Fyromian Dialogue

Socrates's famous method was the dialectic, from the Greek word that suggests both discussion and analytical sorting. The purpose of dialectic was to strip away the false knowledge and incoherent opinion that most people inherit from their societies and unthinkingly depend on to manage their lives. Although Socrates claimed to doubt that he or anyone else could acquire true knowledge about the good and virtue and the beautiful, he nonetheless believed that examination, critical consciousness applied to questions of virtue and the good, could eliminate false knowledge and muddled opinion.

Socrates saw rational examination and pursuit of truth and virtue as the essence of what a human being is and the highest expression of human nature. That is why he chose to die rather than to give it up: The unexamined life, he said, is no worth living. Basil Venitis points out that Fyromians understand the dialogue in a way that differs sharply from that of Socrates. For them, dialogue does not mean an attempt to rationally debate a topic in order to arrive at the truth. Truth is already given. It's called Tito's Dogma, and the only dialogue that is acceptable is one that will eventually lead to the implementation of Tito's Dogma of finding an exit to the Aegean Sea by robbing the name and heritage of Greek Macedonia.

Venitis notes that at the Bucharest Summit in April 2008, NATO affirmed that Fyrom would become a fully fledged member of the alliance once its bilateral name dispute with Greece is resolved. Nearly two years later, Fyrom continues to rob the name and culure of Greek Macedonia. The Adriatic three countries - Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia - have successfully completed their Membership Action Plans, and as a result, Albania and Croatia have taken their seat at the alliance's table. It is well past time for Fyrom to choose a proper name in order to join them.

Greece asserts that Fyrom wants the name of Greek Macedonia as territorial claim over Greece's northern region, a plan of Tito to find exit to the Aegean Saa. Under Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, all decisions on NATO enlargement must be made by unanimous consent, so Greek opposition alone is enough to block Macedonia's entry to NATO.

Venitis muses that Fyrom continues to bear the costs of courting NATO without enjoying the full benefits of membership. It will inevitably become costlier politically for Skopje to justify the time and expense of chasing NATO accession as well as its increased commitment to NATO missions such as Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Iraq.

The U.N.-mediated talks, supporting bilateral negotiations, should continue before Fyrom's accession to NATO. Therefore significant diplomatic pressure will have to be applied to Fyrom to overcome its stubbornness, and choose a name that reflects its Slavic heritage. Fyrom hoodwinks a number of powerful advocates within the alliance to push its Tito dogma, including Austrian Minister for European and International Affairs Michael Spindelegger, Slovenian Prime Minister Borut Pahor, and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Significantly, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe's political advisor, Ambassador Lawrence Butler, is a former U.S. ambassador to Fyrom.

Venitis points out that both U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder and President Obama have also been vocal supporters of NATO enlargement. NATO expansion has traditionally enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the United States, and the Obama Administration should rally congressional support for NATO's Open Door Policy. Accession of Fyrom in time for the 2010 Lisbon Summit at the end of the year is impossible, because Fyromians have to vote for the new name of Fyrom. Ambassador Daalder should also use the U.S.'s diplomatic channels in Europe, in concert with his colleagues in NATO, to increase international pressure on Fyrom to resolve this matter expeditiously.

NATO expansion has been a major success story for the alliance and has played a crucial role in stabilizing and reforming large parts of Europe. Greece was itself brought into the alliance in 1952 on the first wave of enlargement to advance Europe's strategic reach in southern Europe. Fyrom has chosen a Euro-Atlantic path for its future and met its obligations to qualify for future membership, liberalizing its economy and professionalizing its military. It has shown itself to be capable of providing, not just consuming, security.

Nevertheless, Fyrom has territorial aspirations against Greece. Fyrom's membership prospects must finally be advanced before the window of opportunity closes, and for that Fyrom must stop robbing the name and heritage of Greek Macedonia. Venitis asserts that NATO must send a clear message that it remains open for business and that accession is possible for all free, democratic nations in Europe that dot not rob the name and heritage of their neighbors.

ENDS