The Treaties That Divided Macedonia Now Online

Macedonians can now access and read the key treaties that divided and shaped Macedonia under a new project by Pollitecon Publications which brings these documents together on the internet for the first time.

The new web page is titled Treaties and Legal Cases, and has the full text of 16 international treaties and when complete will have the texts for at least 22 treaties. See

http://www.pollitecon.com/html/treaties/index.html

The key treaties that affected Macedonia and Macedonians were the:
* Secret Protocol Between Greece And Serbia,
* Treaty of Bucharest,
* Treaty Concerning The Protection Of Minorities In Greece,
* Convention Between Greece And Bulgaria Respecting Reciprocal Emigration, and
* Convention Concerning The Exchange Of Greek And Turkish Populations.

It is interesting, if not coincidental, that I found some of these were also the treaties most difficult to find and some were not available on the internet. Their republication on the Pollitecon web site now makes all of them easily accessible for the first time.

Other treaties in the project include the major treaties signed at the end of the First World War: the Treaty Of Neuilly between the Allied Powers and Bulgaria, and the Treaty Of Sevres and the Treaty of Lausanne between the Allied Powers and Turkey.

A second section of the project reprints major legal and human rights cases by Macedonian political and other organizations. There are eight initial legal cases in the project - five by Macedonians against Bulgaria, two by Macedonians against Greece, and one by Macedonians against the State of Victoria.

The aim of the project is to enable Macedonians to have a better understanding of the legal documents and procedures that divided the Macedonian land and people. At present most Macedonians are aware of these and their contents only through second hand sources and have not read the primary documents themselves.

It is also possible that a better understanding of these documents could lead to improved human rights for Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria. International law is certainly one method that Macedonians should explore further to begin to right the many current and historical wrongs against the Macedonian people. Sidiropoulos and Others, Vinozhito, and OMO Ilinden-Pirin have already had initial success in the European Court of Human Rights. But these ground-breaking cases should be seen as only the beginning. Macedonians have many more injustices that need to be rectified. There may also be other international courts and forums available to the Macedonian people.

It would be an interesting exercise to commission one or several of the leading practitioners in international law to give an expert legal opinion on the current standing of all of these key treaties and whether there are any opportunities that can be utilized to improve the well being of all or part of the Macedonian people, particularly in Greece and Bulgaria which are the most difficult countries for Macedonians.

It would also be useful for the Macedonian people to have a more vigorous and rigorous public discussion about these treaties. With that objective in mind I would like to make three observations of a general nature that could be relevant to understanding these treaties, and which
I hope will be interesting topics for public discussion.

The first is that there is not one signature on any of these treaties by a Macedonian Government, Macedonian organization, Macedonian individual or anyone appointed to represent the Macedonian people.

Since the Macedonian people were not signatories to these documents, many Macedonians cannot see how there could be any expectation that the Macedonian people should agree with or be bound by these documents.

To take one example - the Treaty of Bucharest that divided Macedonia between Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. It is a fact that Macedonians have never accepted this Treaty and never will. Macedonians find it extraordinarily unjust that the fate of their land and their fate as a people was decided without their input or consent. The Treaty does not have the consent of the native population, and particularly the Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia, nor of the other ethnic groups who lived in these lands at the time. Without this consent, there will always be the shadow of moral illegitimacy over the Treaty and over the initial occupation and continued possession of these lands by Greece and Bulgaria.

It would be interesting to explore these issues at the highest levels of international law, including whether the Macedonian people have options for any legal redress, or whether the problem ultimately requires a political solution?

The second observation I would like to make is about the Treaty Concerning The Protection of Minorities In Greece.

Apart from its initial intent, nothing kind can be said about this Treaty. While the document purports to protect all ethnic and religious minorities in Greece, the fact is that in the years after signing this piece of paper Greece went on to commit cultural genocide against the Macedonian people and to this day does not recognize a single ethnic minority and only one religious minority within its borders. This comprehensive failure makes this Treaty a major international tragedy and probably one of the great failures of international diplomacy and law.

The question about this Treaty is not which article Greece may have broken, but whether there is an article it has not broken. Encyclopedias could be filled with examples of where this Treaty has been ignored, particularly in regard to:
* Article 7 paragraph 1
* Article 7 paragraph 3
* Article 7 paragraph 4
* Article 7 paragraph 5
* Article 8
* Article 9 paragraph 1
* Article 9 paragraph 2

Let's look at a small number of examples.

Article 7 paragraph 1 states "All Greek nationals shall be equal before the law and shall enjoy the same civil and political rights without distinction as to race, language or religion."

If so, why does Greece allow the return to Greece of fighters from the Greek Civil War who are "Greek by genus" but not the return of those who are Macedonian by genus? Why is the concept of "Greek by genus" necessary if everyone is equal?

Article 7 paragraph 3 states "Differences of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice any Greek national in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as, for instance, admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries."

Yet Macedonians, and especially those employed in the public service, still fear they will suffer discrimination if they openly identify as Macedonian.

Article 7 paragraph 4 states "No restriction shall be imposed on the free use by any Greek national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, in religion, in the press or in publications of any kind, or at public meetings."

Yet Macedonians have been forced to take pledges not to speak their Macedonian language, and to this day languages other than Greek and religions other than Greek Orthodox are restricted.

Article 8 states "Greek nationals who belong to racial, religious or linguistic minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as the other Greek nationals. In particular they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control, at their own expense, charitable, religious and social institutions, schools and other educational establishments, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their religion freely therein."

Ethnic Macedonians in Greece have been struggling for decades to have their own religious and social institutions but are prevented from establishing these.

Article 9 paragraph 1 states "Greece will provide in the public educational system in towns and districts in which a considerable proportion of Greek nationals of other than Greek speech are resident adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Greek nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision shall not prevent the Greek Government from making the teaching of the Greek language obligatory in the said schools."

Is there a single primary school in Greece that teaches the Macedonian language?

Macedonians are not alone here. Other ethnic minorities including the Turks, Albanians and Vlachs, and other religious minorities including the Catholics, other Orthodox, and Muslims also face similar discrimination.

My third observation is really a question: can Greece be held accountable, and do the Macedonians and other minorities have a remedy?

Under Article 16 Greece agreed for its obligations to be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations, and that "any Member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction, or any danger of infraction, of any of these obligations, and that the Council may thereupon take such action and give such direction as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.

"Greece further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions of law or fact arising out of these Articles between the Greek Government and any one of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers or any other Power, a Member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Greek Government hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decision of the Permanent Court shall be final and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant."

Although the League of Nations was dissolved, its successor organization is the United Nations. Likewise, although the Permanent Court of International Justice was dissolved, its successor court is the International Court of Justice.

Article 37 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice says "Whenever a treaty or convention in force provides for reference of a matter to a tribunal to have been instituted by the League of Nations, or to the Permanent Court of International Justice, the matter shall, as between the parties to the present Statute, be referred to the International Court of Justice."

Thus the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction to hear a dispute regarding a League of Nations Treaty or Convention.

The next question is who has standing to bring a dispute, and who would be prepared to do so? As well as Greece, the signatories to the Treaty were: Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India. What legal and moral obligations do these countries have to enforce the Treaty? Can one or more of these countries be persuaded to bring an action?

Article 20 states "All rights and privileges accorded by the foregoing Articles to the Allied and Associated Powers shall be accorded equally to all States, Members of the League of Nations." Does this mean that any member of the United Nations may also bring a dispute? Could the Republic Of Macedonia do so? If so, would it be prepared to do so? If not, is there another country that could do so, either on behalf of the Macedonians or on behalf of some or all of the ethnic and religious minorities in Greece?

It is obvious that Greece had no intention of fulfilling the Treaty, and to this day continues to violate the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Greece claims that the Treaty only refers to a "Moslem" minority. Yet the Treaty clearly speaks of "racial, religious or linguistic minorities" in the plural. Perhaps a country with standing could bring a dispute to clarify this and the many other issues that arise from Greece's behaviour.

Action by the signatory countries could in one move redeem their past inaction, and at the same time offer the international community a relatively quick and painless way to improve the very low level of human rights in Greece and raise them to an acceptable European standard.

If these issues are not resolved, the treaties that divided Macedonia will continue to raise legal and ethical questions and continue to generate discontent among the Macedonian people around the world. My hope is that the answers to these questions may lead to a better life for Macedonians and other ethnic and religious minorities in Greece.

Imperialism and Fascism are on the Rise in the USA

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison (1751-1836), 4th U.S. President and author of the U.S. Constitution

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carring the cross."
Sinclair Lewis, (It Can't Happen Here, 1935)

"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of a private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), 32nd US President

"...An empire is a despotism, and an emperor is a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy. For, although the will of an absolute monarch is law, yet his edicts must be registered by parliaments. Even this formality is not necessary in an empire."
John Adams (1735-1826), 2nd American President

"I'm the commander in chief, see, I don't need to explain, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting part about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
George W. Bush, quoted in Bob Woodward's book 'Bush at War'

It may be partly a consequence of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the perceived rising external threat coming from fanatical Islamists, but it is undeniable that imperialism abroad and fascism at home are on the rise in 21st Century America. This is amazing, because, along with totalitarian communism, these were precisely the two most disastrous political diseases of the 20th Century against which the United States and other democracies fought. They led to two world wars and turned the 20th Century into the most murderous century in the history of mankind. —Such a development is important for the United States, but it is also of paramount importance for all the other democracies, because if the United States, which has one of the best democratic constitutions in the world, falls to a form of benign totalitarianism, what is the fate of democracy elsewhere?

Before we proceed, let us define a few terms. Indeed, what is imperialism? What is fascism? What is totalitarianism? And what is democracy?

Firstly, imperialism is the use of force in international relations outside the realm of international law and the requirements of self-defense, with the purpose of taking control of foreign countries, their populations and their resources, and with the express intention of changing their cultures or systems of government.

—The best book on imperialism is J.A. Hobson's Imperialism: A Study (1902).
Secondly, fascism is a political regime that is characterized by a high degree of concentration of power in the state, in one political party or in one person, accompanied by a messianic and belligerent form of nationalism, by the usurpation of legislative and judicial prerogative by the executive branch of the government, by the suppression of individual freedoms at home, by the worshipping of national symbols such as flags, and by a rise of militarism and the pursuit of military expansions abroad, often so as to avenge some perceived humiliation.

—One of the best books on fascism is Robert O. Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism (2004).
Thirdly, totalitarianism is a broad concept concerning the exercise of power by one party or one person within a country through force, while being unrestrained by laws or by rules.

—Perhaps the best book on totalitarianism is Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (1958).

Finally, democracy is a form of government where the citizens’ preferences are paramount in adopting public policies and where people elect a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It rests on the rule of law, the decentralization and separation of powers, and the protection of fundamental liberties and individual rights. It is the antithesis of imperialism, fascism and all types of totalitarianism.

— A classic analysis of American-style democracy is Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835).

Now, let us look at a few facts and events that have recently taken place in the United States. When they are placed together to form a whole, they form a powerful political and legal framework that could allow President George W. Bush or any other politician to run the United States by decree rather than by the will of the people.

First, there is the September 2002 Neocon imperialist doctrine adopted by the Bush-Cheney administration that was used to launch the March 2003 illegal military invasion of Iraq. This was done according to the imperialistic "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive wars1., of international unilateralism, and of American assertive military supremacy around the world. —According to this hubristic foreign policy doctrine, the United States could invade any country, especially in the Middle East, in order to impose a local democratic government friendly to the United States and its allies. The occupied country would then become a model to other countries which would adopt the same type of political regime and the same policies. —We all know how this new imperialistic doctrine has fared in Iraq and what have been its disastrous consequences.

The 2002 'Bush Doctrine', in asserting the right for the U.S. to invade other nations for vague reasons of social engineering, nation building or regime change, represents a repudiation of the Nuremberg Principles and the United Nations Charter's ban on wars of aggression, both strongly supported by American leaders sixty years ago. For example, the Nuremberg Charter stipulates that “To initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime." As for the U.N. Charter, its Preamble says that it has been established "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."

Second, in a manner somewhat reminiscent of the regime of Adolf Hitler suspending the right of habeas corpus in Germany on February 28, 1933, the Bush-Cheney regime also suspended the right of habeas corpus in the United States. Indeed, on October 17, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law S.3930, the Military Commissions Act, a law that cancels the right of habeas corpus for foreigners accused of terrorism and for both Americans and foreigners who have been designated as “enemy combatants” by the Executive branch. Under this law, any individual, citizen or non-citizen, can be deprived of the protection of due process at the whim of the Executive branch, and be imprisoned indefinitely without legal recourse. —The United States is probably the only country in the world where the right of habeas corpus has been suspended and yet is still being called a 'democratic' country.

Third, the Defense Authorization Act of 2006 (H.R. 1815), passed by Congress on September 30 2006, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006, empowers the president to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist “incident,” if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of “public order”. The resort to martial law could come, for example, as a response to a terrorist attack, but it is not excluded that it could be imposed if some antiwar protests were to get unruly or after any major political disturbance. Since the current Bush-Cheney administration got away with declaring a war abroad on a pretext, what would prevent them from imposing martial law at home also on a pretext?

Fourth, let us consider that when Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807, the purpose was to severely restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. Indeed, its Section 1385 .(Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus), as later amended, states that "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both".

These protections are all gone now. —Indeed, the adoption of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122) changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from “Insurrection Act” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” —While the U.S. Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy”, the new law allows the president not only to declare martial law and rule by decree, but it also gives the president the power to take charge of United States National Guard troops without the states’ governors’ authorization. The law also expands the list of such permissible cases for martial law to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition”—and such “condition” is not defined or limited in scope. All the safeguards against the use of the military at home have been removed in favor of new powers being given to the president to do so nearly at his whim.

Fifth, the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed by President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, an event that was generally not covered by U.S. mainstream media or discussed by the U.S. Congress, goes even further and declares that in the event of a “catastrophic event”, the president can become what is best described as a de facto dictator: "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

Sixth, on March 15, 2004, the National Security Agency's wire-tapping and domestic spying program, without proper judicial supervision, was authorized by the Bush-Cheney White House, without Justice Department approval and over the objections of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. This was an illegal program of domestic spying, because it violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which established a panel of judges to hear wiretap requests in secret. When a government begins to violate the law, there is no way of knowing in advance where this will lead and how far it will go. It is an open field.

And seventh, there is the practice of submitting detainees to torture and to other degrading treatments despite the clear obligation not to do so under international law and under U.S. law. It is truly amazing that the Bush-Cheney White House had to be reminded by the Supreme Court, in June 2006, that it had to abide by the Geneva Conventions. —It seems they could not figure that out by themselves.

These are seven ominous developments among the most serious, some having gone nearly unnoticed within the United States, but which would have the Fathers of the U.S. Constitution turning in their graves, if they could see what has been done to their work. Technically, there is still a fair amount of personal liberty and freedom in the United States for the average person, but this could change at the drop of a hat, or more likely, at the stroke of a pen. Over the last six years, the Bush-Cheney administration has been unmistakably shifting the USA toward imperialism and toward fascism.

—This is not to deny that we live in dangerous and taxing times, but Americans should pray that no major catastrophic event occur under George W. Bush's watch, because all the necessary apparatus has been set into place to suspend liberties and freedoms and impose a fascist-like regime upon the American people when the pretext presents itself. This is a sobering thought.

----------------------

[1] -Bush’s March 20, 2003 Iraq War was a preventive war, not a pre-emptive war, since there was no imminent military threat coming from Iraq. However, the Bush administration, in its September 19, 2002, so-called “Bush Doctrine” document, asserted that they were ready to “act preemptively”, “to forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries.” Also, when they raised the issue of the “mushroom cloud”, they justified (wrongly, I agree) their coming war as a pre-emptive one, not as a preventive one. So, in its official political vocabulary, the Bush-Cheney regime has affirmed that the Iraq War was a pre-emptive one, even if legally it was not.