The Greece – Macedonia Name Dispute

CEU eTD Collection

S In partialIn fulfillment ofthe requirements for the degree Masterof Arts of

THE ECURITY IS Department ofInternational Relations G REECE Supervisor: Professor Michael Merlingen W Central – HAT THE

M Word Count: Budapest, Hungary Senada Lamovska

ACEDONIA Submitted to European 2012 By

16 University TATE

544

European Studies N AME M

AKES OF AKES

D ISPUTE

I T :

CEU eTD Collection historical conditions, of number a of because G population the by accepted were moves respective These Macedonia. and Greece in organisations media and actors society civil experts, security official politicians, that to addition In securit of objects reference as integrity societal and territorial both involving dilemma, security societal and interstate intertwined an of case a is it because far so intractable proven has dispute securitization of school Copenhagen the far so intractable proven has dispute answer to is thesis this of purpose main The , I argue that these security dilemmas are the result of securitising moves by by moves securitising of result the are dilemmas security these that argue I , and demographic conditions discursive and non and discursive . By . ,

drawing I will argue, firstly, that the Greek the that firstly, argue, will I Abstract the question as to why the Greek the why to as question the ii

on the literature on the security dilemma and dilemma security the on literature the on

- discursive ek n b te Macedonian the by and reek facilitating conditions, notably conditions, facilitating - - Macedonian name name Macedonian Macedonian name name Macedonian y. CEU eTD Collection thesis this who those all thank to like would I Also, possible his Without Merlingen. Michael supervisor and and guidance, knowledge professor my to gratitude deepest my owe I .

continuous Acknowledgements

support and encouragementt support supported supported ii

me in any re any in me

spect during the completion of of completion the during spect his thesis would not have beenhave not would thesis his CEU eTD Collection Bibliography: Conclusion Security Dilemma Macedonia’sChapterGreece’s of Name, 3: Denial Macedonian Security Dilemma Chapter Macedonia, 2:Independent the Greek Greek and Securitization (Societal) ChapterFramework 1:Theoretical Introduction Table ofContents Name 3.2 Discursive and Non 3.1 independence and name 2.2 Discursive and non 2.1 GreekCase Assumptions Worst and their Securitizations, Presuppositions 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

2.2.3 The Macedonian inGreece minority 2.2.2 The War Greek Civil and minority theMacedonian 2.2.1 Ethnographic policy assimilation change and inGreek Macedonia Securitization is 4.1 What Theory? Macedonia’s Securitizations, Worst Macedonia’s Securitizations, The Approach Societal AConstructivist Security Dilemma: The Copenhagenof Securitization School Social Constructivism The Security Ethnic Conflict Dilemmaand The SecurityApproaches Dilemma:Structural andCognitive ………………………

......

- - discursive conditions in Greece conditions in discursive facilitating Macedonian securitizing

Discursive Facilitating Conditions theSecuritizationof Macedonia’s ......

......

...... - Case Assumptions andtheir

...... iii

......

...... Securitization Societal and ...... P ...... resuppositions ......

......

57 56 50 41 41 37 35 33 32 24 23 18 16 15 14 10

5 5 1

CEU eTD Collection 44. 1995), Press, University Princeton 1 name ‘Macedonia’.Greece new the Repu independent an of proclamation real political the of part became Macedonia Republic sixth the of one as Macedonia Macedonia geographical problematic became ‘Macedonia’ name the However, that well, as divided recognized itselfas Macedonians. was population the territory, the of division the With the Buchares with I, War a World after As exist to Albania. stopped and Macedonia entity Bulgaria ethnographic of and geographic parts some and Macedonia), province (the Greece of part sense. national and c GeographicalMacedonia regional a in exists, still Macedonia name the later, years 500 2 Today, Great the reignedcenturyB.C. inthe fourth Alexander successor his and II Philip were dynasty Macedon the of leaders Th Greece. in Thessaloniki today’s near city a Pella, from Macedon of Kingdom ancient the to related is Macedonia name the Historically, Greece. and Macedonia in discussed I Loring M. Danforth, Danforth, LoringM. ntroduction h nm Mcdna n h ls to eae i te ot otoesa pltcl issue political controversial most the is decades two last the in Macedonia name The born Republic of Macedonia were obstructed by its neighbor Greece, as a reason of the of reason a as Greece, neighbor its by obstructed were Macedonia of Republic born t Treaty in 1913, when Macedonia was divided among Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. and Greece Bulgaria, among divided was Macedonia when 1913, in Treaty t

The

Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World Transnational a Nationalismin Ethnic Conflict: Macedonian ,

which was under the Serbian rule, became the Socialistic Republic of Republic Socialistic the became rule, Serbian the under was which onstitutes the territory of today’s Republic of Macedonia, the northern northern the Macedonia, of Republic today’s of territorythe onstitutes

asked from the Republic offromasked Macedonia tochangename. the Republic its

blic of Macedonia in 1991. R 1991. in Macedonia of blic s

of the Yugoslav Federation. Hence, the name name the Hence, Federation. Yugoslav the of atr h dsouin f uolva n the and Yugoslavia of dissolution the after m 1

when Vardar Macedonia, the part of of part the Macedonia, Vardar when ecogni tion and integration of integration and tion

(New Jersey: (NewJersey: the e most famous famous most e

population ,

who 1

CEU eTD Collection 3 2 done Greece and dynasty, b has little However, 1994. in Macedonia on imposed Macedonian was which embargo trade the removed ancient the to belong to considered symbol a flag, Sun” under Repub the of name the over differences the about solution acceptable common a find and talk to agreed Greece and Macedonia where countries, both by signed was (1995) Accord Interim the for used was which the brought Macedonian the address to Community International the of attempt The survival nation. ofthe Macedonian societal the threatens that action offensive an as Macedonians the by seen Therefore, centuries for Mace itself identified has population the which with on position, Macedonian The and tohave a towards pretention territorial Greece. claim that is history. Greek of part unquestionable and integrative an is Kingdom Macedonian name the of reason. irredentist an for name the using for Republic the accused Greece the of name The

Ibid. Greece, ofAffair ofForeign Ministry

oin tt i itrrtd s novn cagn te ae f h nati the of name the changing involving as interpreted is state donian in h U asie. B auspices. UN the

increa rees ead f h Mcdna gvrmn t cag te onr’ nm is name country’s the change to government Macedonian the of demand Greece’s the eprr reference, temporary Mcdna i euvln t te elnc ain Te cnie ta te ancient the that consider They nation. Hellenic the to equivalent is ‘Macedonia’ sing Republic ofMacedonia to for usejust political thatname reasons,

Republic is identical with identical is Republic

the trust between the both societies. Each action by the Macedonian side, to side, Macedonian the by action Each societies. both the between trust the

aeoin ceso t te ntd ain family. Nations United the to accession Macedonian t sds ae oe ocsin Mcdna remove Macedonia concession, some made sides oth

the other hand, is that is hand, other the http://www1.mfa.gr/en/fyrom

h ‘omr uolv eulc f aeoi’ (FYROM), Macedonia’ of Republic Yugoslav ‘Former the Greek Northern Province ‘Macedonia’ due to which which to due ‘Macedonia’ Province Northern Greek 2

‘Macedonia’ - name - issue/ . and Macedonian and

(acceded April 11, 2011) April 11, (acceded hanging the name of the the of name the hanging –

Greek understanding understanding Greek identity and thus the the thus and identity Greek disagreement Greek on and language. language. and on

Furthermore, an an Furthermore, d falsify history,

are the “Vergina “Vergina the 2

The Greek Greek The

the names names the

een een lic CEU eTD Collection that argue will I Second, security. of objects reference as integrity societal and territorial both involving dilemma, security societal and interstate intertwined an of case a is it because far so Greek the that firstly, is argue, will I literature empirical. the to thesis the of contribution main The securitization. of school Copenhagen approach. securitization Macedonian the However, that give Question Macedonian the and Bulgaria Greece, Conflict: Ethnic and Identity, National Transna Karakasidou a in Nationalism Ethnic Conflict: Danforth Loring Macedonian of work the considered is literature this to contribution significant A and Question” “Macedonian called so the far. so intractable proven has dispute name Macedonian Macedonia. th of none but Makedonija, Macedonia, Upper Macedonia, North proposal different were Today, for process membership inthe European Union. negotiation the of beginning the frozen and NATO in membership Macedonian member. a become to wants Macedonia where organizations International is reaction Greek the that, of result provocation as considered is identity Macedonian the reinforce and protect twenty years after years twenty s

a deep analysis of a deep

h mi proe f hs hss s o nwr h qeto a t wy h Greek the why to as question the answer to is thesis this of purpose main The ils f ha, il o Blood of Hills Wheat, of Fields s by the UN mediator M. Nimitz for a new name of the country the of name new a for Nimitz M. mediator UN the by s

To this end, I draw on the literature on the security dilemma and the the and dilemma security the on literature the on draw I end, this To - Macedonian independence Macedonian Greek dispute has not been analyzed through the security dilemma security the through analyzed been not has dispute Greek

the origin ofthe ose

proposals were accepted by Greece and the Republic of of Republic the and Greece by accepted were proposals a

strong international international strong the on Macedonian the name dispute between Macedonia and Greece. Greece. and Macedonia between dispute name the eortc eulc f Macedonia, of Republic Democratic - Macedonian name dispute has proven intract proven has dispute name Macedonian

3 (1997),

the name issue is not resolved yet. There There yet. resolved not is issue name the itr Rudometof Victor - diplomacy and using its position in the in position its using and diplomacy There is immense l immense is There Greek conflict. tional

World

by Greece by olcie Memory, Collective ( iterature written on written iterature ree eod the vetoed Greece 95, Anastassia 1995), Republika , and as a a as and , ,

such such (2002), ,

able able The The as as - -

CEU eTD Collection secondary sources. rese far so intractable proven th an to provide answer to order in countries two the between dispute name the security to regard societal with dilemmas the and securitizations Macedonia’s and Greece’s to led which conditions will analysis the purpose, Greek the understanding and analyzing in constructivist a perspective provide to order in concept dilemma security societal the and securitization the a apply will I respectively, Macedonia, and Greece to dedicated chapters separate two in Then, dilemma. security societal the to approach constructivist and theory, securitization constructivism, social conflict, ethnic the with relation d security namely based, be will framework main analytical the the define which on will concepts I chapter, first the In chapters. three of consist will thesis present The demographic conditions. non and discursive of number a of because population Macedonian the by and Greek the by accepted were moves respective These Macedonia. and Greece in organisations media and actors society civil experts, securitisin of result the are dilemmas security these rh usin f hs thesis this of question arch e study’s research question question research study’s e

- discursive

. I will conclude by summarizing my findings with regard to the the to regard with findings my summarizing by conclude will I . ou mil o te icrie n non and discursive the on mainly focus

Te miis f h peet nlss il e rw from drawn be will analysis present the of empirics The . aiiaig odtos ntby itrcl conditions, historical notably conditions, facilitating s o h te Greek the why to as oretical framework which combines the theory of of theory the combines which framework oretical 4

g moves by politicians, official security security official politicians, by moves g - aeoin ae ipt. o this For dispute. name Macedonian - Macedonian name dispute has has dispute name Macedonian - discursive facilitating facilitating discursive ilemma and its its and ilemma and CEU eTD Collection 5 4 ord in power our increase to and security own our for strive to obliged are groups. articl his in out that consideration dilemma”. organized being without other each Dilemma Security time first i was concept Dilemma Security The I will define will I Firstly, dilemma” security th the present to order in dilemmas. dilemma security maintain and security trigger securitizations how societal demonstrate the of concept constructivist the and securitization far so intractable proven has dispute

Ibid. Dilemma”, the Security and “Idealist Internationalism Herz, H. John 1.

define ofsocial constructivism, theconcepts securitizatio 5 The Security Dilemma:Security The Approaches Structural Cognitive and namely thesis, present the of question research The

In a situation where we do not have a higher authority to ensure our state security, we we security, state our ensure to authority higher a have not do we where situation a In by 4

eas w d nt nw h itnin f u niho, n i w tk in take we if and neighbor, our of intention the know not do we Because the American scholar American the eoretical framework of the thesis. the of framework eoretical e, we constantly live in uncertainty and fear to be attacked or dominated by other other by dominated or attacked be to fear and uncertainty in live constantly we e, ” (1950). (1950). ”

homo homini lupus homini homo approach the

security dilemma security Chapter1: Theoretical Framework He argues that in this anarchical world “where groups live alongside live groups “where world anarchical this in that argues He , I will analyze the analyze will I ,

John H. Herz in his article “Idealist Internationalism and the the and Internationalism “Idealist article his in Herz H. John no hge uiy hs perd th appeared has unity” higher a into toue nte nentoa R International the in ntroduced

, will be analyzed through the lenses of the theory of of theory the of lenses the through analyzed be will , is a “f a is concept undamental fact of the social life”, as Herz points points Herz as life”, social the of fact undamental 5 Through applying Through

name name , and its use in inter in use its and dispute between Greece between dispute WorldPolitics h te Greek the why n and societal security dilemma.

constructive -

, ( elations literature for the the for literature elations Vol. 2, No. 2 (Jan., 2 1950):157. (Jan., No. 2, Vol. and intr and

er to defend ourselves ourselves defend to er In this chapter this In s cle “security called so e - Macedonian name name Macedonian

astate level astate

and Macedonia and „ securitization ,

) , then then , I will I

to - .

CEU eTD Collection 9 8 7 6 ofwhere the intention doing inawithout enter twostatuspowers conflict quo so. thes in Butterfield uninte an to lead could sides both of intentions the about misunderstanding and fear uncertainty, That the reason the appearance for ofthe is uncertainty that believes Butterfield Herz, to Similarly Butterfield. Herbert historian English dilemma “irreducible it call to preferred he as or dilemma security the of theorist Another “vicious circle security of and a in entering are we that like and well, as power their increase to them provoke and insecure attack. that from Ibid., 19 Ibid., Butterfield, Herbert Ibid. Ibid.

ntional conflict. He writes - 20.

anxious to avoid to aconflictanxious ofany sort. desperately were which of both powers two between produced It be world.could the to harm deliberate to out be might who criminal great any in war greatest The have. you that intentions your of assurance same the have never can he mind, see cannot he to since youthat properly for remember or possible release never is it and him safety own from your nothing for want guarantees you save that and harm, no him mean yourself you counter man’s other und the into enter cannot you but party, other the of have you that fear terrible the feel vividly may yourself you I am describing ofthe that In characteristic situation thepeculiar erstand why he should be particularly nervous. For you know that that know you For nervous. particularly be should he why erstand 6 8 History and Human Relations Human and History

e lines gives emphasis to the paradox or the ‘tragedy’ of the security dilemma, security the of ‘tragedy’ the or paradox the to emphasis gives lines e However, that strive “to acquire more and more power” makes our neighbor neighbor our makes power” more and more acquire “to strive that However,

a accumu power history could be produced without the intervention of of intervention the without produced be could history :

security He writes: dilemma.

(London: Collins, 1951), 21 1951), (London: Collins, lation is on”. is lation 6

the inside of your of inside the - fear, or even even or fear,

[ … ]

that ”

is the the is CEU eTD Collection 14 62. 1976), 13 12 11 2009):590. 10 the drivingother of motive state. the decision the of role the where power and security states. the of security in anarchy security problem ratherthan spira a hand, dilemma. security ofthe Onthe other theorigin a as categorized is situation this (1992:31), Booth and Wheeler to According deter. pe is sides the of one distinguishes book his In seekers. the to adversa the of intentionality the with contribution linked is theory His dilemma. security the of scholar prominent another is Jervis Robert anarchy internationalpolitics. of resolved is contradiction uncertainty real no is “there therefore predetermined biologically are we humanity” of sin “universal the to due to dilemma security of source ultimate “the uncertainty, and of unintentionally propositions Butterfield’s definition. Butterfield’s in contradiction a is there tha writes (2009) Analysis” Conceptual A Dilemma: Security “The article his in Tang However, Jervis, Robert Analysis”, Conceptual A Dilemma: Security “The ShipingTang, Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

nentoa rltos wee hr i n atoiy r oeeg t gaat the guaranty to sovereign or authority no is there where relations, international Perception and Misperception in International Politics International in and Misperception Perception “ deterrence the

rceived as an aggressor, and the other side, in order to protect itself, should itself, protect to order in side, other the and aggressor, an as rceived , 13

ecpin n Msecpin n h Itrainl Politic International the in Misperception and Perception tragedy of the security dilemma are not compatible with his ascription his with compatible not are dilemma security the of tragedy

iig n ht id f ol, h sae ae epnil fr hi own their for responsible are states the world, of kind that in Living ” with Herz’s and Jervis’s “ultimate source of the security dilemma”, the the dilemma”, security the of source “ultimate Jervis’s and Herz’s with

and

a “ a 12

spiral model spiral 14

about each other’s intentions.” other’s each about

the universal s universal the ”

7 of the security dilemma. In the deterrence model model deterrence the In dilemma. security the of

makers is crucial in defining and interpreting and defining in crucial is makers ries, whether are aggressive or only security security only or aggressive are whether ries, Security Studies Security

( in of humanity.” of in Princeton : , Vol. 18, No. 3 No. 18, Vol. , 11 Princeton

Tang points out that this that out points Tang

to harm or to be evil; evil; be to or harm to 10

University Pr University

Tang argues that argues Tang l

model is inthe model is (September

17) he (1976), ess,

of t CEU eTD Collection 20 Politics in International Misperception and 19 18 17 16 15 not or aggressive are of intention real the recognize not do states the when situation a In Grey, whorecognized t result. opposite self is end the in security, own their increase to order in arms more and more accumulate to trying is side each where competition, arm of circle that in Entering procurement assecurity, ofarmament the self of action about concerned are makers threats.” impossible decision the model spiral the in argues, Jervis As Ibid., 64 Ibid., Grey, Edward 65. Ibid. 64. Ibid., 63 Ibid., Ibid.

- -

65. 64.

while every Government regards every precaution of every other other every of precaution every regards ofGovernment intent. hostile evidence as Government wo every it while precaution, feels every take to Government not country own each its of betrayal till a and criminal sorts, all of imaginings evil and distrust and suspicion begets Fear fear. of sense of a and strength nations the other of consciousness a produces it contrary, the On effects. produce to nation each a strength, ofconsciousness in intended is that armaments, of increase The so reduces first state’s the too little too and much too get they themselves defend to ability the seek states When - Twenty protection at the same time threatens the other states because if one state sees the sees state one if because states other the threatens time same the at protection

18 little because beinglittle and increase ownarms will others, menaced, their

In this respect Jervis quotes the British foreign secretary before WWI, Lord WWI, before secretary foreign British the quotes Jervis respect this In - 15 five Years five - , the states suppose the worst. the suppose states the ,

too much because they gain the ability to carry out carry to ability the gain they because much too

h eraducranydietesaet ices t scrt,bt that but security, its increase to state the drive uncertainty and fear The he self he , vol. 1 (London: Hodder and Staughton, 1925), 92 quoted92 1925), Staughton, and (London: Hodder 1 vol. ,

- defeating effectdefeating in , 65. ecurity nd a sense of security, does not produce these these produce not does security, of sense a nd

“ adversary see will as it encirclement . 17

diplomacy thatperiod: from 20

19 As a result of the hostile perception of both of perception hostile the of result a As

their neighbors, whether they whether neighbors, their - defeating because it has the has it because defeating aggression: aggression:

in Jervis, l be uld ” . 16

Perception Perception te most “the CEU eTD Collection 26 25 24 23 22 21 anarchy in hostility adversary’s the of misunderstanding the not is dilemma problem. gives others developme the of actions the for sensitiveness of lack the and to makers interpr are actions own their how in take states the of noon but action, hostile is a as which perceived security, their increase to others the of reaction a provokes weapons its increase to argues friendly” or “neutral is perhaps others the of behavior each ambi then hostile is image the if them, about image developed first the consideration in take they intentions, neighbor’s their about assumptions their make makers decision the when that psy a gives Jervis Furthermore, first strike theyadvantage theadversary. have their over the with that believe they as neighbors their weaken to and attack first the make to expansionist, in states quo status The war. or conflict of possibility a produce will end the in insecurity and fear increased the sides, Ibid., 76. Ibid., 75. Ibid., 68. Ibid., Ibid. 67. Ibid., Ibid. guous action by its neighbors would be interpreted as hostile one despite the fact that the that fact the despite one hostile as interpreted be would neighbors its by action guous

“people perceive what they expect to be present.” be to expect they what perceive “people

comprehend nt, which might be escaped if only both sides analyzed objectively the nature of the of nature the objectively analyzed sides both only if escaped be might which nt, international politics. international oee, evs rus ht h cr agmn fr h eitne f h security the of existence the for argument core the that argues Jervis However,

that their own their that

order to protect themselves sometimes they can be aggressive or or aggressive be can they sometimes themselves protect to order

chological explanation to the spiral security dilemma. He argues He dilemma. security spiral the to explanation chological 26

td y hi neighbors. their by eted behavior

9 can be understood as a threat for their adversary adversary their for threat a as understood be can

22 , 23

but that is ignored because, as Jervis Jervis as because, ignored is that but

The action The to 24

consideration their own behavior, behavior, own their consideration h incapability The bt s conseq a as but , n xlnto of explanation an

of the security seeker state seeker security the of

f h decision the of uence of of uence conflict conflict 21

CEU eTD Collection 29 28 27 made side other is intentions neighbor’s the recognize to mechanisms the of One intentions. neighbors’ their analyze to is states independent the by addressed be should which issues first the of one Posen, to According security ofthe state. the guarantee to authority or sovereign no is there where anarchy, of situation a to resembles themselv found groups example security own their for responsible ethnic to in conflict, dilemma security the of concept the applies who author first the is Posen R. Barry gowill through and theliterature thesocietalconflicts ontheethnicdilemma. security th in Therefore, well. as country the within perceived is threat the but the country, outside from only come not do threats perceived the case, Greek and Macedonian the In been concepthas inter the in applied primarily was dilemma security of concept the War, Cold the of end the to Prior Ibid., 30. Ibid., 27. Ibid., BarryR.Posen, 2. - tt lvl ofit. fe te al f the of fall the After conflicts. level state

The Security DilemmaSecurity The Ethnic and Conflict ,

h cmuit eie n h Sve Uin r n uolva where Yugoslavia, in or Union Soviet the in regime communist the particular in the situation when one “group of people suddenly find themselves newlythemselves find suddenly people of “group onewhen situation the in particular the “The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict” Conflict” Ethnic and Dilemma Security “The fesv mltr atvte, hi judgmen their activities, military offensive history. extended from explaining conflicts at the interstate level to intra to level interstate the at conflicts explaining from extended 28

es in charge of charge in es 29

f h idpnet rus ae memories have groups independent the If

” . 27

This is the case after the dissolution of some regimes for regimes some of dissolution the after case the is This their own survival. The collapse of that kind of regimes regimes of kind that of collapse The survival. own their 10 C

muim n te n o te od a the War Cold the of end the and ommunism Survival

, Vol. 35. no.1 (Spring 27. no.1 35. Vol. 1993): , s ol b ta ter neighbor their that be would ts

rm hi from tr, hr the where story, e next section I section next e different ethnic ethnic different - state conflicts. conflicts. state

is CEU eTD Collection 35 34 33 32 31 30 bottom is conflict ethnic J. Stuart Kauf is dilemma security ethnic the of literature the to contributes who scholar Another neighboringgroups dothesame.” observethey this, As group. the to threat the magnify that terms in events “unfolding contain that their of element important an defense. as cohesion own their reinforcing for measures undertaken identity could offensive. be emotions to capability the strong have to as and infantry the possession, reinforce arms their than rather identity, strong and cohesion c the that argues Posen Furthermore, the support ofthe population. speeches political emotional their in politicians the by used is cases many acc into take ofthoseregimes,dissolution groups theethnic for tolook their andoften start identity, more they groups. ethnic of variety the over power its impose to was purpose which system independent newly the of facts historical dangerous. Ibid. 31. Ibid., 30 Ibid., Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. a.H gvstomdl of models two gives He man.

34 - ol b cniee a a agr rm h rvl group rival the from danger a as considered be could

31.

In thatprocess, 30

ount their oral history where the ancient rivals are not forgotten, and that history in in history that and forgotten, not are rivals ancient the where history oral their ount n h ohr ad Psn ons u ta hsoy ak o rlaiiy eas the because reliability of lacks history that out points Posen hand, other the On

- up approach which is characterize with mass hostility where the masses masses the where hostility mass with characterize is which approach up history could be politicized, and the mass media would trans massmedia history and be the politicized, could 32

ethnic conflicts, a mass and elite led model. The mass led mass The model. led elite and mass a conflicts, ethnic ountry’s military capabilities would be defined by the group the by defined be would capabilities military ountry’s 35

tts ee osby erte udr h previous the under rewritten possibly were states 11

n a a esn f ht are that of reason a as and

Therefore, with their aim their with the strong group strong the 31 mit storiesmit

fe the After

to have

CEU eTD Collection 40 39 38 157. 1996): (April, 37 Security 36 violence”, of outbreak security structural Kaufman’s that argues Roe Paul However, threat side. ofthe(Kaufman,151). other 1996a: the recognize to failure the and system security the in enhancement their with neighbors their to extinction with threatened statesman the inabilitythe of related to is dilemma is it that fear group other the makes “ where, system existing the in emerges Posen’s to close is dilemma of forms two dilemma, security distinguishes Snyder, Jack of terminology the using Kaufman, Furthermore, bellige inter Kaufman,the According to leaders aggressive make dilemma. and hostility mass high the to contribute leaders” “belligerent (Kaufman low”. is hostility mass the top a is conflict which outbreak spontaneous “trigger violence of leaders “belligerent their choose Ibid., 112. Ibid., 109. Ibid., 109. Elites”, Ethnic “Spiralling to Kaufman, Stuart J. Kaufman, “An International theory ofInter theory “AnInternational Kaufman, Stuart J. Civil War”, Moldova’s in Moscow and Masses, Elites, Ethnic to War: Spiraling Kaufman,” Stuart J. rent l rent , Vol. 21, No. 2 (Autumn No. 21, 1996):109. Vol. , 38

This process distinguishes from the mass the from distinguishes process This e a ders are the preconditions are the ders for

- down approach initiated by the the by initiated approach down

provoke the mass hostility and the security dilemma. (Kaufman 1996a: 158). 158). 1996a: (Kaufman dilemma. security the and hostility mass the provoke srcua” n a “perceptional a and “structural”

which differentiates from the the from differentiates which

claim ” - ethnic security dilemma together with the mass hostility the mass andthe together securitywith ethnicdilemma 36

who act in a way that produces emoti produces that way a in act who ht h scrt dlma s rsl of result a is dilemma security the that

96: 0) Wt te authority the With 109). 1996b: each side construes its security needs in a way which which way a in needs security its construes side each the the - Ethnic War”, Review War”, Ethnic 12

emergenceethnic ofan conflict. ,

activatingdilemma security the “belligerent leaders leaders “belligerent to evaluate the level of threat which they pose pose they which threat of levelevaluate the to

euiy dilemma security Butterfieldian - led model by its intentionality, where the where intentionality, its by model led

of International Studies International of dilemma

approach where the security security the where approach . ” who come in power when when power in come who 40 ” . The structural security security structural The . The perceptual security security perceptual The

“has occurred after the after occurred “has on of fear and hostility and fear of on vial te security the available

over the media the the media the over

h aacy which anarchy the 39 .

” 37 ,

The elite Vol. 22, No. No. 2 22, Vol. International International - led CEU eTD Collection 48 47 46 45 No.1 44 43 42 191. (1999): 41 by begin I below. discussed be will scholars, constructivist by primarily elaborated been has which dilemma, security societal of notion The Macedonia. and interstate the analyze and requirements’ ‘security compatible/incompatible of notion the use I will thesis, this In circumstances, asecurityscholars for somedilemma. does represents not powe action.” of course correct the taking “is hand, other the on which other, the for insecurity required is side one of security the for where are sides both the dilemma incompatibility’. ‘illusory an on grounded are countermeasures the misperception their of reason a as but requirements, security compatible have sides both the “ “tight”, a distinguishes co refocuses Roe thesis, this for important More that case,apparent a of of thesituation situation a real changesthreat. threat to occurred: “ dilemmas Ibid., 110. Ibid., 109. Ibid., 106. Ibid., Ibid. Dilemmas”, Security ‘Loose’ or ‘Tight’‘Regular’ in Responsibility “Actor’s Roe, Paul Ibid. Ibid. “Tragedy”?”, a as Conflict Ethnic Dilemma: Security Intrastate “The Roe, Paul mpatibil

(March (March r

- seekers actors whose actions are focused on expansion rather than on security, and in that in and security, on than rather expansion on focused are actions whose actors seekers

because

t o ‘ol’ o the to ‘goals’ of ity 2001 a re

): ): 104. cause of violence of cause of the the of

regular security “

security ” and “ and ” the the ,

udmna cmaiiiy f scrt requi ‘security of compatibility fundamental dilemma two sides have started to fight each fight to started have sides two dilemma not the product of product the not societal security dilemmas between and within Greece and and Greece within and between dilemmas security societal

loose seekers 47

And the ‘loose’ security dilemma is characterize with characterize is dilemma security ‘loose’ the And ”

security dilemma. security ” 13 , but with ”incompatible security requirements” requirements” security ”incompatible with but ,

te euiy iem fo the from dilemma security “the it”. 41

Therefore,” the ‘ the Therefore,”

briefly outlining the main tenets and and tenets main the outlining briefly 45

In the ‘tight’ security dilemma security ‘tight’ the In

46 Journal Journal

n h ‘eua’ security ‘regular’ the In 48

Security Dialogue, Security of Peace Research ofPeace tragedy’ has already has tragedy’ 43

rements’”. other fundamental .”

to identify to 42

And in And Vol.32 Vol.32

He CEU eTD Collection 53 52 51 50 49 makes ofit”(Wendt, 1992). state what is “anarchy the that writes he politics, international the in anarchy the of consequence the that expectations”. those reproduce to tends this and expectations, shared of basis the on Hobbesian” as condition t driving ultimately “what argues Wendt as and sides, both the by intended not was which behaviour revisionist a initiate hand other the on which worst, the expect states the condition that in and intentions other’s each about uncertainty self worstmake o composed structure are they which in knowledge shared embedded.” of structure the “through only actions human the to practices.” and resources, material knowledge, “shared by composed are structures social the that argue constructivists social The name dispute between Gre the why to as explanation my of pillar second the be will dilemma, security interstate the besides which, dilemma, security societal the introducing before constructivism to related criticisms Ibid., 42. Ibid., Ibid. Politic”, International “Constructing Wendt, Alexander Alexander Alexander Ibid. - 3. help terms.” help

Social ConstructivismSocial security dilemma is a is dilemma security

Wendt, Wendt, - 50 case assumptions about each other’ intentions, and as a result define their interests in interests definetheir result a as and eachintentions, other’about assumptions case

codn t Aeadr ed “A Wendt Alexander to According 51 Social Theory of International Politics International of Theory Social

The Hobbesian situation in which states find themselves is themselves find states which in situation Hobbesian The

f intersubjective understandings in which states are so distrustful that they that distrustful so are states which in understandings intersubjective f 52 , which in the end the in which , ece and Macedonia has provenece and sointractable. Macedonia has

consequence

They point out that the material resources can give meaning give can resources material the that out point They

represents a represents of the human interactions and practices, and not a a not and practices, and interactions human the of his logic is a collective representation of their their of representation collective a is logic his 14 International Sec International ,

(Cambridge University Press, 1999), 1999), Press, (CambridgeUniversity euiy dilemma security “ self urity - fulfilling prophesy fulfilling , Vol. 20, No. 1 (Summer, 1995): 1995): (Summer, No.1 20, Vol. , fr xml, s social a is example, for ,

a result of their of result a 269 , i.e., , 53 .

He argues He actors act actors 73 .

CEU eTD Collection Generation 55 2002), 54 the basic theSecuritizationtheory. characteristic of discuss I will section next in Therefore, Greece. and Macedonia between dispute analyzethe will Combining proce securitization the of character intersubjective the gives which audience the of approval the from depend would not or successful be would whether state, the in security or insecurity constructed. socially and intersubjective re is security the that argues School making in language the of so the by developed approach securitization The criticism seriouslythis istheCopenhagen securitization. school of […] it about meaningful anything say cannot o but language, of independent reality material a of existence the accept can “One writes: She overlooked. be cannot reality material the of interpretation the in language the of significance acto interpret, other each not signal only do They speak. actors “Wendt’s writes: Zeifus actors. the between interaction the in language the of 199 (Fierke criticized was Wendt However, Karin M. Fierke, ‘Critical Methodology and Constructivism’, in Constructivism’, and Methodology ‘Critical Fierke, M. Karin Maja presenting 4.

48. Zehfuss, SchoolCopenhagen The ofSecuritization

, ed. ed. the constructive the Fierke n issue an Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality The of Politics Relations: International in Constructivism s ae o e aal o uig language.” using of capable be to have rs , and Knud and ErikJorgensen ,

to to h audience the approach to the to approach euiy Smlry o h sca cntutvss te Copenhagen the constructivists, social the to Similarly security.

[…] […]

(New York: M.E Sharpe, 2001), 2001), Sharpe, M.E York: (New s threat a as T he problem is that, in order to be able to reflect and and reflect to able be to order in that, is problem he 8, Zehfuss 2002) for not emphasizing the importance the emphasizing not for 2002) Zehfuss 8, se

w 15 curity dilemma and the securitization approach I approach securitization the and dilemma curity - ithout language” ithout

called Copenhagen School emphasizes the rol the emphasizes School Copenhagen called

they , Constructing International Relations: The Next The Relations: International Constructing

start 54

iial Fierke Similarly

the 55

118 One school which has taken has which school One (Camb process process .

ridge University Press, Press, University ridge f const of

rus ht the that argues h actors The ructing of of ructing ss. ne ne e CEU eTD Collection 60 59 58 57 56 the by but securitizer the by decided not is securitization “successful a process, securitization is it case that in ‘securit only then, be to actors, considered securitizing the of call the to respond not does audience the If securitization. for talk we then threatened, is object’ ‘referent the that convinced is audience ‘au the of presence the necessary is it ‘discourse’, particular the and actor’ ‘securitizing the beside successful, be to ‘securitization’ the order in However, measures’, would“breakactions politicalgame.” rules which thenormal ofthe issue way).” own our in it with deal to free be not will or here be not will we (because public such.” as presented is issue a natureobjectivist ofthe constructive app toamore security politics.” above as or politics of kind special a as either issue the frames and game the of rules established the beyond politics in Waever Analysi Ole by introduced Desecuritization was “securitization” term The 4.1 Ibid., 25. Ibid., 24. Ibid., Buzanet Ibid. Ibid. self What isSecuritization Theory? -

as a threat a as eeeta patc” n su eoe het o because not threat a becomes issue one practice”, referential in a way way a in s (Buzan s

al ., Securit ” et al. et for the very survival of the state, the actor calls for a right to right a for calls actor the state, the of survival very the for

y: A New Framework for Analysis Analysis for Framework New A y: that in

, n Security On

1998 “ I f we do not tackle this problem, everything else will be irrelevant irrelevant be will else everything problem, this tackle not do we f 57 ), Through

where the concept of security was defined as “the move that t that move “the as defined was security of concept the where izing move’ izing 56

n hs set te oehgn col oe fo te more the from moves school Copenhagen the aspect, this In

19) n te rfnd in refined then and (1995)

‘speech act’ the securitizing actor securitizing the act’ ‘speech . 60

Therefore, the audience has a decisive role in the in role decisive a has audience the Therefore, (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998), 23. 1998), Publishers, Rienner Lynne (London: 16

roach. They argueroach. thatthe They dience’. In the cases when the the when cases the In dience’. euiy Nw rmwr of Framework New Security: it is real is s

present “ euiiain and Securitization , 59

but “because the “because but

use ‘emergency ‘emergency use 58 the issue the

Presenting “

security is is security to the to akes akes an CEU eTD Collection 46. 64 63 EuropeanIntegration in Order”, Security 62 61 andinitiators transmitters of thesecuritization process. roles two have can agents media the that argues Bourbeau society. the in authority some have who persons other and government, actor Securitizing ‘facilitatingconditions’. “intersubjective the underlines constructed”character thesecuritization. of which act”, speech security the of audience e, h acpac o te sec at b te uine eed b te nenl n ext and internal the by depends audience the by act’ ‘speech the of acceptance the Yet, 27. al., Buzanet 31. Ibid., Philippe Bourbeau, Bourbeau, Philippe Post on Constructivist Pessimistic a from Reflections Actor: Security as a EU “The Waever, Ole

transmitting players (e.g. by supporting political agents’ securitizing securitizing agents’ political supporting moves by (e.g. players transmitting agents media cases, other In policy). security particular a adopt to moves th both securitizing pressing thereby one, formulate making by (e.g. process Similarly, are they but definitelyfacil securitization, necessary for make never they themselves, refe to threatening objects if certain threat security a are conjure can there one that likely more associated is historically it threat: conditions a (c) with guarantee and act; to speech taken the nor with authority success official as the defined enunciator, be neither the should of capital although authority, social of position a in the be to has who (b) actor, securitizing out; way possible a and return no of point threat, existential with plot a constructing and security s the to internal demand the (a)

M. Kelstrup and M. C.Williams (eds) C.Williams (eds) M. and Kelstrup M.

( s

The Securitization of Migration: A study of movement and order and movement study of A Migration: of Securitization The London: Rutledge London: orarticulating byandaudiences’ security voicing demands). acrig o the to according ,

media agents can in some in can agents media – Waever distinguishes threeconditions:

itating conditions. itating e hy ak, otl sniet, r oltd aes In waters. polluted or sentiments, hostile tanks, they be

, 2000), 252. 2000), , Copenhagen school can be politicians, bureaucrats, the the bureaucrats, politicians, be can school Copenhagen 61 62 peech act of following the grammar of of grammar the following of act peech

r to which are generally held to be be to held generally are which to r 17 International Relations Theory and the Politics the of and Theory Relations International

cases be initiators of the securitizing securitizing the of initiators be cases

e government and government e He writes:

before political agents agents political before

n h scrtzto process securitization the in

the audiences audiences the ( New Rutl York: 63

In addition In

can be be can 64

this this - Sovereign Sovereign

and socially socially and edge, 2011), 2011), edge, , Philippe , e rnal rnal , as CEU eTD Collection 67 Europe in Agenda 66 Community (eds) C.Williams 65 ‘so the and sovereignty, the is object referent the where security’ ‘state of duality a with substituted be to securityof sectors five the suggested they Therefore,identity. of question the with linked is Ole School, (1993) Europe” in Agenda Security Copenhagen the by redefined was Wæver, security’ ‘societal the of concept The o referent a for which sector, societal the and environmental Security in Buzan Barry by introduced was security’ ‘societal the time first the For the and Greek the in Macedoniancase. process securitization the to contribution valuable a have conditions thesis, this In process, Furtherm Waever, 1993., p.25. 1993., Waever, eds., Lemaitre Pierre and Kelstrup Morten BarryBuzan, Waever, Ole Didier Bigo, “When Two Become One: Internal and External Securitizations in Europe in Securitizations External and One:Internal “WhenBecome Bigo, Two Didier cietal security’ where the referent object is the identity. the is object referent the where security’ cietal 5.

The Societal Security Dilemma: AConstructivistSecurity ApproachSocietal The Dilemma:

Barry Buzan Barry it should be should it (1991)where he distinguishes a five sectors of security, the military, political, economic, political, military, the security,of sectors fivea distinguishes he (1991)where ore, ore,

(London: discourse. of The forms all time. as long important as a are expertise for and that discipline work, known practical have police the and military the and …i iir io rus ht eie h sec at s cne o te securitization the of center a as act speech the beside that argues Bigo Didier h dsusv ad non and discursive the t is possible to securitise to possible is t International Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration: Power, Security and and Security Power, Integration: Politics European the of and Theory Relations International (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993 Martin’sPress, (New St. York:

Routledge, 2000), 194. 2000), Routledge,

taken inconsiderationtaken , Morten Kelstrup Morten , 65

argue that t that argue

- icrie prac discursive

and certain problems without speech or discourse discourse or speech without problems certain

the non Pierre Lemaitre in Lemaitre Pierre ), ), 24. 18 he question of security after the Cold War period period War Cold the after security of question he

- discursiveas practices tices, as well as the the as well as tices, Identity, Migration and the New Security New Security the and Migration Identity, 67

The sovereignty is crucial for the for crucial is sovereignty The jc hd h sae sovereignty. state the had bject “Identity, Migration and the New the and Migration “Identity, ” in ” well. historical facilitating facilitating historical

Kelstrup, M. and M. M. and M. Kelstrup, epe Sae and State People,

He writes:

CEU eTD Collection 72 71 70 69 68 be would action particular the whether society, the of requirements security the by determinate threatened. is identity societal the killi or deportation the to worship, “f of practices the present are when and itself, reproduce to unable and suppressed is identity one effec real have still yet and real, be the not and may threats “perceived seen” accurately be not may threats “real argues Buzan as different, is society each itse defend to tries society the case that in identity, its of terms in threatened is society one When basis starts it when threatened, as identity its perceive to comes group so the understand to order in that religiousculture, and national association, and identity and custom.” conditions acceptable within sustainability, the about is it specifically, More threats. actual or possible and conditions changing under character Waever identity,loses its nolonger as able‘ “we will be tolive society the if society, the of survival the for important is identity the and state, the of survival Buzan 23. Ibid., 25 Ibid., Ibid. Ibid. orbidding the us the orbidding lf by strengthening its identity. However, the threat perception is difficult to be assessed, for for assessed, be to difficult is perception threat the However, identity. its strengthening by lf

and what behaviors this triggers.” this and what behaviors

, 1993, p. 43. 1993, ,

- argues that argues

26.

e of language, names and dress and names language, of e societal security is about “the ability of a society to persist in its essential its in persist to society a of ability “the about is security societal

cietal security is important “ important is security cietal 72 ng of members of the community”, then it is considered that considered is it then community”, the of members of ng

Yet, Roe argues that the threat perception to the identity is identity the to perception threat the that argues Roe Yet, 70

19 for evolution, of traditional patterns of language, of patterns traditional of evolution, for

, through closure of places of education and and education of places of closure through , us’.” 68

study t.” to act in a security mode on this this on mode security a in act to 71 69 ing the processes the ing

According to Buzan, when Buzan, to According

Furthermore, he point whereby a a whereby s

out CEU eTD Collection 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 processidentity ofdefending thecanhe changing ofthewrites: initiate one, previous include would defense the case, that in then, groupidentity. the of perseverance the for security societal the of measures defensive the of one are dresses cultural national, the upholding and events special of celebration the religion, trough identity coheres group the which with intensity the reinforce may they equally but work may identity an suppress “to However, 73 requirement. security societal the of part as defined was it whether on depends threat a as treated Ibid., 195 Ibid., Roe, p. 192. 1993, al. et Waever p. 70. 1993, Kelstrup, and Waever

Ibid. Ibid. p. 196 1999, Roe, He writes: “ The Intrastate Security Dilemma Security Intrastate The - 196. object of security until it is (perceived to be) threatened; until its very very its until threatened; be) existence is(seenbrought tobe) question. into to (perceived is it until security of referent object a as relevent not is identity societal because is This place. thi take is will processes security which around It object the of nature the strengthened. constitutes also thus and (re)constructed is identity societal threats, perceived against defending In woul respect security requirements define notbeen have societal my of as this identity lack my harming a not are in you that consequences: mean provisions would This instead. educational practices cultural other or religion example, for but, language of maintenance the through primarily be not may requirement ne a such cases other in But language. own your in education to right the you denying on depends security societal …my

cessary for societal security: ethnic identity might not be constituted constituted be not might identity ethnic security: societal for cessary 77 ,

the culture which in that case turns out to be a security policy. security a be to out turns case that in which culture the

Yet,

Paul Roe points out that in situations when the identity is linked to territorytolinked is identitysituationsthe whenin out that points Paul Roe

”. 75

As a defe a As

”, ”, 194. nsive measure of measure nsive

a military means. military a d in this way.d inthis 20

s new, revised identity which which identity revised new, s threatened societies, is to reinforce their reinforce to is societies, threatened 79 74

d not have malign malign have not d 78

Moreover, he argues that in that in that argues he Moreover, 76

The language, The ybl, and symbols,

CEU eTD Collection 83 82 81 80 for reason a be could culture, the process”. hostility and violence in escalate dyna reaction and action an of development the to identity)”. its (weakens security “decrease hand, other the on which, security, societal its increase societyfee second the security,societal the i.e. identity its reinforces society one when The explained be goals’. could dilemma of security compatibility societal ‘fundamental their on than rather groups, the of requirements attent the where dilemma security ‘loose’ and ‘regular’ ‘tight’, the (R Transylvania in and the between conflicts the analyzing Dilemma Security Societal the and Violence analysis detailed more A tospeakpossible about the ‘societal dilemma’. security by that argues Buzan Barry Furthermore, Paul Roe, Roe, Paul Dilemma”, Security Intrastate “The Roe, p. 46. 1993, Buzan, Ibid.

83 Ethnic Violence Violence Ethnic

Moreover, in that process of action of process that in Moreover, social conflictow a their seem dynamic acquire to of between dilemma security the dilemma security with Societal states. as dialects negative of kind same ‘enemy reinforcing mutually into develop others’ …th

societies

omanians and Hungarians). Furthermore, analyzing the two cases two the analyzing Furthermore, Hungarians). and omanians and the Societal Societal the and of

can experience processes in which perceptions of of perceptions which in processes experience can

h scea scrt dlma s rvdd y al o in Roe Paul by provided is dilemma security societal the 82

the appearance of appearance the And, as a consequence of that societal insecurity which l which insecurity societal that of consequence a as And, 194.

“ahr hn otlte iagrtn te action the inaugurating hostilities than “rather , majority and majority Security Dilemma Security ls insecure about its own identity and as a reaction tries to tries reaction a as identity own and its about insecure ls

an an s

might explain why some p some why explain might 20) Hs an ou i o te nrsae level intrastate the on is focus main His (2005). nlg o te inter the of analogy 21 - reaction, where the where reaction,

minority groups in Krajina (Croats and Serbs) Serbs) and (Croats Krajina in groups minority

( ethnic or cultural nationalism, which in the in which nationalism, cultural or ethnic Routledge i between mic 80

He writes that - picture , 2005 , n. s

81 the first society’s own societal societal own society’s first the ), ), 158. -

identity is defended through defended is identity oite, n h ed t can it end the in societies, tt scrt dlma t is it dilemma security state s ion is given to the security security the to given is ion ’ leading to the the to leading ’ :

rocesses of of rocesses ‘ the the – reaction reaction

he uses uses he Ethnic eads CEU eTD Collection 84 question “Why Macedonia, securitization security, societal and securitization Finally, claims thatMacedonia had neither ownlanguage its itsownreligion. nor Macedoniansethnic the their recognize to refusal Greece’s thr dangerous most the as and anotheryet as interpreted Macedonia, was name country’s In identity. their to threat a as Greeks the by defined was which rights, and autonomy more demand to them emboldening as and Greece in minority Macedonian unrecognized the of hands the strengthening as Macedonia of name and independence the constructed Greeks The dispute. name their to related dilemmas security wi I thesis, this In intentions. real their recognize to or them between distinction a made be to difficult is cases the of most Ibid. 73. Ibid.

having 84

I will I - euiy iem approach dilemma security the Greek umrzn te main the summarizing

ll argue that both Greece and in Macedonia have encountered severe societal societal severe encountered have Macedonia in and Greece both that argue ll analyz

, whose societal security was already weakened by Bulgarian and Serbian Serbian andbyBulgarian already wasweakened securitysocietal whose , - e Macedonian name dispute hasMacedonian nameprovensofar dispute intractable

the name dispute bet dispute name the

defining the the defining tenets , in two separate chapters dedicated to Greece and and Greece to dedicated chapters separate two in 22 f h scrt dilem security the of ween Macedonia and Greece and Macedonia ween

theoretical framework of the thesis, thesis, the of framework theoretical a sca constructivism, social ma,

eat to the identity of of identity the to eat

and ?”

answer answer to the the the

CEU eTD Collection 87 86 85 finallyof of thesecuritization,kind effect theresult what is what other have units. onthe and object, referent the regarding audience the from support mobilizing in successful they are or, acti and rhetoric their whether analyze to and actors securitizing what (i.e., successful).” conditions is securitization when what explains under least, not and, results, what whom with for why, (threats), objects), issues (referent what on securitizes, who of understanding precise increasingly an gain to aims studies “Securitization argues: School Copenhagen The constructed. is threat th define to try not do we theory securitization the In Macedonia? name the having Republic, the by threatened is that felt society Greek the why is question The Greece. in insecurity and fear a provoked constitution Greek.” was “Macedonia chanting recognition, Macedonian the against protest to Thessaloniki of street the on went people of thousands Greece in independence Macedonian peaceful a in independency its proclaim to succeeds 1991 in Macedonia Yugoslavia, of disintegration of process that In conflict. ethnic and violent Ibid., 34. Ibid., Buzan LoringDanforth, Chapter2: Independent Macedonia, GreekSecuritization and the

et al. et In the early nineties of the twentieth century the Yugoslavian Federation found itself in a in itself found Federation Yugoslavian the century twentieth the of nineties early the In 85

h new The 1998, 32 1998, The Macedonian Conflict Macedonian The .

born

e threat, whether is real or not, but rather to study the process how the the how process the study to rather but not, or real is whether threat, e Greek(Societal) Security Dilemma state

ne te ae Macedo name the under , 30

23 As an analyst, my goal would be to identify the identify to be would goal my analyst, an As

i, ih h nw dpe fa, and flag, adopted new the with nia, ons “fulfill the security criteria”, security the “fulfill ons

, is, and always will be be will always and is, , way. Shortly, after the the after Shortly, way. the eulc of Republic 87

the

CEU eTD Collection 89 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=239363 for Ministry Greek the in Councilor 88 Special a as serving was he years many for and affairs hi described Kofos Greek the of stealing and history the of usurpation a as interpreted was makers decision Macedonian the from move That 1977. in territory Greek the on found was which dynasty Macedonian ancient the from symbol The andserious was securitya interpreted as threatto “ Constitution. the with 3 c neighboring in people Macedonian the to belonging persons those rights status and the of cares “the Republicminority for countries theneighboring rights in where Macedonia the of articles disputed The Greece. GreekPresuppositions Securitizations,2.1 their WorstCaseAssumptions and Greek securitization. non and discursive the analyze I will Finally, securitization. in engage to politicians Greek predisposed what show will I Then, dilemma. security the triggered making implied which security, territorial and societal Greek securitizing by independence Macedonian will I chapter, this In

Evangelos of Constitution The tr, y utr, y identity.” my culture, my story, th stated was Republi The newly adopted Macedonian Constitution from 1991 raised an irredentist concern for concern irredentist an raised 1991 from Constitution Macedonian adopted newly The the

Kofos quoted in quoted Kofos c of Macedonia in 1992 adopted the “Vergina Sun” as part of her national flag, a a flag, national her of part as Sun” “Vergina the adopted 1992 in Macedonia of c os cs asmtos bu Mcdna itnin twrs ree ad thus, and Greece, towards intentions Macedonian about assumptions case worst at “th at ,

“It is as a robber came into my house and stole my most precious jewels precious most my stole and house my into came robber a as is “It the e borders of borders e

Republic o Republic

88 Loring Danforth, LoringDanforth,

hw o te re pltcas epne t te declar the to responded politicians Greek the how show This part of the Macedonian Constitution was ambiguous for Greece for ambiguous was Constitution Macedonian the of part This

f Macedonia (1991). fMacedonia

the Republic of Macedonia may be changed only in acc in only changed be may Macedonia of Republic the

89 dniy A i oe cain h Gek itra Evangelos historian Greek the occasion one in As identity.

Evangelos The Macedonian Conflict Macedonian The

24 (accessed

oo i co is Kofos const n its its

territorial integrity. March 5, 2012). 5, March tto wr rltd to related were itution , 35. , sdrd s seils on specialist a as nsidered - discursive conditi discursive

ountries” and with the article the with and ountries”

h Macedonian the ons that enabled that ons ation of of ation ordance ordance Balkan

Gre -

my my ek

CEU eTD Collection thesis 93 92 91 90 formulatio the observed clearly formulated” are country our on pretensions usel is “It stated: Samaras Antonis Affairs, Foreign of Minister Greek the 1991, September fifth the On intention Macedonian about assumptions case worst the triggered hand other the on which territory, and actors, relevant other and politicians and 1991, in independence for proclamation Macedonian the groups pressure and lobbyists, governments, T bureaucracy, leaders, “political the are those and society, the in power or authority some has who someone be could actor securitizing successfulapproved by theaudience. be should threat this theory securitization the practic In identity. Greek endangered the protecting of necessity the indicates which identity, Greek the of part important an culture, and history Greek the of theft the depicted jewels’, ‘precious and by authority some of position the from Kofos, Affairs. Foreign Wo a ‘do’ can “Who translated and quoted in quoted and translated B herefore, in the next paragraphs I will present the reaction of the Greek politicians initiated by initiated politicians Greek the of reaction the present will I paragraphs next the in herefore, I Ibid., bid. uzanet , Central European University European Central ,

to ess to recognize a state, when from the governing circles in Skopje, territorial and other other and territorial Skopje, in circles governing the from when state, a recognize to ess e is known as known is e 27.

the very survival of the society or the state. the or society the of survival very the al.,

v is

21. - à -

vis r sek scrt successfully?” security ‘speak’ or

Greece.

a Kolalli, Blerim Kolalli, speech act, where the securitizing actor securitizing the where act, speech

, 2003 ,

n of a threat by the securitizing act securitizing the by threat a of n , “We do not give the name: the securitization of ‘Macedonia’” ( ‘Macedonia’” of name:securitization the the not give do “We , ), 30. ), Macedonian state as a usurper of the Greek identity and a a and identity Greek the of usurper a as state Macedonian I will explain th explain will I

(Thessaloniki, weekly) (Thessaloniki,

91 90

e securitiza e However, the securitization in order to be to order in securitization the However, codn t te oehgn col a School Copenhagen the to According depicts analyzing the discourse of the the of discourse the analyzing using a metaphor a using tion process of process tion or , who is here represented by by represented here is who , .

In this speech act it can be can it act speech this In

an issue as an existential an as issue an Greek identity identity Greek

of a ‘robber’ ‘robber’ a of master's . ” 92

CEU eTD Collection 94 the speechactsecurity. thegrammar followed markedly of respons the response the be will whatever that in declared he addition undertake in war’, for would ‘cause this to response Greece which measures extraordinary any justify to attempted speech be to assumed is it therefore state, and people of security to treat and fear the generates and people of attention the attracts ‘war’ word the used Solely Skopje. by posed is which territory and identity Greek to threat the b the stresses and issue the of seriousness the people to presents actor securitizing the war’, for ‘cause as statement strong such using By Greece. by undertaken po the from speaking parliamentarian Macedonia of Republic the Greece by of dissatisfaction high independence represents of proclamation the after month one place which war, for cause Greece for is “Macedonia” name the on insistence their that Skopje, to warning PASOK opposition, in party political the of member Another politician thesecuri whovoiced be taken toprotect ‘our inorder country’. should which ‘measures’ the and object’ ‘referent the ‘threat’, the identifies explicitly Minister decla the of acceptance of likelihood the augments thus and act speech the to credibility gives This issues. security national coordinating and handling for responsible is which authority, the Affairs,Foreign of Minister the Ibid., 30 Ibid., is solely is ible for this was Macedonia, since it was first to ‘declare war’. It can be concluded that that concluded be can It war’. ‘declare to first was it since Macedonia, was this for ible - 31.

on its responsibility its on

rations made in this securitizing attempt by the audience. The Foreign The audience. the by attempt securitizing this in made rations

h am f h scrtzn atr Mroe, aaeei i his in Papatemelis Moreover, actor. securitizing the of aim the ” 94

(Makedonia, dailynewspaper) (Makedonia, sition of authority calls for for calls authority of sition ty threat is Stelios threatis ty . The securitizing actor securitizing The .

–

Papatemelis, Greek parliamentarian, W hv t sn a uh stronger much a send to have “We ad intentions of Skopje, namely Skopje, of intentions ad

represented here by the Gr the by here represented .

The speech act which took which act speech The stronger measures to be be to measures stronger eek a CEU eTD Collection http://thesis.haverford.edu/dspace/handle/10066/5890 Policy Lavyrinthos. 98 Lang, 2005 Peter York, 97 96 name.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm 1994 95 wit were period that from newspapers the north" the from offensive an conflict, Turkish a of vehicle the be well very could could” who powers Papandre reality.” a but fear phantom a “not as state Macedonian as Greece, for concern politici conservative a Samaras and socialist the of leader the Papandreou, Samaras stated: refer it, reinforce rather the exclude not did statement this with Papandreou In other Zahariades, Nikolaos HenryKamm, Quoted in Tark Quoted Ibid. ) ”, ”, http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/23/world/conflict

The Journal of Hellenic Diaspora Hellenic of Journal The

interview, Andreasinterview, Papandreou 1995 Serbia. Andalwayswith Turkey looming inthe back. expectations combinat the for potential concerned are future We […] reality. a but fear phantom a not is This name to not them. prefer could, who powers other with conjunction in but it, call we as Skopje, by truly, only, and simply achieved be cannot Greece] [of objective The possible combinations of powers, Samaras referring to Turkey, the old antagonist of antagonist old the Turkey, to referring Samaras powers, of combinations possible a “ as A. G. “Athens as A. G. Conflict in the Balkans: Macedonia; For Greeks is morethan Greeksis For Balkans: Macedonia; in the Conflict

):109, quoted and translated in Zahariades, “Ideas and Manipulations Manipulations “Ideasand Zahariades, in translated quotedand ):109, osbe upre o th of supporter possible

Essence of Political Manipulation: Emotion, Institutions, and Greek Foreign Policy. Greek Foreign and Institutions, Emotion, Manipulation: Political of Essence , ), 148. ),

evidently

ig o te srne “powers” stronger other to ring

a Greater Bulgaria, a Greater Albania and a Greater Greater a and Albania Greater a Bulgaria, Greater a - Skopje: Behind closed doors” (in Greek). Vol I., (Athens: I., Vol (inGreek). doors” closed Behind Skopje:

(accessed pointed to Turkey to pointed rae Mcdna hc icue pr o Northern of part includes which Macedonia Greater , Vol.31 ion of forces in this region. There are three three are There region. this in forces of ion

June ,

the Greek Premier Greek Minister (1993 the Mcdna trioil pretens territorial Macedonian e

h headlines like: “Turkey sends army for intervention for army sends “Turkey like: headlines h

( 26 Pella Publishing Comp Publishing Pella

, 2012). , (accessed June 26, 2012). June26, (accessed 27 - 97 in

, as in one earlier interview interview earlier one in as , - the

threat to the territorial integrity of Greece of integrity territorial the to threat - balkans . Similarly, in other interview Antonis Antonis interview other in Similarly, . - mace any 96

a name a donia 2005): 18. 18. 2005):

u mentioning ou - for ” and Greece's Macedonian Greece's Macedonian and , - Times York New greeks - 1996) declared: os peetd the presented ions, n expressed an, he - it - stated: "Skopje stated: is 98 - more . Moreover, . the

( April 23, April 23, - than

( “other New

their - a - CEU eTD Collection p.19. Policy”, Macedonian Greece’s and Manipulation, “Ideas, Zahariadis, in translated and quoted 100 (Westport: the and Greece,Bulgaria, conflict: ethnic and identity, national memory, Collective 99 pur non non the a is government as Greek the Furthermore, by taken well. move securitizing as community International the on was focus the seecan weas target, actor’s securitizing Greek The derivatives. its or Macedonia name the contain will which state non the for voices loudest the of advocatin was he identity, Greek the to moreover and Greece, of integrity territorial the to north threat real a the as Republic new against the Presenting neighbor. population Greek the mobilizing in role major a played Samaras Antonis proclaime Macedonia when nineties, early the in Minister Foreign a As for Samaras 1990,inamemorandumConferenceAntonis OSCE inJune writes: the to mediator a as only not play securitization can situation other in or securitization the of process Balk the in “Turkey sends army fo army sends “Turkey Quoted in Valinakis, G., and S. Dalis, eds. 1994. 1994. eds. Dalis, S. and G., in Valinakis, Quoted pose to inform the domestic and international audience about the history of Greece, Greece, of history the about audience international and domestic the inform to pose Praeger Publishers Praeger ans.” human rights abuses, because they aim to take away the historical and and historical the culturalMacedonia the Greek heritage a people of people, of away take to aim they because abuses, rights human initiativ These . . . Philip king Macedonian the of symbol the are which among findings, archaeological at Greek the . independence, . . Macedonia, in of place took that war part the least Greek the . . . Aristotle, Great, the Alexandertheir as claim to try and . . . Macedonia, of name the of monopolization the . . . support fully . . . Skopje in authorities the ,

b ut as 99

The media has a has media The r intervention in the Balkans”, Balkans”, the in intervention r

from the previous statement, was not only the Greek domestic audience,but domestic Greek onlythe not wasstatement, previous the from a securitizing actorsecuritizing well. as , 2002), 32. 2002), , es constitute one of the most obvious and intolerable intolerable and obvious most the of one constitute es

recognition of the Republic of Macedonia as an independent independent an as Macedonia of Republic the of recognition n important role in shaping in role important n The Skopjean issue Skopjean The To Vima To 28 (Bourbeau, 2011).

g a hard line over the name issue, and was one was and issue, name the over line hard a g

( November November

(inGreek)

22, 22, own the Macedonian Macedonian the own - public opinion, and helps to the to helps and opinion, public ae pmhe ise wt its with issued pamphlet paper

1992) , (Athens: ,

Macedonian question question Macedonian

cited in Victor Roudometof, Roudometof, in Victor cited 100

Sideris, 1994), 27., 27., 1994), Sideris, is independence, its d

- discursive CEU eTD Collection 104 103 2007 University Press, Oxford York: 102 101 example for be he and popularized was Macedonia of Hellenicity the moment that since symbol. Sun’ ‘Vergina the and 1977, II in Philip of tomb the and symbol the discovered who archeologist the is Andronikos and Andronikos archeologist the with illustrated stamp postal Thessaloniki. in Great, the Alexander of father the II, Philip of statue a of erection the is heritage cultural Macedonian the of materialization the of element m Macedonian ancient with were Macedonia Greek in buildings new the of facades the as well as II, Philip of Port as Kavala in t Yet, Vergina Sun. of profile the with coin drachma 100 a issuing is government Greek the by undertaken action Another heritage. cultural Macedonian its about informed be to student every for country, the in school distr was dynasty Macedonian ancient the on booklet special a 1992, in Moreover, organization,old VMRO as apotential threat. paint as VMRO issues. contemporary and modern Org Revolutionary Macedonian Internal the of foundation the an as and Empire, Byzantine Greek the in dynasty Macedonian the of significance the emphasizing Hamilakis, 158. Hamilakis, Karakasidou Yannis Zahariadis, important part of this pamphlet was the discussion of the Macedonian questio Macedonian the of discussion the was pamphlet this of part important s

the modern VMRO political party in Macedonia, which was founded on the bases on the the on bases the on founded was which Macedonia, in party political VMRO modern the

Hamilakis, Hamilakis,

lxne te ra on Great the Alexander

a Essence of Political Manipulation Political of Essence , ,

the media reports and articles for the name dispute with dispute name the forarticlesand reports media the terrorist organization which had a territorial territorial a had which organization terrorist Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood HillsWheat,of of Fields

The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archeology and Na and Archeology Antiquity, its Ruins: and Nation The he Airport of Thessaloniki was renamed to Macedonia, and renaming the port renamingthe and Macedonia, renamedto was Thessaloniki of Airport he

),162. otives adapted from the ancient Macedonian tombs. Macedonian ancient the from adapted otives

101 n sd ad n h r the on and side one

icsig h Mcdna question Macedonian the Discussing , (London: The University of Chicago Press, 1997), 229. 229. 1997), Press, ofChicago University (London: The , s, 74. s,

vr ws eitd h smo of symbol the depicted was evers aspiration towards Greece, implicitly Greece, towards aspiration 104

Also, the Greek state has issueda has state Greek the Also, tional Imagination in Greece in Imagination tional nzto (MO i 19, to 1893, in (VMRO) anization the Republic of Macedonia,Republic of came a symbol of it, it, of symbol a came ,

and n, starting from from starting n, ibuted to each each to ibuted eitn the depicting 103

Another (New the 102

CEU eTD Collection 106 105 insecurity. hand other the on symbols, and myths to time linked same coins strengthe construct, to contributes the monuments, in the and through heritage, culture, cultural the Macedonian materializing the for pupils young the educate with system educational the as institutions, processcontributes tothesecuritization besuccessful. to more personage respected two archeologist, the and historian the of voices The heritage. Macedonian the claim differ ‘Slavs’ are they because them to and ‘Macedonia’ name the that ‘history’, Greek the ‘appropriate’ to wants who ‘other’ the as neighbor its presents Kofos, historian the to similarly Andronikos, As aM inonenewspaper,regarding columnist the symbol. Sun” “Vergina the and Andronikos of picture the with accompanied were often very h isiuinl rcie ad esrs edd y h Gr the by leaded measures and practices institutional The Ibid., 161. Ibid., 162. Ibid., s

fe te bpie ter tt Mcdna n is inhabitants its remotest Asian steppes and Slavic the when Macedonia ago, years 2500 Greece northern in lived who state people this of appropriate history the to expedient their and simple very it thought baptized they Macedonians, they After rm h Gek oit, le society, Greek the from ,

these practices shape the intersubjective understandings and feeling of of feeling and understandings intersubjective the shape practices these

people they themselves originate from, were still in the in still were from, originate themselves they people

n and maintain the Macedonian cultural identity in Greece, and Greece, in identity cultural Macedonian the maintain and n 106

gitimate and credible actors to talk about the ‘history’ ‘history’ the about talk to actors credible and gitimate n ta te Gek’ ns the ones, ‘Greeks’ the than ent a

special created booklet on the Macedonian dynasty, dynasty, Macedonian the on booklet created special 30

acedonian stated: Andronikos state,

e gvrmn, s involving as government, eek ‘Macedonians’ do not belong not do ‘Macedonians’ only entitled people to to people entitled only

105

CEU eTD Collection 111 Repository Greece”, in Discourses 110 109 99. 2010), Sons and Willey 108 107 i and 1977, in II Philip identity. part be to considered was past Macedonia The heritage. Macedonian Ancient the over exclusivity Greek the threatened dynasty, Macedonian ancient the of name the with name an Macedonia, name the under independency Macedonian the of announcement The identity. mixed ethnic the in place homogeneous Balkan. most the of one as country the represents which ethnic t example, For Greeks”. been always have “we saying popular the as unique, and “timeless” became identity purity”. “ideological the and antiquity” the with relation in privilege and and “exclusive language Greek the Greek particular the Christianity, Orthodox the considered are identity Greek the of ‘territory’ the beside actors, securitizing requirement. security societal the of part as defined was it whether on depends threat a as treated be would action particular the whether society, perception threat the However, Hamilakis, 133. Hamilakis, Di Security Intrastate “The Roe, Anna Triandafyllidou and and AnnaTriandafyllidou Gallant, Thomas W. M.Veremis, Thanos and Koliopoulos S. John Greeks 110 108

pr o te re pbi cncoses eae fe te icvr o te ob of tomb the of discovery the after became consciousness public Greek the of part A http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/181

ntig ht hetn tee lmns s osdrd thre a considered is elements these threatens that Anything Drawing their lineage from the ancient Hellenes till till Hellenes ancient the from lineage their Drawing

and according to the statistics Greece is composed by 98% of Orthodox Greeks Orthodox of 98% by composed is Greece statistics the to according and he citizenship law until 2010 was based on on based was 2010 until law citizenship he

Modern Greece Modern

cet lrls Wrig Papers Working Pluralism Accept

n particul n IfigeneiaKokkali lemma”, 196. lemma”,

of f h Hlei hrtg ad the and heritage Hellenic the of ( ar with the publicity of publicity the with ar London: Oxford University Press, 2001), 74. 2001), Press, University Oxford London:

the identity is determinate by the security requirements security the by determinate is identity the 4/19781

(2010), “Tolerance and Cultural Diversity Diversity Cultural and “Tolerance (2010),

Modern Greece: A History since 1821 since History A Greece: Modern they

(accessed April 20, 2012). April 20, (accessed

address 31

n ancient dynasty belonging to the Classical the to belonging dynasty ancient n

8/2010: 2 Retrieved from Cadmus EUI Research Research EUI Cadmus from Retrieved 2 8/2010:

the ‘id the 107

the Macedonian issue in the 1990s. the in issue Macedonian the

h pr The u sanguinis jus entity’ as well. well. as entity’

sec o te re cultural Greek the of essence sne scrt sece of speeches security esented the

( rsn dy te Greek the day, present United Kingdom,United

reserved on reserved t o re societal Greek to at Important elements Important ly for the the for ly identical John John

of the the of 111 109

CEU eTD Collection Relations International 113 112 the historical circumstancesgeographical onthe of territory Macedonia. Greece in securitization of process hist the articulation.” justify threats)that its presumed(the conditions identifyorderto the in around’ ‘look audienceto conditi facilitating the is school, Copenhagen the to according process, securitization the form part important An Macedonian independence name and Discursive 2.2 “our name isoursoul” time that of parole popular the as identity, Greek the of part inseparable an became Macedonia contr civiliza old an culture, superior and unique a Greekstate.the homogeneityof ofidea the goesagainst Greek one The Macedonia. of ‘Greekness’ the and people Greek the of identity the for as well as but Greece, of integrity territorial the for only not threat Furthermore, Greek we k the 1988 in popularity, ‘Macedonia’ into Greece’ international ‘Northern of district the rename to decision a an brought government reached Vergina in discovery the Since T 132. Hamilakis, hierry Balzacq,” Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience, and Context”, Context”, and Audience, Agency, Political ofSecuritization: Faces Three hierryBalzacq,” now ittoday. btd to ibuted orical experience between the Greeks and the Macedonians has has Macedonians the and Greeks the between experience orical 113 the voices for existence of a Macedonian minority in Greece were interpreted as a a as interpreted were Greece in minority Macedonian a of existence for voices the

h Gek nit oe te ae of name the over anxiety Greek the The history history The

and nonand

ons. Thierry Balzacq argues, Balzacq Thierry ons.

11, no. 2 (2005): 182. (2005): 2 no. 11,

112 , and nobodyname except, and thatthe have Greeks. can - discursive conditions in Greece facilitating discursive securitizing is considered to be a contextual facilitating factor, which means that means which factor, facilitating contextual a be to considered is

and latter in Macedonia. The next paragraphs are devoted to to devoted are paragraphs next The Macedonia. in latter and

tion which was an inspiration to inspiration an was which tion

32 “ when

claim that there is another identity apart the the apart identity another is there that claim

the concept ‘security’ is used, it forces the forces it used, is ‘security’ concept the the Republic of Macedonia. The name name The Macedonia. of Republic The Greek self GreekThe

great

European Journal of of Journal European

many Europeans many influence on the the on influence - perception of perception , as CEU eTD Collection Quarterly History European 114 period war Balkan pre the from statistic the heterogeneous by composed was population local the as problematic was Greece of attempt that Yet, nation. compact homogeneous a create A Bulgari the by incorporated were Macedonia of territory geographical the of parts two other The 1913. in treaty Bucharest the of decision the with Wars Balkan the t The the of incorporation the with 1947 in Dodecanese islands. fixed were borders territorial Greek the although Greco the of termination the with be to considered is Idea” “Megali their justified which community” “imagined Greek Orthodox The Constantinople. and Cyprus Crete, Minor, Asia Macedonia, Thessaly, Epirus, of regions included which understand That Empire. Byzantine the of Orthodoxy Christian the and Hellenes ancient the of glory the very the was state Greek the of concept very in The state. Greek the of creation the of beginning traced be could Greece and Macedonian between relationship antagonistic The 2. fter the incorporation the fter 2.1 Ethnographic change2.1 Ethnographic Greek in assimilation policy and Macedonia Paschalis M. Kitromilides, Kitromilides, M. Paschalis erritory of the Southern part of Macedonia was integrated to the Greek State after the end of endafter the State Greek the integratedto was Macedonia ofSouthern part the erritory of ing of the Greek identity led identity Greek the of ing irredentist claims to the entire territory of th of territory entire the to claims irredentist - speaking population living in that territory was considered as part of the the of part as considered was territory that in living population speaking

, the next step next the ,

19 "Imagined / 2 , (April ,

1989 .communities” and the Origins of the National Question in the the in Question National the of Origins the and .communities” of Greece of ) : 169.

to the to

ethnic, religious and linguistic groups. According to to According groups. linguistic and religious ethnic, cause of national unification. unification. national of cause 33 “ , Megali Idea Megali was to impose its power over the region and to and region the over power its impose to was

h mjrt o te naiat i Ottoman in inhabitants the of majority the ”, ”, e previous Byzantine Empire, the the Empire, Byzantine previous e a project for nationa for project a - Turkish war (1919 war Turkish an and the Serbian state. state. Serbian the and an

114

h ed f the of end The l unification l founded - B 1922), 1922), alkan

on ” CEU eTD Collection 117 Society Plural of Aspect Greece: 116 115 and home, at even spoken be to prohibited was language Slav the when regime Metaxas the during schools. communit village the by or church Serbian the and Exarches Bulgarian the by established Macedonia of Slav territory previous the All in schools project. Hellenization their of element core the was education the which government Greek the that, of consequence inhabitant Slav The Northern theirMinor. ancestries Greece find inAsia can country the of part northern the in presence Greek the foster to intention the with quarter refugee a as considered was which a became language religious their by 390 with exchangedwere Minor Asia from Greeks of million than1.2 More Minor. Asia and Bulgaria from population 1919 from period the In p Macedonia inthe next Macedonia Poulton, 89. Poulton, “CulturalIllegit Karakasidou, Anastasia HughPoulton, the adults were obliged to visit a night school to learn the Greek language and in order to order in and language Greek the learn to school night a visit to obliged were adults the 117 ,

lingua franca lingua n s rsl o hti tefrt er atrterisaletteTrih language Turkish the installment their after years first the in that of result a as and

h asmlto o te lv ouain was population Slav the of assimilation The

were Who are the Macedonians? Macedonians? the Who are

the Slav speaking population. However, that ethnographic picture of Greek Greek of picture ethnographic that However, population. speaking Slav the eogn. h mjrt of majority The belonging. s

in Greek Macedonia did not have a Greek national consciousness and as a a as and consciousness national Greek a have not did Macedonia Greek in eriod waschanged. drastically - in the interaction the in 1923 ,

000 Muslims fro Muslims 000 , ed. Richard Glogg Richard ed. , . 116

the territory of modern Greece was exposed to a sizable influx of influx sizable a to exposed was Greece modern of territory the

T oday it could be said that the ma the that said be could it oday imacy in Greece: the Slavo the Greece: in imacy ies were closed, closed, were ies (London: C.Hurst&Co.Publishers, 1995), 86 1995), (London: C.Hurst&Co.Publishers,

with the local population in Greek Macedonia, a place place a Macedonia, Greek in population local the with

m Greece.m (London: Hurst & Company, 2002), 132. &2002), Company, Hurst (London: pursued 34 sa io rfge dd o sek h Greek the speak not did refugees Minor Asia

which was which 115

nme o asmltr plce from policies assimilatory of number a

The identity of the refugees was definedwas refugeesthe ofidentity The - Macedonian ‘non Macedonian especially

more than five hundred primary primary hundred five than more instrea nesv ad repressive and intensive - minority” m population living in living population m .

inMinority

in in

CEU eTD Collection s&st=cse http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/opinion/31ihtedbakoy.1.11552267.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=dora%20bakoyanni 121 120 111 1997), Publishers, Inc., Company, 119 118 principle basic the of (VMRO) of revival the and assimilatory The 2.2.2 Th Greece. history Greek “ of memories The Macedonia. Greek in prevail to identity Greeks the made nation, Greek compact a build Turkey and Bulgaria unification Greece to territory Macedonian the of incorporation The towns and otherone places were withGreek replaced pop local the of weresent punished, and forbidden were feelings national Macedonian their flag. Greek the of colors in white and compelledgive blue,theappearanceofa topaintwere them their Greek houses they associated “ Karakasidou, Dora Bakoyannis, “The view from Athens”, Athens”, from view “The Bakoyannis, Dora Ibid. John Shea, John

e Greek Civil War andthe Macedonian minority (acceded 10 May 10 2012 (acceded , the ,

in a ad hc blne t te nin Hellenes. ancient the to belonged which land a , to ih mes pi ad ufrn b te re people Greek the by suffering and pain immense with Macedonia and and Macedonia changing of population, are s are population, of changing

ultimate goal ultimate Macedonian nationalism and the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization Organization Revolutionary Macedonian Internal the and nationalism Macedonian Cultural Illegitimacy in Greece in Illegitimacy Cultural prison just for speaking the Macedonian language. Macedonian the speaking for just prison ol b cniee a a aiiaig odto t te euiiain rcs in process securitization the to condition facilitating a as considered be could lto wr cagd no Greek into changed were ulation

, and the assimilatory policies of the Greek government which goal was to to was goal which government Greek the of policies assimilatory the and , s repressive policies Greece over the Macedonian population co population Macedonian the over Greece policies repressive

of the ‘leftist nationalism’ ‘leftist the of 118 Greece: A Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation Balkan New a Define to Struggle A Greece: ).

of which of

Moreover,

- 112.

was independent and united Macedonia, Macedonia, united and independent was The New York Time York New The public gathering public ”,135. till present in the minds of the of minds the in present till

of the Comintern and the Balkan Communists Balkan the and Comintern the of

ns and ones, s . 120

, s March 31, 2008, 2008, 31, March

was where the where

h nms f h vlae ad the and villages the of names the The exchange of population with with population of exchange The seen as seen 119 and numbers of Macedonians Macedonians of numbers and

Furthermore, the Slav names Slav the Furthermore, . Ma ”

121 part of the Greek national national Greek the of part (North Carolina: McFarland Carolina: (North cedonians could cedonians

Greek Those which s, lmns f the of elements

and always and

became one one became ntributed to to ntributed

express are

& ,

CEU eTD Collection 124 123 122 to mainly emigrated Macedonians of group Another return. to were right War the without Civil expatriated the during Communist the supported who Macedonians The Greece. from (1946 War Civil Greek The Greece. in regime the against fight their in (KKE) Party Communist Greek the ult their (NOF) Front Liberation National the founded Macedonia Greek from Macedonians The and possiblyYugoslavSouth creation He of federation. stated: Yugoslavia of Republic Republic sixth became (ASNOM) Macedonia of Liberation the of decision the with Macedonia) (Vardar Macedonian T ‘Riz newspaper identity their the express could Macedonians distributed and territory, history, and own culture its language, with population, Macedonian distinguished recognized party Communist population Macedonian identity. Macedonian separate a recognized that party political only the as rig on o te Greek the of point urning

Kondis et Kondis 144. Ibid., 132. Rososs, imate aim for for aim imate - al., al., 1948) finished with the defeat of the Communists, who were impriso were who Communists, the of defeat the with finished 1948) their own fate. decide to right the given be the [should] (Greece) Macedonia Aegean denies and (Bulgaria) who Pirin in also but (Yugoslavia) revisionist Macedonia Vardar in only the against peop Macedonian unification…the to right the fight people Macedonian shall [Yugoslav] We

p.55. s

of the of

124 People's Federal Republic of Yugosof Republic People'sFederal self

. One of One joined - determination and liberation and determination

- aeoin relation Macedonian

Tito’s ambitions was the reunification of the divided Macedonia divided the of reunification the was ambitions Tito’s h cmuit ate i Sri ad n ree Te Greek The Greece. in and Serbia in parties communist the by the People’s Republic of Macedonia, of Republic People’s the

rtn i Mcdna o i Gek language. Greek in or Macedonian in writing 36

s n 1944 in is .

NOF was in a close collaboration with collaboration close a in was NOF Anti lavia, later renamed later lavia, -

F ascist Assembly for the People's People's the for Assembly ascist ,

when the Serbian part of of part Serbian the when 122 ospastis’

The Socialistic Federal Socialistic le not not le

ned or expelled or ned majority of the of majority , as one of the of one as

where , with with , the 123

CEU eTD Collection Studies, Modern 125 of purpose the that explanation the with court Greek the by dismissed was Florina in Culture” t of distinct a voice to attempt the 1990, in Moreover, initiatives one. Greek the from culture their and language identity, Macedonian for intimidation and harassment undergo and service neighbor to goal ultimate an with “ of members nationalist Greek the by welcomed re the advocates that party political a of formation The “Rainbow”. party political the formed 1994 in identity Macedonian their retained they spea not do Macedonians local the of many today, and Greece, language and tradition policies, assimilatory various l the suppress to authorities Greek the of tradition long The Macedonian2.2.3 The minority Greece in Iwelcomed which authorities, be by the Greekwill paragraphs. described inthe next any and ‘traitors’, as Greece in minority of Hellenization. policies Greek the undergo to continued Greece in stayed who Macedonians The communities. influentia the of one represent they today and Australia and Canada

Anastasia Anastasia he ethnic Macedonians from Greece to register a cultural association “Home of Macedonian Macedonian of “Home association cultural a register to Greece from Macedonians ethnic he have have ing eeoe a re ntoa conscio national Greek a developed Karakasidou , Karakasidou

“Skopia”. Rainbow” are blamed for being for blamed are Rainbow”

11:1(1999, 11:1(1999, May): 15. The Macedonian participation to the Greek Civil War, depicted War, the GreekMacedonian The Civil Macedonian to participation

125 “ , Politicizing Culture: Negating ethnic identity in Greek Macedonia inidentityGreek ethnic Negating Culture: Politicizing

hpd h ntoa cncoses f h lcl ouain n northern in population local the of consciousness national the shaped

s The Macedonian activists are constantly surveyed by the Greek secret Greek the by surveyed constantly are activists Macedonian The eparate

such

Greek Macedonia from Macedonia Greek s as prohibition to maintain a distinct Macedonian culture, culture, Macedonian distinct a maintain to prohibition as . The Macedonian human rights activists in Greece and and Greece in activists rights human Macedonian The . cognition of a Macedonian minority in Greece is not not is Greece in minority Macedonian a of cognition

expression of the Macedonian identity was not not was identity Macedonian the of expression “Skopian agents” “Skopian 37 usness (Karakasidou, 2007). 2007). (Karakasidou, usness

the Greek state Greek the cl aeoin identit Macedonian ocal k the Macedonian language Macedonian the k ,

who promote a separatist idea separatist a promote who Macedonian l

and to unite with the with unite to and ” aeoin who Macedonians , Journal Greek of Journal

diasporas using y ,

and

CEU eTD Collection Question Macedonian the and Bulgaria Greece, Conflict: 128 127 2012) http://daccess AddendumMissi minority issues, on expert P 126 declared:Mitzotakis Macedonian the for claim doors and the irredentism open could that danger a Horse”, “Trojan is a Greece be in to minority presented Macedonian separate a of recognition The Greece. from Macedonia a Greece in Macedonians ethnic the where people, Greek the of minds the in present still are War Civil Greek the of memories The non the about information false Macedonia.” a “spreading for charged and imprisoned w Macedonia, Greek in minority Macedonian a of existence law. Greek Macedonianactivistsand giventhey duringare acknowledged an that Macedonians interview the the against be to considered is which campaign to is organization cultural that olitical, Economic, Social and Economic, Social olitical, Constantinos Cou Rights Human UN Human Watch/Helsinki (1994), 24 (1994), HumanWatch/Helsinki

- h Gek tt…hs a te etric of centerpiece the was dispute. State…This Greek the against propaganda irredentist any cease will it that treaties international Slavo this no is of there that declare to Macedonia) (of Republic the for been always has name the minority true second of)…a Western Macedonia…For meissue inthe region theultimate targ ofthe its creation not of in (avoid to questionwas me…was problem state.…The Skopje the preoccupied approached dimension…What I beginning, the From dds 127

Mitsotakis -

ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/111/98/PDF/G0911198.pdf?OpenElement 128

ncil, McDougall report (2009), “ (2009), report McDougall ncil, -

quoted in Victor Roudometof, Roudometof, in Victor quoted Macedonian minority in Greece and to agree through through agree to and Greece in minority Macedonian fr h trioy n te population. the and territory the for s

Cultural Rights Including the R the Including Cultural Rights

- 25.

on to Greece A/HRC/10/11/Add. 3: A/HRC/10/11/Add. Greece to on re reflected as national betrayals who tried to detach Greek Greek detach to tried who betrayals national as reflected re for the 38 Collective Memory, N Memory, Collective (Praeger Publishers, 2002), 119. 2002), (Praeger Publishers, Promotion and Protection of all Human ofall Protection and Promotion

presence ight to 126

Development” of a Macedonia a of utemr, h saeet f two of statement the Furthermore,

s h reason the as h Athens the 13 ational Identity, and Ethnic and Identity, ational The Greek Premier Minister Minister Premier Greek The , ,

, report of the independent the of independent report ,

n minority in Greece in minority n - Skopje Skopje

(accessed April 17, April 17, (accessed for them them for

Rights, Civ Rights, - Greekness of of Greekness et et il, o be to ,

CEU eTD Collection 131 130 Question Macedonian 129 securit societal and e and non and discursive above outlinedthe with coupled name, and Macedonianindependence the analysisshows, abovethe As declaring isGreek” “Macedonia were disseminated. pro at aimingcampaigns out carried Greece,companies in private that, to Inaddition D.C. Washington, Sta against Thessaloniki Greece Greek the among in protest public strong a sparked name and independence Macedonian processmake thesecuritization be to successful. Gree the of suffering and experience, previous the to referring practices, or acts speech their in threat be could t signed government Macedonian the only if and country, the in issue minority more one with deal to ready not was government Greek The Greece. for concern major the was issue minority Macedonian the Mitsotakis, of words the In Ibid. Ibid. Roudometof, Victor e a rts sosrd y h Hellenic the by sponsored protest a tes k people make their speech acts to be more credible in the eyes of the audience, and the the and audience, the of eyes the in credible more be to acts speech their make people k nter in a security dilemma in which Macedonia was seen to threaten the territorial integrity territorial the threaten to seen was Macedonia which in dilemma security a in nter

ig h “rens” of “Greekness” the ving the Republic of Macedonia, having the slogan the having Macedonia, of Republic the resolved

1992 and 1994, and 1992 . The Greek securitizing actors presenting the Macedonian issues as a security a as issues Macedonian the presenting actors securitizing Greek The . diasporas , (Westport: Prae (Westport: , Collective Memory, National Identity and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria and the the and Bulgaria Conflict:Greece, Ethnic and Identity National Memory, Collective y of Greece. The framing of framing The Greece. of y

- discursive conditions drove Greece to make worse case assumptions assumptions case worse make to Greece drove conditions discursive . Huge demonstrations Huge .

Macedonia. ger 2002) Publishers, when close to one million people million one to close he nonexistence of its minority in Greece, the problem the Greece, in minority its of nonexistence he 130 - mrcn oni de aon 2 00 epe to people 000 20 around drew council American

39 gi i Gec, og, pamphlet songs, Greece, in Again Macedonian independence as a security issue security a as independence Macedonian

,32. took place in place took 131

“Macedonia is Greek”. is “Macedonia

the Capital of Greek Macedonia Greek of Capital the went on the streets to protest to streets the on went 129

ad stickers and s In the United the In

and abroad abroad and

by by ,

CEU eTD Collection and maintaining to contributed reinforcing betweenand thesecuritydilemma Macedonia. Greece turn in which identity, societal its securitize to Macedonia a produced which security, societal its threatening perceive as to Greece Macedonia drove independence and name securitization Macedonian Greek the the regarding consequence, measures a As place. take to measures securitization allowed and statesmen Greek the tog poiin mn te res against Greeks the among opposition strong

4 0

further facilitating factor for for factor facilitating further the Macedonian name name Macedonian the CEU eTD Collection http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lisbon/li2_en.pdf 132 EC the of member a does which name a is where i expresses “it stated: Declaration Lisbon the adopted (EC) Community European the 1992, June 27 On P 3.1 non and discursive the analyse will facilitatingconditions thatenabled sec the Macedonian I finally and securitization, in engage to politicians Macedonian the predisposed what show will I Second, nation. and state Macedonian worst the of development the to contributed hand other the on which security societal Macedonian the securitizing independence rea politicians Macedonian the how IMacedonia,In chapter tothefear and will contributed just inthe country. insecurity this who Mace the of some by challenged and sovereign a in live to 1991 8, September In resuppositions European Council in Lisbon, 26/27 June1992, 26/27 Lisbon, in Council European

n n o aohr ie in time another or one in Chapter3: Greece’s Denial of Macedonia’sName, Macedonian aeoi’ Scrtztos Worst Securitizations, Macedonia’s Securiti

not include the term Macedonia.” term the include not ,

ts readiness to recognize that r that recognize to readiness ts

, opposed the recognition of the Republic under the name Macedonia. The The Macedonia. name the under Republic the of recognition the opposed

the citizens of Macedonia in a referendum expressed their expressed referendum a in Macedonia of citizens the the zationand Societal Security Dilemma

independent Republic of Macedonia. Yet that determinati that Yet Macedonia. of Republic independent itr hd siain twrs h trioy n pplto of population and territory the towards aspirations had history donian - ae supin aot h Gek inten Greek the about assumptions case cted to the Greek denial of of denial Greek the to cted

neighbours. Macedonia surrounded by the ‘ the by surrounded Macedonia neighbours.

Conclusion of the Presidency, AnnexII Conclusionofthe Presidency, 41

(accessed on 3 June, 2012). June, 3 on (accessed

epublic within its existing borders […] under […] borders existing its within epublic 132 - uritization. uritization. ae supin ad their and Assumptions Case

Macedonia’s

s outh aeoi’ nm and name Macedonia’s ,

p. 43 43 p. ern in twrs the towards tions

neighbor Greece,neighbor

determination determination four wolves’ four - discursive discursive explain on was was on ,

CEU eTD Collection 2006 136 135 Question New Macedonia The 134 133 sensitive already the worsened hand, other the on flag, Sun Vergina the of adoption The 1977. in territory Greek the on found was which emblem Vergina” of “Sun the it, on symbol Macedonian Mac new the adopted and Declaration, the rejected categorically name. Macedonian the of defense in patriotism of surge a to life”. them “deprive and security own their jeopardize could which decision a Federation, Yugoslav the from separate to succeeded had way peaceful a in who people Macedonian the p Macedonian that for and conditions recognition required the fulfils Macedonia that opinion its gave Commission Arbitration general in and politicians non The The first Kiro Macedonian President Declar Lisbon The Greece fora theMacedonian andcondition recognition, placed change to name. the of fears the addressed EC The reason. irredentist an for name the using of Republic the accused ident is Republic the of name Денко Малевски, “Како да се види она што е пред нашиот но нашиот пред е што видиона да се “Како Малевски, Денко 209. Ibid., Dimitar Zahariadis, in Quoted . http://star.utrinski.com.mk/?pBroj=1491&stID=16390&pR=7 135

The disappointment of the ‘Lisbon Declaration’ among the Macedonian politicians, led politicians, Macedonian the among Declaration’ ‘Lisbon the of disappointment The

Mircev - recognition

Macedonia. is answer final Our country. a of name violated were people peaceful our of integrity and feelings rights, basic the declaration [Lisbon] this With olitical elite interpreted the Lisbon Declaration Lisbon the interpreted elite olitical , “Engineering the Foreign Policy of a New Independent State: the case of Macedonia, 1990 Macedonia, of the case State: Independent New ofa Policy the Foreign “Engineering , ation was accepted with disappointment among the Macedonian politicians. politicians. Macedonian the among disappointment with accepted was ation

Essence of Political Manipulation, Manipulation, Political of Essence te ae f h sae os o ipy n trioil claims.” territorial any imply not does state the of name “the of the Macedonian statehood statehood Macedonian the of 133

ed. James Petiffer ( James Petiffer ed.

the Macedonian citizens. Prior the Lisbon Declaration, the EC’s EC’s the Declaration, Lisbon the Prior citizens. Macedonian the cl ih h Gek oten rvne Mcdna ad Greece and ‘Macedonia’ Province Northern Greek the with ical

Gligorov inhis Basingstoke …No one has the right to decide the the decide to right the has one …No 42

119. : -

Memoirs no! We remain the Republic of Republic the remain We no! MacMillan Press, 1999), 208. 1999), Press, MacMillan

a nt xetd y h Macedonian the by expected not was

с!“, ( accessed May 7, 2012) 2012) May7, accessed Утрински Весник Весник Утрински

as an act of injustice made towards towards made injustice of act an as (2001) writes: 136 edonian flag, with the ancient the with flag, edonian

h Mcdna Parliament Macedonian The 16 Октомври Октомври 16

of a normal a of 134 -

6” in 6” The CEU eTD Collection 1995) Press, University Princeton 139 http://star.dnevnik.com.mk/default.aspx?pbroj=1321&stID=2147477232 138 2012) May7, (accessed Times Angeles Los 137 so the Krushevo, in independence Macedonian days ten and 1903 in the with 1893 in century nineteenth Organizat Macedonia InternalRevolutionary the of foundation late the in back goes narrative Macedonian official Great. the Alexander and Macedonians ancient the with connection Macedonian voic loudest the of one Australia, in diaspora Macedonian the by mainly used Macedonia. of territory the on churches different of wall the consi was the of reason a As Greece. and Macedonian between reached ofbe would Republic Yugoslav former “the (FYROM Macedonia, Macedonia” for a reference proposed Council temporary Security and UN the composed Greece, of reaction the about concerned time same Taki issue. the name Consequently, and Macedonian the about concern its expressed Greece Nation, United the of head the to addressed memorandum a In security. state and societal its of securitization Greek decision That Greece. with relation СпасеШуплиновски, See LoSee Macedonia, Over ofWords War a In “Diplomacy: Murphy, DeanE.

name which are part ofnameare theidentity whichanothernation. part of only member without a flag flying outside U.N. headquarters in New York New in headquarters U.N. outside flying flag a without member only dered to be a traditional symbol of the Macedonian people, a sign which could be found on on found be could which sign a people, Macedonian the of symbol traditional a be to dered “ Republic of Macedonia of Republic ring Danforth, Danforth, ring

ng constitutional the under not was Nation United the to accession Macedonian the , December 03, 199 199 03, December in .

to consideration the importance of the Macedonian recognition and at the the at and recognition Macedonian the of importance the consideration to The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World Transnational a Nationalismin Ethnic Conflict: Macedonian The

“ Заблуди и вистина за знамето за вистина и Заблуди ) which would be used in the UN until the moment when an agreement an when moment the until UN the in used be would which )

”.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993 T he international community was very cautious in approaching in cautious very was community international he at the same time represented a facilitating condition to the to condition facilitating a represented time same the at 43 ” ,

Дневник , 18 Март 2006. Март 18 ,

- Tiny 12

(accessed May 15, 2012) May (accessed 15, - 03/news/mn ion (VMRO), the Ilinden Uprising Uprising Ilinden the (VMRO), ion 138

Greece Upbraids Mighty Germany Upbraids Greece

The Vergina Sun symbol was symbol Sun Vergina The - called Krushevo Republic. Krushevo called

flag dispute, flag intention using intention - 63515_1_yugoslav es for the modern modern the for es , 139 ”

. 137 (NewJersey

However, the However,

“Macedonia The ‘sun’ is ‘sun’ The

a symbol a - republic : ”, ”,

CEU eTD Collection 1992 November 141 140 to accession Macedonian the after emphasized was particular, in “Macedo be to the state the of name of the necessary is identity it nation the Macedonian the losing of survival mean very the for would Thus, people. country Macedonian the of name the changing that audience The identity. societal Macedonian the to threat you?” are what then Macedonians, “ stated: Branko Minister Primer Macedonian the 1992, In name the on based is people Macedonian the ‘Macedonia’. of identity very The nation. the of name change to Macedonia of demand Greek TheMacedonian. is speak they what language the and nation the of is state the of name The nation. Macedonian the for state a model, state Mace the reason that For identities. necessity a feel people Macedonian consciousness. national Macedonian of development the affected “hea the for strived which Serbia) and Greece movement and awakening national Macedonian the people Balkan other the to contrast In revolutionary free struggle for and indep the and identity Macedonian the of expression the for significant was VMRO the of role The Andrew Rossos, Rossos, Andrew Quoted in Thurow Quoted the very moment we give up our name ... the question will arise: if you're not not you're if arise: will question the ... name our up give we moment very the its name, by the Macedonian politicians was interpreted and presented as changing the the changing as presented and interpreted was politicians Macedonian the by name, its ,

occurred latter as a reason of the propaganda war of the neighboring states (Bulgaria, (Bulgaria, states neighboring the of war propaganda the of reason a as latter occurred

Macedonian and the Macedonians: A History A the Macedonians: and Macedonian

R, "Nouvelle Macedonia Pits Greeks, Slavs in Moniker Muddle", Muddle", Moniker in Slavs Greeks, Pits Macedonia R,"Nouvelle

nia”. The present discourse among the Macedonian politicians, politicians, Macedonian the among discourse present The nia”. 141 donian independent state in 1991 was based on the nation the on based was 1991 in state independent donian

The Macedonian politicians framed the new situation as a as situation new the framed politicians Macedonian The to show its distinctiveness from the other neighboring neighboring other the from distinctiveness its show to endent Macedonia. 44 securitizing actors presented to the Macedonian the to presented actors securitizing rts and minds” of the Macedonian people and and people Macedonian the of minds” and rts

Crvenkovski , (Stanford: Hoover Institute Press, 2008), 61. 2008), Press, Institute Hoover (Stanford: ,

the the (1992 140 UN under the provisional the under UN

Wall Street Journal, Journal, Street Wall - identical ic ta pro the period that Since 1998) in an interview interview an in 1998) the

with the name name the with revolutionary revolutionary 19

- CEU eTD Collection http:// University, Columbia Studies, European Eastern for Centre “ 143 2012). http 142 for precondition a and dignity andpride of question a is it all, of issue national sensitive most the “Our name: the over sensitiveness Macedonian the confirmed B Similarly, name. its choose to people Macedonian the of right the perspective, legal the through issue the addressed self for right Macedonian the to refers he constitution the about Talking people. the of identity the statement this In Blagoj presentwill speech someoftheMace made acts by the I paragraphs, next the In far. so intractable been has dispute name the why explain could hand other the on which Macedonia, in elite intellectual and political large the by shared and repeated co is 1992 since identity Macedonian the to threat’ ‘existential of rhetoric political The Macedonians peopleas andcalledtodefend “nameless” they Macedonia. thename publi their in issue name the used largely opposition in parties political Macedonian The FYROM. name One Macedonia Macedonia One “20 ”Greece Pressed for Time over Name Issue,” NameIssue,” for Timeover Pressed ”Greece :// - determination. The Macedonian political elite since the beginning of the name name the of beginning the since elite political Macedonian The determination. www.ece.columbia.edu/research/intermarium/vol4no1/wieland.pdf mtv

години македонска независност годинимакедонска

Handzhiski, theMacedonianHandzhiski, Foreign Minister of(1997 Affairs . com c speeches in the parliamentary elections parliamentary the in speeches c demand changes of the constitutional name ofthedemand changesconstitutional country! ofthe identity our with connected . I think the knowledge that our name, which we had for centuries, is is centuries, for had we which name, our that knowledge the think I mk With Three Faces: Domestic Debates and Nation Concepts Nation and Debates Faces: Domestic Three With

/ mk , it , / emisii

is very clear expressed the connection between the name of the country and and country the of name the between connection the expressed clear very is

oris / mtv

Trajkovski, the president of the Republic of Macedonia (1999 Macedonia of Republic the of president the Trajkovski, _ produkcija

- Пукај бе брат Пукај /31635/20_ The Macedonian Times Macedonian The –

is ripening and nobody, has the right to to right the has nobody, and ripening is ” ( ” 45 godini МТВ Продукција, 2011) Продукција, МТВ

2000 ’

_ campaign in 1994, where they described the the described they where 1994, in campaign makedonska - 2001), 10. 10. 2001), donian authorities and intellectuals.authorities and donian , June 6, 1997,quoted in 1997,quoted June6, ,

(accessed

name is the identity of the nation, nation, the of identity the is name ”, ”, _ nezavisnost Intermarium

- May 16, 2012). May16, 143 1998) stated: 1998)

. aspx

Vol.4, no.1 no.1 Vol.4,

( Carsten Wieland Carsten accessed 142

(NewYork

May nstantly nstantly dispute dispute

- 2004) 2004)

16, 16, , :

CEU eTD Collection Macedonia of Republic 146 145 (Athens: in Accord," Interim 144 the of existence ‘very the for required Macedonian nation’. is it identity, Macedonian of element as presented important is ‘Macedonia’ name The Macedonia. in actors securitizing other the from identity” Macedonian the of negation the mean] would [It character. national its of centuries for Macedonia in lived has that people a depriving Greece with dispute name the to devoted Memorial a In Macedonia. in institution respected a (MANU), Art and Science of Academy Macedonian the of opinion the by reinforced was statement This (2001 “Republika and Macedonia” as: Republic the of name the for proposal a gave 2002 in countries, the of both for name acceptable common a finding facilitate to Nimitz Mathieu dispute name the of mediator UN the uneas the reveals all” development.” and existence our Memorial of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts Relating to the Dispute about the Name of the the of Name about the the Dispute to Arts Relating and Sciences of Academy Macedonian the of Memorial the of Signing the after Macedonia of Republic Yugoslav Former the in Dispute Name "The Tziampiris, Aristotle Quoted and translated in in translated and Quoted - 2002) commented: 2002) commented: , ELIAMEP the Acad the . which we talkabout will name the Macedonia” of on “Republic insist we Macedonia”, “Upper name the accept not do we Republika as that relinquish position the “R” hold to continue we We […] past historical and that cultural our under requirement the listed is worse be even is What should Makedonija. we that remain should and name our untranslated, that unacceptable wholly is it with, begin To

, 2005), 240. 2005), , Athens emy declared: “Acceptance of the ‘Upper Macedonian’ proposal would mean mean would proposal Macedonian’ ‘Upper the of “Acceptance declared: emy , Sko ,

iness to resolve the dispute between Macedonia and Greece. The attempt of attempt The Greece. and Macedonia between dispute the resolve to iness - Tziampiris pje, pje, S kopje: An Uneasy Symbiosis Uneasy An kopje:

June30

Makedonija”. The Macedonian Foreign Minister Slobodan Casule Slobodan Minister Foreign Macedonian The Makedonija”.

, 245. , 144 ,

2002

. Presenting the name as “the most sensitive national issue of issue national sensitive most “the as name the Presenting 145

with the possible add possible the with

quoted quoted

inTzi 46 146 ,

1 ampiris, 247. ampiris, 995

The opinion of the Academy does not di not does Academy the of opinion The - 2002,

ition of the word Skopje, Skopje, word the of ition eds. Evangelos Kofos and Vlasis Vlasidis,. Vlasidis,. Vlasis and Kofos Evangelos eds.

“Upper “Upper ffer an CEU eTD Collection http://www.vmacedonianews.com/2008/04/fm 148 2012). June, 3 (accessed http://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Regions 147 are we what to “due words the people, Macedonian the towards made injustice good” for name our be will which Macedonia, of Republic the w (2006 Milososki Antonio Minister Foreign Macedonian the name, Macedonian the over opposition the after 2008, In people. “ ‘self a out, points she as mean, T countries. neighboring its by denied was Macedonians the people Macedonian the of history the past, the recalls she ‘destiny’ the about Talking dispute. name the of context wider the to refers Mitreva MacedonianForeign Minister of Ilinka Bucharest in Summit NATO the Prior NATO. to accession Macedonian the vetoed and arguments its made UN, the to accession Macedonian the to similarly Greece, the Macedonian for application membership inte was Greece and Macedonia between dispute name The Macedonian nation Macedonian hat the country has done but due to what we are we what to due but done has country the hat N Choice, “An Uneasy RistoKarajkov, Macedonian News Macedonian - 2011) stated: “NATO failure to extend membership invitation to Macedonia, based not on not based Macedonia,to invitation membership extend to failure “NATO stated: 2011)

nation, language, history. Accepting a change of the name means means name the of change a a renouncingright Accepting our exist to accepting history. all language, for and nation, once forever destiny mean our been has would which defeat of philosophy name the of change The

Macedonian Macedonian , “No invitation of Macedonia: Defeat of NATO Principles NATO of Defeat ofMacedonia: “Noinvitation

”

and and “ language

non - defeat’ of the Macedonians, accepting the thesis that there is no no is there that thesis the accepting Macedonians, the of defeat’ Affairs (2002 Affairs - ame or Nato? or ame invitation for membership to membership for invitation - ” and

- s o refute to is milososki 147 - countries/Macedonia/An

in ”, -

, the North Atlantic Organization (NATO) in 2008. (NATO) in2008. Organization North Atlanticthe 2006) stated: 2006) - 47

Osservatorio no whe

- invita - the history the

n and we are Macedonians and our country is is country our and Macedonians are we and

in one or in another time, the existence of of existence the time, another in or one in tion - Balcani e Caucaso e Balcani for.html (acce

nsified in particular the period prior period the particular in nsified herefore, changing the name would name the changing herefore, - uneasy

and suffering and NATO 148 ”

hs ttmn ofrs the confirms statement This choice - ss

, as a reason of the Greek Greek the of reason a as , denial of our our of denial ed, 15.12.2011) ed, - name , 4 January 2008 January2008 4

of the Macedonian the of - or ” are strong and and strong are ” - Nato

Mitreva, the the Mitreva,

CEU eTD Collection http 151 http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/gallery/skopje 150 2009 149 was Skopje in Airport the 2006, In people. Macedonian the of heritage cultural the of part as emphasized d till present Antiquity the from starting it, on motives Macedonian with Arc Triumphal a placed of square main the in erected was Horse” a on “Warrior “Antiquisation”. Neo a in constructed are theater and museum buildings, administrative of number a Moreover, state. and nation Macedonian and revolutionist nation containing project grandiose a 2014”, “Skopje identity. Macedonian the strengthen to aim the with policies and projects starts summi NATO the After politics. identity Macedonian of point identity.” own erasing and nations of map the from itself erasing is chance this responded:”[…] EU, the with process negotiation the and membership NATO for chance historical an missing for him to addressed came who Gruevski, Nikola Minister Primer Macedonian The Macedonia changecondition is to thename. 200 in (EU) Union European the to membership for country identity Macedonian the over insecurity of feeling the to contribute which influential, ЕУ Sinisa “ resi eet a te U oni epce a get extent great at expected Council EU the at events Gruevski: :// , : www http://www.mia.com.mk/default.aspx?vId= „АлександарВелики“јапрекршиПривременетаспогодбазаимето

. In addition, by the same token, Greece vetoed the beginning of the negotiation process negotiation the of beginning the vetoed Greece token, same the by addition, In . Jakov . ay. For the first time in the history of Independent Macedonia, the Antiquity was was Antiquity the Macedonia, Independent of history the in time first the For ay. utrinski renamed “ renamed

Marusic, “Skopje 2014: The new face of Macedonia”, newMacedonia”, The faceof 2014: “Skopje Marusic, . 150 com

ano Furtherm . mk Alexander the Great the Alexander ther /? ItemID

significant ore, a 22m statue of Alexander the Great, which which Great, the Alexander of statue 22m a ore,

= E 60990 149 - Classical style, for which some analyst called the project project the called analyst some which for style, Classical - ulig lmns a eetn mnmns f Macedonian of monuments erecting as elements, building

The NATO and EU blockades by Greece were the turning the were Greece by blockades EU and NATO The DE - esng fo te itr wo otiue t the to contributed who history the from personage 2014 69768741&lId=2 740

– BFE

(accessed 11.05.2012). (accessed Airport” 48 4 B

9319 9 which is in power till till power in is which 9 151 A ”, ”, (accessed, 15.12.2011) (accessed, 35 , and the main highway from Skopje to Skopje from highway main the and , aeoin nomtv Agency Informative Macedonian BEA Balkan Insight Balkan Skopje , 530 УтринскиВесник to

t C

and in the same location was was location same the in and 97 power in 2006, on the critics critics the on 2006, in power the Macedonian government government Macedonian the

( acce ,

ed the , 15.12.2011) ,

present day. The The day. present fiil name official

, start of the of start

8 December December 8

n the in the the

is CEU eTD Collection 153 non 152 and discursive that, to relation In it. strengthening by identity societal its securitize to Macedonia pushed thus and integrity societal its threatening as Macedonia by perceived were name Macedonia’s of securitization case worst the assumptions. and dilemma security the constitute security societal the to threat as dispute interpreted of demand any and Macedonia’, of security ‘Republic The identity. their losing thus co the nation, of requirement the of name became the country changing the with of identical name the Changing identity. its losing for population Macedonian jus country the in authorities the ourselves”, exist”, “erasing name”, to “our “identity”, “right ‘dignity”, “pride”, past”, of our “relinquish words “denial”, the using intellectuals and diplomats, politicians, the by moves, the to contributed hand other The country. through the in identity Macedonian the over insecurity the history on which the symbols, materializing and myths of to connected politics monuments Greek the echoed Macedonia of Republic roots.” Slavic not and Antique Classical has nation Macedonian the that proves it if name, its defend Pasko Macedonia, of Heritage Cultural increased. were Macedonia of territory the on findings archeological the for allocated funds the Moreover, Skopje of stadium the and Macedon”, the “Alexander named was Thessaloniki

Ibid. Ibid.

153

152

The first archeologist first The Greece’s denial of the name of the Macedonian state and the related to that Greek Greek that to related the and state Macedonian the of name the of denial Greece’s threatening

nr i cntutd n wy ht h nm o te tt sol stay should state the of name the that way a in constructed is untry

h Mcdna scea scrt. y rmn te Macedonia the framing By security. societal Macedonian the

rifre n miti the maintain and reinforce t in Macedonia, the director of the Bureau for for Bureau the of director the Macedonia, in

Kuzman in one interview stated: “Macedonia can only only can “Macedonia stated: interview one in Kuzman - icrie aiiaig conditio facilitating discursive

49 neighboring Greece for changing the name was name the changing for Greece neighboring

constant worst

repeating of the securitizing securitizing the of repeating - ae assumptions case s inter ns, the Protection of Protection - as subjectively

hlp II. Philip

- f the of Greek Greek the the CEU eTD Collection 154 Bulgarian. but hand, other the On the Macedonian Church.autocephaly Orthodox by theSerbian non the is present until persists which onlydisagreement The name. constitutional 1996 in hand non the in other insecurity of feeling the the increased on which rule, Serbian the under period past the in named was Republic the “S as Macedonia proclaimed already the 1991 countries. neighbouring the by claimed and contested nineteen late the in Enlightenment Macedonian the Since NameMacedonia’s 3.2 Macedonian begreater identity will discussed ina length below. st to aimed conditions facilitating These Macedonia. for dilemma security societal a Greek shaped and integrity societal the its of securitization Macedonia’s of history the throughout constructed Mirchev, 204. Mirchev, a icrie n Non and Discursive distinct , se

when Yugoslavia officially recognized the Macedonian independency under its its under independency Macedonian the recognized officially Yugoslavia when O hrfr aie ta Mcdna s o a ain n t on ih. But right. own its in nation a ourselvesto impose politically, allow cannot we not is Macedonia that arisen has therefore idea the historians, our for and Bulgarians, of majority vast the For hav We old conflicts and claims were revived. In the early 1990s, the Serbian nationalists nationalists Serbian the 1990s, early the In revived. were claims and conflicts old n one occasion theBulgarian fromn one President 1992Zhelyo occasion

Macedonian nation and language remain unrecognized, as they are considered to be to consideredthey areunrecognized,as language andMacedonian remain nation

e a common history, a common language, a common religion...... religion. common a language, common a history, common a e the

first country which recognized the Macedonian statehood was was statehood Macedonian the recognized which country first - Discursive Conditions Facilitating the Securitization of of Securitization the Facilitating Conditions Discursive

outhern Serbia” or “Vardar Banovina”, names with which which with names Banovina”, “Vardar or Serbia” outhern - recognized country. recognized 50

- aeoin eain, otiue to contributed relations, Macedonian W eghn h prevd het o the to threat perceived the rengthen

century, the Macedonian identity was was identity Macedonian the century, t te aeoin needne in independence Macedonian the ith

a national identity on the nationalon the a identity

154

That policy was abandoned was policy That

Zhelev stated:Zhelev - recognition of recognition

Bulgaria , CEU eTD Collection 51. Pettifer, 156 Assessment”, Overviewand 155 GreekForeignDoraBakoyannis Minister declared: the of definition Greek The Macedoniansfor contested their already identity Greece. bytheir neighbour independence, Macedonian the of beginning very the attitude n making Macedonia, towards Bulgarian The the authorities. with Bulgarian the 1913 by in denied Bulgaria is claim to That given Treaty. Buckhurst was which part the Macedonia, Pirin of territory the language. hand other the On are particular in 1920and Macedonia. in scholars Macedonians Bulgarian the and to According Bulgaria in Bulgarians considered common are have who countries the personages, of both The dialect. Bulgarian a be to considered is asMacedonianBulgarians their part nation The of nation. theMacedonians see wordsthese With Kyril Drezov the Post in Relations Foreign “Bulgaria’s Lefebvre, Stephan in Zhelevquoted Zhelyo considered to

Moreover, stir up disorder in northern Greece in order to communize the area and to to and area the communize to order in Greece northern in disorder up stir of Tito f Marshal When it. 1944 in see province southern country's his of name Greeks the changed Yugoslavia as problem the explain me Let essentialmost democratic rightthe individual of themselves for choose to right the have They Macedonians. rom Vardar Banovina to the Social Republic of Macedonia, he did it to it did he Macedonia, of Republic Social the to Banovina Vardar rom , “Macedonian Identity: an overview of the major claims”, in major the of anoverview Identity: “Macedonian , , be creation be

the Bulgarian President expressed the official position of Bulgaria towards the the towards Bulgaria of position official the expressed President Bulgarian the ,

the h Mcdnas e tesle a a eaae ain ih separated a with nation separate a as themselves see Macedonians the with the creation of of creation the with East European Quarterly European East y

claim that there is there that claim

Macedonian nation has has nation Macedonian

of Tito’s propaganda.

o difference between the Bulgarian and Macedonian nation Macedonian and Bulgarian the between difference o ,

h Bulgarian the the the 1995:458. a Yugoslavia 51 Macedonian minority in Bulgaria in particular in particular in Bulgaria in minority Macedonian

156

similar position with Bulgaria. The former The Bulgaria. with position similar dniy n aeoi satd o fade to started Macedonia in identity

n Federation n otiue t te neuiy f the of insecurity the to contributed 155

The Macedonian Question, Question, Macedonian The , the present Macedonians present the — - Communist Era: A General A General Era: Communist that is the the is that

and thelanguage ed.James historical , since since , in CEU eTD Collection 160 159 158 s&st=cse http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/opinion/31ihtedbakoy.1.11552267.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=dora%20bakoyanni 157 as identity local the cultivate to was aim which Macedonia of territory the on open were schools when 1860, in Exarchate Bulgarian the of creation the of the suffering with starting the countries neighbouring the is of war memory, propaganda the during collective people Macedonian Macedonian the of part as hand, other the On with the past astheSoviet Union millennia”. “tree than more identity Greek the of part be to considered is which name a Macedonia, name the have cannot no is there If well. as border Greek the outside language Macedonian Moreover, Greece. in minority Macedonian a of existence makers decision Babaniotis t refer north neighbours “Skopjians”, orstate non todescribeas the a their call to prefer Greece in public general the or politicians Greek The people. Macedonian the recognize not does Greece words, other In Michas, Takis Bakoyan Dora Ibid. Bakoyannis, Dora

ter language their o

(accessed 10 May 2012) May 10 2012) (accessed ,

dpe drn te omns ea n cag i, s h Sve Union Soviet the as make past did, to withits a clean break it, change and era Communist the it during name a adopted of use its to sensitivity our recognize would leaders its 1991, FYROM and dissolved Yugoslavia when that believed Greeks [...] country his for Sea Aegean the to outlet an gain h Mcdna lnug i a “riiil construction”. “artificial an is language Macedonian the independence, go one step further further step one go independence, nis Unholy Alliance: Alliance: Unholy

, The View from Athens, fromView The , ,

The New York Times York New The n re t peev te ooeet ad nqees f h s the of uniqueness and homogeneity the preserve to order in

it ,

159 s fe dfnd s “ilc” r codn t te re linguist Greek the to according or “dialect” a as defined often is

Greece and Milošević's Serbia Milošević's and Greece

Therefore the Republic should change the name and to “break up “break to and name the change should Republic the Therefore did.” , March 31, 2008 31, March The New York Times, Times, York New The 160

the Macedonian nation and the self the and nation Macedonian the 52 .

contesting

157

, ( number of Bulgari of number declared its independence in in independence its declared March 31, 2008 31, March Texas

Macedonian nation Macedonian Greece with the the with Greece

a A&M University Press A&MUniversity -

stable “formation”, and when they “formation”, and they stable when separate Macedonian nation and and nation Macedonian separate

158

an, Serbian and Greek and Serbian an, not recognizingnot hrfr, h Greek the Therefore, ,

then the Republic the then - , 2002 , identification of of identification tate ) , , , 44.

deny the the deny

of of the the CEU eTD Collection facilitatingMacedonia’scondition for non provided experience integrity. historical territorial this and securitization, societal of theory its the to to threat According potential a as other the seeing them of each worst the strengthened turn in which securitizations, triggered which measures and events includes Macedonia and Greece between experience historical the shows, above analysis the as Indeed, securitization. successful that argues School Copenhagen the As the by confiscated was which property government. their take to or Greece in citizenship their have to expatriati their with children Macedonians, were the of majority the countries, Communist other Communist the in them 000 sending children), 28 (refugee children of exodus the is War Civil the from story painful A Greece. of security Many Greece. a as from proclaimed were they as returned never and expulsion Greece left Macedonians or imprisoning their and Communist, the of defeat the with government. Greek the against fought and War Civil Greek the du Communist Greek the of side the take to minority Macedonian the pushed turn in which tongue, mother their in speaking of reason a as expatriated or imprisoned were Macedonians assi The minoritygroup. till Greece, and Bulgaria in Macedonians The rulers. new the by policy assimilatory harsh a undergone who too, divided were people Macedonian p three in Macedonia of division and wars Balkantwo leadedto Macedonia of population andterritory the over competition That own. their iaoy oiis f ree i priua udr h Mtxs eie we the when regime, Metaxas the under particular in Greece, of policies milatory

- ae supin o te w sae abo states two the of assumptions case securitization of theMacedonian identity. , itr i oe f h fclttn cniin fr a for conditions facilitating the of one is history rs n 93 Wt te iiin f aeoi, the Macedonia, of division the With 1913. in arts 53 on they lost the right to return return right to the on they lost

the rsn dy r nt eonzd s a as recognized not are day present The Civil War will end in 1949 in end will War Civil The ut each other’s intentions, intentions, other’s each ut danger to the national the to danger to

their homeland, homeland, their - discursive discursive ring CEU eTD Collection 2012) http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2011/ 2011 3, November Skopje, 162 reid.com/polls/31004/macedonians_wonaat_give_up_name_for_nato/ “ 161 Macedonian the for insecurity identity. of feeling present the for speaks society Macedonian the of acti EC latest the by offended deeply are "We writes: letter their in team basketball Macedonia’s sent have who protestors group the of one are personalities r progress EC’s the in ‘Macedonian’ sen were identity Macedonian the of defending in letters of number a a 2011, October in as Moreover, country the of name were the Macedonia changing in citizens against the of 82.5% that shows 2008, in Bucharest in summit NATO non for decision against protest to world the around canters other community in and Toronto Melbourne, Skopje, of streets the on went Yes” Macedonia, audience. the r securitization its for call the when only securitized successfully be can inter worst a of credibility the strengthen further to conditions facilitating historical to referring and threat existential an as issue an audience the to presenting argues, School Copenhagen the as However, Macedonians Won’t Give Up Name for NATO Namefor Up Give Won’t Macedonians Misko Taleski, “ MiskoTaleski, 7 Making, Policy Researchand for Center t ons which deny our Macedonian identity. That is a shameful putdown of us." of putdown shameful a is That identity.Macedonian our denywhich ons

- . to the EU Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fule, as a reaction of omitting the adjective the omitting of reaction a as Fule, Stefan Commissioner Enlargement EU the to

subjective nature of the securitization, as noted by the Copenhagen School, a given issue given a School, Copenhagen the by noted as securitization, the of nature subjective - case assu case

In 1992, a large number of Macedonians under the slogans “Yes, Republic of of Republic “Yes, slogans the under Macedonians of number large a 1992, In mption represents just a call for securitizing the issue in question. Yet, given the given Yet, question. in issue the securitizing for call a just represents mption Brussels flooded with letters defending Ma with defending flooded letters Brussels - recognition of Macedonian statehood. Macedonian of recognition

eport for 2011. Students, intellectuals, sport figures, popular figures, sport intellectuals, Students, 2011. for eport - 9 March, 2008 March, 9 ” ) ) ” http://www.angus 54

, in , cedonian identity cedonian Angus Reid Glo Reid Angus odto fr h NT membership. NATO the for condition

Furthermore, a poll published preceding published poll a Furthermore,

- (accessed 5 June, 2012) June, 5 (accessed h Erpas omnt’ (EC) Community’s Europeans the a letter to the Commissioner Fule. Commissioner the to letter ”, ”, bal Monitor: Polls & Research, Polls Monitor: bal 11/03/feature Southeast European Times European Southeast eceives the approval of of approval the eceives - . 03

(accessed June 5, June5, (accessed 162

This reactionThis diasporas , 161

CEU eTD Collection stren to aimed measures Macedonian identity defensive of adoption the in resulted turn in This place. Gr the to relation in integrity territorial and identity Macedonia’s to threats perceived the of securitization successful the for fulfilled non and (discursive above discussion the on based made be can conclusion a Therefore, , and securing Republic, and ofMacedonia. ofthe thename - discursive facilitating conditions and approval of the audience) were were audience) the of approval and conditions facilitating discursive

eek - Macedonia “name dispute” security dilemma are in in are dilemma security dispute” “name Macedonia 55

ht l tre conditions three all that

te the gthen CEU eTD Collection conditions, of number which securit official politicians, by as integrity societal security of objects reference and territorial both involving dilemma, security societal and interstate in proven has dispute question research study’s this of terms in Therefore, integrity, of andMacedonia thesurvival, thus territorial the even and identity societal the threatens that action offensive an as Macedonians language own its had neither Macedonia that claims Serbian and Bulgarian by weakened already was security societal whose majority, as interpreted was name identity which rights, and autonomy more demand to them Macedon unrecognised the of hands strengtheningthe name country’s the change to government territorial their to threat a constitutes curre by Macedonia name ancient the of use the that way dispute. a such in requirements name their to related dilemmas security shows, above analysis the As Conclusion

oe wr acpe b te re ad y h Mcdna pplto bcue f a of because population Macedonian the by and Greek the by accepted were moves

n trioil integrity territorial and and icrie n non and discursive

demographic rcal s far so tractable

yet another and as the most dangerous threat to the identity of the Slav Slav the of identity the to threat dangerous most the as and another yet ; and ii) ii) and ;

conditions y experts, experts, y b I Mcdna Gec’ rfsl o eonz ter country’s their recognize to refusal Greece’s Macedonia, In . oth Greece and Macedonia have encountered severe societal societal severe encountered have Macedonia and Greece oth - discursive these security dilemmas are the result of securiti of result the are dilemmas security these and societal and I ol age ht hs s eas i the i) because is this that argue would I , .

n mda raiain i Gec ad Macedonia and Greece in organisations media and , as the name Macedonia name the as , ,

. religion. own its nor

aiiaig conditions, facilitating 56

integrity is perceived by perceived is ian minority in Greece and as emboldening emboldening as and Greece in minorityian res eie hi trioil security territorial their define Greeks s o h te Greek the why to as

and

thus

the Greeks as a threat to their their to threat a as Greeks the Greece Greece hs s en by seen is This

is perceived by Greece as Greece by perceived is amo g which ng ask - Macedonian name name Macedonian s

the Macedonian the nt Macedonians nt

sing moves sing intertwined

h ethnic the historical historical ,

CEU eTD Collection Studies InternationalKaufman, 1996. 'AnInter Theory Stuart J., of Press, 1997. Anastasia, Karakasidou, Journal Studies, ofGreekModern Anastasia Karakasidou, Company, 2002. in Anastasia Karakasidou, University 1978. Press, Robert, Jervis, Jan John Herz, Greece Yannis, Hamilakis, Hurst & Company, 2002. Richard, Glogg, Gallant, Thomas W., Generation Fierke, Princeton New University Jersey, 1995. Press, Danforth, Rutledge, 2011. Bourbeau, Security: Jaap, Wilde de Boulder,RiennerLondon:Lynne Publishers, 1998. and Ole, Waever Barry, Buzan Community International Relations Theory and EuropeanSecurity thePolitics of Integration: Power, and Bigo, Didier, “ Context”, and Audience, Agency, Political Relations European Journal ofInternational Securitization: of Faces “Three Thiery, Balzacq, Bibliography ioiy n ree Apc o Pua Society Plural of Aspect Greece: in Minority .,

1950 , New York:, New University Oxford Press, 2007.

22: 149 ai, and Karin, . pp.157 Loring M., Loring Philippe, Philippe, ,

, edited by

New York: M.E Sharpe,York:New 2001

” Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma”, Dilemma”, Security the and Internationalism Idealist When Two BecomeInternaland Two When in One: External Securitizations -

172. ecpin n Msecpin n Internat in Misperception and Perception

Minority in Greece: Aspect of Plural Society Plural of Greece:Aspect in Minority

- 180. The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, ArcheoloAntiquity, Ruins: its and Nation The ogne Ku Ei ed., Erik Knud Jorgensen The Securitization of Migration: A study of movement and order ofmovement A Migration: study Securitization of The

Modern Greece, Kels The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World Transnational a in Nationalism Ethnic Conflict: Macedonian The

, ,

“Cultural Illegitimacy in Greece: the Slavo the Greece: in Illegitimacy “Cultural

ils f ha, il o Blood of Hills Wheat, of Fields “Politicizing Culture: Negating ethnic identity in Greek Macedonia”, Macedonia”, Greek in identity ethnic Negating Culture: “Politicizing trup, M.and Williams. M.C. 11:1(1999). London: Oxford UniversityLondon: Oxford Press, 2001. .

11, no. 2(2005):171

57 osrcig nentoa Rltos Te Next The Relations: International Constructing

eie b Rcad lg, odn Hrt & Hurst London: Glogg, Richard by edited ,

London: Routledge, , London: The University of Chicago Chicago of University The London: , - Ethnic War', oa Politics ional , edited by Richard Glogg, London: Glogg, byRichard edited , Nw rmwr fr Analysis for Framework New A - gy and National Imagination in National and gy 201. - Macedonian ‘non Macedonian World Politics World

Review of InterReview of , New York: Preston Preston York: New , 2000.

Europe” pp. 171 , vol.2, no.2, no.2, vol.2, , , New York: New - minority” -

national national in - 204 .

CEU eTD Collection University 2000. Press Victor, Roudometof, 2002. Question Macedonian the and Bulgaria Victor, Roudometof, University, 2008. California, Andrew, Rossos, Roe, Paul, Dialogue, Dilemmas”, Security ‘Loose’ or ‘Regular’ ‘Tight’ in Responsibility “Actor’s Paul, Roe, Research Roe, Paul Hugh,Poulton, 1993), pp.27 Conflict,” Ethnic and Dilemma Security “The Barry, Posen, Pettifer New SecurityEurope, Agenda in Lemaitreeds., Pierre andKelstrup MortenBuzan, BarryWaever, Ole Palgrave 1999. Macmillan, 1990 of Macedonia”, Policy Foreign the “Engineering Dimitar, Mircev, Integration, Williams, M.C. and M. Kelstrup Question, Drezov, Budapest: C Blerim Kolalli, Athe Kofos the Balkan " Paschalis, Kitromilides, Civil War”, Moldova's in Moscow and Masses, Elites, War: Ethnic to “Spiraling 1996a. J., Stuart, Kaufman, ns: Evangelos ,

ELIAMEP James Kyril

, 36 edited by Vol.32 No.1(March ”, Ethnic violence andthesocietal dilemma security Intrastate "Tragedy"?”, Conflictas“The a Security Dilemma:Ethnic entral International Security , no.2(1999)

London: Rutledge, 2000 European - 47. , ,

, Whothe Macedonians? are ed., in claims”, major the of overview an Identity: “Macedonian

W d nt ie h nm: h scrtzto o ‘Macedonia’”, of securitization the name: the give not do “We Macedonian

E - , 2005 n Vlasis and

6, in in 6, James Pettifer James uropean The NewMacedonia Question The Macedonian Question: culture, historiography, politics, politics, historiography, culture, Question: Macedonian The

Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Greece, Conflict: Ethnic and Identity, National Memory, Collective History Quarterly History : 183 . (English edition). ’ h Nw aeoi Question Macedonia New The Imagined

- niversity and the Macedonians: A history A Macedonians: the and 202. Vlasidis 2001) New York: St. Martin’sNew St. Press, York: 1993. , Palgrave Macmillan, 1999. , Palgrave Macmillan,

International Relations Theory and the Politics of European European of Politics the and Theory Relations International 21(2):

. communities :

103 , 2003. eds.,

108 - 19 Pagr ulse, etot Connecti Westport Publisher, Praeger , 116

London: C.Hurst / - 2 Athens 138.

. , April

’ , London:, 1999. PalgraveMacmillan,

n te rgn o te ainl usin in Question National the of Origins the and - kpe A Ues Symbiosis Uneasy An Skopje:

1989

a New Independent State: the case of of case the State: Independent New a .

, dtd y ae Ptie, London: Pettifer, James by edited

& New York:New Routledge, 2005

, Hoover Institute Press, Stanford Press, Institute Hoover , Survival Co.Publishers, 1995.

Identity, Migration and theand Migration Identity, vl 35, vol. , h Macedonian The Journal of Peace Journal ofPeace o 1 (Spring, 1 no. u, London, cut, ,

MA 1995 Colombia

Security

- thesis 2002, ,

CEU eTD Collection Research Repository Principles” Ifigeneia Discourses inGreece”, and NATO Triandafyllidou Anna of Defeat Macedonia: December 15, of http://www.vmacedonianews.com/2008/04/fm invitation “No 2009 December 15, December 8 aspx 2011) “20 Online Sources: University 2002. Press, Maja, Zehfuss, Foreign Polics. Nikolaos, Zahariadis, AlexanderWendt, 1995.Summer, Politic”, International “Constructing Alexander Wendt, Integration on Constructivist Pessimistic a from Reflections Post Actor: Security a as EU “The Ole, Waever, New SecurityEurope, Agenda in Wæver, by Evangelos Accord Interim the of Signing the t in Dispute Name "The Aristotle, Tziampiris, 18:3,587 Shiping Tang, 2002. Takis McFarland John, Shea, “Gruevski: events at the EU Council expected at great extent”, atexpected Council EU the at“Gruevski:events -

Sovereign Security Order”, Order”, Security Sovereign (

http access Michas, оии аеоса независност македонска години

l, ar Buzan, Barry Ole, — ://

& mtv editedLondon: byKelstrup and M.C.Williams, M. Rutledge, 2000.

Macedonia and Greece: A Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation Balkan New a Define to Struggle A Greece: and Macedonia ed 623

Kofos and VlasisKofos and Company,Inc., Publi 2011) 2011)

, Unholy Alliance: Greece and Milošević's Serbia, Milošević's and Greece Alliance: Unholy

May

New York: Peter Lang Peter 2005. New York: Publishing,

com osrciim n nentoa Relat International in Constructivism 20) Te euiy iem: Cneta Analysis”, Conceptual A Dilemma: Security “The (2009) , Social Theory of

16, 2012). 16, .

mk http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/19781

sec o Pltcl aiuain Eoin, ntttos ad Greek and Institutions, Emotions, Manipulation: Political of Essence Accept Pluralism Working PapersWorking Accept Pluralism http://www.mia.com.mk/default.aspx?vId=69768741&lId=2 / mk

/ Morten emisii

Vlasidis, Athens: London: Pinter,1993. nentoa Relations International , / " shers, 1997. mtv International Politics Kelstrup i n

_ Athens okl (00, Tlrne n Clua Diversity Cultural and “Tolerance (2010), Kokkali produkcija

and - - he Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia after Macedonia of Republic Yugoslav Former he milososki

Skopje: An Uneasy Symbiosis, 1995 Symbiosis, Uneasy An Skopje: 59 - уа б брат бе Пукај ELIAMEP

ire Lemaitre, Pierre /31635/20_

os Te oiis f Reality of Politics The ions: -

, Cambridge 1999. University Press, 8/2010: 2 Retrieved from Cadmus EUI from Cadmus 2Retrieved 8/2010: hoy n te oiis f European of Politics the and Theory nentoa Security International - , 2005(English edition). invitation

(a godini Macedonian Informative Agency,Informative Macedonian ccess Texas A&M University Press, Press, University A&M Texas dniy Mgain n the and Migration Identity, ed April 20,2012).ed April ( ” _ makedonska - for.html Т Продукција, МТВ aeoin News, Macedonian

euiy Studies Security , North Carolina: North ,

o. 20 Vol. _ - nezavisnost Cambridge . 2002

(access (access

, edited , ,

No. ed, ed, ed, . 1 ,

CEU eTD Collection Diaspora, Hellenic 2005. of Policy”, Macedonian Greece's and Manipulations and “Ideas Nikolaos Zahariades, (accessed May 16,2012). 2000 University, Intermarium Wieland (accessed 5,2012) June http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2011/11/03/feature European Taleski, 11, Greece, of Affair Foreign of Ministry uneasy 2008 January Karajkov, http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/gallery/skopje Jakov 2012). macedonia Times “Co Kamm, Henry (access http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/ghosts Georgievski, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lisbon/li2_en.pdf 1992, June 26/27 Lisbon, in Council European Upbraids Greece 03/news/mn Tiny Macedonia, Over Words of Germany”, War Mighty a In “Diplomacy: Murphy, E. Dean reid.com/polls/31004/macedonians_wonaat_give_up_name_for_nato/ Research, & 7 Making, Policy and Research for Center &sq=dora%20bakoyannis&st=cse 2008 Bakoyannis

2011 , http http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/opinion/31ihtedbakoy.1.11552267.html?_r=2&scp=1

- ed, 15.12.2011) Marusic, choice

Arl 3 1994) 23, (April , ).

Misko, :// Carsten,

- Risto, Risto, thesis for Dora, , - ,

63515_1_yugoslav Boris, - - o., no.1 Vol.4, name greeks Wo “Macedonians

. Busl fodd ih etr dfnig aeoin identity”, Macedonian defending letters with flooded “Brussels haverford - A Ues Coc, ae r Nato or Name Choice, Uneasy “An Sinisa, “One Macedonia “One 2001. nflict in the Balkans: Macedonia; For Greeks is more than a name”, a than more is Greeks For Macedonia; Balkans: the in nflict Los Angeles Los

- Times or Got f h Ps Edne te Macedo the Endanger Past the of “Ghost - http://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Regions it “ . -

. h Ve fo Athens from View The - Nato

http://www.e is

- “Skopje 2014: The new face of Macedonia”, Macedonia”, of face new The 2014: “Skopje Soj, oebr , 2011 3, November Skopje, , , more .

edu

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/23/world/conflict (acce e Yr: ete o Esen uoen tde, Columbia Studies, European Eastern for Centre York: New / - dspace - republic Times, than

(access ss with ’ Gv U Nm fr NATO” for Name Up Give n’t ed 3 June, 2012). ed 3June, ce.columbia.edu/research/intermarium/vol4no1/wieland.pdf - a http://www1.mfa.gr/en/fyrom / - handle December 03, 199 03, December name.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

(acceded May(acceded 7,2012) Three Faces: Domestic Debates and Nation Concepts” Nation and Debates Domestic Faces: Three ed 10May 2012) o.1 Pla ulsig Company Publishing Pella Vol.31, - 9 March, 2008, in Angus Reid Glo Reid Angus in 2008, March, 9 /10066/5890 - 60 of - 2014 Conclusion of the Presidency, Annex II, p. 43 p. II, Annex Presidency, the of Conclusion

- the ” ,

- (access past The ?

” (acce 3 - . (

endanger Osservatorio

accessed http://articles.latimes.com/1993 ed 11.05.2012). e Yr Times, York New ss .

ed June - in Future”, nian and -

- name June

macedonia (acceded 5 June, 2012) (acceded 5June, - countries/Macedonia/An

acn e Caucaso, e Balcani - 26, 2012). , 2012 issue/

acse Jn 26, June (accessed

http://www.angus bal Monitor: Polls Monitor: bal - akn Insight, Balkan ).

- s ( akn Insight Balkan in - acce future -

The Journal Journal The the ac 31, March sse New York York New Southeast Southeast - balkans

d April - . - 12

03 4 - - - - , ,

CEU eTD Collection 2012) http://star.dnevnik.com.mk/default.aspx?pbroj=1321&stID=2147477232 Спасе Шуплиновски, 15.12.2011) http јапрекрши „АлександарВелики“ ЕУ: :// . www

. utrinski .

. com . mk

“ /? алд и итн з знамето за вистина и Заблуди ItemID = E 60990

Привременетаспогодбазаимето, DE 61

740 BFE 4 B 9319 ” A , 35 Дневник BEA

(accessed May 15, 15, May (accessed 530 1 Мр 2006. Март 18 , тиси Весник Утрински C 97

( acce ss ed ,