MILS NEWS 30/01/96

From: "M.I.L.S." <mils@MILS.SPIC.ORG.MK>

Macedonian Information Liaison Service Directory

CONTENTS

MILS NEWS

Skopje, 30 January 1996

[01] MACEDONIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY SURPRISED

The surprise was increased due to the fact that FRY differed from the previous agreement achieved during the Yugoslav - Macedonian contacts, when all the moves were to be made in mutual coordination. It was also agreed the Agreement on the Normalization of the Relations Between Macedonia and FRY to be signed by the Foreign Ministers of the two countries, in Skopje.

What happened yesterday will change the negotiations between FRY and Macedonia. Till yesterday, the sources from the Macedonian Foreign Ministry claimed the name issue was not disputable and, therefore not discussed during the contacts. President of Serbia, Slobodan Miloshevic, also did not consider the name of Macedonia a problem in the process of mutual recognition, during his last meeting with Macedonian President Kiro Gligorov, which took place on 2 October 1995 in Belgrade. The text of the above mentioned Agreement also refers to the normalization of the relations between 'FR Yugoslavia and Republic of Macedonia'.

The only dispute that appeared during the negotiations was the issue of the continuity. Unofficially, there were some formulations acceptable for both parties, and according to which FRY recognizes the right of the Macedonian people to have their own country, as well as their fight through the history to establish their state - Republic of Macedonia.

Macedonia, on the other side, should not make no objections on the legal continuity of FRY with former SFRY and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. To put it in other words, Macedonia will not have any objections to the FR Yugoslav membership in the international institutions, the member of which used to be former SFRY.

The form of the document is unusual, as it anticipates the mutual recognition of two independent countries. The text is rather long, as besides the mutual recognition and the establishing of complete diplomatic relations, it also refers to the recognition of the mutual borders, perspectives for economic cooperation, as well as many other details, which is precisely the reason to be called an 'Agreement on the Normalization of the Relations Between FR Yugoslavia and Republic of Macedonia'.

However, Macedonian Radio reported yesterday that Yugoslav Government have in fact stated the draft Agreement as a massage to the EU that FRY has decided to start the process of mutual recognition with Macedonia, which has meanwhile worsened the relations between Belgrade and Athens.

[02] RECOGNITION OF FRY POSTPONED FOR BETTER TIMES

The attitude of some representatives of other countries was that EU should wait for the problem of Kosovo to be solved (which is also the attitude of official Washington), as well as that all former Yugoslav republics should recognize each other firstly. Macedonian Television informed there was a suggestion for EU to recognize FRY after it recognizes Macedonia and Croatia.

[03] ATHENS SETS CONDITIONS TO BELGRADE

Greek daily 'Elefterotipia' informed yesterday on the possibility Greece to ask from EU to postpone the process of recognition on the relation Brussels - Belgrade - Skopje, until the Greek-Macedonian negotiations on the name dispute are accomplished in New York. 'Elefterotipia' also informed that Milutinovic did not want to reveal to Pangalos under what name Belgrade intends to recognize Macedonia.

Meanwhile, according to Athens News Agency the Greek Prime Minister, Costas Simitis in his policy staement to the Greek Parliament, stressed that 'cooperation with the FYROM is a basic stabilising factor in the Balkans'.

Describing the signing of the Interim Accord in New York, last October as a 'positive step', Simitis said 'our relations should continue in the same direction, but Greece will back its known positions in the negotiations which started in New York recently over the FYROM's name issue'.

[04] NATIONAL ENERGY BALANCE ADOPTED

[05] LJUPCHO GEORGIEVSKI: 'WE EXPECT A TUMULTUOUS POLITICAL SPRING'

The representative of the Socialist Party, Blagoja Filipovski, said this party will participate in the Alliance for Macedonia and in the Governmental Coalition till the end. The attitude of this Party is that the reconstruction of the Macedonian Government is necessary, and the Prime Minister should give a precise suggestion.

Naser Ziberi from Party for Democratic Prosperity (PDP), said the position of PDP is not passive in this situation.

This party analyzes all the occurrences in detail, and they support the initiative of Macedonian Premiere. At the time when Premiere Crvenkovski will be ready to realize the reconstruction, PDP will present their suggestions.

Leader of the opposition party (VMRO-DPMNE), Ljupcho Georgievski said the last announcement of SDSM is one of the most precise and decisive in the dispute between SDSM and the Liberal Party. According to Georgievski, the announcement shows that SDSM will not share their position in the Government with the Liberals any more, which is a result of the situation called 'Parliament behind the Government'. Liberals leaving the Government will bring, according to Georgievski, a new dimension of the democracy in Macedonia. He stressed that, however, one should wait to see 'the end of the game', but it will in any case provide a 'very tumultuous political spring, that Macedonia needs'.

Leader of Democratic Party, Petar Goshev, said the announcement of SDSM might mean that the crisis in the Coalition has been overcome, i.e. that they have overcome their personal problems. According to Goshev, this will not mean that the problems in the policy of the state will be solved. And in case the expected reconstruction takes place (which will be, according to him, the third one since the independence of Macedonia), it will not change the concept of governing. That could be changed only with new elections and in case the ratio of the political forces in Macedonia is changed.

Liberal Party did not want to comment on the announcement, as it has not been officially delivered to them. It is expected the highest body of this Party to have a meeting today. Also, a meeting between Crvenkovski and Andov is expected to take place soon.

[06] OBJECTION OF DRVOSHANOV WILL AGAIN BE DISCUSSED

MILS SUPPLEMENT

[07] RETURN PROVOKES FEAR (Part III)

('Vecer', 22 January 1996)

In his book d-r Risto Kirjazovski, besides the issues of citizenship and confiscated properties, pays special attention to the issue of repatriation of Macedonians from the Aegean part of Macedonia in Greece. The terror and the discriminating policy, forced about 80 000 Macedonians to emigrate to the Eastern European countries and Yugoslavia, after the World War II.

Greece for a long time treated the Civil War a 'bandit' one. Accordingly, it considered the participants in the War 'bandits' and denied their status of political refugees on the international scene. That was why these refugees were under protection of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Greek borders were closed to all participants in the Civil War, both for Greeks and Macedonians from Aegean Macedonia.

'One of the most important tasks of the UNCR, according to its statute, is the repatriation of the refugees and providing them with the possibility to settle in other countries, in accordance with their desires, as well as political and legal protecting of the refugees. The term 'refugees' is defined in the Article 10 of the International Convention on Refugees from 27 July 1951 as:

'Persons who, due to political, racial, religious or national reasons, were forced to leave their countries till 1 January 1951, are outside the borders of their countries and have refused to return as they are afraid of revenge or banishment from the local authorities.'

Macedonian and Greek refugees, than, belong to this category.

Greek explanation why they denied the status of refugees to these persons was that 'they have left their country voluntarily', so their problem is to be treated only by the Greek Government. It meant that international conventions were not applicable for these people, and they were not to be taken under protection of the international specialized institutions. Despite the fact that Greece had ratified the International Convention on Refugees with its Law 3989 on 17 September 1959.

However, under pressure of the international public in nineteen sixties, the first cases of repatriation of participants in the Civil War took place, mostly from the Eastern European countries. The repatriation was intensified after the fall of the military junta in 1974, but was characterized with a very selective policy towards the requirements submitted.

'Greek authorities proclaimed the principle of individual repatriation, but in practice they did all they could, if not to prevent the repatriation, than at least to limit it.' - says d-r Kirjazovski. 'The decision on the requirement submitted depended from the local police, commanders of local military units, the village mayor, the heads of various nationalistic organizations, etc.

Usually, their decision for Macedonians from the Aegean part was negative. They were doing this not only because of nationalistic motives, but also because of economy interests, as the greatest part of previous properties of Macedonians were robbed precisely by them or by their closest relatives. This was one of the main reasons why the Macedonian refugees to Eastern European countries began to repatriate in Republic of Macedonia.'

Greek Parliament, in 1977, adopted the Law 660 'On repatriation and properties of the refugees'. With it the same procedure and regime were kept - the principle of individual repatriation was maintained, and the final decision on the application submitted was to be brought by the Minister of Law and Order, after he would have been informed on the opinion of local administrations. D-r Kirjazovski stresses the statement of the deputy High Commissioner for Refugees, Misle Mussalli, given in 1980:

'The UN Commissioner on Political Refugees, has accepted the request from the Central Committee of the Political Refugees from Greece (KEPPE), and is ready to recognize political refugees from Greece without any reserve, as well as to include them in the program for help, in case the Governments of Greece and Eastern European countries do not oppose.'

'In 1980 Greece made a very big step. On 16 April, Greek Parliament adopted a law by which the war in Greece that was waged after World War II, was finally proclaimed a Civil War, and the refugees were finally given the status of political refugees.' - stresses Kirjazovski. 'Only a little later, however, the Minister of the Presidency of Greek Government, Costas Stefanopoulos, stated that the regulations of the international conventions will be applied only for the refugees who will repatriate, while the others will be a responsibility of the countries where they stay.'

In the discussion on adoption of the Law 660/77, this Minister said: 'You are all aware that there are regions in our country where there are people with a smaller national conscience (he refers to Macedonians). The reasonable ones understand me. I can not say more and I hope you understood what I mean. I can not further explain the subject, which is well known to everybody, although some pretend to have forgotten it. In case we allow a free repatriation, a danger will be raised in some nationally sensitive regions. All should understand we are talking about almost 40 000 people who live in well known countries. And there are almost as much who live in a country I will not mention, which leaders always, even during official visits to our country, raise a question of an issue that for Greece does not exist.'

The repatriation of the political refugees in Greece is mentioned once again with the establishing of PASOK's government in 1981. A year later, Greek Premiere of that time, Andreas Papandreou, in his addressing the Greek people on the occasion of Christmas holidays, will say that 'free repatriation will be allowed to all Greek by birth political refugees.' On 29 December 1982, instead of a law, a Decree of the Ministers of Internal Affairs and of Law and Order was announced, on free repatriation of the political refugees, participants in the Greek Civil War. The Decree says that 'all Greek by birth political refugees can return to Greece, no matter whether they have been or not deprived from the Greek citizenship. The date of their return depends on their own wish and will be realized after they will obtain a passport from the Greek consulate in the country where they live. The passport will be issued after an application form will be filled out with personal data and submitted to the authorities.

The same personal data will be valid for the procedure of returning them the Greek citizenship, by the Internal Affairs Minister, no matter when they were deprived from the citizenship.'

The entry 'Greek by birth' is not mentioned neither in the regulations referring to the restoring of the Greek citizenship, nor in those referring to de-confiscation. It is mentioned only in the regulations referring to repatriation and, with that, the discriminating policy of the Greek Government towards Macedonians from the Aegean part of Macedonia is sealed.

'The Decree for free repatriation of the Greek by birth political refugees has another meaning. Greece, in fact, admits there is another nation in this country, which is not Greek by birth, a fact which they officially permanently ignore. In case there was not such a nation, there would have been no need for such a Decree to be brought. Greek authorities want to prevent the return of Macedonians from the Aegean part to their native places, by which the compactness of Macedonian territories and Macedonian national minority in Greece would be restored.

There are no other reasons.' - Kirjazovski says categorically.

D-r Kirjazovski ends his book with an interesting thought. He says that political refugees, who are now citizens of Republic of Macedonia, will be allowed a private visit to their native places in Aegean Macedonia in case only the place and country of their current stay are stated in their passports, but not the place of their birth. And there are such examples in the world.

(end)

mils news 30 January 1996