Το ''εκκλησιαστικό ζήτημα'' της Ομογένειας ΗΠΑ και η διαδοχή Δημήτριου: Βλέπουμε το δένδρο, χάνουμε το δάσος

Και ''ξαφνικά'' άρχισε η ''μάχη'' γιά την διαδοχή του αρχιεπίσκοπου Δημήτριου. Φυσικά, το οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο Κων/πολης θα εκλέξει τον διάδοχό του. Το ''πρόβλημα'' το ανακάλυψαν πρόσφατα και αθηναϊκά ΜΜΕ. 'Ολα αυτά, γιά την θυγατρική εμπορική επιχείρηση του οικουμ. Πατριαρχείου με το όνομα (πρώην ελληνική) ''Αρχιεπισκοπή Αμερικής'' (ουσιαστικά μόνο ΗΠΑ), που ως μη κερδοσκοπική, μη φορολογίσιμη εταιρία στις ΗΠΑ, έχει μέλη που πληρώνουν χρονιάτικη συνδρομή. Δηλαδή, όπως λέμε στην Αμερική: Αρχιεπισκοπή = ''members only''.
Οι Ομογενείς, μέλη της Αρχιεπισκοπής και των ημιαυτόνομων μητροπόλεων (μετά τον τεμαχισμό της ενιαίας-δυνατής Αρχιεπισκοπής Βορείου και Νοτίου Αμερικής, στα τέλη δεκαετίας '90), δεν ξεπερνούν σε ποσοστό το 15% της ελληνικής Ομογένειας ΗΠΑ. Το υπόλοιπο 85% δεν ασχολείται, επειδή έχει καταλάβει ότι η Αρχιεπισκοπή είναι μιά φιλοχρήματη επιχείρηση, που διόλου νοιάζεται γιά την Ομογένεια ή την ελληνόφωνη εκπαίδευση των παιδιών των Ελλήνων μεταναστών που έχτισαν τις εκκλησίες-ενορίες, τις οποίες ''άρπαξε'' η Αρχιεπισκοπή, γιά λογαριασμό του οικουμ. Πατριαρχείου.
Η Αρχιεπισκοπή, αντιμετωπίζει και την χρεοκοπία. Φυσικό και αναμενόμενο, το τονίζαμε χρόνια πριν. Οι ''όψιμοι ενδιαφερόμενοι'' ανακάλυψαν πρόσφατα ότι υπάρχει μεγάλο οικονομικό πρόβλημα. Αλλά, ουδείς ασχολείται με τις αιτίες του προβλήματος, ούτε με τα εκατομμύρια δολάρια που δόθηκαν τα τελευταία 20 χρόνια στο οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο, σε λογαριασμούς του στην Κων/πολη και ειδικά σε ευρωπαϊκές πόλεις. Ακόμα και χρήματα γιά εκδηλώσεις του, από τον λογαριασμό γιά το χτίσιμο του (νέου) αγίου Νικολάου στο κάτω Μανχάτταν, στο ''σημείο μηδέν''. Αλλά γι' αυτά, σιωπή.
Τυπικά, την ευθύνη την φέρει ο αρχιεπίσκοπος Δημήτριος γιά τα μεγάλα προβλήματα, της υπό διάλυση Αρχιεπισκοπής. Ουσιαστικά, οι άφρονες, εγωπαθείς και κερδοσκοπικές πολιτικές του οικουμ. Πατριαρχείου. Κάποιος πρέπει να φταίει, γιά να γλυτώσουν οι υπόλοιποι. Το περίεργο, επίσης, είναι ότι ουδείς δίνει προσοχή στον ''βίο και πολιτεία'' του ''άτυπου αρχιεπίσκοπου'', παπα-Αλεξ. Καρλούτσου, που ενεργεί ως ''εισπράκτορας'' του Βαρθολομαίου. Και το γεγονός ότι είναι ανακατεμένος -γιά δύο δεκαετίες- σε όλες τις ''δουλειές'' και ''ίντριγκες'', ακόμα και στα χρήματα γιά τον άγιο Νικόλαο, αυτόματα δημιουργεί υποψίες και ερωτηματικά.
Κατά συνέπεια, ελάχιστα ή διόλου μας ενδιαφέρει (την μεγάλη πλειοψηφία του Ελληνισμού ΗΠΑ) πότε ''θα φύγει'' ο Δημήτριος, ποιός θα είναι διάδοχος του Δημήτριου, ποιόν θα επιλέξει ο ''αγάς της Πόλης'' γιά τους ''θεοσεβούμενους ραγιάδες'' στις ΗΠΑ, δηλ. ποιόν θα επιλέξει ο Βαρθολομαίος, απόλυτα ελεγχόμενο από αυτόν, σε ρόλο ''γλάστρας'', γιά την Αρχιεπισκοπή. Αυτά είναι τα συνηθισμένα θεατρινίστικα, γιά να στραφεί η προσοχή του ''ποίμνιου'' αλλού, αφού η φιλοχρήματη Αρχιεπισκοπή, που ''λήστεψε'' το ''ποίμνιο'' γιά δεκαετίες, είναι υπό διάλυση, το ίδιο και οι Μητροπόλεις. Tα ουσιαστικά προβλήματα είναι άλλα: Το ''τέλος'' της Ομογένειας στις ΗΠΑ (και με μεγάλη ευθύνη της Εκκλησίας μας), το κλείσιμο ελληνικών σχολείων (από την Αρχιεπισκοπή), η διάλυση των ομογενειακών οργανώσεων (τις οποίες έχουν καταλάβει και δεν αποχωρούν, τα ''ψώνια'' και οι ηλικιωμένοι). Επίσης, η άγνοια, η αδιαφορία και η ''αφασία'' της Ελλάδας, γιά τον απόδημο Ελληνισμό.
H όλη υπόθεση με τον Δημήτριο τώρα, παραπέμπει στις αμαρτωλές εποχές 1995-99, με την ''παραίτηση'' Ιάκωβου, τον τεμαχισμό της τότε ισχυρής Αρχιεπισκοπής Βόρειας και Νότιας Αμερικής και μετά, με τις ''ίντριγκες'' (και ''άγριες 'κονόμες'' γιά το οικουμ. Πατριαρχείο), που οδήγησαν και στην παραίτηση του διαδόχου του Ιάκωβου, Σπυρίδωνα. Οι τραυματικές αυτές εμπειρίες γιά την Ομογένεια ήταν διδακτικές και απαξίωσαν στα μάτια της, το ''Φανάρι'' και τον Βαρθολομαίο, που θέλει να το παίζει...''νταβατζής'' της Ομογένειας ΗΠΑ, μέσω της (θυγατρικής του επιχείρησης) Αρχιεπισκοπής Αμερικής (ΗΠΑ). Φυσικά, με την πολιτική του ''διαίρει και βασίλευε'', εξυπηρετήθηκαν και τα συμφέροντα της Τουρκίας, αφού το ''καπέλωμα'' που επιχείρησε η Αρχιεπισκοπή στις ομογενειακές Οργανώσεις, είχε αποτέλεσμα: Είτε διαλύθηκαν, είτε απαξιώθηκαν από ''φυτευτούς'', δηλ., άχρηστα-ανίκανα ''ψώνια''.
Τα ερωτηματικά παραμένουν: ΠΟΥ πήγαν τα χρήματα της Ομογένειας, πόσα εκατομμύρια έχουν δοθεί -άμεσα ή έμμεσα- στο οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο τα τελευταία 20 χρόνια, γιατί διπλασιάστηκε ξαφνικά το κόστος κατασκευής αγίου Νικολάου (από 35-40 εκατ. δολ. όπως δήλωσε ο αρχιεπίσκοπος τον Αύγουστο 2016, πήγε τώρα στα 75-80 εκατ. δολ) κ.ά. Γιά να γνωρίζουμε έτσι και τους λόγους ''χρεοκοπίας'' της Αρχιεπισκοπής, πριν βρεθεί κανένας ''members only'' και καταφύγει στην αμερικάνικη Δικαιοσύνη, όπου εκεί ''θα ανοίξουν χαρτιά και λογαριασμοί'' και ειδικά το κεφάλαιο ''μεταφορά χρημάτων'' με αποδέκτες ''άγιους'', εκτός ΗΠΑ...(12 Δεκ.'17)

ΔΙΑΨΕΥΔΕΙ η Αρχιεπισκοπή τα περί ''παραίτησης'' Δημήτριου
Σε γραπτή δήλωσή του ο διευθυντής του Γραφείου Τύπου της Αρχιεπισκοπής Αμερικής κ. Σταύρος Παπαγερμανός ανάφερε: «Σχετικά με τα χθεσινά δημοσιεύματα (σ.σ.: στον ελληνικό κυριακάτικο Τύπο, 10 Δεκ. '17) περί παραιτήσεως του Αρχιεπισκόπου Αμερικής κ. Δημητρίου, ισχύει απολύτως η ανακοίνωση της Ιεράς Αρχιεπισκοπής της 2ας Σεπτεμβρίου 2017, η οποία τότε ρητώς έλεγε ότι οι σχετικές δημοσιεύσεις είναι απολύτως ψευδείς και ανυπόστατες... Εξίσου ψευδείς και ανυπόστατες είναι και οι πρόσφατες πληροφορίες ότι δήθεν υπάρχει σχετικό γράμμα παραιτήσεως. 'Οχι μόνον δεν υπάρχει τέτοιο γράμμα, αλλά δεν έγινε καν λόγος για το θέμα αυτό στην πρόσφατη Αγία και Ιερά Σύνοδο του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου, στην οποία ήταν παρών και ο Αρχιεπίσκοπος ως συνοδικός».

Ο οικουμ. Πατριάρχης, με τις λάθος διχαστικές πολιτικές του, είναι ο κύριος υπεύθυνος γιά τα ''χάλια'' και την διάλυση της Αρχιεπισκοπής Αμερικής (ΗΠΑ)

   

Η Ομογένεια δεν ανέχεται άλλο να εξαπατείται και να χρησιμοποιείται από το φιλοχρήματο οικουμ. Πατριαρχείο, το οποίο εκμεταλλεύτηκε βάναυσα οικονομικά και δεν σεβάστηκε τον Ελληνισμό Αμερικής, τα τελευταία 20 χρόνια.
- Η Ομογένεια έπρεπε ήδη να είχε αποβάλει (να είχε ''διώξει με τις κλωτσιές'') τον διαπλεκόμενο ''εισ-πράκτορα'' του Βαρθολομαίου και δημιουργό ''κρίσεων'', π. Αλεξ. Καρλούτσο, που ''ανεβοκατεβάζει αρχιεπισκόπους'', με τις ''ευλογίες'' του οικουμ. Πατριάρχη.
- Η μεγάλη πλειοψηφία της Ομογένειας (ναι, η μεγάλη πλειοψηφία) ΔΕΝ έχει σε εκτίμηση τον οικουμ. Πατριάρχη, επειδή κατάλαβε τα ''πονηρά παιχνίδια'' του και την άγρια οικονομική εκμετάλλευση της Ομογένειας. Η Ομογένεια πιστεύει ότι ο οικουμ. Πατριάρχης, είναι ''διεφθαρμένος'' και ''διάλυσε τον Ελληνισμό στις ΗΠΑ και την Εκκλησία του, γιά όφελος της Τουρκίας''.
- Η Αρχιεπισκοπή και ο αρχιεπίσκοπος Δημήτριος, οφείλουν να ενημερώσουν την Ομογένεια γιά τα οικονομικά της Αρχιεπισκοπής, σε λεπτομέρειες. Και ειδικά πόσα χρήματα δόθηκαν άμεσα και έμμεσα στο οικουμ. Πατριαρχείο τα τελευταία 20 χρόνια, γιά να γνωρίζουμε αν η διαρροή χρημάτων προς το οικουμ. Πατριαρχείο οδήγησε στο μεγάλο οικονομικό έλλειμμα (12 εκατομ. δολ.) της Αρχιεπισκοπής.
- Ομογενείς, δηλώνουν αποφασισμένοι να προσφύγουν στην αμερικάνικη Δικαιοσύνη, αν η Αρχιεπισκοπή δεν δώσει πειστικές απαντήσεις-εξηγήσεις, με βασικό ερώτημα πόσα χρήματα Αμερικανών φορολογούμενων (ελληνικής ή μη καταγωγής) δόθηκαν άμεσα ή έμμεσα στο Φανάρι όλα αυτά τα χρόνια και αν η ''ροή'' αυτή επηρέασε τα οικονομικά της Αρχιεπισκοπής και την οδήγησε στην -άτυπη- χρεοκοπία (σ.σ.: Η Αρχιεπισκοπή είναι μη κερδοσκοπική ΕΤΑΙΡΙΑ με 501(c)3 στις ΗΠΑ -με αριθμό IRS (EIN) 13-1632516 και είναι υποχρεωμένη να δίνει λεπτομερή οικονομικό απολογισμό).
(Σημ.: Μεγάλα ποσά διοχετεύονται στο Πατριαρχείο και από το ''τάγμα των αρχόντων'' του στις ΗΠΑ, που πληρώνουν 100.000 δολ. γιά το ''λιλί'')
- Γιατί να δίνει η Ομογένεια ΗΠΑ συνέχεια και ανεξέλεγκτα χρήματα στην Αρχιεπισκοπή; 'Ιδρυμα της Αρχιεπισκοπής, με την ονομασία ''ηγεσία των 100'' έχει στο ταμείο του 92 εκατομ. δολάρια. Από τον χρόνο 1984 που συστάθηκε (επί μακαριστού Ιάκωβου) έχει μαζέψει πάνω από 200 εκατομ. δολ. Διαθέτει -μέσον όρο- κάθε χρόνο 1.5 εκατομ. δολάρια γιά ''φιλανθρωπίες'' και ''προγράμματα''. Πολλά εκατομμύρια ''έφυγαν'' προς εξωχώριους (έξω από ΗΠΑ) προορισμούς. Ας δώσει 10-12 εκατομ. να ''ισολογιστεί'' το έλλειμμα.
- ''Αρχιεπισκοπή Αμερικής'' (ΗΠΑ), ενιαία, ΔΕΝ υπάρχει. Υπάρχουν μητροπόλεις (από 2002), που λογοδοτούν απευθείας στο Φανάρι, μετά την πολυδιάσπαση (τέλη δεκαετίας '90) από τον Βαρθολομαίο, της τότε ισχυρής ''Αρχιεπισκοπής Βορείου και Νοτίου Αμερικής''. Ο αρχιεπίσκοπος, είναι ουσιαστικά Νέας Υόρκης και περιχώρων και όχι ''Αμερικής'' (ΗΠΑ). Ο ''μικρο-μέτριος'' Δημήτριος, δεν έπρεπε να είχε γίνει αρχιεπίσκοπος (1999) ή να είχε ''φύγει'' πριν μιά δεκαετία. Κατά συνέπεια, ''αφεντικό'' της Αρχιεπισκοπής είναι ο Βαρθολομαίος, που διοικεί με τον κάθε διαπλεκόμενο π. Καρλούτσο και φέρει την ευθύνη γιά τα σημερινά χάλια.
- Με ''νέο'' αρχιεπίσκοπο (''αδελφή'' ή μη) απόλυτα ελεγχόμενον από το Φανάρι (''όλα γιά το χρήμα''), δηλ. σε ρόλο ''γλάστρας'', ΔΕΝ λύνονται τα προβλήματα. Αντίθετα, οδηγούν αργά ή γρήγορα, σε ανεξάρτητη-αυτοκέφαλη Εκκλησία στις ΗΠΑ.
- Επιβεβλημένη και η αντικατάσταση σχεδόν όλων των φιλοχρήματων, διαπλεκόμενων-διεφθαρμένων μητροπολιτών στις ΗΠΑ.
- Η Ομογένεια ΗΠΑ έπαθε και έμαθε. Το...''ποίμνιο'' ξύπνησε. Δεν τρώει άλλο το...''κουτόχορτο'', που σερβίρουν τα άγρια φιλοχρήματα αρπακτικά της Εκκλησίας (παπαδο-μητροπολίτες κλπ) που αντί γιά υπηρέτες της, κατάντησαν έμποροι, γιά τα δικά τους συμφέροντα, οικονομικά και μη.
- Ο Ελληνισμός Αμερικής (ΗΠΑ) δεν είμαστε ''ραγιάδες'' γιά να μας χρησιμοποιεί, ανάλογα με τα ''γούστα'' του, ο κάθε Πατριάρχης, που νομίζει, ότι από την Κων/πολη, μπορεί να μας ''ληστεύει'' και να μας ''κατευθύνει'', ανάλογα με τα συμφέροντά του και με την ανοχή-σύμπραξη της κάθε θλιβερής κυβέρνησης των Αθηνών.
Το γεγονός ότι υπάρχει οικονομικό πρόβλημα, εξαιτίας κακοδιαχείρισης, στην Αρχιεπισκοπή μας (ΗΠΑ), το γνωρίζουμε από 2014.
Το ζήτημα (με το μεγάλο ερώτημα) είναι ΠΩΣ και ΓΙΑΤΙ δημιουργήθηκε το πρόβλημα, ΠΟΥ πήγαν χρήματα της Αρχιεπισκοπής και χρήματα γιά την κατασκευή του (νέου) αγίου Νικολάου (κάτω Μανχάτταν, Νέας Υόρκης).
Κατά συνέπεια, έχουμε ''κρίση ηγεσίας'' στην Εκκλησία μας στις ΗΠΑ, γνωστή και ως ''Αρχιεπισκοπή Αμερικής'' (θυγατρική επιχείρηση του οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου), όπως θέλουν να μας πείσουν οι, γνωστοί από το παρελθόν, δημιουργοί ''κρίσεων'' γιά την εξυπηρέτηση των δικών τους συμφερόντων. Με την λογική, ''αφού υπάρχει κρίση οικονομική, μόνος υπεύθυνος είναι ο αρχιεπίσκοπος Δημήτριος, που πρέπει να αντικατασταθεί με άλλον'', που θα εξυπηρετεί καλύτερα τα (προσωπικά-επιχειρηματικά) συμφέροντά τους.
Στον ''χορό'' της δημιουργίας ''κρίσης'' και μεγάλα αμερικάνικα ΜΜΕ (π.χ. New York Times), που αντέγραψαν, με αφορμή το σταμάτημα των έργων στον άγιο Νικόλαο, εξαιτίας έλλειψης χρήματος. Και οι υπερβολές, που αναδημοσιεύονται στην Ελλάδα, ''βγάζουν μάτι''. Ομιλούν γιά Εκκλησία με 1,5 εκατομ. μέλη, όταν επίσημα όλοι οι ελληνικής καταγωγής Αμερικανοί και 'Ελληνες μόνιμοι κάτοικοι στις ΗΠΑ, πλησιάζουν το 1,2 εκατομ., σύμφωνα με την τελευταία επίσημη απογραφή στην χώρα. Φυσικά, τα ''μέλη'' δεν είναι 1,5 εκατομ. Είναι κοντά  200,000 (άτομα), δηλ. ούτε το 1/6 του συνολικού αριθμού των Ελλήνων στις ΗΠΑ.
Δεν είναι τυχαίο ότι η ''κρίση'', ξεκίνησε με τα δημοσιεύματα ημερήσιας ελληνικής εφημερίδας στην Αστόρια Νέας Υόρκης (''Εθνικός Κήρυξ''), που...''ειδικεύεται'' στην δημιουργία κρίσεων γιά τα δικά της οικονομικά και λοιπά συμφέροντα. Γιά την εφημερίδα, πριν το Φθινόπωρο δεν ''υπήρχε κρίση''. Κατά ''σύμπτωση'', η ''κρίση'' ξεκίνησε όταν δεν δόθηκε η χρονιάτικη χορηγία (''χαράτσι'') των 2 εκατομ. δολαρίων από την Αρχιεπισκοπή, στο οικουμ. Πατριαρχείο, ενώ μητροπολίτης στο Φανάρι, που ενδιαφέρεται γιά τον ''θρόνο Αμερικής'', φρόντισε να διοχετεύσει ''ειδήσεις'' στην εφημερίδα (''παλιά μας τέχνη κόσκινο'').
'Ετσι, η προϋπάρχουσα οικονομική δυσπραγία στην Αρχιεπισκοπή, μετατράπηκε, ξαφνικά, σε ''κρίση'', που ''επιβάλει άμεσα'' την απομάκρυνση του αρχιεπίσκοπου Δημήτριου. Επειδή, με την λογική τους, αν φύγει ο Δημήτριος, ο διάδοχός του, με ''θαύμα'', θα βρει εκατομμύρια δολάρια και θα ''τακτοποιηθούν όλα''.
'Ολοι αυτοί οι επιτήδειοι ''ενδιαφερόμενοι'' και...''ανησυχούντες'', αγνοούν ενοχλητικά την πραγματικότητα και υποτιμούν προκλητικά την νοημοσύνη της Ομογένειας. Ο Ελληνισμός στις ΗΠΑ, ''γύρισε την πλάτη'' οριστικά, στην ληστρική-φιλοχρήματη Εκκλησία του. ''Γύρισε την πλάτη'' στις υπόγειες διεργασίες και πρακτικές του φιλοχρήματου οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου, αφού δεν ξεχνά τι έγινε με την ''απομάκρυνση'' του (μακαριστού) Ιάκωβου και του Σπυρίδωνα (δεκαετία '90).
Δηλαδή, αν αλλάξει αρχιεπίσκοπος, με ''θαύμα'', θα γεμίσουν πάλι τα ''μαγαζιά''-εκκλησίες; Αλλά τέτοια ''θαύματα'' δεν γίνονται, ούτε και πρόκειται να γίνουν στο μέλλον, επειδή, την επόμενη δεκαετία, η (πολύ) μεγάλη πλειοψηφία των Ελλήνων μεταναστών θα ''βλέπει τα ραδίκια ανάποδα''. 'Οσο περνούν τα χρόνια θα κλείνουν εκκλησίες (και θα πωλούνται ως οικόπεδα), εξαιτίας έλλειψης ''πιστών''. Και όποιος δεν το καταλαβαίνει αυτό, έχει ''άγρια μεσάνυχτα'' γιά την κατάσταση στον Ελληνισμό ΗΠΑ. Να σημειώσουμε ότι τις εκκλησίες, τα κοινοτικά κέντρα (με σχολεία και μη) τα έχτισαν οι 'Ελληνες μετανάστες. Τα τελευταία -ειδικά- 20 χρόνια σιγά-σιγά, τους τίτλους ιδιοκτησίας, τους ''έκλεψε'' η Αρχιεπισκοπή, δηλ. οι τοπικές μητροπόλεις της.
Θυμίζουμε ότι, στα τέλη δεκαετίας '70 και στις αρχές δεκαετίας '80, επειδή υπήρχε πολύ χρήμα στην Αρχιεπισκοπή Αμερικής, δίνονταν και δάνεια σε ''επιφανείς'' (σήμερα) Ομογενείς γιά να κάνουν επιχείρηση. Δανεικά και αγύριστα.

Τώρα -κι εδώ η ''κουτοπονηράδα''- ομιλούν οι δήθεν ''ενδιαφερόμενοι'', γιά ''κρίση'', γιά ''άτυπη χρεοκοπία''. Αλλά ουδείς ασχολείται με την ουσία: ΠΩΣ και ΓΙΑΤΙ δημιουργήθηκε η ''οικονομική κρίση''. Χρήματα υπήρχαν. Τι έγιναν, που πήγαν; Κακοδιαχείριση, σπατάλη, ''αρπαγή'', μεταφορά χρημάτων στην ''μητρική επιχείρηση'' εκτός ΗΠΑ; Αυτή είναι η ουσία, αυτό είναι το βασικό ερώτημα, που χρειάζεται πειστική απάντηση. Κι επειδή από τους ''αρμόδιους'' αποκλείεται να δοθεί απάντηση, η προσφυγή στην αμερικάνικη Δικαιοσύνη ενός ''χριστιανού'' μέλους ενορίας μας, θα ήταν χρήσιμη. ΜΟΝΟ έτσι θα μάθουμε τι έγινε και που κατάληξε ο ''οβολός'' μας. Μην ξεχνάμε ότι η ''Αρχιεπισκοπή Αμερικής'' είναι ΕΤΑΙΡΙΑ μη κερδοσκοπική, μη φορολογίσιμη, με τον χαραχτηρισμό από την φορολογική Υπηρεσία (IRS) ως 501(c)3. Δεν είναι ''κρατούσα εκκλησία'', αλα Ελλάδα, γιά να κάνει ότι θέλει, χωρίς να δίνει λογαριασμό. Και αρμόδια να κρίνει, δεν είναι καμία...''ιερά Σύνοδος'' (τοπική-αρχιεπισκοπική ή πατριαρχική). Αρμόδια είναι, αποκλειστικά και ΜΟΝΟ, η αμερικάνικη Δικαιοσύνη, αφού η Αρχιεπισκοπή διαχειρίζεται χρήματα φορολογούμενων πολιτών ΗΠΑ, οι οποίοι ''γλυτώνουν'' το 50% (φορολογικά) γιά κάθε εισφορά τους στην εκκλησία.

Ο Δημήτριος, λογικά, δεν έπρεπε να είχε γίνει ποτέ αρχιεπίσκοπος Αμερικής ή ''να είχε πάει σπίτι του'', πριν 10 χρόνια. 'Αριστος θεολόγος-ιεράρχης, αλλά ελάχιστος στην διοίκηση μιάς μεγάλης ''επιχείρησης-εταιρίας''. Ανέχτηκε να την διοικούν επιτήδειοι και ''σκοτεινοί'' τύποι. Δέχτηκε πριν 20 χρόνια (η ιστορία επαναλαμβάνεται άσχημα) να αντικαταστήσει τον Σπυρίδωνα, που τον ''έφαγαν'' -πάλι- συμφέροντα, με τα οποία το Πατριαρχείο συμπλέει, δηλ. ''όλα γιά το χρήμα''. Τι σύμπτωση! Πάλι η ίδια εφημερίδα Αστόριας, πρωταγωνίστησε και τότε στην ''δημιουργία κρίσης'', με την βοήθεια διαπλεκόμενων, φιλοχρήματων, του Πατριαρχείου και ''αρχόντων'' του στις ΗΠΑ.
Και το ερώτημα: Αν αντικατασταθεί ο Δημήτριος, θα λυθούν με ''μαγικό τρόπο'' όλα τα προβλήματα και θα...γεμίσουν χρήμα τα ταμεία της Αρχιεπισκοπής; 'Η θα γεμίσουν οι εκκλησίες με ''πελάτες'', δηλ. ''πιστούς''; Μην μας διαφεύγει το γεγονός ότι, από τα μέσα δεκαετίας '90, όταν το Πατριαρχείο διάσπασε (σε μητροπόλεις ελεγχόμενες απευθείας από αυτό) την τότε ισχυρή Αρχιεπισκοπή Βορείου και Νοτίου Αμερικής, με την ''παραίτηση'' Ιάκωβου, ο ''κρίκος'' που συνέδεε την Ομογένεια με την Εκκλησία, ράγισε. Με την πάροδο των χρόνων, έσπασε, δυστυχώς. Καλυτέρευση στο μέλλον ΔΕΝ θα υπάρξει, μην έχουμε αυταπάτες.
Φυσικά, έχουμε και...''σενάρια'' γιά διαδόχους του Δημήτριου. Ακόμα και ''περισπούδαστοι'', αποκαλούμενοι ''μεγαλοδημοσιογράφοι'' στην Αθήνα (που πέρασαν γιά 3-4 χρόνια από τις ΗΠΑ πριν 30-35 χρόνια και ''τα έμαθαν όλα''), έχουν ''άποψη''. Μας προβάλουν έμμεσα (και άμεσα), την ''ξεφωνημένη'' Γαλλίας και τον διαπλεκόμενο-''αλαζόνα'' μητροπολίτη ''Προύσης'', ως ''επικρατέστερους διαδόχους''. Αλλά δεν καταλαβαίνουν ότι, όποιος από τους δύο επιλεγεί (υποθετικά), θα πρόκειται γιά ''αυτοκτονία'' του Φαναρίου στην Αμερική, επειδή, μετά, η ανακήρυξη της Αρχιεπισκοπής Αμερικής σε αυτοκέφαλη Εκκλησία (ή η διάλυσή της), θα είναι μονόδρομος. ''Ιεράρχης'' από έξω, ελεγχόμενος απόλυτα από το οικουμ. Πατριαρχείο (''αδελφή'' ή μη), που ΔΕΝ έχει ζήσει στις ΗΠΑ το ελάχιστο 15-20 χρόνια, ΔΕΝ πρόκειται να γίνει αποδεκτός από το ''ποίμνιο''.

Πιστεύουμε ότι, εδώ που έφτασαν τα πράγματα, πρώτα από όλα, επιβάλεται να μάθουμε ως Ομογένεια, ΠΟΥ πήγαν τα χρήματα, αν βγήκαν εκτός ΗΠΑ (μόνο σε Δικαστήριο θα μάθουμε) και όχι να ασχολούμεθα με διαδοχές και διαδόχους. Επιβάλεται να μάθουμε και τον πραγματικό ρόλο του διαχρονικού ''εισ-πράκτορα'' του Βαρθολομαίου, του ''άτυπου αρχιεπίσκοπου'', παπά Αλεξ. Καρλούτσου, τον οποίον η Ομογένεια αποκαλεί χαϊδευτικά, ''ρασπούτιν'' και όφειλε ''να τον πετάξει έξω με τις κλωτσιές'', χρόνια πριν. Μην ξεχνάμε ότι όπου χρήμα και ''ραδιουργία'', ο παπα-Καρλούτσος, ''μέσα''. Ακόμα και στην υπόθεση του αγίου Νικολάου. Θυμίζουμε ότι, χρόνια πριν, είχαμε τονίσει -γραπτά- ότι ''η ανάμιξη του π. Καρλούτσου ΚΑΙ στην συλλογή χρημάτων γιά το χτίσιμο του αγίου Νικολάου, μας δείχνει ότι κάτι βρωμάει''. Και η υπόθεση ''άγιος Νικόλαος'', όπως αποδείχτηκε, ''βρωμάει'' πολύ...

Γιά τους αγνοούντες την ομογενειακή ιστορία ΗΠΑ: Οι ζημιογόνες πράξεις Αρχιεπισκοπής και πατριάρχη Βαρθολομαίου

 

 Την άνοιξη του χρόνου 1998, ο τότε Αμερικής Σπυρίδων, σε σύσκεψη στην αμερικάνικη πρωτεύουσα, κατάφερε να ενώσει όλες τις ομογενειακές Οργανώσεις, γιά να έχουν ''μία μόνο, αλλά δυνατή φωνή'' στην Ουάσιγκτον και να εργαστούν ομαδικά γιά το ζήτημα της ελληνόγλωσσης Παιδείας στις ΗΠΑ. Τον Ιούνιο 1999, ακολούθησε και δεύτερη σύσκεψη στην Νέα Υόρκη. 'Ολοι συμφώνησαν, η συσπείρωση των Οργανώσεων υπό μία παναμερικάνικη Οργάνωση, με το όνομα Η.Α.L.O., φαινόταν δεδομένη και η υλοποίηση θα άρχιζε σύντομα. Τότε, ο οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης ''καρατόμησε'' τον Σπυρίδωνα, με την βοήθεια της παραεκκλησιαστικής Οργάνωσης GOAL (δημιούργημα των πατριαρχικών στις ΗΠΑ, υπό τον παπα-Καρλούτσο, που έδωσαν και πολύ χρήμα στο Φανάρι γιά να φύγει ο Σπυρίδωνας), επειδή μιά τέτοια κίνηση δεν συνέφερε την Τουρκία. Είχε προηγηθεί η πολυδιάσπαση σε μητροπόλεις (που λογοδοτούν απευθείας στο οικουμ. Πατριαρχείο) της τότε ισχυρής Αρχιεπισκοπής Βορείου και Νοτίου Αμερικής, με την ''εκδίωξη'' του μακαριστού Ιάκωβου, από τον Βαρθολομαίο (1996). Ο Σπυρίδωνας παραιτήθηκε, τον Αύγουστο 1999.
Τον ''ατιμασμένο'' από το βρώμικο ομογενειακό και εκκλησιαστικό κατεστημένο, Σπυρίδωνα, διαδέχτηκε ο άβουλος και ανίκανος Δημήτριος (Οκτώβριος 1999), ως απόλυτα ελεγχόμενος από το οικουμ. Πατριαρχείο. Τα έργα του, πιστοποιούν την υλοποίηση του σχέδιου: Αφανισμός ελληνικής γλώσσας στην Ομογένεια ΗΠΑ (με το κλείσιμο σχολείων) και πολυδιάσπαση της Ομογένειας με την προώθηση ''φελλών'' και ελεγχόμενων, στην ηγεσία ομογενειακών Οργανώσεων.
Το σχέδιό τους υλοποιήθηκε, εξαιτίας της αδιαφορίας της διασπασμένης Ομογένειας, της ανυπαρξίας της μόνιμα απούσας Ελλάδας και με την βοήθεια ''πρόθυμων-προβοκατόρικων'', εξαγοράσιμων ελληνόφωνων ΜΜΕ Αστόριας, Νέας Υόρκης.
 

Σημ.: Η GOAL ενεργοποιήθηκε μετά την σύσκεψη στην Ουάσιγκτον γιά ένωση των Οργανώσεων. Εξαφανίστηκε μετά την ''παραίτηση'' Σπυρίδωνα.

'Ονομα ''Μακεδονία'' - Πως το ''παραχωρήσαμε'' 1993, η κρίσιμη χρονιά: Hνωμένα Έθνη, Συμβούλιο Ασφαλείας - αποφάσεις, ψηφίσματα, πρακτικά γιά FYROM - Οι επιστολές (των τότε υπουργών Εξωτερικών) Μιχάλη Παπακωνσταντίνου και Κάρολου Παπούλια

- H αναγνώριση των Σκοπίων ως πΓΔΜ από την Ελλάδα, η υπογραφή της (ενδιάμεσης) συμφωνίας  από τον Κάρολο Παπούλια και τον Stevo Crvenkovsky, 13 Σεπτ. 1995, στον ΟΗΕ,  Νεα Υόρκη, με τον Σάϋρους Βανς ως "μάρτυρα".
- Ο πονηρός ρόλος ''επιφανών Ελληνοαμερικανών''.

........................................................................................

Forty-seventh session
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
PROVISIONAL VERBATIM RECORD OF THE 98th MEETING
Held at Headguarters
1 New York, on Thursday, 8 April 1993, at 3 p.m.

In the absence of the President Mr. Jesus (Cape Verde), Vice-President. took the Chair The meeting was called to order at 3.30 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 19 (continued)

ADMISSION OF NEW MEMBERS TO THE UNITED NATIONS
(a) APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION (A/47/876)
(b) LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL (A/47/923)
(c) DRAFT RESOLUTION (A/47/L.54)
The PRESIDENT: I should like to invite the General Assembly to consider, under agenda item 19, Admission of new Members to the United Nations, the positive recommendation by the Security Council on the application for admission to membership in the United Nations of the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876.
The Security Council, in document A/471923, has recommended to the General' Assembly that the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876 be admitted to membership in the United Nations, this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State.
In this connection, the Assembly has before it a draft resolution contained in document A/47/L.54.
In view of the desire of members to dispose of this item expeditiously, I should like to propose that we proceed immediately to take a decision on the draft resolution contained in document A/47/L.54, and, in this connection, to waive the relevant provision of rule 78 of the rules of procedure which reads as follows:
"... As a general rule, no proposal shall be discussed or put to the vote at any meeting of the General Assembly unless copies of it have been circulated to all delegations not later than the day preceding"
Unless I hear any objection, I shall take it that the Assembly agrees with this proposal.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT: In addition to the countries listed in document  A/47/L.54, the following countries have become sponsors: Argentina, Australia, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, India, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Oman, Poland, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Suriname, Tunisia, Turkey, the United States of America, Uruguay, and the United Arab Emirates.
We shall now consider draft resolution A/47/L.54.
May I take it that the General Assembly accepts the recommendation of the Security Council and adopts draft resolution A/47/L.54 by acclamation?
Draft resolution A/47/L.54 was adopted (resolution 47/225).
The PRESIDENT: I therefore declare the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia admitted to membership in the United Nations.
I request the Chief of Protocol to escort the delegation of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to its place.
The delegation of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was escorted to its place.
The PRESIDENT: I welcome the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the United Nations family, and express my congratulations on its admission as a Member of this Organization.
I call on the representative of Rwanda, who will speak on behalf of the Group of African States.
Mr. BIZIMANA (Rwanda) (interpretation from French): It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the African Group, which I have the honour to represent during the month of April, to bid a most sincere welcome into the United Nations to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The admission of this new Member State is an event that brings us even closer to our objective of a truly universal Organization, and is therefore eloquent proof of the confidence of peoples in this Organization and in its ability to help them unite their efforts, to share their destinies and to promote the noble ideals of peace, freedom and justice in the service of the development in solidarity of humanity.
On this historic occasion, the African State3, on whose behalf I am speaking today, are delighted at the prospect of ~operating with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in seeking to achieve the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. Those same States that bid welcome to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia wish its people every success.
The PRESIDENT: I now call on the representative of Bhutan, who will speak on behalf of the Group of Asian States.
Mr. TSHERING (Bhutan): It is a great honour for the delegation of the Kingdom of Bhutan to welcome, on behalf of the States members of the Asian Group, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as the newest Member of the United Nations. We are all aware of the tremendous difficulties that the region as a whole has been facing f6r some time, and therefore this happy occasion is indeed a matter to be celebrated.
The admission today of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the United Nations clearly indicates the respect of the international community for the sovereign and independent status of the country as well as high regard for its people for their contributions to cultural and social development. We are aware that some matters still remain unresolved; however, the admission confirms the confidence of the international community in the sincerity of all concerned in their desire to resolve all outstanding matters.
The States members of the Asian Group join me in congratulating you, Mr. Gligorov, and your people on the historic occasion of the accession of former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to membership in the United Nations. are aware of the great happiness that your people are feeling today and we wish to share their joy. We are aware not only of the rich contribution your country will make to the cultural diversity of the international community, but we are also confident of the important contributions you and your people will make in bringing about peace, stability and progress in the region and in the world.
Membership in the United Nations has many privileges and many responsibilities. The greatest privilege is to be seated in this body of 181 nations as equal, sovereign and independent States. Equally, the greatest responsibility is to extend to all other 180 Members full respect, friendship and understanding. We have no doubt that as a Member of the United Nations, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will fully discharge its responsibilities in an exemplary manner.
Speaking on behalf of my own delegation, while geographical distance separates our two countries, there are many features that we share. We are both small and landlocked countries endeavoring to bring about greater improvement in the lives of our peoples. but the most important feature that we will share is our common faith in the United Nations system and the pride that we will take in our membership.
I wish to welcome once again, on behalf of the States members of the Asian Group, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the United Nations family.
The PRESIDENT: now call on the representative of Hungary, who will speak on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States.
Mr. ERDOS (Hungary) (interpretation from French): It is a great honour and privilege for me, as current Chairman of the Group of Eastern European States, to convey on behalf of the member countries of the Group our very best wishes to the 181st Member of this world Organization on its admission to membership. Today we are putting an end to a situation that has lasted for too long. We know that the Assembly's adoption of the resolution on admission is a crucial stage in the life of this new Member State of the United Nations.
The increase in the number of Member States of the United Nations is eloquent proof of the historic changes that our world has been witnessing for some time. This development reaffirms ever more forcefully the great principle of universality of the United Nations. After the end of the cold war unprecedented prospects are now opening up for mankind to resolve global problems, an endeavour that requires the participation of all States. We welcome in particular the fact that this new Member of our world Organization, which we are sure will play an active part in international activities, comes from the Eastern European region.
The countries of the Group of Eastern European States welcome the initiative taken by the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia to set up machinery to resolve the difference that arose with regard to the name of the newly admitted State and to promote the adoption of confidence-building measures between the interested parties. They express the hope that a positive settlement, mutually satisfactory to the parties, will be found rapidly, thus relegating to historical oblivion a difference that has for too long delayed the definitive solutions that everyone hopes for. In the opinion of the Group
of Eastern European States, such a settlement would undoubtedly make a major contribution to the maintenance of relations of good neighborliness and cooperation in the region. Likewise, they believe that the implementation of confidence-building measures would help further strengthen peace, security and stability in this important part of Eastern Europe.
The member countries of the Group of Eastern European States are convinced that the new Member State which has today finally taken its rightful place in this Assembly will make a valuable contribution to the implementation of' the purposes and principles of the Charter. They wish this friendly -country every success in this common endeavour, which is both difficult and inspiring.
The PRESIDENT: I now call on the representative of Belize, who will speak on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States.
Mr. ROGERS (Belize): I have the distinct honour to speak on behalf of the Member States of this Organization that make up the Latin American and Caribbean States and extend a sincere, warm welcome and our hands of friendship to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on its momentous admission to the United Nations. Its entry to the United Nations further enriches the diverse membership of the United Nations and attests to the principle of universality which guides this Organization. We feel confident that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will continue to pursue a policy of peace, friendship and cooperation with other nations. At the same time, we take this opportunity to urge the continuation of dialogue for the final resolution of the difference.
We note with great satisfaction that the newest member of the United Nations has escaped the conflict and turmoil brought about by dramatic changes that swept through its corner of the world. But, while we rejoice at these extraordinary events, we hasten to add our deep concern over the crisis in other areas where continued tension and discord present obstacles to peace. We pay public tribute to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for facilitating the promotion of peace, through dialogue, in a region torn by war.
The member States of the Latin American and Caribbean Group also wish to extend to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia the full cooperation and solidarity of the Group as we work for international peace and security, and the realization of a world free, prosperous and stable, where fundamental freedoms and human rights are upheld.
The PRESIDENT: I next call on the representative of Iceland, who will speak on behalf of the Group of Western European and Other States.
Mr. SIGMUNDSSON (Iceland): On behalf of the Group of Western European and Other States, which I have the honour to represent here today, I have the great pleasure to welcome to the United Nations the new Member State whose admission we have just approved by acclamation.
This historic event brings us one step closer to universality of membership of the Organization, which now stands at 181 Member States. It is testimony to the desire of the international community to accept all States which are prepared to honour the obligations contained in the Charter of the United Nations and share the principles and purposes enshrined therein.
We fully support the presidential statement that was made at the Security Council meeting on 7 April and are convinced that the new Member State will, through its membership in the Organization, help strengthen peace and stability and cooperation between the States of its region.
We welcome the new Member State to the United Nations and wish its people peace, prosperity and success in the future.
The PRESIDENT: I now call on the representative of the United States of America, the host country.
Ms. ALBRIGHT (United States of America): As the host country of the United Nations, the United States is pleased to join the other Members of the General Assembly in welcoming the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to membership in the United Nations. The United States expresses its appreciation to the parties involved in the process of admitting the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the United Nations.
The compromise package allowing the admission of the former Yugoslav Republic of' Macedonia, which includes Security Council resolution 817 (1993)' and the statement by the Security Council President of 7 April 1993, is a tribute to the statesmanship of all the parties involved, especially the leaders of Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. We applaud their efforts to resolve their differences through negotiation.
The admission of this new State to the United Nations will contribute importantly to the stability of a troubled region. Membership in the United Nations is just a first step, however, in resolving the differences between the two parties. They must continue ·~o show the flexibility which has got them this far. We urge them to cooperate fully with Lord Owen and Mr. Vance as the Co-Chairmen undertake to set up 'a mechanism to settle the outstanding differences.
We look forward to working closely with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the United Nations.
The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative of Greece.
Mr. EXARCHOS (Greece): Greece, as a sponsor of the resolution that has just been adopted by the General Assembly, joins all previous speakers who have welcomed the admission of the new Member, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, to the United Nations as a renewed expression of the universality of our Organization and its desire to accept in its midst a State which pledges to adhere to the principles and purposes set out in the Charter. We consider this an important step towards the maintenance of peace and stability in the region.
Greece will extend its cooperation to the new Member State in its earnest hope that all the elements contained in Security Council resolution 817 (1993) and the presidential statement of 7 April 1993, will be successfully brought to a positive conclusion as an integral whole. Greece is ready to offer its contribution with sincerity and goodwill to the task assigned to the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia so as to help achieve, within the shortest possible time, the settlement of all pending issues.
On this solemn occasion, the Greek Government wishes to believe that the new Member will reciprocate in the same spirit so as to enable our two countries to inaugurate a new era of friendly and good,-neighbourly relations.

ADDRESS BY HIS EXCELLENCY MR. KIRO GLIGOROV, PRESIDENT OF THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
The PRESIDENT: The Assembly will now hear an address by the President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Mr. Kiro Gligorov President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. was escorted to the podium
The PRESIDENT: On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the United Nations the President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, His Excellency Mr. Kiro Gligorov1 and to invite him to address the Assembly.
President GLIGOROV: At this solemn moment, I am happy and excited to express, on behalf of the people and Government of the Republic of Macedonia, our gratitude for the support demonstrated by the admission of the Republic of Macedonia to the United Nations as an equal Member.
(spoke in Macedonian: English text furnished bv the delegation)
That act has crowned with success the centuries long efforts of the Macedonia people and its 130-year struggle for freedom and an independent State. The admission of the Republic of Macedonia into the international family of nations is an act in which justice triumphs and a shining example of how a small and peace-loving nation has achieved its right to self-determination and statehood and its responsible position in the international community in a peaceful and legitimate way.
On this occasion, I should like very briefly to point to a part of the long and' very often tragic history of my people. It is a nation with a lasting memory and a rich cultural history and tradition; a nation that first introduced literacy and Christianity to the Slavs; a nation whose fresco paintings-' are a shining point in the darkness of medieval Europe; a nation whose modern literature and art are part of the world's cultural treasures; a nation whose basic cultural and political credo has been expressed throughout its history in its spirit of coexistence and ethnic and cultural tolerance. It is a nation that joined the anti-fascist coalition in the Second World War, during which struggle, at the first session of the Anti-Fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia, established the Macedonian State, which later joined the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
The strategist of the Macedonian liberation movement at the beginning of the century, Gore Delcev, a humanist and cosmopolite, clearly expressed this way of understanding the world as '9a field for cultural competition among nations'~. It is in that spirit that Macedonia sought and won its State independence and' sovereignty. It was the only Republic of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to gain its independence by the peaceful and legitimate means of a referendum and a new Constitution. It is the only Republic that has not participated in the war and its interethnic and religious bloodshed, which have senselessly spread across the region.
On its road to independence, the Republic of Macedonia unfortunately suffered great damage. It was subject to the unjust delay of its international recognition. In fact, it found itself in the position of suffering enormous losses through the sanctions imposed on Serbia and Montenegro and was exposed to a blockade by some of its neighbours. In spite of all this, however, the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia and its various state bodies have remained committed to the principles of peace and dialogue, interethnic understanding, tolerance and coexistence in the Balkans. We were convinced that the United Nations would make the right decision.
Today, the Republic of Macedonia, a peaceful European State, is developing its foreign policy in accordance with the United Nations Charter: the strengthening of international peace and security, development of economic cooperation, and the protection of human rights as prerequisites for a safer and more just world for all. Now, as an, equal Member of the United Nations, it will be actively involved in the realization of the aims and principles of the United Nations Charter.
Based on our own traditions and current-efforts, our highest aim is to secure human rights, and in particular the rights of the nationalities and ethnic groups living in the Republic of Macedonia, which today is home to Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, Serbs, Gypsies and Vlachs, as well as members of -other nationalities. In that spirit, we shall strengthen our bonds of good-neighbourliness and friendship in the Balkans.
The Republic of Macedonia wants and is prepared to make its contribution to the resolution of international conflicts in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council and in the interests of peace and security. The Republic of Macedonia expresses its determination to be actively involved in the activities of the specialized agencies of the United Nations system. The Republic of Macedonia, as a European State, longs to become a member of the European community of nations.
I solemnly declare, on behalf of the Republic of Macedonia, that the Republic of Macedonia will respect the standards of international law and the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter in its international relations. The Republic of Macedonia remains ready to develop its relations with all States of the world on the basis of the principles of sovereign equality, the non-use of force, non-interference in the internal affairs of others, and respect for their integrity and independence. Based on those same principles, we are especially interested in developing relations with our neighbours, including a speedy resolution of the present situation pertaining to Greece, and in opening the road to friendship and cooperation.
At this historic moment for my State, I cannot but reiterate in conclusion that we are witnessing the realization of the words of the Preamble to the United Nations Charter:
"to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small".
The PRESIDENT: On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for the statement he has just made.
Mr. Kiro Gligorov, President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, was escorded from the podium.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED NATIONS:
General Assembly
Forty-seventh session Agenda item 19
Distr. GENERAL A/RES/47/225 27 April 1993
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
(without reference to a Main Committee (A/47/L.54 and Add.1)

47/225. Admission of the State whose application is contained in document A147/876-S125147 to membership in the United Nations
The General Assembly,
Having, received the recommendation of the Security Council of 7 April 1993 that the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 should be admitted to membership in the United Nations, 1/
Having considered the application for membership contained in document A/47/876-S/25147,
Decides to admit the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 to membership in the United Nations, this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State.
98th plenary meeting 8 April 1993
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED NATIONS
Security Council Distr. GENERAL /RES/845 (1993) 18 June 1993
RESOLUTION 845 (1993)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 3243rd meeting on 18 June 1993
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolution 817 (1993) of 7 April 1993, in which it urged Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to continue to cooperate with the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia in order to arrive at a speedy settlement of their difference,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to resolution 817 (1993), together with the statement of the Government of Greece and the letter of the President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia dated 27 and 29 May 1993 respectively (S/25855 and Add.l and 2),
1. Expresses its appreciation to the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia for their efforts and commends to the parties as a sound basis for the settlement of their difference the proposals set forth in annex V to the report of the Secretary-General;
2. Urges the parties to continue their efforts under the auspices of the Secretary-General to arrive at a speedy settlement of the remaining issues between them;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Council informed on the progress of these further efforts, the objective of which is to resolve the difference between the two parties before the commencement of the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly, and to report to the Council on their outcome in good time, and decides to resume consideration of the matter in the light of the report.
93-36124 (E) 180693
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED NATIONS, GENERAL ASSEMBLY  (April 27, 1993)
General Assembly (Distr. GENERAL A/RES/47/225 27 April 1993)
Forty-seventh session Agenda item #19
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
[without reference to a Main Committee (A/47/ L.54 and Add.1)]

47/225.   Admission of the State whose application is contained in document   A/47/876-5125147 to membership in the United Nations
The General Assembly,
Having received the recommendation of the Security Council of 7 April 1993 that the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 should be admitted to membership in the United Nations, 1/
Having considered the application for membership contained in document A/47/876-S/25147,
Decides to admit the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 to membership in the United Nations, this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State.
98th plenary meeting , 8 April 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED NATIONS
Security Council Distr. GENERAL SIRES/817 (1993) 7 April 1993
RESOLUTION 817 (1993)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 3196th meeting on 7 April 1993
The Security Council,
Having examined the application for admission to the United Nations in document S/25147,
Noting that the applicant fulfils the criteria for membership in the United Nations laid down in Article 4 of the Charter,
Noting however that a difference has arisen over the name of the State, which needs to be resolved in the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and good-neighbourly relations in the region,
Welcoming the readiness of the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, at the request of the Secretary-General, to use their good offices to settle the above-mentioned difference, and to promote confidence-building measures among the parties,
Taking note of the contents of the letters contained in documents S/25541, S/25542 and S/25543 received from the parties,
1. Urges the parties to continue to cooperate with the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia in order' to arrive at a speedy settlement of their difference;
2. Recommends to the General Assembly that the State whose application is contained in document S/25147 be admitted to membership in the United Nations, this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as ~~the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia~~ pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council on the outcome of the initiative taken by the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia.
93-20374 4960Z (E)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S/RES/845 (1993)
18 June 1993
RESOLUTION 845 (1993)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 3243rd meeting,
on 18 June 1993

The Security Council,
Recalling its resolution 817 (1993) of 7 April 1993, in which it urged Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to continue to cooperate with the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia in order to arrive at a speedy settlement of their difference,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to resolution 817 (1993), together with the statement of the Government of Greece and the letter of the President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia dated 27 and 29 May 1993 respectively (S/25855 and Add.1 and 2),
   1. Expresses its appreciation to the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia for their efforts and commends to the parties as a sound basis for the settlement of their difference the proposals set forth in annex V to the report of the Secretary-General;
   2. Urges the parties to continue their efforts under the auspices of the Secretary-General to arrive at a speedy settlement of the remaining issues between them;
   3. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Council informed on the progress of these further efforts, the objective of which is to resolve the difference between the two parties before the commencement of the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly, and to report to the Council on their outcome in good time, and decides to resume consideration of the matter in the light of the report
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED NATIONS
General Assembly Security Council
    Distr. GENERAL A/471877 5/25158, 25 January 1993
    Forty-seventh session Agenda item 19 ADMISSION OF NEW MEMBERS TO THE UNITED NATIONS
    Letter dated 25 January 1993 from the permanent Representative of Greece to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
With reference to the application for admission to membership circulated in document A1471875-S/25147 of 22 January 1993, I have the honour to forward herewith a letter dated 25 January 1993 addressed to you by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece, Mr. Michael Papakonstantinou (see annex).
I should be grateful if the text of the present letter and its annex could be urgently circulated as a document of the General Assembly, under agenda item 19, and of the Security Council.
(Signed) Antonios EXARCHOS Ambassador,  Permanent Representative
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANNEX
Letter dated 25 January 1993 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece to the Secretary-General
I refer to the application for membership to the United Nations of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and I have the honour to urgently draw your attention to a Memorandum reflecting the views and position of the Government of Greece on this matter.
I would appreciate it if you could bring this letter and the Memorandum attached hereto (see appendix) to the attention of the President of the Security Council.
(Signed) Michael PAPACONSTANTINOU Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece

MEMORANDUM
Concerning the application of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for admission to the United Nations
I. Greece believes that the application of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for admission to membership in the United Nations under the denomination mentioned in its application introduces an element of further destabilization of the southern Balkans both in a short and a long term perspective. Therefore, strongly objecting to this membership, Greece feels obliged to forward to the Security Council a number of pertinent considerations which point to the conclusion that the applicant should not be admitted to the U.N. prior to a settlement of certain outstanding issue~ necessary for safeguarding peace and stability, as well as good neighbourly relations in the region. When such a settlement is reached Greece would not oppose F.Y.R.O.M.'s admission to the United Nations and, indeed it would be ready to extend recognition and establish co-operation with this neighbouring country.
2. In its request for admission to the United Nations the F.Y.R.O.M. includes on the one hand a purported commitment to accept and observe all obligations deriving from the United Nations Charter and, on the other, a claim that its admission to U.N. membership would contribute towards a peaceful solution of the crisis in the territory of former Yugoslavia.
3. Whereas these are welcome declarations. nevertheless, past experiences and practices. as well as the constituent acts and policies of the new republic raise serious concerns about its willingness to fulfill the obligations arising from the U.N. Charter.
4. The new republic emerged as successor to the former Yugoslav Federative Republic of Macedonia. The philosophy of its Constitution. adopted on November 17, 1991, is based, inter alia on the principles and the constituent declarations of that federative state which were endorsed in August 1944 by the Antifascist Assembly of the National Liberation of Macedonia (A.S.N.OM). In these declarations, cited in the preamble of the Constitution. there are direct references to the annexation of the Macedonian provinces of Greece and Bulgaria, and to the establishment eventually of a greater Macedonian state within the Yugoslav Federation (see attachment 1)
5. In the 1940's. Tito's Yugoslavia, with the "People's Republic of Macedonia" in the vanguard, tried to accomplish these aims by supporting a communist uprising in Greece (which resulted in a three-year civil war) as a means of annexing Greek Macedonia. When the annexation of Greek lands failed in 1948, efforts continued in order to undermine Greek sovereignty over Greek Macedonia by attempts to monopolize the Macedonian name, thus staking a lasting claim to Greek territories and. indeed, to Greek Macedonian heritage. It is worth recalling that this question had been on the agenda of the Security Council and the General Assembly from 1946 to 1950 under the heading The Greek Question" (see attachment 2)
6. For forty years, such practices poisoned good neighbourly relations and stability in the region, particularly since officials of the republic continued, up to the disintegration of Yugoslavia, to express expansionist views. After the collapse of former Yugoslavia these extreme expansionist claims by nationalists in Skopje took afresh stronger impetus.
7. It is on such grounds and on such precedents that the former federative republic in Skopje proclaimed itself independent in 1991 and is now seeking admission to the United Nations.
8. Since the declaration of independence, a series of initiatives taken by the authorities of Skopjc. have shown that there is a clear link and continuity of aims and actions in particular against (Greece Reference has already been made to the Constitution of F.Y.R.O.M. which is based on the principles of A.S.N.O.M., of 1944. In this Constitution there are also references to the possibility of change~ of borders -while F.Y.R.O.M.'s territory remains "indivisible and inalienable" (Art. 3) - and intervening~ in the internal affairs of neighbouring states on the pretext of issues concerning "the status and (he rights" of alleged minorities (Aft. 49). There are numerous indications that the expansionist propaganda aimed at the neighbouring Macedonian province of Greece continues unabated. This is shown, in particular, through the wide circulation within F.Y.R.O.M. of maps portraying a greater Macedonia i.e. incorporating parts of the territory of all its neighbouring states, and of hostile~ literature usurping Greek symbols and heritage. As recently as August 1992, the authorities in kop affixed on the new flag of the republic the emblem of the ancient Macedonian dynasty found in Greece in the tomb of King Philip II (see attachments 3, 4, 5 and 6).
9. These are just a few examples which show that at this turning point, when the applicant is seeking membership to the United Nations, its authorities have not abandoned their long cherished ambitions to claim neighbouring territories.
10. The name of a state is a symbol. Thus, the fact that the authorities in Skopje have ad6pted the denomination "Republic of Macedonia" for their state is of paramount significance. It is important to note that they have explicitly adopted the name of a wider geographical region extending over four neighbouring countries, with 9nly 38.5% to be found in the territory of F.Y.R.O.M. This fact by itself clearly undermines the sovereignty of neighbouring states to their respective Macedonian regions. To be precise, 51.5% of the Macedonian geographical region is in Greece, with a population of over 2.5 million people, while the remaining 10% in other neighbouring states. Moreover, the territory of F.Y.R.O.M., with the exception of a narrow strip in the south, had never been part of historic Macedonia. Nevertheless, F.Y.R.O.M. insists on monopolizing the Macedonian name in the denomination of the state, and thus pretends to be the sole title deed holder of a much wider geographical region. There is no doubt that the exclusive use of the Macedonian name in the republic's official denomination would be a stimulus for expansionist claims not only by present nationalist activists in Skopje but by future generations as well. After all, the name conveys in itself expansionist visions both over the land and the heritage of Macedonia through the centuries.
11. To prevent such destabilizing situations from threatening peace and good neighbourly relations in the area, the European Community, to which F.Y.R.O.M. applied for recognition, has set prerequisites for the recognition of the applicant by the Community and its member states. These prerequisites are cited in the following Security Council documents: (5/23293(17 December 1991). 5/23880 (5 May 1992), S/24200 (29 June 1992), ~/24960 (14 December 1992). Briefly, they stipulate that F.Y.R.O.M. should provide the necessary legal and political guarantees that it will harbor no territorial claims against Greece, that it will abstain from any hostile propaganda against this country and that it will not use the term Macedonia in the ~tatC~5 denomination. Unfortunately, F.Y.R.O.M. has failed to comply.
12. During the past year, Greece has conveyed to ~kopje on a number of occasions, its sincere determination to proceed with the development t~ all round economic and political co-operation with the neighbouring republic, as soon as F.Y.R.() M. ~adopted the foregoing E.C. prerequisites for recognition. Moreover, Greece has taken the Initiative that all neighbouring states of F.Y.R.O.M make public declarations recognizing and guaranteeing as inviolable their respective frontier~. Furthermore, Greece has supported E.C. initiatives to provide humanitarian and economic aid to this republic, while the Greek Prime Minister publicly extended a hand of co-operation to Skopje. In addition, Greece has supported a recent effort by the European Community and individual members of the Community in seeking a peaceful way to settle the problem.
13. Unfortunately, the authorities of Skopje have persisted in pursuing an inflexible and uncooperative attitude by rejecting all proposals aiming at a peaceful settlement of the outstanding issues.
14. it is in the competence of the Security Council not only to resolve disputes but also to take necessary actions to prevent them as well. This is a clear case where preventive diplomacy is urgently needed. All efforts and all proposals in this direction should be explored. It should be noted that there have been cases in which application to membership has been subjected to prior fulfillment of certain conditions in the interest of peace and security.
15. Greece wishes to point out that the admission of F.Y.R.O.M. to U.N. membership prior to meeting the necessary prerequisites, and in particular abandoning the use of the denomination "Republic of Macedonia", would perpetuate and increase friction and tension and would not be conducive to peace and stability in an already troubled region. Under these circumstances, Greece regretfully would not be able to recognize this republic.
16. Greece strongly believes in maintaining good relations and enhancing co-operation with all its neighbours while attaching primary importance to the peaceful solution of disputes arising between them. It is confident that the Security Council, as the custodian of world peace and stability will take all appropriate steps and measures for the settlement of the issue on hand, in a way to prevent developments which might impede a constructive solution through peaceful means. Finally it expresses its readiness to offer its full support to the Security Council in its efforts towards this objective.
New York, 25 January 1993

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PERMANENT MISSION OF GREECE TO THE UNITED NATIONS
733 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, 10017

Mr. Secretery General,
Allow me to communicate with you with regard to vie of my Government on the issue of Skopje.
The Security of Council by Its resolution 817 (1993) accepted the application by President Gligorof that the state he represents be eccepted as a member of the United Nations under the provisional name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Morever, at the same time, the Security Council stessed that "there was a difference consournig the name of the state which should be received for the benefit of maintaining peaceful and good neighbourly relations in the region".
It is obvious from the above the Security Council was concerned about the possibility of the disturbance of peace in the Balkans, should Skopje insists on the name "Republic of Macedonia".
This concern repeats similar previews positions adopted by the European Community, when this state addressed itself to Europe to international recognition.
I would further like to draw your attention to the fact that the premature recognition of Bosnia - Herzegovina, a recognition that took place without the prior solution of its internal ethnic differences , led to civil war and to the interference of the neighboring countries. I am thus afraid that the precedent of Bosnia might be repeated in Skopje; you know very well that two ethnicities antagonize each other in this area and the possibility of the deterioration of their relations is always present.
Skopje is a product of geo-political calculations of the past, where elements that could destabilize the areas are now present. Neighboring countries - with the exception of Greece- have already underwritten future claims.
Rightly, therefore, the Security Council within the framework of the Charter, but also in the new spirit for the prevention of crises, adopted the procedure which would ensure peace in the region.
The threat against the peasfull procceidings doas not emanate only from the name of the sate, but also from a long series actions wich originated in the usurpation of the Macedonian name, the effort of creating a new historically inexistent nation, and wound up at teritorial claims especialy against Macedonia, a northeren region of Greece.
 As the Oppositon in Purliament until Oct 11, 1993, we followed closely Skopje's conduct after the proclamation of their independance. We stresed that the new regime in Skopje had adupted and continued its hostile propaganda with even greater provocativness against our country and created a climate of teritorial claims to our detriment, dispite the peace-loving tone of the declarations and actions of its representatives. At this poin, I would like to mentioon thaat the stronger party in the Parliament of Skopje was one wich had and still has as its aim a "unification of Macedoniaa", ie, the anexation of neimbouring teritories. State publishing houses circulated maps of the "unified Macedonia" while school textbooks of the new regime included those maps, thus cultivating to the new generation feeilings of irrdentism and revenge agaainst Greece. To the crowing of all abave the Government of Mr. Gligorov, with the approval of the Parliament, adopted a state flag with sympols from Greek historical heritage. And aass if all this were not ebough, during the last two weeks, Skopje launched an inernational propaganda campain defaming our country, fabricating facts and chaneling unbelievable lies to the international public opinion.  It should be noted that al the abave mentiioned took place during the talks for the confidance - building mesures.
We further followed very closely the way with Which the Government of  Skopje exploited the offer of good offices of the Secretary - General of the United Nations and the Co-Chairman of the Conferance in Yugoslavia. This was donee in a way that not only did not contribute to the solution of the prroblem but in reality rentered the mandate of the Security Council inefectual and inoperative. In order to suceed, Skopje adopted an inflaible and intransigent position on the issue of the name. Morever, they did not make any convincing gestures for their sincere intention to create a climate of confidence demanded for the success of the negotiations (i.e. by removing the usurped Greek symbolss from the flag and amending the contentious clouse of the Constitution).
The Greek Government will not allow the Governinent to coritinue to misinform the international public opinion when, as it has already been proven, it has not the slightest intention to cooperate for the peaceful setlement of difference has been defined by The Security Council. And of course my Government will not accept the continuing campain of denigration of irredentist aspiration on the part of Skopje against our country.
 Mr  Secretary General,
The Government of  Skopje must relire. the serius problems amanating from its negative position and must further demonstrate with tangible gestures theeir wish  to contribute constructively to ssupprting the goal  for which the Security Council adopted the specific procedure.
I would like to ask you to exersize your influance with the Security Council members, towards this direction and I assure you and the Security Council that my country, should the above mentioned contions materialize, wishes and will continue to contribute to the attainment of a final solution. A solution which wil provide for security, stability and peace in the region.
Ending this leter, I would like to kindly ask you to convey my warmest regards to Mr. Cyrys Vance for his efforts towards the solution of the Skopje issue and our hope that he will continue to be useful with his experience in the future.
Please accept, Mr. Secretary General, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Karolos Papulias
Foreing Minister of Greece

(Σημ. σύντ.: Διατηρήσαμε ακριβώς την -ανορθόγραφη στα αγγλικά- γραφή όπως είναι στο αρχείο του ΟΗΕ. H παραπάνω επιστολή του Κ Παπούλια δεν έχει ημερομηνία,αλλά πρέπει να στάλθηκε τέλη του 1993)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Document 95-27866

13 September 1995
UNITED NATIONS
Interim Accord between the Hellenic Republic and the FYROM
NEW YORK, 13 September 1995
Contents

INTRODUCTION
A. FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURES
Articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
B. HUMAN AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
Articles [9] [10]
C. INTERNATIONAL, MULTILATERAL AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Article [11]
D. TREATY RELATIONS
Articles [12] [13] [14]
E. ECONOMIC, COMMERCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND LEGAL RELATIONS
Articles [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
F. FINAL CLAUSES
Articles [21] [22] [23]

CONCLUSION
INTERIM ACCORD
Minister Karolos Papoulias, representing the Party of the First Part (the "Party of the First Part") and Minister Stevo Crvenkovsky, representing the Party of the Second Part (the "Party of the Second Part"), hereby DECLARE AND AGREE as follows:
Recalling the principle of the inviolability of frontiers and the territorial integrity of States incorporated in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed in Helsinki,
Bearing in mind the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and in particular, those referring to the obligation of States to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State,
Guided by the spirit and principles of democracy and fundamental freedoms and respect for human rights and dignity, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as well as the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris for a new Europe and pertinent acts of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
Considering their mutual interest in the maintenance of international peace and security, especially in their region,
Desiring to confirm the existing frontier between them as an enduring international border,
Recalling their obligation not to intervene, on any pretext or in any form, in the internal affairs of the other,
Desiring to develop their mutual relations and to lay firm foundations for a climate of peaceful relations and understanding,
Realizing that economic cooperation is an important element for the development of mutual relations on a stable and firm basis, as well as desiring to develop and promote future cooperation.
Desiring to reach certain interim agreements that will provide a basis for negotiating a permanent Accord,
Have agreed as follows:
A. FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURES
Article 1
1. Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, the Party of the First Part recognizes the Party of the Second Part as an independent sovereign state, under the provisional designation set forth in a letter of the Party of the First Part of the date of this Interim Accord, and the Parties shall at an early date establish diplomatic relations at an agreed level with the ultimate goal of relations at ambassadorial level.
2. The Party of the First Part shall as promptly as possible establish a liaison office in Skopje, the capital of the Party of the Second Part, and the Party of the Second Part shall as promptly as possible establish a liaison office in Athens, the capital of the Party of the First Part.
Article 2
The Parties hereby confirm their common existing frontier as an enduring and inviolable international border.
Article 3
Each Party undertakes to respect the sovereignty, the territorial integrity and the political independence of the other Party. Neither Party shall support the action of a third party directed against the sovereignty, the territorial integrity or the political independence of the other Party.
Article 4
The Parties shall refrain, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, from the threat or use of force, including the threat or use of force designed to violate their existing frontier, and they agree that neither of them will assert or support claims to any part of the territory of the other Party or claims for a change of their existing frontier.
Article 5
1. The Parties agree to continue negotiations under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations pursuant to Security Council resolution 845 (1993) with a view to reaching agreement on the difference described in that resolution and in Security Council resolution 817 (1993).
2.. Recognizing the difference between them with respect to the name of the Party of the Second Part, each Party reserves all of its rights consistent with the specific obligations undertaken in this Interim Accord. The Parties shall cooperate with a view to facilitating their mutual relations notwithstanding their respective positions as to the name of the Party of the Second Part. In this context, the Parties shall take practical measures, including dealing with the matter of documents, to carry out normal trade and commerce between them in a manner consistent with their respective positions in regard to the name of the Party to the Second Part. The Parties shall take practical measures so that the difference about the name of the Party to the Second Part will not obstruct or interfere with normal trade and commerce between the Party of the Second Part and third parties.
Article 6
1. The Party of the Second Part hereby solemnly declares that nothing in its Constitution, and in particular in the Preamble thereto or in Article 3 of the Constitution, can or should be interpreted as constituting or will ever constitute the basis of any claim by the Party of the Second Part to any territory not within its existing borders.
2. The Party of the Second Part hereby solemnly declares that nothing in its Constitution, and in particular in Article 49 as amended, can or should be interpreted as constituting or will ever constitute the basis for the Party of the Second Part to interfere in the internal affairs of another State in order to protect the status and rights of any persons in other States who are not citizens of the Party to the Second Part.
3. The Party of the Second Part furthermore solemnly declares that the interpretations given in paragraph 1 and 2 of this Article will not be superseded by any other interpretation of its Constitution.
Article 7
1. Each Party shall promptly take effective measures to prohibit hostile activities or propaganda by State-controlled agencies and to discourage acts by private entities likely to incite violence, hatred or hostility against each other.
2. Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, the Party of the Second Part shall cease to use in any way the symbol in all its forms displayed on its national flag prior to such entry into force.
3. If either Party believes one or more symbols constituting part of its historic or cultural patrimony is being used by the other Party, it shall bring such alleged use to the attention of the other Party, and the other Party shall take appropriate corrective action or indicate why it does not consider it necessary to do so.
Article 8
1. The Parties shall refrain from imposing any impediment to the movement of people or goods between their territories or through the territory of either Party to the territory of the other. Both Parties shall cooperate to facilitate such movements in accordance with international law and custom.
2. The Parties agree that the European Union and the United States may be requested to use their good offices with respect to developing practical measures referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 5 so as to assist the Parties in the implementation of Article 8.
B. HUMAN AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
Article 9
1. In the conduct of their affairs the Parties shall be guided by the spirit and principles of democracy, fundamental freedoms, respect for human rights and dignity, and the rule of law, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Helsinki Final Act, the document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe.
2. No provision of the instruments listed in paragraph 1 above shall be interpreted to give any right to take any action contrary to the aims and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or of the Helsinki Final Act, including the principle of the territorial integrity of States.
Article 10
Convinced that the development of human relations is necessary for improving understanding and good-neighbourliness of their two peoples, the Parties shall encourage contacts at all appropriate levels and shall not discourage meetings between their citizens in accordance with international law and custom.
C. INTERNATIONAL, MULTILATERAL AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Article 11
1. Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, The Party of the First Part agrees not to object to the application by or the membership of the Party of the Second Part in international, multilateral and regional organizations and institutions of which the Party of the First Part is a member; however, the Party of the First Part reserves the right to object to any membership referred to above if and to the extent of the Party of the Second Part is to be referred to in such organization or institution differently than in paragraph 2 of the United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993).
2. The Parties agree that the ongoing economic development of the Party of the Second Part should be supported through international cooperation, as far as possible by a close relationship of the Party of the Second Part with the European Economic Area and the European Union.
D. TREATY RELATIONS
Article 12
1. Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, the Parties shall in their relations be directed by the provisions of the following bilateral agreements that had been concluded between the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Party of the First Part on 18 June 1959:
    * (a) The convention concerning mutual legal relations,
    * (b) The agreement concerning the reciprocal recognition and the enforcement of judicial decisions, and
    * (c) The agreement concerning hydro-economic questions.
The Parties shall promptly consult with a view to entering into new agreements substantially similar to those referred to above.
2. The Parties shall consult with each other in order to identify other agreements concluded between the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Party of the First Part that will be deemed suitable for application in their mutual relations.
3. The Parties may conclude additional bilateral agreements in areas of mutual interest.
Article 13
Having regard to the fact that the Party of the Second Part is a land-locked State, the Parties shall be guided by the applicable provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as far as practicable both in practice and when concluding agreements referred to in Article 12.
Article 14
1. The Parties shall encourage the development of friendly and good-neighborly relations between them and shall reinforce their economic cooperation in all sectors, including that of water resources management. In particular they shall promote, on a reciprocal basis, road, rail, maritime and air transport and communication links, using the best available technologies, and facilitate the transit of their goods between them and through their territories and ports. The Parties shall observe international rules and regulations with respect to transit, telecommunications, signs and codes.
2. To this end the Parties agree to enter forthwith into negotiations aimed at promptly implementing agreements of cooperation in the aforementioned areas, taking into account the obligations of the Party of the First Part deriving from its membership in the European Union and from other international instruments. Such agreements shall relate to visas, work permits, "green card" insurance, airspace transit and economic cooperation.
E. ECONOMIC, COMMERCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND LEGAL RELATIONS
Article 15
1. The Parties shall strengthen their economic relations in all fields.
2. The Parties shall in particular support development and cooperation in the field of capital investments, as well as industrial cooperation between enterprises. Special attention shall be paid to cooperation between small and medium-size companies and enterprises.
Article 16
1. The Parties shall develop and improve scientific and technical cooperation as well as cooperation in the field of education.
2. The Parties shall intensify their exchanges of information and of scientific and technical documentation, and shall strive to improve mutual access to scientific and research institutions, archives, libraries and similar institutions.
3. The Parties shall support initiatives by scientific institutions and by individuals aimed at improving cooperation in the sciences.
Article 17
1. The Parties shall take great care to avoid dangers to the environment and to preserve natural living conditions in the lakes and rivers shared by the two Parties.
2. The Parties shall cooperate in eliminating all forms of pollution in border areas.
3. The Parties shall strive to develop and harmonize strategies and programs for regional and international cooperation for protecting the environment.
Article 18
The Parties shall cooperate in alleviating the consequences of disasters.
Article 19
1. The Parties shall cooperate in improving and promoting business and tourist travel.
2. Consistent with the obligations of the Party of the First Part arising from its membership in the European Union and from relevant instruments of the Union, the Parties shall make joint efforts to improve and accelerate customs and border formalities, including simplification in the issuance of visas to each other's citizens, taking into account Article 5, paragraph 2, of this Interim Accord.
3. The Parties shall endeavor to improve and modernize existing border crossings as required by the flow of traffic, and construct new border crossings as necessary.
Article 20
The Parties shall cooperate in the fight against organized crime, terrorism, economic crimes, narcotics crimes, illegal trade in cultural property, offenses against civil air transport and counterfeiting.
F. FINAL CLAUSES
Article 21
1. The Parties shall settle any disputes exclusively by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
2. Any difference or dispute that arises between the Parties concerning the interpretation or implementation of this Interim Accord may be submitted by either of them to the International Court of Justice, except for the differences referred to in Article 5, paragraph 1.
Article 22
This Interim Accord is not directed against any other State or entity and it does not infringe on the rights and duties resulting from bilateral and multilateral agreements already in force that the Parties have concluded with other States or international organizations.
Article 23
1. This Interim Accord shall enter into force and become effective on the thirtieth day following the date on which it is signed by the representatives of the Parties as set forth below.
2. This Interim Accord shall remain in force until superseded by a definitive agreement, provided that after seven years either Party may withdraw from this Interim Accord by a written notice, which shall take effect 12 months after its delivery to the other Party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have, through their authorized representatives, signed three copies of this Interim Accord in the English language which shall be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. Within two months of the date of signature, the United Nations is to prepare, in consultation with the Parties, translations into the language of the Party of the First Part and the language of the Party of the Second Part, which shall constitute part of the registration of this Accord.
____________________       __________________
Representative of the           Representative of the
Party of the First Part          Party of the Second Part

WITNESSED, in accordance with Resolution 845 (1993) of the Security Council, by:

Cyrus Vance
Special Envoy of the Secretary-General
of the United Nations

DONE at New York on the 13th day of September 1995

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Γιά να θυμόμαστε- Ομιλίες Αμερικανών πολιτικών γιά FYROM κι αναγνώριση από Κλίντον-1994

Congressional Records
  
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S DISAPPOINTING DECISION TO RECOGNIZE SKOPJE AS MACEDONIA -- HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER (Extension of Remarks - February 10, 1994)
[Page: E177]

HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER
in the House of Representatives
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1994
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton recognized the former southern Yugoslav Republic of Skopje as Macedonia yesterday. This disappointing action poses a serious setback for the vital United States-Greek relationship that has thrived since the days of the Truman doctrine.
Recognizing Skopje as Macedonia disregards the seriousness of the historical claims of national identity and sovereignty of the Greek people. This is not merely a semantic issue. Potential substantive ramifications are being ignored. Recognition of the name Macedonia itself implies territorial claims against Greece.
 It is in the United States interest to contain and stabilize the conflict in the Balkan region, not exacerbate them. If the warfare in the former Yugoslavia spreads to Skopje, the threat to Greek territory becomes real. After all, Skopje's flag still bears the star of Vergina, a Greek symbol. Its constitution refers to traditions of the historically larger Macedonia of 1903.
Greece and the United States have developed close ties, as members of NATO and the European Community. I ask the President to work to strengthen these ties by reconsidering his decision to recognize `The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' and to engage with Greece in a constructive solution to the regional conflict

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE
in the House of Representatives
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1994
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, like all Americans of Greek ancestry, I was extremely disappointed by the administration's recent decision to recognize the Skopje regime as an independent nation while it continues to insist on calling itself Macedonia . This decision was an insult to a loyal and trusted ally, and the only true democracy in the region--Greece. This misguided decision could further inflame tensions in a region already plagued by terrible violence and instability.
Today, I have introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should not have granted diplomatic recognition to the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia . The resolution also calls on the President to reconsider his decision and withdraw diplomatic recognition until such time as the Skopje regime renounces its use of the name Macedonia .
The name `Macedonia' is Hellenic in origin, and for thousands of years it has been the traditional name of the northern Greek province whose capital is Salonika. Archaeological evidence clearly demonstrates that the ancient Macedonians were Greek. The Macedonia of Alexander the Great was Greek, and Alexander himself was tutored by Aristotle. The Slavic people of the Skopje regime have no links to classical Greece and are not entitled to use a name that is a fundamental part of Greek history and culture.
It is also an accepted historical fact that, in 1945, Marshall Tito gave the region surrounding Skopje the name `Macedonia' in order to frustrate Bulgarian claims to that territory. It was part of a campaign to usurp Greek history and claim it for Tito's communist system. Tito's Macedonia was an artificial creation meant to serve only one purpose--giving communist Yugoslavia territorial access to the Aegean Sea through the port of Salonika.
The Skopje regime has refused to remove from its constitution a reference to the 1944 declaration by the then Communist regime calling for the unification of neighboring territories in Greece and Bulgaria with this false Macedonian Republic. Despite other amendments to that constitution adopted over the last few years, this clause reflecting an expansionist philosophy remains intact.
In addition to its flagrant and illegal use of the name Macedonia in its constitution, the Skopje regime persists in using the 16-pointed Star of Vergina, an ancient Greek emblem, in its flag and state symbols. These are just part of that regime's blatant attempt to manipulate history for its own purposes and to monopolize the Macedonian name to further its territorial claims on sovereign Greek territory. Greece, on the other hand, has repeatedly stated that it has no territorial claims on the Skopje regime.
 I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. By doing so we will send an unequivocal message that the United States should support stabilizing policies that promote peaceful coexistence in the Balkans.