Disputes between Greece and the Former Republic of Macedonia - Research Paper Example

Disputes between Greece and the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia Introduction The media has played a crucial role in the formulation of nationalism in Greece during the periods of 1990 and 1993. This period had seen a number of disputes between Greece and the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia. It was during this time that the media stepped in and provided a new national identity which was used to unite the citizens of the country. The media’s discourse formed a hallmark to new ideology, along with its critique to the aggressive globalization. The new ideology for the first time helped unite the media and politics in Greece. The union of the media and politics of Greece lead to little space for the emergence of any alternative national narratives. Before criticism can be levelled at this new alliance as a particularly Greek phenomenon, there are a few factors that need to be noted. The media is a very influential factor in almost every country. This was not only in terms of the Balkan societies in times of conflicts but also the case in other European countries in times of difficulties as well. The media has been seen to play a very important role through out the world. Consider the example of United Kingdoms, where the country takes pride for the neutrality of the BBC. It has been noted that in times of crisis and conflicts the broadcaster has often moved to the forefront of national emotion, dictating and reflecting the running of topics of national interest. The Greek nationalism has been developed based on the crucial concept of aggressive globalization. This mainly refers to the invasion of the neo liberal aspects of globalization. These forces have had a strong impact on the Greek societies. The impact has been on the family and welfare systems and has to a great extent also altered the basic institutions of the society. Considering this on a more continental basis Greece as a Balkan nation has been faced with high levels of pressures. The country has been expected to lead the way, as it is one of the most advanced countries in the region. Also it is one of the only countries that have been able to reach up to the political and cultural aspects with the rest of Europe. It has been seen that the above mentioned factors coupled with the influx of immigrants from other Balkan states, have led to country to a national psyche. This has been regarded to be introverted to a great extent. The late 1990s saw a number of disputes from the FYROM. It was then that the country was declared to be independent as a part of north Greece. The new nature of the Greek nationalism was one which emerged in full force with the government having a tap. The main aim of this dissertation is to find how the media contributes to the resurgence of the Greek national identity. Also the discussion is focused on the extent to which the identity is differed from the people of the northern parts of the country as well. There is a strong focus on the relationship between globalization and national identity and also if the former contributes to the development of the latter in any manner. Over the years there have been a number of debates and issues that have been raised in terms of the relationship between media and nationalism. It has been noted by prominent media scholars like David Morley, that the national media is a strong outlet for the public to share common beliefs, ideologies and traditions. It has also been noted that television is one of main sources for this tele – visual communities and a chance for people to share their common beliefs. In the recent past however, there have been a number of discussion about the national identity and the impact that the media has on the construction of the national identity. It has been noted that there have been a number of simple ethnic criteria of homogeneity which have proved to be inadequate in terms of the debates. Also post the collapse of the USSR and the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, number of complex ethnicities arguments were born which led this agreement to also be in the forefront for the discussion. Television is still considered to be a shaper of patriotic sentiments and Globalization has not created any improvements for the issues of nationalism. According to David Morley, television has actually benefited from the distance between the global and local. This is mainly because it taps into the feelings of the insecurity among citizens of western societies who feel trapped in localities exposed to the forces of globalization. Nationalism and televisions work hand in hand and complement each other to a great extent. However, an important element in both instances is the importance attached to language and signs. These might not be the creators of nationalism however they do form to be justifiable considerations and carriers for nationalism. During an age of television, these two forms become particularly important tools of in-direct political mobilization. The two instruments are normally used by the television and the press. Benedict Anderson recognizes this to operate within the ‘Imagined Communities’, whereas David Morley conceptualized this to be ‘Home Territories’. He explains that these assist in the production of a fictive ‘We’. Importantly this construction of the We means the concomitant creation of the ‘Other’. Most of the attraction for conducting an investigation into the media during the Macedonian dispute lies not only in understanding how the ‘We’ has been re-constructed but also in accessing how this process of construction fares within a context of post-modernity and globalization. Also it was to investigate how much success was there, i.e. it involved creation of a new identity which unites the masses under common targets. The dispute that the country faced with FYROM was at very crucial moments for Greece. This period was when the country was at the blink of social, political and economical changes. Apart from those, the 1990s also was a period for the media to evolve both in terms of the competition as well as the technological changes. Also for the media, along with the changes, it also had to cope with the declining viewership and readers in political and social issues which was causing a threat to the commercial future of newspapers and television companies. Also the pressures that globalization had ushered had also led to the media seeking newer viewership and audiences. The media however have also been of the understanding that nationalism could lead them to not only win back old audience but also attract newer audiences as well. Chapter 1 Historical Review: This chapter will deal with the roots and details of the Macedonian Dispute. To move further in this research and to study the dispute in depth, it is essential to firstly gain complete information of the historical characteristics if the dispute. Major focus will also be placed on what the Macedonian Dispute was historically named and how it has grown over the years. The dispute has been traced back to the 19th century and its birth has been recognised to be more specifically during the 1878. This was born when the states were created following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In a meeting at Berlin, there was a discussion of the future of the European part of the Ottoman Empire. Here the Greek representatives made a very detached approach to the issue, which led them to leave the negotiation table empty handed. There were several reasons for the Greek not to show any kind of interest to the issue. Firstly, the issue did not rank high on the list of priorities and there were other matters that needed immediate attention than this issue. Secondly, officially as well as technically, this issue had been resolved as far as Greece was concerned at the treaty of Bucharest. Also, there was a high amount of interference on the part of the Bulgarian authorities and this has led to affairs of the ethnic minorities by encouraging the Guerrilla tactics against the Turkish authorities. This intervention had led to high levels of issues among the relations of the Turks and the other ethnic minorities and also the Greeks and the Bulgarians. The relationship was seen to have grown intense between the Bulgarians and the Greek when the Bulgarian church had produced a statement which belied that the intentions to control the Greeks were both social and economical. Also there were strong intensions of heralding the divisions of Macedonia into three parts in accordance with their allegiance to different parts of the Orthodox Church. More specifically, the northern part of Macedonia comprised of Bulgarians, the central part inhabited by Greek-speaking citizens and a small minority of Bulgarians and the southern part where the Greeks are dominant. The issues rose when the Greek Church and the Greek government came to a disagreement over the education of the Greek students in Macedonia. Some important historians argue that from this period the Bulgarians started to impose Bulgarian identity on Macedonia while at the same time undermining the Greek part. Such initiatives also had the support of global powers at the time. However the year of 1893 saw a change in the Macedonian, when the Bulgarians decided to formulate a Pan-Macedonian Rebellion Force, which had an aim for independence of the Macedonian state. There were attempts not to alienate the Turks hence the Greek government initially used the cautious approach. However in 1904, the Bulgarians and the Greeks had begun successful guerrilla campaigns against the Turks. After the revolution of the Neo-Turks the internal disputes in Macedonia stopped as the new rulers of the Turkey demanded the de-nationalization of the ethnic minorities of Macedonia. The impact on the ethnic minorities was significant as they lost their coherence. From the perspective of the Greeks, the Balkan war was a success and the Slavic – populated area of Macedonia was now a part of the Greek territory. This in turn altered the otherwise ethnic homogeneity of the Greek nation. There however was a little change to this state of affairs post the population exchange which took place in 1923 and 1925 and the Slavic minority continued to remain a minority. During the second phase of the civil war, Slavs living in the Greek part of Macedonia entered army guerrilla forces which allied with the Communist military. This force functioned as a Trojan horse for the Yugoslavs. Even today the Slavic population of Macedonia demands recognition as a different ethnic minority and have proved to be thorn in the side of Greek authorities as well as to the society of Florina. There have been studies that have been conducted by some Greek historians which suggest that the national identity of the Slav-Macedons is a combative and is formed from their struggle against the imposition of Greek, Serbian or Bulgarian identities. This has led the historians to believe that the Greek governments need to adopt a reconciliatory approach. Also there has been a focus to realise that the Slav – Macedonian national identity does not necessarily mean it is implacably opposed to Greek national interests. However it is interesting to note that a Slav – Macedonian issue has been recognised and has been analysed to need a solution. Furthermore, they argue that nationalism is part of the state-building process of a nation state which both Greece and FYROM engage in. Lastly, it has also been argued that further disputes can arise between Macedonia and the other two Balkan states, Bulgaria and Serbia; while by contrast they believe the Greek-FYROM are less aggressive and harmful. It has also been noted that most of the historic issues have been caused due to lack of Greece to integrate the Slavic population into the country. Also the successive government’s choice to treat them as internal enemies rather than Greek national sovereignty has also been a major cause. The communist party has been notes to be the only ones to take on a controversial pro – Slav position within Greece. However others, who did not take up their side, have also condemned the Greek government’s mode of laying pressure on the Slavs in terms of the political and social corner, where there has been no choice but to come out fighting. The Greek governments have a strong level of fear of the Slavic populations that until 1976 there had been an emergency law, applied to all Slavic areas. It was only recently that the Government have constantly painted the Slavs as enemies to a great extent. This also led the Socialist Republic of Macedonia to feel that it had to demand a recognition from the Greek government for the Macedonian minority and also provide them with the rights and obligations that were enjoyed by the other minorities in Greece. However, the rejection of these requests by the Greek Government only led further to the feeling of solidarity among those within the Socialist republic of Macedonia and those who lived in the Greek territory. This also led to the establishment of associations which strive not only to recognize the existence of the Macedonian minority but also to help the unification of the Macedonians under one state. As a result of this propaganda a “Macedonian minority political party” came into being whose chief aim is recognition. As such blatant rejection of the Macedonians has helped the newly-formulated nation of FYROM to achieve national unity based not only on constructed symbols and historical discourse, but on the actual and numerous examples of Greek discrimination towards the Slavic community. All the events have been over a long period of time. Historically, the Slavic-population of Greek Macedonia has always been far from friendly towards the Greeks. The Macedonians have always referred to themselves as ‘Macedon’ rather than Greeks and the Greeks and Slavs have always faced the struggle of trying to control Macedonia. The Greeks and the Bulgarians, despite their differences, agree on the point that there is no separate Slav-oriented Macedonian identity. There have also been Yugoslavian historians that had set out during this period to retrospectively construct a Macedonian Ethnic identity by re – interpreting the history. A very good example of this is, when they argued that that the Kings of Ancient Macedonia were not Greeks at all but just friends of Greek philosophy and culture, an argument that is still current today. It was after the year 1978 that the government of Yugoslavia had tried various approaches and appeals to a wider international audience to help popularise the authenticity of the Macedonian identity. This was done by conducting various seminars, and writing books to help promote the agenda as well. Countries like Canada and Australia where many of the Yugoslavs had migrated, numerous groups were organised and this increased the interests of the Macedonian ethnicity. This subject had now become of primary importance and this is clear from the fact that the newly elected President Tito, had in his first speech at the country’s Parliament argued for Yugoslavia. He also argued that the only mode to solve the Macedonia dispute, there would need to be respect shown to the ethnic minorities within ones own boundaries. An important role for the construction of the identity was played by the Macedonian Pan-orthodox Church. A completely different dimension had been added since the 1990’s which saw the growth of the private media corporations as well as the proliferation of unofficial political groups. In general, people who recognised themselves to be Macedonians and who lived within Greece, now suggests that the Greek Government’s stance with regard to FYROM is far from help for promoting social cohesion within Greek society. The root cause of the problem has not been clearly identified. Some conservative historians argued that the Bulgarian atrocities led to the birth of Macedonian state and identity. This need to create a separate identity led the Serbs to separate Macedonia from Greece. Furthermore some Slav dissidents caused destruction to the Greek population before the outbreak of the Greek Civil War. Many right-wing as well as more moderate historians believed that the schools catering to the Slavs operated in a manner which moved them further away from Greece. They accused the Communist Party of Greece for this cause. These initiatives came to an end only when the Bulgarian – Yugoslav dispute recommenced. After the war, the remaining 35,000 Slav guerrilla forces who were settled in Greece were forced to leave the country. Many historians believe that as a retreat to this measure, about 25,000 Greek youth were kidnapped by Slavs and forced to settle in Yugoslavia. However the problems did not stop with the retreat. The Yugoslavs continued to apply diplomatic pressure on the Greek Government, accusing them of discrimination against the Slav part of the Greek population. The Slavs insisted that the term ‘Macedons’ should be allowed. However, the Greek government lost its patience threshold and refused to oblige. This move initiated the break of Macedonia, which happened some decades later. Despite the heat generated on all sides of the dispute, it is safe to say that the Macedonian question is no longer an issue. After the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, Macedonia became a place of contest and entanglement. Furthermore, the situation was intensified as the new-found nations of Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Albania were keen to make their nations stronger. This invariably led to all of them setting down terms defining the relationship between various ethnicities, which was in line with their respective national agenda. After the end of the Balkans war and the First World War, the situation took an unexpected turn: a part of Macedonia was integrated with Greece whereas the other smaller parts were placed under Bulgarian and Yugoslavian control. This however, did not reduce the intensity and led to increased conflict amongst the nations over control of Macedonia. As the Bulgarians tried to formulate a Bulgarian collective identity, the Slavs were trying to encompass ‘Macedonians’ with their own ethnicity. The arrival of the Neo – Turks, eventually put an end to the ethnic conflict, as they seemed to promise an end to differences. However, the ethnic discrimination within the countries still continued to exist. For instance, the Turkish government discriminated the Christian Minorities whereas the Greek minorities of Bulgaria suffered a similar fate at the hands of the Bulgarian government. Since the Second World War, Greece has been faced with varying circumstances and this has left the country with a little and almost no attention to the Macedonian question. As Dimitrios Floudas has pointed out in his ‘Pardon? A Conflict for a Name? The FYROM dispute in Greece revisited’, Greece had to concentrate on the internal affairs during the 1940’s. Hence it would be almost impossible for them to implement or even formulate any foreign policies. Since the United States, the most important ally, Greece felt the need to comply with Washington’s demands for normalize foreign relations with other Balkan nations. Lastly, Serbia had the same religion with Greece. It was a normal consequence that the latter was in desperate need to forge an alliance with a Balkan nation. This led the Bulgarian and the Greek Governments to hold similar positions in terms of the dismissal of the Slav – oriented propaganda of the Macedonian being unique. This also highlighted that the ancient ethnic group had little to do with either of the countries as well. Consistent with this situation, the Yugoslavian government went about undermining the national sovereignty of Greece. This was done by demanding rights for the Macedonian minority still living on Greek territory. Such a dispute, supported by Yugoslavia, rumbled on between the Greek government and the Macedonian minority until 1986. This was when the socialist government in Greece denied them rights. It was after the collapse of Yugoslavia that the Macedonia declared its independence and launched a propaganda offensive. This was by acquiring the Greek Historical locations like the birthplace of Alexander the Great. This was an attempt to shore up evidence of the strength of Macedonians historic identity. This was the period that the re-formulation of the nationalistic identity of Greece re-emerged as part of a daily narrative. It is interesting to observe that Greece was not the only nation that refused to recognize the existence of the republic of Macedonia. Bulgarian Government also refused to do so and they contented that citizens from FYROM were not Macedonians. It was in 1991, that the U. S. State Department pointed out in a report that the Macedonian minority were not been given their rights and there had been a lack of respect by the Greek government. The reaction from the Greek government and the media was aggressive and accused the USA of political bias. It was post this that Antonis Samaras the Minister of Foreign Affairs along with the Greek Government played a major role, to promote Greek Macedonia. They did this by creating an agitation against the pan – Hellenic mobilization of the masses. It was then that the media was utilised and the impact of this was very crucial. The Macedonian Committee was established with the help and support of Samaras whose rule has also been scrutinised, and demonstrations were also coordinated. Further more in this research the emphasis will be on to learn whether the Greek Government continued to promote that the Greek nation was alone against the foreign opinion. Also, whether the effort in sync with the media contributed to any creation of a new collective identity will be discussed. Perspectives of FYROM: FYROM being a ‘nation – state’ is comprised of a range of ethnicities like Slavs and Albanians along with a small percentage of Gypsies. The wide range of ethnicities has led to a number of issues which have not been foreseen by the historians and the political scientists. In recent attempts of writing the past like the periods following the Second World War, there has been a wider agenda of creating a new Macedonian identity. Consistent with this aim, arguments have been put forward that ancient Macedonia have had little historical or social connections with the Greek past. Also, there have been a number of arguments that accompany this, like the peculiarity of Macedonian as a language. This served the purpose of distancing Macedonian from the Slav past. Several authors and historians such as Loring Danforth have discussed that the Macedonian identity dates way back to the 19th century and has been traced back to cities of Thessaloniki, St. Petersburg, Belgrade and Sofia. These contests, act as narratives that criticize the violation of human rights that the Macedonians faced way back while they were a minority in the Greek rule. Victimized by the aggressive policy of Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia, they claim, Macedonia had to fight a rearguard action to react to this policy. Views and the various points that have been reported have been mainly for the past infiltrated universities and the state – run think – tanks in FYROM. These emphasize on the point that before 1913, the major populations of the Macedonian were not Greeks, Bulgarians or Slavs, but were just Macedonians. The first elections held in FYROM, brought forth the nationalistic aspect and also led to a plea for the unification of different parts of Macedonia into a single state. This was accepted and it proceeded to enshrine the objective as part of the country’s constitution. It is also essential to note that the history of the country was re – written on what had occurred post 1940. There have been claims that proclaim that Alexander the Great is a Macedonian and not a Greek. The main aim was to create a historical identity and also a continuity that would serve to legitimate the new state. The main reasons for the new state was to distance itself from its Slavic past and more importantly fend off Bulgarians demands as well. These needs ensured that complete medieval period as a point of start for the Macedonian history was ignored. As such, the target of FYROM has been the formulation of a national identity that had two important and distinct characteristics. Firstly, it aimed at forging continuity from the ancient years. Secondly, it offered a historical theory which unifies the Macedonians as a united nation – state. The Macedonian Human Rights Movements placed a major role and acted as a source through which a pan – Macedonian national identity could be propagated. Chapter 2 Road to Disputes: This chapter will identify a few essential aspects of the Macedonian history like the emergence in the 1990’s, the investigators, and characteristic that the media helped gain on the dispute. The main interest and focus is placed on the massive demonstrations which were organized as well as the methods of political communication implemented to whip up nationalistic fervor. The main questions that need to be answered here are, whether the actions were, a) endorsed and implemented by the media, or, b) implemented with the help of the media by the government, or, c) was a spontaneous grass-roots reaction which media and the government merely followed. However before moving on to answering the questions, it is essential to also note the importance of this period. The Greeks were emphasizing to a great extent to assert their historical rights over the territory and gain exclusive use of the name of Macedonia. This was so strong that it has been noted that the cross – party President of the Hellenic Republic left his neutral position and was for the favor of the Greeks as Macedonians. He also implied that the two were inseparable. Similarly the discourse of the period was so intense and aggressive that the Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Church, in an interview, said that “the people of Skopje and the government of FYROM should listen to us and shut up”. The Macedonian disputes stretch way back when the state department of the United States insisted that while a Slav-Macedonian minority lives in Greece, it does not enjoy the privileges that are accorded to the rest. However, as Lygeros argues in his book ‘Macedonian Dispute: Media and Politics the Argument’, that the Slav – Macedonian minority which existed could be used as an excuse for the Greek government to reject them as they had very little in common with the rest of Greece. Similarly Tasos Kostopoulos, a journalist, suggested that the Greek government feared the existence of the Slav-Macedonian minority since it threatened the homogeneity and stability of the country at a time of instability. However the government of FYROM was attached to three main conditions for the recognition of the Macedonian minority. These were as follows: a) The lifting of the constitutional claims against Greek territory, b) Cessation of hostile propaganda by the state, and c) The ban of the usage of the word Macedonia. It however became clear that the ulterior motive of the government was to claim the name ‘Macedonia’ for itself. The social and media dimensions are not the only factors that the Macedonia question, but the political ones also have a strong implication. They profoundly relate to the way in which the right – wing government have sought for survival. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, who wanted to move away from the narrow focus which often led to the debate, had to resign due to the Nationalist leanings. This step caused a number of nationalistic climate changes and has impinged upon many of the areas as well. Karasanidou needed to scrap his idea of publishing a book based on the doctoral dissertation about the Salvic minority in the Greek area of Florina. This was mainly due to the climate of nationalistic hysteria, which also led the author to be taken to court. The years of 1990 – 1993, saw a complete re – invention of the nationalistic movements in the Balkans. This was beneficial for the Macedonian question and this allowed for the revival of the otherwise flagging fortunes. Much of this can be explained by broader concerns that about the long-running war and the forces of globalization and neo-liberalism. Clearly it was necessary to defend themselves against these uncertainties. The internal instability faced by Greece and the old political ideologies led to a febrile atmosphere within the country. In the case of such heady and fluid context, the Macedonian disputes could revive themselves. It is also seen that it was possible for them to impose the dichotomist ideology of the Greeks. This was also the case for the ‘Other’ upon the Greek population as a way of providing foundation to the Greek nation. In the following sections an analysis of whether this ideology has found its place within the wider political realm and whether the main centre-right political parties which governed Greece during the crisis period were affected by this ideology will be discussed. Considering this from the perspective of the media, the re-invention of nationalism was to prove an opportunity that could be tapped into. Notably, the long-standing hostility between Greece and Turkey was deliberately raised in an attempt to increase sales revenue. Numerous newspapers have hyped up the fear that Greece could be attacked due to the alliance between Turkey and FYROM. According to the left leaning media and the political scholars, the re – invention of the nationalistic narrative led to the massive production of books from authors that had been on the margin of the political and social spectrum. It has also been noted that the majority of these authors were members or active supporters the Greek junta during the 1970s or other ultra-nationalist political parties. The government in collaboration of the media has also maintained a number of massive demonstrations which have led to a turn out of as many as one million participants. OF the various participants, there have also been as many as 20,000 Greeks emigrants participating in the rallied in United States this conveyed to a great extent the transnationalism and the extent of the nationalist sentiments. The nationalistic discourse that was generated by Antonios Samaras, the Greek Foreign Minister was also a crucial part. One typical example of the way the media presented the Macedonian dispute during this period was the way in which a trial of a right wing group was reported. The main issue at the court was that the nationalistic groups in question had burned a moderate book which dealt with the Macedonian dispute in protest. However the Greek media played down the aggressive reactions and instead of providing a critical stance on the issue. The media also encouraged this to a great extent by acknowledging that the behaviour was normal considering the situation. Furthermore this research has also dealt with issues of whether the mobilization of the masses was set up by the media or if it were an on going process that was simmering for many decades and if it was just sparked off during this period. Many political scientists believe that the media merely reflects society; that it re-enforces previous and already existing stereotypes. Thus it is seen that the nationalist sentiment was something that was formulated in society without the influence of the media. It is also important to note that this period was one which was difficult for the independent and more moderate voices to be presented and heard in media, especially the deviations invited acquisitions of people not being patriotic and considering them to be treasons. As in the case of every country’s media the main focus is on the expression of opinion rather than that of transmitting the fact based news. This was also one of the biggest issues of the Green journalism as well. More significantly, Greek journalists can be placed into certain ideological and political camps, rendering them more liable to nationalistic perspectives. Such a rigid set-up makes it easy for attacks to be launched, labelling perspectives in such a way that obstructs constructive debate. The research also brought out the fact that major journalist were not fascinated by the nationalistic narrative of the era but the ethos of the journalist allowed them to be more easily affiliated with ideologies or political parties than their colleagues in the rest of Europe. It is also essential to point out that the birth of the modern state is closely interrelated to the Greek media as well. It is essential to also realise that the relationship held by the two is still quite strong and they are at a stage where the extent of the independence of the media and press has been questioned. The same for the rich history of Greece as well, which has undoubtedly created complications. The Greeks have been recognised to be the direct descendents of the Ancient Greeks and are strongly influenced by the Greek Orthodox Church. Hence any debates or discussion of the history is bound to very easily lead to complications. Read More