By Vladimir Mirceski in Skopje (Balkan Insight, 18 Jan 07)

The UN mediator for resolving the dispute between Greece and Macedonia flew into trouble last weekend - literally - after touching down at an airport whose new name has brought the conflict to new heights.

Matthew Nimitz landed at Skopje airport just as the Macedonians were about to formally rename it after Alexander the Great, the 4th century BC warrior whom Greeks see as the epitome of classical Greek heroism.

Although the airport still bore the old name Airport Petrovec when he landed, as Nimitz drove towards the Macedonian parliament he could hardly miss the sight of new road signs to the airport proclaiming the name of the mighty conqueror whose empire stretched practically all the way to the Punjab.

Nimitz brought an angry message from Greek foreign minister Dora Bakoyannis, complaining that the move violated the Interim Agreement regulating relations between the two countries.

After a two-hour meeting in Skopje, Nimitz maintained the move was "not a major event here", adding, however, that the issue was "between two neighboring countries and has to be dealt with great sensitivity".

Behind the scenes, the conversation may have been tougher. Sources have disclosed to Balkan Insight that Nimitz warned the Macedonian government of Nikola Gruevski that Greece may scrap the Interim Agreement altogether, reflecting the anger felt by the Greek prime minister, Kostas Karamanlis. The agreement regulates all issues between the two countries except for the vexed question of the name.

If Greece withdrew from the agreement, it could result in Athens blocking Macedonia's accession to key international organisations of which Greece is a member, such as NATO or EU, as the accord stipulates that Greece cannot try to thwart Macedonia's Euro-Atlantic integration under the reference Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

But in spite of the storm clouds from the south, Gruevski's centre-right government appeared unruffled. Foreign Minister Antonio Milososki even said renaming the airport after Alexander might speed up the resolution of the name dispute.

"It will stimulate a moderate move forward in the discussions regarding the name," Milososki told the media, adding that the change of the airport's name was not intended to provoke.

Some analysts feel Greece is unlikely to worsen the conflict right now, as an infringement of the Interim Agreement would not be in Greece's interest. Others say even if the accord collapsed, it would not necessarily harm Macedonia.

Meanwhile, Balkan Insight has learned that the authorities are considering a broader campaign to rename sites and streets after classical heroes, whether or not this angers Greece.

The name dispute goes back to 1991 when the country proclaimed its independence from Yugoslavia. Athens rejected the use of the name Macedonia, accusing the government of harboring territorial pretensions towards the northern Greek province of the same name.

Under Greek pressure, Macedonia was admitted to the United Nations in 1993 under the temporary name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, a cumbersome appellation that Macedonians dislike as an infringement of their right to call themselves what they want.

Under UN Resolution 817, Macedonia and Greece are obliged to hold discussions under the auspices of the Secretary General until they reach a commonly acceptable solution.

Relations between the two countries deteriorated further in February 1994, when Greece placed a punitive trade embargo on Macedonia, which lasted for more than 18 months and damaged the economy to the tune of some two billion US dollars.

The situation calmed down in 1995 when the two sides signed the Interim Agreement in New York. Two special UN mediators, firstly Cyrus Vance and, since 1999, Matthew Nimitz have proposed various compromise names without success.

Nimitz submitted his last two suggestions in 2005, but Macedonia said no to the name Republic of Macedonia - Skopje while Athens rejected Republika Makedonija.

The situation has since remained static since then, until Macedonia gave the green light to rename its main airport after Alexander, which Greece says violates Article 7 of the Interim Agreement concerning cultural patrimony.

This says that "if either party believes one or more symbols constituting part of its historic or cultural patrimony is being used by the other party, it shall bring such alleged use to the attention of the other party and the other party shall take appropriate corrective action or indicate why it does not consider it necessary".

But Skopje insists article 7 is not relevant to the airport, as Alexander is a figure of general civilization significance rather than an item of Greek cultural patrimony.

Filip Caparoski, a Macedonian international law expert, agrees. "This is not about symbols and Macedonia does not aspire to have exclusive rights to the name of Alexander the Great," he said.

Caparoski says the threats from Athens are a test of the government's willingness to resist pressure. "The threats are a manifestation of Greece's impotence, as Athens feels its positions in the discussions has weakened," he added. "This is a brave move with which Macedonia is showing some muscle."

Slobodan Casule, a former foreign minister, insists the Greek threat to withdraw from the Interim Agreement is unrealistic, as Athens would not want to be responsible for destabilising the Balkans and thus courting international criticism.

"When the US is involved in Iraq, and NATO is in Afghanistan, no one wants to see the Balkans destabilised because of Greece," said Casule.

However, he distanced himself from the move to rename the airport after Alexander. "What does Macedonia gain from this inessential testing of Greece, except for an angry government in Athens?" he asked.

However, some Macedonian experts want to see still more vigorous actions. Ljubomir Frckoski, an international law professor and also a former foreign minister, said Macedonia ought to abandon its "servility in relation to Greece, which has not produced any results". He added, "Things should not end here."

Frckovski said Macedonia should consider ending the fruitless UN mediation process and prepare a new strategy, starting with a drive to ensure the use of the word Macedonian in the Council of Europe. At the same time, he suggested that at home it should be able to approach its traditions and roots without interference.

Frckovski also said that the 113 countries that have recognised the Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name is something that should not be underestimated.

Vladimir Mircevski is a Kanal 5 TV journalist and an associate of BIRN. Balkan Insight is BIRN's online publication.

Copyright BIRN 2007

Cashing in on EU citizenship
As the EU adds Bulgaria and Romania to its roster, the question of what legal options to provide ethnic minorities of those two countries living in non-EU Macedonia and Moldova should come to the forefront.

Commentary by Nicole Gallina for ISN Security Watch (19/01/07)

Gradually, the EU is closing its doors to neighbors of its Eastern European member countries, and illegal immigration is high on the bloc's agenda. However, there has been little discussion about the legal aspects of entering the EU through the back door.

In this situation, people are granted passports based on their ethnicity and not their place of residence. As such, the EU's latest enlargement, which welcomed Bulgaria and Romania, highlights how ethnic Bulgarians and Romanians living in non-EU countries – Macedonia and Moldova - could legally enter the bloc.

While Romanian and Bulgarian officials were busy toasting their 1 January entry into the bloc, there was little discussion about the implications for ethnic Bulgarians and Romanians in Macedonia and Moldova, respectively.

With the exception of the Baltic states - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - former Soviet countries with their eye on EU membership, particularly Moldova and Ukraine, have little chance of being accepted in the near future. As such, for ethnic Romanians living in Moldova, January's EU enlargement is a boon that may allow them to obtain Romanian passports and not only travel to the EU, but work in certain member states.

Since September, when Brussels confirmed the 1 January accession date, application rates for Romanian passports in Moldova exploded. More than 70 percent of Moldova's four-million-strong population is Romanian-speaking. Of those, approximately 400,000 have applied for Romanian passports. This increase is also due to a new law requiring Moldovans to have visas to enter Romania. However, only a few applications have been accepted.

A United Nations Development Project report calculates that a quarter of the country's citizens work abroad, mainly in Russia and Italy. Most of them are highly educated but working illegally or in unskilled
labor jobs. From 2000 to 2004 alone, 36,000 doctors left Moldova, stripping the healthcare system of most of its talent. With the EU back door now opened a crack further, immigration could lead to an even greater brain drain.

Likewise, Macedonians are hoping to receive a ticket to the EU by applying for Bulgarian passports. Bulgaria does not recognize Macedonian as an independent language, considering it a Bulgarian dialect, and consequently, views Macedonian speakers as Bulgarians. Macedonian citizens willing to register themselves as Bulgarians face fewer problems than their Moldovan counterparts hoping to become Romanians. Over 2,000 Bulgarian passports have been issued to Macedonians every year since 2001. This is as many as Romania has issued in four years. These figures rose significantly ahead of EU accession. Bulgarian and Romanian media report that even the former Macedonian prime minister Lyubcho Georgievski applied for a Bulgarian passport.

Romania and Bulgaria do not actively encourage their ethnic brothers and sisters abroad to apply for passports, though, as the Greek government has done with is 70,000-strong Greek minority in Albania.

These developments recall previous decisions to issue passports to ethnic Germans or Hungarians living in Eastern European countries. As a consequence of its liberal passport issuing policy and no clear immigration concept, Germany is now home to three million ethnic Germans from former Soviet states, creating more problems on the job markets than solving them. Hungary was more cautious in handing out passports to ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine, with parliament rejecting a passport solution because of public resistance to the possibility of taking in 1.6 million ethnic Hungarians from Romania.

Thus, granting passports to national minorities in non-EU countries may contradict official immigration policy. It may also open the door wider for the illegal document market. For example, Macedonians who
are not ethnic Bulgarians could purchase a falsified birth certificate and then apply for a Bulgarian passport.

A coherent policy is needed. It must include a discussion of this situation and offer legal options for citizens of those non-EU countries who are not minorities of official EU member states.

Studies from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development show that offering legal options to work in EU countries and setting up immigration quotas lead to more economic benefits than closing the door and provoking illegal immigration and illegal markets for EU citizenships.

Immigrants contribute to population growth and help to meet labor shortages, and are far better suited to fill in gaps for skilled workers. Some EU countries - such as Ireland and the UK - have taken steps to open labor markets to new Eastern European EU members. An EU report published last year confirmed higher economic growth rates and lower unemployment for countries with fewer immigration restrictions for Eastern European EU members. Consequently, new EU members such as Poland and the Czech Republic allow Bulgarian and Romanian EU citizens to work in their countries, contrary to the "old" Western European EU members.

These developments should be incentive enough to enact a coherent EU immigration policy. Not offering legal immigration solutions clearly does not impede the willing from moving west.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Dr Nicole Gallina is a political scientist and an ISN editor.
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only,
not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).