Sir
Referring to Elena Koinova’s article, under the title “A Sisyphea Dispute”, published in the November 30 – December 6 issue of The Sofia Echo weekly, I would like to bring to the attention of your readers the following:
Greece consistently follows a policy of support for the European perspective of all its neighbouring countries, without exceptions. This is its clear strategic policy for the whole region. Bulgaria’s and Romania’s EU accession cases are a tangible example.
It should also be noted that European and Nato perspectives are achieved through meeting a number of criteria. That of good neighbourly relations – as well as other criteria, such as the strengthening of democracy or respect for human rights – applies also to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the same way it applies to all candidate countries. Taking into account that the lack of progress in the efforts for reaching a compromise solution over the name issue does not contribute to the development of good neighbourly relations leading to the stabilisation in the region, it now falls to the leadership in Skopje to choose between the Euro-Atlantic future of their country, or remain entrenched in their negative attitude.
Within the framework of the United Nations, the two countries, namely Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, have made a joint commitment: they have agreed to come to a mutually acceptable solution for the name issue. Macedonia is a large geographical area that overlaps four countries. There are 2.5 million Greek Macedonians living in Greece. It has to be made clear which part belongs to each country.
A party that has undertaken the obligation to find a mutually acceptable solution ought to honour its signature. From Greece’s standpoint, the name issue doesn’t consist either of a sentimental, or a mere historical matter. On the contrary, Greece mainly considers this as a political issue.
With a keen sense of responsibility, Greece is seeking a mutually acceptable solution, on the understanding that this will be based on a compound name simple and clear, for international use both multilaterally and bilaterally, so as to avoid confusion with the rest of the geographical region of Macedonia. This indicates that Greece, having demonstrated a quite constructive spirit, has reached its red line as far as its flexibility in respect of its initial stance over the name issue. Following this essential development, Skopje is expected to run the other half of the distance, taking a similar step forward to meet the Greek side in the middle of the way.
Returning to the broader context of the region, I would like to mention as a tangible example of Greece’s willingness and determination to contribute to the stabilisation, as well as to the European perspective of the Western Balkans countries, the initiative taken recently by the Greek foreign minister Dora Bakoyannis, known as Thessaloniki II.
More specifically, this initiative is a set of five proposals and ideas actualising and further elaborating the Thessaloniki Agenda, which was adopted, on the basis of a proposal put forward by the Greek EU Presidency in 2003, and paved the way for the eventual European integration of the whole region.
This recent proposal drew the attention and interest of our EU partners who have already demonstrated their readiness to examine it in detail in the coming period.
Finally, I conclude my letter believing that the above information contributes to the better understanding of the reality and it gives to your readers the possibility of a complete and objective vision of the current state of play around the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s name issue.
With Respect,
Gerassimos Alexakis
Press Counsellor
Embassy of Greece
Sofia
