Naturally no one takes seriously the efforts of Todor Petrov, chairman of the World Macedonian Congress, who, in a series of media appearances, claims that the Treaty of Bucharest* is a temporary one.

According to Petrov, the treaty has a timeline of 100 years and contains a clause saying that after the 100th year, Macedonia will and can form its own state. This will be a state that will have a rightful claim on all its territories. “In this context Macedonia must officially claim its right to its lost territories,” Petrov says.

This initiative by Petrov drew resistance in the person of Macedonian academic Blaze Ristovski who says that “Petrov’s claims and quests are groundless and ridiculous and they can only harm Macedonia”. A revision of the Treaty of Bucharest is simply not possible, Ristovski says.

All this talk could have ended here.

However, those tempted by this subject in Macedonia like to add that on one hand Petrov’s struggle has a basis in one of the basic principles of modern democracy – immutable borders – while on the other hand, the issue of the status of Kosovo and the negotiations now going on bring into question this very same principle. Such people say that Kosovo is actually the new Treaty of Bucharest.

If the Kosovo negotiations result in a new state in the Balkans, this will definitely undermine the principle of immutable borders. If Kosovo becomes an independent state, there will be several different scenarios for the development of the Balkans and Macedonia itself. In the case of the Republic of Macedonia, there could be two major scenarios: a bad one and a positive one.

Many people say that both Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina will suffer the consequences of what happens with Kosovo.

If the Kosovo Albanian interest is satisfied and the whole of Kosovo becomes a separate state, Bosnia and Herzegovina will suffer. The reason is that Serbs will want compensation for their loss in the south and will try to get this compensation in the west (part of Bosnia and Herzegovina now called Republika Srpska). If the Albanian interest is not satisfied and there is no Kosovo state in its present boundaries, then Macedonia will suffer.

This way, no matter the outcome of the Kosovo negotiations, one of the two states will be a loser. The way things are going at the moment, the plan by UN mediator Martti Ahtisaari benefits Macedonia but at the expense of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

What about the interests of Belgrade and Moscow, one might ask?

No one actually says that Belgrade and Moscow most probably have their own plan somewhere in reserve. A plan that will suit best Russian and Serbian interests. According to some people, for Russia such a plan will be to say neither “yes” nor “no” at the UN Security Council and to abstain from voting.

In such a case, a process of the recognition of the Kosovo state will start (US, Albania, UK, etc.). However, this will be a precedent in regard to the borders of the former Yugoslavian republics. The logic of some people will be that since a part of Serbia could be recognized as an independent state, who can say that a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot be separated as well? As proof of the co-operation between Russia and Serbia, Russia could recognise the Serb Republic in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this way, the principle of immutable borders will meet its end.

Macedonia’s neighbours Bulgaria and Greece are following these developments carefully. Not long ago, Greek-language newspaper Katimerini sent a positive signal to Bulgaria in expressing satisfaction at the country’s hardened position towards Skopje. Sofia hardened its attitude towards Macedonia because of alleged plots against Bulgaria’s statehood and history initiated by some circles in Macedonia. Today it is obvious that Bulgaria and Greece share some common ground because of Skopje’s behaviour.

Katimerini even recommended to the Greek national assembly that Greek diplomacy should act as quick as possible to harden and extend this Bulgarian attitude against Macedonia. This meant that Greece would together with Bulgaria build a common front against Macedonia, a front that will be shared between two European Union and Nato member states. This alliance will put some conditions to the former Yugoslavian republic Macedonia in relation to the country’s desire to enter the EU and Nato.

Bulgaria and Greece could form an alliance against Macedonia or at least could share a common position on future developments on the Balkans.

It will not come as a surprise that the outcome of Kosovo’s status issue could create conditions for a future inclusion of parts of current Macedonia in the respective “mother-land” (Bulgaria or Greece). This is the basis of Bulgaria’s foreign policy towards Macedonia: to recognise Macedonia as an independent state but not to recognise the Macedonian people, considering them to be Bulgarian.

In the meantime the government in Skopje has managed to pull the country into a deep crisis. The ruling coalition itself is in deep political crisis. Macedonian prime minister Nikola Gruevski, on the other hand, seems to be in no hurry to start a dialogue with his partners at top level. The reforms in relation to the EU and Nato have been dramatically delayed as well. At the moment Macedonia only observes what happens in the region. There is no sign that Macedonia wants to lead an active policy about its own future.

* The Bucharest peace treaty: August 1913. Signed among Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Greece and Montenegro. It marked the end of the Second Balkan War. In terms of the treaty, Serbia got the area called Vardar Macedonia (northern area of the Macedonia region. The borders of the area approximately coincide with modern day Republic of Macedonia). Greece got Aegean Macedonia, Bulgaria got Pirin Macedonia and west Trakia and Romania got South Dobroudja.
 
Zoran Bojarovski is Editor-in-Chief of Forum Plus in Macedonia.