The anniversary comes at a time when Ohrid is again at the centre of political debate.
The Democratic Union for Integration, DUI, the main ethnic Albanian party that was formed by the former leaders of the insurgency, and has been in government for much of the time since the conflict ended – before being relegated to the opposition after the 2024 general elections – has accused the current VMRO DPMNE party-led government of undermining the agreement.
It has pointed to several developments.
These include challenges to the constitutionality of the Law on the Use of Languages, opposition to bar exams being taken in Albanian, the abolition of the so-called “Balancer” mechanism for ensuring equitable ethnic representation in public employment – and a current push to adopt an new Law on Fair and Equitable Representation, designed to replace the “Balancer” system.
Popetrevski, however, doubts a coordinated government plan to dismantle Ohrid. “I see no basis for claiming that there is a coordinated plan to dismantle the Framework Agreement,” he says.
“After 25 years, it is not only legitimate but necessary to reassess how the solutions stemming from the Framework Agreement are functioning,” he adds.
The “Balancer” system illustrates the dilemma. Introduced to help ensure equitable representation of ethnic communities in public institutions, it achieved much of its intended purpose, Popetrevski says – but also produced “absurdities”, such as cases of people changing their declared ethnic identity to obtain employment.
The language law, he adds, also should not be beyond scrutiny, particularly given the concerns raised by the Venice Commission over aspects of its implementation, including the broad use of bilingualism in court proceedings.
At the same time, Popetrevski cautions against ignoring the cumulative effect of several contentious issues being raised within a short period.
“Politics does not happen in a laboratory, in an isolated system,” Popetrevski says. If questions concerning language, equitable representation and the Badinter mechanism are raised simultaneously, this may create an impression among some Albanians “that there is a step backwards from 2001”.
That is why, he argues, any changes to the deal must come with a clear political message.
“If dysfunctional solutions are being corrected, it must be unequivocally clear that the constitutional fundamental values and principles are not being called into question,” he asserts.
At the same time, Popetrevski rejects the DUI’s claim that is the sole “guardian” of Ohrid. “The DUI has no exclusive right to interpret and defend the Framework Agreement,” he insists.
A party that spent almost two decades in government, he argues, also bears responsibility for the agreement’s shortcomings.
“If every criticism of a particular solution is declared an attack on the Framework Agreement, then the agreement is transformed from a mechanism for building cohesion into a tool for day-to-day political mobilization,” he says.
Popetrevski’s assessment is also shaped by his own recollections of 2001.
Aged 25, he was reporting for one of the country’s national television stations when the conflict erupted. Covering a war in his own country while attempting to maintain journalistic distance was one of the most difficult professional challenges of his career.
“In a conflict, nuances are very easily erased. Either you are ‘ours’ or you are ‘theirs’,” he recalls.
In an article several years ago, he wrote that those in his newsroom who managed to be “journalists first and Macedonians and Christians afterwards” were a minority. He stresses that this was not a criticism of his colleagues, but a reflection of the atmosphere of the time.
A quarter of a century later, he believes distance has made those lost nuances easier to see.
“There was genuine dissatisfaction among Albanians with their position in the state. Acknowledging that does not mean justifying the taking up of arms,” he says.
The reverse is equally true, he adds: condemning the use of weapons does not mean denying that serious problems existed before the conflict.
“Perhaps the most important thing we know today is that there was no military solution,” he assesses.
The wider international context was crucial. The United States and European Union opposed any redrawing of borders, even though partition and territorial changes were among the ideas circulating during the conflict.
Beyond simply ‘not shooting each other’