Σάββατο, 5 Απριλίου 2008

The Macedonian Problem for Dummies

The background history of the former Yugoslavia is more or less well know. On the left side of the map is the area occupied by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (until 1992) and on the right side is the same area after the fragmentation of the Federation in several States.



The following story is FICTION and is used as an example.

Let’s suppose that Mexico falls into civil conflict and as a result three other States are born, the Republic of Michoacan, the Republic of Tabasco and the Republic of Texas.



The “Republic of Texas” applies to the UN for membership under the name “Texas”. After strong opposition by the USA, it is agreed that the “Republic of Texas” is accepted by the UN under the provisional name “The Former Mexican Republic of Texas” (FMROT) until the name dispute is resolved by the two countries.

For several years, talks for a solution fail, and the “Republic of Texas” or “The Former Mexican Republic of Texas” (FMROT) constantly rejects proposals as:
  • “Latinotexas”
  • “Latin Texas”
  • “North Texas”
  • “New Texas”
One after the other, the EU / major countries start referring to “The Former Mexican Republic of Texas” (FMROT) as “Texas” by overlooking the UN provision stating that until a solution is agreed between the USA and “Texas” the country will be referred as “The Former Mexican Republic of Texas”.

In the mean time, the “Republic of Texas” or “The Former Mexican Republic of Texas” (FMROT) uses propaganda and instills hostility and a rationale of irredentism in portions of the population of the “The Former Mexican Republic of Texas” toward USA and the history of the USA.

The “Republic of Texas” publishes military textbooks which contain maps of "Greater Texas" extending many miles into the USA.

Students in schools of the “Republic of Texas” are being taught that parts of the USA, including the State of Texas, parts of New Mexico and Arizona, are rightful parts of the “Republic of Texas”.

More over the “Republic of Texas” claims that the “Texans” are descendents of Stephen F. Austin, known as the “Father of Texas” and they are blood related with the native “Texans” since ancient times!

At this point let’s also suppose that the “Republic of Texas” would like to become a NATO member while Greece, France and Germany pressure the USA government to accept the new member with the name “Texas”, because it’s good for their foreign policy of course!

Would the USA accept such thing? Would the USA accept such a hoax?

Why should Greece…?

2 σχόλια:

Ανώνυμος είπε...

As an American (and guessing what the buttons mean as they are written in Greek), I don't believe that the US would be counter to a Republic of Texas. Texans might, but the US at large would likely not care. As a northerner, I would push for them to annex the State of Texas as well.

The distinction is that Macedonia was not always Greek. There is much evidence that Alexander of Macedonia's native language was not Doric or Attic Greek, but actually Phrygian or Illyrian. Of course, by that logic, Macedonia should be within Albania (Albanians being the modern descendants of the Illyrians).

Furthermore, nobody in Mexico uses the demonym "Texan". They don't speak Texan, they speak Spanish. They are Mexican. The Macedonians in Macedonia call themselves Macedonian, and their language Macedonian, and have done so for years. It is as though people in Cologne, who speak a Frankish dialect of German, tell France that they must change their name, because true Franks are in western Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium.

Greece should learn to co-exist and not kept uptight about every little thing, and maybe worry about your countries current position as an economic and political pariah.

Ανώνυμος είπε...

To the previous post: if you were at all knowledgeable about the issue, you would know that there is no real expert claiming that Alexander the Great spoke Phrygian or Illyrian. The fact that the Slavic people in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia call themselves Macedonians for years does not mean that they have exclusive right to this name--people in the Greek province of Macedonia also call themselves Macedonian for years. Whatever advice you have to give to Greece about coexistence could be directed to the other side as well: if you they recognized the Greek heritage of Macedonia they would have been able to reach a compromise solution with Greece, adopt a compound name, and get on with it. Athens has moved a lot from its original position in the 1990s which was "no name with the term Macedonia in it"; Skopje hasn't moved almost one bit from its nationalistic and a-historical claims.