CEU eTD Collection

Adviser: ProfessorBojanTodosijevic claims totheMacedonianethnic The potentialpolitica the present andfutureoftheinterstaterelationsbetween In partial fulfillment of therequirementsfor thedegreeof Macedonia andBulgaria Nationalism StudiesProgram Central European University l consequencesofth October-November 2009 Budapest, Hungary Krum V. Kaishev Krum V.Kaishev Master ofArts Submitted to By

origin, historyandlanguagefor e Bulgarianscholarly CEU eTD Collection

9. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 8. Bibliography Chapter 3.The“Macedonian”minorityinBulgaria Chapter 2.HistoricalBackgrounda Chapter 1.RelevantTheoriesonNationalism Prelude toChapter1 Thesis Statement Prelude totheThesisStatement Introduction for theInterstate Relations Chapter 4.Conclusion:ThePote 1 54 12 12 Table ofContents 51 11 ntial PoliticalConsequences nd “TheNew MacedonianQuestion”

17 38

21 CEU eTD Collection

CEU eTD Collection nations inSoutheastEurope related tothehi and language.Manyscholars havecompleted worksaboutthearguments betweenmost over twentyyears,some segmentsofthehistoricalpast,Ma what isnot?Thesequestions the Bulgarians“stolen”partsofMacedonian HaveMacedonians“stolen”parts ofthe not?” several questions,whichareindi out inthefieldofdispute, DespitetheamountRepublic ofMacedoniaandBulgaria? ofresearchthathasbeencarried a potential risk for afuture escalation inanegative direction of therelations between the historical righttoclaim theMacedonianhistor and Bulgariannationalistconservativeminde and directionofthein between theMacedonianandBulgarianscholarlycirclesareimportant forthecurrentshape future oftheinterstaterelationsbetween M day claims to the Macedonianethnicorigin,hi

claims totheMacedonianethnic The potentialpolitica the present andfutureoftheinterstaterelationsbetween What is“Macedonian”, “Arethe andwhatisnot? MacedoniansethnicBulgarians or The presentworkisastudyof tergovernmental relationsbetween Macedonia andBulgaria point totheheateddiscussions the issue remains insufficiently addressed. Below,Ihave listed cative ofthedispute. l consequencesofth Introduction thepotentialpoliticalcons acedonia and Bulgaria.Thestillongoing disputes [1] y, languageandsymbols. Isthisdisputeposing

origin, historyandlanguagefor Bulgarian history? Theoppositesetis: Have Bulgarian history?

story andlanguagehaveforthepresent storical past.Oneofthese scholarsisUlf history or not? What historyornot? is“Bulgarian”,and d scholarsargueabout the twocountries.TheMacedonian e Bulgarianscholarly , whichhavebeengoingonfor equences, whichthepresent cedonian ethnicorigin whichsidehasthe CEU eTD Collection 3 2 1 their politicalfo instruction often servesameans toperpetuate nations generallyattachgreatimportance tothe Socialism Europe inthebooktitled Brunnbauer, whotalksabouthistor catalyst forthefurthercomplication ofthesede the break-upofYugoslaviain1991.Therewereseveralmajor reasons,whichservedas a historical pastofMacedoniaandBulgariath role inthepublicandscholarlydiscoursesof disputes thatarementioned inthebeginning.Th Bulgaria, plus themedia, arestill themain a respective nations, becomes evident. Aftera and therestof theintellectuals have inthe politicalandsocio-cultural action andtosanctionitspresentconduct.” suffer oneandthesame fate:“Historyisalso Textbooks ofYugoslaviaandBulgaria According toJohnGeorgeoff,an governmental levelshasalmost alwaysbeenpres the subordinationofhistoryandhistoriography exclusively –some ofthemeventreatitassome Most historians,from boththeMacedonianand

Review 10 (October 1966): 442. 1966): (October 10 Review 442. 1966): (October 10 Review 6. 2004), Munster, John Georgeoff, “Nationalismin the History Textbooks John Georgeoff, “Nationalismin the History Textbooks Ulf Brunnbauer, ed., (Re)Writing History – Historiography in Southeast Europe after Socialism (LITVERLAG . Hebeginswiththe sentence: “History rms ofgovernment.” (Re)Writing History–Historiogr

author whopublishedthearticle y, historiographyandthehistor 3 . Consequently,thecrucial , history teaching,andconsequentlyresearchalways ll, the prominent academics from Macedoniaand nd most of thetime theonlyparticipants inthe 2 [2] frequentlyemployedto justify agovernment’s . Before that, Georgeoff states that:“Modern . Beforethat,Georgeoffstates thelasttwodecades.Thedebatesabout of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria,” Comparative Education Comparative Education Bulgaria,” and ofYugoslavia Comparative Education Bulgaria,” and ofYugoslavia and transmit theideals and valuesinherent in bates andarguments. Thesearedescribedand

topoliticalguidelinesandordersfrom top e related disputes intensified, especially after teaching ofhistoryintheir schools,forsuch ent inthenation-statesofSoutheastEurope. Bulgarian sides,treatthesubjectofhistory thing thatcanbestolen.Inadditiontothat, e media inbothstates is oftencontestedin aphy inSoutheastEuropeafter Nationalism inthe History role, which thehistorians ical disputesinSoutheast developments oftheir SoutheastEurope.” has playedacrucial 1 . CEU eTD Collection 4 leader oftheadvancingcolumn ofthereawakenednation, his circleandactivity;he activity: “By tracing adistinguished pedigree for hisnation, healso enhances the position of in congruencewithAntonyD.Sm respected position. Essentially, theposition of theintellectual in Macedonia was,and stillis, included inthecollect contribution duty ofguardiansthenewor ethnicity provedtheirhighvalue.Atthattime, mosthistoriansandintellectualsassumed the independent state.Inthatcriticalperiod,th political partiesandpeoplewereextremely co Macedonia bytheECandInternationa ethno-national identity,ethnicorigin,historyandlanguage. of independence,brought evenmore tension social instability,throughwhichtheMacedonian Macedonian state,andthesociet non-Balkan historianswouldnotprobablydenythefactth but alsothemostrecent historyofMacedoni New MacedonianQuestion intellectuals playaneminent role.” statement that:“Especi

Munster, 2004), 165. 165. 2004), Munster, Ulf Brunnbauer, ed., (Re)Writing History – Historiography in Southeast Europe after Socialism (LIT VERLAG During theearly1990’s, beforeandafterth Historiography, MythsandtheNati ive term “TheNewMacedonian ally intheprocessof“discove isnolongeranambiguous ‘margina , edited by Prof. James Pettifer.The, editedbyProf.James bookcoversnotonlythepast,

der. UlfBrunnbauerdesc y, wentthroughveryhardtim 4 ith’s theoreticaldescriptionof . Theintellectuals’classin [3] a –thepost-Yugoslavperiod.MostBalkanand around thequestions relatedtothe Macedonian e subjectsofhistory, l Community,theMacedoniangovernment,

peopleandstatewentduringthefirstyears ncerned about the survival oftheir newly on intheRepublicofMacedonia e officialrecognition ofthe Republicof ribes thisoccurrence, ring” and“awakening”thenation, Question”, presentinthebook l’ onthefringesofsociety,buta es. Thepolitical,economic and Macedonia hadtoreassertits leaven inthemovement of theintellectual’sroleand at thenewlyestablished language, religionand inhispersonal , withthe The The CEU eTD Collection characteristics. Inthissense, itwillbeinte Macedonia after1991.Thepost-1989 connected withthebasicpolitical,economic a not beenaccomplished yet. transitional periodandthatso sovereignty. Some wouldevensaythatthestat Major political,economic andsocial involved and haveaninfluentialsayinrelation historic pillarsduringtheearly played animportantpartinsustainingtheMa key historical facts.Historians,journalists, historians from each“new”or“old”nation-state re-consideration ofthepasthappeningin 6 5 order tosupport democracy, peaceandcivilsocietyintheregion.” Balkans inthe1990’s,recognizedthatcontes that: “Theso-called“interna historians. Inrelationtotheremerging impor Greece werethefields,whichbadlyneeded energizing onthepartofMacedonian thought tobenecessary,maybe evenofanur be atstake. Arenewedorreinforcedinte national regeneration.”

Munster, 2004), 6. 2004), Munster, Antony D. Smith: Myths and D.Smith: and Memoirs oftheNa Antony Myths

Ulf Brunnbauer, ed., The developments inthecultural andeducationalspheres of Bulgariawerewell

(Re)WritingHistory –Historiographyin Southeast Europeafter Socialism 5 . Aboveall, thefutureof theM

tional community”,whichwas me desiredpolitical,economic period ofpost-Yugoslavexistence. changesoccurredinthecount processes ofchangeinBulgariahadtheirunique tion. Oxford University Press 1999, page 84. page Press 1999, University Oxford tion. rvention bythehistory- resting forascholarto [4] tance ofthenationalhistoryBrunnbauerwrites writers, teachers anduniversityprofessorsall cedonian nationanditscultural,linguistic a largescalethroughoutSoutheastEurope, nd socio-cultural changes,whichtookplacein e andthenationarestillgoingthrougharough

tothecultural andsociallifeofMacedonia. gent need.ThedisputeswithBulgaria and in theregion begantodiscoverorrediscover ted natureofhistorymustbeaddressedin acedonian nation and stateseemed to and socialachievementshave increasingly engagedinthe ry duringtheearlyyearsof 6 Theyare,ofcourse,still Instead of this objective writing community was writing community explore thetrendsand

(LIT VERLAG CEU eTD Collection 8 7 national focusanditsnationalistbias other aspectsof“Bulgarianness”begantograduallyreappearinhi disappeared: “…from thenineteen-sixtieson, that theimportance of theethno-national fa Department ofHistoryandtheTheoryCultu Culture, Kliment OhridskiUniver (Ivan Elenkov isanAssociateProfessoratth Elenkov, historianswhoareamong thosewhopresentalternativeandmore progressiveviews of Communism inBulgaria. Inthis regard,some scholars,suchasDanielaKolevaandIvan present day nation-state. Thisinterest reappear trends isthepublicinterestinhistor sentiments, whichoccurredamong Bulgariansocietyand academic the circles.Oneofthese Bulgarian academics areratherconservative, whenitcomes tocoveringordiscussing historians.” questions of theoryandmethod donotpreocc developments inBulgarianhistoriography negative qualityofthisappr and history-writing exclusively and sometimes closed-mindedly. In orderto underline the well themajority oftheircolleaguesinMacedonia come tothemind oftheinformed reader.Most The names ofBozhidarDimitrov andPlamen Pa certain shareoftheBulgarian

VERLAG Munster, 2004), 95. 2004), Munster, VERLAG Eur in Southeast History – Historiography (Re)Writing 94. 2004), Munster, VERLAG Eur in Southeast History – Historiography (Re)Writing Daniela Koleva, Ivan Elenkov, “Did “the Change” Happen? Post-socialist Historiography in Bulgaria,” in in Bulgaria,” in Historiography Post-socialist Change” Happen? “the “Did Elenkov, Ivan Koleva, Daniela in Bulgaria,” in Historiography Post-socialist Change” Happen? “the “Did Elenkov, Ivan Koleva, Daniela 8 Thecasein theRepublicof

oach, DanielaKolevaandIvanElenkovdescribethepost-1989

academic establishment hasmade asubstantialcontribution. sity, Sofia; DanielaKolevaisAssociateProfessor atthe (iftheyhad everdisappeared).” Macedonia isthesame.MostofMacedonian and ical MacedonianquestionandinMacedoniaasa ope ope ed. LIT Brunnbauer after Socialism, (Munster: Ulf ope ed. LIT Brunnbauer after Socialism, (Munster: Ulf [5] ed with an increasedsignificance afterthefall Bulgarian ethnicity,thenation,and thefollowingmanner: “Itisobviousthat upy theattentionofcontemporary Bulgarian e Department ofHistoryandtheTheory ctor andnationalhistoryhasneverreally re, Kliment OhridskiUniversity,Sofia), state

of the professional historiansinBulgaria,as of theprofessional vlov arejusttwooftheseveralnames that , continue totreatthe subjectsof history storiography, revivinga 7 . Inrespect tothat, a CEU eTD Collection between thegovernments, butalsobetween th Bulgarian sidefunctioned asabreaktothefu government’s officialdenialtorecognizease are notonaninterstateleve underlined here, isthatthecurrentarguments between theBulgarianand Macedonian side crucial, apartfrom thisandafewothers else hashappenedinthesphereofintersta latter. Veryfewwarningsofthatkindweremade duringthela governing institution of theformer decidedto government towardsitssouthwesternneighbour. subjects. Thiswasanoticeable change of anotherwise positivetone of theBulgarian will have to refrain from future encroachments onBulgarian history and onanyotherrelated tobeprovi Macedonia intheEUandNATOwas message, hesetacondition beforeafutureBulgarian supportforthemembership of minister of BulgariaIvailo Kalfin made amo intention for conflict oraggressive political ac These individualproclamations weresimple wa these episodesintendedasapreludetothe achievement ofanyfuturegeopoliticalgoals. part ofanysolidforeignpolicydoctrine,direct Bulgarian statesmen andpoliticiansmade indivi of thehistoryandlanguagerelateddisputes.Therewere,however,severaloccasionsonwhich which came topowerafter 1997,were cautiouswh had aweakerrolein the politiciansandstatesmen ofBulgaria, historical disputes.Contrarytothestrongcons

these developments. Forthemost part,theBulgariangovernments, l. Itwastheoppositeduring who governedthecountrybetween1999and2009, ituations. Animportantfact,whichshouldbe parate Macedonianlanguag [6] e nations. ThestrongMacedonian opposition to ed towardstheMacedonianstate.Neitherwere rther developmentofcl tion. Inoneoftheses re significantoralstatement.Bysendingthe re te relations that canpos ervative stanceofmost Bulgarianhistorians,

issue ashortandclearwarningtowards the ded. Accordingtothis What actuallyhappenedwasthatthemain dual statements.Thesestatements werenot rnings, withouttheattachment ofanyreal en approachingthehighlysensitiveissue the 1990’s,withBulgarian st twodecades.Almostnothing ituations, theex-foreign ose relations,notonly statement, Macedonia sibly bedescribedas e. Thisrefusalonthe CEU eTD Collection The SanStefanoevent acquired asymbolic importanceforthefuturepoliticaland socio- part oftheBulgarianlanguage. Bulgarian originandthat the gr this positioniswell with thereasonableand cautious governmental beha Dimitrov andPlamen Pavlov,tookamore outs 9 formalized theestablishment ofahugeBulgar Treaty ofBerlinwasprecededbythe Bulgaria wasforcedtoacceptaf and scholarlyarguments. Oneofthesemajor issues istheterritoryand population loss,which students. Thesecentraltopicsare,of course,de these topicscanstill losses, whichtheBulgarianstateexperienced at writing community. Suchtypesofissueswere issues werereexamined andelevatedtoalevelofrenewedimportance among thehistory “nationalistic”, influencedthe history textbooks. based ontheworksofprominent Bulgarianhistoria governmental policiesandofthepublicthin governments arethereasonsbecauseofwhichacarefulexamination oftheBulgarian equally inhibitingfactor.Thec the Bulgarianclaims towardstheMacedonianlanguageandethnicdescentservedasan

For more information see: Bozhidar Dimitrov, Dimitrov, see:Bozhidar For more information Some Bulgarian historians,suchasthe be foundinBulgarianhistorytext known –itstatesthatthetoday’

rethinking ofnationalhistory. ontents oftheopposingstances oup ofdialects thatisspoken ter theofficialsigningofBerlin TreatyofJuly,1878. The 9 Thisstance,labeledbysome expertsandhistoriansas Ten Lies ofMacedonismTen [7] king shouldbedone.Theanalysis ian state,alsoknownas scribed withamixture ofemotional sentiments of SanStefanoofearlyMarch,1878, which

several pointsinthepast.Logically,mostof poken andassertiveposi theoccasionsofpopulationand territory previously mentioned names ofBozhidar ns andon thematerial thatis taught in the viour ofthelastdeca books forsecondaryandhighschool s Slavic speakingpopulationisof (Sofia), 2003. (Sofia), inMacedonia isan inseparable Certain painfulandproblematic that wereexpressedbythetwo SanStefanoBulgaria.

de. Thesubstanceof tion incomparison CEU eTD Collection scholars publishtextbooks andworks, according towhichtheMacedonians areaseparate media isknowntobecome mostly negative.As circles ofBulgariaresurface intheRepublic low. Whenever publicorscholarlydiscoursesab scholars –DanielaKolevaandIvanElenkov.The number ofthesescholars isstillrelatively way. Vitaltothatarethenames ofMariaT At present,some Bulgarianscholarsapproachthe extremely delicatematter inamore careful an alternativetothewelles descent ofthe Macedonians. Thereare,however prevailing theory,especiallywhenitcomes to also bythepublic.Mostofprofessionalhist dominant theory,whichisaccep descent andthatthelanguage,whichtheyspeak,is ethnicity isaregionalvariati the territoryofMacedoniaaregroundedon speaking majorityintheRepublicofMacedonia. considerable extentstillis)theissueabout questions, mostlyinregardtothepopulation Thrace werelost,whileUpperandPiri Macedonia. Inthefollowingyears,however,mo Stefano, Bulgariaacquired majority shares symbolic valuefortheBulgariangovernment a cultural elites. Thesubsequent territory lo

In Bulgarianhistorytextbooksitistaugh tablished conservatism among anu on oftheBulgarianethnicity. ted notonlybyalargeshareof sses andbordershiftingassumed equally an [8] odorova andalsoofthepreviouslymentioned ofthegeographicregions ofThraceand character ofVardarMacedonia,was(andtoa the ethnicidentityandoriginofSlavic of Macedonia,thegeneraltoneamongst the nd nation.According toth , some newlyemerging trends,whichserveas

n Macedonia wereretained. Oneofthekey out thepositionofco thedispute/discourse,regardingethnic orians (inBulgaria) donotdeviatefrom the alogicaladditionto that,the Macedonian theoretical perceptionthattheMacedonian Theclaims ofmany actually adialect of Bulgarian. This isthe st ofMacedoniaand theAegeanpartof t thattheMacedoniansareofBulgarian theacademic communitybut mber ofBulgarianhistorians. Bulgarian scholarsto nservative academic e provisionsofSan CEU eTD Collection 10 history andlanguageisequally culture andlanguage. relatively neutralandobjectivemanner, isthe Macedonian andBalkanstudies. major source routeis the setof Western litera about worksandresearchdonebynon-Bulgar understanding ofthescholarlyandmedia disputesbetweenthetw this caseisthebook ethno-national groupwithahist arguments is thattheWestern Europeanstate modern nationsofWestern and differences appear,especiallywheneverythi modern daystatesofSoutheasternEurope “unique” while othersuse“problematic” inor the Balkans, followedauniquepathaccording to Western andnon-Western historians.Theproce Balkans. Thephaseofnationformation inth to the process of nation-building inthe Bulg Bulgarian claim totheMacedoni accepted versionsinMacedoniaand Bulgaria.Mo Pavlovski. published bythejournalists

Pavlovski, Jovan Pavlovski and Mishel, The predominantviewintheWest onthe 10 Alternatively,thestudyof Makedonija VcheraiDenes

and writersfrom MacedoniaJo Southeastern Europewereform distant anddifferentfrom both ory, cultureandlanguageof an ethnicityandlanguage,a One ofthethemes, whichthe Western sourcescoverina Macedonia Yesterday andToday other major groupsofsource ng comes downtothediscussionabouthow and countriessuchasFranceBritain.The e caseofMacedoniaiscoveredbyanumber [9] formations from theMiddleAgesandEarly ture, dedicatedtothe der tounderlinethedifferencesbetween

arian landsandinothermain partsofthe ian andnon-Macedonianhistorians.Sucha many academics. Someexpertsuse theword sses ofnation- origin oftheSlavicMacedonianethnicity, subjects oftheMace st Western scholars question theoutright (MacedoniaYesterdayandToday), nd stressuponproblems related their own.Agoodexamplein (Skopje: NovaMakedonija, 1996). ed. OneofthetypicalWestern officialaccounts-thewidely building, whichtookplacein van Pavlovski andMishel o sides.Here,thetalkis s canhelpforabroader pics oftheBulgarian, donian ethnicorigin,

CEU eTD Collection two states).Inafewwords–itisverylikelythatsuchanattemptwouldreachdeadend. majorities of theBulgarianandMacedonianprofessional historians (plus themedia fromthe provide ananswer,whichcan inquiry. Infact,theyaretoostraightforwar is probablyobviousthatthequest and neutralmanner,leaningverymuch without towa not? the introduction: What is“Macedonian” andwhat respective nations. Thispercepti prematurely andartificiallyforcedthroughbyth building processes, which passedintheBalkans, developments ofMacedoniaandBulgaria.Th coming’ totheworldofmodernnati Western Europeancountries.A contrary tothemanner inwhich establishment thatthe nations intheSoutheas from SoutheasternEurope.Itisaccepted cultures. Thedevelopment ofth helped them tograduallybuild nationsand facilitate thedevelopment of national high Modern Periodhadmore time andenjoyedthe It istremendously difficultforhistoriansto ccording totheabovementione on providesagoodconnectiontoth e Westernnationsismost commonlycontrastedtothecases national, linguistic satisfy thetwoconflicting side ions arenotformulated asa by acertainsegment of [10] d. Itisactuallyverydifficultforanybodyto ons provedtobecruc t evolvedmuch laterandinadifferentway, e main “Western” theoryaboutthenation- e emerging politicaland

necessary conditionsandresources,which states thatthesestarte answerthesequestionsinatrulyobjective andreligiousidentitie is not? Whatis“Bulgarian”andis not? whatis rds oneortheothersideofdispute.It typical example ofascholarly d schoolofhistory,the‘late s toanequalextent–the e first part of the titleand theWestern academic ial for the national d very late and were d verylateandwere s wereformedinthe cultural elitesofthe CEU eTD Collection

policy goals.Theopinionofthepubliccanservesame purpose. to usethetheoriesandclaims establishedbynationalhistoriansfortheachievement offoreign can witnesstheconsequencesforpolitical undoubtedly taketheseviewsandfeelings into the viewsandsentiments ofpe membership intheEUonpointsofsharpargu has hintedonceortwicethatitmight groundits of theOldandNewMacedonianQuestion, severaltimes before.TheBulgariangovernment government hasusedtheemotional attachment, whichtheBulgarians feeltowardstheissues importance formost peopleinBulgaria.Asno descent, historyandlanguageofthe(Slavi content oftheclaims, whichtheBulgarianscho current andfuturestatusoftheintergovern of theMacedonians.Theconsequencesthese disputes canbeofgreatimportance forthe establishments ofMacedoniaandBulgaria,rega the potential political

As apartof the main objectiveofmyres Prelude totheThesisStatement consequences ofthepresentday ople andhistorians,thena [11] mental relationsbetween realm whenagovernme accountand applythemwithapurpose.One c) Macedonian people, is of a significant c) Macedonianpeople,isofa ted earlierintheintr rding theethnicorigin,historyandlanguage

larly establishment raises towards theethnic future approachtotheeventualMacedonian earch, Iwouldliketo ment. Ifthereisanadvantageinrelyingon disputes, betweentheacademic given nationalgove oduction, theBulgarian nt makes thedecision thetwostates.The present anaccountof rnment will CEU eTD Collection political energyfrom theacademic tothepolit to eachotherinatype of symbiosis, which circles of the twocountries. Historiansandpoliticianshavemo historical periods,eventsandfigures,whichin because, bothhistory-writingschools areimprecise their worksandquestionitascriticallypo should perform acloseexamination ofwhatthe approaches, whichthetwostates directtoward two nationalhistoriographieshadandstil to an even worselevelthantheyhave everbeen the relationsbetweentwogovernments caneither improve inthelongrun,ordeteriorate historical arguments ina the academics fromboththeRepublicofMacedoniaandBulgariashouldaddress heightened degreeofpoliticaland cultural animosity. Inorder to reach afullblockadeoftheMacedonian member between the twogovernments will almost certainly Macedonians arenottobeaddre the sharpacademic disputesabouttheethnicor Depending onwhatdirectionthe Prelude toChapter1 In thelightof thetheoretical situation that Thesis Statement

more criticalfashion. ssed properlyintherelativelyne scholarly disputemight take [12] l dohaveinfluenceovertheforeignpolicy allows for a transfer ofknowledgeandsocio- allows foratransfer igin, historyandlanguageofthecontemporary s eachother. Thisisthemain reasonwhyone its turnleads totensionbetween thescholarly ical sphere.Theethno-national andhistorical Bulgarian andMacedonian historians writein ssible. Theobjectiveapproach isnecessary

ship intheEUandNATO,plussignificantly till today.Ithasbeen is describedabove,Iintendtoarguethat,if deteriorate. Thelevelofdeteriorationmay tosomeextentintheirpresentation of st ofthetime beenconnected preventthisfrom happening, ar future,thentherelations from thispointonwards, proven sofar,thatthe CEU eTD Collection VERLAG Munster, 2004), 9. 2004), Munster, VERLAG 9. 2004), Munster, VERLAG 9. 2004), Munster, VERLAG 9. 2004), Munster, VERLAG

methodology andapproachcharacterised previous statement: “Onthecontra 14 13 12 11 profession [ofhistory-writi historian MariaTodorova in1992, according to and politicalintervention,…” changes inhistoricalwritingduetotheliftingof notice thecontinuation:“…,afterendof influence betweenhistory-writing state elitesinSoutheast Europestillrelyonhistoricalnarra communist rule.” most highly ideologised disciplinesbecauseof In supporttothat,UlfBrunnbauerstatesthat:“H factors wereofsignificantimpor on whichmanytypesof nationalism arestill political andsocialdisturbances,nomatter if foreign audiences–conductedat extreme nationalism. Theactivepropagationofhi dangerous combination. this Asaconsequence, national media andinfluence internationalbr the means ofmass communication. Thepolitic statesmen politiciansexpressandunderline the importance and ofhistoricalfactorsthrough Ulf Brunnbauer, ed., (Re)Writing History – Historiography in Southeast Europe after Socialism (LIT Ulf Brunnbauer, ed., (Re)Writing History – Historiography in Southeast Europe after Socialism (LIT Ulf Brunnbauer, ed., (Re)Writing History – Historiography in Southeast Europe after Socialism (LIT Ulf Brunnbauer, ed., (Re)Writing History – Historiography in Southeast Europe after Socialism (LIT 11 Thereality continues tobealmostthesame. Thepresentdaypolitical and

ng] isnottakingplace.” 12

Brunnbauercontinueswiththe the right time andintheri tance for the former political el and politics. In this instance, the careful observer is able to ry, strong continuities withthe socialist period in terms of [13] post-socialist hist they arewellgroundedornot.Historicalclaims, its specialusefulness forthelegitimisation of based today, willalways beambiguous and oadcasting channels,ifadded,canform a socialism, some observersexpectedradical theideological screen,

combination canlead togreaterlevelsof istoriography hadcertain ians’ willingnessand ambition tocontrol storical claims infr which: “theexpected revolution inthe 13 Brunnbaueraddsthefollowingto ght manner, cancausesignificant tives andmaintain the mutual orical writing.” observation, expressedbythe ites inSoutheasternEurope. the endofcensorship ont ofdomesticand ly beenoneofthe 14 Moreover, CEU eTD Collection

Republic ofMacedonia. Thesolid position of that according tothem thename shouldremain majority shareoftheMacedoniansisnotrea opinion, istheGreek-Macedonian disputeovertheo Macedonians matter alot.Asimple example, the caseof presentdayRepublicofMacedoni considerable emotional valuefortheordinarype national, historyandlanguagerelateddisputes are deeplyrootedinthepastandhavea both ways,althoughIwillputstress onanddefend influence goes mostly inthisway–contrary to some cases,thatthedisputes areactuallyWhat ifthe areflectionoftheinterstaterelationship? This isonepossibledirection.Thereexists,ho foreign policyinitiatives aretypically influenced political andsocio-culturalst relations. Thisdeterioration has the potential toinflict significant damage ontheinternal media channels.Thenext phasewillmost probably beadeterioration of theinter-state will most certainly facili are notreadytoadoptamorereasonableandpreciseapproachthemain disputes,thenthey of themain thesis statement. If theMacedonian andBulgarian history-writing communities Macedonian-Bulgarian academic disputes.Theref the abovementioned theories.Morelightcan objective approachtosu by RogersBrubaker,ErnstGellner,AntonyD.Smith claims canbeanalyzedwiththeusageofrele imperfect. ThisisvalidforboththeMacedon tate agradual, butstill quick a ch claims should beused,inaddi atus quointhetwocountries.Thestatesmen’s behaviourand vant theoriesonnationalismandnation-building, [14] dy toaccept acompromise, Macedonia’s people and government ishighly wever, anoppositeone.What in ifitappears, what isdescribed first? Iwillcertainly discuss that provestheimportance ofstrongpublic bythedevelopment ofsuchtypedisputes.

ople. Ithasbeenproven bethrown this wayonthetopicof ian and Bulgarian scholarly claims. These ore, thesetheorieswillbeusedforsupport asitislistedintheconstitution –The a thesentiments andemotions ofthe fficial name oftheMacedonian state.The the first one.Itisobvious thattheethno- andothers.Itseems logicalthatamore nd dangerouspoliticizationthrough the tion tothepossibleapplicationof several times thatin considering thefact CEU eTD Collection

This istheposition,whichhas states that theMacedonians areofBulgarian or As itismentioned earlier inthistext, thedomin they talkabout theethno-national andlanguage Bulgarian case. MostBulgarians look atthepastof theirownnationinaromantic way,while the “true”andthereforeacceptable more preciselybythatpartoftheacademic es These theorieshavebeendraftedandpublishe course, aresubjectedtotheirow influenced by certainsegments oftheacademic influence thebehaviourofgovern national selfandtheclaims totheethnicor defend thetruenationalinterest.Inanyofth problems, toblame somebodyorsomething elseforacertainsetofproblems, orsimply to have tostrugglepreserveth resort tothehistoricalpastandnationalism. there isanemergency ofapoliticalorsoci major elements –people,statesmen andhistoria Macedonian question.Hence,theargument, thatth positions wereinfluenced bythemainstream historyaccounts inregard totheold andnew to themainstream Bulgarianviewsonthesubj view. Inadditiontothat, some politiciansandstatesmen declaredpositions, whichwereclose Bulgarian scholarlyestablishment responsiblefo Bulgarian-Macedonian disputes andalsotothe regard, Iwouldliketo make been continuouslyexpressedand several important referencesto eir rulingstatus,todivertat ments onthedomestic andonthe n theoriesandpositionsinre version ofthenational history. Thesame isvalidforthe o-political nature,many st [15] d bytheprofessionalhist ect ofthe“NewMacedonianQuestion”.These e abovelistedsituations tablishment, whichisreliedupontomaintain ant positioninBulgaria, igin, languageandhistoryoftheothercan Thishappensmostly incaseswhichthey circlesinthecountry.TheMacedonians, of emergence anddevelopment ofthesocalled igin andthat they speak a Bulgarian dialect.

ns, seems asalogicalinference.Whenever identity disputeswiththeMacedonian side. r thevalidationandassertionof“right” ere isa‘holy’trianglecomprised ofthree tention from severeinternal gard tothenationalhistory. distributed byth thehistoricalrootsof the international le atesmen andpoliticians orians ofMacedonia– regarding thedispute, , theassertionof e partofthe vel. Inthis CEU eTD Collection cultures. and Bulgariannations,withtheirrespectiveo building deservesafocus.Theobviousfactisth an “artificial”ora“natural” way,itis stillanation. Because tonationhoodandastate ofthei group ofpeople Macedonia canaddvaluableinformation Along withthat,acloserlookat towards eachother’smain theoriesandpositions course, notpossibleatthispoint ethnic origindisputes,gointoa good, iftheongoingdiscoursesandscholarlydi historical periods.Thisprojec history schoolstrytoprojectth origin ofthecontemporary Macedonians.Oneofmy additionalpurposesistoshowthatboth interpretation ofthecurrentdisagreement, re subjects asthepreviouslymentioned book,Iwish history, ethnicdescentandlanguageof different topicsandsubtopics Question”, edited byJames Pettifer andsevera the worksof severalspecialists inBalkan “New MacedonianQuestion”.Here I wouldliketoadd,here,thatdonotintend By relyingonacademic literature (mostlysecondary sources), whichcoversthesame tion deservesaspecialatten , whicharerelatedtothec more cooperativedirection.A . Inspiteofthat, the processesofnation-buildingincasesBulgariaand e present intothepast inth , Iwouldliketomention ama the(Slavic)Macedonianpeople. to theanalysisofdisputes. history.Thebooktitled“The NewMacedonian [16] garding thehistorical fficial statelanguages,

at, atpresent,thereareseparateMacedonian , might possiblytakeamoreobjectiveform. r own.Nomatter ifanationhasemerged in the approaches, which scussions, surrounding the historicaland scussions, surrounding l other prominent researchers, contains toestablishamore detailedandprecise to question or deny the right of any large to questionordenytherightofanylarge tion. Itwouldprobablydosome ontemporary disputesaboutthe ofthat,theprocessnation- ny kindofreconciliationis, eir representation ofprevious jor source,whichcontains past, languageandethnic symbols andnational the twosidesdirect CEU eTD Collection of Nationalism of

as RogersBrubakercallsoneofth inadequate approach.Thesecond strong defenseofanysuchclaims, ontheotherhand,isverylikelytoturnintoanequally very helpfultoananalystwhopretends straightforward denial,oranyotherkindofex linguistic identityofanotheraresomething th nationalism. Claimsareraisedbyonegroup(nation)towardstheethnicoriginand that public disputes. These, inturn,facilitate th Macedonia andBulgariaisbothapreconditionfo between thetwoconflictingsides.Theargume Macedonian andBulgariannation-buildingproce framework, suchastheonedescribedabove,can study ofthenationandnationalismseems to 15 would most probablysaythatthis emergence ofthenationandits“protector” are interconnected, becausethe process of such asthemoderndaynationandnationalism of Nationalism several major types of nationalism inhis worktitled

Rogers Brubaker, “Myths and Misconceptions in the Study of Nationalism,” in in Nationalism,” inthe Study of Misconceptions and “Myths Brubaker, Rogers I wouldliketodiscussnotonlytheprocess Chapter 1:Relevanttheories onnationalism , ed. John Hall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 7. .

can beinducedbyahighdegr isoneofhistory’ e fourmajor typesofnationalism. be studyingthesubjectinaprofessionalway.A [17] e development ofsome“defensive” types treme objectiontowardssuchclaims, cannotbe – nationalism. Manyhistoriansandsociologists at hastobeexploredinathoroughmanner. A creating the nation even itself. Allthreeareasofknowledgeandstudy

have aparticularimportance. Atheoretical nt betweenthehard- r and reflection oftheparallelmediaand r andreflection sses andalsotothescholarlydisputes beappliedtothespecificcasesof s major lessons. Duetothatreason,the of nation-building,butalsothesubjects Myths andMisconceptionsintheStudy

ee of“defensive”nationalism,

Ernest Gellner and the Theory Theory the and Gellner Ernest 15 line historiansfrom Brubakerdescribes tually leads tothe CEU eTD Collection of Nationalism, Nationalism, of Nationalism, of 165. 2004), Munster, VERLAG

threats arediversebutcaninclude…pow addition tothepreviousstatement, Brubakerpo the inevitableoutcome ofthehistoricalprocess.” particularly important functionofconstructing the twonations: “Among theinte national academic circles are throwing allefforts happening inreality, in Bulgaria and Macedonia, isthat theconservative branches ofthe assessment ofwhathappenedorishappeningon schemes and down-to-earthacc many realcases. Ifnationalism canbeexpl 18 17 16 economy, mores orculturalpatrimon language, defensive, protective, national-populist nationalism thatseekstoprotect thenational the term coinedbyBrubakerappearstobeoneof eagerness, is inmost casesbasedon“defensive” national historyaccounts,whichmostMacedonian logicalderiva large groupsofpeople,seems asa so be viewed as a possible threat from the the Bulgariannationalhistoryandterritory,can alsobeviewedasapossiblethreatfromthe Macedonian historians,politicalscientists,journa potential threat.Theopposite canalsobeco towards theMacedonianethnicity what isonthegroundwithce Rogers Brubaker, “Myths and Misconceptions in the Study of Nationalism,” in in Nationalism,” inthe Study of Misconceptions and “Myths Brubaker, Rogers in Nationalism,” inthe Study of Misconceptions and “Myths Brubaker, Rogers Ulf Brunnbauer, ed., (Re)Writing History – Historiography in Southeast Europe after Socialism (LIT The simple andwellknownfact,thatnationali ed. John Hall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 7. ed. John Hall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 7.

rtain elements ofBrubaker’s ounts, thenitmight leadto llectuals whopropagatenational and languagewouldseem topr erful foreignculturalinfluence.” [18] nsidered. The claims, thatareraisedbythe the nation’spastandpresentingnationas ained throughacombination oftheoretical y againstallegedthreatsfrom outside.”

ints out that: “Thebearers of suchputative tive ofallmajortheori in confirmingthepast, lists andotherstowardscertainsegments of nationalism. Inthisregard,thedefinitionof 16 the ground, inreal time situations. What is themost adequate: “Thefourth form isa and Bulgarianhistoriansensurewithgreat Theprotectionofthenationalmyths and sm caninfluencehistoriansaswell a more elaborate and correct theory, theBulgarianclaims identity, historianshavethe Ernest Gellner and the Theory Theory the and Gellner Ernest Theory the and Gellner Ernest

esent areal,or atleast a es ofnationalismand present and futureof 18 Ifoneconnects 17 In CEU eTD Collection of Nationalism, of Nationalism, of

20 19 national identity less salient, andnationalist prevalent, noraslikelytooccur,isoftena citation Brubaker addsthat:“…,I wantto asse and forintensivescholarly,media andpublicdi right solutionbecomes impossible an task.This presence ofstrongnationalisttendenciesandfeel outside. Infact,thetwoarguingsi ethnic conflict,andna following statement: “Thelatetwentieth century connection tothat,anotherprominent scholar necessary foraricherunderstand of theorieshavebeenprovenbytobecredible set ofmutually contrastingstatements andobser understanding ofsuchdisputes future of anytypeof interethnic orinternational dispute/conflict isequally detrimental for the manages towarnthereaderth between thehistoriansaregoing it isstatedonotherpagesofth an overall“architectural”resolution nationalist conflicts are inprinciple, bytheir very nature, irresolvable, and that thesearch for disputes cannotbesolvedatall.Inrelationto brings thescholartopoint advancement of the opposite stance. Thisisthe Rogers Brubaker, “Myths and Misconceptions in the Study of Nationalism,” in in Nationalism,” inthe Study of Misconceptions and “Myths Brubaker, Rogers in Nationalism,” inthe Study of Misconceptions and “Myths Brubaker, Rogers ed.John Hall ed. John Hall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 2. tionalism hasonceagainbecome thecentralfact ofcontemporary

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 3.

at toomuchrelianceon“gloom as toomuch relianceonoptimistic where heorshecanrealizethat is thesis –there isnoabsolute guarantee that the disputes to affecttheintergovernmental des dotheirbestinorderto ing oftheforceshistoriographyandnationalism. In of nationalconflictsismisguided.” politics less central than is often assumed.” [19] ssumed; andthatnationalfeelingislessstrong, that,Brubakerwrites:“…,Iwanttoarguethat ofnationalism,AntonyD.Smith, makes the andcorrect. Moreexamplesfromthesetare apparent goalofpreventivenationalism. This vations isverylong.Ne is equallytrueforarmed interethnicconflicts

ings, ononeorbothsides,thesearchfora rt thatethno-nationalvi haswitnessedanunexpectedresurgenceof sputes. Incontradictiontotheprevious -and-doom” theoriesaboutthe prevent oratleast hinder the the historical relations.Infact,Brubaker theories and positions. The theoriesandpositions.The Ernest Gellner and the Theory Theory the and Gellner Ernest Theory the and Gellner Ernest vertheless, bothtypes 19 olence isneitheras Togetherwiththe or interethnic 20 As CEU eTD Collection

22 21 set ofdifficultquestions. least ofthecontemporary devel without anydoubt,intothiscategory.Theexam present ofallSoutheastEuropeannations. several othersofthesame historia kind,cause nation command suchwidespreadloyaltyanddevotion?” nations atthe closeofthe secondmillennium? “Why isthat so many peopleremain so deeply attached totheirethnic communities and “resurgence ofethnicconflict”, politics.” Antony D.Smith, Antony D.Smith, Antony

21 Smith alsoasksafewveryimportant questions,which arefocusednotonlyonthe Myths and Memoirs of the Nation Myths and Memoirs of the Nation

opments, cancertainlyprovidecl but alsoontheincreased importa (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 3. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 3. [20] The MacedonianandBulgarianhistoriesfall, Whydomyths, memoirs, andsymbols ofthe

ns andexpertstorethinkthepast ination ofthenationalhistory,andnot 22 Thesecrucialquestions,aswell earer answerstoalmostany nce andriseofnationalism:

CEU eTD Collection

23 period between 1890andtheendofBalkan Old Macedonian Questioncanbedisputed, butitisgenerally knownthatitencompasses the previous partsoftheThesis.Theprecisedates, historic (theOld)Macedonian Questionwillbeto focus ofthispaper.Therefore,onlythemajor against theOttoman andlater Chernozemski whowasamember oftheIMRO.Th the struggleoccurredin1934,whenKi authorities inBelgradetocentr and Slovenes.Thereasons forthe emergence of armed struggle–thistime againsttheroyalgovernment oftheKingdomSerbs,Croats As aresult,theInternalMacedonianRevoluti the Slavicspeakingpopulation afterthecom events didnotintroduceanyimprovements -nothi southern Serbs.AnewMacedoniancaseemerged region ofMacedonia)became knownasSouthSe Macedonia (oneof 1913, theregionofVardar Empire. FollowingtheTreatyofBucharest,signedafterendSecond BalkanWar in times oftheMacedonianrevolutionarystrugg Macmillan, 2001). Macmillan,

James Pettifer,ed., The terms –OldandNewMacedonianQuestion Chapter 2:Historicalbackgrounda

The New MacedonianThe Question

against theRoyalYugoslavgovernment is,however,not the alize anddominate therestof (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave position ofRoyalYugoslaviainDecember,position 1918. [21] nd the“New MacedonianQuestion” durationandvariouscomp ng AlexanderwasassassinatedbyVlado the threemajor components ofthegeographic onary Organization(theIMRO),resumed its warsof1912-1913.This events, figuresandperiodsthatbelongtothe

le againsttheauthoritiesofOttoman the issue were theattempts bythe central uched upon–asfartheyareorappearto ng changedinconnecti e historyofarmed resistanceoftheIMRO after thisinVardar rbia and itsSlavic speakingmajority as 23 arementioned atseveralpointsin the country.Themajor peakof Macedonia.Thelater period describesthe rising aspectsofthe on tothestatusof

CEU eTD Collection

24 to thedebatearoundNewMacedonianQu part ofit),Pettifer stressesth Bulgarian scholarlydisputesa newly triggered question(with debatesaroundtheNewMacedonian theMacedonian- Further on,whentheSocialistFederativeRepublic the betterunderstandingofcontemporar and 1945,together withthehistoryof theYugos relatively briefaccountofthemajor eventsa be points ofsharpdisagreement betweenmost Albania), and language andnationalminority difficulties (with Bulgaria).” trade duringtheUNsanctions relation tothecountry’sname Greece), (with anditsgovernmentattitudes toFYROM hasva positions in regardtodifferentaspects of all neighbours ofthecountry. Serbia, Bulgaria independence intheSeptember, 1991referendum. It issue oftheMacedonianQuestionre-emerged, waswhentheMacedonian peoplevotedfor SFRY, theOldMacedonian question became ‘solved’and‘closed’.Thenexttime whenthe identity, nationalhistory,cultureandlanguage the Macedonian issuewiththeofficialrecogni federation. TheYugoslavcommunistsandTitoin became known astheSocialistYugoslav Republic ofMacedonia–aconstituent unit ofthe at theendofSecondWorld Warunderthe Macmillan, 2001), page xxxviii. page 2001), Macmillan,

James Pettifer,ed., The New MacedonianThe Question

e factthatthereisaninsuffici

bout theethnicoriginandlangua (with Serbia),national minority (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave the New Macedonian Question:“International theNewMacedonian [22] nd developments from theperiodbetween1913 , Albania andGreeceallhad theirconcerns and y Bulgarian-Macedonianscholarlydisputes. border delineation, religion andcross-border tion ofadistinctMacedonianethno-national . With this,throughout ried…, withmany outsta BulgarianandMacedonian historians. The

estion: “DebateaboutthenewMacedonian lav RepublicofMacedonia, areessentialfor ofYugoslavia(the leadership ofTito’spartisans, Macedonia particular, pretendedthattheyhadsolved was definedthenasa ent amount ofresearchinaddress ge of the Macedonians being a ge oftheMacedoniansbeinga issuesandeducation(with SFRY) wasestablished the existenceof nding difficultiesin topic of interest for topic ofinterestfor 24 Toaddress the CEU eTD Collection

28 27 26 25 their most important social, economic andpo central factorsthatdetermine ethnic howthe crucial factorsfortheformation ofthecont been subjecttointenseideologicaldebate.” recent history verycriticalelement forms a inthecurrentMacedonianconsciousness andhas of thepresentdayMacedonianethno-nationalident of extreme importancetothec on thedebatesandarguments that offers amorediversified viewonthesubject book.” under communism, andthusBulgariancontribut notably Bulgaria,itwas difficulttopublishmu Macedonian Question:“Insome countrieswith Macedonia andBulgariaasprobablythemost Southeast European studies consider theinte Bulgarian-Macedonian disputes.NotonlyPettif contributions from differentauthorsin several has inhibitedsome analysis.” Question hasbeenlargelyseen attitudes towards theFYROM.” an informed debateabout theMacedonianQues Macmillan, 2001), page xxxviii. page 2001), Macmillan, xxxviii. page 2001), Macmillan, page xxxviii. 2001), Macmillan, xxxviii. page 2001), Macmillan, James Pettifer, ed., James Pettifer, ed., James Pettifer,ed., James Pettifer,ed., 26 This way,byinviting Bulgarian andother Balkan andWestern scholars, Pettifer The New MacedonianThe Question New MacedonianThe Question New MacedonianThe Question New MacedonianThe Question

25 ontemporary Macedonian throughAnglo-American percep 27 Becauseofthatreason,Pettiferhasincludedimportant Boththeoldandrecentnational history ofMacedoniaare surround it. The purpose of the book is“…toco surroundit.Thepurposeofthe emporary Macedoniannationa (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave 28 [23] of theoldandnew Macedonian history andalso Asnotedpreviously,historyandethnicityare Macedonians lookattheir ch academic researchon‘Macedonian’ issues nse arguments betweenthehistoriansfrom order toenrich the read a directinterestin

er, butmany other expertsinthefieldof interesting andimportant partoftheNew tion, and toillustrate current international litical problems. Itcomes asalogical ions form animportant sectionofthe ity: “There isalsohistoricalmaterial,as society, forming ofcoursethecore society, forming tions, post-Dayton,andthis the MacedonianQuestion, er’s perception ofthe l identity. These are past andpresent,at ntribute to CEU eTD Collection is illustratedseveraltimes inth relations duetoolddate relations. There issomepotentialintheBulg discourses attached to it,canactually transf Thesis. Thepurposeofthemodel istoexplain and exploittheconcernsofdominant ethnic group.This model isgivenearlierin the persons whoholdtheauthoritymight resortto historical factorsareextremely might consider,forinstance, atheoretical s and itsgovernment. Whenthisisso,itshouldnot should beastrongandanalmost upon nationalist sentiments – hidden oron the surface, mild orextreme. Secondly,there arguments andclaims. Otherwise,itwouldn’tbe must be‘suitable’fortheimplementation ofstrate however, thatsuchadevelopment doesnotalways takeplace.Firstofall, agiven situation potential toturnintoarguments between educational intotherealm of thepolitical. Ge scholarly disputeshavethepotentialtospill occur. Inthisrespect,oneofthekeyque on otheroccasionsinthepast.Itiscertainly them havealready ledtosignifi been anessentialpartofBalkanaffairs.Histor the caseofBulgarian-Macedonian relations. a major role inthedevelopment assumption that thepolitical past andpresentof d andunsolvedissuesbetween thetwo e text,iscomprised ofdisputesabouthistory,ethnicorigin and cant politicalconsequences for unbreakableconnectionbetween strong, notjustpresentonthe of theinterstaterelationswith national governments. Oneshouldkeepinmind, [24] arian-Macedonian casefordeteriorationofthe ical disputesand theclaims thatoriginatefrom stions iswhetherth how ascholarlydispute,withpublicandmedia orm andgrowintoaproblem ofinterstate ituation inwhichthe over from thesphereof theintellectual and manipulation ofnationali possible for this development tocontinue to the nationand of its elite nerally, historicaldisp

Generally, historyandet easyforapoliticianorstatesman tocall gies thatinvolvetheu reallymatter whichpartyisinpower.One the intergovernmental relations nations. This setofissues,asit theneighbours,especiallyin scene. Inthissituation,the the intellectualsof anation e Bulgarian-Macedonian ethnic, languageand utes havethehidden tilization ofhistorical willcontinue to play st orpatrioticmoods hnicity havealways CEU eTD Collection Blog Wars Over History”.

contemporary shapeanddirection. and otherauthors, thepresent workwillexplore further theoriginsof the disputesand their may buildunfriendly orevendamaging future relations.Coinciding withthetargetof Pettifer Bulgarian andMacedonianscholarsstillpresentafoundation,on to theGreek-Macedonian instance.Intheircurren describe theBulgarian-Macedonian order to“deal properly” withthe‘opponent’. at presentdoesnotevenhaveanestablished, political warningtowardstheRepublicofMace membership intheEuropeanUnion,govern government avoidedresponsescarryingstrong, Macedonian government towardsBulgariadur the last twelveyears. Onth Macedonian intergovernmental di declarations byBulgarianstatesmen andpoliticians,nothingofthemagnitude oftheGreek- separate Macedonianethno-nationa separate Macedonianlanguage noted, however,thatapartfrom Bulgaria’sdenial 29 incomprehensible thanthosebetweenGreeceandMacedonia…” contradictions, therelationsbetweenBulgar Global Voices language. According toYavorMihaylov,theau wars-over-history/>, short article published on April 10

Global Voices stableWebsite, URL:

e contrary,despitethesometimes

during the1990’s(thiswayf spute haseveroccurredbetw l identityshouldalsoberecognized),andthefewbrief dispute asaninterstatedisput lvoicesonline.org/2008/04/10/ [25] ia andMacedonia “…arenolesscomplexand solid andlonglastingforeignpolicydoctrinein th , 2008, by Yavor “Bulgaria, Macedonia:Mihaylov, title: donia. Furthermore, theBulgariangovernment

For thesereasons,itwillbeinadequateto ment didnotissueanyexceptionallystrong t form, however,thedisputesbetweenmost thor of a short summary publishedinthe thor ofashortsummary ing most ofthe1990’s,Bulgarian torecognize officiallytheexistenceofa sketch of themain Bulgarian-Macedonian negative messages. PriortoBulgaria’s een BulgariaandMacedoniain acing thequestionwhethera highlynegativetoneofthe which thetwonation-states e, especiallywithreference 29 bulgaria-macedonia-blog- Butitshouldbeduly CEU eTD Collection Pettifer (Houndmills, Basingstoke, 3. Basingstoke, 2001), Hampshire,Pettifer (Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, 3. Basingstoke, 2001), Hampshire,Pettifer (Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Pettifer (Houndmills, Hampshir

32 31 30 authority extendingoverpartsofth Turkey toallowtheformation ofaseparate Macedonian questioncame intobeingwhen and ofthedisputesthatsurrounditbacktoth geographic areaofMacedonia.ElisabethBarker the political,culturalandreligi aim forpresencewasactually presence. DuringtheBalkanWars of1912-1913, linguistic, culturalandpoliticalin and itspopulation, whichwasofamixed com Bulgaria. Thesewerethemain rivalsfor today.” by armed bands, andlaterstillbyarmies, whic question asa“…threesidedcontestforMacedoni several prominent contributorstothebook,Eli has, claims towards certainelements ofth As itisindicatedear establishment ofthetwoautonomous Bulgarianunits in1878-thePrinci Bulgarian influenceintothere Serbia.” Macedonia. “Thisstepquickly immediately contestedby SerbiaandGreece,who Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in 30 32 . Theexpression“three-sided”standsforth . Bothnation-states did as much asthey lier, theBulgariansidewasnotth

gion. Interestinglyenough,thispr substituted withformal po ous developments thatinonewayoranotheraffectedthe involved Bulgariainstrife fluence, andlaterifpossible, e, Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), 3. 2001), e, Palgrave Macmillan, e TurkishprovinceofMacedonia.” hegemony overthegeographicregionofMacedonia hegemony e old and new Macedonian question.Thefirstof e oldandnewMacedonian [26] Bulgarian OrthodoxChurch,orExarchate,with in 1870RussiasuccessfullypressedOttoman e secondhalfoftheni zabeth Barker,describestheOldMacedonian traces theoriginsof

position. Eachside wantedto increase its a, wagedfirstbypriestsandteachers,later and alsoFirstSecondWorld Warsthe h haslasted with occasional lulls until saw apotentialthreat totheirinterests in e collective naming ofSerbia,Greeceand couldtofightagainstthespreadingof The New Macedonian Question New Macedonian The Question New Macedonian The Question New Macedonian The e onlyneighbourwhichhad,andstill ssession. Oneshouldtracethough, bothwithGreeceand asafeguardedadministrative

ocess beganevenbeforethe the Macedonianquestion neteenth century:“The 31 pality ofBulgaria . Theeventwas , ed.James , ed.James , ed.James CEU eTD Collection (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), 3. Palgrave Basingstoke, Macmillan, (Houndmills, Hampshire, 3. Basingstoke, 2001), Hampshire,Pettifer (Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan,

35 34 33 Macedonian questionandinthedi Dimitrov madeastatement in2008,whichc and Greece. Inconnectiontothat,theform then, andeventodaysome aspectsoftheconflict was duringtheSecondWorldWar. Asitwouldseem, ithasnotfadedawaycompletely since when itreachedculmination, although according Macedonia.” contested thespreadofBulgarianecclesiast being propagatedtroughtheloca Orthodox ChristiansinSoutheastEurope. Beca which pretendedtobeofficiallyresponsible be schismatic. Thisoccurredasamajor blow Patriarch inConstantinople also with Turkey in1876,alsotriedtofi ecclesiastical as wellas diplomatic channels, an and EasternRumelia. “TheSerbiangovernment Republic of Macedonia]andopenedthewayfor Bulgaria was thefirstcountryto recognize refugees whoescapedfrom theotherpartsof borders ofthecontemporaryBulgarianstat historical heritage,acertain name Macedonian,usedbytheBulgarians from Macedonia, isapartoftheBulgarian fault.aspx?VestID=101500 http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/de A1com.mk website,an interview with Angel ElisabethBarker, “The origin of theMacedonian,” in Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in 34 Thisconflict betweenthethree interest

part ofthegeographicregionMacedoniafallswithin the protested against thecreation oftheExarchate,declaringitto l networksoftheGreekPatriarchate“…theGreekssharply sputes betweenthetwonations. ght BulgarianinfluenceinMacedonia.” Dimitrov cited, translated from Macedonian, [27] er Bulgarian ambassador to Macedonia Angel er BulgarianambassadortoMacedoniaAngel The New Macedonian James Question,ed. Pettifer e, inwhichmany people,descendingfrom for andtoruleoverre the region [of Macedonia], live,andthirdly, d, after an interruption Macedonia officiallyunder thatname [The totheOrthodoxChurch , former BG ambassador to Macedonia, 1992-2001. 1992-2001. to Macedonia, ambassador BG , former

still haveacertainvalue for Serbia,Bulgaria ical, cultural, andnationalinfluence in use Greekcultureandlanguagewerealso onfirmed stillstronginterestinthe the complained ofTurkey’sdecisionthrough to otherhistorians,theculminating point the positioningofcountrywithin the The New Macedonian Question New Macedonian The ed partieslasteduntiltheBalkan Wars, 35 Dimitrov saidthat“the caused bySerbia’s war ligious matters forall inConstantinople, , ed.James 33 TheGreek CEU eTD Collection

36 fact, many Bulgarian,Balkanandnon-Balkan, they callthemodern daynati possession of theBulgarianhistoriansintheir between the fourth century(4 them findwaystogoaroundit, Macedonia may providemore clarityontheprob As itis discussedearlier, thecontext of it isnecessary toanalysefurtherthe historic thoroughly andobjectivelythepresentpotentia consequences fortheinterstateconnections. Therefore,inordertounderstandmore waged predominantly betweenhistorians,c These developments demonstrat contributed significantlytoward Social DemocraticPartyofMacedonia,whichwa “Macedonian” language,andhenceaseparate The difficultieswerecaused,inpart,byBulg and 2001.Mostofhistime inofficewasmarked international context.” successively totheRoman Empire,theByzantine themedieval Bulgarian and Macedon inthefourth Elisabeth Barker,agreethat:“Therehasb fault.aspx?VestID=101500 http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/de A1com.mk website,an interview with Angel One ofthemajor topicsofconcernforth 36 centuryB.C.Betweenthat . Dimitrov wasaBulgarianambassador toMacedoniabetween1992

onal doctrineestablishedbythei th ) B.C.and1943-45.Thisisalsooneofthemain toolsin s poisoningtheatmosphere be ed thatpurelyhi is thefactthattherehasno Dimitrov cited, translated from Macedonian, al rootsandpresentoftheMacedonian question. [28] een noMacedonianStatesincetheKingsof the oldSerbian-Greek-Bulgarian rivalryover fight againstthe “ideologyofMacedonism”, as , former BG ambassador to Macedonia, 1992-2001. to Macedonia, ambassador BG , former lem alsobereflectedon. andso,should

“Macedonian” ethnicity. What ismore,the bybadrelationsbetweenthetwocountries. ould actuallyhavesignificantpolitical e Macedonianhistorians,althoughmost of particularly Western s inpowerforthemostpartof1990’s, l futureofBulgarian-Macedonian relations storical, languagean aria’s refusaltorecognizeadistinct time and1912,Macedoniabelonged t beenastatecalledMacedonia r Macedoniancolleagues.In tween the twonation-states. scholars –including d culturaldisputes,

CEU eTD Collection Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), 4. 2001), Macmillan, Palgrave Hampshire, Basingstoke, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), 4. 4. 2001), Macmillan, Palgrave Hampshire, Basingstoke,

38 37 happened afterGreeceandTurkeysignedanagreement toexchange populationsaftertheend speaking majority, whenahugeinfluxofGreek occurred throughtime. Upuntil1923 most of in thedescriptionofpastandpresent geostrategic valueofMacedonia terms andeconomic ofwealth prosperity.This largest andsomewhat prosperoustownwasSkopj region –mostly rural,with Vardar andStruma rivervalleys.Inspiteofthat,inthepastMacedoniawasarelativelypoor richest cityintheregionandanimportant connecting CentralandEa area ofMacedoniacontrolsallmain rout Oneofthemain reasons,forthis three-sided rivalryforthecontrol andeventual possession ofMacedoniawasits justified. how thedeclarationthatstated statesmen had previously,beforeandafterthe known asYugoslavMacedonia), isactually partofOldSerbia. historians have raised,isthattheareaaround Mussolini’s Italyinvadedanddest South Serbiaandexistedinthisshapeuntilthespringof1941NaziGermany and Serbian Empires,andtheOttoman Empire.” Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in stern Europewiththe AegeanSea small townsfunctioningaslocal

that theSlavMacedonianswerein strategic locationandeconomi as alocationandterritory.Thenextimportant element royed thefirstYugoslavia.Theclaim, whichsome Serbian the areaarechangesin the ethnic map, which [29] 37 trading center.Themainpassalongthe routes Skopje-thecapitalofVardar Macedonia (also geographic Macedoniageographic was populatedby aSlav

es passingalongthenorth-southdirection, Later,in1913,theregionwasdeclaredtobe Balkan Wars, usedsimilar claims. Thiswas isthebriefsummaryofeconomic and

settlers came intoAegeanMacedonia. This e, whichstilllagsfarbehindSalonikain TheNew Macedonian Question Question New Macedonian The and theportofSalonika– tradingcenters.Thesecond c importance. Thegeographic c importance. reality southern Serbs, was realitysouthernSerbs,was 38 Serbian historians and and historians Serbian (Houndmills, (Houndmills, (Houndmills, (Houndmills, CEU eTD Collection Pettifer (Houndmills, Basingstoke, 5. Basingstoke, 2001), Hampshire,Pettifer (Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, 5. Basingstoke, 2001), Hampshire,Pettifer (Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan,

Serbian, andwhichhascertainquite 40 39 dialects, thatisgrammatically akintoBulgar “There isnodoubtthattheyar not hideorrejecttheirBulgar themselves tobeBulgarianoratleast ofre and journalistswritetalk Bulgaria. Inanoppositiontosu historians continuetorais dispute, and isstill Macedonians thathasbeenthe three-quarters. In relation tothat,Barker states aregionwheretheSlavspeaking would form is different.IfVardar(ex-Yugoslav)andBulg situation asoftoday.However, Macedonia tippedverymuchinfavorofthenewly of thewarbetweentwostatesin1923.After thiseventthepopulationbalanceinAegean Bulgarian language.Togetherwiththeanalysis would certainly protest againstthe declaratio The more nationalistmindedM the contemporary Macedonian language (orasetof historiansandmediaminded Bulgarian would ethno-national identity–beitaBulgarianorseparateMacedonianon into accounthowtheordinarypeopleinVardar Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in being contestedtoday.” e theissueaboutasupposedly

abouttheexistenceofpe e southernSlavs;theyhavea ian roots”.Toexplainthis,Bark ch claims, many Bulgarian and so thecurrentstatusinot most violentlycontestedasp acedonian historiansandinte distinctive featur mote Bulgarian origin”, [30] arian (Pirin) Macedoniaaretakentogether,they 39 ian butphoneticallyinso most probablygomuch furtherbysayingthat that:“Itisthenational identityof theseSlav . Consequently,theMacedonianmedia and n of anysimilarities or sameness withthe of thesecontrastingpos population wouldstillfo

andPirinMacedoniareal created Greekmajority, dialects) isactuallya The New Macedonian Question New Macedonian The Question New Macedonian The es ofitsown.” existing “Macedonian”minority in her partsofgeographicMacedonia ople inMacedoniawho“declare language, oragroupofvarying ect ofthewholeMacedonian llectuals, ontheotherhand,

er offersthestatement that: me non-Bulgarianhistorians or aboutpeoplewho“do 40 itions oneshouldtake Themore nationalist dialect ofBulgarian. me respectsakinto rm amajority over e. Inconnectionto ly feelabouttheir and thisisstillthe , ed.James , ed.James CEU eTD Collection Pettifer (Houndmills, Basingstoke, 5. Basingstoke, 2001), Hampshire,Pettifer (Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, 5. Basingstoke, 2001), Hampshire,Pettifer (Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, 5. Basingstoke, 2001), Hampshire,Pettifer (Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan,

43 42 41 according to theneedsor convenience ofthemoment.” Macedonians wereBulgarians anddeclaringth according towhich:“TheBulgarianshave of Stalin’srule.Inrelevancetothat,E was inexact line with the guidelines setbythe S the BulgariancommunistshadtowardsMace subordinated tothedirectionsandpoliciesse During theperiodbetween1944and1989histor historiography oftheSoci and thepublic inBulgaria.This wasnot continuously circulated,notonlyamongalargenu sentiment of fairly recent growth, a following: “ThefeelingofbeingMacedonians, scholars itwouldappeartobe this statement woulddefinitelysoundeven Serbian, orcloselylinkedwithSerbia (or Yugoslavia).” themselves Bulgarian, or closely linked with that duringthelasteightyyearsmany more this, Barker writesthat:“Inregard full extentwithStalin’svisionsandprojects. the relevantchannels.The BulgarianCommunist moment were,asitisstatedabove,determin Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in alist yearswentthroug

very closetotheir theoriesa totheirownnationalfeelings,al nd eventodayisno more controversialor lisabeth Barkermakes thesimple observation, [31] t bytheCommunistparty.Theapproach,which ed bytheSovietsanddirectlyimposed through alwaysthecase,however.TheBulgarian Before theendof Stalin’srule,the Bulgarian andnothingbutMacedonians, seems tobea Slav Macedonians seem tohaveconsidered at there wasaseparateMacedonian people, h severalphasesofchangeanddevelopment.

Bulgaria, than haveconsidered themselves oviet Union,especially fluctuated betweensayingthatallSlav donian questionandtotherelateddisputes, mber butalsoamong media ofscholars, the Party was more thanreadytocomply toa The New Macedonian Question New Macedonian The Question New Macedonian The Question New Macedonian The y-writing inBulgariawascompletely 43 41 Theneedsandconvenienceofthe nd positions.Anotionsuchasthe Tomany Macedonian historians t verydeep-rooted”

wrong. Formany Bulgarian l that canbesafely said is duringthelastyears , ed.James , ed.James , ed.James 42 , isbeing CEU eTD Collection Pettifer (Houndmills, Basingstoke, 6. Basingstoke, 2001), Hampshire,Pettifer (Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, 6. Basingstoke, 2001), Hampshire,Pettifer (Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, 6. Basingstoke, 2001), Hampshire,Pettifer (Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, Yugoslavia,”

Macedonians wereaseparatepeople;andthistheory isthebasisofMarshalTito’spolicy.” opposition politiciansof Yugoslavia,suchasSv policies infavor ofadistinct Macedonian ethno-national identity back to”…certain [Interwar] welcomed byTitoandtheYugoslavcommunists. establishing, orassome wouldcallitrecognizing, aseparate“Macedonian”ethnicitywas relevant policies that wereattached toit,wereendedandthenreversed. Theinitial ideaof Stalinization process,theact 47 46 45 44 old andnewMacedonianquestions the Yugoslavgovernment recognize herSlavMacedoniansasa‘Bulgarian’ period when:“…inSeptember 1924,bytheKalf In additiontothat,Barkermention’s afewinte Macedonia areBulgarians.” officially deniedtheexistenc exception ofabriefperiodfollowingWorld case, theprofessorinanthropologyatBatesColle Macedonia withintheframework of Slav speaking population inPirinMacedonia, with communists hadbegunaprocessofimposing se a ‘Slavophone Greeks’.” common speech,calltheirSlavMacedonianminority Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in LoringM.Danforth, “Claimsto Macedonian Identity. The Macedonian Anthropology Today 47 . Thislast report addsmore tothe alreadycomplicated picture ofthe and abandonedtheidea.” 44 9 (August 1993): 4. e ofaMacedoniannation,arguing

AfterStalin’s deathin1953an ivity ofimposing adistinct andoftherelateddisputes a large Balkan federation. In regard to this particular alargeBalkanfederation.Inregardtothisparticular [32] resting moments, datingbacktotheInterwar

ge LoringM.Danforthstatesthat:“With the War Two,theBulgariangovernment has minority, shemet withastrongprotestfrom Barker linkstherootsofTito’sdecisionand etozar Pribicevic,[who]declaredthatthe thefinal aim ofunify parate “Macedonian” identityon thelocal ov-Politis Protocol,Gr The New Macedonian Question New Macedonian The Question New Macedonian The Question New Macedonian The 46 Barkeralsoaddsthat“theGreeks,in ‘Bulgarians’,butin Question andthe breakup of “Macedonian” identity and the “Macedonian” identityandthe d withthebeginningofde-

instead thatalltheSlavsof betweenscholarlycircles, ing Pirinand Vardar officiallanguage eece preparedto , ed.James , ed.James , ed.James 45

CEU eTD Collection Pettifer (Houndmills, Basingstoke, 10. Basingstoke, 2001), Hampshire,Pettifer (Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Pettifer (Houndmills, Hampsh

49 48 defined assomething differentfr again autonomy, and,independence,butthistimeindependence forMacedonia, agenuine movement. Theotherwing withinthemovement’s structureadvocated government, (oftheInterwar period),andth theYugoslavcommunists stage intothenationalistright for itssuccessiveandmuch de autonomy, eventualindependenceofMacedoni and Bulgarian Warofficeandotherauthorities. to collaborateclosely withtheSupreme movement divideditselfintotwodistinctwings Damian GruevandGotseDelchev. prominent intellectuals from Macedonia,name refugees and politicalescapeeswhowereliving in Committee (SMC)andtheIMROwerefound.Th revolutionary struggle, whichbeganinth the historic Macedonian questionisthe following brief summaryof the anti-Ottoman media and states. Anothernarrativ was ElisabethBarker,considerthe leftwingof This laterturnedinto brotherhood andsolidarityforallpeoples of Bulgarian state.Accordingtomany sources (SMC) asmuchpossible,itcontinued to second wingtriedtomaintainitsindepende Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in thesocalledleftwingofor

wingofIMRO,whichbecame sired annexationtoBulgaria.Th om the aim of thefirst wing. e thatcanalsobeaddedto ire, Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), 10. 10. 2001), ire, Palgrave Macmillan, 48 From theearlydaysofIMRO’sexistence, the e early1890’swhentheSupreme Macedonian Macedonian Committee in Sofia and withthe [33] nce from theSupreme MacedonianCommittee and historyaccountsthesecondwingpreached Macedonia, regardlessoflanguageorreligion. According tothemembers of this wingthe receive arms andfinancialsupport from the . Thefirstonetendedtobepro-Bulgarianand the IMRO,oratleastacertainnumber ofits ly the“nationalist-minded” schoolteachers

Sofiaatthetime. Thelatterwasfoundby e former wasestablishedbyMacedonian a, wasplannedasasimple pre-condition The New Macedonian Question New Macedonian The Question New Macedonian The ganization. Manyscholars,among who the accountaboutoriginsof a rivaloftheRoyalYugoslav 49 is wingdevelopedatalater

However,eventhoughthe e BulgarianAgrarian adifferentpolicy– , ed.James , ed.James CEU eTD Collection mythologies; thatof contribution tothemulti-author volume): “All territory. AsJames Pettiferstates one shouldanalyzethepastandpresentdisputes will bed importantly forthefutureof Bulgarian perspectives. Thepotential political Southwestern Bulgaria.Thissubtopicwill followed byachapter(Chapter3),dedicated Macedonian historicalarguments disputes betweenBulgariaandMacedonia. long assuchcanserveatimeline showingtheevolutionary language, the topicoftheIMROandotherhist consequences oftheBulgarian scholarlycl ThehistoryoftheIMROisaseparatetopic,hugeoneindeed,whichdeserves separate focus. Since, themain focusofth Yugoslavia. South Slavfederation)whenheandhisfo wing whowerepropagating theestablishment ofMacedoniaasaconstituent unitofalarge relied onthislastgroupandalsothesoca members, tobethepredecessorMacedoni In ordertounderstand iscussed inthe final, conclusive Chapter4. the Macedonianquestionisthat the intergovernmental re the present oftheserelations a inchapter2of th and theanalysisofitspresen beanalyzedfrom bothMacedonianandthe [34] llowers delineatedthestructureofpost- lled “federalists”(members ofthesecond,left The accountoftherootsBulgarian- aims tothe Macedonianethnicoriginand orical events willbeonly touchedupon,foras to theissueof

an branchoftheYugoslavcommunists.Tito is thesis isthe set consequencesforthepresent,andmost abouthistory,ethnicdescent,languageand e book(thechapter,whichishispersonal Balkan territorialdisputeshavetheir lations of themost bloody,complex and nd drawavisionaboutthefuture, between MacedoniaandBulgaria path towardsthecontemporary t form (Chapter2)willbe “Macedonian” minority in of potentialpolitical 1945 CEU eTD Collection of Nationalism, Nationalism, of

and/or solvinginterethnicconflictsor 52 51 50 With referencetothecase ofthenewly indepe of theMacedonianpolit predicted withanabsolute certainty andinthis clear andunderstandableoverviewofagiven s described from avarietyofviewpoints.This many cases,difficultto beanalyzedwithout and secure future. Thereisalo with minorities oranomajority, multinational st solve them. Changesinthe“architectural”struct change inthepoliticalandadministrative structure might exacerbate rivalriesratherthan state dissolutions.Accordingto in relation totopicssuch asarmed conflicts, becoming apparent,…” that wouldbewhollyinappropriate,asthe purpose ofthischapteris historical past isanother equallydangerous path. With regard tothis,Pettifer says that“the entangled andproblematic thanitactuallyis. reach theextremes ofinflatingthe situation than itseemstobefromafirstglance.Ofcourse,though,oneshouldalsocarefulnot is referred to asa“small” size territory, its intractable of all,inasmall peninsula alreadyburdened.” Macmillan, 2001), 15. 15. 2001), Macmillan, 15. 2001), Macmillan, Rogers Brubaker, “Myths and Misconceptions in the Study of Nationalism,” in in Nationalism,” inthe Study of Misconceptions and “Myths Brubaker, Rogers James Pettifer, ed., James Pettifer,ed., ed. John Hall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 2. The New MacedonianThe Question New MacedonianThe Question 51 ical andsocio-culturaldevelopm Thisstatementisverysimilar to nottotryputforwardanyblue

gical explanation for that: the past Brubaker such athingasanad managing armed fightingcannotbedevised. (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave outlines ofthenew‘M [35] interethnic/nationalist rivalries andmultinational history canevenbedescribedasmore complex On theotherhand,oversimplification ofthe ndent state ofMacedonia, can make itdifficult for ananalyst todraft a to levelswhereitwouldappear bemore respect,the present,andespeciallythe future any inaccuracies, whilethepresentmay be

ure ofapoliticalunit ituation. The future,initsturn,cannotbe ate, cannot serveas a guarantee for stable 50 ent seems nottobeclearenough. oneofBrubaker’scorearguments EventhoughtheBalkanPeninsula print for ‘solution’ of the issue; equate blueprintforpreventing is sometimes, notto sayin

Ernest Gellner and the Theory Theory the and Gellner Ernest acedonian’ state areonly Pettifercontinuesby – beitanation-state 52 A CEU eTD Collection

Macedonia, asithas Balkans isspreadingsouthwards;andthecen to this,Pettifer writes that:“There iseveryindicationthat theprocess of remaking the present andfuture of itsrelations withthenei 55 54 53 overall political,economicandsocialdevelopm independence. Nevertheless,thearguments thatar first published,1992,wasright There issomething, though,whichshouldbenotedhere.The yearinwhichthechapterwas and inthatlighttotryseewhatthepr the basisofoldQuestionwas, question andnation-state,Petiffer European-wide relevance. Aboutthepossibl the socalledNewMacedonianquestionacquired Macedonian membership inNATO,(andpossiblyagainstthefuturemembership intheEU) politics oftheRepublicMacedonia.With be adecisivefactorthat determines theshap paramilitary bandsrepresenting theAlbanianmi were present,especiallyduringthe1990’sa orientation willtake.” saying that“…itis very far from clearwhat beginning of thepresentdecade.From theendof observation tobedonein1992.It Macmillan, 2001), 15. 15. 2001), Macmillan, 15. 2001), Macmillan, 15. 2001), Macmillan, James Pettifer, ed., James Pettifer, ed., James Pettifer,ed., The New MacedonianThe Question New MacedonianThe Question New MacedonianThe Question

53 done inthepast,…” Thisuncertainty,alsoabouttheeconomic future,andthisdimness

and tosuggest some comparisons withthepastandpresent; suggests that:“Allthat ispossibl after theSeptember 1991re also fitsrightin,ifoned oblems for theinternati (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave nd, obviously,duringthe2001conflictwith [36] ghbours –particularly withBulgaria.Inrelation 55 shape many aspectsof its political and military To bemade in1992,thiswasarealistic ents inMacedoniasin e anddirectionoftheinternalexternal e futureofthecontemporary Macedonian ter ofgravityeventsmay soonfocuson nority. Even today,this dimness continuesto

themore recent Greek vetoagainst the e citedabovehavealways beenvalidforthe theprevious citation,Pettifercontinues as an evengreaterregional,andprobablya ecides tolookcloselyatthe onal communitymaybe.” ferendum forMacedonian e istotryindicatewhat ce 1991,andalsoforthe 54

CEU eTD Collection animosity, tothesceneryof

57 56 Yugoslav socialisttimes withacertaindegreeof disputes between Macedoniaanditsnei however, that isconsidered tohave openedorreopenedtheMacedonian issueandthe disintegration ofYugoslaviain1991. Itisth The emergence ofthis“New” and nationalism, ofdi whicharestillmatters important internal developments inthesphere process…” following: “…, anditwillbedisturbingif international attention is distracted from this Bulgaria containsthepossibili viewed with evenmore uneasiness. Theissu concern. Thepositioningofth to beadeceivingimage. Thein within andalongsidethepresentday bordersof have been‘solved’ war period,particularlyther types of conflict: “sowhat gaverise tosome of themost acutepolitical turmoil oftheinter- times ofgeneral‘prosperity’ and alack,atleas Macmillan, 2001), 15. 2001), Macmillan, Macmillan, 2001), 15. 2001), Macmillan, James Pettifer, ed.,

James Pettifer,ed.,

56 Byusingthe words“this process”, Pettifer The New MacedonianThe Question The New MacedonianThe Question

byTito’screation.”

ecurrent Macedonianas Bulgarian-Macedonian relations. Macedonian questionistraced ty ofaddinggreatlevelstens e country on the regional andEuropeanpol ternal politicalrealityinMace 57 Thissenseoftruestab ghbours. ManyMacedonians lookbacktothe (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave e ofthe“Macedonian” minority inSouthwestern [37] e followingrecognition ofSlovenia andCroatia rect concernfortheMacedoniangovernment. s of politics,security

theRepublicofMacedonia,turned out though t anapparentone,of

nostalgia. Thesewereth sassinations andbo directs thereader’s attention tothe donia isstillamatter ofsome by most scholarsbacktothe ility duringsocialism,both ion, maybe evenofopen and stability,economics y interethnicorother e ‘secure’times, the mbings, seemed to itical scenes is CEU eTD Collection

Constantinople andthe declining power of theSublime Porte.” Albania and Bulgaria, inthat allthesepeop the nineteenthcentury the politicalborderlines ofMacedoniawere The sectionwillpresent severaldifferent moments from thepast.Ineach of thesemoments chapter. Beforethat,abriefsummary onthe whether thereissuchaminority in on theotherhand,insistthattheretrulyissu about asupposedexistenceof a“Macedonian”minority group. Their Macedoniancolleagues, Almost nobodyinBulgaria,scholars orpoliticians,wouldrecognize,eveninitiateatalk “Macedonian” minority topicisth will also be discussed. Oneof the determining factors inthe discourse concerning the Bulgaria. The mutually antagonisticpositions Bulgarians historiansabout 58 speed andinaslightlydifferentmanner anddi simultaneously. InthecasesofSerbiaandGree noted here:ineachseparate on thesame path,havingsuchanimportant aim Macmillan, 2001), 16. 2001), Macmillan,

James Pettifer,ed., The purposeofthischapteris The New MacedonianThe Question

Chapter 3:The“Macedonian”minorityinBulgaria was nodifferentfrom itsfourimmediateneighbours, Serbia, Greece,

case theprocessofnation-build the existenceofa“Macedonia Bulgariaornot,willbediscu e number ofindividualsor toreflectontheoppositevi (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave [38] ch aminority inPirinMacedonia.Thequestion different. “Inone sense,Macedoniathroughout population changesin

rection. Thefournation-statesdidnotdevelop of media and peoples les were struggling tothrowoff rulefrom ce, forexample,thenecessaryconditions for in common. Averyimport

ing developedwithadifferent 58 n” minority inSouthwestern groups whodiscus ssed inthesecond ews ofmost Macedonianand Allthese major groups were Macedonia isnecessary. from thetwocountries ant detailhastobe s thetopic. part ofthis CEU eTD Collection

60 59 other largesize Ottoman possessionintheBalkans. Forinstance: “…unlike Serbiaor Greece, major partsofMacedonia,orwithin geographi feature hadprofoundconsequences,notonlyfor th to theaspirations of the majority of reminds thereaderthat“…,existingOttoman go basis ofreligion–noton theground oflanguage,et system thesubjects of theOttoman Empire weredividedintodistinctmajor groupsonthe developments oftheBalkanpeoples,wassocalled significant ways.Anotherfactor, and politicaldevelopmentsofthefuturenati larger non-Balkan backersanddifferentdiplomatic imperatives…” different candidatenation-stateswaxed andwa on externalfactors:“Inthedifferentphases were closely connected totheprocesses ofna national groupsforautonomy andconsecutive Serbia andGreece.InAlbania,theprocesswas in BulgariaandAlbaniaentered intoaphase independence from theOttoman Empireatalatermoment. Theprocessesofnation-building bureaucracies. BulgariaandAlbania,incontrast,achievedtheirautonomy andeventual institutions andnational ideologies earlier nineteenth centuryandhadtheopportunity Bulgaria and Albania.SerbiaandGreecebe the creation ofanation werepresent atamuch Macmillan, 2001), 16. 2001), Macmillan, 16. 2001), Macmillan, James Pettifer, ed., James Pettifer, ed., The New MacedonianThe Question New MacedonianThe Question

which provedtobeofsomepartialrelevance tothe national theinhabitants living withinthem.” (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave [39] . Theycouldenjoytheexistence ofstate tion-building. Thesestrugglesweredependent independencefrom theOttoman government of theEasternQuestionstanding of acceleration alittlebi on-states affectedtheirpopulationsinvery to starttheprocessof buildingtheirown came autonomous inthebeginning ofthe c Macedoniaasawhole,butalsoforevery

vernmental divisionsof ned, generallylinkedtothepoweroftheir delayed further.Thestrugglesofallethno- earlier point intime thanin the casesof e nation-buildingwithineachofthethree hnicity orrace.Inrela millet system. Accordingtothis 59 Inthat time, thenational ten borelittle relation t laterthan thosein tion tothis Pettifer 60 Thishistorical CEU eTD Collection

precise, about the composition ofMacedonia’s character of theland.Thereissomedata,a 1912, nodetailedstatisticswerekeptbythe changes oftremendous scaleintheethnicmap of uprising of1903,theBalkanWars1912- an overwhelming majority inAegean Maced entire geographicareaofMacedoniaisnowover Greek settlersfrom AsiaMinor 1923. Asaconsequenceofthepeaceagreement betweenthetworivals, hugenumber of composition oftheGreekpartchangeddramatically aftertheendofGreek-TurkishWar in very differentfrom thatofVardarorPirinMa the Slavicspeakingmajority. Thepictureinc is comprised ofTurks,Greeks,Albanians, Vlac composed byminorities part ofthe present day than ofeveryothergroup–butonlywith majority in thecultural ethnic map ofMacedonia isthat:“Therewas, geographic Macedoniaasawhole. sentence, Pettiferdescribesthecontemporary si 63 62 61 subdivided intoSerbian,Bulgar new nation-state.” in Macedoniatherewasnobasicallyhomogenous Macmillan, 2001), 16. 2001), Macmillan, 16. 2001), Macmillan, 16. 2001), Macmillan, James Pettifer, ed., James Pettifer, ed., James Pettifer,ed., The New MacedonianThe Question New MacedonianThe Question New MacedonianThe Question

61 Inadditiontothat,theSlavonic sense, inthattherearemorepe

cameintoGreekMacedonia.As ian and‘Macedonian’elements.” WhatPettiferandothernon- in apatchworkof extreme complexity…” (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave [40] lthough Pettiferdescribesitasnot completely ontemporary AegeanMacedonia,incontrast,is onia. Thebloodysuppressionofthe Ilinden hs, Pomaks andRoma, liv population ofVardarMacedonia, inparticular, Ottoman administration 1913 andthetwoWorld Wars alsocaused cedonia. Asitisdescribe tuation, notonlyinVardarMacedonia, butin population in1918: “…according toForeign

Macedonia. PriortotheFirstBalkanWarof however,andstillis fifty percentGreek,withtheGreeksbeing populationthatcouldform thebasisofa majority in Macedoniais“…itself ople ofSlavonicor Balkan scholarssayaboutthe a result, the population of the a result,thepopulationof 62 , aplainlydominant With theprevious about thepopulation ing sidebywith d earlier,theethnic igin livingthere 63 The CEU eTD Collection University, 2006),43. University, 2006),43. University, 2006),43.

252,908 “peoplefrom thisregion [PirinMaced any definitestatement orgeneralperception. is interestinghowawr 68 67 66 65 64 in 1946and1956. presents datafrom twocensuses,whichhestat 1980’s). With respecttopopulationrecords,th Bulgarian, andlateYugoslavpopulationdata that haveproducedsome resultsaboutVa produced amorehomogenous population,merely changedthemixture.” never achieved:“Althoughthere cited numbers occurred.Butahomogenous populationstructureinVardar Macedoniawas Office papersfrom 1918there data recordof1946:“Anunpublishedcensusco questions the credibility of thetwosourcesthat the archives. The datarecordsof they arenotcopiesofBulgarianprimary s the endofNestorovski’sThesis,titledMacedonianMinoritiesinBulgariaandGreece 100,000 Jewsand10,000Gypsies.” 1,150,000 Slavs,400,000Turks,120,000Albani Macmillan, 2001), 16. 16. 2001), Macmillan, 16. 2001), Macmillan, Kiril Nestorovski, M.A. Kiril Nestorovski, M.A. Kiril Nestorovski, M.A. Thesis James Pettifer,ed., James Pettifer,ed., Pirinsko Delo fact is the first one of a few that newspaper(PirinAffairsnewspaper).Thisfactisthefirstoneofafewthat The New MacedonianThe Question New MacedonianThe Question

66 Thefirstthingthatis Thesis Macedonian Minoritie Thesis Macedonian Minoritie iter canrelyon“unpublished”or“uno Macedonian Minoritiesin

the 1946and1956censu were intheethnicterritory have beensubstantialchange 64 Beforeandafter1918,substa noticeable aboutthedatarecordsth ources –meaning photocopiesofBulgarianstate (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave [41] s in Bulgaria and Greece s in Bulgaria and Greece rdar andBulgarianMacedoniaarethefew es wereconductedbyth According tothecensusof1946therewere collections(from thelate1970’sandearly onia] whocalledthemselves Macedonian”. arecited.Infact,Ne

mpleted bytheBulgarianauthorities…” Bulgaria and Greece Bulgaria e former M.A.studentKirilNestorovski ans, 300,000Greeks,200,000Vlachs, ses arecopies of of Macedonia,before1912,about fficial” data in order to confirm fficial” datainordertoconfirm s since[1918],theyhavenot (Budapest: CentralEuropean (Budapest: CentralEuropean (Budapest: CentralEuropean ntial changesintheabove storovski describesthe e Bulgarian authorities 65 tables publishedby Theothercensuses at arelistedin , isthat 67 It 68

CEU eTD Collection University, 2006),43.

Yugoslav censuses:“…boyco were influencedbyexternalgeopoliticalorinte rnal factors ofthetime. correctnessandobjectivity.TheBulg arianmaximum censuses were not the only onesthat Bulgaria. The analysisofthedisputesbetweentwonations theshe shouldalwaysbecarefulwhenexploring historiesoftheRepublicMacedoniaand borders oftheSovietUnion. Thisfactservesas identities, shiftingborders,changingofrule Communist Partyofthetime, headedbyStali Bulgarians withinPirin Macedoniawouldchangeeachtime whencounted.TheSoviet 1950’s and1960’s,thenumber ofthe“Macedonia political situations,inwhichtheBulgarian counting, whether itisMacedonian, Bulgarianor what thefinal results willbe.This isvalid variable, itisverylikely that entire geographicarea.Sincethedata collect census datapublished about thepast population Republic ofMacedonia.Thereissomething im Macedonia intheOpenSocietyInstitute, and notthestate archives ofBulgariaorthe 70 69 377,726 Albanians,44,613Serbs,39,555Poma newspaper issue,inwhichthe1946‘census’ta living inthe area at thetime. According tothesecondcensusof 1956ther the 1981Yugoslav censusinVardarMace Macmillan, 2001), 16. 2001), Macmillan, James Pettifer, ed., Kiril Nestorovski, M.A. Thesis The New MacedonianThe Question

Macedonian Minorities

tts forpoliticalreas it istheplace from whichthe data are takenthat determines 69 Interestinglyenough, (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave for allsources,containingdatafrom population [42] donia therewere: government wasduringth n, was famous withengineeringethno-national n, wasfamous ed bydifferentnational e were187,789“self-d over territoriesbothwithinandoutsidethe ble waspublished,isactu compositions ofVardar Macedoniaandofthe in Bulgaria and Greece in Bulgaria aplainreminder toanyascholarthatheor

pre-1991Yugoslavcensuses.In the external portant thatoneshouldconsideraboutany ons havebeencommon…” ks, 47,223Gypsies,86,691Turks,7,190 ns” andtheratiobetweenthem andthe the sourceof shouldalsobeasubjectto “…1,281,195 Macedonians, (Budapest: CentralEuropean eclared Macedonians” authorities are often e late1940’s,early Inthecaseof ally thearchivesof 70 Pirinsko Delo Accordingto

CEU eTD Collection

extreme arguments arestilloutsidethesphere two stateswillbetostronglyaffectedby governmental inactivityorpositivit ethno-national identity,origin,la 71 the potentialconsequences.TheBulgarianhist membership intheEUtobesubordinatedcer The factthattheex-foreignminister declared the officialstatement made bytheex-foreignmini European Parliament. Anexample isalreadygive among theBulgarianpoliticaleliteandalsoamongrepresentativesof interstate relationsth historians, writers and analysts, willaffect not intellectual elites.Thereisapotentialthat continue tobeasourceofhightension identity andlanguageis,theclaimsbysome raised Bulgarianscholarsandmedia will Alexander theGreat.Whatever‘truth’abou heritage oftheancien Yugoslavia wascreated.Some c oppose thisview,insistingthattherewasasepa final productoftheYugoslavpropagandaand more patrioticandnationalisthistoriansfrom number of“Macedonians” and“Bulgarians” Vlachs and1,984Bulgarians…” Macmillan, 2001), 17. 2001), Macmillan,

James Pettifer,ed., The New MacedonianThe Question

rough relevantmedia channels.Afe t Macedonianstateformation (and

ontemporary Macedonianhistoriansevenraiseclaimstothe nguage andhistorycancertainl 71 y. Itisquitecertainthatth Aninterestingcomparison canbemade betweenthe (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave the positionofsome BulgarianandMacedonian [43] the main disputes.These Bulgarian-Macedonian thepossiblefuturesupportforMacedonian tween thetwo nationsand theirculturaland of theintergovernmenta Bulgaria these categories andnumbers arethe from Macedonia. Yugoslav According tothe orians’ positioninrela t thehistoryofMa tain conditionssetbyBulg historiography. TheirMacedoniancolleagues rate Macedonian ethnicitylongbeforeTito’s

n intheIntroductionsectionofthisThesis– just thepresent butalso thefuture of the ster of BulgariaIvaylo Kalfin inthe…year. w signshavealreadyappeared later anEmpire) ofPhilipand e futurerelationsbetweenthe y reshapethepastpolicyof cedonian ethno-national l dialogueandcontacts. tion totheMacedonian aria isindicativeof thecountryin CEU eTD Collection

Macedonian minorities livingin GreeceandBulgaria.” Nestorovski statesthat: “Thespecificfocusofthethesis isthestatus andtherights ofthe Nestorovski’s Thesisservesasafineexampl still exert substantialpressure onthepublic between the twosidesaboutthesupposed exis origin, languageandthehistor piece ofremoteancientheritage.Asitisindicated severaltimes earlier,itisabouttheethnic deeper andmorecomplex. Thereismuch more membership, willstillbe fresh.TheBulgarian- if thewoundsfrom theargument withGreece, almost guaranteedifanofficialdispute isto will most probablybetakenintoaccountbyth Republic ofMacedonia,theopini can beseenfromthepresentlyongoingintergovernmental disputebetweenGreeceandthe intention, from theBulgariang analysts andthepublicwoulddefinitelyprotest deterioration of therelations. Moreover, the majority of the Bulgarian historians, political 72 Bulgaria torecognizesuchaminority,willal “Macedonian” minority inBulgar most Macedonianhistorians,intellectualsandof There isnoguarantee,however,thatthepointsof guidance. Ristovskiisoneofthemostprominen that Nestorovski hasreliedheavily uponBlaze University, 2006),1.

Kiril Nestorovski, M.A. Thesis

Macedonian Minorities in

y oftheSlavicspeakingMace overnment to recognizea“Ma on andwillofthemajority sh ia, andthecomplete lackofanyofficialintention arise withtheBulgarian government –especially [44] mindset inMacedonia. In connection tothat, tence ofa“Macedonian” andits2008 vetooftheMacedonianNATO e Inregard tothe fo Macedonian dispute,incomparison, ismuch

t andrespected historians inthe Republic of e rulingpoliticians. Such adevelopment is against anyhint,nottomention anofficial Bulgaria and Greece Bulgaria Ristovski for academic adviceand general to itthananargument aboutaname anda argument will remain there.Theclaims of most certainly facil some politiciansthattherereallyisa 72 Itisworthmaking anoteofthefact donians. Theextreme arguments cedonian” minority group.Asit are oftheMacedonian public (Budapest: CentralEuropean cus ofhisownwork, itate aconsiderable minority inBulgaria CEU eTD Collection

73 Macedonian ethnicityandlanguage was abandonedcompletely. Thisisnotabout As itisdescribedearlierinthetext,afterth ordered theBulgarianCommunist the restofSocialistYugoslaviaweresupposed supposed tobejoinedtogetherinasingleadmi ethno-national group in SouthwestBulgaria. Asa some tofinallyguaranteetherecognitionand Tito. According to this agreement, the Bulgaria fact thattheBulgariangovernment signe sources, however,canbejudgedas census reportsaboutthepopulationcharacterof worked withsignificant number ofMacedon Netsorovski hasusedafewothe Ristovski andMacedonia,itsPeopleHistory taken information fromworkssuchas nationalism, nations,nationalizing states andexternal homelands. TheM.A.studenthasalso theoretical worksbyRogersBrubaker andErnst citizenship, multiculturalism andnationalism. In minorities inBulgariaand Greeceare, Nestorovski hasalsousedworksbyWill Kymlica on country. Inordertoenrichthedescription the Macedonia history aregreatlyrespectedby Macedonia andisalsoconsideredapatriot.Hisli Holding, Vienna, Skopje 1999, pp. 17-18. pp. 1999, Skopje Vienna, Holding,

For more information,please see: Ristovski, Blaze–“Macedonia

r sourcesonthesame topics.Furthermore,theauthorhas

Party tocollaborate withtheproject, whichinfact itdid. stronglybiased,especiallyifonetakesintoaccountthe or not.Oneofthemajorpur Macedonia andtheMacedonianPeople d theBledAgreement onAugustthe1 e majorTito-Stalinspl [45] ian online sources andpost-1945 Macedonian of thesituationinwhich“Macedonian” nistrative unit,a Gellner ontopicssuchasnationalminorities,

SouthwesternBulgaria.Thelattergroupof arguing, whether therereallyisaseparate rightful statusofaseparate“Macedonian” fe’s work,theoriesandpositions inregardto to form a largeBalkanfederation.Stalin toform a n side agreed to establish, or according to next step, VardarandPirinMacedonia were addition tothat,the authorhasreliedupon many historians and intellectualsinthe , byStoyanPribichevich.In addition, and the Macedonian People”,SIMAG nd togetherwithBulgariaand poses ofthischapteristo it of1948thewholeidea 73 st 1947with , byBlaze CEU eTD Collection University, 2006),1. University, 2006),1.

75 74 compare atypical MacedonianandtypicalBulg being MacedonianandnothingelsebutMace national belongingin Vardarand “Macedonian” ethnicgroupinSouthwesternBulgaria. With regardstothefeelingofethno- there isnoofficialBulgarianreportthatd would berecognized–notonlyinthenear,butverydistant future.Inaddition tothat, media, thatitisalmost invainforoneto the Bulgarianpopulationissoopposedtocl the non-recognitionof“Macedonian” mi general, butstillguiding sentence, leadstoth the conditions in which minorities inhostc thesis introduction,Nestorovskistatesthat:“The rights andnon-recognitionof minority inBulgaria. Atfirst, review of Nestor sources inregardtothe“New”Macedonianquestion andthetopicof“Macedonian” Furthermore, it willalso beof relevance toanalyse anddiscuss thegeneral toneof hiscentral Bulgaria, andtoreflectonthepresentdayethn is toconcentrateonhisdirect ethnicity and language andoftheirMacedonian his thesis will bejudged accordingly, inview issue inBulgaria.Secondly, thecore sourcesth Kiril Nestorovski, M.A. Thesis Kiril Nestorovski, M.A. Thesis Macedonian Minorities in Macedonian Minorities in statements andreportsregard

the “Macedonian”minority inBulgariaisnecessary.Inhis Pirin Macedonia, ElisabethBarker norities inBulgariaandGreece. think orexpectthatalarge“Macedonian”minority ountries can bemoreorless integrated.” [46] e morespecificfocusofNestorovski’swork– eclares theexistenceofareally numerous ovski’s statements inrelationtotheexistence, at Nestorovskihasusedforthepreparationof aims, raisedbytheMacedonianscholarsand

arian accountofthe of theBulgarianclaims totheMacedonian o-national realityinSouthwesternBulgaria. antipodes. Theintention ofthepresentwork donian is a phenomenon of “fairly recent donian isaphenomenon of“fairly Bulgaria and Greece Bulgaria and Greece Bulgaria general aim ofthispape ing the“Macedonian”minority in (Budapest: CentralEuropean (Budapest: CentralEuropean statesthatthefeeling of “Macedonian” minority r istoshedlighton 75 Themajority of 74 This CEU eTD Collection University, 2006),1. University, 2006),1. 4. Basingstoke, 2001), Hampshire,Pettifer (Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan,

regarding theethnicself-determination ofthelocalpopulation Bulgaria as“PirinBulgar 79 78 77 76 between thetwo“separate”groups–neitherinst internationally, aboutanymajor c even recognized. With referencetosuchprobl minority andamajority inagivencountrywhen biased. Byproblems, hereitismeant thesortoftensionsthattypicallyoccurbetweena existing “Macedonian”minority an sentence, simplystatingthattherehavene European Union,theotherduetogetmembership in2007.” the Macedonian minority isfacingintwoSouth-Ea specifies thathisstudyisimporta not recognizedasanethnicminority of thepeoplefrom PirinMacedoniatoanethn growth…” state tookin thepastvis-à-vi danger fortheemergence ofsuch.Nomatter what Macedonia therehasneverbeenanarmed conf population ofBulgaria,andwithinPirinMacedonia.Andfinall discrimination towardsthepopulationofPirinareahaveneverbeenobservedamongst owned means ofcommunication.Ingeneral, Macmillan, 2001), 17. 2001), Macmillan, Kiril Nestorovski, M.A. Thesis Kiril Nestorovski, M.A. Thesis James Pettifer,ed., Elisabeth Barker, “The origin of the Macedonian dispute,” in 76 Inparallelto that,James Pettiferrefe

The New MacedonianThe Question

ophile Macedonians”, obviouslys Macedonian Minorities in Macedonian Minorities in s the“Macedonian” minority, the la

nt fortworeasons:“First,ito onfrontations, problems, tensionsorissuesofanyotherkind d theBulgarianmajority inneitherGreecenorBulgaria.” (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave ver beenanyproblems betweenthesupposedly [47] ems, ithasneverbeenreported,nationallyor ic category,Nestorovski

public ormass feelings ate orforeignownedme Bulgaria and Greece Bulgaria and Greece Bulgaria lict ofanymagnitude, theminority’s rights st European countries–onemember ofthe rs to theSlav population ofSouthwestern legal or forcefulmeasures theBulgarian The New Macedonian Question New Macedonian The ffers aninsighttotheproblems 77 uggesting afactofreality, tter couldhavetaken uparms would probablysoundvery . Inrelationtothebelonging 79 . Toanalysetheprevious y, intheregionofPirin (Budapest: CentralEuropean (Budapest: CentralEuropean 78 Becauseofthat,he says that:“Theyare are notprotectedor dia, norinprivately or evenapotential ofnegativism or , ed.James CEU eTD Collection University, 2006),48. University, 2006),48. University, 2006),48.

Macedonians inBulgaria.” main purposeistofightforthegrantingof describes UMO Ilindenas:“…anorganizationoftheMacedonian minority inBulgaria and its later changed its name tothe United Macedon UMO IlindenParty. Itemerged in1990as of thedisputebetweentwosidesandth damage totheotherwisegoodrelationsbetween Bulgarian-Macedonian dispute, true number ofthe“Macedonians”inBulgaria 82 81 80 specific sources ofthis information. demanding specialminority rightsandterritorial autonomy, withoutnaming atthesame time argue aboutthevalidityorprec historians, andalsoWestern others according tothe sourcefrom whichitcomes. MostMacedonian andBulgarian population countingfrom Vardar historians from theRepublic just asinglepartoftheextensiveandco histories ofBulgaria.Thepopulationnumbers that en masse against thestateauthorities. Such “Macedonian” minority rights. “…has foughtwithliberaland peaceful means…” fortherec Kiril Nestorovski, M.A. Thesis Kiril Nestorovski, M.A. Thesis Kiril Nestorovski, M.A. Thesis 80 Macedonian Minorities in Macedonian Minorities in Macedonian Minoritiesin Thestudentdescribesfurther

ision ofcertainones 81 of MacedoniaandBulgaria.Asitisnotedearlier,each which hasthereal other expertsinthefieldofS He states that UMO-Ilinden organized rallies in Sofia, and PirinMacedoniaissignifi 82 InNestorovski’sthesis,hetalksaboutbrutal [48] a thing neverhappened inthedistant orrecent the Independent MacedonianOrganizationand ian Organization(UMO)–Ilinden.Nestorovski mplicated disputesbetweentheconservative e NewMacedonianQuestionisthecaseof thetwogovernments. Anothersuchelement

basicandspecialminority rightsofthe is simply oneofthebasicelements ofthe Bulgaria and Greece Bulgaria and Greece Bulgaria and Greece Bulgaria arequotedearlierinth ofthesenumbers. Theargument aboutthe potential tocausepr the organizationasabody,which outheast Europeanstudies,still ognition andprotectionofthe (Budapest: CentralEuropean (Budapest: CentralEuropean (Budapest: CentralEuropean cantly differentfrom the is chapter oblems andinflict illustrate CEU eTD Collection University, 2006),50. University, 2006),49.

85 84 83 the organization are:tobean existence andfunctioningof Bulgaria. organization hadthreatenedtheterritorialsovere Bulgaria nottorecognizetherenamedUMO-Il not torecognize UMO-IlindenPirin andthe significant eventsthathappenedweretheea suppression oftheorganizationandits these rights otherthansuch asareprescribed the freedomofassembly andassociation: “Nore European ConventiononHuman(ECHR). Ar Rights in bothlegalcasestherespectivegovernments we Macedonia. Bothorganizationsfiledcomplaints RADKO wasdeclared unconstitutional bythe Ilinden wasbannedbytheBulgarianConstitutionalCourtinearly2000. Similarly, in2001 whatever form,theorganizationfoughtfor achieved in theforeseeable future. Thesame isvalidfor thecaseof UMO-Ilinden as,in Macedonia. Theaims ofRADKOareextrem achieve recognitionoftheBulg constituent element, tobelis Bulgarian culture;toachieveanofficial re For more information see:RADKO official website: Kiril Nestorovski, M.A. Thesis Kiril Nestorovski, M.A. Thesis 84 Ananalogicalcase,this

Macedonian Minorities in Macedonian Minorities in the organizationnamed RADKO.

organization dedicatedtothepr ted intheconstitutionof arian languageasanofficialintheRepublicof time onthe territory supportersfrom the“minority” group. rly 1990’sdecisionoftheBulgarian government cognition ofthe “Bulgarian” ethnic groupasa [49] by lawandarenecessaryin ademocratic society inden. Thegroundsfortherulingwerethat achievement ofthesame typeofgoals.UMO- ignty andinternalsecurityoftheRepublic

later ruling of theConstitutional Courtof ely ambitious andwouldprobablynotbe to theEuropeanCourtofHuman Rightsand Bulgaria and Greece Bulgaria and Greece Bulgaria strictions shall beplacedontheexercise of re foundguiltyofviolatingArticle11the Constitutional CourtoftheRepublic ticle 11oftheConven oftheRepublic Republic ofMacedonia;andto otection anddevelopmentofthe 85 Some ofthe main goalsof (Budapest: CentralEuropean (Budapest: CentralEuropean tion isdedicatedto Macedonia,isthe 83 Theonly CEU eTD Collection http://www.echr.coe. http://www.echr.coe.

87 86 continuous circulationsofcerta Therefore,itturns structure ofthenation-state,ifnotopenlyseparatist. These ideas andaims wereatleast directed RADKO expressedideas andgoals,whichdemanded significant constitutional changes. international legalframeworks.Inbothcases apparently theywereinconformity withthe decisive interventionandcouldgroundtheresp people. ButiftheMacedonianandBulgarian course, thisisnotanexcuseforexercising maintenance of peaceandorder,to actuallyma rights thatanybranchoftheStateadministratio forces, ofthepoliceorth imposition oflawfulrestrictionsontheexer Article 11 of theConvention states the fo exercised bypoliceand/orspecialforcesin in theinterests of national security or publicsafety…” governments, namely thatoftheRe call itthat,canbethesuddenanddeepde interventionist measures onthesideofState and RADKO.Thesecondtypeofeffectcancertainly betheadoption andimplementation of consequence canbetheemergence oforganizatio writing and media communitiescanleadtoseveralmajor consequences.Thefirst European Court of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf e administration oftheState.”

in historicalaccountsandcl public ofMacedoniaand Bulgaria. excessive violenceoverindividualsorgroupsof Constitutions ofthetwoc [50] towards changing certain elements ofthebasic theRepublicofMacedoniaandinBulgaria, cise oftheserightsbymembers ofthearmed llowing: “This article shall not prevent the , theorganizations–UMO-IlindenPirin and

authorities. Thethirdstag n ortheinstitutionshas,responsiblefor ns ormovements suchasUMO-IlindenPirin state authoritieshad ective measures onthelawofstate– terioration oftherelationsbetweentwo intain thenecessarypeaceandorder.Of 86 Asforthestatements aboutviolence 87 By“theserights”itismeant the aims, bothwithinthehistory- , website: , website: , website: ountries andwithother out thatthestrongand serious reasons for a serious reasonsfora e, ifonedecidesto . .

CEU eTD Collection

88 amounts andexternal ofinternal pressure that, thelong-lasting argument withGreeceabout Macedonia happenedas abitterinterruption of th 2001 armed conflictwiththeAlbanianparam historians and thingsbe observersknow,however, politics andtheelectorate.” inter-ethnic, norethno-centricandethno-political “…despite thelargeproportionofethnicgroups called Dimitar Mircevsaysthefollowingaboutinter-ethnicrelationsinMacedonia: determining factorallthe time. Oneofthe intergovernmental relations.Nevertheless,some internal affairsofthecountry.Itisani external policies tilltoday. Theethnicfactor the political,stateandintellect statement. material inthe Thesisandpr Macedonia andBulgaria.Oneofthemain objectiv region. Thischapterwillreviewth relations betweengovernments canleadtopolit Macmillan, 2001), 201. 2001), Macmillan, in Chapter 4(Conclusion):Thepotentialpolitica

Dimitar Mircev, “Engineering the foreign policy of a new independent State: the Case of Macedonia, 1990-6” State: Case Macedonia, 1990-6” the of a of new independent policy foreign the “Engineering Mircev, Dimitar The NewMacedonian Question James Pettifer , ed. Basingstoke, Hampshire,(Houndmills, Palgrave The OldandNewMacedonianquestionshavealwaysbeenamark, accordingtowhich Many historiansandexpertsinSoutheast

88 Thiswasthesituationin

ual elitesofMacedoniahaveb opose ananswer–asupportto e currentandpossiblefuture st on theMacedonian government. Greecestilldoesn’t ssue, whichstillleaves contributors tothebook,editedbyJames Pettifer, [51] ilitary bands inWestern andNorth-western has playedapartinsome eventsfrom the

l consequencesfortheinterstate relations mobilization haveprevailed inMacedonian withinthepopulation authors statethatethnicityhasnotbeena gan tochange attheend ofthedecade.The ical anddevelopmental instabilityinthe thename ofthenewstateadded further European affairswouldconfirm thatbad e relatively calm situation.Inaddition to es ofthissectionistosummarisethe beginning of the 1990’s. As most beginning ofthe1990’s.Asmost een shapingtheirinternaland atus oftherelationsbetween thetitleandmain thesis its own imprint onthe itsownimprint (33 percent)neither CEU eTD Collection Yugoslavia,” Yugoslavia,” in

90 89 however, Macedoniahasoftenb potential andrealdangersfrom with Greeceserveaswarnings,whichshould be takeninto account.In regardtosuchlike the interethnicminority conflic positively. Theyaresuitablefordraftingoptim until nowatleast, remained sopeaceful.” attention has beenpaidtoMacedonia;in largepa account isthefollowingstatement byLoringM.Danforth,whosatesthat:“…relativelylittle cultural developments, expresssimilarlypos conflict.” ethnophobia among thepopulation,atleastnotsuffici exposed tofrom itsneighbourssinceindepende “…, therearenoindicationsthatthedifficult which theMacedonian government hadwithGr and media from bothsides, butalsobetweengovernments. Mircevcontrasts theproblems, disputes aboutthelanguage,history andethnicbelongingwere Bulgaria arejustanotherexample ofunstabl pause thatwasdesperatelyneeded.The1990’s relations. Despite that,theagreement didnot opened theotherwiseblockedpa between theGreekandMacedoniangovernment recognize MacedoniaunderitsConstitutional LoringM.Danforth, “Claims to Macedonian Identity. The Macedonian State: Case Macedonia, 1990-6” the of a of new independent policy foreign the “Engineering Mircev, Dimitar (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), 2001), 202. Macmillan, The NewMacedonian Palgrave Hampshire, Question Basingstoke, (Houndmills, 89 Prior to thespring of2001,theacc Anthropology Today 9 (August 1993): 3. 1993): (August 9

t of2001andtheintensivesometimesemotional dispute the pastandpresent,Danforthreminds that:“Historically, th for the development of thebasic level of inter-state een amajor sourceofconf 90 Thisandothersimilar [52]

ies andthreatsthatMa itive observations.Suchapositivesounding istic prognosis aboutistic thefuture.Nevertheless, e relations.Duringmost ofthe1990’s, solve theargument –itsimply introduced a nce in1991havecreatedanimosity, hatredor

eece and Bulgariawiththeobservation that name. temporary The agreement of1995 rt, Isuspect, because th ounts ofMacedonia’spol s, regardingthename ofthenewrepublic, disputes andcontroversialissueswith ent enoughtocauseanyrealdisputeor Question andthe breakup of not only between historians not onlybetweenhistorians lict andinstab observations soundvery cedonia wasrepeatedly e situationtherehas, itical, socialand ility inthe CEU eTD Collection Yugoslavia,” Anthropology Today 9 (August 1993): 3. 1993): 9 (August Today Anthropology Yugoslavia,” 3. 1993): (August 9 Today Anthropology Yugoslavia,” Yugoslavia,”

93 92 91 dramatic, whenclaims totheethnicorigin,la Serbs, AlbaniansandTurks.” external nationalist perspectives interms of national categories suchasGreeks,Bulgarians, nineteenth centurythe population ofMacedonia Macedonian andBulgarianhistoriansmedia, Macedonians.” between GreeksandMacedoniansoverwhichgr follows: “Even nowit[theMacedonian government Balkans.” LoringM.Danforth, “Claims to Macedonian Identity. The Macedonian LoringM.Danforth, “Claims to Macedonian Identity. The Macedonian LoringM.Danforth, “Claimsto Macedonian Identity. The Macedonian

91 Anthropology Today Inrelationto thedispute betweenMa 92 Bothdisputes,theone betweenGreeceandMacedoniatheone 9 (August 1993): 3. 3. 1993): (August 9

93 Nowadays,scholarlyorinters nguage andcultureofthe“other” areinvolved. [53]

was increasinglybeing have alonghistory:“Toward theendof cedonia and Greece,Danforthcontinuesas oup hastherighttoidentifyitselfas ] liesatthecentre Question andthe breakup of Question andthe breakup of Question andthe breakup of tate disputesbecome equally defined fromvarious of abitterdispute CEU eTD Collection

Bibliography: 9. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 8. 2. 11. 1. 10. Global VoicesWebsite, stableURL: Brubaker, Rogers.“MythsandMisconceptions intheStudyofNationalism.” In Pavlovski, Jovan.Mishel. Dimitrov, Bozhidar. Koleva, Daniela.Elenkov,Ivan.“Did“theChange”Happen?Post-socialist Smith, AntonyD. Pettifer, James.ed. “NationalismGeorgeoff, John. intheHistor Brunnbauer, Ulf.ed.(Re)Writing History–Hi A1 com.mk website, an interview with Angel Dimitrov cited, translated from Macedonian,an interviewwithAngel Dimitrovcited,translatedfrom website, A1 com.mk Barker, Elisabeth. “Theorigin Makedonija, 1996. 2004. Europe afterSocialism Historiography inBulgaria.”In 1999. Comparative EducationReview Cambridge UniversityPress,1998. Gellner and theTheoryofNationalism Socialism. Munster:LITVERLAGMunster,2004. Question macedonia-blog-wars-over-history/ Mihaylov, Mihaylov, title: “Bulgaria,Macedonia:BlogWarsOverHistory”. Macedonia, 1992-2001. http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/default.aspx?VestID=101500 , ed. James Pettifer,pp.3-14,PalgraveMacmillan, 2001. . Oxford: Oxford University Press, Myths andMemoirsoftheNation.Oxford:OxfordUniversity The NewMacedonianQuestion Ten LiesofMacedonism

, ed.UlfBrunnbauer,pp.94- of theMacedoniandispute.”In Vol.10,No.3(October1966):pp.442-550. , short article published onApril10 article published ,short (Re)Writing History–HistoriographyinSoutheast [54] Macedonia YesterdayandToday http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/04/10/bulgaria-

, ed.JohnHall,pp.1-31.Cambridge: y TextbooksofYugoslaviaandBulgaria.” . Sofia,2003. storiography inSoutheastEuropeafter . Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. , former BG ambassador to to , formerBGambassador 127, Munster:LITVERLAG,

The NewMacedonian th , 2008, by Yavor Yavor by , 2008, . Skopje:Nova Ernest Ernest CEU eTD Collection

15. 14. 13. 17. 16. 12. Official website oftheOrganisation Ristovski, Blaze. Nestorovski, Kiril.M.A.Thesis, Mircev, Dimitar. “Engineeringtheforeignpol European CourtofHuman Rights. Danforth, LoringM.“Claims toMacedonian http://www.radkomk.com Holding, 1999. of Macedonia,1990-6.”ed.James Pettif Budapest: Central EuropeanUniversity,2006. 10. website, stable URL: the breakupofYugoslavia.” 5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf Macedonia andtheMacedonianPeople http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457- . Anthropology Today . Macedonian MinoritiesinBulgariaandGreece

European ConventiononHumanRights [55] er, pp.201-225. Palgrave Macmillan, 2001.

Identity. TheMacedonian Questionand icy of a new independent State:theCase icy ofanewindependent of theBulgariansinMacedonia: Vol.9,No.4(August1993):pp.3- . Vienna,Skopje:SIMAG , official .