GREECE IN THE BALKANS

AIM, Skopje, May 4, 1995 Greece, as the only member of the European Union among the Balkan countries and as the only one among them which has so far publicly shown certain understanding for the policy of Belgrade in the former Yugoslav space, persistently tries to acquire the role of a specific mediator in the Balkans.

A new visit of the head of Greek diplomacy, Carlos Papoullas, to Belgrade, is just being announced, who is expected to take a "very important" promise of the Bosnian Minister of External Affairs, Irfan Ljubljankic, to his hosts. And Ljubljankic promised at a tripartite Greek-Iranian-Bosnian meeting in Teheran that the forces of the Army of B&H would neither attack nor shoot if attacked, after the expiry of the signed ceasefire in Bosnia, on May 1. But, the doubtless fact remains that there is no readiness of any of the parties in Bosnia, nor that of the Muslim either, to sign a new document on a ceasefire.

While Athens is, therefore, trying again to impress its allies (which it has not managed to do so far) that it can influence the resolution of the crisis in the former Yugoslav space, the Greek-Macedonian dispute, in other words, the dispute with the only former Yugoslav republic Greece borders, is still in a vicious circle. It is true that before leaving to Teheran, Papoullas stated that an evident improvement concerning the Macedonian issue could be noted, which UN Special Envoy, Cyrus Vance, and the Special Envoy of the White House, Matthew Nimitz, deserve all the credit for. On the occasion, the head of Greek diplomacy also expressed his hope that certain results would follow.

At the same time Papoullas made this statement, although he did not say what he based his optimism on, Greek press started predicting that the so-called small parcel would be put on the negotiating table again and in it exchanged, on the one hand for the Greeks, the disputed insignia on the Macedonian flag (which according to the interpretation of Athens, belongs solely to the Greek historic heritage) and amendments of some parts of the Macedonian Constitution which bother Athens, and on the other, Athens would lift the embargo imposed on this former Yugoslav republic in mid February last year. Therefore, the main disputable issue and the outcome of all misunderstandings - the name of the Macedonian state which is identical to the name of the Greek Northern province and which Athens also considers its historical property, would for the time being remain intact.

It has become a rule that while Greek officials and media announce progress in Greek-Macedonian negotiations, which Athens has for the first time after four years accepted to be "direct", that is, to sit at the same table with the Macedonians, Skopje is silent. That is also the case now. Apart from an incidental remark of the Macedonian media (which have correctly carried the latest message of Athens) that these were new "Greek insinuations", nothing could be heard from Skopje. Therefore, it remained uncertain whether this means that the Macedonian state leadership remained consistent to its stance that it would not sit down at the table under conditions of the Greek embargo imposed on Macedonia, and that it would negotiate about all disputable issues only after the embargo was lifted.

It is a fact that the Greek embargo is very costly for the already weary Macedonian economy. Moreover, the embargo ranks high among the factors which, according to official statements, can jeopardize Macedonian security. The Macedonian Minister of Internal Affairs, Ljubomir Frckovski, spoke again about its destructive effects recently at the UN Congress for prevention of crime held in Cairo. According to his words, together with the "specific geostrategic position" of Macedonia in the Balkans, "instability and conflicts in the region", the Greek embargo is the issue which "creates unfavourable climate for political and economic changes in the country, and this reflects on its security, too".

Responsibility for such developments in which the Greek-Macedonian dispute continues to smoulder as one of the possible detonators, rests with Athens after all. Not only because the Greeks were not convincing and therefore could not convince their allies that the name of the Macedonian state is a threat to its territorial integrity, but also because Athens is markedly the more powerful party. Briefly, whatever may happen, the two-million almost unarmed Macedonians cannot be a serious threat for a member of the NATO such as Greece, which has four times more inhabitants.

Realistically, the situation is just the opposite. Simply because, behavior of Athens which, masked by the dispute concerning the name of the Macedonian state, is in fact threatening security of Macedonia and striving to return Macedonia under the wing of Belgrade in order to continue to control, in cooperation with it, the geostrategically exceptionally important Vardar river valley. Therefore, any understanding for the alleged Greek fears coming from the international community objectively threatens Macedonia. It might not be superfluous to mention at this point the opinion of the former US Secretary of State, James Baker, and how ever exaggerated his assessment in the "Washington Post" may sound, it should not be completely eliminated.

And Baker says as follows: "Three years since the beginning of the war in Bosnia, the international attention remains directed towards the destiny of this tragic nation. But, Macedonia may be an even more dangerous place in the Balkans. If the international community does not take resolute action, we could become witnesses of the beginning of a general Balkan war which might involve European powers and even the USA". We would add, if Athens really wishes to become one of the key factors in the Balkans, and contemplates in categories of peace, it should show more flexibility and lift the embargo which is destructive for Macedonia.

Vera Georgijevska