MACEDONIAN ARTICLE LINKS TERRITORIAL DIVISION TO "GREATER ALBANIA" ASPIRATIONS
BBC Monitoring - July 24, 2004

Text of commentary by Mito Pejovski entitled: "Agreement against sovereignty"; published by Macedonian newspaper Utrinski Vesnik on 21 July

In order to get into the essence of the discussion on the new territorial-political organization of Macedonia, we need to produce a retrospective of everything that happened during the negotiating of the Ohrid Framework Agreement. We need to make a thorough analysis of all the events and activities related to this, inside and outside of the country. If this is done carefully, we will clearly see the traces of an anti-Macedonian conspiracy.

The war in 2001 was imposed from outside with the aim of fulfilling certain strategic interests. The Albanian population, with its endless demands, was perfect for the fulfilling of these interests. The timeline of open conflicts and foreign intervention says a lot about this. First, we had the events in Bosnia-Hercegovina, then the events in Kosovo, southern Serbia, and finally Macedonia. Without the interference and support of certain international forces and interests, these events would not have been so synchronized and brutal. From a country labelled an oasis of peace and an example of relaxed interethnic relations, Macedonia was turned into an unstable region with alleged unresolved human rights for the Albanian ethnic community. All plans related to the conflict and its resolution were made outside of the country so that certain strategic objectives could be fulfilled.

Before the Ohrid Framework Agreement was signed, it passed through a few phases. First, the plan was produced outside and it was refashioned into the Prizren Declaration of the leaders of Albanian parties. The foreign player, more accurately NATO, publicly distanced itself from this. Then this plan was promoted as (former) President Boris Trajkovski's plan, and in the end it was signed as the Ohrid Framework Agreement. This agreement was also signed by the international representatives, with which the foreign player secured its interference in this, which is nonsense in international diplomacy. All the regulations for conduct towards a sovereign country have been violated.

The most characteristic example of this are the formulations contained in subsection 3.2 of the Framework Agreement and subsection 3 of the projected amendments to the legislation related to the aforementioned subsection from the Framework Agreement.

Subsection 3.2 states: "The municipal borders will be revised within a year of the completion of the new census, which will be conducted by the end of 2001 under international supervision. The revision of the municipal borders will be conducted by the local and national authorities with participation by the international community."

Subsection 3 of the amendments to the legislation states: "The Assembly will adopt a revised law on the municipal borders by the end of 2002, taking into account the results of the census and the relevant guidelines set in the local self-government law."

We have to raise two questions here: first, how could the Macedonian signatories to the Framework Agreement accept such a text that violates the country's sovereignty? Second, what was the aim of the revision of the municipal borders being included in the Framework Agreement? The aim is clear. Although the Framework Agreement does not state this, it is clear that the intent is to secure domination by the Albanian ethnic community in Kicevo, Struga, and Skopje by joining rural suburbs to these three city centres. This would help achieve certain strategic interests, and it would enable the formation of "a Greater Albania" in the future.

Democratic Alternative leader Vasil Tupurkovski is right when he says that the border with Kosovo is being kept open so that "a Greater Kosovo" can be formed if Kosovo becomes independent. We know what will follow. This is the aim of the DUI (Democratic Union for Integration - BDI in Albanian) and (BDI leader) Ali Ahmeti, which is why they need these city centres so that they can form the line from Pristina to Struga. We have to ask why the DUI is insisting so much on Struga and Kicevo when these two municipalities are already bilingual. Hence, there is a completely different aim here. They want to have complete power in these towns, so that when the time comes they can cross over to the other side (of the border with Greater Albania). Ahmeti's statement in 2001 that: "the National Liberation Army's battle will continue until the historical Albanian territories are liberated from the Slav Macedonian occupation", creates certain mistrust.

Ali Ahmeti probably knows that the largest infiltration of Albanians in Western Macedonia, in the regions of Kicevo, Gostivar, Tetovo, Struga, and Skopska Crna Gora, occurred in the second half of the 18th century, during the surge of anarchy that affected the regions of Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, and Greece during the Turkish Empire. This is very precisely stated in the history section of the Larousse General Encyclopedia .

The Framework Agreement states that the local authorities should participate in the revision of the municipal borders. The participation of the local authorities is completely natural, considering that they are closest to the citizens and they carry the largest responsibility for the protection of the citizens' rights. The aim of this decentralization of power is to transfer the most essential functions to the local self-government. Thus, it is incomprehensible for the negotiations to be led only by the coalition partners and for the citizens' demands expressed through referendums to not be respected.

Some ministers said in their statements that the government bears the responsibility for the proposal that will be presented to and adopted by the Assembly. Let us not fool ourselves. We all know what the government's responsibility is. The government has political and moral responsibility. But, we should not forget that the government could also have a long-lasting responsibility, because the consequences of the bad resolutions could be catastrophic and lasting. Thus, the peaceful protests through which the citizens are expressing their revolt are justified.

In the end, I would like to say one more thing. Approximately seven or eight years ago the leader of an ethnic Albanian party in Macedonia, who I respect greatly, said the following in a talk show on A1 Television: "When Yugoslavia started to disintegrate, a meeting was held among the representatives of the Albanians living in Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Greece, and the diaspora. The aim of this meeting was to analyse the situation and prepare a platform for action. Depending on the development of events, three alternatives were adopted. One of the alternatives was that, if Yugoslavia disintegrates completely, then all Albanians would fight for a Greater Albania and every Albanian, regardless of where he or she lives, is obligated to contribute."

Entry into the EU and NATO is not always related to the degree of reforms implemented or the extent to which the issues of human rights and interethnic relations have been resolved. The political and military aspects are important here. A striking example of this are the Baltic states, where there are many such issues that have not been resolved, yet the EU and NATO's attitude towards these countries is completely different. Hence, it is ridiculous to invoke these organizations' possible attitude towards us as a justification whenever we have a problem that we need to resolve.

Source: Utrinski Vesnik, Skopje, in Macedonian 21 Jul 04 p 11

Copyright 2004 Financial Times Information
All rights reserved
Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire 
Copyright 2004 BBC Monitoring/BBC  
BBC Monitoring International Reports

Posted for Fair Use only.