Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe dispute between Greece and the newly formed state referred to as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" that emerged out of the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1991 was a major source of instability in the Western Balkans for more than 25 years. It was resolved through negotiations between Athens and Skopje, mediated by the United Nations, resulting in the Prespa (or Prespes) Agreement, which was signed on June 17, 2018, and ratified by both parliaments amid controversy in their countries. The underlying issues involved deeply held and differing views relating to national identity, history, and the future of the region, which were resolved through a change in the name of the new state and various agreements as to identity issues. The author, the United Nations mediator in the dispute for 20 years and previously the United States presidential envoy with reference to the dispute, describes the basis of the dispute, the positions of the parties, and the factors that led to a successful resolution.

Matthew Nimetz is a partner in a private investment firm in New York. He formerly served as counselor of the US State Department and under secretary of state for security, science, and technology, among other positions. Currently he is the UN secretary-general's representative to talks between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The views expressed in this article are personal and should not be attributed to any official body or organization with which the author is or has been affiliated.

Aus amerikanischer Sicht

After five years of experience with the Helsinki Final Act, the thirty-five signatory countries are about to hold in Madrid a second follow-up conference to assess the record of implementation and consider what new steps might be taken to further the purposes of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, hereinafter CSCE. Now is a good time to take stock of where CSCE has been and where it is likely to go in the future. The Helsinki process seeks to address the United States basic foreign policy dilemma: how can two competing and largely antagonistic systems co-exist in a manner that protects United States security and at the same time creates opportunities to increase areas of cooperation. The Final Act itself seeks to address the universal desire of all peoples for basic human rights and freedoms. For this reason, the United States does not conceive of the Helsinki process as a bloc-to-bloc confrontation, although we have no illusions that the problem of the East is at present our central consideration. By taking account of the various wishes and hopes of the signatory nations, the Helsinki process helps to keep open channels of communication on sensitive issues in a way which shows promise of encouraging the improvements the United States seeks. This process, however, can only be kept alive through our commitment to make it work and to use its potential continuously to attain our objectives.