120 likes | 189 Vues
American University in Bulgaria The Name Dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece: Obstacles for Resolution Zhikica Pagovski Supervisor: Dr. Zankina. NAME DISPUTE?!.
E N D
American University in Bulgaria The Name Dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece: Obstacles for Resolution Zhikica Pagovski Supervisor: Dr. Zankina
NAME DISPUTE?! “The name dispute between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia exists twenty years revolves around the “perspectives on the history of the region [of Macedonia] and challenges which both nations perceive to their respective identities.”
HISTORICAL REVIEW Before 1991 • Kingdom of Macedonia, Roman Province of Macedonia, Barbarians, Slavic Invasion, Byzantine Kingdom, Bulgarian Kingdom, Serbian Kingdom, Ottoman Empire, Greece & Bulgaria & Serbia, SCS, Yugoslavia • Socialist Republic of Macedonia
HISTORICAL REVIEW 1991- Macedonian Independence and Constitution 1993 - UN Accession 1994- Economic Embargo 1995 – Interim Accord between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece 1996- 2006 The Status Quo Decade: 130 Countries recognized the Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name 2006-2007 Negotiations in progress 2007-2010 Negotiations on hold
METHODOLOGY • Case Study: Case Study Approach • Time Frame: 1993 – Today • Theory: The Two-Level Game Theory by Puntam • Variables: • Dependent: • Macedonian and Greek governmental positions toward the name problem. • Independent: • 1. Historical Interpretation (Macedonia) • 2. Incumbent Parties • 3. Public Opinion • 4. International Influence
OBSTCLES • Rigid Official Positions of the Governments -changes and reasons -reluctance and role of the public -official positions as framework for negotiations • Strong Public opinions -great percentage (nationalism and treat to identity) -public mobilization -a promise of referendum for ratification • Inefficiency of the International Efforts -concerned about a resolution regardless of the outcome -wrong focus: elites instead of public opinion
The Pain of the Time Process -works against both countries -deepening the gap -fragmentation of the negotiations • Negotiation Setup -indirect -inactive -without timeframe -trading and trade offs
CONCLUSIONS • No agreement on any significant point in the negotiation process • Positive outcome of the negotiation process just with a change of a governmental position • Governmental positions change due to political/security crisis situation • Crisis Situation perception of the elites and especially the public in both countries required to come to flexible governmental position and willingness to negotiate
Recommendations • Direct Negotiations of the both government • Quick resolution of the process • Unification of political elites and defining the governmental position and the fields of flexibility • Special attention of the international environment and the domestic elites toward the public detention of nationalistic feeling. Emphasis of the importance of the resolution of the issue