January 05, 2009

By Dr. George Voskopoulos

International politics has always been a field of study that sets challenges not only to IR scholars but to the conventional standard of ethics and people´s ability to form evaluative judgments. Although in international relations it is a highly disputed issue to pinpoint facts and set aside non-facts I will try to focus on a number of issues re-lated to the current crisis in the Gaza strip.

The first relates to Israel´s unquestionable right to defend itself. This stems from the UN Charter but it is of little importance since the UN is a nominal only means of as-sisting the socialization process of states. Yet, still Israel has been a victim of terrorist attacks not by a state but a group of extremists, namely Hamas. However, things get more complicated since Hamas, an extremist group by our standards, constitutes a democratically elected authority. Israel has never taken this fact into consideration nor has it sought a causational explanation as to why ordinary Palestinians have made this choice.

Ever since Hamas´ rise to power Israel has made every effort to undermine its politi-cal authority. Practically it refused to acknowledge its structural, institutional and po-litical power among Palestinians. Eventually it made the same mistake as in 2006 in the case of Hezbollah. Both organizations enjoy popular support and are seen as pro-tectors of a nation that has suffered so much for so long. Oddly enough the Jews and the Palestinians share one common feature, that is, an orchestrated, irrational, inhu-man effort to be eliminated.

Current Israeli policy obviously sets a central aim: to provide security to its people. This is a noble aim, a task every single government is expected to operationalize. The critical question refers to the means used and the cost vis-à-vis the prospect for a fu-ture solution, unless a solution to the problem is not a priority. Let us look at another set of interrelated issues of the conflict.

The timing of the military attack leads us to a number of defining parameters. The first relates to inter-party rivalry and the coming elections in Israel. Practically, the weariness of the Israeli people from the continuous attacks from Hamas provided the strongest motive in initiating an attack at this scale. The American view that the win-ner takes it all depicts the motivation framework of the Israeli coalition government. The second defining element has to do with politics within the Palestinians. When Y. Arafat neared the end of his life many in Israel felt relieved. I was never in a position to understand why. It was obvious that in the absence of a father figure the Palestini-ans would not operate in an orchestrated way, using acceptable means of doing poli-tics. Third, Israel has made substantial efforts to undermine the unity of the Palestini-ans, probably under the impression that a politically parcelized community would be unable to claim more than Israelis were willing to offer.

Instead of focusing on assisting the infrastructure in the occupied territories it literally made the life of ordinary Palestinians unbearable. It provided no prospect for a better future, employment, education, economic development. Those are the very basic ele-ments of modernity. Modernization is a process that assists people reformulate their attitudes, values and behavior. On top of that it does not allow extremists to find popular support among people. In the absence of the above, Palestinians felt hopeless and embraced Hamas.

Those voices across the world that criticized Israeli policy were notoriously attacked as anti-Zionists. Anti-Semitism became the raw material used to tar the image of all those who dared to question adopted policies. Oversimplification is a fact of life but it should not be applied in so complicates issues. I am afraid fundamentalists do not come from one only cultural and religious milieu. They can be found in every single society in both East and West. Samuel Huntington would probably suggest that it is a clash of civilizations, a battle between civilized and non-civilized, although one of the worst crimes in world history has been committed by the civilized and Christian Nazis against Jews.

A war neither Israel nor Hamas truly wanted turned into a war both are willing to wage´. [1] This is a statement made by an International Crisis Group analyst that de-picts a segment only of the true story. A certain milieu in both sides did want the war. Unfortunately it happened to be those who had the authority to exercise their power in a most unacceptable way.

In any case the conflict at hand has no civilizational aspects, although the killing of so many innocent people by a militarily powerful state such as Israel is not a noble act, even though it is understood as an act of the Israeli government in order to defend its people. It is a conflict between fundamentalists in both sides, those who politically survive on the basis of the existing, historically-supported and perpetuated hatred.

Moreover, it exposes our ability as human beings to act rationally, setting priorities and coming up with a macro-strategic plan. It is a war that is bound to support ex-tremists in both sides. It results from the myopic syndrome of leaderships, a problem-atic process of political socialization of the Palestinians and Israel´s brutal acts against civilians.

The first collateral damage of the war is the United Nations and its regulatory, norma-tive role. At the end of the day this policy supports the law of the jungle. A second collateral damage is our values as human beings, “civilized or less civilized”. Who really believes that the killing of innocent people, women and children and an ongo-ing humanitarian disaster will make the Israeli people safer?

On the contrary, the massacre is bound to fuel the tank of new extremists. It will not assist Fatah and will not turn it into an acceptable interlocutor. By contrast we should focus on how to include Hamas in the peace process. Its military defeat is an easy task for Israel but this will assist its political profile and prestige among Palestinians.

In the past, Mahmoud Abbas was politically undermined by Mr. Sharon’s policy and his reluctance to allow in essence the normalization of life in Gaza and the West Bank [2]. Hardliners in both sides have led us to the current situation. In any case an imme-diate ceasefire should be a priority to end the humanitarian crisis. Bombing civilians, mosques and hospitals, preventing humanitarian aid to reach refugees and depriving civilians from the very basics that sustain life is a policy that undermines the future of any attempt to re-initiate negotiations. Unless the war means to put a final end to the peace process. In a Clausewitzian sense a total war is waged against states not peoples and civilians. Israeli leaders do not seem to leave space for a future political settle-ment. In fact they undermine the accommodating capacity of the next Israeli govern-ment and do not allow moderate voices among Palestinians to make sense to a much suffering people.

1] See Ending the War in Gaza, Middle East Briefing N°26

5 January 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5838&l=1

2] See the analysis in “A Vote for Hamas?”, Washington Post, October 20, 2005. Also, “Aimless in Gaza”, The New York Times, July 16, 2005

Source:  AmericanChronicle.com

Author

Αρχαία ελληνικά αγάλματα έξω από την έδρα της κυβέρνησης στα Σκόπια

*Στην αρχή ήταν τα αεροδρόμια των Σκοπίων και της Αχρίδας, που βαφτίστηκαν «Μέγας Αλέξανδρος» και «Απόστολος Παύλος». Η κυβέρνηση Γκρούεφσκι προχωρεί τώρα ακόμη περισσότερο, σχεδιάζοντας να αποκτήσει τη δική της Αλεξάνδρεια!

Ηδη από το καλοκαίρι διάφορες ΜΚΟ πρότειναν τη μετονομασία μιας πόλης της ΠΓΔΜ σε Αλεξάνδρεια.

Φίλιππος, ο Μακεδών

Ξεκίνησαν μάλιστα και τη συλλογή υπογραφών, ενώ υποψήφια χρίστηκε η μικρή πόλη Σόντσεφ Γκραντ (που σημαίνει πόλη του ήλιου -Ηλιούπολη), που βρίσκεται λίγο έξω από τα Σκόπια.

Oι ταμπέλες αεροδρομίου «Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας»

*Παράλληλα, ήδη έχουν ληφθεί και κάποιες άλλες αποφάσεις: Αυτές αφορούν τη μετονομασία του σταδίου της πόλης των Σκοπίων σε «Φίλιππος Β’ ο Μακεδών», του αεροδρομίου της πόλης Στιπ επίσης σε «Φίλιππος Β’», αλλά και του οδικού άξονα που συνδέει τις περιοχές Γευγελή και Τομπάνοφτσε σε «Αλέξανδρος, ο Μακεδών».

*Το καλοκαίρι είχαν δει το φως της δημοσιότητας και πληροφορίες ότι σύντομα θα στηθεί στην κεντρική πλατεία των Σκοπίων άγαλμα του Μ. Αλεξάνδρου, το οποίο βρίσκεται στη Φλωρεντία για εργασίες επιχάλκωσης.

*Μέσα στο 2008 πάντως στήθηκαν ακόμη δύο ανδριάντες του στο Πρίλεπ και στο Στιπ.

*Η πρακτική της οικειοποίησης δεν αφορά μόνο ιστορικές προσωπικότητες αλλά και μνημεία ή ευρήματα, τα οποία χρησιμοποιούνται για να αποδείξουν την «αδιάσπαστη συνέχεια του μακεδονικού έθνους από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμερα». Τελευταίο επεισόδιο, μια «ανακάλυψη» του ιστορικού Τόμε Μπότσεφσκι και του ακαδημαϊκού Αριστότελ Τέντοφ. Σε τι συνίσταται;

Στο ότι η μία από τις τρεις γλώσσες που έχουν χαραχθεί στην περίφημη «επιγραφή της Ροζέτας» (βρέθηκε πριν από 207 χρόνια στην Αίγυπτο και έχει ηλικία 2.200 ετών) είναι η «μακεδονική» και ότι έχει ομοιότητα με τη γλώσσα που μιλιέται σήμερα στα Σκόπια.

*Ως γνωστόν, βέβαια, η επιγραφή περιλαμβάνει ιερογλυφικά της Αιγύπτου, απλοποιημένα ιερογλυφικά της ελληνιστικής περιόδου και αρχαία ελληνικά. Τα ΜΜΕ της ΠΓΔΜ, ωστόσο, θεωρούν απολύτως φυσικό η τρίτη γλώσσα να είναι η «μακεδονική», αφού, όπως αναφέρουν, οι Μακεδόνες βασίλεψαν στην Αίγυπτο 302 χρόνια, υπό τον Αλέξανδρο και τον διάδοχό του αντιβασιλέα, Πτολεμαίο.

*Την άποψη για τη «μακεδονική ιστορία» που συνεχίζεται χιλιάδες χρόνια η κυβέρνηση Γκρούεφσκι επιχειρεί να την «πουλήσει» και στο εξωτερικό, με μια καμπάνια για τον τουρισμό, η οποία άρχισε να προβάλλεται από το CNN την περασμένη εβδομάδα.

Σινεμά «η προπαγάνδα»

Το φιλμάκι, γυρισμένο από τον (βραβευμένο με Χρυσό Φοίνικα στο Φεστιβάλ της Βενετίας) Μίλτσο Μάντσεφ-σκι, έχει τίτλο «Αιώνια Μακεδονία» και επαναλαμβάνει τα επιχειρήματα περί «μακεδονικής γλώσσας και εθνότητας», χρηματοδοτούμενο με 200.000 ευρώ από το υπουργείο Πολιτισμού της ΠΓΔΜ.

*Στον δικτυακό αυτόν τόπο υπάρχει και ειδικό τμήμα αφιερωμένο στη «μακεδονική μειονότητα» στη χώρα μας, αλλά και στη Βουλγαρία και τη Σερβία.

Πηγή: Enet.gr

By Samios Makedonas

Ευχαριστούμε τον φίλο που μας ενημέρωσε για το e-mail απο την CardPartner

—————————————————–

Dear Mr. *******,

Thank you.

I have sent a letter to Mr. ******** of Cyprus Action Network and Mr.
********** of the Hellenic League of America informing them that we are no
longer offering the card featuring the “Star of Vergina,” nor will it be
offered on any CardPartner products in the future.

I also explain in the letter that we will no longer permit the use of flags,
maps or political symbols of any kind on any of our cards. By issuing this
policy to all of our groups, we feel this decision reflects our commitment
to mutual respect for all of our groups.

Sincerely,
Mark

Mark Levitt ­ Senior Director of Creative Services

CardPartner.com ­ We give groups individual attention.

CardPartner, Inc.
37 West 20th Street Suite 810 New York NY 10011 USA
T +1 646 652 7012 M +1 646 705 4914 F +1 212 627 2019

————————————————————————-

Introduction

On November 17, 2008, the ‘former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ (FYR Macedonia) instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Greece’s objection to its application to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) breaches the 1995 Interim Accord between these two States.[1] This is the first time that FYR Macedonia has appeared as a party before the ICJ, and the first time that Greece has appeared before the Court as a respondent.

Background to the Dispute

With the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, some of its constituent federal units, including the Republic of Macedonia, declared independence and sought international recognition. The FYR Macedonia declared its independence on September 17, 1991 following a referendum. The Badinter Commission, established by the Council of Ministers of the European Union (EC Council), recommended that the European Community (EC) accept the Republic of Macedonia’s request for recognition and found that FYR Macedonia had renounced any territorial claims.[2] Greece then blocked EC recognition arguing that Macedonia’s name, flag and a number of provisions in its Constitution implied territorial claims against it.[3] Macedonia is also the name of an administrative region in northern Greece, and a wider geographical region extending over four neighboring States.

This evolved into a dispute involving everything from Security Council resolutions, to unilateral countermeasures in the form of an economic embargo, and to proceedings before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Republic was admitted to membership in the United Nations in 1993 under the provisional name ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’,[4] and most EC member-States considered their affirmative vote in the Security Council and/or the General Assembly to imply the recognition of the new State.

After a first escalation in 1994, which led to embargo measures by Greece and a challenge to these measures by the Commission of the European Communities before the ECJ,[5] the two States concluded an agreement in 1995 on Greece’s recognition of FYR Macedonia, on the establishment of liaison offices and on normalization of economic relations.[6] This ‘Interim Accord’ dealt with everything but the name of the new State, and included an undertaking to continue negotiations under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General ‘with a view to reaching agreement on the difference’ that has arisen over the name.[7] The dispute is still ongoing, and the Interim Accord is still in force.

FYR Macedonia’s Application

FYR Macedonia expected to receive an invitation to join NATO during the 2-4 April 2008 Bucharest Summit of NATO. The Bucharest Summit Declaration provided instead that ‘an invitation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be extended as soon as a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue has been reached.’[8] FYR Macedonia’s Application to the Court[9] alleges that Greek actions have denied it membership in NATO. This is because an invitation to join the Organization can only be extended by unanimous agreement of all NATO Members.[10] The position taken by Greece in the lead-up to the Bucharest Summit made it clear that Greece opposed the extension of such an invitation. [11]

FYR Macedonia claims that Greece has violated Article 11(1) of the Interim Accord, which provides:

The Party of the First Part agrees not to object to the application by or the membership of the Party of the Second Part in international, multilateral, and regional organizations and institutions of which the Party of the First Part is a member; however, the Party of the First Part reserves the right to object to any membership referred to above if and to the extent the Party of the Second Part is to be referred to in such organization or institution differently than in paragraph 2 of United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993).

(To avoid the name issue, this provision refers to Greece and FYR Macedonia as ‘the Party of the First Part’ and ‘the Party of the Second Part’ respectively).

FYR Macedonia claims that it has complied with its obligations under the Interim Accord, but that Greece breached its obligation under Article 11(1) by blocking the invitation to FYR Macedonia to join NATO even though FYR Macedonia applied under its provisional name in accordance with Article 11(1).[12] FYR Macedonia requests the Court to order Greece to cease objecting to its membership to NATO or any other international organization.[13]

Jurisdiction of the Court

Under Article 21(2) of the Interim Accord, ‘[a]ny difference or dispute that arises between the Parties concerning the interpretation or implementation of [the] Interim Accord may be submitted by either of them to the International Court of Justice, except for the difference referred to in Article 5, paragraph 1,’ this being the difference concerning the name. FYR Macedonia relies on Article 21(2) to establish the Court’s jurisdiction. One potential preliminary objection Greece could raise would be based on the assertion that the dispute before the Court is actually the difference over the State’s name, which is specifically excluded from the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 21(2) of the Interim Accord. In its Application, FYR Macedonia preemptively rebuts such an objection.[14]

Legal Aspects of the Dispute

The key question in this dispute is how to interpret Greece’s undertaking ‘not to object to the application by or the membership of’ FYR Macedonia in international organizations of which Greece is a member. Greece only reserved its right to object if FYR Macedonia seeks to be identified by any name other than ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’.

One possible interpretation of this provision would be that it obligates Greece ‘not to object’ to any application for membership to an international organization that FYR Macedonia submits irrespective of any (other) admission criteria, and that Greece only reserved the right to object if FYR Macedonia ‘is to be referred to in such organization’ differently from the name ‘Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’. If such an interpretation were to be adopted, then Greece would appear to have breached Article 11(1). If a member of an international organization can unilaterally waive its discretion to determine whether a candidate State fulfills the organization’s admission criteria, then Greece would appear to have done so, and to have agreed to support any Macedonian application under the agreed name.

It could be argued, however, that as a matter of the law of international organizations, evaluation of a prospective member’s conformity with admission criteria is a duty to the other members or to the organization itself which an individual member cannot unilaterally waive. This principle is a corollary to the established principle that members are obligated not to condition admission to an organization on criteria other than those in the organization’s constitution.[15]

Another possibility would be to interpret Article 11(1) as meaning that as long as FYR Macedonia uses the agreed name, Greece cannot object solely on the basis of the name—but that Greece can still block the application if the applicant does not fulfill an organization’s membership or admission criteria, in this case the admission criteria in Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Greece objected to FYR Macedonia’s invitation to join NATO not because Macedonia did not apply under its provisional name—which it did—but for other reasons. These are widely perceived to concern the lack of a final resolution of the dispute about the State’s name. But how would this fact mesh with the North Atlantic Treaty’s admission criteria? Article 10 of the Treaty provides that ‘[t]he parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.’[16] FYR Macedonia is quite self-evidently a European State. Greece may argue that FYR Macedonia is not ‘in a position to further the principles’ of the Treaty—these including, under Article 2, the contribution ‘toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by [...] promoting conditions of stability [...][17]’ —and therefore cannot join NATO.

The Court cannot determine ‘the reasons which, in the mind of a Member, may prompt its vote’ on admission of another State to membership in an organization;[18] rather, ‘the question can only relate to the statements made by a Member concerning the vote it proposes to give.’[19] Greece’s statements point toward the conclusion that it was the name issue that led to its veto in Bucharest.[20] But Greece’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that Greece connects the name dispute with the instability that this is causing in the region.[21] Greece can cite such an alleged failure of FYR Macedonia to ‘promote conditions of stability’ as required by the North Atlantic Treaty as a justification for the veto.[22]

One final important issue in the dispute could concern the permissibility of countermeasures by Greece in response to alleged previous breaches of the Interim Accord by FYR Macedonia. Greece has accused the Macedonian side of violating the Accord a number of times in the past.[23] It remains to be seen whether Greece will claim the NATO veto—if found in breach of Article 11(1) of the Interim Accord—to have been a countermeasure justified under general international law.[24] Such a claim could lead the Court to explore whether such countermeasures were justified or proportional.[25]

Conclusion

FYR Macedonia’s application to the International Court of Justice is the latest step in a long-standing dispute with Greece. Perhaps it is the best way for some progress to be made in a difficult situation that has been stagnating for far too long. The Court will be called upon, in any case, to tackle difficult questions of treaty interpretation, the rights and obligations of member-States to international organizations—in particular rights with respect to the admission of new members—and, quite possibly, the admissibility and limits of countermeasures.

About the Authors

Markos Karavias, M.Jur. (Oxon), an ASIL member, is D.Phil. candidate at the University of Oxford (St. Catherine’s College) and a member of the Athens Bar.

Antonios Tzanakopoulos, LL.M. (NYU), an ASIL member, is D.Phil. candidate at the University of Oxford (St. Anne’s College) and a member of the Athens Bar.

Endnotes

Macedon was a region which had lagged behind the rest of the Greek world socially, economically, and culturally, failing to develop the polis or city-state institutions characteristic of the most advanced regions of Greece, but remaining instead a tribal society ruled by kings and dominated by a land-owning aristocracy.⁹ Indeed, there is some question as to whether Macedon should at this time be counted as part of the Greek world at all, for it has been doubted whether the Macedonians were a Greek-speaking people, on the basis of a few passages in ancient sources that appear to speak of a Macedonian “language.”¹⁰ These passages can equally well be understood to refer to a Macedonian “dialect,” however, and though it cannot at present be formally proved that the Macedonians were Hellenic in race and language, I think it highly likely that they were, for three reasons: the overwhelming majority of personal names known to have been used by Macedonians were good Greek names; the names of the months in the Macedonian calendar were basically Greek in form; and the religion of the Macedonians was largely the same as that of the Greeks, with Zeus, Herakles, and Dionysos being particularly prominent.

The liveliest cult of Helios in the ancient Greek world existed on the island of Rhodes. Each year during the Halieia festival which was celebrated with much splendor and with athletic contests, the Rhodians threw a team of four horses into the sea as a sacrifice to him. In honor of what was effectively their national deity and to commemorate their heroic defense against Demetrius Poliorcetes’s array, the people of Rhodes commissioned the celebrated sculptor Chares of Lindos to create a huge statue of Helios.

This statue, which is known to us as the ‘Colossus of Rhodes”, was one of the wonders of the ancient world. It was completed in 292 BC, twelve years after work began on it. It stood at the entrance of Rhodes’s harbor and was over 35 meters tall. Helios was represented with a crown of sun-rays, a spear in his left hand and a flaming torch held aloft in his right, as depicted in the below illustration . 

Descriptions of this ancient statue inspired the design of France’s gift to the people of the USA in 1884 - the Statue of Liberty as the inscription at the base of this New York landmark acknowledges.

Less than a century after its completion (in 224 BC), an earthquake destroyed the statue and it was never again erected. The metal was finally sold for scrap in 653 AD.

The rays emanating from the sun god’s head, as they must have appeared on the Rhodian statue’s crown, and as we know them to actually be depicted on surviving works of art, reinforce the conviction that the inspiration for the Sunburst derives from the traditional representation of the Greek sun god Helios. It is not difficult to see that stylized rays emanating from a fiery core is in fact a shorthand reference to this solar deity rather than to a star.

In Late Antiquity a cult of Helios Megistos (”Great Helios”) drew to the image of Helios a number of syncretic elements, which have been analysed in detail by Wilhelm Fauth by means of a series of late Greek texts, namely:  an Orphic Hymn to Helios; the so-called Mithras Liturgy, where Helios rules the elements; spells and incantations invoking Helios among the Greek Magical Papyri; a Hymn to Helios by Proclus; Julian’s Oration to Helios, the last stand of official paganism; and an episode in Nonnus’ Dionysiaca.

sources

• The Rays of the Sun God by macedoniansincanada.com
  
• http://www.goddess-athena.org
  
• Walter Burkett, Greek Religion
  
• Karl Kerenyi,  The Gods of the Greeks - ”The Sun, the Moon and their Family”
  
• Wilhelm Fauth, Helios Megistos: zur synkretistischen Theologie der Spätantike (Leiden:Brill) 1995

Source: http://ancient-medieval-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2008/12/vergina-sun-or-rays-of-sun-god.html

Αγαπητοί μου συμπατριώτες,
 
Πολλοί από εσάς έχετε έρθει σε επαφή μαζί μου, εκδηλώνοντας την αγανάκτησή σας για την κάτωθι διαφήμιση της πΓΔΜ στο CNN:
 
http://www.macedonia-timeless.com/ Η διαφήμιση αυτή κόστισε περίπου ένα εκατομμύριο ευρώ.
 
Αυτό που μπορούμε να κάνουμε είναι να γράψουμε προσωπικά μηνύματα προς το Υπουργείο Εξωτερικών και να τα στείλομε με FAX και email στην κ. Μπακογιάννη.
 
Αυτή είναι η προσωπική ιστοσελίδα της κ. Μπακογιάννη: http://www.dorabak.gr/
 
Ο αριθμός του τηλεφώνου και του FAX είναι: Τηλ: 210 9249487-9
Fax: 210 9249426
 
Η κ. Υπουργός έχει την εξής διεύθυνση webmail: http://www.dorabak.gr/default.asp?pid=12&la=1
 
Επίσης υπάρχει και ένα link μέσω του οποίου θα μπορούσατε να απευθύνετε ερωτήσεις κατευθείαν στην Υπουργό, και προϋποτίθεται πως η κ. Μπακογιάννη θα απαντήσει. Είναι στην ίδια ιστοσελίδα αν πάτε κάτω δεξιά και φέρει τον τίτλο Live με την Ντόρα.
 
Όσο για το περιεχόμενο των γραμμάτων μας μπορούμε να ζητήσουμε από την κυβέρνηση της Ελλάδος για μια στάση πιο σκληρή έναντι των διαπραγματεύσεων. Δηλαδή τι είδους διαπραγματεύσεις μπορούν να υπάρξουν τώρα, και πόσο σοβαρά μπορεί κανείς να πάρει αυτές τις διαπραγματεύσεις όταν η πΓΔΜ προβαίνει σε τέτοιου είδους κινήσεις;
 
Επίσης τα γράμματά σας μπορείτε να τα στείλετε στη εξής διεύθυνση: GreekParliament@hec.greece.org η διεύθυνση είναι του Ελληνικού Κοινοβουλίου και θα το πάρουν όλοι οι Βουλευτές και Υπουργοί.
 
Έχει ιδιαίτερη βαρύτητα τα γράμματα να είναι προσωπικά και όχι ένα γράμμα τυποποιημένο.
 
Σας ευχαριστώ,
 
 
Nina Gatzoulis
Supreme President of the
Pan-macedonian Association (USA)
E-mail: ninagatz@comcast.net
Tel: 603-742-0466
FAX  (603) 617-2977.

Web: http://www.macedonia.info/
 
ΥΓ: Είμαι εδώ για κάθε βοήθεια.

————————————————————————————————

Ένα e-mail που στάλθηκε απο Έλληνα Ομογενή στην Υπ. Εξωτ. Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη.

Τορόντο, 29 Δεκεμβρίου 2008 
 
Προς την
Αξιότιμον κυρία Θεοδώρα Μπακογιάννη
Υπουργόν Εξωτερικών Υποθέσεων της Ελλάδος                     
Αθήναι - Ελλάς
 
Αγαπητή κυρία Υπουργέ,
 
Οι Σκοπιανοί, για μια ακόμα φορά, προπαγανδίζουν το Ιερόν όνομα της Μακεδονίας μας, ως δική τους κληρονομιά, σε μία διαφήμιση του CNN, την οποία μπορείτε να δείτε στο http://www.macedonia-timeless.com/.
 
Όπως γνωρίζετε, θάλασσα δεν έχουν, και επίσης, βάσει της ενδιάμεσης συμφωνίας του 1995, δεν μπορούν να χρησιμοποιούν Ελληνικά σύμβολα ωσάν δικά τους.
Γενικώς, πρόκειται για ένα σύνολον ανθρώπων το οποίο προσπαθεί να αυτο-προδιορισθεί βασιζόμενο σε στοιχεία τα οποία έχουν «δημιουργηθεί» από τούς ηγέτες του, κατά την διαχρονική πορεία τους, και σε αυτά τα οποία «κλέβουν» από τους άλλους. Αυτό οι Σκοπιανοί δεν το καταλαβαίνουν, και έτσι, ελλείψει ηθικών Αρχών και Υπερηφάνειας, ψεύδονται ασυστόλως και προς την διεθνή κοινότητα και στα ίδια τα παιδιά τους, όπως δείχνει η εν λόγω διαφήμιση. Αυτή η παθητική μας συμπεριφορά, εάν συνεχισθεί, θα αποβεί και πάλι, εις βάρος μας!
 
Αυτό το καταλαβαίνω ακόμη κι’ εγώ που δεν είμαι υπουργός εξωτερικών. Εσείς που είσθε, θα πρέπει όχι μόνο να το καταλάβετε, αλλά και να αντιδράσετε αμέσως, με όποιον τρόπο νομίζετε οτι θα είναι πιο αποτελεσματικός.  Εγώ, που δεν έχω την δική σας εμπειρία, θα συνιστούσα (ως απλώς πολίτης) το να σταματήσει η ήπια πολιτική την οποία έχετε ακολουθήσει μέχρι τώρα, και να τους διαμηνύσετε, ορθά κοφτά, ότι το όνομα «Μακεδονία» δεν τους ανήκει, τελεία και παύλα!
Ο πατέρας σας, όταν ήταν Πρωθυπουργός της Ελλάδος, έκανε το μέγα λάθος, να δεχθεί το «πρώην Γιουγκοσλαυϊκή Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας», καίτοι αυτό  το σύνθετον όνομα εξέφευγε από την απόφαση των πολιτικών αρχηγών, αφού περιείχε τον όρο «Μακεδονία». Εσείς, όχι μόνο δεν το διορθώσατε, αλλά αποδεχθήκατε το «Μακεδονία» και πλέον, διαπραγματεύεσθε το πρόθεμα (Βόρεια, Άνω, Νέα και πέρα δώθε)! Ντροπή! που να πάρει η οργή! Τι είδους υπερήφανη Ελληνίδα, και δη Κρητικιά, είσθε! Στο κάτω-κάτω της γραφής, χρωστάμε σε κανένα;

Καλώς εχόντων των πραγμάτων, και υπό τον όρο οτι θα υπάρχει συγκροτημένη και σταθερή Ελληνική κυβέρνηση, οι διαπραγματεύσεις με τους Σκοπιανούς θα αρχίσουν και πάλι. Τώρα πια, είναι η σειρά σας να πείτε σε όλους αυτούς, αλλά και σε όλους τους άλλους, ότι το «Μακεδονία» δεν τους ανήκει, διότι και σημαίνει Ελλάδα και είναι δική μας και μόνο κληρονομιά, ως δικό μας πολιτιστικό και όχι μόνο δημιούργημα.
Κάνετέ το αυτό, κυρία Υπουργέ, και ευχαρίστως, να σας δω και ως Πρωθυπουργό της Ελλάδος, συμβάλλοντας σε αυτό με την ψήφο που θα μου δώσετε, και όχι μόνο!
 
Μετά τιμής,
 
Κωνσταντίνος Ζυγούρης,

Τορόντο, Καναδάς