Welcome visitor you can log in or create an account
activities

activities

TO: Mr. Johanes Hahn (1)

Dear Mr. Hahn;

27 November 2017

My name is Jordan Petrovski, a political refugee from Macedonia to Canada and the Chairman of the Committee for the Democratization of Macedonia. For a short background of my activities for the past two decades or so I’m attaching some letters sent in futile attempts by our Committee to establish correspondence with representatives of Europe to Macedonia. In addition, you can access an English translation of my personal State Security Agency dossier at thepetrovskifile.blogspot.ca. Therefore, I will proceed directly to the matter at hand: the reforms in the Macedonian judiciary.

Namely, the new Social-democrat-led government’s appointees to the Commission for Judicial Reform have showed their hand as to what are the main priorities of their upcoming efforts. Under point number three of its plan for judicial reform the Commission has stated:

The second major reform concerns the Lustration Act, which was terminated in 2015. The working group has concluded that the harmful effects of the Law upon the persons victimized by it remain in effect to this day.

As a means to achieve their social rehabilitation, as well as a means to protect their personal integrity and dignity, a legal framework shall be established to terminate the measures taken against them. (Emphasis added.)

In effect, the Commission for Judicial Reform has chosen as one of its top priorities the social rehabilitation of its own members, as well as their party and ideological Comrades! Yet, nowhere in its communications to the public does the Commission even mention the conduct of lustration as per the guidelines proposed in EC Resolutions 1096 and 1481.

While our Committee was unhappy with the Lustration Act (in both of its iterations) as adopted by the Gruevski-led government, and made efforts to advise the working group on taking a more appropriate approach to this delicate issue (i.e. follow the recommendations of EC Resolutions 1096 and 1481), it is even more concerning seeing the present government embark on its crusade aimed at restoring the old order established by the Communist Party/League of Communists of Yugoslavia.

The Commission’s absolute bias is showcased when it talks about “persons victimized” by the process of Lustration and the “protection of their personal integrity and dignity”. We need not forget, however, that the persons labeled “cooperators” of the ideological police of the Communist Party of Macedonia—otherwise known as the State Security Agency—by virtue of the flawed Lustration Act, were nonetheless its collaborators. The truth of these facts was verified by the examination of official SSA documents.

Likewise, we would be wise to examine what damage, if any, to their personal integrity and dignity the “victims” of said process endured. Did any of them lose their job, or end up in prison, or lose their belongings? Were any of them placed under repressive “re-educational” measures? Were any of them forced into exile? To the best of my knowledge, none of these alleged victims suffered any injury to their person or property as a result of the Lustration Act. The people who were at the receiving end of their collaboration with the SSA, however, did. The fact that the judiciary reform Commission makes no mention of this is quite indicative of its bias.

This is hardly news. The mere idea of lustration—or rather a severing of the ties to the Communist regime of Tito’s Yugoslavia—is as unacceptable to the Macedonian elite today, as the idea of private property and the rule of law was to their parents and grandparents seven decades earlier, when then they summarily executed members of the pre-Communist intelligentsia, held Kangaroo-court trials, and paraded shopkeepers and priests to be publicly denounced and beaten like cattle on the streets. The members of the Commission for Judicial Reform see nothing wrong with the conduct of the Communist regime and their use of the ideological police known as the State Security Agency (UDB/SDB); nor do they see anything wrong with the continuation of these practices long after the dissolution of the single-party system in 1990.

Some noted members of this Commission, like prof. Mirjana Najčeska, some years ago, while attacking the idea of lustration in front of the Constitutional Court claimed that the inhumane repressive measures undertaken by the State Security Apparatus, despite their unconstitutional nature, were justified on the grounds that they were used “for the needs of the government”! (How’s that for adherence to Western values and the principle of rule of law?) When I approached the same prof. Najčeska, who along with prof. Kalajdžiev (another member of the juducial reforms Commission) were heading the Helsinki Human Rights Committee in 2005 as I was preparing my legal proceedings against several Ministry of Internal Affairs officers in Macedonia following my attainment of Convention Refugee status in Canada, they advised me that my case was of no interest to their Committee, since they saw no violation of rights where the Canadian Refugee Board did.

To be sure, the need for a lustration-style process is made all the greater by the fact that the Macedonian secret police continued to operate along the same lines as it did during the Communist era into the age of political pluralism, all the way to the present day, as we were all made aware by the wiretapping scandal that shook the country in recent years. The wiretapping, however, is only the tip of the iceberg, as no one—certainly not the SDB—collects information for its own sake. That is to say, the wiretapping is but one measure by which the SSA goes about controlling Macedonian society. The wiretapping scandal only proved that the secret police has gone on doing what it did from its inception: corrupting Macedonian society to its core.

A retired member of the Macedonian Superior Court, while speaking to DW – Macedonia, had recently this to say regarding the state security apparatus:

To be sure, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, particularly the State Security Agency, is in a desperate need of serious reform. This sector hasn’t been touched for 70-80 years. And it’s a state within the state; it’s actually more like ten states within a state. So in order to accomplish the full rights of the citizens, no reform, no action is possible without the approval of that organ. This is why reform is so difficult.

In order to give you a taste of the sort of practices the SSA exercised in the years succeeding the dissolution of Yugoslavia, I offer you the proof of my personal dossier, commenced in October of 1992—shortly after the ascent of Branko Crvenkovski’s SDSM to power—when I was a long established businessman supportive of the anti-Communist parties and movements in the newly developing pluralistic environment. My dossier is commenced on the grounds that:

“the findings and information that the SDB [State Security Service] has at its disposal indicate that he is engaged in intelligence activity for the benefit of the BNRS [Bulgarian National Intelligence Service], directed toward a forcible usurpation or endangerment of the Constitutional order and the security of the Republic,”

a standard line of work since the earliest days of Communist Yugoslavia that painted non-conformists as “ultranationalist,” presumably with the idea of painting them as being of the same cloth as, say Ratko Mladić. It was legally was justified 

“on the basis of Article 16 of the Internal Affairs Act (‘Official Journal of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia’ No. 37/87), Articles 56 and 57 of the Governing Ordinances for the Operation of the SDB [State Security Service] (‘Official Journal of the Republic of Macedonia’—Special Official Journal No. 10/92)” (Emphasis added)

I was entered into “Prior Treatment,”

“on the basis of the completed research, the acquired findings and records, … because of his activity, his family origin, his social environment, as well as the findings of the suspicious environment in the sphere of commercial cooperation as an owner of a company that deals with owners of private and state-owned companies from Bulgaria. …

Our attitude and position [friendly or hostile] toward him for the next period will depend on the findings of our further study of these elements.” (Emphasis added)

Mine was one of 4,000-10,000 (a number given by the former Director of the State Archive of RM, Dr. Zoran Todorovski) such dossiers commenced in during the 1990s alone, which in style and content perfectly mirror the dossiers dating to the period preceding pluralism.

Despite being “under the measures” of the SSA for over six years, I was never charged or indicted for any wrongdoing. Yet, I was visited by SSA officers at home and at my place of business, and summoned to SSA offices on multiple occasions, questioned about my political views, I was asked to provide information to the SSA about foreign countries where I was travelling, and instructed to participate in an intrigue intended to tarnish the reputation of a political party (which I refused to do, which is why I ended up a political refugee). You can see this for yourself by perusing my dossier.

Tellingly, the judicial reforms Commission includes, among others, the man who was Minister of Internal Affairs during the bulk of the 1990s, and the man who signed off countless of warrantless, unconstitutional orders placing citizens “under measures”, prof. Dr. Ljubomir D Frčkoski. Mr. Frčkoski is on record saying that all who were under the SDB’s measures “were guilty”, despite there not being a single case where the SSA pressed charges against a suspect, and there not being a single court case convicting any one of these “guilty” parties.

My attempts at commencing legal proceedings against the MI and the persons responsible were thwarted on the grounds of statute of limitations concerns. My attempt at taking the case to the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg was shut down by a decision from a team including Margarita-Caca Nikolovska, also a member of the judicial reforms Commission.

Finally, there is scarcely a better example of the nepotism and generational corruption in the Macedonian system than the appointment of Mr. Siljan Avramovski as head of the Commission for Reforms to the State Security Apparatus (UBK). Mr. Avramovski, an officer of the UDB/UBK/SDB since 1982, was last posted to the office of Vice-Director of the UBK during the Gruevski regime. This means that Mr. Avramovski was undoubtedly personally involved in the wiretapping scandal that lead to the fall of the Gruevski government. He also happens to be the son of a former chief of the UDB’s Fifth Department—very the department responsible for communications control; while his sons are presently also employed in the Avramovski family business that is the State Security Agency. No reform to the judiciary will be possible until there is a true lustration in Macedonia, a process that will rid Macedonian society of precisely the sort of figures tasked with reforming the judicial system and the state security apparatus.

***

While we understand that the recommendations made by European bodies are non-binding to Macedonia, as she is not an EU member, we wish to make you aware of the severity of the police state situation as well as the state of Communist-dominated nepotism there. The lineup of the Commission intended to conduct the reforms in the Macedonian judiciary does not bode well for those aims. To expect democratic reforms from generational Communists is nothing short of lunacy. Macedonia’s elite never did and never will hold Western values as their ideal. They are the sons of the Balkan Caligula, otherwise known as Marshall Tito, and they intend to continue marching down his debauched path. Yet, these people were not created in a vacuum. They maintain their positions in Macedonian society, among all else thanks to the support—moral, financial, and otherwise—they receive from European and American institutions.

Our perusal of archival documentation concerning Macedonia from Western provenance has made us aware that the West sees the Communists and their heirs as reasonable moderates—“soft” Communists—while their opposition is portrayed as savage “ultranationalists.” We see the West hedging its bets on the gang of thugs that forced its way into power in the aftermath of World War II; we see that the West turned a blind eye to the systematic repression that the government carried out against its opposition; and we see that the West spent the past 70 years hoping to somehow make honest men out of thieves by the extension of loans, grants, and various types of aid. 

There are two things we don’t see. We don’t see the termination of these “gravy train” programs. And we don’t see the paying of attention to the voices to true dissent, of Macedonia’s anti-communists. You may have a hard time believing this, but they do exist. And they’ve always stood for Western values, for freedom for all, and most importantly, for the rule of law. Until this perspective becomes clear to those dealing with Macedonia, you will find no success in your efforts to adopt Macedonia to the European flock.

Sincerely,

Jordan Petrovski

Committee for the Democratization of Macedonia

(President)



Read more...

TO: Mr. Cullen (2)




COMMITTEE FOR THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

January 9, 2018
St. Catharines, Ontario

Dear Mr. Cullen;
While reading your reply from December 22, 2017 to my letter addressed to Mr.Hahn from November 27, 2017, I got the impression that you either didn’t read the letter and accompanying material I sent, or that you misunderstood it, or worse yet,that you chose to misunderstand it. I’m not sure how else to construe the fact that you interpret what is clearly and demonstrably a systematic violation of constitutional and human rights as an individual case—and how you interpret my letter to Mr. Hahn as an appeal for intervention in my personal case. Beyond that Idon’t understand how in good faith you don’t see a major conflict of interest in having the people who carried out these violations now being appointed as reformers of the institutions that they abused, and revisers to a law that affects them personally. Therefore, I will attempt here to clarify what I may have failed to make clear in my original address, or what you failed to understand. First, let’s deal with your confusion regarding my “personal situation.” My personal situation reached its conclusion and satisfaction in 2005 when the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board, after a four year process bestowed upon my and my family the status of Convention Refugees. My case, of which I’d be happy to forward you the details, argued that the ruling principles that govern the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, regardless of what party holds the nominal power, remained exactly the same as those before the publically avowed abandonment of
Titoism and the formal dissolution of Yugoslavia—those of a totalitarian, thuggish police state. Rather than as a means to an appeal for intervention, I chose to use my personal situation in my previous letter as evidence to support my claims that the persecution of political and ideological dissenters raged on in Macedonia during the 1990s as feverishly as it had in the four-and-half decades prior, as well as to give an impression of the attitudes of Macedonian authorities and legal and human rights
“experts” on it. Am I perhaps mistaken in assuming that Europe saw Yugoslav Communism as a totalitarian regime? My case was proven in the Canadian legal system, and my dossier (or rather that which is available to me from it) is the only one that I’m aware of that has been fully translated into English—if you wish I can provide you with excerpts from at least dozen others in their original form, which have been published by the State Archiveof R Macedonia. Had I failed to provide this evidence, your reply would likely have been along the lines that my claims are a bitter old fool’s baseless rants. My personal case is not an individual one. It was merely one of thousands, conducted in accordance with Governing Ordinances of the UBK. This much is stated
in the dossier itself: In the end I can also say that everything that has been undertaken toward PETROVSKI Dušan JORDAN, as well as with him, is within the frame of the Governing Ordinances for the activity of the DSC, with the knowledge of and agreement with the 1st Department of the DSC, and that an operative documentation (Operative Memos) has been regularly assembled. One of the excerpts from my dossier that I cited in my previous letter, and which you will find below this paragraph, clearly shows that the laws governing the State Security Apparatus of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia—that’s the former Yugoslav Macedonian republic of 1945-1990—remained in force well into the 1990s, namely until 1995, when according to the claims of the Macedonian Government at the time, the NGO sector, and of the people tapped to lead the reforms of the judiciary and the SSA, Macedonia was supposed to have been governed by a democratic constitution. In this case we are talking about a law that was adopted in the year 1987 (hence the underlined number 87 in the excerpt). On the basis of Article 16 of the Internal Affairs Act (“Official Journal of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia” No. 37/87), Articles 56 and 57 of the Governing Ordinances for the Operation of the SDB (“Official Journal of the Republic of Macedonia”—Special Official Journal No. 10/92)… (Emphasis added) According to Article 6 of the Macedonian Constitutional Law, the transitional constitution between Socialist and “free” Macedonia, “All laws not in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia shall be brought in compliance within one year of adoption of said Constitution.” The Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia was adopted in November of 1991, meaning all provisions not in compliance with “the establishment and consolidation of the rule of law as a fundamental system of government,” or the provisions of “the guaranteeing of human rights, citizens' freedoms and ethnic equality,” or laws intended to preserve the security and physical integrity of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should have been taken off the books and nullified by late 1992. However, even the adoption of the new Governing Ordinances for the operation of the State Security Apparatus in 1995 did not lead to a change in the SSA’s approach toward issues regarding private property rights and freedoms of speech, movement, association, and thought. As I mentioned in my previous letter, neither I nor any of the thousands of others who were investigated by the SSA ever found ourselves indicted or convicted of wrongdoing—since the goal wasn’t to actually find wrongdoers, as we were all law abiding citizens, but rather to pressure us into becoming complicit with the way the country was being run, and to repress us into becoming SSA collaborators. From the example given from my dossier it is clear that the Minister of Internal Affairs at the time, one Mr. Ljubomir Frčkoski, disregarded the provisions of the Constitutional Law and the Constitution, and continued to employ the State Security Apparatus, not as it ought be used by a democratic state, but in the same manner as it had been used during Titoism: as a political-ideological police! Here is a sample of the “measures and activities” that were employed against me during the 1990s (again keep in mind this was not an isolated case):

OUTLINE 309
MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS of the Republic of
Macedonia
SDB-1st Department
RDSDB-Kumanovo
Operative worker XXXXXXX
Evidentiary number: 309
08/APR/1993
Kumanovo
O U T L I N E of operative and operative-technical measures and activities to be undertaken in relation to PT "CRNI" In the current year for the purpose of detection, confirmation, documentation and prevention of the hostile activity of PT "CRNI", the
following measures and activities shall be undertaken:
1. The circle of close friendly connections from the region and beyond will be examined for the purpose of identifying a positive person for use;
2. An examination of commercial cooperation of entrepreneurs from the region and beyond for the purpose of identifying a positive person for use;
3. The connections and relations of PT "CRNI" with XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX shall be examined for the purpose of opportunity recognition for approach and his further use toward "Crni";
4. Application of the measure XXXXXX of his home telephone;
5. Application of the measure XXXXXX of his telephone in the company "Snežana i Sinovi";
6. Conversation with XXXXXXXXXXXXXX concerning his commercial cooperation with private and public companies from R Bulgaria;
7. Examination of the connections and relations of PT "Crni" with XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX


MIA of RM
SDB – 1st Department
RUSBD Kumanovo
Operative worker XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Evidentiary number 218 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
28/MAR/1994
Kumanovo
O U T L I N E of operative and operative-technical measures and activities to be undertaken in relation to PT "CRNI". In the course of this program period, for the purpose of detection, confirmation, documentation and prevention of the hostile activity of
PT "CRNI", the following measures and activities shall be undertaken:
1. The operative connections xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx are to be used in a more deliberate and more organized fashion.
2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is also to be used from time to time.
3 Continuation of the implementation of the measure xxxxxxxxxx of the telephone numbers (34-475) and (24-467).
4 Considering that the same has put two new phone numbers in service, an operational examination is to be conducted so as to be concluded which one of the aforementioned (5) telephone lines he uses for long distance calls with the purpose of implementation of the measure xxxxxxxxxxx
5 Furtherance of the efforts of discovering and examination of his business and other connections in the Republic of Macedonia.
6 Furtherance of the efforts of discovering and examination of his business and other connections in the Republic of Bulgaria, with special attention to be paid to those coming from the ranks of VMRO-SMD, business and other connections.
7 Implementation of the measure Trailing in the country, when he travels outside of the city of Kumanovo.
8 Implementation of the measure Trailing when he travels to and stays in the Republic of Bulgaria.
9 Depending of the received results from the materialization of these measures, our attitude toward and treatment of him will be decided upon. Operative worker, Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx If you have an earnest desire to understand the essence of my claims regarding the conduct of the members of the Commissions for Reforms to the Judiciary and the SSA, I recommend you do what you ought to have already done: I recommend you ask the relevant authorities in Macedonia for the exact number of people under electronic and physical surveillance by the UBK between the years 1991 and 2000; that is to say the exact number of persons illegally conducted under treatment of the SSA during the first nine years of Macedonian “independence.” I speak of this timeperiod specifically, as opposed to beyond the year 2000, since for this period we have the available dossiers made public by virtue of the Freedom of Information Act of 2000. A second reason why I emphasize this period as opposed to the time prior, is because the persons tapped to run the reforms Commissions in question were participants in the violations of rights during that period—a fact easily verifiable by reviewing these people’s CV’s. Even this notwithstanding, the fact that so many of
the people tapped to run and man the Commissions in question were affected by the Law on lustration—a Law whose repeal/revision will be among the top priorities of the bodies in question—screams of conflict of interest. One would have expected an
institution populated mostly with lawyers, such as the European Commission, to notice this gross violation of some of the most basic principles of ethics. Next, the Lustration Act, your criticisms and the Venice Commission’s amicus curae brief. In your reply letter from December 22, 2017 you say: The implementation of the Law on lustration had been criticized by the European Commission and the Venice Commission. This led the European Commission, in the definition of Urgent Reform Priorities, to call upon the country to “Address the serious shortcomings and revise/repeal of the Law on Lustration and its implementation (in particular with reference to the Venice Commission’s amicus curiae brief) as regards e.g. temporal limits; safeguards against political, ideological or party reasons used as grounds for lustration; exclusions of persons in private and semi-private positions and stronger safeguards protecting the identity of subjects until final court decision.” I had expected that the recoding of our Committee’s telephone conversation with Mr. Thomas Markert from December of 2012 would alert you to the fact that the Venice Commission’s amicus curiae brief was tainted. This, if you had taken the time to listen to the conversation was due to the omission of important information that the Macedonian side provided to the Commission. Namely, the fact that there had been so many instances of politically motivated persecutions during the 1990s (upward of 4,000, hardly a case of “individual case”), and that these “investigations” were governed by an illegally published set of Governing Ordinances that were published in a “Special” edition of the “Official Journal/Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia”—that’s an edition unavailable to the general public and contrary to
Article 52 of the Constitution (“Laws and other regulations are published before they come into force. Laws and other regulations are published in 'The Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia' at most seven days after the day of their adoption.”)—in this case Special Official Journal No. 10/92, and later in Special Official Journal No. 10, from 31 October, 1995. I’m not sure which is more disturbing, the fact that the Macedonian system is so brazenly corrupt as to dupe European bodies, or the fact that their manipulations so obviously work! Our Committee agrees that the specific path to lustration taken by the Gruevski Government was improper. In fact at the time when the Lustration Act was being put through Parliamentary procedure, our Committee made countless attempts to make both the relevant bodies and the public aware that what was being adopted would only produce a false lustration—which has proven to be the case. Our stance from the beginning has been that lustration ought to be conducted through the regular courts, and should be guided by Article 7 of EC Resolution 1096. Lustration must not be a process of political reprisals, however, neither should it be one of purifying the reputations and whitewashing the crimes of those who abused the
State. That said, our Committee disagrees with how the EC has approached the lustration question in Macedonia. For one, we fault the EC for not taking a more determined stand on the fact that Macedonia cannot move forward without lustration. The
present attitude of the EU and its bodies is often construed in Macedonian circles as one disapproving of lustration, period. For another, we find fault with the European Commission for not taking a firmer guiding position in Macedonia’s attempt at lustration, for not insisting on a process that would mirror those of East Germany or of Lithuania—to name but two. We find fault with the European Commission for not making a more explicit stand on the fact that the so-called previous regime was in fact a totalitarian regime, since it summarily shot, imprisoned, and re-educated by the thousands those whom it deemed morally-politically deficient. We also find fault with the EU and its bodies in failing to take a more diligent interest in the systematic violations that took place/most likely still taking place in post-Yugoslav Macedonia. While the crimes of the “previous regime” may have happened “a long time ago,” those of the “post-Communist” era are quite more recent. So disinterested does the EU and all its bodies appear in this problem, that, for example, on the numerous occasions when we contacted former Euroambassador to Macedonia, Erwan Foere, regarding lustration and the violations that had taken place during the 1990s, his standard reply was that he cannot intervene in individual cases—sadly, also the conclusion to your letter from December 22. Were I not such a naïve believer in Europe and its partiality for the rule of law and justice, I may be inclined to believe that perhaps Europe has a soft spot for Balkanized Communist thugs and pillagers. Perhaps, as means to remedy this situation the EC could make an effort to insist on the adoption of Article 7 of EC Resolution 1096 within the revision of the Lustration Act. I mention the number of upward of 4,000 persecuted between 1991 and 2000 above and in my first letter. This is a rather conservative figure and on the low side of an estimate of 4,000-10,000 at one time floated by former State Archive Director Zoran Todorovski. There is another number to consider. Namely the one recently floated by former UBD chief, Slobodan Bogoevski, in one of his what now appear to be weekly interviews in the Macedonian media. Mr. Bogoevski stated the number 350,000 as the potential number of collaborators to the SSA. This should give you a better idea as to the actual number of SSA persecution victims in Macedonia, especially knowing that the SSA generally makes a collaborator out of a former victim. Or rather, a SSA collaborator is for the most part also a victim in that they remain under surveillance and other repressive measures throughout their time of collaboration as a means of ensuring their loyalty. Their blood, metaphorical though it may be, is no longer just on the hands of Yugoslavian/Macedonian authorities. It is also on the hands of European officials who choose to turn their nose up and hide behind the comfort of the excuse that they cannot intervene in individual cases. Too bad for Goering and company that people with your and Mr. Fouere’s attitude were
not around in Nuremberg in 1945-46. The world might have seen some real justice then! Please understand, Sir, Macedonia doesn’t need Europe for its highway, green energy, and equity funds. Apparently she’s been having access to enough of those for
long enough. Rather Macedonia needs Europe for its traditions of rule of law and respect for individual and property rights. The Macedonian situation has long roots, and Macedonian society cannot move forward until they are addressed. In 1935 French author Henry Pozzi, while describing the situation in Serbian annexed Macedonia—i.e. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia—wrote: It is also quite true that the barbed wire has transformed Serbian Macedonia
into an immense prison, into an indescribable hell of violence and misery, from which it is no longer possible to escape, no longer possible to enter without special permission from the Yugoslav authorities. The jailors of the prison are not responsible to anyone. The barbed wire M. Pozzi spoke of was a more than 200-mile long quadruple fortification that separated one part of Macedonia from another, turning my homeland into an open air prison. In the same exposé, War is Coming Again: Black
Hand Over Europe, M. Pozzi echoes the findings of the Carnegie Commission Report on the atrocities committed during and immediately following the Balkan Wars, from two decades earlier, which speak of unimaginable acts of violence and
inhumanity against the Macedonian people. At the time, M. Pozzi’s work remained ignored by European decision makers. Following the Second World War, and the installation of the Communist Regime, the Socialist Republic of Macedonia—i.e. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia— continued acting as a prison for the Macedonian population, the proof of which is to be found in the State Archive of the Republic of Macedonia, as well as the archives of the American Central Intelligence Agency. Here, escape and the spread of ideas not in line with those of the ruling party were again a crime. Regardless of what Europeans may wish the world to believe, Tito’s Yugoslavia was scarcely more than a vehicle for the Pan-Serbian dream of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that had led the world global war. The government’s attitude toward Macedonian self-identification was practically indistinguishable between that of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (the one ruled by the Serbian king) and of Tito’s “Federal” Yugoslavia. The same treatment continued even after the ostensible declaration of independence of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The same treatment continued because all the judicial, police, academic, media and cultural principles
and figures remained unchanged. My dossier, my case in its totality is proof of it. Macedonians were investigated and put under repressive measure for the suspicion of being pro-Macedonian “local patriots” and for espousing ideals different to those
of the ruling party—ideals of free speech, free markets, and the rule of law! To me this suggests that a Macedonian cannot be free in the country that calls itself Macedonia (or something like that) even today. Life became untenable for my family in Macedonia after I went public with what I had suspected was being done to me and to the party I was supporting. Mine is not an isolated case, as again can be established by a perusal of the State Archive of the Republic of Macedonia. I am only
unique in that I escaped and sought refugee status, which I obtained only thanks to the timely adoption of the Freedom of Information Act of 2000—something that those before me would not have been so lucky with. You may say I’m unique in one
way, in that my immediate family and I have completely broken ties with our former life in Macedonia, since that is the price for our defection, and that is the only reason why I remain vocal about the issue. The common thread through the three periods of Macedonian oppression that have encompassed the past century is the complicity of European statesmen in the process. Every single one of the three regimes that ruled Macedonia throughout this time were approved of and financed by the great European powers. Today, again Europe seems uninterested in establishing law and order in Macedonia, and seemingly is more concerned about the protection of the reputations of those who have blood on their hands. This was not the case with Nuremberg, nor was it the case with post-Communist Poland, East Germany, Lithuania, etc. Yet, with the “former” Yugoslavia Europe seems far more concerned with the reputations of those who violated, tortured, pillaged, and brain-washed entire nations. This begs the question, why? Why is it that Europe keeps insisting on preserving the Pan-Serbian Communist elite in Macedonia, Croatia, and elsewhere in Greater Serbia and why is it that Europe seems poised on forming another Belgrade dominated Yugoslavia? Are we South Slavs not worthy of European status, or better yet, of human status? Have the past hundred years not been enough of a lesson in what happens when Belgrade is in charge of those not of its kind? The jailors of the prison called Yugoslav Macedonia remain not responsible to anyone. Not only do continue to roam free, but also continue to influence the present and frame the future of this tragic land.


Sincerely,
Jordan Petrovski
Committee for the Democratization of the Republic of Macedonia
Chairman




Read more...

TO: Mr. Johanes Hahn (3)

Сликовит приказ каде ке стасаме благодарејки на молкот на Хан и ЕУ за непочитувањето на Уставот, законите, криминалите на Заев


COMMITTEE FOR THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

 

March 5, 2018

St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

 

TO:      Mr. Johanes Hahn, European Commissioner for European Neighborhood 
Policy and Enlargement Negotiations

D – West Balkans

D.3 – The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo

Attn:    David Cullen
Dear Mr. Hahn/Mr. Cullen,

Thank you for your reply from February, 2018 in response to my letter dated January 9, 2018. It is encouraging to see that we are tending toward the same goal, namely the ascension of the Rule of Law in the Republic of Macedonia. It must not be forgotten that Macedonia specific, and the Balkan region in general are an integral part of the European continent, that has unfortunately been circumvented by history when it comes to the adoption of the liberal practices that have been fundamental to the rise of modern European culture. Where Europe to the north of the Danube and to the west Carpathians spent the Middle Ages reconciling the philosophies of the Ancients with that of Christianity, and slowly developed systems based on the sanctity of the individual and the respect for life, liberty, and property, the nations of the Balkan Peninsula spent this period mired in the feudalistic systems of Byzantine intrigue and Ottoman law of the jungle. And while the late 19th and the early 20th centuries finally saw a breakthrough of Western influences in the Balkans, these were eradicated with the imposition of Communist rule throughout the majority of the Peninsula in the aftermath of the Second World War.

The fundamental effect of Communism on the Balkans has been the catastrophic plunge of its nations back to the darkest societal caverns of the Dark Ages. What liberal thought had begun to blossom by 1945 was substituted by an ideology that by its own adherents has been described as a doctrine that “preaches slavery.” Yet, under the auspices of this doctrine, the youths of Communist-ruled Balkan nations were raised and educated, formally for 45 years, and in fact still to this day. Macedonian universities created cadre indoctrinated in the Marxian perspective of law and justice and these cadre are the law professors, jurists, and legal advisors of to-day.

If the European Commission’s commitment to the ascension of the Balkan nations to the respect of the Rule of Law is sincere, then it must address the issue of personnel appointments, since it is people who implement policy recommendations. Perhaps the decades-long failure to integrate the Balkan nations into the European flock has been the result of the failure of European statesmen to acknowledge the direct relationship between their policy/reform recommendations and the people entrusted to carry them out. Macedonia, quite like the rest of the former Yugoslav states, suffers from the fact that its institutions are dominated by people educated in the Red Universities of the Communist regime, most of whom have participated in violations of human rights and trampling of the nation’s laws. It is impossible to expect these adherents to the Byzantine, Ottoman, and Marxian traditions to liberalize and Europeanize the Balkans, as they see no benefit for themselves in it. These people have demonstrated to be far more interested in being the rulers of the most backward and undeveloped nations in Europe, rather than contend with the possibility of being average citizens in a state that affords far greater standards of living for everyone.

Macedonia, and the rest of the former Yugoslav states for that matter, is in desperate need of Lustration as the first step toward the ascension of the Rule of Law. To that end, the EC already has provided the guidelines for a proper, legitimate purge of “formerly” totalitarian Communist societies by virtue of its Resolutions 1096 and 1481. All that would be necessary is the implementation of Article 7 of Resolution 1096 for Lustration to gain a proper legal foothold. The question now is, why doesn’t the EC insist that these “former” Communist states, like Macedonia, make appropriate action that is in line with the principles outlined in the Resolutions?

 

Sincerely,

Jordan Petrovski

Committee for the Democratization of the Republic of Macedonia

Chairman

 

 

 
Read more...

TO: Mr. Johanes Hahn (4)

COMMITTEE FOR THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

April 5, 2018
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
TO:      Mr. Johanes Hahn, European Commissioner for European Neighborhood 
Policy and Enlargement Negotiations
D – West Balkans
D.3 – The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo
Attn:    David Cullen
Dear Mr. Hahn/Mr. Cullen,

Your letter from March 27, 2018 implies that our last letter (3/5/2018) contained no new insight and therefore you saw no reason to dignify it with a proper response. In essence this was not truly any different from the responses we have been getting from you in particular in the past few months, or the EC in general in the past ten years. The reason why we seem to keep repeating ourselves is because you never provide a concrete response to our concerns, nor do you express curiosity to move the conversation forward.

The EC has repeatedly declared that its mission regarding Macedonia is to establish the rule of law, and yet none of its practical proposals to the Macedonian state have ever included specific recommendations for doing away with the remnants of the Communist Party regime—the actual roadblock to the rule of law. This despite EC Resolutions 1096 and 1481, and despite the established precedent of pressuring former Communist countries, such as Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states, to purge their ranks of Party Police collaborators. In fact, in Macedonia, the EC has consistently supported legislative solutions that shelter those who were connected to the Communist Party regime, as well as those who operated in its spirit despite the nominal abandonment of the single-party system. Furthermore, the EC seems convinced that the people who operated in anti-democratic ways ought to be the folks that bring about democracy to Macedonia.

Since you feel that you’ve addressed our concerns satisfactorily, I trust that you will see no issues with our making this exchange public thereby letting the people of Macedonia decide whether the EC has their best interests at heart or those of their oppressors.

Sincerely,

Jordan Petrovski

Committee for the Democratization of the Republic of Macedonia

Chairman




 
Read more...

TO: Mr. Johanes Hahn (5)

COMMITTEE FOR THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

June 17, 2018
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

TO:      Mr. Johanes Hahn, European Commissioner for European Neighborhood 
Policy and Enlargement Negotiations
D – West Balkans
D.3 – The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo
Attn:    David Cullen

Dear Mr. Hahn,

In our recent correspondences I underlined on more than one occasion that Macedonia needs the EU for one reason and one reason only: Not in order to gain access to European slush funds, but in order to become a legitimate Western society by instituting the rule of law as its foundational principle. All of your prior announcements, especially the Pribe Plan, were directed toward an establishment of the rule of law in Macedonia by following the Constitution, the laws, and Parliamentary Rules of Procedure. However, your replies to my letters rather than fill me with confidence, left me feeling seriously doubtful that the EU is sincerely committed to establishing the rule of law and guiding Macedonia toward the abandonment of the Third-World, corrupt, undemocratic, totalitarian practices inherited from Yugoslavia and the Ottoman Empire, where might is right and the law does not apply to those in power.

My doubt was caused by the fact that all those who are responsible for the illegal and unconstitutional acts of wiretapping and other serious violations of personal and political liberties prior to 2006—the people that should have been purged out of Macedonian society by way of the lustration that the EU with the help of its “civil society” allies repeatedly blocked—have found themselves in directorial positions in the state security apparatus or other positions of authority elsewhere in the Zaev regime. Your interview with the Macedonian Information Agency from 13 June 2018 is proof that my doubts were not simple bouts of paranoia. There, speaking on the question of the recent agreement between Macedonia’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister with their counterparts from the Greek government, you state that: “The PM and FM have fully respected constitutional settings, and I can only urge the President to take responsibility.” (My emphasis.)

I find it uncharacteristic for a diplomat of your caliber to be unfamiliar with the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, and yet to make claims based upon it! This action of yours only adds to the tensions in Macedonia, which are already quite high, contrary to your statements for the Viennese Der Standard where you suggest that the mood in Macedonia is one of euphoria. To this point, the Greek populace does not appear to be content with the solution reached by the two countries’ Governments, either. However, I will only focus on the question from the Macedonian side here, from the perspective of the rule of law.

Your unequivocal support for this unsanctioned arrangement only goes to encourage the violation of the Constitution and the Law by Prime Minister Zaev and his Foreign Minister Dimitrov, and for the authoritarian style of rule by the Zaev regime, which over the weekend, as on so many occasions before has resorted to the use of force in order to prevent the people from displaying their dissatisfaction with the politics of this illegitimate government. This is unfortunately something that as a general rule, you have been doing since the inception of this Government. According to Article 119 of the Macedonian Constitution:

International agreements are concluded in the name of the Republic of Macedonia by the President of the Republic of Macedonia. International agreements may also be concluded by the Government of the Republic of Macedonia, when it is so determined by law. (My emphasis.)

There is no such provision in the Act for the Government of the Republic of Macedonia that grants authority to the Government of the Republic of Macedonia to enter into international agreements relating to state attributes. This authority is defined in the Act for Entering Into, Ratification, and Execution of International Agreements (Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia No. 5/1998). The same law (Article 3, paragraph 2) enumerates the spheres of authority in which the Government may, in the name of the Republic of Macedonia, enter into international agreements. They are as follows: economy, finance, science, culture, education and sport, traffic and communications, urban development and environmental protection, agriculture, forestry, water management, health, energy, justice, labour and social politics, human rights, diplomatic and consular relations, and defense and state security, except for issues relating to the borders of the Republic of Macedonia, entering into alliances and unions with foreign states, or exiting such alliances and unions and other international agreements, which, under international law are entered into by heads of states.

I have quoted this provision in full in order to give you a clear idea as to the spheres in which the Government of R Macedonia has authority to enter into international agreements. Here you can see that in none of the enumerated spheres (including defense) does the Government have the authority to enter into agreements on the issue of changing the name of the state. Likewise, you may see that the enumeration of the spheres of authority in which the Government may enter into agreements in the stated provision ends with the sphere of defense and security, and it is clear that this provision is not open to other spheres of authority that the Government may enumerate upon itself for entering into international agreements, nor may the Government grant itself the authority in the spheres of authority listed in this provision that have been reserved solely for the authority of the President of the Republic of Macedonia to enter into international agreements under its own initiative. This is so, since the Constitution demands that it be regulated by law when the Government may enter into international agreements.

Since the Act for Entering Into, Ratification, and Execution of International Agreements does not allow for the Government to enter into international agreements relating to state attributes, such as the name of the state, I put it to you: Is there a law, and if so what is this law, that grants the Government of R Macedonia the authority to enter into an international agreement to change the name of the Republic? If there is such a law, has this law been presented to the Commissioner for Enlargement or to some other EU institution so that you or it may evaluate the legality and constitutionality of the actions of the Government, PM Zaev, and FM Dimitrov? I would like to point out to you that in the case of the Tzipras-Zaev deal the President of the Republic of Macedonia was deprived even of having his personal representative—the figure that has traditionally been the head negotiator for the Macedonian side.

My hopes, as well as the hopes of the majority of Macedonians, for the sincerity of your statements regarding the establishment of the rule of law in Macedonia were dashed with the illegal appointment of Mr Tallat Xafferi as Speaker of the Assembly, an action that was endorsed by yourself and the EU. We chose to give the EU the benefit of the doubt at the time, as we tried to justify the resort to lawlessness and gangsterism as necessitated by the obstructions to forming a government. Nonetheless, such actions could and should never be deemed acceptable in a democratic state with Western values. That is why you, as a Euro-commissioner, and a man that grew up and lived his life in a Western democracy, ought to have demanded new elections rather than stand by and endorse the banditism that we all witnessed on April 27, 2017. At that time the right thing for you to do was to demand new elections because Zaev broke his fundamental promise to not enter into coalition with criminals by doing just that when he formed a coalition with VMRO-DPMNE’s former partner, the DUI, and then proceeded to violate the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out to you yet again that your words and actions matter, and a poor choice could easily lead to an escalation of the tensions in Macedonia that may result in human casualties. It is my most sincere belief that this is not your wish, although, as I have already stated above, I am beginning to seriously doubt the sincerity your motives. And if you are someone who is sincerely concerned with democracy and the spreading of Western values, then you ought to think twice about your actions if someone like me, a believer in the rule of law and Western values so dedicated to the issue that he was willing to lose all he has—and a representative of such men—is questioning your sincerity and your motives. This is why I implore you to study the Constitution and the laws of the Republic of Macedonia, the discretions of the president and the government, so that you may act as an authentic representative of European democracy.

Furthermore, your statements that your Commission will advance the issue of the rule of law once the negotiations for accession begin are baffling. You have already endorsed the thuggish, lawless, and patently anti-democratic appointment of the Speaker of the Assembly, and have now in addition endorsed this illegitimate deal on the name issue. How do you expect a regime that has been repeatedly given the green light by the EU when it blatantly acted to violate the principle of the rule of law to convert and mend its ways after it has learned that it may do as it pleases, since the EU is now more concerned with beating Putin to the punch, or more alarmingly, exclusively concerned with stamping out any outstanding remnants of self-consciousness rather than promoting authentic democracy and the rule of law?

Lastly, the populace on both sides of the border has met the deal made by the Macedonian and Greek Governments with loud disapproval. Despite your statements in Der Standard, the news of the agreement between the Macedonian and Greek Governments has not produced good feelings and euphoria in Macedonia, it has, in fact, created yet another wedge in the society and produced another crisis. How do you expect Macedonia’s accession into the EU under such circumstances to bring about more peace and harmony to the region specifically, and the Union generally? When one sees the discontent with this spurious agreement on both sides of the border, but particularly on the side of the potential new member-state of the EU, one is logically driven to ask: Qui bono? Liberty and democracy are ideals based on the tenet of mutual benefit, while the opposite, that is, the lack of mutual benefit, is the definition of tyranny. The Macedonians clearly see no benefit in the arrangement reached by the illegitimate Zeav Government and their counterpart on the other side of the frontier. They find your indecent proposal of foreign investments and slush funds not worth the price of forfeiting the struggle begotten by their great-great-grandfathers and their millennium-and-a-half long tradition. If you were a man of Christ, perhaps you’d understand that there is something more valuable to a man than all the kingdoms of the world. With the Macedonians that is clearly their heritage, their culture, their name. They have suffered much over the past six centuries to preserve these things. When the Turk invaded, they took to the mountains and deprived themselves the pleasures of the world and the benefits of living along one of the world’s key junctions, just so they would not give up their tradition and faith. When the Greeks and Serbs took over from the Turks and attempted to forcefully assimilate them, they took to terrorism and activism. When the Communists came, they took to evangelism. Through the propaganda, misinformation, persecution, and confusion, the Macedonians never let go of who they are. What makes you think you can defeat something so natural and intrinsic in the Macedonian character with the promise of a low-definition, quasi-bourgeois lifestyle?

As I have said time and time again: Macedonia needs Europe for one reason and one reason only, to help it establish a system and a tradition of rule of law. Macedonia already has access to World Bank and IMF funds; it already has low-paying “foreign investment” type jobs; Macedonian youth and talent has already emptied out its motherland in search for better employment elsewhere. Macedonia and her children need the same sort of Western support today that they needed in 1878, in 1903, in 1945, and in 1991: to establish a proper democracy. If this is not the hand that the European Commission is willing to lend, then the EU and all its bodies should respectfully take their neo-Marxist claptrap back to whence they came.

Sincerely,

Jordan Petrovski

Committee for the Democratization of the Republic of Macedonia

President

Ке го дадеме оваа писмо и на Македонски:

Досега не практикувавме да ја објавуваме преписката на Комитетот со еврокомесарот Хан, но оваа последно писмо кое утринава веке е на работната маса на господинот Хан ке го објавиме заради важноста на моментот за Македонија. Во идните недела, две ке ја објавиме целата наша преписка со господинот Хан за да оние кои ги интереси добијат јасна слика зошто Комитетот зазеде став кој е против постапките на владата на Заев

 

КОМИТЕТ ЗА ДЕМОКРАТИЗАЦИЈА НА

РЕПУБЛИКА МАКЕДОНИЈА

12 јуни 2018 година

Сент Кантеринс, Онтарио, Канада

 

ДО:      Г. Јоханес Хан, Еврокомесар за европска соседска политика и преговори за проширување

            Оддел – Западен Балкан

            Оддел.3 – Поранешна југословенска република Македонија, Косово

ВН:      Дејвид Кулен

 

 

Почитуван господине Хан,

Во нашите неодамнешни преписки на повеќе од една пригода Ви подвлеков дека ЕУ на Македонија ѝ е потребна од една, и само една причина: Не за да добие пристап до европските дискрециони фондови,  за да се трансформира во легитимно Западно општество преку воспоставување на владеење на правото како нејзин темелен принцип. Сите ваши најави, особено планот ПРИБЕ беа во насока во Македонија да се воспостави владеење на правото по пат на почитување на Уставот, законите и на Деловникот на Собранието. Меѓутоа, Вашите одговори на моите писма ме оставија да се сомневам во искреноста на Вашата, а и заложбата на ЕУ,  Македонија конечно да стане држава во која Уставот и законите ке се почитуваат, и дека ќе се напуштат третосветските практики на владеење на силата кршење на законите од страна на властите, оставени на Македонците како наследство од Југославија и Османлиската Империја.

Мојот сомнеж беше предизвикан од фактот што сите оние кои неуставно прислушкувале и биле одговорни за разни други прекршувања на личните и политичките слободи пред 2006 година—луѓе кои што требаше да бидат исчистени од македонското општество по пат на лустрацијата која неколкукратно беше попречена од страна на ЕУ со помош на нејзините сојузници од „граѓанскиот сектор“—се најдоа на раководни функции во УБК и на други одговорни места во режимот на Заев. Вашето интервју за МИА од 13.06.2018 година ми потврди
дека моите сомнежи не биле само изливи на параноја. Таму велите:
„Мислам дека премиерот и министерот за надворешни целосно ги почитуваа уставните насоки и можам само да го повикам итно претседателот да преземе одговорност.“ (Мое нагласување.)

Сметам дека е 
несвојствено за дипломат од Ваш калибар да не го познава Уствот на Р. Македнија а да се повикува на него! Таквата Ваша постапка само ги зголемува тензиите во Македонија, коишто и онака се веќе високи, спротивно на Вашите изјави за виенски „Der Stanadard“ каде сугерирате дека договорот во Македонија предизвикал чувство на еуфорија. Во таа смисла ниту грчкото население не делува дека е задоволно од решението постигнато од владите на двете земји. Но, јас тука ќе се задржам само на прашањето од македонската страна, од перспектива на владеење на правото.

Вашата недвосмислена поддршка за овој нелегитимен договор само придонесува кон охрабрување на кршењето на Уставот и Законот од стрна на премиерот Заев и министерот за надворешни работи Димитров, и за авторитарниот стил на владеење на режимот на Заев, кој за време на тековниот викенд, како и во број други прилики прибегна кон употребата на сила со цел да го попречи народот од изразувањето на своето незадоволство со политиката на онаа нелегитимна влада. Ова е, за жал, генерално правило до кое Вие се придржувате од зачетокот на оваа Влада. Според член 119 од Уставот на РМ:

Меѓународните договори во името на Република Македонија ги склучува претседателот на Република Македонија.

Меѓународни договори може да склучува и Владата на Република Македонија кога тоа е определено со закон. (Мое нагласување.)

Во Законот за Владата на Република Македонија нема одредба што предвидува надлежност на Владата за склучување меѓународни договори, туку закон во кој е определено кога Владата може да склучува меѓународни договори е Законот за склучување, ратификација и извршување на меѓународните договори („Службен весник на РМ“ бр.5/1998).
Според истиот закон (член 3 став 2), Владата може, во име на Република Македонија, да склучува меѓународни договори со кои се уредуваат прашања од следните области: економија, финансии, наука, култура, образование и спорт, сообраќај и врски, урбанизам, градежништво и заштита на животната средина, земјоделство, шумарство, водостопанство, здравство, енергетика, правда, труд и социјална политика, човекови права, дипломатско-конзуларни односи, како и од областа на одбраната и безбедноста на државата, освен за прашања во врска со границата на Република Македонија, стапување во сојузи или заедници со други држави или за истапување од такви сојузи и заедници и други меѓународни договори, кои, според меѓународното право, ги склучуваат шефови на држави.

Оваа одредба е наведена во целост за да биде појасно во кои области Владата може да склучува меѓународни договори и за да се види дека во ниту една од наведените области (па ни во областа на безбедноста) не може да се вклучи прашањето за промена на името на Република Македонија. Исто така може да се види дека определувањето на областите во кои Владата може да склучува меѓународни договори во наведената одредба завршува со областа на одбраната и безбедноста и може да се види дека оваа одредба не е отворена за други области што Владата сама би си ги зела во надлежност за склучување меѓународни договори, а ни областите наведени во оваа одредба, а задржани само во надлежност на претседателот не ѝ даваат на Владата овластување да склучува меѓународни договори, по свое слободно наоѓање. Ова, затоа што Уставот бара со закон да биде определено кога Владата може да склучува меѓународни договори.

Бидејќи во Законот за склучување меѓународни договори не е определено Владата да може да склучува договори во врска со државните атрибути меѓу кои е името на државата, Ве прашувам: Има ли и кој е тој закон во кој Владата наоѓа овластување да склучи меѓународен договор за промена на името на државата и дали тој закон ви е преставен Вам или на некоја институција на ЕУ за да имате можност да ја оцените законитоста и Усавноста на постпаките на владата и премиерот Заев?

Мојата надеж, а и надежта на грото Македоници, во вербата во искреноста Вашите ветувања дека ке се прекине со непочитување на Уставот и законите беше уништена после противзаконското назначување за председател на собранието на г. Таљат Џафери, постапка којашто беше поддржана од Вас и од Европската унија. Тогаш одлучивме да прогледаме низ прсти на тоа безаконие, со надеж дека сепак ќе уследи некаков надомест, оправдувувајќи го ганстеризам како средство да се прекине опструирањето на формирање на влада. Сепак, таква постапка во демократска држава со Западни вредности никогаш не би можело да се смета за прифатливо. Затоа, Вие како Еврокомесар и човек кој израснал во демократска држава немавте друг избор освен да побарате нови избори наместо да го поддржувате и уважувате бандитизмот што се случи на 27 април 2018 година. Тогаш исправната насока на делување за Вас беше барате нови избори затоа што основното ветување на Заев дека нема да колаицира со криминалци беше прекршено, и затоа што тој продолжи да го прекршува Деловникот на собранието на РМ.

Би сакал во оваа пригода повторно да Ви подвлечам дека Вашите постапки и зборови имаат значење, и дека лош избор лесно може да придонсе до ескалација на проблемот што може да резултира во загуба на некој човечки живот. Најискрено верувам дека тоа не е ваша желба, иако како што веќе наведов погоре, почнувам сериозно да се сомневам во искреноста на Вашите мотиви. А, доколку сте човек кој искрено е загрижен за демократијата и ширењето на Западните вредности, тогаш треба да поразмислите кога човек како мене, човек толку голем верник во владеењето на правото и Западните вредности што бил подготвен да изгуби сѐ што има во име на истите—и е претставник на такви луѓе—се сомнева во Вашата искреност и Вашите мотиви. Затоа Ве молам првин да го проучите македонскиот Устав, да ги осознаете ингеренциите на председателот и владата, за тогаш да делувате како вистински представник на демократска Европа.

Понатаму, Вашата изјава дека Комисијата за проширување ќе постапи по прашањето на владеење на правото откако ќе отпочнат преговорите за прием на Македонија во ЕУ е целосно збунувачка. Вие веќе го имате поддржано насилничкото, беззаконско и чисто антидемократско назначување на Претседателот на собранието, а сега одозгора на тоа го уважувате овој нелегитимен договор во спорот за името. Како очекувате режим кој неколкунавратно добил зелено светло од ЕУ кога очигледно го прекршувал владеењето на правото да се трансформира и да се поправи кога научил дека може да работи како сака, со оглед на тоа дека сега ЕУ е позагрижена со преткнувањето на Путин, или позагрижувачки, е исклучиво посветена на истребување на последните останки на самосвеста, наместо со промоцијата на автентичната демократија и владеењето на правото?

Конечно, населението на двете страни на границата ја прими спогодбата склучена од страна на владите на Македонија и Грција со гласно негодување. И покрај Вашите „Dеr Standard“, веста за договорот помеѓу владите на Македонија и Грција не произведе добри чувства ниту еуфорија во Македонија, туку, напротив, произведе уште еден ракол во општеството и уште една криза. Како очекувате приемот на Македонија во ЕУ под такви околности да придонесе до повеќе мир и хармонија во регионот конкретно, и Унијата генерално? Гледајќи го незадоволството од овој нелегитимен договор на двете страни на границата, но особено на страната на потенцијалната нова земја-членка на ЕУ, се покренува логичното прашање: Qui bono [Кој е добитникот]? Слободата и демократијата се идеали засновани на принципот на меѓусебен добробит, додека обратното, односно, осуството на меѓусебна придобивка, е по дефиниција тиранија. Македонците очигледно не гледаат придобивка во договорот постигнат од нелегитимната влада на Заев и нивните колеги од другата страна на границата. Тие го сметаат Вашиот непристоен предлог за странски инвестиции и дискрециони фондови не доволно вредни за да се откажат од борбата започната од нивните пра-прадедовци и нивната 1.500-годишна традиција. Доколку сте човек посветен на Христа, можеби ќе разберете дека постојат нешта кои му се повредни на човекот одошто сите кралства на светот. За Македонците тоа е очигледно нивното наследство, нивната култура, нивното име. Тие страдале многу за време на изминатите шест века со цел да ги зачуваат овие работи. Кога ги покорил Турчинот, тие се преселиле во планините и се откажале од задоволствата на светот и придобивките кои прилегаат на животот на една од главните светски раскрсници, се цел да не се откажат од својата традиција и својата вера. Кога Грците и Србите го презеле камшикот од Турците и се обиделе насилно да ги асимилираат, тие се предале на тероризмот и активизмот. Кога дошле Комунистите, тие се предале на евангелизмот. И покрај сета пропаганда, дезиноформација, прогон и конфузија, Македонците никогаш не се откажале од она што се. Зошто мислите дека можете да совладате нешто толку природно и инстинктивно во македонскиот карактер со верувањето за фалсификуван, квази-буржуаски животен стил?

Како што Ви имам напоменато во повеќе наврати: ЕУ ѝ е потребна на Македонија од една и само една причина, да ѝ помогне да воспостави систем и традиција на владеење на правото. Македонија веќе има пристап до фондовите на Светска банка и ММФ; веќе има ниско-платежни работни места ос „странски инвестиции“; веќе е испразнета од нејзината младина и нејзиниот талент излезени во потрага по поголема плата. Македонија и нејзините чеда имаат потреба од истиот вид на помош што ѝ бил потребен во 1878, 1903, 1945 и 1991 година: да воспостави вистинска демократија. Доколку ова не е помошта која Европската заедница не е подготвена да ја пружи, тогаш ЕУ и нејзините органи треба со сета почит да си го спакуваат своето неомарксистичко ѓубре и да си се вратат таму од кај што дошле.

 

Со почит,

Јордан Петровски

Комитет за демократизација на Република Македонија

Претседател

Read more...

СОКРИВАЊЕ НА СОДРЖИНАТА НА ДОГОВОРОТ СО ГРЦИЈА

Јордан Петровски 30.07.2018

Ако на човекот не можеш да му го дадеш онаа што си му го ветил :еднаквост пред законот, расчистување со криминалот, корупцијата, злоупотребата на тајната полиција , тогаш наметни му друга потреба, Законот за Албаски јазик, Промена на Името!! Бидејки овие две вистини се непријатни, мора да се заменат со благопријатни лаги , мед и млеко од членство во ЕУ, односно леб без мотика!! со влез во ЕУ ке престане криминалот, корупцијата, безаконието а членство во НАТО ке ти гарантира безбедност, целовитост на државата, значи друг ке се справува, ке војува за тебе, за да ја попречи федерализацијата на државата како последен чекор пред отцепување на Албанците!!








Read more...

LETTER TO SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO (1)

Заради оние кои не го владеат англискиот јазик ке дадаме кратко сиже што содржат писмата.

Помеѓу 23 јуни и 5 август 2018 година, Комитетот за демократизација на Република Македонија испрати две писма до американскиот државен секретар Мајк Помпео.

Во првото Комитетот ја протестира одлуката на Секретарот да го поздрави договорот Ципрас-Заев наменет да го промени името на Република Македонија. Протестот на Комитетот се заснова на фактот што договорот е неуставен и како таков е продолжение на беззаконието и прекршувањето на принципот на владеење на правото. Комитетот ја користи приликата да го потсети секретарот Помпео дека власта која го потпиша овој договор е наследник на СКЈ-Македонија, која со децении седеше на две столици и ја злоупотебруваше добродушноста за Западот, истовремено шијанираше ги вистинските пропоненти на западните вредности и алијанси во Македонија.

COMMITTEE FOR THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

June 23, 2018

St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada 

TO:      Mr. Michael Pompeo, Secretary of the State Department

Dear Mr. Secretary;

It is with a great sense of regret and disappointment that I read the following announcement on the State Department’s website: “Secretary Pompeo urged French Foreign Minister Le Drian to support NATO extending an invitation to Macedonia to join, as well as the EU opening accession talks, following the signing of the name agreement between Greece and Macedonia.”

Perhaps I had been mistaken, but I was under the impression that the Clinton-Obama-Soros Shadow Party’s reign ended on November 8, 2016.

My disappointment with the announcement comes, not from the fact that you apparently are endorsing the name change of my former homeland—although I’m certainly not happy with the idea—but with the fact that you are seemingly endorsing an unconstitutional deal reached by an illegitimate government. A government, no less, comprised of the rebranded Communist Party of Yugoslavia and backed by the greatest enemy of the West since President Reagan took down the USSR, George Soros.

I write to you in the name of the Macedonian Right: the veterans of Tito’s gulags, the forced refugees, the evangelists of democratic and Western values, the champions of the ideal of a free democratic Republic of Macedonia under the protectorate of America. I write to you in the name of the silenced proponents of free markets and Western democracy who have been repeatedly betrayed by the Reds at the CIA and the State Department beginning with the 1950s all the way through the 1990s and into the Obama years. If you have ever wondered why it is that the former Yugoslavia never made it as a state, or why its successors never amounted to much, it is precisely because of the policy of the United States and its Western allies to support the anti-Western, anti-democratic, anti-capitalist, liars, manipulators, and murderers who want nothing to do with political freedom, diplomatic honesty, or Christian integrity.

The present Macedonian Government is, as noted above, illegitimate. The Speaker of the Parliament, Mr. Tallat Xaferi was appointed to his position by a gross violation of Parliamentary procedure. The state security apparatus, i.e. the secret police, remains unreformed, as is the case with the judiciary. The agreement on the name change with Greece is likewise illegitimate, as the President of the Republic of Macedonia was not represented in the negotiations, and is unwilling to sign the deal. And, it is the President, not the Government, who holds the Constructional authority to sign international agreements of this nature. If this counts for anything, the majority of Macedonians are not happy with this deal, either

I will keep this short, Mr. Secretary. Macedonia needs the West’s help, most specifically, it needs America’s help. The help that Macedonia needs is not international loans and grants. Macedonia has had access to unearned American money for nearly 70 years, and is not an iota better off for it. The help that Macedonia needs is in establishing the rule of law as its fundamental governing principle. Only by becoming a sincere democratic society with true Western values can Macedonia become a useful ally to the United States.

As is, Macedonia can only play the role of a Trojan horse within the Western community. Only after Macedonia deals with its Communist past, denounces the crimes of that regime, and purges its society from its holdovers, can it be considered worthy of an invitation to NATO and the EU.

Your call to the French Foreign Minister to extend an invitation to Macedonia for joining NATO and the EU at this moment endorses an illegitimate deal, a fruit of a poisoned tree. It signals that the US has not fundamentally changed its policy of backing the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and that there is no hope for those who dream for liberty to one day finally dawn upon their homeland.

It is my deepest and sincerest of hopes that I have misunderstood your position, or that you have made your announcement in an automatic fashion, without the proper thought it deserved. It is my hope, and the hope of all Macedonians, that you will reconsider this position, and withdraw your support for this deal as well as for any possibility of inviting Macedonia into the company of the Western democracies for as long as the Communists and their progeny rule it.

Sincerely,

Jordan Petrovski

Committee for the Democratization of the Republic of Macedonia

President

Letter to Secretary Mike Pompeo (2)

Read more...

LETTER TO SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO (2)

Помеѓу 23 јуни и 5 август 2018 година, Комитетот за демократизација на Република Македонија испрати две писма до американскиот државен секретар Мајк Помпео.

Во второто писмо Комитетот ја протестира одлуката на УСАИД да издаде четири грантови на организации од орбитата на фондацијата Отворено општество за промовирање претстојниот референдум. Во оваа прилика Комитетот му укажува на секретарот Помпео за неисправностите кои веќе се направени во донесувањето на одлуката за рефендум, во предложеното прашање, во објавата дека рефендумот е консултативен а не обврзувчки, за лажната пропаганда која ја шират Зоран Заев и неговите сојузници, како и за веројатноста дека Владата планира да манипулира со пребројувањето на гласовите. Тука Комитетот го потсетува Секретарот дека клучниот проблем со кој се соочува Македонија, и со кој ќе се соочува во понатамошните преговори за влез во ЕУ и НАТО доколку се настапи со промена на името, чесно или на сила, е дефицитот во владеењето на правото. Комитетот му посочува на Секретарот дека западната поддршка за неуставни и нелегитимни потези кои можат да го сменат името на државата се само чекори во погрешна насока доколку намерите на западните лидери за прием на Македонија во двете алијанси се искрени. Комитетот му укажува на Секретарот дека мнозинството Македонци се против договорот и планираат да го бојкотираат референдумот. Одлуката на УСАИД да издаде грантови кои се наменети да го промовираат референдумот само ја зголемува сомнителноста на Македонците кон Америка, особено по мандатот на амбасадорот Џес Бејли. Конечно, Комитетот го потсетува Помпео дека вистинските прозападни елементи во Македонија се и секогаш биле националистите, кои во моментов се против договорот за промена на името.

COMMITTEE FOR THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

August 5, 2018

TO: Mr. Michael Pompeo, Secretary of the State Department

Dear Mr. Secretary;

I have already written to you expressing the dissatisfaction of Macedonian friends of America and dissidents against the Communist regime that still rules that the country with your decision to salute the Tsipras-Zaev deal intended to illegally change the name of our Motherland.

In the weeks since, your USAID has stepped forward with up to four grants intended to fund the efforts of the so called “civil societies organizations” of Macedonia—a euphemism for Soros controlled organization that meddle in the internal business of the country—to promote the upcoming referendum intended to ratify the aforementioned unconstitutional agreement. This action suggests that the USSD is endorsing the illegitimate deal signed by PM Zaev. Furthermore, this decision gives the impression that the USSD is throwing its weight behind the Zaev Government in the upcoming referendum. Aside from the fact the deal is unpopular among the people, and on top of its illegitimate nature, the referendum itself is already beginning to smack of irregularities, illegality, and voter intimidation.

First, according to the Constitution and the Referendum Act the decision of a referendum of this nature—dealing with changes to the Constitution and foreign alliances—is supposed to be binding. Should the referendum fail, either by a majority of “NO” votes or by a failure to produce voter participation of 50.01% of the electorate, the deal should become null and void. PM Zaev has in the past week suggested that the referendum is only consultative in nature—i.e. if its outcome does not match the will of the Government, then the Parliament can vote otherwise, presumably by simple majority, as it did recently to endorse the deal—which, was also contrary to Macedonian law.

Second, the proposed question is a violation of the Constitution and the Referendum Act as it is three separate questions rolled into one—“Are you for membership in NATO and the EU by accepting the agreement between R Greece and R Macedonia?” The intent is clearly to confound the Macedonian public into voting for the name change deal by inserting the two separate questions relating to EU and NATO membership. You know as well as I do, that the Greek veto is not the only issue preventing Macedonia’s accession into these two alliances, which makes the question posed by the Government highly misleading.

Third, there is the issue of the Government announcing the referendum prior to the agreement’s official ratification in the Official Gazette. That is to say, the Government is trying to rush the procedure, running contrary to Western demands for the respect of democratic processes.

Fourth, PM Zaev’s misleading statements intended to encourage a voter participation greater than 50% suggest that his Government is intent on manipulating the vote count—a well-established practice in Macedonian politics.

Next, figures close to the government have been spreading the idea that advocating for a boycott is against the law, and have been alluding that they will force people to participate. They have also been spreading the fear that a “NO” vote on the referendum would set the country on the path to war and eventual dissolution.

The situation here is very simple. Everything concerning the Tsipras-Zaev agreement is contrary to Macedonian law. And yet, the rule of law is the key issue that will confront Macedonia in its NATO and EU accession efforts going forward should the agreement get ratified, by hook or by crook. It would seem to me that the US and the EU are taking steps in the wrong direction by offering their support for a move that so obviously runs against the rule of law.

The vast majority of Macedonians are presently leaning towards boycotting the referendum. USAID’s decision to fund efforts to support the referendum will only make Macedonians even more suspicious of the true intentions of the US Government, especially following the unpopular tenure of Ambassador Jess Bailey.

Macedonia needs the help of the West. It needs the sort of help that will set it on the path of becoming a genuine democracy. Only once Macedonia is a truly independent free society can it become a worthwhile partner of the US and West.

What the West is doing right now with the name-change deal only goes to further encourage the ruling oligarchy that it can go on with its anti-democratic, lawless tyranny, comfortable with the notion that the West will continue to underwrite its financial and physical security. This kind of Macedonia will only continue to be a liability for its sponsors, not a full-fledged partner that can carry its own weight. You have the power to change that, Sir; I am pleading with you to do so.

Sincerely,

Jordan Petrovski

Committee for the Democratization of the Republic of Macedonia

President

Read more...

MACEDONIAN INTERIOR MINISTER: “WE ARE FOLLOWING, WATCHING” PROMOTERS OF BOYCOTT IN UPCOMING REFERENDUM

Македонскиот информативен центар упатува апел до сите оние на кои Македонија им е пред сѐ и над сѐ да помогнат во овој пресуден момент за опстанокот на Република Македонија.

Нашиот апел не е барање за пари за да ние водиме некоја кампања, ниту пак е повик за напад на Собранието.

Ние само сакаме да ве замолиме да испратите емајли до Стејт департментот, државниот секретар Помпео, председателот Трампканцеларката Меркел, министерот на полиција на Германија, до претседателот на Франција Макрон, до премиерот на Италија, до еврокомесарот Хан (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.), до весниците Њујорк Тајмс,Дојче ВелеВашингтон ПостВашингтон Тајмс, Шпигел, Дејли Мејл, Брајтбарт, амбасадите на странските држави во Македонија, како и на која било друга институција која ќе ви падне на ум.

Македонскиот информативен центар ќе ви предложи една верзија на мејлот, но вие можете да ја менувате, дополнувате или да си напишете свое видување. Најважно од сѐ е да се испрати емајлот.

 

Dušan Petrovski

August 26, 2018 

Macedonia’s Interior Minister, Oliver Spasovski, gave an interview to the Macedonian Information Agency last week in which he suggested that his department is renewing the practice of interfering with the political process.

The tradition, established by the post-WWII Communist Party regime, remained in place at least through the 1990s—the first decade of Macedonia’s independence—when, as official documents show, the MI’s State Security Directorate played a key role in engineering the political, social, and economic life of the country through the use of ostracism, repressive measures, warrantless surveillance, and intense interrogations, including the employment of at least 350,000 collaborators. The documentation was made available in mid-2000, but no investigation or legal action has been enacted by official Skopje in the 18 years since. In the two known cases where private individuals attempted to commence legal proceedings against the Ministry and leading officials, the lawsuits were thrown out prior to commencement on statute of limitations concerns. Local human rights groups remain silent on the issue

The country’s egregious misuse of its intelligence agency and impartial justice system are perennial sticking points in its clumsy bid to join Western alliances like the EU and NATO

Currently the Republic of Macedonia is embroiled in a controversy over the highly unpopular agreement that the Government signed with its southern neighbor designed to rename the tiny Balkan state the Republic of North Macedonia

In the MIA interview from August 23, 2018, Spasovski, stated that his department is “following” the individuals connected to the campaign advocating for a boycott of the upcoming September 30 referendum designed to ratify the recently signed agreement between the Prime Ministers of Macedonia and Greece: 

On the other hand you have this situation where … VMRO-DPMNE, despite its pro-EU and NATO proclamations, has yet to declare its position on the referendum... The absence of position in politics is a very important issue. It’s even worse that this ‘boycott’ position. And as far as the ‘boycott’ platform is concerned, which is now forming, we are following it, we are watching who these people are. They too have a legitimate right to state their position. However, boycott is not a position. Boycott does not represent an alternative solution. ... Fortunately, the retrograde political forces are quite feeble, and I am convinced that the progress of the Republic of Macedonia will win.

In a country where citizens were persecuted on an “ideological and political” basis as recently as the 1990s, it is difficult to see how one can interpret the Minister of the Interior’s statements that “boycott is not a position” and that “the retrograde political forces are quite feeble,” as anything other than a threat to those involved in wrongthink.

It remains unclear at this time under what auspices the MI is “following” and “watching” individuals involved with the boycott platform, since the Constitution of the R Macedonia guarantees the freedom of expression, association, political orientation and conscience, while none of people and organizations calling for boycott are calling for the use of violence. Additionally, the Venice Commission has ruled that boycott is a legitimate “democratic right of every citizen.”

The MIC and its partner, the Committee for the Democratization of the R of Macedonia, are concerned that the Macedonian intelligence agency is once again being used to pursue the political ends of the anti-democratic regime forcefully installed at the end of the WWII. The primary source documentation available from the State Archive indicates that the SSD does not simply observe passively, but rather that it actively works to suppress and subvert any political movement deemed undesirable by the permanent state. Are Macedonian citizens being placed under warrantless surveillance, are their friends being interrogated about their activities, are they being placed under repressive measures as a means of silencing their opposition to the government’s proposed change of identity? If the past can be used as a guide, then the answer is rather worrying. 

Lastly, the Tsipras-Zaev agreement is being touted as the removal of the last obstacle to Macedonia’s entry into the EU and NATO. However, the most recent reports from various EU bodies concerning the state of corruption, rule of law, economic freedom, and the use of the intelligence agency in the country, indicate that Macedonia is still a long way away from meeting EU and NATO standards on these subjects. The Minister’s statement suggests that the, rather than taking a step forward into a free, democratic future, has taken a step backward into its totalitarian past, further indicating that the substantial changes needed to reform Macedonian society to Western standards will not be accompanying the potential unpopular renaming of the country.

Read more...