Anyone out there interested in Macedonia?

Here’s an interview I did over the weekend for Slobodanka Jovanovska of Utrinski Vesnik, a Skopje paper:

Q. Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski soon will travel in U.S. to have a meeting with the high officials in the State Department. It will be his first official visit after five years on power, motivated by political crisis in Macedonia. How do you see American-Macedonian relations and do you agree that, after the NATO summit, Macedonia is going in opposite [a negative] direction?

A. My sense is that Prime Minister Gruevski has not made a lot of friends in Washington, mainly because of his brandishing of Macedonian nationalism and his failure to come to terms with the Greeks on the name issue. I don’t say this is entirely fair, only that he is seen as more a problem than part of the solution in influential circles.

Q. Do you see potential for “Tunisian scenario” in Macedonia after almost all of the opposition parties left the Parliament, and after the instability in Albania? How do you comment the critics here that there is not democracy in the country and that the freedom of expression is threatened by ruling party?

A. I don’t think Macedonia is even close to Tunisia: Skopje may not be a perfect democracy, but it is a nascent democracy that is far ahead of Tunis. What the opposition lacks is not freedom, but votes. It would certainly be a mistake for Macedonia to follow Albania’s lead—it takes a long time for a country’s reputation to recover from that sort of instability. As for the threat to freedom of expression, that concerns me, but how do I know the accusations are unfounded?

Q. There is [the] impression in Macedonia that Obama’s administration is not interested about the Balkans as much as the previous one and is not doing enough about the name issue, which is blocking Macedonian membership in NATO and EU negotiations. What is your opinion on that?

A. Anyone can see that the Obama Administration has its hands full with many problems that come ahead of the Balkans: Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Sudan just to name a few. And I think there is a feeling here that it is up to the Greeks and Macedonians to settle the name issue, not up to Washington, which tried for many years.

Q. Macedonia was one of the countries which supported Bolivia about the controversial coca leaf, contrary to U.S. which supported the ban. The Prime Minister had a meeting with Robert Mugabe and got as a favor recognition of the constitutional name of Macedonia. The president Gjorgji Ivanov is sending messages for better relations with Russia…Do you think that this is wise policy instead of NATO and EU membership?

A. If it is instead of NATO and EU membership, I think it is not wise. But many Macedonians feel strongly about the name issue and I can’t blame them for that. It seems to me Gruevski may have decided he doesn’t want a solution (other than “Republic of Macedonia”). That is his right, but then EU and NATO membership are not possible, so long as Greece remains opposed.

Q. Do you personally believe that there is solution about the name dispute with Greece and where do you find, if any, optimism?

A. Optimism, no. But I am sure there is a solution. The question is how much more damage will be done before they come to it.

Q. Generally, do you think that the Balkan countries are going in right direction and are there any threats left?

The big threat in the Balkans today is lack of progress: on the Macedonia name issue, on Bosnia’s constitutional reforms, on Pristina/Belgrade dialogue. These are long-standing irritants that are being allowed to remain unresolved and are blocking progress towards NATO and the EU. This is a mistake—Brussels and the Balkans capitals need to find a way of moving forward, even if only slowly. Washington will help, but it doesn’t want to play the primary mover role any longer.