Why no solution to the “Macedonian” issue.

During his recent visit to the UN General Assempbly the  Greek prime minister George Papandreou lamented  the fact that his  Macedonian counterpart    Nikola Gruefski was not in New York to hold talks on the long standing dispute about the so-called “name issue”. Greece  objects to the use of the term “Macedonia “ by the neighboring  country arguing that such an act threatens  the territorial integrity of Greece which has  a province with the same name.

There is no doubt that Mr.Papandreou’s feelings  are sincere. He is one of the very few leading Greek politicians (the only one?) who not only believes in Greece’s peaceful coexistence with its neighbors but is also willing to admit that Greece’s  recent history doesn’t    always conform to the image of the “suffering victim” promoted by the nationalist  narrative.

Yet on the other hand one can hardly blame Mr Gruefski  for  not rushing to meet with the Greek prime minister believing perhaps that such meetings are waste of time .The problem is that despite his best intentions, Mr.Papandreou is also a prisoner of the local political market and has to take its dictates  into account .

As things stand  today the Greek prime minister has very few incentives to agree to a solution to the so called “name issue” and every reason to postpone the day of reckoning

Any sort of mutual compromise  is bound to rekindle the fury of the  powerful nationalist constituency  whose members are to be found in all Greek political parties. Any  name that would include the term “Macedonia” would be seen by the nationalists  as  treason since, according to their view, Greece has the exclusive right to the name “Macedonia”.

At present Mr.Papandreou is involved in the “titanic” as he correctly described it ,effort to turn around the Greek economy and save it from  becoming (totally ) bankrupt . This  involves  a tremendous struggle against powerful interest groups that  are fighting to maintain their privileges. It also involves harsh  austerity measures and rising unemployment which are hurting especially the middle  classes. In this kind of situation the last thing Mr.Papandreou and his government want is to  waken up the beast of nationalism and to have to fend off accusations of  “selling Macedonia to the Slavs”.

Since assuming the leadership of the party Mr.Papandreou has been able to strike a deal with the nationalist element of his party. They have supported the economic measures and in exchange he has not challenged any of their dearly held nationalist myths. Moreover   he seems to have instructed his foreign minister Dimtris Droutsas to issue statements that would make even some of his most hard line  predecessors  flinch. For example  Mr. Droutsas   recent statement that the “Cyprus problem is a problem of Turkish occupation”-the standard view  of the Greek Cypriot nationalists-surely does very little justice   to the complex history of the island.

At present, in the midst of the economic turmoil , the Greek government  has very few rational incentives to  promote a compromise agreement with the government in Skopje. This is in the last analysis a peripheral  issue for Athens. It would defy any kind of rational analysis   if the Greek government attempted  to provide a solution whose only result would be even more protesters taking to the the streets in  Athens and Thessaloniki.