My apologies for discrediting a beautiful and interesting story with facts, but I cannot take it anymore.
The person who wrote this, if he believes what he wrote is at best NAÏVE if not IMMATURE or he is functionally IGNORANT. If he does not believe what he wrote he is conniving, because he wrote a piece of trash hoping for some commotion on the matter or even advertise his beliefs against Nikolaos Kotzias and the present government. I am not particularly a fan of this government as a rule, but writing trash in order to push a certain agenda by upsetting readers who are not familiar with the system is nauseating.
Mr. Kotzias and a few others that I know of ( I know a couple of them personally) is not a Greco-nihilist like some others in the present government. As soon as he published the MOU with the FYROM, he was attacked by some people for partisan reasons who exalted a similar MOU that Mr. Avramopoulos had drafted a few years ago. I do not have the time to read them both and compare them because other important things have preoccupied my mind. When I asked these people if they had studied both MOUs and point the differences to me, all of the sudden they disappeared.
Before anyone gets excited about my comments I want them to read the subsequent statement.
NATO constitutes a system of collective defense whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. The UNSC veto system was established in order to prohibit the UN from taking any future action directly against its principal founding members. Using the same logic, Greece is not NATO principal founding member and if a veto existed, Greece would not be the one to cast it. However, NATO does not have a veto system, but instead its members exercise CONSENSUS.
This means that in order for NATO to reverse its decision of Bucharest Greece will have to consent.
The man who is solely responsible for the matters of NATO is Panos Kammenos, the Greek Minister of Defense. Membership in NATO is an issue of defense. Defense Ministers constantly communicate with each other and so all Defense Ministers of NATO already know the position of Greece on the matter. Skopje’s domestic instability caused by bad governance and the threat of unstoppable waves of war and political refugees along with economic migrants caused by badly advised foreign policies caused by third parties or bad domestic economic policies all put together versus domestic instability of Greece and future territorial claims by Skopje do not constitute valid reasons for Skopje’s membership in NATO.
NATO does not functionally exist in order to impose from the outside domestic stability to any of the country members. It is an alliance of equal countries which have differences, arguments and counter-arguments. What count are not the arguments of all other countries, but the arguments that Greece’s responsible officials bring on to the table.
The mere fact that this article invokes anonymous “diplomatic sources” in order to support the author’s arguments, points exactly to the author’s ignorance on the matter. If any of the staffers of the Greek MFA had even suggested what the author of the article claims, such a thing points to ignorance on how NATO actually works. I must however remind the readers what Henry Kissinger had said during the Annual Meeting of the Management Centre Europe held in Paris on June 18-19, 1992, “The strength of the Greek case is that of the History which I must say that Athens have not used so far with success.” Greece’s unsuccessful handling of the Macedonia name dispute rests on its own faulty election laws and the appointment of the wrong people to vital ministerial posts.
To the question “why is Ahmeti coming to Athens?” the answer can rest on multiple reasons, not particularly the name issue. Greece is not only a NATO member, but also an EU member. If its politicians had a little knowledge of their neighbors strategic culture while exercising some initiative the country could play a leading role in both organizations instead of being their pariah. This is my assessment from the latest photograph of the EU that I saw with the President of the FYROM, a country whose candidacy is under question, standing very close to the center and the Prime Minister of Greece, a full member, standing at the edge near the frame.
For as long as the governments (I am using the term very loosely) of Greece do not rely on its own diaspora as Skopje does, and allows outsiders to govern the country, one cannot expect better results that Greece is getting for years. Thus far, politically immature citizens elect irrelevant to the task, inexperienced to the mission, and myopic to the destiny of the Hellenic nation seeking answers in discredited economic practices and sociopolitical systems of two centuries ago. This is a failed back to the future dogma.