And a new double-natured Confederative state is born unto us with the name of Serbia and Montenegro. Yugoslavia disappears from the map after a history of 85 years and subsequent to various adventures and every possible regime. A formal confirmation of the new agreement is expected, of course, from the Federal Parliament while the regional parliaments of Serbia and Montenegro have already given their consent.

As Hellenes and neighbors of this new state we can remark on the following that concern us directly and indirectly.

1) The predominance, the national factor, the ethnical and political differences before various internationalist ideologies are demonstrated by the dissolution of the multiethnic formation of Yugoslavia as well as the abolition of its very name. Those who deny the role of a nation and the supporters of a leveling globalization should take note of this. Yugoslavianism began as an ideology at the end of the 19th century, with the goal of a union of Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croates. The only thing that bound them together was language. The reigning period of Yugoslavianism was between 1918 and 1941 whereby Yugoslavianism was confronted by serious problems from the Croatian nationality (the assassination of King Alexander, etc.). Tito imposed communistic Yugoslavianism by dictatorial means after 1944 by giving scandalous priviledges to Albanians of Kosovo at the expense of Serbs. These internationalist experiments didn’t succeed anything substantial. They oppressed the peoples’ historic conscience, they fabricated artificial ‘nations’, as the ‘Macedonians’ and the ‘Muslims’, and they led to the bloodshed of the period from 1952 until today.

2) The new state was created with pressure coming from the European Union and, personally, from Javier Solana, the man responsible for the Common Foreign and Defense Policy. The main goal was the distancing of the possibility of Montenegro separating. Tzoukanovitz, the leader of Montenegro, consented to postpone any discussion regarding the separation of Montenegro, but the subject of remaining or separating will return in 3 years. We see, that is, something similar to Bosnia-Herzogovina, where the international community fabricated, in appearance a uniform state with 2 separate existences: the serbian and muslim-croatian existences. The divulgements speak of “2 in the packing of one”. Is it possible that something like this is being also prepared for Cyprus? The precedents of the two nations that we have reported show that in the circles of the UN and of the specialists in solution schemas, prevails the Confederative logic in the coping of regional crises. This is what we must seriously have in our mind when we study the various “Annan proposals” for Cyprus. These solutions don’t prepare the ground for a unique State, but for 2 separate states with a loose union between them. The Confederation of Serbia and Montenegro leaves a great autonomy to the two regional governments of Belgrade and Pondgoritsa, something that will appeal as a model to Denktash.

3) It is proven that in our time it isn’t all that difficult for a state to change its name. Mr. Solana on behalf of the European Union proposed the striking out of the name Yugoslavia and the adoption of the new naming. Therefore, it isn’t a hyperbole nor an unrealistic Hellas demand that Skopje change their so called “constitutional” name . It suffices to pressure and not abandon the struggle. Let us not forget that the rebellious Albanian community of Skopje (the arms have silenced temporarily, but murders occur daily) wouldn’t have an objection to a change of the name, because the word ‘Macedonia” represents only the Slavic community.

4) The separation movement of Montenegro may express the economical and religious circles that move in the surrounding of the President Tzoukanovitz, but it’s proven that it doesn’t affect the majority of the Montenegro population. These people know their history and remember that nationalistically they are Serbian who followed a different path as a result of not submitting completely to the Turks and they remained a quasi protectorate of Russia. The Orthodox Metropolitan of Montenegro, who answers to the Orthodox Patriarchate of Serbia, has preserved this historic union of Montenegro with the Serbian trunk. Metropolitan Aphilochios Rantovitz, a great adversary of the Milosevic regime up to its fall, is a Doctorate graduate of the University of Athens and a descendant of an old family of bishops of Montenegro. The Orthodox Church in this case, as occurs with the Hellenism, safeguards the national conscience. It isn’t chance that political circles that desire the separation of Montenegro from the Serbian family have tried to fabricate, without success, a new Autocephalous Church of Montenegro.

5) Hellas must by all means support the livelihood of the new state of Serbia–Montenegro. In the opposite situation, the separation of Kosovo will be achieved. This is what the Albanian freedom pursues and, generally, a new cycle of terror in the Balkan neighborhood will begin. And let us not forget that UCK and its branches have proclaimed: “After Kosovo and Skopje it’s Tsamouria’s turn”; that is, Hellenic Epirus.