While rhetoric dominates the domestic stage, Skopje’s refusal to implement the agreed-upon constitutional amendments is turning a European roadmap into a dead end.
North Macedonia summoned Bulgaria’s ambassador in Skopje, Zhelyazko Radukov, for a demarche after Bulgaria’s foreign minister used the phrase “our North Macedonian partners” on May 11.
This is not the place for a linguistic analysis of the adjective used by Veselislava Petrova-Chamova. Nor is it necessary to remind those in power in Skopje that Bulgaria was the only European country which, until the 2018 Prespa Agreement officially changed the country’s name to North Macedonia, referred to it as the Republic of Macedonia. For decades, Sofia stood alone in this recognition, ignoring the term “former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (FYROM) despite sharp reactions from other Balkan neighbors.
When it comes to the adjective “North Macedonian”, however, Skopje’s reaction raises an obvious question: why is the same term tolerated when it is used by international news agencies, the US State Department, American diplomatic missions and numerous Western institutions, including in formulations such as “the inauguration of the North Macedonian president”?
Here are concrete examples in which Western media and US state institutions use the form “North Macedonian” for institutions, politicians or state structures of the country.
Reuters uses the wording “North Macedonian president”. The term appears in numerous reports by the global news agency. One of its stories was headlined: “North Macedonian president’s inauguration revives name dispute with Greece”.
In other reports, Reuters writes “North Macedonian parliament”. The same wording is used for political parties: “North Macedonian opposition party”. This has been the case for years, including when VMRO-DPMNE was in opposition: “North Macedonian opposition party VMRO-DPMNE leader”, “North Macedonian opposition party”, “North Macedonian leader”.
AFP also uses “North Macedonian” for citizens and political figures from that country. For example, it has referred to Nikola Gruevski as “former North Macedonian leader Nikola Gruevski”.
The New York Times also uses the term “North Macedonian” in its publications.
If the authorities in Skopje believe that these are private media outlets which choose their own terminology, then the next logical step would be a demarche to the US government and American diplomatic missions.
The wording “North Macedonian” is used in US administrative, consular and diplomatic documents. The official website of the US State Department includes the formulation: “Email the North Macedonian Embassy”. This is particularly important because it is not journalistic language, but official US consular and administrative terminology.
The State Department uses the same form in other official communications: “Senior Bureau Official Hanrahan joins Deputy Secretary Landau’s meeting with North Macedonian Foreign Minister Timčo Mucunski at the Department of State”, “North Macedonian authorities”, and “Secretary Rubio met with the North Macedonian minister of foreign affairs”.
US consular and legal texts also use formulations such as “North Macedonia’s Adoption Authority” and “North Macedonia’s Central Authority”. The presence of “North Macedonian Embassy”, “North Macedonian Foreign Minister” and “North Macedonian authorities” shows that the adjectival form is used by the State Department itself.
It would also be interesting to hear the position of the authorities in Skopje on descriptions of North Macedonia used by officials in Serbia, such as “Old Serbia”, “Southern Serbia” and “ancestral Serbian land”, as well as on the portrayal of VMRO members as “Bulgarian terrorists” and “gangs”. No reaction is expected either to the fact that Greece is covered with signs reading “Skopia”.
The problem is not the adjective used by the Bulgarian diplomat, who called on Skopje not to miss the opportunity for EU membership. The problem lies elsewhere, and it is visible in the daily conduct of those in power in Skopje: their unwillingness to live in a truly independent state and to secure a European future for its citizens.
As for the defence of “identity”, it is most clearly exposed by the mass acquisition of Bulgarian citizenship through proof of Bulgarian origin by representatives of the very authorities in Skopje.
Following an initiative by the French EU Presidency, North Macedonia agreed to a compromise framework in June 2022. Approved by all EU members, this ‘French proposal’ served as the formal mechanism to unlock the country’s path toward European Union membership.
According to the protocol of the second Joint Intergovernmental Commission, Skopje officially agreed that the next EU accession conference would only take place after it includes Bulgarians in its Constitution. To date, however, North Macedonia has failed to implement this legal change, effectively stalling its own European integration process due to a lack of political will.
In the same protocol, the government of the Republic of North Macedonia confirms its commitment that nothing in its Constitution can or should be interpreted as a basis for interference in Bulgaria’s internal affairs for the purpose of protecting the status and rights of persons who are not citizens of North Macedonia. This clause de facto and de jure means that Skopje will not claim recognition of a “Macedonian minority” in Bulgaria.
The protocol also provides for measures against hate speech targeting Bulgarians and Bulgaria, the rehabilitation of victims of the communist regime in Macedonia, and the opening of the archives of the Yugoslav-era security services. | BGNES