uses the power of coercion to subdue
the opponent into an agreement, unless, of course, the subduing opponent commits foolish moves.
However, Greece is certainly no fool and therefore, it makes no sense to believe that Greece has made a
hasty decision to get involved into this drawn out and nasty name dispute only to settle for a mutually
acceptable solution. Greece, moreover, must have evaluated all and any of Macedonia’s possible or
unforeseen future surprise moves and has left nothing to a chance. Without any political, economic and
psychological cost to Greece, there is no genuine motivation for the Greek aggressors to abandon their
strategy of coercive diplomacy. That is why, if Macedonia is to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution,
then it is up to Macedonia to figure out the way of turning the table on Greece. Otherwise, Macedonia
must deal with the consequences of either surrendering its sovereignty to the Greek demands or live under
the constant political, economic and military pressure by Greece.

Whenever two conflicting countries decide to enter into negotiations in order to resolve an outstanding
issue about which both have disputing claims, it is necessary that both countries must choose to do so by
Leveraging the Greek Power of Veto Dusan Sinadinoski

mutual consent. The reason for any two countries freely engaging in negotiation by mutual consent is
because both countries understand that each would be better off as the result of such an agreement. But in
the Greek-Macedonian case, Macedonia was forced into these negotiations by Greece against her will. Of
course, using intimidation, threat of force and, if everything else fails, resorting to war, is not unordinary
and unprecedented in the history of conflict resolutions between two disagreeing countries. But Greece’s
demand that the Republic of Macedonia strip itself from its constitutional name, history and national
identity is unprecedented and unreasonable because Greece is unilaterally exporting what is essentially a
bilateral issue to international organizations such as United Nations, European Union and NATO.
However, what’s even more curious here is that instead of those organizations returning this issue back to
the table for bilateral negotiations, Macedonia was mercilessly compelled to negotiate the use of her
constitutional name in those organizations. By doing so, they willingly violated Macedonia’s right to self-
determination. For that reason, there is no other way for Macedonians to understand this decision by
United Nation but a direct sanctioning of the Greek coercive diplomacy against Macedonia.

But what perplexes Macedonians even more and what makes them loose faith in the United Nations,
European Union and NATO is that Greece has not been even publically reprimanded, let alone cautioned,
for coercing Macedonia to give its constitutional name. It is no wonder why the Macedonians have come
to believe that these organizations have no appetite to stand up to the Greek bullying of Macedonia. The
Macedonians know quite well that the UN, EU and NATO leaders fully understand what’s at stake here
but it is frightening to think that they may not be considering the integrity and sovereignty of the
Macedonian nation worth their full attention. But those same Western countries were certainly much
more active and decisive immediately after WWII by defending Greece against Yugoslavia and Bulgaria.
Why are the Macedonians now not provided the same support and protection as the Greeks back then?
Are the Macedonians wrong by assuming that they may be less deserving than the Greeks of the same
respect? Even as recently as a decade ago, the UN, EU and NATO were also very decisive and resolved
in Bosnia and Kosovo by making sure that the field of play was evened out. In Kosovo and Bosnia, under
the pretence of preventing humanitarian disasters, USA, NATO and EU engaged in building nation states
where previously there were none. Why, then, the West isn’t trying to even the playing field between
Greece and Macedonia? Understandably, the geopolitical reality dictates the kind of game is being
played, nonetheless, letting Greece get away without any cost to her doesn’t appear to be sound Balkan
policy relations for the West.

The fact that Greece has made no secret of her use of power to block the Macedonian Euro-Atlantic
integration is not surprising to Macedonians. But what displeases the Macedonians the most and what
makes them very suspicious of the United Nations, European Union and NATO is that their leaders help
create a political mood in Macedonia, whether intentionally or not, that seem to emulate an atmosphere of
desperateness and inevitability of succumbing to the Greek demands. Hence two very antagonistic and
totally opposite perceptions are being created. On the one hand, it appears that the Greeks have come to
believe that they are almost home and all they need to do is to continue with their strategy of intimidation
until Macedonia finally succumbs to their pressure. Macedonians, on the other hand, are hoping for some
fresh approach and some new initiative to come from somewhere in the world, preferably from
Washington, in order to neutralize the Greek devastating political and economic strangulation of
Macedonia. Thus while they urge both countries to come to a solution at the same time they create even a
wider gap between these two bitterly opposed countries on the name issue. But no matter how bleak
Macedonia’s situation may look and no mater how close the Greeks feel they are to their goal, the West’s
encouragement for speedy and successful completion to these negotiations are unreasonable and too
simplistic because there is no mutually acceptable solution that can satisfy both Greece and Macedonia.

It won’t be an easy task but with or without the help of NATO, UN or EU, Macedonia has no other choice
but to free itself from the Greek coercive diplomacy. Since it is the power of veto that gives Greece an
advantage in these negotiations, Macedonia must find the will and means to leverage the Greek power of

2
Leveraging the Greek Power of Veto Dusan Sinadinoski

veto. In order to accomplish it, Macedonia must realign its Euro-Atlantic integration objectives to its
national interests. As it stands at this moment, the Macedonian membership in the European Union and
NATO is considered a priority and of vital national interest to Macedonia and therefore a speedy
integration process has been desperately sought. But this accelerated integration process is exactly what
gives Greece the impetus to keep on insisting on the name compromise and what makes their plan a
winning strategy. The stronger the desire for Macedonia to join NATO and EU, the more firmly
committed Greece remains in her position. Thus the right thing for the Macedonian government to do is
to reevaluate whether or not it is to the best interest of the country to continue staying on an accelerated
track to NATO and EU membership. Since currently there is no penalty to Greece for blocking
Macedonia’s Euro-Atlantic integration, all of Macedonia’s future attempts to join these organizations will
definitely be met by the same fate. Therefore, there seems to be no immediate benefits to Macedonia for
staying on an accelerated track to these associations.

There is no doubt that the hostile and ferocious Greek diplomatic strangulation of the Republic of
Macedonia has reached a critical point such that if Macedonia doesn’t counterbalance the Greek coercive
strategy it would be all lost to Macedonia. For that reason, it’s a high time for the Macedonian
government to take bold political steps to facilitate a reversal of the course to these negotiations. But, in
order to leverage the Greek power of veto it is imperative that Macedonia start attacking the Greek
strategy head on. First, Macedonia must downgrade its NATO and EU membership aspiration from an
elevated status of vital national interest to a lower and less critical status of important and mutually
beneficial relationship. Second, instead of aimlessly figuring a way to induce Greece to negotiate a
mutually acceptable solution, which will never happen, Macedonia ought to concentrate all of its efforts
on legal and diplomatic means that would force Greece to retract its policy of coercive negotiation.
However, both of these steps require that the Macedonian government take bold and strong initiatives
instead of playing a passive role and hoping that the time will work to the benefit of Macedonia.

There is no dilemma that Greece’s ability to block Macedonia’s Euro-Atlantic integration is the crux of
their strategy of coercive negotiation but how to counter balance that power of veto would certainly
produce many controversies. In any case, by downgrading the priority of its NATO and EU membership,
Macedonia would effectively take away Greece’s main tool of intimidation because her power of veto
would no longer have any affect in the name negotiations. This certainly may not be very popular with
many Macedonian leading politician and businessmen but the integrity and sovereignty of Macedonia can
not be subject to a popularity contest. It goes without saying that every political decision contains a good
amount of risk and this move would undoubtedly be highly risky. However, it all depends on what is
being defined as a risk to Macedonia. Surely, Macedonia’s membership in NATO and EU increases
Macedonia’s political and economic stability, but Greece has made sure that that option is not available to
her. Hence, if not enjoying membership in these organizations is a high risk then Macedonia is already at
high risk. But it also has to be kept in mind that the Macedonian political stability is not only
Macedonia’s problem but is a potentially explosive issue for the greater Balkan region as well for the
entire Europe. Therefore, the stake here are not just high for Macedonia but everyone else has as much to
loose, even Greece herself, the instigator of this problem. If Europe wants to risk another potentially even
greater political unrest on the Balkans than ones in Kosovo and Bosnia, then Europe has not learned any
lessons from the previous two Balkan conflicts. Actually, Macedonia here offers Europe a chance to
either look away to the Greek nationalistic appetite, as has done so far, or start playing a more decisive
role and force Greece to abandon its fascist policies toward Macedonia.

It may be argued that that this move may be a toll order for the Macedonian government to make when
taking into consideration its weak economy and fragile inter-ethnic relations. But such an argument leads
back to the staring point. Where there is a will there is a way and a new start is not out of its reach and it
can be accomplished. All it needs to be done is start a fresh approach to the entire negotiation strategy by
way of underscoring Macedonia’s fragile political stability and how its geopolitical location may affect

3
Leveraging the Greek Power of Veto Dusan Sinadinoski

the stability of the Balkans and Europe itself. Surely, the new strategy would require a precise plan and a
strong leadership willing to govern and lead the country.

There is no reason what so ever that Macedonia needs to be in European Union in order to be a European
country. Even more so, Macedonia should let Europe know that Macedonia need not change her
constitutional name to belong to Europe. Macedonia deserves the same right to self-determination that
any other sovereign country in Europe.

The constant and relentless pressure coming from EU and NATO that a speedy resolution to the name
issue must be found is only intended to put heavy pressure on Macedonia to accept the Greek compromise
because they are either unwilling or incapable of dealing with Greece. As long as Macedonia is being
pressured to join NATO and EU at any cost, Greece knows that there is some price which Macedonia
would be willing to pay to Greece in exchange for membership in EU and NATO. What is the price that
Macedonia is willing to pay to Greece it directly depends on how strongly Macedonia desires to achieve
her desired membership goal. Conversely, how much is Greece capable of abstracting from Macedonia
depends on Greece’s ability to endure in its coercive strategy without incurring any or very little political,
economic and psychological cost. Hence as long as Greece is able to keep the Macedonian Euro-Atlantic
integration locked up to its power of veto the edge goes to Greece because Greece has nothing to loose
and everything to gain. Therefore, it is imperative that the Macedonian government finds a counter
balance to the Greek strategy in order to win Macedonia’s political freedom. Macedonia is on a long
historical journey whereas NATO and EU could wait, if necessary, little while longer for Macedonia’s
membership.

Along with the realignment of the membership preference, Macedonia must also be more vocal on the
international scene by linking together Greece’s violation of UN resolutions and Macedonia right to use
her constitutional name in the international organizations such as the United Nations. By taking advantage
of the enlargement mechanisms at both NATO and European Union either by blocking or threatening
Macedonia’s membership in these organizations, Greece blatantly violated the provisions of UN’s
Resolution 817(1993) which requires both parties to promote good-neighborly relations and confidence
building measures. In addition, by attempting to force a settlement upon Macedonia outside of UN,
Greece essentially breached UN’s Resolution 845 (1993) which requires the efforts of both countries to
arrive at the mutually agreeable settlement under the auspices of Secretary-General. In fact, these acts of
coercion make it no longer possible for Macedonia to negotiate a fair and mutually acceptable settlement.

Macedonia’s challenge to the Greek violation of UN resolutions at the International Court in The Hague
is a good start but it ought not to end there. Since Greece blatantly violated those resolutions, Macedonia
should also put pressure on the UN Security Council to request that Secretary-General pronounce these
negotiations null and void. Greece can’t have both ways: using coercion while pretending is negotiating a
mutually acceptable solution. True, Macedonia needs to be cooperative with the international community
on many issues but that doesn’t require Macedonia to be silent about Greece’s aggression. Every UN
member country, no matter how small or unimportant it may be must be extended the same equal right as
enjoyed by every other country. In addition, it is of vital importance to Macedonia that every UN member
country fully understands the difference between the Greek aggression and Macedonia’s right to its
historical and cultural inheritance. If Macedonia doesn’t elevate this issue on the political agendas of the
relevant international political bodies, it would be very presumptuous of Macedonian politicians to expect
that someone else would do it for them. Macedonia must make her voice be heard loud and clear to UN,
EU and NATO that the consequences of Macedonia’s failure would be painfully felt across Europe and
wider.

Modern Greece, if the term “modern” can be used at all to designate this Byzantine collage of cultures, is
a nation conceived from and inspired by the vestiges of the bygone European romantic nationalism and

4
Leveraging the Greek Power of Veto Dusan Sinadinoski

transformed by it into a zealous nation-aggrandizement. Hence the Greek hostile diplomacy against
Macedonia is nothing new but it is now Greece’s turn of redisplaying its version of the 19th century
Balkan ethno-chauvinism on the European stage. But this form of racism shouldn’t have a place in
today’s world and must be eliminated before it spreads again. No country, even if that country is the
“cradle of democracy”, should be allowed to keep captive another nation. However, without a strong
external pressure Greece has no incentives to respect the democratic rights of the Macedonian people.

Expecting a mutually acceptable agreement to these negotiations is as realistic as hoping for a chance that
Greece would come to realize that it is the one who is the root cause of the problem here. Greece has
shown times and over again that it doesn’t have an overabundance of political and moral capital to share
it with Macedonia. As the current landscape of nationalism is being outlined on the Balkan map, Greece’s
name is engraved there quite prominently. It may be very uncomfortable for many people to hear it but
Macedonia’s adversary to the south is the last one of the Balkan bullies still pushing around its smaller
Balkan neighbors. It defies any form of logic Greece’s claim that the name “Macedonia” alone inspires
conflicts. The threat to Greece is not Macedonia but its own 19th century Megali Idea and Greece’s
unwillingness to let it go.

By being more critical of Greece coercive policy toward Macedonia and more decisive in their demands
that Greece abstain from blocking Macedonia’s Euro-Atlantic integration, EU and NATO would not only
prevent Macedonia’s sinking but they could also help themselves even more by averting future
deployment of their resources to this region. As the latest Greek financial fiasco clearly indicates, by
turning the attention away even for a short time from a situation that seems to be under control, it could
lead to disastrous consequences even to those who felt unaffected by it.

5
Leveraging the Greek Power of Veto Dusan Sinadinoski