Utrinski Vesnik Interview with Terry Davis,
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
January 31, 2005
 |
By Toni Glamcevski, Correspondent to Utrinski Vesnik
Translated by the MHRMI
See the MHRMI's response to this interview:
http://www.mhrmi.org/news/2005/february05_e.asp
Strasbourg – Terry Davis, for the first time since taking over the office and role of Secretary General to the Council of Europe, made clear
his position and consequently the position of the organization, surrounding the name of Macedonia. Davis stated that “the name will only be
changed when a solution will be found between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. “ The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
became a member of the council of Europe under this name. The name can not be changed in a unilateral manner”.
In regards to the US recognition of the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia, the Secretary General of the 46 member-states Organization,
is categorical: “The USA can not solve the problem. The USA can call that a rose, a lilac, a carnation, or any other name of a plant, but that will
not change our stance or our referencing. We do not take orders from the US. I can openly tell you that some people happily came to see me, when the
US recognized that they would call the country Macedonia. They thought that I would follow suit. However, this country became a member of the Council
of Europe under the name, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and that is the name that it will keep. At the same time, I do not want to get
involved – at the insistence of other people – in the usage of the term, Macedonia…In addition, Terry Davis sums up his stance and the stance of the
Council of Europe in the following way: “If the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, decided to call itself Macedonia, that is its decision.
However, I do not want to get involved in that and at the same time I do not want to play that game or to be drawn into that game. The Secretary
General of the Council of Europe goes on to say that Macedonia accepted the term willingly: “If the FYROM did not want to be called the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia when it got admitted to the Council of Europe, it should not have accepted the membership under that name. I am
satisfied that it accepted to become a member, because that is good for its people, because that means that the people from this country can benefit
from the protection of the European convention and the European court of Human Rights. That means that the people of that country can play a role in
our work, that is what interests me the most, more so that how they call themselves.
Nevertheless, the first man of the Council of Europe believes that the problem of the name of Macedonia will be solved. “I know that it is a
sensitive question. There are problems in both Athens and in Skopje, however we now have to do our work, in order to better the quality of life in
both countries. That is more important in the end, because only in this way will we solve the problem. Only with the recognition of the existence of
common problems and common ambitions will our children have a better future, this is what really matters. The name which we give to others and to
ourselves may be solved later. My stance is that we should remain calm, both in Athens as well as in Skopje…”
The usage of the term Macedonia in Strasbourg seems to be becoming very much widespread, even though in the beginning of the reports there is always
a footnote that it is in regards to “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.” This was the case of the last report of the Monitoring-Commission
for post-monitoring dialogue with our country. The president of the Commission, the French Senator Josee Durio, had this to say in regards to the
name of Macedonia, in her report: “ the US recognition of the Constitutional name had lively reactions by Greek authorities,” however at the same
time, she does not defend one side or the other, because “ with that we would be acting outside of our mandate for the informative report”… the
monitoring Commission of the Council of Europe then goes on to describe its own stance in regards to the name: “It would be desirable if the two
sides could find the courage and wisdom to find a solution in regards to the name, which would allow for the solidification of the unity of the
citizens and their identification within what is currently a very internally divided country”.
|
|
|
|
|
