Naming Conflict between Macedonia and Greece

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

ABSTRACT *

This article analyzes the 27 year name dispute between Greece and the Republic of North Macedonia, which began when the latter declared independence in 1991 under the name Macedonia, a name identical to that of the neighboring historic Greek region. The author focuses on the role of third party mediation and examines why the United Nations, of which both states are members, became the mediating institution. In discussing the position of UN envoy Matthew Nimetz, the author raises various speculative considerations about possible sources of personal and institutional bias; these reflections represent the author’s personal viewpoint. The editorial position of this journal is that a mediator’s impartiality is a matter of professional conduct, disclosure and the structure of the process, never of ethnic or religious origin. The analysis then widens to the surrounding geopolitical field: Bulgaria’s objections to name variants with territorial connotations, the interests of NATO and the European Union, and the role of Russia in prolonging the dispute. The article closes with the Prespa Agreement of June 2018, by which the country adopted the name Republic of North Macedonia, and with the author’s view that UN mediators are optimally positioned to resolve disputes between member states.

KEYWORDS *

Greece, Republic of North Macedonia, name dispute, Prespa Agreement, United Nations, mediation, Matthew Nimetz, mediator bias, Bulgaria, Balkans, geopolitics

INTRODUCTION

The two countries Greece and the Republic of North Macedonia had a conflict since the second country declared its independence under the name of Macedonia in 1991. The core of the dispute is about the name of one of the successor states of the former Yugoslavia because there is confusion between the name of the country and the historic region of the neighboring country of Greece which has the same name[1].

The Republic of North Macedonia became a member of the United Nations (UN) in 1993, but it was admitted under the notion: the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The membership of both countries provides an argument for a UN mediator being the right choice to settle a dispute between two member states[2].

MAIN CORPUS

The Mediator

On the other hand, there is always a possibility in human nature that it is impartial even when it shouldn’t be for a professional reason. In this case, the mediator Matthew Nimetz is Jewish born in America. It must be taken into consideration that traditionally the Jewish population was numerous in both countries as long as Nazi Germany’s occupation started, which might cause a bias for a Jewish person when it comes to trying to make peace and acceptance of other nations in these countries.[3].

A UN mediator is an even better choice since he is not only neutral but is also very motivated to make peace between two members of his organization to eliminate any possible inner tension. Although his origin might implicate that as an American it is not his interest to push for peace and cooperation between the parties because the weaker other countries are the stronger the United States looks, but at the same time, the United States needs strong trading partners to boost its economy. That means that his goal is to stabilize the relations in the European Union which is a major trading partner of the United States even if an ideal agreement has to be compromised in any way in the process. It might also seem to be a bias to work for the goals of an organization and not just be a neutral guide through a conflict, but in a way leading towards peace always means a bias towards the solution that is peaceful no matter which party agrees with it more.

Why the UN?

Based on the nature of mediation when a conflict doesn’t seem to be solved by the parties even though they are open to the possibility of solving the conflict, a third party is needed to fill in the gap that the two party’s differences of perspective created. In this situation, a third party may be another country or an international organization that either includes both of the countries or non- of the countries. There hasn’t been a third sovereign country that applied and was then accepted to the role of mediator so an international organization had to take on this challenge. The reason for such little interest might be that the two countries are not on the verge of physical conflict or taking any action that might be against the interest of other countries. The other reason might be that no country would like to stand between two poppet states of the United States and Russia. The UN is behind both countries although in this specific case there is some asymmetry. The UN and other international organizations such as the North American Treaty Organisation (which has a strong group of countries supporting Greece in this situation) that had been calling the Republic of North Macedonia the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, (which wasn’t its official name) simply for the reason of acceptance from Greece, for about 27 years. It means that the UN has already stated in its own way that the name “Macedonia” will not be suitable for the country in the long run. Based on this argument the purpose of the UN mediator was focused mostly on finding a middle ground that was acceptable for the Republic of North Macedonia. This sheds light on the aspect of a scenario where the mediator might be unbiased as a person but the sending organization gives him a biased agenda to execute.

The UN has the most advantage as a mediator. The biggest one is, that the members had been operating peacefully under the decision of the UN to call the Republic of North Macedonia the former Yugoslav Republic of North Macedonia for about 27 years even if the Republic of North Macedonia never agreed to the name change officially. This created a precedent of one of the possible outcomes of this dispute, specifically the scene where Macedonia changed its name officially to the Republic of North Macedonia.

Other perspectives

Bulgaria has also expressed its opinion on the name dispute. It doesn’t support certain compromises that include a name referring to northern territories that would suggest Bulgarian territories as well[4]. It is once again proof that any interstate conflict has the potential of affecting the international community as well. In this case, Bulgaria stands with Greece because it discourages any name change that might contain geographical elements that, hints at Bulgaria[5]

by the possible outcome of this dispute. It also suggests that the Macedonian-Greece conflict maybe wasn’t simply a naming dispute but it was meant to be a territorial dispute which they didn’t want to decide in an old-fashioned way by weapons but in a diplomatic way.

The postponing of any solution may be the interest of any country or international organization that has an invested interest in weakening the EU or the UN, like Russia. It means Russia supports the Republic of North Macedonia to keep its ‘original name’: Macedonia. Russia has an interest in having good economic relations with countries of the Balkan.

This sheds light on one more hidden conflict at the core of the actual conflict. History had seen a lot of smaller, local interstate conflicts which were only the puppet states of two giant states in conflict, the US and today’s Russia, and the Macedonia-Greece conflict might just be another one of those smaller battles in one big war.

SUMMARY

In summary, these are the forces that drove the 27 year-long dispute and made it impossible for Greece and the Republic of North Macedonia to settle it on their own.

On 17 June 2018, the Republic of North Macedonia and Greece signed the Prespa agreement. Macedonia officially changed its name to “Republic of North Macedonia” and it has a national referendum pending on the matter and legislation passing through parliament[6].

CONCLUSION

In my personal opinion in such cases, the mediators of the United Nations organization are in the most optimal position to lead to parties in conflict to an understanding. The purpose of the United Nations by nature is to make members sit at the same table and work together which is the exact same action that a mediator wishes to do when working with parties in dispute.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

The Prespa Agreement resolved the formal question, but the article rightly shows that the name carried deeper freight: identity, history, territorial anxiety and great power rivalry. A durable settlement therefore requires consolidating the agreement so that it survives changes of government and shifts in the geopolitical weather. Four elements serve that goal.

First, protect the agreement through implementation symmetry. Prespa succeeded because it exchanged simultaneous, verifiable steps: the name change on one side, the end of blockade against NATO and EU accession on the other. The same logic should govern the remaining obligations, from school textbooks and historical commissions to trademarks and commercial labeling. A standing joint implementation committee with a fixed calendar, publishing its progress reports, denies spoilers on either side the claim that only their nation is delivering.

Second, depoliticize identity questions by moving them from parliaments to experts and citizens. The joint commission of historians reviewing textbooks is the model: slow, professional, and removed from electoral cycles. Complementing it with sustained people to people programs, student exchanges, twin municipalities across the border, joint cultural and archaeological projects around the shared Macedonian heritage, converts an abstract compromise into lived normality for the next generation, which is the only place where name disputes truly end.

Third, widen the frame to include Bulgaria before a second name adjacent conflict hardens. The article’s observation that Sofia watches every formula for territorial hints proved prescient. A trilateral good neighbourliness mechanism, ideally facilitated by the EU as the actor holding the accession incentive, should address language, history and minority questions among all three states in one forum, rather than allowing each bilateral dispute to become a new veto point on the accession path.

Fourth, anchor the region against external spoilers through delivered integration. The strongest argument for the compromise was the promise of NATO and EU membership; every delay in honoring that promise strengthens precisely the outside actors the article identifies as beneficiaries of postponement. Rapid, visible dividends, accession progress, infrastructure investment, energy diversification, make the settlement more valuable than its reversal.

The broader lesson for mediation practice is the one the author intuits: a mediator’s neutrality matters less than the architecture of incentives around the table. Where the mediating institution can link a symbolic concession to a tangible strategic gain, even a 27 year dispute over a single word can end with both parties claiming, credibly, to have won.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES

1, United Nations webpage(http://www.un.org/en/member-states/)

2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Nimetz

3, https://www.rferl.org/a/greece-macedonia-name-dispute-nimetz-un-talks/29004400.html

4, http://greece.greekreporter.com/2018/02/16/bulgaria-issues-warning-over-macedonia-name-dispute/

5, Sarantis Michalopoulos: Bulgaria’s EU Presidency sees an ‘opportunity’ in Sofia on Macedonian nam dispute, May 15, 2018 (https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/bulgarias-eu-presidency-sees-an-opportunity-in-sofia-on-macedonian-name-dispute/)

6, John Smith: Bulgaria Issues Warning Over ‘Macedonia’ Name Dispute, February 16, 2018 (http://greece.greekreporter.com/2018/02/16/bulgaria-issues-warning-over-macedonia-name-dispute/)

7, Helena Smith: Macedonia agrees to new name after 27-year dispute with Greece, June 12, 2018 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/12/macedonia-agrees-to-new-name-after-27-year-dispute-with-greece)