The document was also signed by Greece and Macedonia and this, the paper comments, is the first document the two countries appear in as co-signers.
A1 Television reports that Christos Zaharakis, Greek representative to the UN, had requested instructions from Athens prior to putting his signature to the document. The reply, stating the Greek side has no objections to the document, authorized Zaharakis to sign the document even if the Macedonian ambassador to UN Denko Maleski insists on his country being referred to as the Republic of Macedonia in the document. Should this be the case, however, he was instructed to underline that Greece refuses to recognize the name Republic of Macedonia. According to To Vima, the instruction is an obvious expression of changes in the Athens' stance with significant diplomatic meaning and the most important act in the Greek new tactics. In future, the name issue will not be discussed as a principle issue, but will instead be used as a means to state Greek viewpoints and oppose international documents. The fact that the document was signed at the office of the Bulgarian representative to the UN in the attendance of officials of the other 6 countries, To Vima comments, indicates a start in the normalization of mutual relations. To Vima further reveals that it had been agreed to keep silent at the beginning about the fact that Macedonia is a participant in the request, in order to avoid political reactions in Greece.
Apart from the compensation request, the document consists of a demand for a lift of the international sanctions in Yugoslavia. The measures requested are: additional funds for construction of new road links, telecommunications, energy production, water supplies, environmental protection, expert aid in estimating losses due to the sanctions, as well as establishment of mechanisms for covering for losses caused by embargoes against third countries. To Vima adds that efforts to have Austria and Hungary - recently visited by Foreign Minister Papoulias - join the request.
Meantime, the US ambassador to Greece Thomas Niles yesterday stated that his government considers that a solution for the problem between Greece and Macedonia is to be resolved only through a direct dialogue, which would exclude the name issue. In an interview with the Greek TV station Antenna, the US Assistant Foreign Secretary Richard Holbrooke also voiced optimism in a soon normalization of Greek-Macedonian relations.
The Ministry declares that the Albanian Government has opposed this initiative considering the sanctions as very much in need in order to make those who are responsible for the aggression, to accept the solutions offered from the international community. This will help in doing away with the conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia, in preventing its extension in the south of Balkan and in imposing to them the finding of an acceptable solution, even for the Kosovo problem.
At the same time, Albania is for implementing in practice two resolutions approved by the General Assembly of UN in its 49-th Session for the compensation of sanctions.
The Foreign Affair Ministry of the Republic of Albania is underlining again that it is for these reasons that it has not signed the Bulgarian letter sent to the General Secretary of UN. The same attitude with Albania have kept even such states like Slovenia, Austria and Hungary.
The term "national interests" usually refers to Greece's relations with Macedonia. The reason for Samaras' reaction was the latest visit of Miltiades Evert to Washington and his sustained optimism concerning a solution for the dispute with Macedonia.
Makfaks cites Nimitz as saying Washington wishes to see the dispute resolved as soon as possible.
The delegations will meet top Italian politicians and representatives of the Holy See.
At the same time, the Union will insist on determining the lowest guaranteed wage, although this is not an obligation of the Union, but of the government. The argument presented for this was data of Payment Operations Bureau's on 55,000 workers in Macedonia not having received wages for over 3 months up to March 31, inclusive.
Association president Zhivko Tolevski informed the Macedonian Association of Trade Unions was admitted as a full member of the European Confederation of Trade Unions, at the 8th Congress held in Brussels, May 9-12. During the Congress, he said, the Macedonian Union delegation made numerous contacts with their colleagues from Greece. They agreed to have a Greek Trade Union delegation visit Macedonia sometime between 15 and 30 June.
Veremis: No doubt Mr. Miloshevic might have such kinds of suggestions...Personally, I think that such a thing is far from the present international reality. What is true, countries like Serbia, which are in such isolation, are very much in need of having good relations with neighboring countries. And, in the case of Greece, it did not have any war with Serbia, which can not be said for Bulgaria or Turkey. Serbs were our ally in four wars: the First and Second Balkan wars and in the World Wars. But, it can not be denied that there existed tense periods between these two states, especially after the World War II and the communist establishment in Yugoslavia. The idea that Greece and Yugoslavia are presented as historic allies is not based on facts. So, the communist regime led to strong aggravations between Serbia and Greece, for which Yugoslavia was to be blamed, which came to the heating point with the foundation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia in 1944, because of the irredentism demands within the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia (the documents of ASNOM of 1944), in which it was clearly expressed that the state in the initial stages of its foundation was not satisfied with its size, but looked for Bulgarian and Greek territories. If there are going to be added to this big problems that Greece experienced during the civil war (anti communists) and the annexation of the parts of Greek Macedonia from Bulgaria applied under the principal "for the unification of Macedonia" (such a discovery of Comintern in 1923, more precisely, of Kolarov , general Secretary of Bulgarian Communist party) under the patronage of Bulgaria, in these conditions, it should be understood the Greek attitude towards Macedonia as a permanent territorial threat. The Greek-Macedonian problem or better Greek-Yugoslavian, that started after the end of the Second World War has its alterations, depended mainly from the relations between Belgrade and Moscow.
Koha: But the fall of the communist block should not have influenced in the change of the Greek attitudes towards the northern neighbors ?
Veremis: It's true. Keeping a xenophobian attitude even after the dissolution of Yugoslavia, I consider it as a political mistake of Greece, because now prevails quite a different situation. But it can not be said that inside the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYRM) do not exist political groups with open aspirations towards northern parts of Greece. But, I think, that without taking into consideration the dreams of VMRO and Georgievski in Skopje, which might be irridentist; and if there exist plans for the unification of the three Macedonian territories - that means to loose time to think that such a thing is going to be realized. FYRM has real impossibilities for such attempts and is a small country and not powerful. This is a reality - threatening and non stabilized. In this context, for sure, the "patriotic" policy of Mr. Samaras has influenced for worse. It seemed that in the Macedonian question he found space for self evaluation as a politician and patriot, which was a dangerous game, because the memories of the sufferings of the war are still alive in the Greek consciousness. I do not think that Greece shouldn't be blamed for nationalistic respective inspiration here, but as the Government of Gligorov instigates the program of FYRM as an antique continuity of Macedonia of Alexander the Great, does not give great expectations. For Greece, the insistment in this theory does mean only the continuation of the irredentist tendencies of the actual political circles in Skopje. I do not know why Gligorov is acting like this. Maybe, because of getting back the political space stolen from the super patriots of the right opposition ranks. All this, for me, is meaningless. Such kind of attitudes should be left aside as soon as possible.
Koha: Do you think that is in the Greek interest the existence of such a state?
Veremis: Absolutelly. Greece feels petty for the stability of FYRM. Greece has the desire that such a state to exist, because, the dismantling of FYRM could create other difficulties by no means. I think that Athens has to encourage the existence of the state in the territory of FYRM. And, if the population of that region think that is Macedonian, there is nothing wrong here - even it would have been necessary to precise to which part of Macedonia they belong when they say this. Because, if it is approved that the population of FYRM presents the state of "unique Macedonians in the world", than there are irredentist attributes and the territorial aspirations towards the territories in Greece and in Bulgaria. But, if the consensus to baptize FYRM is reached with a necessary distinguished suffix: the Macedonia of Skopje, the Macedonia of Vardar, then we are going to approach to a logical solution. To the Greeks, the name "Macedonia" does not mean entity, it is only a geographic notion. The Bulgarians, too, have the same attitude on this. Only with the exception of Slavo - Macedonians, who insist that "Macedonian" means an ethnic group. At least, according to Gligorov, Macedonia is the ethnic state of Macedonians, which, in itself, excludes the existence of the minority-majority Albanians, Vlachs, Turks etc.
Koha: What might be the Greek minimum for the acceptance of FYRM?
Veremis: Leaving aside the irredentist aspirations. Such a state might look powerless to damage Greece, but, "the baptized" insisting of Skopje do present threat for the future.
Koha: Skopje is saying the same thing, that Greece presents a permanent threat: to the territorial integration of FYRM?
Veremis: Great stupidity. There is no political party or an institution in Greece that is going to insist on such a thing. On the contrary, what is actual in the present Greek political stage related with FYRM is the engagement in rational overpassing of the created situation.
The confusion in the minds of the Skopje people in this (even to those of the West), started with the Greek saying that "Macedonia is part of Greece". Under this Greeks understood the historic and cultural right on such a nomination and on the existence of the region of Macedonia within the present Greece. I think that the Government of FYRM has not the right to use such a term in order to baptize the state it has.
To the Greeks, the territory of FYRM has nothing to do with which they call Macedonia, that's why they have no aspiration on that. I think that here we have to do with the problem of the authorship on the name of the state and with the geopolitical double meaning that the baptizing of FYRM as "Macedonia" can result.
Koha: The improvements in the Greek-Albanian horizon? Veremis: As far as Albania is concerned, the situation is obviously different, even in the reciprocal existence of the national minorities. It can not be denied that during the history existed precise Greek aspirations on the Albanian territory, which they called as Northern Epirus. At the same time, even in the last years, from the "super patriots" of Samaras type, could have been heard such ultra nationalistic sayings. People like him or like the metropolitan Sevastianos, who died some time before, raised their voice of "help" for "our brothers under the communist dictatorship in Albania", by converting anti communism into deep nationalism and chauvinism. As far as the Greek minority in Albania is concerned, I can say that a big part of it has left Albania and located in Greece. I can not deny that the last years were hard, which I hope, are experiencing its last days, thanks to the definite improvements of the official Greek attitude. The worsening of the relations between Athens -Tirana and Athens-Skopje could threaten Greece with full isolation towards the neighboring countries. We think that the Foundation which we represent had a very important role in the evident improvement of the situation between Greece and Albania. We traveled a lot in Albania, had a lot of contacts and we succeeded in setting up the Center for the International Relations in Tirana, which is a combined engagement of Greece, Albania and Italy. In the talks with top officials and representatives of the opposition in Albania we continuously stressed the necessity of not worsening the neighborly relations.
Koha: It seemed that with the coming of Popoulias as a Minister of Foreign Relations began the new period of the diplomatic activity of Greece. We witnessed the visits in Teheran, Belgrade...
Veremis: I think that Popoulias has done a good step in the improvement of the today's Greek image. I consider him as a successful person, just on the contrary of Samaras, who was a real diplomatic catastrophe. His family derives from Albania, which makes Papoulias to have a high consideration towards the Greek-Albanian questions. His attitude on the Greeks there, who were going to be meant as a fifth colon of the Greek interest in Albania, was completely right. To cut it short, I think that we are witnessing a very valuable improvement in our relations with Albanians.
Koha: How do you see Kosovo at the end of your visit? Veremis: I have to say that I leave Kosovo with less optimism compared with here. Because, here it can not be spoken more for the preservation and cultivation of the human rights. I am of the opinion that the problem is more serious. And not only for Kosovo, but even for the Albanians in the FYRM territory. Before going to Kosovo I had the tendency to believe that with the more careful engagement of Belgrade authorities the situation was going to change positively. Today, I am very little optimistic for this. After the talks with the two sides, I got the impression that few things can be done. I think that Kosovo question is in a cross road, not only from the Albanian and Serbian sides, but even from that of the international community, which approves the autonomy, but nut the independence. On the other side, Belgrade is insisting on a limited autonomy, while the Albanians, as far as I was informed, say that the autonomy is an overpassed question...I can not give any kind of suggestion or forecast for Kosovo. Only to hope that such a tension between the power and the Albanians is not going to get tragic sizes.