Η " σύγκρουση " του Ελληνικού Αναρχικού χώρου με τις ΗΠΑ και η εμπλοκή της ΕΥΠ για το Μακεδονικό.

Ο επίμαχος χαρτης του σώματος Πεζοναυτών των ΗΠΑ, 1999-2004

Η αναζωπύρωση της συζήτησης για την ονοματοδοσία της ΦΥΡΟΜ και οι 

ανακοινώσεις, δηλώσεις, τοποθετήσεις που έχουν καταγραφεί το τελευταίο 

χρονικό διάστημα, καθιστούν επιτακτική την ανάγκη το ζήτημα της 

ονοματοδοσίας της ΦΥΡΟΜ να τεθεί στην σωστή του βάση, οπως αυτή 

διαμορφώθηκε μεταξύ 1999 και 2004.

Το ζήτημα της ονοματοδοσίας της ΦΥΡΟΜ οφείλουμε να το αντιμετωπίσουμε 

εκτός απο την ιστοριογραφική, συνομωσιολογική, 

φαντασιακή, μαρξιστική, θρησκευτικοκεντρική, μυθολογική, μυθοκρατική 

και 

 εθνολογική του διάσταση ως

 πρόβλημα χωρογεωγραφικό, γεωστρατηγικό, 

υψίστης Εθνικής Ασφαλείας.

Ο λόγος για τον οποίον πρέπει να το αντιληφθούμε και διαχειρισθούμε ως 

προηγούμενως περιγράφει, οφείλεται στο γεγονός ότι με την αυτήν 

νοηματοδότηση έγινε αντιληπτό απο τις δύο υπερδυνάμεις και αμέσως μετά 

τον Β'Π.πόλεμο.

Το 1963 ένας Ελληνας πολιτικός παρασημοφορήθηκε απο την Μόσχα για 

τους αγώνες του πρός ανεξαρτητοποίηση της Μακεδονίας και Θράκης , 

γεγονός που προκάλεσε κοινωνική και πολιτική αναταραχή στην Ελλάδα η 

οποία απέκτησε και διεθνή διάσταση.

Απο το βιβλίο....Οι Ελληνορωσικαί σχέσεις δια μέσου των αιώνων

 Η τότε Σοβιετική Ένωση αναγκάσθηκε 

σε οπισθοχώρηση μπροστά στο 

ανεξέλεγκτο της καταστάσεως που η ίδια τροφοδότησε.

Το 1999 το Σώμα των Αμερικανών Πεζοναυτών, ετοίμασε μια επιχειρησιακή 

μελέτη για την ΦΥΡΟΜ , την αποκαλούσε ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ, μελέτη η οποία 

περιλάμβανε και χάρτη στον οποίον το "Ελληνικό" τμήμα της Μακεδονίας, 

εμφανιζόνταν υπο Ελληνική κατοχή!!

Δημοσιεύματα εποχής στην ΦΥΡΟΜ, ανέφεραν ότι ο αμερικανικός στρατός 

 αναγνωρίζει ότι η ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ τελεί υπο Ελληνική και Βουλγαρική κατοχή!

 Η υπόθεση με τον χάρτη, βγήκε στον άερα απο την σελίδα του Αναρχικού-

Αντιεξουσιαστικού χώρου το 2004...μετά δλδ απο 5 περίπου χρόνια και 

προκάλεσε θύελλα αντιδράσεων. 

 

Είναι χαρακτηριστικός ο τρόπος με τον οποίον απάντησε στα ερωτήματα των 

δημοσιογράφων ο τότε εκπρόσωπος τύπου του υπουργείου εξωτερικών των 

Η.Π.Α. (Ο διάλογος παρατίθεται παρακάτω)

Τα τέλη της δεκαετίας του 1990 και οι αρχές της δεκαετίας του 2000, 

αποτέλεσαν για την Ελλάδα πεδίο σκληρής σύγκρουσης για το 

ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΚΌ με αιχμή του δόρατος, οργάνωση με έδρα την Αθήνα, η οποία 

προς τραγική ειρωνεία αυτής, επικαλείτο τις θέσεις του ΝΑΚΡΑΤΖΑ και το 

βιβλίο αυτού η ....Κοινή καταγωγή Ελλήνων, Τούρκων και Βουλγάρων, για να 

ισχυροποιήσει την θέση και περι Μακεδονικής εθνότητας στην Ελλάδα.

Βέβαια, ο Νακρατζάς στο βιβλίο του γράφει ότι κάθε ίχνος "Μακεδόνα" 

εξαφανίσθηκε με την κάθοδο των Σλαύων απο τις σφαγές που επέφεραν 

στους πληθυσμούς της βορείου Ελλάδος.

Αυτό έιχε σαν αποτέλεσμα η συγκεκριμένη οργάνωση να ανακόψει την 

προπαγάνδα της αφού ο μέντωρας της αποδείχθηκε δήμιος της!

Την ιδία εποχή εκδόθηκε και η πρώτη Ελληνόφωνη Βουλγαρική εφημερίδα με 

γραφεία στο κέντρο των Αθηνών, πολυκατοικία στην οδό Σ...... και την πρωτη 

σελίδα της κοσμούσε η φωτογραφία της πόλεως Καβάλας με τον τίτλο ...η 

"Καβάλα μας".

Απο αυτά τα ολίγα να καταλήξουμε ότι το ζήτημα της ονοματοδοσίας δεν 

πρέπει να προσεγγίζεται με συμβατικούς, συναισθηματικούς, ιδεολογικούς 

όρους αλλά με το ψυχρό συμφέρον της Εθνικής Ασφάλειας της Ελλάδος και 

κατ' επέκταση αυτής της Νοτιοανατολικής Ευρώπης , αφού η Ελλάδα 

εμφανίζεται ειρηνόφιλη και μη αναθεωρητική.

Οι σχέσεις με τις σύμμαχες και όμορες χώρες περνούν απο πολλά και 

διαφορετικά στάδια στα οποία ενα κράτος , ενας λαός, οφείλει αφενός να 

μην παρασύρεται  απο αβρότητες και αφετέρου να μην υποκύπτει σε 

απαιτήσεις και αιτήματα που θίγουν ευθέως την Εθνική υπόσταση και 

Ασφάλεια του!

Η ανάδειξη εκείνου του χάρτη, οδήγησε σε υπαναχώρηση της τότε πολιτικής 

των ΗΠΑ, μια υπαναχώρηση η οποία δεν θα επιτυγχάνετο αμα τη μη 

δημοσίευση του!

Φυσικά, δεν μπορούμε να γνωρίζουμε τι θα πράξουν οι μελλοντικές 

κυβερνήσεις των μεγάλων δυνάμεων αλλά και οι όμορες, με το σκεπτικό ότι 

θα έχουμε αναγνωρίσει την γειτονική χώρα ως ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ! 

 

Εκείνη η αποκάλυψη, έσωσε την χώρα, κυριολεκτικά και μεταφορικά.

Επομένως, όποια συζήτηση που να περιλαμβάνει την λέξη 

ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ, αποτελεί ευθεία απειλή για την

 ασφάλεια και συνοχή ης Ελλάδος και κατ' επέκταση της 

Βαλκανικής χερσονήσου με άγνωστες προεκτάσεις.

Στην συνέχεια παρατίθεται ο διάλογος για τον επίμαχο χάρτη:

  QUESTION: According to a map in my possession, appearing in the U.S. Marine Corps Country Handbook November 2003, under the title "Macedonian Occupation," includes unfortunately the entire Greek Macedonia with a very, very provocative and undiplomatic front-page text against the territorial integrity of Greece. I was told yesterday by a DOD source that this map was drafted during the era of Richard Holbrook when he was Under Secretary for European Affairs in 1999 and it's still valid even today. And it was also verified by Ambassador Nicholas Burns to a group of Greek Americans who (inaudible) to the departure from Athens to Brussels and it was also confirmed to the same group by DOS official -- I have his name -- saying to them specifically, "Nothing has been changed." 

Any explanation since the text of this language is a diplomatic one and you told us the other day that you, as the Department of State, has had the last word in many diplomatic exchanges?

MR. BOUCHER: I think you just had the last word. This is a Marine handbook?

QUESTION: Yes, it's --

MR. BOUCHER: With a map --

QUESTION: That's correct.

MR. BOUCHER: -- that you think was drafted by Mr. Holbrook?

QUESTION: It's Country Handbook Macedonia United States --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry. I can't account for something in a Marine handbook. I assume almost every map I've seen that the U.S. Government produces has a footnote on it saying this is not the definitive statement of borders or recognition issues. I don't know if there was such a footnote on it or not, but I'm not going to be able to account for every map in a Marine handbook.

QUESTION: Well, I'm saying when the Department of Defense is drafting a document, something like that, I know it's coming from --

MR. BOUCHER: I, frankly, don't know --

QUESTION: Who is in charge?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know who the author of the map is.

QUESTION: Who did the diplomatic language, you or the DOD?

MR. BOUCHER: It could be from the Defense Mapping Agency. I don't, frankly, know where they get their maps.

QUESTION: And why they are saying, "Macedonia Occupation" --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to tell you about the Marine Corps Handbook. You're going to have to ask the Marine Corps about that one.

______________________

Για το πότε πάρθηκε η απόφαση:

QUESTION: I guess I'm just not sure. Why did you decide to take this decision or to make this? I understand it was made by the Secretary yesterday.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Why now? Does it have anything to do with the referendum on Sunday?

MR. BOUCHER: It was day before yesterday.

QUESTION: Does it have anything to do with -- does it have anything to do with --

QUESTION: It was made on Election Day?

MR. BOUCHER: No, it wasn't, sorry, yesterday.

QUESTION: Yesterday?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Does it have anything to do with the election there, the referendum on Sunday? Are you trying to --

MR. BOUCHER: We think that this is the appropriate time to make this step. It's something that we have obviously kept under advisement for a long time, something that, as you know, has been in the air, under discussion, people encouraged us to do or not to do. The fact that the referendum is coming up is part of the equation. We are certainly looking for ways to support the full implementation of the Ohrid Agreements, including the decentralization that's so important to that, and we felt therefore this was the appropriate time to take the step.
.....
QUESTION: How long has it been being batted around? I notice that as recently as October 14th you were up here on the podium saying that the name is the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and that any references to it in official -- U.S. official documents or otherwise to it as simply Macedonia or the Republic of Macedonia were mistakes or errors. In fact --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say they were errors. I said they were --

QUESTION: Well, you said it was shorthand. You had --

MR. BOUCHER: It was shorthand, yeah.

QUESTION: You -- in response to the question, you said that the Department had gone back and corrected the transcript of the briefing --

MR. BOUCHER: That was a transcript that said "formerly known as" instead of "formally known as," an index. So that was a mistake. It was not consistent with the policy at the time.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, so, as a -- on October 14th, when you said that the official name was the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, was the review underway?

MR. BOUCHER: This is not the product of some formal committee review process. This was a policy recommendation that was arrived at by consultations with different people in the Department. In-- I don't know exactly when they started discussing it, but the decision was just made in the last few days -- yesterday.

__________________

Για ενημέρωση Ε.Ε., Ελλ. κυβέρνησης, ΟΗΕ:

QUESTION: Any representation prior to this decision with the European Union?

MR. BOUCHER: We've certainly -- this is a topic that we've handled over a long period of time in conjunction with the European Union and we've had a lot of discussions with the European Union about the Macedonia name, the Greek question of Macedonia and Greece, so it is certainly a subject that both they and we are familiar with. In terms of the actual decision to do this, we had been in touch-- we were in touch with the European Union to tell them of the decision.

QUESTION: Otherwise, the European Union is agreeing with your policy? Excuse me?

MR. BOUCHER: You'll have to ask the European Union what their position is on this issue.

QUESTION: You made the statement. You said you have discussed this matter a long time and you give account of detail, so I would like to know what is—what is the European Union statement about this.

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry. If you want to ask what the opinion of the European Union is, you'll have to ask a spokesman for the European Union.

QUESTION: No, I'm saying is your presentation on your part --

MR. BOUCHER: You can ask 20 times. If you want the European position, you have to ask a spokesman for the Europeans.

QUESTION: Why did you totally --

QUESTION: Did you ask the European Union whether they agree about it, with it, or did you just notify them what you're doing?

QUESTION: Exactly.

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we told the European -- we were in contact with European Union to tell them of our decision.

QUESTION: In advance?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was in advance.

QUESTION: What did you totally agree on the UN talks and proceeded unilaterally yesterday (inaudible), any communication, consultation with the UN negotiator Matthew Nimetz prior to that?

MR. BOUCHER: I know we were in touch with him. I don't know the exact timing on it, but the point I think we make, this is a decision the United States made because we believe it's the appropriate decision at this time for a policy that we want to pursue, that we want to show support for the path that is being followed by the government in Macedonia towards more stability and a multiethnic society.

The uh--at the same time, we would certainly welcome any progress that can be made in the UN discussions and would accept the outcome of those discussions if Macedonia agrees and the UN work out -- you know, can work things out, and we certainly would hope those talks would reach a speedy and a mutually agreeable conclusion.
.....
QUESTION: Did you have consultation prior with -- besides with Greece -- Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia and Montenegro?

MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of, no.

Sir.

QUESTION: According to the Greeks, you didn't tell them that you are ready to recognize FYROM, that you didn't have any consultation with them. It seems to me that you consulted with everybody except the Greeks.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I've described any particular -- I mean, it depends on how you -- what you describe as consultations. I think I've tried to be frank with you and say that this is certainly a subject where we've talked many times with many people, and people know our views, we've all discussed the pros and cons of this kind of step, and certainly the Secretary is personally very familiar with the issues, has been dealing with it for many, many years.
And so I think we all sort of know the pros and cons. We balance the views. But this was a decision that the United States took because we felt it was the appropriate decision to us. And for those who we've been in touch with in the last 24 hours or so, we've really been telling them about our decision, not engaging in some further consultation.

QUESTION: Not before the 24 hours. For example, did Secretary discuss it with the Foreign Minister of Greece in New York in September?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think it came up there.
......
QUESTION: When was the first time Greece was told of the decision, and at what level?

MR. BOUCHER: Our Ambassador told the Greek, I think, Foreign Minister, if not his office, if not him then his office, yesterday afternoon, our time.

QUESTION: Well, is this -- were these discussions that you did a preemptive notification of them: this is what we're planning to do? Or did they hear that you had done this and then they called you, and you gave them an explanation? I mean --

MR. BOUCHER: We called people up and said we've made a decision, here's what we're going t