Lately we have heard UMD praise and defend the E.U Institution. I find this defence irresponsible (once again) and dangerous, given various statements released by the European Council and individual members of the Council over the last 15 years or so that clearly reject our nationality, and the name of our State.
Why do UMD defend such an Institution?
How is it possible that UMD can on the one hand support and defend this Institution, and on the other hand denounce the various processes and the structures that the E.U is insisting the Macedonians must continue to be a part of, such as the negotiations ? How can UMD defend an institution that is forcing us to negotiate our nationality and bringing us one step closer to political extinction ?
Characterising UMD as a foriegn policy tool of the West would be only the tip of the iceberg.
Lately, we have also heard much about how becoming a member of the E.U will open our borders, make travel free and even the sensational piece of propoganda that it will "Re-Unite Macedonia" (mp9999)...etc. The case that it will re-unite Macedonia is a piece of propoganda, but such comments need to be documented for history because it is what UMD are all about. These misguided advocates of the West will say just about anything to win Macedonians over to their infatuation with Western clubs.
I can just about guarantee anyone reading this criticism that you will never here anyone at UMD explain to you just how dangerous it is for Macedonia to become a member of the E.U, let alone any serious criticism and action against the policies of the E>C against the Macedonians.
BordersInside the Macedonian State there are currently two nations, Macedonian and Albanian. The latter is highly concentrated in the West and South-West and borders two States, where the dominant nation of both is Albanian.
\
Meanwhile, the Macedonian nationality is on the negotiating table, and its destruction may actually be put to the test in a vote, if the current government has its way. Our survival has been threatened, and it has taken UMD (How many years to note it ? ).
But if you read its latests "Whereas ..." statements, its defence of the E.U is remarkably consistent. Its support of the Hellenic Republic within the framework of these negotiations, has been remarkabely consistent. It has not come to our defence, specifically, in this regard, ever.
UMD's seemingly grandiose declarations are by nature very vague.
Its defence of the E.U institution, however, is not.
Open borders has a number of terrible consequences for the Macedonian nation.
1. It would be an end to any gentle assimilationist policies still in existence in Western Macedonia. Any hope of "roping in" a concentrated, militant and successionist Albanian minority - would be gone forever. Our inability to hold this region culturally, would divide the State into two nations (if it isn't already).
2. It would open the border to unrestricted immigration which would harm our national interests. This is predictable from what is known about Albanian migration. It would only contribute to the ethnic stratification of Western and South-Western Macedonia for the Albanian nation living there.
3. Note what some of the experts are saying about countries (States) made up of more than one nationality. What does it mean for our democracy ? Democracy becomes illusory, but impractice in effect.
John Stuart Mill
Quote:
Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among poeple without fellow feeling, especially if they read and speak different langauges, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of a representitive government, cannot exist
What if that 'Other' nationality is militant, and wants to break away?
4. Open borders means the loss of social and political cohesion
5. Consider the short history of these Albanians who actually move around en masse, to strengthen their ethnic stratification in an area.
In the light of all this consider the statement made by Meto Koloski, recently, that the Albanian nation was fighting for greater human rights in 2001 ? Is that what they were doing ?
The kinds of policies and practices that UMD has been defending are maladaptive to our interests, and entirely out of tune with our survival. Their own personal interests are prioritised in accordance with their infatuation of the E.U and NATO Clubs, rather than in accordance with knowledge of that Club.
Why would an immigration policy platform that underpins the E.U institution - one that would threaten our countries existence, be defended by UMD ?