New game for both sides
Redirecting the issue to the Security Council can result either in compromise for both sides or it can become a ‘subject’ to encourage and strengthen the positions in New York
The name still holds Macedonia in hostage. Neither in NATO nor the EU, to go with Greece with the UN and there to reopen the issue of the name, carries the unknown for Macedonia and by all indicators will be influenced by Serbia and the developments in the East. And here again the name of the state gets dimensions of diplomatic theater in New York. The benefits of the foreign policy of Macedonia in the UN would be minimal. Former President Ivanov, current candidate for president of the state, represented this idea in the Security Council (SC) at the annual presentation for 2013. Knowing the relationships President-Prime Minister, the proposal certainly received prior support from the Prime Minister Gruevski. Meanwhile the Albanian parties continue to have conflicting attitudes about the name issue. They have no idea how the “issue” to be redirected to SC.
The European Union after the last report highlighted the question ‘to be redirected’ in the hands of SC. The Government, guided by the first opinion of the Tribunal and the ‘first victory’ with the Greek side, started from the assumption that perhaps the name issue in SC will strengthen the position of Macedonia towards Greece and the Greek veto in EU.
The action of Macedonia is thus associated with the security itself that Macedonia has received on a regional scene, that it has the capacity to handle or resolve the issues with the neighbors in this way.
The name in New York does not guarantee a victory
With good alliance with countries that have veto in the SC, the Macedonian side is interested to weaken Greece. Two decades have already passed and Macedonia remains with the same positions against the Greek side.
In energy plan, Macedonia with Gazprom has been transformed to a “battleground” for energy and geopolitical calculation.
Surprisingly, in this new Russian expansion towards the region, of several internal factors, the U.S. energy corridor “Adriatic via Kaspik” is prevented.
If the government thinks that the Greek victory in the UN Security Council will weaken Greece, then indeed this Resolution will not contribute to the normalization of relations.
The infamous referendum of MFA and PM will clarify this idea further. After the parliamentary elections and the new government, the cabinet should come up with specific points about the current problems and the direction of the country.
At least the international community after the elections expects different treatment of the issue. And the London Summit in September will have no agenda to expand eastward. If the parties can not show another improvement, this will hit Macedonia more than Greece.
If Macedonia is not interested to join NATO, then it should use the case of Crimea and the latest Russian-American events. The vacuum created in the region should be seen as a good opportunity to make these positive steps towards NATO or the EU. Although this process depends on Macedonia, Serbia and Macedonia have not created tension on relations with Russia and are far from imposing pro-international sanctions against Moscow.
U.S., the crisis in Crimea and the name issue
The Americans are interested to speed up the country’s entry into NATO and reduce Russian penetration into the Balkans. Diplomats Nolan and Lee stated that the context should be resolved between the two parties. The crisis in Europe could contribute to Americans’ lower interest in the name. It will be in the agenda, but not like before.
However, social crisis and recent developments lead the leaders to make decisions that could increase tensions, and not just those relating to internal issues, but also to neighboring issues.
Factors or characteristics that drive foreign policy are mainly with emotional or historical character.
2014 was a significant year for Macedonia without or with solution to external and internal problems. What after June 2014?
Redirecting the name issue to the SC may be related to strengthening the relations with Russia and China.
The Chinese and Russians have greater investment benefit in Macedonia and Serbia than in Greece, which implies opposition between the foreign forces themselves in the region.
So, although Macedonia is not so important in international politics, when energy and security policies are intertwined in the international system, then it becomes “geopolitical awakening” and that country or that specific territory gains strategic importance for external players and the country itself.
We do not want to call this ‘transition’ a ‘new game of SC’ but if the government thinks that there it can solve the problem together with the permanent members of the Security Council, the draft plan is welcomed.
But if this action has only one goal, intramuscularly formation against Greece, then we have before us a very difficult diplomatic initiative.
The compromise will be far away if negotiations between the two countries start with this energy and old form of treating the problem. The SC Initiative contains raging nuances of the Government against the decisions of EC regarding Macedonia. (Report 2013).
The United States have supported each initiative that contributed to the improvement and end of the problem. However, it is unknown whether in the SC the question can get a quick solution, knowing the positions of the major powers in the veto-voting system in the UN Security Council.
The U.S. have contributed to peace and strengthening of the country. Now what course will the government take after the publication of the SDA Annual Report remains to be seen. In general, it has not suffered any changes, the country’s foreign policy towards foreign relations.
After two consecutive reports, the EU and the SDA, the country and the Government may enter into calculation that will add to the situation with tensions, prompting nationalist emotions of the past. If Macedonia is interested to join NATO, then it should use the case of Crimea and the latest Russian- American events. The vacuum created in the region should be seen as a good opportunity to make these positive steps towards NATO or the EU. Finally, “redirection” of the issue to SC could result either in compromise by both sides or it can be ‘subject’ to encourage and strengthen the positions in New York. After the parliamentary elections diplomat Nimitz will visit the region again.
However, it is as if the internal situation, capacities, presented level of democratic standards and the latest developments in Crimea had no space left for geopolitical plans and adventures.