Letter.Papoulias

PERMANENT MISSION OF GREECE TO THE UNITED NATIONS

733 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, 10017

Mr. Secretery General,

Allow me to communicate with you wtth regard to vie of my Government on the issue of Skopje.

The Security of Council by Its resolution 817 (1983) accepted the application by President Gligorof that the state he represents be eccepted as a member of the United Nations under the provisional name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Morever, at the same time, the Security Council stessed that "there was a difference consournig the name of the state which should be received for the benefit of maintaining peaceful and good neighbourly relations in the region".

It is obvious from the above the Security Council was concerned about the possibility of the disturbance of peace in the Balkans, should Skopje insists on the name "Republic of Macedonia".

This concern repeats similar previews positions adopted by the European Community, when this state addressed itself to Europe to international recognition.

I would further like to draw your attention to the fact that the premature recognition of Bosnia - Herzegovina, a recognition that took place without the prior solution of its internal ethnic differences , led to civil war and to the interference of the neighboring countries. I am thus afraid that the precedent of Bosnia might be repeated in Skopje; you know very well that two ethnicities antagonize each other in this area and the possibility of the deterioration of their relations is always present.

Skopje is a product of geo-political calculations of the past, where elements that could destabilize the areas are now present. Neighboring countries - with the exception of Greece- have already underwritten future claims.

Rightly , therefore, the Security Council within the framework of the Charter, but also in the new spirit for the prevention of crises, adopted the procedure which would ensure peace in the region.

The threat against the peasfull procceidings doas not emanate only from the name of the sate, but also from a long series actions wich originated in the usurpation of the Macedonian name, the effort of creating a new historically inexistent nation, and wound up at teritorial claims especialy against Macedonia, a northeren region of Greece.

 As the Oppositon in Purliament until Oct 11, 1993, we followed clsely Skopje's conduct after the proclamation of their independance. We stresed that the new regime in Skopje had adupted and continued its hostile propaganda with even greater provocativness against our country and created a climate of teritorial claims to our detriment, dispite the peace-loving tone of the declarations and actions of its representatives. At this poin, I would like to mentioon thaat the stronger party in the Parliament of Skopje was one wich had and still has as its aim a "unification of Macedoniaa", ie, the anexation of neimbouring teritories. State publishing houses circulated maps of the "unified Macedonia" while school textbooks of the new regime included those maps, thus cultivating to the new generation feeilings of irrdentism and revenge agaainst Greece. To the crowing of all abave the Government of Mr. Gligorov, with the approval of the Parliament, adopted a state flag with sympols from Greek historical heritage. And aass if all this were not ebough, during the last two weeks, Skopje launched an inernational propaganda caampain defaming our country, fabricating facts and chaneling unbelievable lies to the international public opinion.  It should be noted that al the abave mentiioned took place during the talks for the confidance - building mesures.

We further followed very closely the way with Which the Government of  Skopje exxploited the offer of good offices of the Secretary - General of the United Nations and the  Co-Chairman of the  Conferance in Yugoslavia. This was donee in a way that not only did not contribute to the solution of the prroblem but in reality rentered the mandate of the Security Council inefectual and inoperative. In order to suceed, Skopje adopted an inflaible and intransigent position on the issue of the name. Morever, they did not make any convincing gestures for their sincere intention to create a climate of confidence demanded for the success of the negotiations (i.e. by removing the usurped Greek symbolss from the flag and amending the contentious clouse of the Constitution).

The Greek Government will not allow the Governinent to coritinue to misinform the international public opinion when, as it has already been proven, it has not the slightest intention to cooperate for the peaceful setlement of difference has been defined by The Security Council. And of course my Government will not accept the continuing campain of denigration of irredentist aspiration on the part of Skopje against our country.

 Mr  Secretary General,

The Government of  Skopje must relire. the serius problems amanating from its negative position and must further demonstrate with tangible gestures theeir wish  to contribute constructively to ssupprting the goal  for which the Security Council adopted the specific procedure.

I would like to ask you to exersize your influance with the Security Council members, towards this direction and I assure you and the Security Council that my country, should the above mentioned contions materialize, wishes and will continue to contribute to the attainment of a final solution. A solution which wil provide for security, stability and peace in the region.

Ending this leter, I would like to kindly ask you to convey my warmest regards to Mr. Cyrys Vance for his efforts towards the solution of the Skopje issue and our hope that he will continue to be useful with his experience in the future.

Please accept, Mr. Secretary General, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Karolos Papulias

Foreing Minister of Greece

Home | 3. FYROM at U.N. 1993 | 5. FYROM at U.N.1993 | 6. FYROM at U.N. 1993 | 7. FYROM at U.N. 1993 | 8. FYROM at U.N. | 9. FYROM at U.N. | 10. U.N. Butros Ghali | 11.Security Council | Letter.Papoulias