Καταστροφική
αλλά κυρίως ανησυχητική για τη
Δημοκρατία χαρακτηρίζει τη
Συμφωνία των Πρεσπών για το Σκοπιανό το
έγκυρο περιοδικό TIME.
«Η συμφωνία για αλλαγή
ονόματος της Μακεδονίας είναι ένας θρίαμβος για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, αλλά
ανησυχητική για τη Δημοκρατία», είναι ο τίτλος του άρθρου του TIME για τη Συμφωνία των Πρεσπών.
Το αμερικανικό περιοδικό
αποδομεί με επιχειρήματα τη Συμφωνία
των Πρεσπών και προειδοποιεί παράλληλα για τους σοβαρούς κινδύνους που
δημιουργεί η επικύρωσή της.
Το γνωστό αμερικανικό
περιοδικό (με κυκλοφορία 2.500.000 αντιτύπων διεθνώς) επισημαίνει ότι μετά τη
διάλυση της Γιουγκοσλαβίας το 1991, ο
βόρειος γείτονας της Ελλάδας πήρε το όνομα «Μακεδονία», αλλά η Αθήνα αρνήθηκε
να το αναγνωρίσει, λέγοντας ότι νομιμοποιεί τις εδαφικές διεκδικήσεις στη
βόρεια ελληνική επαρχία της Μακεδονίας.
«Για την Ευρωπαϊκή
Ένωση», συνεχίζει λίγο πιο κάτω η ανάλυση, «η Συμφωνία των Πρεσπών είναι
ταυτόχρονα μια γεωπολιτική νίκη και μια δικαίωση του οράματός της για το πώς
πρέπει να λειτουργεί η διεθνής πολιτική».
Ωστόσο, όπως
επισημαίνει, υπάρχουν τρία προβλήματα με το αφήγημα αυτό.
Το πρώτο, σύμφωνα με το
TIME, είναι ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση «διάλεξε να αγνοήσει προβληματικές πτυχές
μιας διαδικασίας επικύρωσης που αμφισβήτησε τους συνταγματικούς κανόνες και τις
αρχές του κράτους δικαίου τόσο στη Μακεδονία όσο και στην Ελλάδα».
Όπως εξηγεί, για να
περάσει η συμφωνία και στα δύο κοινοβούλια «χρειάστηκε πολιτικό παζάρι που
έφτασε στα όρια της νομιμότητας».
Χαρακτηριστικά αναφέρει
ότι ο Ζόραν Ζάεφ για να περάσει τη συμφωνία από το δικό του κοινοβούλιο
χρησιμοποίησε απειλές για δικαστικές διώξεις, αλλά και έναν αμφιλεγόμενο νόμο
για πολιτική αμνηστία, ενώ ασκήθηκαν μεγάλες πιέσεις και από ξένες κυβερνήσεις.
Για τον Αλέξη Τσίπρα,
σημειώνει ότι για να περάσει τη συμφωνία στηρίχθηκε σε βουλευτές που ήταν
αντίθετοι σε αυτή, αλλά «δελεάστηκαν με την υπόσχεση κυβερνητικών θέσεων», ενώ
αναφέρει και τις καταγγελίες εναντίον του Αλέξη Τσίπρα ότι «ανακατεύεται με το
δικαστικό σώμα, τα Μέσα Ενημέρωσης και το στρατό».
Το δεύτερο πρόβλημα που
αναδεικνύει το έγκριτο αμερικανικό περιοδικό είναι ότι «και οι δύο κυβερνήσεις
περνάνε τη Συμφωνία των Πρεσπών ενάντια
στη βούληση μεγάλου μέρους της χώρας τους».
Θυμίζει δε ότι όλες οι
δημοσκοπήσεις στην Ελλάδα «δείχνουν ισχυρή λαϊκή πλειοψηφία ενάντια στη
συμφωνία», ενώ υπογραμμίζει ότι «η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση μοιάζει ξανά να εμφανίζεται
ως μια γραφειοκρατία που προτιμά να αγνοεί τις λαϊκές αντιδράσεις και την
κυριαρχία των πιο αδύναμων κρατών».
Το τρίτο πρόβλημα είναι
ότι «ακόμα και ο γεωπολιτικός στόχος της σταθεροποίησης της περιοχής κινδυνεύει
από τη συμφωνία, ακριβώς επειδή το πολιτικό μίγμα στην Ελλάδα και τη Μακεδονία
είναι τόσο ασταθές».
Μάλιστα, υποστηρίζει ότι
στη γειτονική μας χώρα η αλλαγή ονόματος «υποστηρίζεται από ένα συνασπισμό μιας
μειοψηφία της κυρίαρχης σλαβομακεδονικής εθνοτικής ομάδας και την εθνοτική
Αλβανική μειονότητα, ενώ είναι αντίθετη η πλειοψηφία των Σλαβομακεδόνων.
Με άλλα λόγια, η Συμφωνία
βάζει ένα συνασπισμό μειονοτήτων απέναντι στην πλειοψηφία της πλειοψηφίας. Ένα
τέτοιο σκηνικό θα ανάψει και πάλι τις εθνοτικές εντάσεις και θα αυξήσει την
πολιτική πόλωση στη Μακεδονία».
Το TIME ολοκληρώνει την
αποδόμηση της Συμφωνίας των Πρεσπών ως εξής: «Σε μια περίοδο με σοβαρά
προβλήματα στο κράτος δικαίου σε ορισμένα κράτη-μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και
λαϊκές αναταραχές σε άλλα, μια τέτοια προσέγγιση στα προβλήματα της Ευρώπης
είναι κοντόφθαλμη και αυτοκαταστροφική».
Ολόκληρο το άρθρο του
TIME στα αγγλικά:
Macedonia’s Name Change Deal Is a Triumph for the E.U., But Worrying for
Democracy
Last June, in the picturesque lake region of Prespes, Greece and
Macedonia seemed to set aside decades of hostility, as leaders from both
countries signed an accord to rename the former Yugoslav republic. Under that
eponymous agreement, signed in the presence of European and U.N. officials,
Macedonia will become the Republic of North Macedonia. And now, after six
months of trying to secure approval by both parliaments, a deal to resolve one
of the most intractable — and to many outside observers incomprehensible —
bilateral disputes in the Balkans is close to fruition.
After Macedonia enacted all necessary changes in its constitution, the
Prespes deal is now very close to ratification by Greece as well, with Greek
Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras winning a vote of confidence in Athens on Jan. 16
— called because of disagreements in his coalition over the agreement. The
name-change deal is now expected to be ratified by Greece later this week,
which will pave the way for North Macedonia’s entry to NATO and the start of
negotiations to discuss it joining the European Union.
After the disintegration of Yugoslavia in 1991, Greece’s northern
neighbor took the name “Macedonia”—but Athens refused to recognize it, saying
it gave legitimacy to territorial claims over the northern Greek province of
Macedonia. (The U.N. calls it “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.”) The
dispute has led Athens to repeatedly block its neighbor’s attempts to join NATO
and the E.U., a cause of concern for European leaders who want to strengthen
those alliances in the face of Russian aggression.
Even though the dispute between the two countries is centered on the
legal question of the official name of a country, it touches upon emotional
issues of history and identity in both countries. For the citizens of what will
soon be “North Macedonia,” the term “Macedonia” is a marker of their distinct
national identity in the Balkans. For Greeks on the other hand, Macedonia is
intertwined with important periods and personalities in a historical narrative
that extends back to ancient times. Under the weight of still vivid memories of
conflict and war during the 20th century, the two nations have found it
impossible to reconcile on a jointly agreed understanding and use of the word
‘Macedonia’—until last summer. And still, the leaders of both countries have
come up against deeply entrenched nationalist attitudes.
The E.U. has supported the agreement throughout all the stages of its
negotiation, signing and ratification. For the E.U., the Prespes deal
represents all that is good about multilateralism and the rules-based
international order at a time when these values are under attack by nationalism
and populism in Europe, and by President Donald Trump and Russia further
afield. It clears a stumbling block in its enlargement to the Western Balkans
and puts back on track its project of transforming this region by enmeshing it
in its institutional and legal order. For the E.U. the Prespes agreement then
is both a geopolitical victory and a vindication of its vision of how
international politics should work.
But there are three problems with this narrative.
Due political process
The E.U. has chosen to ignore problematic aspects of a ratification
process that has challenged constitutional norms and rule of law principles in
both Macedonia and Greece. Because both Tsipras and Macedonian Prime Minister
Zoran Zaev have razor-thin majorities in their parliaments, pushing through the
deal in both countries has required political bargaining that has pushed the
limits of legality.
In Macedonia, Zaev, who lacked the two-thirds majority in parliament to
change Macedonia’s constitution, used both threats of judicial prosecutions for
corruption and a questionable law of partial amnesty to induce opposition
lawmakers to vote for his constitutional amendments. Opposition MPs in Skopje
were reportedly under immense pressure by both supporters and opponents of
Prespes, including foreign governments, to vote accordingly. Each side has
accused the other of threatening physical violence or promising bribes.
In Athens, the situation is even more convoluted. Tsipras’s government
survived the vote of no confidence in order to ratify Prespes, but its
minuscule majority relies on some opponents of the deal, who were lured with
the promise of government jobs. Instead, Tsipras expects to ratify the
agreement this week by peeling off MPs from smaller opposition parties,
potentially to be rewarded with inclusion in the electoral lists of his party
in forthcoming elections. Tsipras has already been accused by the opposition in
recent months for undue meddling in the judiciary, media and the army. Now, his
patching up of ad hoc majorities for different votes in parliament has
challenged norms of parliamentary and constitutional procedure and contributed
to the further mistrust of the political systems by Greek citizens.
For the E.U., concerns over rule of law and due political process should
be taken seriously—particularly at a time when many of its member-states
struggle with authoritarianism and illiberalism. Meanwhile, all Balkan states
that the E.U. hopes to welcome one day continue suffer from persistent problems
of corruption and strongman politics. In a world defined by the struggle
between liberal democracy and populism, process matters as much as content. The
process through which Prespes is being ratified leaves a lot to be desired.
Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras (R) and Macedonian Prime Minister
Zoran Zaev raise their hands during a signing ceremony between officials from
Greece and Macedonia at Prespes Lake on June 17, 2018.
Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras (R) and Macedonian Prime Minister
Zoran Zaev raise their hands during a signing ceremony between officials from
Greece and Macedonia at Prespes Lake on June 17, 2018. Sakis
Mitrolidis—AFP/Getty Images
An unpopular deal
Second, both governments are pushing through Prespes against the wishes of
large parts of their countries. In Macedonia, the government failed to win a
consultative referendum on Prespes in September — a vote that the E.U. has
chosen to ignore. In Greece all opinion polling shows a strong popular majority
against the deal.
Protestors have staged massive demonstrations against the deal,
including one on Sunday that was dispersed forcefully by police and that
produced images reminiscent of the darkest days of the Eurozone crisis and the
violent anti-austerity demonstrations in Athens. Just a few months before a
European Parliament election where populists are expected to score gains, the
E.U. seems yet again to be presenting itself as a bureaucracy bent on ignoring
popular reactions and the sovereignty of weaker states.
Reigniting tensions
Finally, even the geopolitical goal of stabilization of the region is
endangered by the deal, precisely because the political mix in Greece and
Macedonia is so volatile. In Macedonia the name-change is supported by a
coalition of a minority of the dominant Slav-Macedonian ethnic group and
Macedonia’s ethnic Albanian minority, while it is opposed by the majority of
Slav-Macedonians. In other words, the deal pits a coalition of minorities
against a majority of the majority. Such an arrangement is bound to reignite
ethnic tensions and increase political polarization in Macedonia—the exact
opposite of the E.U.’s intention.
In Greece, on the other hand, Prespes tarnishes public perception of the
E.U., interrupting a period of slow and painful rehabilitation after the
Eurozone crisis of 2010-15. In a country still scarred by the economic crisis
and always susceptible to populist relapses, the rekindling of nationalism by
an E.U.-sponsored deal runs against the E.U.’s interest of stability in a Eurozone
member-state.
The E.U.’s support for the Prespes agreement flows from admirable ideals
of European integration. But it is also another example of a bureaucratized
mode of governing that often ignores political realities and popular
sensibilities. Most of all, it reflects a self-congratulatory attitude that
views E.U. accession and membership as a cure-all for complex ethnic, economic
and social problems, but also tolerates bargains with questionable national
elites and turns a blind eye to their methods as long as they achieve pro-E.U.
results on the ground. At a time of serious problems with the rule of law in
some E.U. member-states and popular upheaval in others, such an approach to
Europe’s problems is short-sighted and self-defeating.
Πηγή:
Lykavitos
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου