By Denko Maleski
I note that the two largest Macedonian parties, SDSM and VMRO-DPMNE, are prolonging the quarrel over the continuation of the EU membership negotiations process as if it is a train that doesn’t wait at the station, and we just need to get on. There is something grotesque in our approach to world politics. Before our eyes, a process of disintegration of Europe, NATO, and even America is unfolding, and we act according to the old saying, “the village is burning, and grandma is combing her hair.”
Not understanding the dramatic changes in global politics and the need to quickly resolve the disagreement with Bulgaria, the government mocks the opposition leader in his effort to pursue a policy of peace by insisting on constitutional changes at the cost of his personal political career. Once again, and for who knows how many times, the wrong argument is used that when SDSM was in power, they had to build a broad consensus in Parliament around the Good Neighbor Agreement with Bulgaria and the “French Proposal.”
Through pure populism, one truth is persistently and stubbornly avoided: that in all democratic systems in the world, it is the executive branch that signs international agreements, and the role of the opposition is to support or reject them through a vote in Parliament. Hence, the word “ratification.” This is the case because foreign policy issues can be urgent: no state will wait for an opponent to bomb them while trying to achieve the impossible – consensus through voting in Parliament. Everything would be fine if the government took the initiative through diplomacy to find a solution after which our small Balkan state would have good relations with all its neighbors. However, it is not just inactivity but also the criticism of the opposition’s views and actions by the government that is dangerous. Namely, questioning the opposition’s right to have its own “truth” regarding the dispute with Bulgaria means working against democracy, which has repeatedly shown that “today’s taboo is tomorrow’s consensus.” If there is something that can be criticized about the opposition today, it is that it is too “shy” in defending its positions at home.
The topic of EU enlargement is still here but is not on the Union’s list of priorities. These days, at the top of the list of priorities is the militarization of European countries in preparations for war. No one speaks of peace, not even now when it is clear that the prediction that Russia would have to accept the expansion of the Western military alliance into Ukraine was wrong. In a situation of broken diplomatic communication channels between European states and Russia, everyone is climbing higher on the ladder of military escalation, a parade of “determination to resist the aggressor” that leads nowhere. Outside of the debate on major global issues and the future of Europe, as a consequence of weak institutions and people who have turned them into tools for personal promotion, the citizens of Macedonia are left only to wait for what destiny brings them. A brutal scene from my earliest childhood, of helplessness at the zoo in post-war Skopje, comes to mind: the glass cage in which a huge python sleeps, and a rabbit trembles in the other corner…
And if we knew our most recent history and had real scientific institutions, we would have so much to say about the recent past and contribute to the future of our continent. Namely, in some sense, it all started with the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Faced with the crisis in Yugoslavia, the EU declared the “moment of Europe” and started working towards its resolution. James Baker, the U.S. Secretary of State, in separate meetings with the presidents of the republics and their foreign ministers, emphasized that his country had no intention of getting involved in another European war, the third in a row in the 20th century. And he flew back to Washington. The rest, as they say, is history.
Contrary to the decision of the Arbitration Commission led by Badinter, which was in favor of recognizing Slovenia and Macedonia, Germany, guided by its interests and influenced by the Croatian lobby in the Bundestag, recognized Croatia and not Macedonia. Soon, other EU states followed the example of the economically strongest state of the Community and Greece’s veto on Macedonia. The disappointed Lord Peter Carrington, with whom I often discussed the need for everyone to stay around the green negotiation table until a final resolution of the Yugoslav crisis, publicly condemned Germany’s actions and withdrew from the position of chairing the Conference on Yugoslavia.
This only fueled the war. Three years later, in 1995, it culminated with the genocide in Srebrenica. For years, Europe was powerless. With experience in integration but without experience in wars and disintegration, and without a joint military force to support the law, Europe at the beginning of the 1990s not only failed to stop the war in Yugoslavia but also fueled it. Namely, to be successful in international politics, you must speak with one voice, and Europe could not do that then, nor can it now. After that came the U.S. military intervention as further proof that when war is needed to establish peace, Europe cannot do it without America. I believe that the experiences with the Yugoslav crisis are important to find answers to the question: What now in a world where the disintegration process of the EU, NATO, and America is gaining momentum?
