Tweet
GEORGIA EXPOSES MACEDONIA'S DIVISION
by Aleksandar Bozinovski and Cvetin Cilimanov
Nova Makedonija
Aug 16 2008
Macedonia
The war in Georgia has directly exposed the division of the
Macedonian society on the issue of the NATO and Euro-Atlantic
integrations. Although Macedonia, Georgia, and Ukraine were all
rejected at the NATO summit in Bucharest and although the three states
are allies in Iraq, the Macedonian media were dominated by pro-Russian
comments after the Russian invasion on Georgia. The Macedonian analysts
and experts, too, are divided on the issue of the future turn of events
after the blocked NATO enlargement and the war in Georgia. While some
say that we are on the right side and that all we need to do is wait,
others predict that we have seen the end of NATO. Are there really
any Macedonian politicians who would consider changing sides?
We are on the right side, except that Bucharest stalled
us somewhat. Russia should not remain in its positions of the
past. The Russians are perking up because they are gaining power,
but I believe that their leaders will remain down-to-earth and that
the democratization of the Russian society will continue, says Lazar
Elenovski, former foreign [as published - should read defence]
minister and head of the Macedonian Atlantic Club. In his view,
Georgia and Macedonia, and the entire eastern border of NATO are
about one and the same philosophy and ideology - that is, spreading
democratic values, and this should be accelerated.
After the crisis in Georgia, Macedonia's NATO accession is becoming
more than a priority for the United States, Professor Biljana Vankovska
has told Nova Makedonija.
The events in Georgia are too important not to have a major
global impact, especially on the US-Russian, US-EU, and EU-Russian
relations. The war has indicated a few things. First, Russia is
definitely in good military shape and prepared to play tough where it
has national interests. Second, NATO has proved to be like a paper
tiger, impotent after its debacle in Afghanistan and unprepared
to operate in its European neighbourhood, except with declarative
statements. Third, the war is strengthening the positions of the
Republicans and their Neo-Conservative allies in the US pre-election
period, which will mean continuity in its foreign policy, that is,
a new Bush after Bush, Vankovska says.
The war in Georgia has also raised the question of how sufficient
the US security guarantees are. Georgia had 2,000 troops in Iraq,
which made it a leading US ally in that war, but still, Russia dared
to attack it, to which the United States reacted only with modest
military presence. After its failure to join NATO in Bucharest,
Macedonia asked the United States for military guarantees, which it
received in the form of a declaration.
It was a mere declaration. It is not even an agreement on
military-technical cooperation as we already have. We do not really
need a protection agreement with the United States, as Israel, Egypt,
Taiwan, and Argentina have. We are a NATO candidate state and this
is where we should seek our guarantees, Elenovski says.
The US media related Macedonia to Georgia three times in one
day through a statement by US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice,
a commentary by analyst Joseph Edward in the International Herald
Tribune, and through lobbyist and analyst Randy Scheunemann, who
works on both countries' NATO accession.
An issue that was raised after Rice's statement was the appeal
to Greece not to allow the name dispute to block Macedonia's NATO
membership. At a news conference dedicated to Georgia, Rice was asked
a provocative question by Greek reporter Lambros Papantoniou about
"[Prime Minister] Gruevski's Skopjean irredentism," but she quickly
reacted, comparing the Macedonian and Georgian issues and pointing to
their NATO entry as a solution to these problems, leaving Greece in
the role of a NATO inhibitor. Earlier this year, the Berlin European
Council for Foreign Relations openly described Greece as the most
pro-Russian state among the European countries and as a Russian
"Trojan horse" in Europe.
If the vision is to spread democratic values and expand the Atlantic
world, bilateral disputes like ours with Greece cannot stop the entire
process, Elenovski says.
According to Professor Blagoja Samakoski, Rice has sent out a clear
message with her statement and it was addressed to Greece.
Who is this message intended for - Macedonia or Greece? Greece would
more easily solve the problem of Macedonia's potential territorial
aspirations towards Greece if Macedonia were in NATO. Such was the
case of Hungary and Romania, as noted by Rice. Also, Greece would more
easily solve the problem of property and minority rights if Macedonia
were in NATO. An example of this is the dispute between Bulgaria and
Turkey. So if we are to interpret Rice's statement properly, Greece
has been advised that it should solve the name problem if it wants
to solve its other more serious problems with Macedonia more easily,
Samakoski says.
According to Joseph [former representative of the International
Crisis Group for the Balkans], NATO must immediately admit Macedonia,
thereby sending out a clear message to Russia that NATO's enlargement
continues. [passage omitted] According to Professor Samakoski, it is
Greece that should tone down its rhetoric.
In essence, no one cares about Joseph's message about Macedonia's NATO
accession. It serves to mask the Greek paid message that Macedonia
should tone down its rhetoric. Joseph does not deal with the Nazi
statements by the Greek politicians, who are actually the ones who
need to mellow their speech. Joseph is deliberately twisting the
theories here, Samakoski says.
The issue of lobbyist Scheunemann has brought the Georgian conflict
and the Macedonian hopes for NATO membership right into the US
pre-election campaign. Scheunemann, who is adviser to Republican
candidate John McCain, is paid by the governments of Georgia and
Macedonia to lobby for our NATO membership. Barak Obama's group has
released this information to reveal that McCain's group is getting
money to exert influence on the foreign policy.
On the other hand, Obama is receiving money from the US Greek lobby,
which - using similar methods as Scheunemann - is advocating for an
end to the NATO enlargement, at least with regard to Macedonia. As
Nova Makedonija has reported, the leading family in this programme
of Obama's is Giannoulias, Greek owners of a big Chicago bank who are
significant financiers of Obama. [covered] [passage omitted cites US
deputy envoy to Macedonia on country's NATO prospect]
Vankovska: Joining NATO Is No Longer a Comfort Zone
>From NATO's aspect, Macedonia's accession is becoming more than a
priority. The Georgian Army's debacle has shown that there is a big
nothing behind the whole story of NATO reforms, military equipment,
and instructors. NATO, or more precisely the United States, wants
an enlargement not because of the new allies' contribution to NATO,
but for the sake of spreading its global influence in key geostrategic
regions. If Georgia was a potential unsuitable partner because of the
predictable Russian reaction, Macedonia is perfect in that sense! It
has no external threat whatsoever, has an important geopolitical
position also for the oil pipes, and the Balkans is definitely
dominated by US rather than Russian influence. What concerns me in the
long run is that we are entering under the NATO and US umbrella in
a world whose prospects are very uncertain and even terrifying. The
NATO admission can no longer be viewed as a comfortable entry into
a security community and a peace zone. On the contrary, this already
means clearly taking sides in the great powers' battle, which is yet
to gain intensity. Our geostrategic position may be an advantage for
our Western allies, but for us - I am not sure that it is good to be
close to the Near East and Kosovo. A new world map is in the creation
and Kosovo has increasing chances of remaining a frozen conflict as
an equivalent to the frozen conflict that will remain in Caucasus many
years from now until the redefining of the world, which in my view is
moving towards multi-polarity, which does not mean global stability,
as well, Professor Vankovska says.
Elenovski: Europe Has Not Enough Awareness for NATO's Joint Mission
According to Elenovski, unlike the United States, the European NATO
members do not have enough awareness for NATO's joint mission.
The European allies' mixed relations with Russia, as in the case of
Greece, lead to jeopardizing, from within, NATO's enlargement and
future. The European allies have no long-term vision and they have
shown to have less interest as the expansion goes further away from
the centre of Europe. They have no vision of the Atlantic world's
enlargement, but heed only their own interests, Elenovski says,
predicting that NATO's enlargement will be getting more difficult as
NATO approaches Azerbaijan, Armenia, and other Caucasus states.
The new member states in eastern Europe, which were under a regime
for many years, are much more aware of how difficult it is to build
democracy than the old NATO member countries, to which democracy was
served on a platter after they had been protected by the United States
for so long, Elenovski says.
by Aleksandar Bozinovski and Cvetin Cilimanov
Nova Makedonija
Aug 16 2008
Macedonia
The war in Georgia has directly exposed the division of the
Macedonian society on the issue of the NATO and Euro-Atlantic
integrations. Although Macedonia, Georgia, and Ukraine were all
rejected at the NATO summit in Bucharest and although the three states
are allies in Iraq, the Macedonian media were dominated by pro-Russian
comments after the Russian invasion on Georgia. The Macedonian analysts
and experts, too, are divided on the issue of the future turn of events
after the blocked NATO enlargement and the war in Georgia. While some
say that we are on the right side and that all we need to do is wait,
others predict that we have seen the end of NATO. Are there really
any Macedonian politicians who would consider changing sides?
We are on the right side, except that Bucharest stalled
us somewhat. Russia should not remain in its positions of the
past. The Russians are perking up because they are gaining power,
but I believe that their leaders will remain down-to-earth and that
the democratization of the Russian society will continue, says Lazar
Elenovski, former foreign [as published - should read defence]
minister and head of the Macedonian Atlantic Club. In his view,
Georgia and Macedonia, and the entire eastern border of NATO are
about one and the same philosophy and ideology - that is, spreading
democratic values, and this should be accelerated.
After the crisis in Georgia, Macedonia's NATO accession is becoming
more than a priority for the United States, Professor Biljana Vankovska
has told Nova Makedonija.
The events in Georgia are too important not to have a major
global impact, especially on the US-Russian, US-EU, and EU-Russian
relations. The war has indicated a few things. First, Russia is
definitely in good military shape and prepared to play tough where it
has national interests. Second, NATO has proved to be like a paper
tiger, impotent after its debacle in Afghanistan and unprepared
to operate in its European neighbourhood, except with declarative
statements. Third, the war is strengthening the positions of the
Republicans and their Neo-Conservative allies in the US pre-election
period, which will mean continuity in its foreign policy, that is,
a new Bush after Bush, Vankovska says.
The war in Georgia has also raised the question of how sufficient
the US security guarantees are. Georgia had 2,000 troops in Iraq,
which made it a leading US ally in that war, but still, Russia dared
to attack it, to which the United States reacted only with modest
military presence. After its failure to join NATO in Bucharest,
Macedonia asked the United States for military guarantees, which it
received in the form of a declaration.
It was a mere declaration. It is not even an agreement on
military-technical cooperation as we already have. We do not really
need a protection agreement with the United States, as Israel, Egypt,
Taiwan, and Argentina have. We are a NATO candidate state and this
is where we should seek our guarantees, Elenovski says.
The US media related Macedonia to Georgia three times in one
day through a statement by US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice,
a commentary by analyst Joseph Edward in the International Herald
Tribune, and through lobbyist and analyst Randy Scheunemann, who
works on both countries' NATO accession.
An issue that was raised after Rice's statement was the appeal
to Greece not to allow the name dispute to block Macedonia's NATO
membership. At a news conference dedicated to Georgia, Rice was asked
a provocative question by Greek reporter Lambros Papantoniou about
"[Prime Minister] Gruevski's Skopjean irredentism," but she quickly
reacted, comparing the Macedonian and Georgian issues and pointing to
their NATO entry as a solution to these problems, leaving Greece in
the role of a NATO inhibitor. Earlier this year, the Berlin European
Council for Foreign Relations openly described Greece as the most
pro-Russian state among the European countries and as a Russian
"Trojan horse" in Europe.
If the vision is to spread democratic values and expand the Atlantic
world, bilateral disputes like ours with Greece cannot stop the entire
process, Elenovski says.
According to Professor Blagoja Samakoski, Rice has sent out a clear
message with her statement and it was addressed to Greece.
Who is this message intended for - Macedonia or Greece? Greece would
more easily solve the problem of Macedonia's potential territorial
aspirations towards Greece if Macedonia were in NATO. Such was the
case of Hungary and Romania, as noted by Rice. Also, Greece would more
easily solve the problem of property and minority rights if Macedonia
were in NATO. An example of this is the dispute between Bulgaria and
Turkey. So if we are to interpret Rice's statement properly, Greece
has been advised that it should solve the name problem if it wants
to solve its other more serious problems with Macedonia more easily,
Samakoski says.
According to Joseph [former representative of the International
Crisis Group for the Balkans], NATO must immediately admit Macedonia,
thereby sending out a clear message to Russia that NATO's enlargement
continues. [passage omitted] According to Professor Samakoski, it is
Greece that should tone down its rhetoric.
In essence, no one cares about Joseph's message about Macedonia's NATO
accession. It serves to mask the Greek paid message that Macedonia
should tone down its rhetoric. Joseph does not deal with the Nazi
statements by the Greek politicians, who are actually the ones who
need to mellow their speech. Joseph is deliberately twisting the
theories here, Samakoski says.
The issue of lobbyist Scheunemann has brought the Georgian conflict
and the Macedonian hopes for NATO membership right into the US
pre-election campaign. Scheunemann, who is adviser to Republican
candidate John McCain, is paid by the governments of Georgia and
Macedonia to lobby for our NATO membership. Barak Obama's group has
released this information to reveal that McCain's group is getting
money to exert influence on the foreign policy.
On the other hand, Obama is receiving money from the US Greek lobby,
which - using similar methods as Scheunemann - is advocating for an
end to the NATO enlargement, at least with regard to Macedonia. As
Nova Makedonija has reported, the leading family in this programme
of Obama's is Giannoulias, Greek owners of a big Chicago bank who are
significant financiers of Obama. [covered] [passage omitted cites US
deputy envoy to Macedonia on country's NATO prospect]
Vankovska: Joining NATO Is No Longer a Comfort Zone
>From NATO's aspect, Macedonia's accession is becoming more than a
priority. The Georgian Army's debacle has shown that there is a big
nothing behind the whole story of NATO reforms, military equipment,
and instructors. NATO, or more precisely the United States, wants
an enlargement not because of the new allies' contribution to NATO,
but for the sake of spreading its global influence in key geostrategic
regions. If Georgia was a potential unsuitable partner because of the
predictable Russian reaction, Macedonia is perfect in that sense! It
has no external threat whatsoever, has an important geopolitical
position also for the oil pipes, and the Balkans is definitely
dominated by US rather than Russian influence. What concerns me in the
long run is that we are entering under the NATO and US umbrella in
a world whose prospects are very uncertain and even terrifying. The
NATO admission can no longer be viewed as a comfortable entry into
a security community and a peace zone. On the contrary, this already
means clearly taking sides in the great powers' battle, which is yet
to gain intensity. Our geostrategic position may be an advantage for
our Western allies, but for us - I am not sure that it is good to be
close to the Near East and Kosovo. A new world map is in the creation
and Kosovo has increasing chances of remaining a frozen conflict as
an equivalent to the frozen conflict that will remain in Caucasus many
years from now until the redefining of the world, which in my view is
moving towards multi-polarity, which does not mean global stability,
as well, Professor Vankovska says.
Elenovski: Europe Has Not Enough Awareness for NATO's Joint Mission
According to Elenovski, unlike the United States, the European NATO
members do not have enough awareness for NATO's joint mission.
The European allies' mixed relations with Russia, as in the case of
Greece, lead to jeopardizing, from within, NATO's enlargement and
future. The European allies have no long-term vision and they have
shown to have less interest as the expansion goes further away from
the centre of Europe. They have no vision of the Atlantic world's
enlargement, but heed only their own interests, Elenovski says,
predicting that NATO's enlargement will be getting more difficult as
NATO approaches Azerbaijan, Armenia, and other Caucasus states.
The new member states in eastern Europe, which were under a regime
for many years, are much more aware of how difficult it is to build
democracy than the old NATO member countries, to which democracy was
served on a platter after they had been protected by the United States
for so long, Elenovski says.