NATO expansion and American-Greek relations
Dr. George Voskopoulos
March 28, 2008
NATO is about to materialize a long-taken decision to expand in south-eastern Europe aiming at providing a safer space for local states and the desired stability for devel-opment. Yet, the quest has to overcome the long Greek-FYROM dispute over the lat-ter´s constitutional name. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia insists on us-ing its constitutional name "Macedonia", a fact interpreted by Greece as a direct irre-dentist claim against the Greek part of geographical Macedonia. The dispute emerged in early 1990s after the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the emergence of its constituent parts as independent states.
The Greek side insists on the adoption of a single name used in all international insti-tutions while the UN mediator advances a solution based on the use of two names supported by the US. To the Greek side the solution should be based on the adoption of a name with a geographical definition that leaves no space for future misunderstandings.
All these years the issue has triggered a battle over ethnicity and historical issues that has divided the two countries but in essence it constitutes an issue of political stability and the Great Idea of local nations. Lately the internet has become the battleground of nationalists exchanging insults and those who envisage a greater country at the ex-pense of territorial stability and intra-Balkan cooperation.
At the beginning of April NATO leaders are to decide on whether or not to proceed with a new expansion wave including Albania and FYROM. This brings the Greek-FYROM dispute on the spotlight and sets a number of dilemmas for the American administration that needs the allies endorsement of expansion policies
It is obvious that we are heading for a Greek veto, a major setback to American-led NATO initiative in the region. For many, this is an act of balancing Russian energy expansion in south-eastern Europe and the establishment of a network of pipelines. Washington appears to be rather annoyed by Greece being part in the project. This might have affected American policy and attitude in the Greek-FYROM dispute and the overall American policy vis-ŕ-vis Greek worries about actual or potential threats to the territorial status quo as implied by the use of the name "Macedonia".
President Bush has been more than explicit in putting pressure on the Greek side, a fact acknowledged by analysts and journalists in the country, yet denied by the Greek foreign minister. The prospects of resolving the issue before NATO summit in early April is limited although both sides make efforts to compromise. Greek policy-makers have made a substantial compromise in implicitly accepting, after 17 years, the use of the term "Macedonia" in FYROM´s name. This is a major deviation from the original goal set in 1992 when Greek political leaders suggested that any resolution of the name issue should be based on the non-use of the name "Macedonia".
Recent political instability in Skopje has shown that a solution is needed urgently, yet the adoption of maximalistic policies and the inability to seize the moment and take advantage of Greek re-evaluated position has not been fully appreciated by Washing-ton and Skopje, a fact that is going to lead NATO summit to a dead end.
The Greek side insists on the adoption of a single name used in all international insti-tutions while the UN mediator advances a solution based on the use of two names supported by the US. To the Greek side the solution should be based on the adoption of a name with a geographical definition that leaves no space for future misunderstandings.
All these years the issue has triggered a battle over ethnicity and historical issues that has divided the two countries but in essence it constitutes an issue of political stability and the Great Idea of local nations. Lately the internet has become the battleground of nationalists exchanging insults and those who envisage a greater country at the ex-pense of territorial stability and intra-Balkan cooperation.
At the beginning of April NATO leaders are to decide on whether or not to proceed with a new expansion wave including Albania and FYROM. This brings the Greek-FYROM dispute on the spotlight and sets a number of dilemmas for the American administration that needs the allies endorsement of expansion policies
It is obvious that we are heading for a Greek veto, a major setback to American-led NATO initiative in the region. For many, this is an act of balancing Russian energy expansion in south-eastern Europe and the establishment of a network of pipelines. Washington appears to be rather annoyed by Greece being part in the project. This might have affected American policy and attitude in the Greek-FYROM dispute and the overall American policy vis-ŕ-vis Greek worries about actual or potential threats to the territorial status quo as implied by the use of the name "Macedonia".
President Bush has been more than explicit in putting pressure on the Greek side, a fact acknowledged by analysts and journalists in the country, yet denied by the Greek foreign minister. The prospects of resolving the issue before NATO summit in early April is limited although both sides make efforts to compromise. Greek policy-makers have made a substantial compromise in implicitly accepting, after 17 years, the use of the term "Macedonia" in FYROM´s name. This is a major deviation from the original goal set in 1992 when Greek political leaders suggested that any resolution of the name issue should be based on the non-use of the name "Macedonia".
Recent political instability in Skopje has shown that a solution is needed urgently, yet the adoption of maximalistic policies and the inability to seize the moment and take advantage of Greek re-evaluated position has not been fully appreciated by Washing-ton and Skopje, a fact that is going to lead NATO summit to a dead end.