By Denko Maleski
Through narrative games, the new government, via the Minister of Foreign Affairs, declares that the state seeks progress in EU integration while emphasizing a shared commitment to the European goal with the president and prime minister. This same optimism for the new year, 2025, was expressed during the minister’s meeting with EU ambassadors accredited in Skopje. However, such optimism is grounded not in reality but in itself. At the inauguration of the new U.S. president, our delegation, larger and more diverse than previously announced, will seek support from the new administration to achieve this goal. While in opposition, they refrained from revealing their plan to revise the “French proposal” to high-ranking U.S. diplomat O’Brien, but on February 20, they will have no choice.
And now I wonder: when our country failed to find common ground with the U.S. under the Biden administration, known for its multilateralism and dedication to the Euro-Atlantic alliance, how does it intend to achieve this with an administration whose “transactional” diplomacy threatens to unravel Europe? The opportunity for support was missed back then, during the era of the slogan “all for one and one for all.” Now, we enter the era of “every man for himself.” If it is true that interests, not sympathies, dictate state actions, and we put the U.S. in a position to choose, in which direction do you think American interests lie—towards Macedonia or Bulgaria?
The new government must lay its cards on the table and reveal its plan so that the U.S. understands what support is being sought, especially since their (“French proposal”) is not accepted by Macedonian politicians. What we are seeking and the plan we have becomes clearer from the interview with the new Foreign Minister, Mucunski, for Telma. From what I heard, the plan is the same old one—with “delayed action.” Meanwhile, we signal to the EU: If you have another idea offering predictability, we are ready to discuss, analyze, consult the expert community, involve a broader circle, as a society, including the opposition and NGOs. Let us not repeat the mistake of the past by excluding key stakeholders in the state. As a society, we must determine whether this path is acceptable… Including minorities in Bulgaria… That, roughly, is our plan according to the new foreign minister.
So, aside from a “broad societal debate,” the new foreign policy demands predictability from the EU—guarantees that we will no longer be blocked in the EU integration process, as we were by Greece for 25 years and by Bulgaria for over 5 years. In total, 30 years of stagnation! Is there any sense in continuing this, I wonder? Everyone tells us that such guarantees do not exist in international relations, yet we keep asking for what does not exist. To be blocked as a state for 30 years and not learn the first lesson—that alliances are formed to defend the interests of their members, not to meet the demands of applicants—is simply incredible. We agree only when facts work in our favor; otherwise, we reject them.
But there’s more. Manipulating public ignorance (including journalists) to claim that the previous executive power violated democratic rules when it signed the agreement with Bulgaria and accepted the “French proposal” without opposition support is deceitful. In all democratic states, the executive power negotiates international agreements, which are later approved (or not) by the parliament. SDSM and DUI acted according to their beliefs about the best foreign policy for the state. The opposition did not agree in parliament, and later, in elections, citizens endorsed the new policy. That ends the debate. No betrayals, no nonsense. In fact, there would be no mistake if VMRO-DPMNE resolved the EU issue and presented the solution to the opposition for parliamentary approval without consultation. That is what governments are expected to do—propose policies and lead.
