N. KOTZIAS: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to thank the country’s Prime Minister for the many creative discussions we had on the Skopje issue. I would like to thank my colleagues on the Ministerial Council, particularly for the four meetings we had on this issue. Above all, however, I would like to thank the Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which very firmly supported, contributed and worked on this agreement, which is the first agreement of this kind achieved not with external collaborators, not with Gryllakis and his ilk or intelligence service agents, but by the Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The first question we need to answer is, “What is being decided today?”. In 1990-1992, all politicians said that international conditions were changing, but we took no notice. Now they are changing again, and some people are acting like this isn’t happening. For us, for our government, looking at and developing Greece’s role in our region, exiting the crisis and moving towards growth for the whole region, is a primary patriotic duty. No one wants to resolve the Skopje problem more than we do. No one wants it more than the other peoples of the Balkans. No one wants it more than the Slavomacedonians and the Albanians of our friendly neighbouring country. Because it is the Albanians and the Slavomacedonians who are gravely concerned about the increasing presence of religious fundamentalism that is trying to transform Albanian nationalism into Islamism, which some people want to ignore.This agreement is patriotic because it enables us to focus the country’s forces where there is a substantial problem, and some day we should talk about who is the real threat to the our country. Countries that do not even have an air force, or those that are ready to purchase F-35s? And we should stop being prisoners of history. History is a school from which we must learn, turning to the future. And at this point I will say the following: patriotism -and this is its main characteristic- is proud of and loves the homeland, the country’s culture and historical traditions. The opposite occurs with national Chauvinism, which sees itself as better than all others. It does not respect the culture, history, outlooks of other peoples. It believes that, due to blood or some other reason, it is superior.And I would like to make a comment on what I heard yesterday. Many people are telling us -and I’ll explain this- that we are creating accomplished facts (faits accomplis), but they are not saying what accomplished facts were created in regard to this issue over the past 27 or, more accurately, 70 years. Nor are they pointing out that this agreement will also create accomplished facts for our neighbours. In other words, is it a small thing for this country to change its name? Is it a small thing for it to change its Constitution and for us to then say whether we will ratify it? They will carry out the two greatest actions regarding their identity, and then we will ratify. And the opposition says, “if we then ratify, you have created accomplished facts.” Yes, let me be clear: we are making a compromise. Is anyone under the impression that an international agreement can be reached without compromises? Do you know when there is an ‘international agreement’ without compromises? When you have won a war. I would like New Democracy to tell us, at long last: did you gentlemen win a war? And you don’t want anything. No compromise. The other side shouldn’t get anything. They should just vote! Why should they vote? Because that is what Mr. Ivanov wants with Mr. Mitsotakis. And I ask: have you every carried out serious negotiations, or is what your vice president said true, that “we were playing around with the foreigners”? Because you cannot carry out serious negotiations point by point. And why can you not negotiate point by point? Because you have a different opinion on every point. The only serious negotiations you can carry out are negotiations on a package, where you concede what is most important to the other side, and they concede on what is most important to you. And when you carry out these negotiations with Skopje, always remember the following: that the negotiations are based on what we found before us. Do not blame us for the accomplished facts that you created and that we found before us, and the older texts. The Macedonian region was divided into four regions in the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest, and to me you seem to be following the line of international revisionism. You believe that the international Treaties are not in effect, that we shouldn’t bear them in mind, and that we should go to Mr. Borisov, who is from Pirin Macedonia, and say, “You cannot call yourself a Macedonian. We do not recognise the Treaty of 1913.” And Mr. Erdogan will not recognise the Treaty of Lausanne, and so on ... Do you know what Greece’s foreign policy is founded on? International law. Anyone who thinks that this International Treaty is not correct should come out and say so! “We want to overturn international law. We want actions through which we will take everything from the other sides.” Because everything else is propaganda, without beginning or end. And shall I tell you what I have believed since the outset? All of you want the SYRIZA-Independent Greeks government to resolve the issue. And how do you differ from us? You hide it and want to use it against us. This is the issue, and I will prove it, because you want me to. Is there one side in an agreement? There are two sides. In recent days I have been hearing something surprising. I follow developments in Skopje very closely. I hear Mr. Ivanov, VMRO and the VMRO branch in Athens, which is New Democracy -in this policy it is its branch- saying: “You want to give them everything. You are conceding everything to them: our national identities, our national rights, our national concerns.” Great, we conceded them. We go to Skopje. What are Ivanov and others saying? “You want to concede everything to the Greeks.” How can this phenomenon be explained? We are conceding everything to them, and they are conceding everything to us? Alexis Tsipras, should we perhaps reveal that we have two Agreements? One on this side, in which we concede everything to them, and one on that side, for them to concede to us? This is the only way this policy holds up. The country is divided into two camps on the Skopje issue: There are those who want a solution, and those whose political principle is non-solution. There are those who created all the problems, and we are the ones who are solving those problems. That is the difference between us. You are fans of inaction. We do nothing and the accomplished facts do not interest us. There are some people who are more specialised: these people are fans of pending issues – “everything should remain pending; do nothing.” From their experience abroad, four or five Ministers of Foreign Affairs have said the following to me: “Nikola, don’t do much. A Minister of Foreign Affairs will not be criticized or denigrated if he leaves everything pending. If he resolves problems, he has to face a lot of issues.” So, what we have is an alliance of denial. This is the same political party that saw Greece as a poor relation and was afraid to make an international agreement because, supposedly, we risk losing everything. No. The international agreement constitutes progress. It is much better that the situation we found. During the time the negotiations on the Skopje issue have been ongoing, New Democracy governed for ten years with seven Ministers, and even today, as I listened carefully, they did not tell us their position. What is their position? Right, we gave everything, we are the bad guys, blind, old, and so on. What exactly are you ashamed of having done and aren't saying? Why didn’t you give us the list of names you supported? Maybe some of you don’t know? They talk about secret diplomacy and ignore the diplomacy of their own Party. Or were they just tricks, as some people said? I will tell you the following: there are instances of good diplomacy, like what Karamanlis did in Bucharest. But there are also instances of bad diplomacy, like the seven years during which New Democracy negotiated the name Macedonia – Skopje as an international name, and plain ‘Macedonia’ as the country’s domestic name. And then there are the negotiations carried out in 18 of the 20 years of negotiations, where there was no erga omnes. You shout that the erga omnes for passports will take five years. Who does? The people who accepted the definition of erga omnes as being only for international use, when they accepted that. Nowhere in the negotiations did you insist that erga omnes extend to internal use. And what is the worst thing? During those six or seven years, when they accepted the internal name ‘Macedonia’, what derivatives were accepted by those asking that the derivatives and adjectives be similar to the states name? Since you agreed that this state would be called ‘Republic of Macedonia’, what would the residents of this state be called? What would their passports be called? Who are you talking to? Who are you saying this to? I would like to say here – and I will submit all of this to the Presidium together – that I have the permission of the Service’s Higher Council to use declassified documents. It is a legal route. So let’s hear what these documents say. You will hear. Be patient! PRESIDENT: Quiet, please. G. KOUMOUTSAKOS: (off microphone) PRESIDENT: Mr. Koumoutsakos, quiet. N. KOTZIAS: This, by which the competent Committee judges, and not your prosecutor. N. BAKOYANNIS: (off microphone) N. KOTZIAS: Calm down, Mrs. Bakoyannis. You are upset because I don’t want to bring everything out now. We’ll discuss things at the end as well. What were the names given by Nimetz? The names given by Nimetz were, first, ‘Vardarska Makedonija’. I believe that, for practical reasons, older governments did not accept this name. Because ‘Vardarska’ can also mean the Axios river, which is in Greece, and because the Skopjans don’t want it because it is associated with the fascist origins of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The other name was ‘Upper Macedonia’, which the Skopjans don’t want because the last state with ‘Upper’ in its name, ‘Upper Volta’, no longer exists, and we don't want it because our archaeologists say that ‘Upper Macedonia’ is part of today’s Greek Macedonia. We didn’t want ‘Macedonia – Skopje’, because it would end up being just ‘Macedonia’, and they didn’t want ‘Skopje – Macedonia’ because it would end up as just ‘Skopje’. So we went to the name ‘North Macedonia’. And I hear the parliamentary representatives of New Democracy saying that ‘it is the name with the most irredentism and it is the worst name that could be given.” Right. But this proposal for ‘North Macedonia’ is among the best moments in New Democracy’s negotiations, when it didn’t go with just ‘Macedonia’. Regarding this proposal, Konstantinos Mitsotakis said that “This name, ‘North Macedonia’, could be the result we are looking for.” When Mr. Nimetz asked the New Democracy government whether it accepted ‘North’ or ‘Upper Macedonia, the Greek government responded that “North is more correct and does not create confusion with older historical facts.” It is the proposal regarding which Mr. Nimetz said that he ‘accepted our proposal – the proposal of the governments at the time – of ‘North Macedonia’ because it satisfies the geographical criterion,” and it is the name regarding which the Minister at the time, in 2009 (all of this is in 2009), responded to him. She was asked by Mr. Nimetz, “I want to ask you: is it worth continuing my efforts for the name Republic of North Macedonia?” And Madam Minister (despatch from Paris, 8 July 2009) responded: “Of course it is worth it.” How is it possible for the name we pursued – but that you didn’t succeed in getting – how is it possible for the name that was worth the trouble of continuing the negotiations, how is it possible for the name that you chose – when this government wins it – creates the problems that you now have? And together with whom do you object to the name ‘North Macedonia’? Don’t be afraid of the truth. The truth is an equalizer. With whom are you afraid of the name ‘North Macedonia’? With those people in Skopje – it isn’t just Gruevski, it isn’t just Ivanov, it is the people who made a career out of spending 15% of the country’s GDP putting up irredentist statues. And you are saying here – I heard it yesterday and today – “there is no point in archaic irredentism.” There are a number of sessions of the two countries’ negotiating teams and Mr. Nimetz at which the first or second item in the negotiations was to bring down the statue of Alexander the Great and to change the name of the airport and to change the name of the motorway linking the Greek border with Skopje. As soon as we got these concessions, they stopped bothering you. They no longer had a point. Why? Because you should have been honest and courageous enough to say, “Good for Tsipras and his government and good for Syriza and Independent Greeks for managing to bring down all these irredentist symbols in Skopje.” ‘Ilinden’ is a proposal from Mr. Zaev, and talk to him about it if you want to. The name is already finished. The next argument comes, and I heard it from a friend, a respected professor, Mr. Maniatis. Who says that “we are giving the EEZ through article 13 of this shameful agreement.” But article 13 of this shameful agreement is an article that, word for word and by coincidence, is the same as the article in the Interim Accord, which you – you and your Party – considered great. Word for word. Only the numbers change. Instead of being article 18, it is article 12. And I ask myself: When you bombard us here and tell us we are this and that, you don’t know what the Interim Accord said? You read our agreement so carefully, and for 14 years you didn’t realise what was in the Interim Accord? And what is more, in international law -and this is how it is interpreted from the time of the Interim Accord- a special agreement is required. The phrasing from the UN, then and now, is that there will be a special agreement on the way in which this use will be made. Is there documentary proof that you agreed to ‘Macedonia Skopje’? There is. There are despatches, there are signatures here from Mr. Vassilakis, who was representing the government at the time – not himself – that “we like this proposal and can negotiate it,” and even the spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time said, “the Greek side considered, in principle, that the proposal, though it did not satisfy us completely, is good, and we can discuss it.” And at the end of the negotiations, Mr. Nimetz asked, “Are you staying with the same proposal?” And you responded, “Yes, we were good for three years, we stayed with it. But now we have elections and we can’t go public with such a proposal.” And further down: in contrast to what was done in the past, we did not give nationality in the agreement. I’ve been hearing about nationality for two days now. Look at the agreement. It doesn’t say nationality anywhere. It says citizenship. And if this Parliament doesn’t understand that – the majority of its members being lawyers – I don’t have time to explain it. But I will say one thing. You gave the nationality. Because when the agreement says identity and you say we gave them nationality, the other side will again invoke you. What is nationality? Is it not the state’s right to self-determination? Is it not a case that is not so daunting as you present it to be, because there is the distinction in article 7 that their language and other attributes are Slavic? And why do the Slavomacedonians want ‘Macedonian’ nationality? Because they want to include the Albanians and the Vlachs and citizens of Turkish origin under a single word. Fine, we don’t like that. Let’s look at the UN resolution of 13/8/2001, which says they are ‘Macedonian’ citizens. Was Syriza in government in 2001? Let me think ... maybe, somewhere around that time. No comment on this decision. The passports we stamp and continue to stamp today, which are passports that say ‘Makedonija’, and we just stamp them down here, kidding ourselves, and Greece says it doesn't recognise these passports, but they can be used to come to Greece. Moving on. I heard about leaders: Konstantinos Mitsotakis and Andreas Papandreou. I hold the latter in higher esteem than the former, but both had more rational positions on the Skopje issue than New Democracy does. What does Andreas Papandreou say? Let’s see what he says – with the main opposition party up in arms about citizenship and language – “we are not trying to give instructions or to put pressure on Yugoslavia not to use the term ‘Macedonia’, without referring to ethnicity at the same time,” Andreas Papandreou says. “It is their right as an independent country to do what they want in their land.” At this time we were not asking for erga omnes within fYROM. “We aren’t interested and it doesn’t concern us, but we cannot accept their intervention as to whether or not there is a minority.” And Mr. Skylakakis, the Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, writes in his book, regarding Mr. Mitsotakis, that Mr. Mitsotakis, on 27/6/1992, says, “Greece is not interested in the internal name under which Skopje would be recognised. That is up to them.” And now you criticize us for giving them timetables? And I’ll tell you about the timetables. We sat a studied the agreement between West Germany and East Germany. It was the agreement on East Germany’s joining West Germany, a hostile state socially and economically. How long did they given them to adapt their papers – new and previous papers? Four years. We’re talking about the German state. What did we do? We agreed with fYROM that the new papers will be issued directly with the new name. Article 8. Article 8 says new documents are to be issued directly with the new name. The old documents? Through a five-year process. What does a five-year process mean? Because you don’t seem to understand…Skopje has a population of 1.6 million right now, with 1 million emigrants abroad. How can we insist that the papers of a million emigrants be changed the next day? Their passports have to expire, they have to go to their consulate to get them renewed, and the new passport will have the new name. Or do you think the police in Skopje can find a million immigrants and go door to door and make them renew their passports tomorrow morning? Be reasonable! Aren’t you the Party of entrepreneurship and efficiency? And let’s look at one last issue regarding citizenship and all that. On 30 April 2008, the UN made an official record of the negotiations. An official record – not some secret paper – and it says what the sides have proposed and concluded on. And the twelfth point is the use of the terms ‘Macedonia’ or ‘Macedonian’. What is the comment of ‘the second part’, Skopje? That the other side must not have exclusive use of the term. What is the Greek side’s comment, as recorded officially at the UN? That “the other side must not have exclusive use of the terms ‘Macedonia’ and ‘Macedonian’. This is what you have ceded, and don’t pretend ignorance. Here we have an older issue. What is this older issue? The language. What is the language? Was there a Macedonian language in antiquity or in fYROM, etc.? No. Yugoslavia followed the practice of the Soviet Union. For every small or large ethnic or national group, they created a written alphabet and a script for writing down their speech. So, in 1948, fYROM, which at that time was the ‘Socialist Republic of Macedonia’, created the Macedonian language. In 1948, it was illegal to be a leftist in Greece. You were governing. What did you say? In 1954, this language was recognised, and following the recognition, in 1954, Averoff ... S. VOULTEPSI: (off microphone) PRESIDENT: Quiet please, Madam MP. N. KOTZIAS: Allow me to know the history better that you. PRESIDENT: Fifth Plenary, will we go into the third round now? N. KOTZIAS: In 1959, Mr. Averoff, who was competent for this issue, publicly acknowledged the existence of a ‘Macedonian’ language. Have you condemned him for this? In the history of the Greek Right, is Mr. Averoff condemned, or is he an idol with his Fire and Axe? And then the UN came to Athens in 1977, and the Cyrillic language was accepted in the internal decision of ‘Macedonia’, and at the same time – what has not been said publicly – there was the adoption of a Yugoslavian report on these languages. And after this, in 1977, this language was added to the UN list of official languages. N. KOTZIAS: Go look at the list! Take the trouble to look at the list. PRESIDENT: Quiet, please. Mr. Minister, can you finish in three minutes, please. N. KOTZIAS: Mr. President of the Parliament, I am due 18 minutes plus 9 for a response and 3 for a second response. I’m not even there yet. I did not make an initial statement or a response. Please give me a little time. In 1992 and 1994, at the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which determines codes, from languages to license plates, Greece was absent. There, in 1977, only Mr. Babiniotis, who acts as if he is the only expert on languages – but I remember Mr. Babiniotis saying that there is no demotic language in Greece, and he had created the new modern Greek at that time, defending katharevousa, so that we’re clear. Essentially, you know what happened, so why are you shouting? We caught you like a student copying, and you’re shouting that you want an ‘A’! PRESIDENT: Don’t submit questions, please. N. KOTZIAS: Now let’s go to erga omnes. In the beginning, when fYROM was created, Mr. Samaras’ stance, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, was, “yes, to the name Republic of Macedonia.” What can we do? It is in all the documents. We do not need to open up the Ministry’s archives. Skylakakis says this in his book. Varvitsiotis says it in his book. Everyone of standing in your Party says it. Afterwards they said, “no to the name Macedonia,” and this remained the fighting stance of the Evert-Kanellopoulos group, and they insisted against Mr. Mitsotakis. Since then, since 1993-1994 – as all the archives show – the compound name was accepted. But what compound name? One internal name and another, international name. A compound name only internationally. And until recent years, erga omnes had only one meaning in the negotiations: for the compound name not to exist only for bilateral relations, not just for inter-state relations, but also for use in international organizations or, according to others, not just for international organizations but also for inter-state relations. If you look at the first despatches of Mr. Zacharakis, who was your MEP and can show this to you, it was – as he wrote – for all international uses. Not for all uses. And now you, who at least negotiated this – for all uses – at some point, are complaining because we have timetables for the practical implementation of erga omnes internally. N. KOTZIAS: The other side didn’t sign some of them. PRESIDENT: Mrs. Voultepsi, please be quiet. Don’t do this. N. KOTZIAS: What did it say about passports? It said a new and constitutional name; this is what the reports say: “Greece agrees to discuss Mr. Nimetz’s proposal for an internal name and an international name. Greece agreed to the term ‘Macedonia’ for internal use.” (Conversational exchange) PRESIDENT: Quiet, please! N. KOTZIAS: Some people cannot stand the truth. Moreover, together with this name there was an amendment to the design of passports, which would bear not only the new name, but also the state’s constitutional name. While our agreement provides for only the new name. I suspect that many of my friends in New Democracy -I have good relations with some members of the Party- have confused the name with attributes. The name is one thing. Erga omnes does not concern attributes, and no one ever fought for this. Erga omnes concerns the name, and the name is categorically erga omnes. And that is why I respect Skopje for conceding on this issue. This erga omnes is not just for external use; it is for all uses. But shall we look back at how the problem with erga omnes was created? Very simply, the European Economic Community decided in 1991 to create the Badinter Committee, which would see whether these states’ constitutions contained irredentism. And what did the New Democracy government do at that time? It refused to go to this committee -a minor error- despite having voted for its creation. And here, Mr. Papoulias -the Ambassador, not the former President- the former Ambassador who served as Minister of Foreign Affairs for your governments, says the following: “for the responsible representative of a government to accept the setting up of a Committee in any international organization – be it NATO, the EEC, the UN – so that this Committee can discuss this national issue of our country, without first securing its participation in said Committee, is a glaring example of diplomatic ignorance and incompetence.” Your Minister has said this.And now let’s go to the school books. The accusation being made is that we agree to their seeing our books and our seeing theirs. Is there anyone who is afraid that, if they see ours, they will find violations of international law? Is that it? PRESIDENT: Please, Mrs. Voultepsi. N. KOTZIAS: Mrs. Voultepsi, it isn’t my fault. All of the states of Europe, with the advent of Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik in the 1970s, set up joint Committees to look at history problems in their books. And the first example started between Germany and Poland, with Germany having killed 10 million Poles during WWII. And you don’t even want this? This is international practice. Is it my fault you don’t know this? What's more, we found ourselves in a dilemma ... PRESIDENT: Mrs. Voultepsi, I call you to order, and don’t do it again. N. KOTZIAS: There is the name, the brand names of businesses. We carried out a study with the University of Thessaloniki and the Society for Macedonian Studies – which isn't characterized as being in our ‘camp’ – and how many companies were found? 3,400. And how will the problem of these companies be resolved, regarding names? By a year of negotiations for each company? We decided, together with the European Commission and the UN – as in the case of other states because this is international law. Unless you don’t want international law. Say so! N. KOTZIAS: The Society for Macedonian Studies is in Thessaloniki. You don’t have to shout. Your ignorance is clear. The best solution is an international Committee for three years, under the UN and the European Union. And this committee, based on the criteria of the agreement, will check commercial rights, and this was the only way we could regulate this matter. As regards NATO and a timetable: I have here a letter to Mr. Stoltenberg, which I sent the day before yesterday. I have here a letter to NATO, in which I make the reminder – and they have made a commitment; the Secretary General of NATO said so publicly – that if the agreement is ratified by their Parliament, they have the right – we are not trying to get them in or keep them out. If they want to join, they should receive an invitation from NATO. What does an invitation from NATO mean? That they start the dialogue with NATO. Do they become member states of NATO in three days, as I have heard here? No. When do they become members of NATO? Only if they satisfy all of the conditions set by Greece. What are these conditions? In the last sub-paragraph of article 2, it says that the second party shall notify NATO that it has carried out the referendum, completed the constitutional amendments provided for in present agreement, and they will be granted membership. In other words, pay attention: You are saying that we are yielding. Essentially, they are holding a referendum and changing the Constitution so that we can give them the OK. And I always remembered – and I think you will agree with this – that you always said, “don’t finish this ratification process before we get the Constitutional change,” which you never requested, which you essentially never introduced into negotiations. There are texts in the negotiations that say constitutional revision is contraindicated at this time – so let’s not go into it. It’s right here. Everything will be submitted. PRESIDENT: I ask, Mr. Kyriazis, to please not interfere in matters he is unfamiliar with. N. KOTZIAS: Have I ever interrupted you? I’ll submit everything together. You won’t tell me how I should talk, Sir! Tell it to you Party. I am free to speak in this space. PRESIDENT: Mr. Kotzias, please don’t respond. N. KOTZIAS: The last thing. Take everything, put it in the order you heard it. And here is the Interim Accord, article 13, and 4 pages from Mrs. Strati’s book on the issue, which prove that this attack isn’t real. I want to say one last thing. What is the last thing? And if I am provoked, we’ll talk when we debate the issue. N. KOTZIAS: The last thing. There were negotiations that took place without anyone knowing about them – not even the Ministerial Council. I’m not saying which government was involved. It doesn’t interest me. What interests me is all the talk about secret diplomacy and so on. And in these negotiations, our negotiator was summoned to the Security Council to say that “Greece agrees to such and such a name, but because it can’t say so publicly -due to public opinion- it cannot make the agreement. So it should be passed as a Security Council resolution, which the Greek government will then be called upon to implement.” N. KOTZIAS: Don’t shout. We’ll go into everything in detail when the agreement comes before Parliament. Don’t shout. We were the most democratic government. We held four meetings of the Ministerial Council. We briefed the heads of the political parties. Some of them didn't want to be briefed by me -they regard me illiterate- and they sent their representative. We briefed the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs – because someone said, “you didn’t hold even a single briefing,” and what was said in the briefing was leaked. And as a result, we agreed to today’s debate, and we have an agreement that points to the following division in the Balkans: On one side there are the forces in Skopje and Greece who want solutions and have gone to great trouble and made a great effort in this direction, and on the other side are the forces of inertia, of pending issues and games of nationalism, not patriotism; forces who do not want solutions, but who want to perpetuate the problems and don’t care about the repercussions. Thank you.
 |
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.mfa.gr |