GREEK BETRAY MACEDONIANS

The insecurity of Lower Macedonia

«Not ennoisamen if the language or of the Macedonian and Greek», wrote in 1904 Pavlos Melas his wife from a village slavofono of Macedonia. «Ga. nasite bratie Makentontsi» (for our brothers Macedonians) headed notices that makedonomachoi moirazan to the peasants in 1905, when the official chartografos Greek kingdom explained that the Macedonian Struggle conducted between «Ellinizonton Macedonians» and «Voulgarizonton Macedonians» but « The ethnotis is the same and at the Community two taftas category, namely the Macedonian ». In 1920 the official census population of the Greek State took a «Macedonian language», distinct from the Serbian and Bulgarian. «Macedonian language» says even the emfyliopolemiki White Paper issued in 1947 the state of Athens. For «Macedonian language which is spoken in Skopje and has grammatikin and syntaktikon» did finally speak to the House in 1959 by Evangelos Averoff, Foreign Minister Karamanlis of the oldest. To assume that all those were not in spite of energoumena «alytrotismou Skopje», having rushed - some decades ago by Mr. Daniel Frint the State Department-n 'recognise the existence of akatonomastis «psefdoethnotitas» and «psefdoglossas»; As for Penelope Delta, its role is highly suspect: does not write, and even in «Secrets of Valtou», for populations «National conscience had only the Macedonian» two generations ago from the Tito?

Perissepse seems enthusiasm from our national victory in Bucharest. Since confirmation of that is that we, as palaimachoi natoikoi can katapatoume impunity international agreements we have signed. Within no time aside so the diplomatic moderation and rational arguments on a composite name will make a distinct «Our» Macedonia from «other», and returned to responsible these days of 1992-93. From George Papandreou as George Karatzaferis and the filokyvernitika channels until «Rizospasti», the whole political world spefdei to denounce as «unacceptable challenge» even the simple assumption of self-evident: that the northern neighbours have a national identity and language, which identify themselves (and the rest of humanity - with the exception of Bulgarian nationalists-accept) a long time ago as Macedonian. But this hardening not only contrary to existing international law on national self-determination. Failing also in fact be compacted into one institutional diekdikisimo request, beyond the obvious expectation anomologiti but aftodialysis of «state». At the same time, however, reveals the deeper (and absurd, although historically erminefsimo) syndrome national insecurity underlying behind the theater shadow on «makedonismou». A century after the Balkan wars, probably some not yet convinced that the Greek Macedonia is actually Greek.
(Ελευθεροτυπία, 19/4/2008)

Превод на Македонски

За нашите братје македонци

“ Не разбравме дали јазикот бил македонски или пак грчки “, иׂнапишал 1904 година Павлос Мелас на неговата сопруга од некое славофонско село на Македонија. “ За нашите братје македонци “ гласале флаерите што ги делеле грчките андарти (македономахи) кај селаните во Македонија во 1905 година, кога официјалниот картограф на грчкото кралство објаснуваше дека

Македонската Борба се води помеѓу “ прогрчки македонци “ и “ пробугарски македонци “ но “ националноста и кај двете страни е македонската “.

Во 1920 година официјалниот попис на население на грчката држава регистрираше постоење на “ македонски јазик “, посебен од српскиот и бугарскиот. За “ македонски јазик “ пишува и Белата Книга од 1947 година која се издаде во Атина за време на граѓанската војна.

За “ македонски јазик кој се зборува во Скопје и има граматика и синтактика“ зборуваше во грчкиот парламент во 1959 година Евегелос Аверов, министер за надворешни работи во владата на Караманлис.

Да претпоставиме дека сите тие биле инструмент на “ скопскиот иредентизам “ бидејќи го признаа -неколку децении пред Данјел Фрид од Стеит Департментот – постоењето на “ лажната нација “ и “ лажниот јазик “?

Улогата на Пинелопи Делта била особено сомнителна. Таа напишала во книгата “ Тајните на блатото “ дека “ националниот идентитет на населението во егејска Македонија бил само македонскиот “ и тоа цели две генерации пред Тито.

Голем ентузијазам за нашата национална победа во Букурешт. Потврда дека ние, како ветерани во НАТО, можеме без казна да ги прекршуваме меѓународните договори што ги потпишавме. Одеднаш се маргинализира дипломатската умереност и логичните аргументи, околу едно сложено име кое ќе ја разликува “ нашата “ од “другата “ Македонија, и се вративме всушност во 1992-93 година.

Од Јоргос Папандреу до Јоргос Караџаферис, и од блиските до владата канали до кумунистичкиот “ Ризоспастис “, политичкиот свет го осудува како провокација тоа што се подразбира ׃ дека нашите северни соседи имаат национален идентитет и јазик, кои самите ( како и останатиот свет – освен бугарските националисти ) ги нарекуваат македонски.

Оваа тврда позиција на Грција не е спротивна само на меѓународната регулатива околу националното самоопределување, туку не може во реалноста законски да се формулира како барање.

Постој неискажана, но очигледна желба за самораспаѓање на “државичката“. Истовремено се открива и подлабокиот ( нелогичен, и ако историски оправдан ) синдром на националната несигурност која се крие зад “ македонизмот “.

Еден век по балканските војни, некои луѓе веројатно не се уште убедени дека грчката Македонија е навистина грчка.

Извор: http://makedoncki.blog.com.mk/

The flag dispute: Greece vs. Republic of Macedonia

The Flag Dispute between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia

Introduction

Official Greece accuses its northern neighbour, the Republic of Macedonia for "stealing the Ancient Greek heritage", which according to the Greek side also includes Ancient Macedonia and its symbols, one of them being the so called Sun of Vergina. The symbol was once used as an emblem on the flag of the Republic of Macedonia, which caused a dispute between the two countries (actually it was an unilateral protest from the Greek side).

Greece is so fast in accusing other nations for "stealing history" that she forgets that she is the one that actually stole a symbol of another nation- an old English flag:

Whoops! Who's the real thief now?

Left: The flag used on the ships of the colonial English Honourable East India Company established in 1600; Right: The modern Greek flag initialy adopted in 1822. So, Greece nicked a foreign flag, changed the colors.. and Voila! We have a flag! Before you disagree, count the number of the stripes, both flags have 9. The Greeks claim that they represent the 9 sylables of their Independence War motto: "Elefteria i Thanatos!" ("Freedom or Death!"). Why should a 17 century English flag also have exactly 9 stripes then? The Greek cross in the canton is evidently stolen from the red English St. George's cross and re-painted in white. Shame...

The East India Company flag changed over time. There has been much debate and discussion regarding the number of stripes on the flag and the order of the stripes. Historical documents and paintings show many variations from nine to thirteen stripes, with some images showing the top stripe being red and others showing the top stripe being white. In any case, its obvious that the whole concept of this flag was stolen by Greece and incorporated in its modern flag.

Backround information

There's a geographical region in South-Eastern Europe called Macedonia. It was a single geographical entity until the Balkan Wars in 1913 when it was divided between: Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania. Thats how Greece got its own province of Macedonia (~50% of the whole region), a province especialy rich with Ancient Macedonian history and archaeology. There, the greek government imposed a harsh policy of ethnic cleansing and assimilation against the native ethnic Macedonians, and it also supported a colonisation of Greek refugees from Asia Minor, following the Greek-Turkish War in the 1920's. The part once given to Serbia, later succeded to liberate itself during the antifascist struggle in the WWII and to proclaim itself as the Socialist Republic of Macedonia on August 2nd 1944. However, the other parts of the wider Macedonian region remained under foreign Greek, Bulgarian and Albanian annexation.
That republic became a separate constituent country of the former Tito's Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (a country- in- a- country). As such, within the communist Yugoslav federation, Macedonia had a statehood, its own government, state symbols, police, territorial army (home guard), Macedonian Academy of sciences and arts, Macedonian Orthodox Church and even a bureau for foreign affairs.
During the breakup of Yugoslavia, it proclaimed independence in September 1991 and it became what is now the independent Republic of Macedonia with capital of Skopje.

The newly independent country was immediatly confronted by Greece. Official Greece denies the existence of a separate Macedonian nation, the existence of a separate ethnic Macedonian minority on its territory, and it perceived its neighbour as a threat to its northern province. Namelly, official Greece claims an exclusive right over the Ancient Macedonian heritage. Important elements of this are: the very name Macedonia and the Ancient Macedonian symbol, the 16-ray Vergina Sun (or Star), found in what is considered the alleged tomb of the king Phillip II, the father of Alexander the Great. Greece doesnt allow the Republic of Macedonia, which also claims relations to the Ancient Macedonia to use them in any way.

Thats why:

• Greece, which has its own province of Macedonia demands that the Republic of Macedonia changes it constitutional name (although the UK which has a part called Northern Ireland doesnt demand from the Republic of Ireland to change its name; the US state New Mexico doesnt demand from the country Mexico to change its name).
• Greece also demanded from the Republic of Macedonia to change its own national flag, which featured the Vergina Sun, claimed by Greece as a Greek symbol (though Ancient Macedonia was not one of the city-states that comprised the Ancient Greek world, actually it was their worst enemy, just imagine: Jews claiming the nazi swastika as their symbol).

To achieve its goals, official Greece imposed an economic embargo on the Republic of Macedonia in the early 1990's and started a nationalist lobbying campaign both at home and abroad. Then, the Republic of Macedonia followed a policy of peaceful coexistence with its neighbours. During the 1990s, it was the only former Yugoslav country which stayed away from the Yugoslav Wars and was often refered to as The Oasis of Peace.
As a result of the Greek pressure, the Republic of Macedonia was forced to make many concessions to appease its southern neighbour and to prevent a further conflict:

• The Republic of Macedonia accepted to join the UN under a provisional name "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" ( F.Y.R.O.M. )
• Certain changes were made to the Macedonian constitution (to show that the country doesnt have any territorial claims to Greece);
• The national flag of the Republic of Macedonia with the Vergina Sun was replaced with a new different flag
  
• The president Kiro Gligorov had to give a statement that the modern ethnic Macedonians are descendents of the Slavs who arrived in the Balkans in the 6th century, and who have nothing in common with Ancient Macedonia.

However, despite accepting to be named FYROM in the UN, the Republic of Macedonia rejected to change its constitutional name for domestic use, and for billateral use with those countries who do not object it. Thats how the Republic of Macedonia was recognized under its constitutional name by the USA, Canada, Russian Federation, People's Republic of China, Turkey and many other countries.

The Flag dispute

Its claimed that the Ancient Macedonians often used a stylized depiction of a sunburst (or a starburst) as their symbol. It can be seen with 16, 8 or 12 sun rays on many archaeological artefacts. Sometimes it can also include a rosette decoration in the middle. One of the most popular version of this symbol is the 16 rayed Sun of Vergina, found on the larnax (coffin) which allegedly contained the remains of King Phillip II. The Vergina Sun is claimed as a historical symbol by both the Republic of Macedonia and Greece, which both also claim relation to the Ancient Macedonians. However, Greece demands full exclusive right to the Ancient Macedonian heritage and doesnt want to share it with anyone else. As a result, the two countries have a long term unresolved dispute.

In 1992, the newly independent Republic of Macedonia adopted a new flag which included the 16-ray Vergina Sun (on a red backround), which led to protests from official Greece. Under Greek pressure, in 1995 it was replaced with the current flag of the Republic of Macedonia, which includes a different stylized form of a sun.

Flag of the Republic of Macedonia (1992-1995)

Its important to note that the sun symbol was often featured in the old folklore art of the ethnic Macedonians, on their historical flags and other artefacts, and even on the coat of arms of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, which includes a rising sun with 8 visible rays (the other 8 from the Vergina Sun being hidden behind the mountain).

Traditional ethnic Macedonian folk art

Traditional ethnic Macedonian jewerly

CLICK TO ENLARGE: Left: flag of the emigrant ethnic Macedonian revolutionary society in St. Petersburg, Russia, 1914 feat. Alexander's horse Buchephalos, represented as an unicorn according to the old legend, and a sun symbol in the bottom left angle; Right: Insurgent flag against the Ottoman rule, 1903 feat. a sun symbol on the left.

The Coat of Arms initialy adopted for the Socialist Republic of Macedonia after WWII. Still in official use in the Republic of Macedonia.

The main Greek rationale for the flag dispute was that the Sun of Vergina is allegedly a greek symbol, and that its use by the Republic of Macedonia is an act of stealing of the ancient greek heritage. Moreover, the Greek side emphasised the fact that the symbol was discovered on its territory.

King Philip's larnax

However, Greece forgot to mention that her share of the whole Macedonian region was forcibly annexed by her armies in the Balkan Wars in 1913. Prior to that, the territory has never belonged to Greece.

Also, its very important to mention that later, this symbol was also discovered on many archaeological artefacts found in the southern parts of the Republic of Macedonia, which were too part of the Ancient Macedonian Kingdom- a fact deliberately ignored by Greece, which continously repeats that: "There is only ONE Macedonia, and its in Greece".

CLICK TO ENLARGE: Certified museum copies of archaeological artefacts featuring the Ancient Macedonian Sun/Star symbol (known as the Vergina Sun), excavated in Ohrid, a city of a great historical and cultural significance once belonging to the Ancient Macedonian Kingdom, situated on the Ohrid Lake in the Republic of Macedonia. Shall we call the symbol the Sun of Ohrid from now on?

Another important, but dubious Greek claim is that the symbol was firstly discovered during the excavations of the Ancient Macedonian Royal Tombs of Aigai, in the village of Vergina in Greek Macedonia, by prof. Manolis Andronikos in 1977. Some Greeks may agree that the symbol may have been known prior to that, but just as an artistic ornament without any historical significance. According to them, only after the discovery of the Royal Tombs, the true nature of this symbol was discovered- its an Ancient Macedonian royal emblem.
An entertaining twist in this story is that they dont know (or dont want to know) that the symbol actually appeared publicly all around the globe decades before 1977. It was featured in its 8 ray version on the shields of the Ancient Macedonian warriors in the 1956 epic film Alexander The Great starring Richard Burton. Its an American movie, quite pro-Greek biased, so it cannot be accused of advocating the Republic of Macedonia's point of view.

Screenshot: Richard Burton sporting the Vergina Sun in Alexander The Great, 21 years before prof. Andronikos "discovered" it

How come the Greeks are not aware that this symbol was internationaly recognized as an Ancient Macedonian royal or state emblem far before the prof. Andronikos' discovery in 1977? The symbol that he "discovered" has been already used by the ethnic Macedonians for centuries, as we explained above. For the Greeks, until 1977, this symbol was largely (or completely) unknown.

But anyway, Greece continues to claim an exclusive right to it. It even registered it in the World Intellectual Property Organization and finally, in 1993 it placed it on the newly created flag of its own Macedonian province, but on a blue backround.

Flag of the Greek province of Macedonia

However, almost 20 years since the start of this dispute, official Greece fails to explain: how come that many countries use same symbols on their flags, but they dont confront eachother because of that:

• Argentina and Uruguay

Same sun symbol in different variations on the both flags. Its called the Sun of May, a representation of the Inca sun god Inti, and a bizzare fact is that it has 16 sunrays, exactly same number as the Vergina Sun. It appeared publicly for a first time on Argentinian coins in 1813. An additional bizzare thing is that, the flag of Uruguay features 9 alternating blue/ white stripes, exactly the same number and color as on the modern Greek flag ("Eleferia i Thanatos"?!). So should Argentina now sue Uruguay over "stealing" its sun symbol? Or should Greece sue Uruguay over the blue/white stripes? Or to sue them both over the "stolen" 16 rayed sun symbol?! You may say well, two neighbouring South American nations, they both have a right to claim the pre-Colombian heritage although they speak Spanish today. Good. Accordingly, can the modern ethnic Macedonians, considered Slavic by the Greeks, use the Vergina Sun then?

• Almost all of the Nordic countries use the Nordic Cross

It was initially used on the Danish flag- the Dannebrog, and was later incorporated in the flags of: Norway, Iceland, Sweden and Finland. Can Greece explain, how come that Denmark doesnt object the use of this symbol by its Scandinavian neighbours? Isn't it a "stealing of the Danish history"? Some may say that these nations are ethnicaly or historicaly interrelated, so maybe thats why they use a same symbol. That can be only a partially accepted explanation, because the Finns are not related to their Germanic neighbours, but to the Finno-Ugric peoples like the Hungarians. Also, historicaly, until proclaiming its independence, Finland was under Russian domination, and today is the only republic in a region filled with monarchies. Basically, Finland has very little incommon with Denmark, but still, it uses a symbol taken from the Dannebrog, the Danish national pride since the Middle Ages!

• Poland, Indonesia and Monaco
  

The whole "difference" between these flags is: between Poland and Inonesia- the order of the colors, and between Indonesia and Monaco only the the ratio. Basically, completely same flags of three completely unrelated nations.

• Republic of Ireland and the African country Ivory Coast

The sole "difference" seems to be the order of the colors and the ratio. Same flags. Unrelated nations.

• England and Georgia

Both England and Georgia use the red Cross of St. George on a white backround. The difference is that the Georgians have added 4 additonal smaller crosses around it. Otherwise- same. Unrelated nations. The English flag was inspired by the flag of Genoa (Italians, prepare a lawsuit! ;-)).

• The Czech Republic and Philipines
  

Similar design. Unrelated nations.

• USA, Liberia and Malaysia
  

Same stripes, same blue field in the upper left corner and even the star(s) are here. The Afro-American and the Liberian populations are indeed related, but what Malaysia has incommon with them? Should the US now sue Malaysia over stealing its national pride- The Stripes, which symbolize the 13 American colonies that rebeled against the British Crown?

• United Kingdom and the Autonomous Basque community within Spain

The flag of the United Kingdom, the Union Jack features the 3 crosses: The red Cross of St. George from the English flag; the white St.Andrew's cross from the Scottish flag and the red St. Patrick's cross from the old Irish flag. Only the Welsh Red Dragon is missing. The design of the Basque flag was based on the Union Jack. Should the Queen Elizabeth II sue them now?

• Chile and the US state of Texas

Almost same flags.

• US State of Hawaii

Hold on, hold on! Did I just said the US STATE of Hawaii? How come that a federal unit of a country which once fought for independence against the Brits is now using the Union Jack?? Where are the Greeks now to protest the Hawaiian "stealing" of British heritage? Hawaii is not a British colony or a protectorate or a dominion or an overseas territory or whatever. Its part of the United States of America.

And there are milions of other examples...

So why all these countries dont just sue eachother for "stealing" eachother's history and culture? (if we follow the offical Greek "logical" way of thinking)

IMPORTANT NOTE: All those flags (with the exception of the Basque, the Texan and the Hawaiian flags) are flags of internationaly recognized independent countries. Yet, these flags have never been a cause of any international dispute. The flag of the Greek province of Macedonia has a much lower importance than them because it is a flag of a a geographical and historical province and not of an independent country. Moreover, the flag of Greek Macedonia has no historical significance. It was adopted recently just as a retaliation against the Republic of Macedonia.

Contrary to that, all those nations listed above were fighting wars, conquering other countries and achieveing sport successes under those flag symbols for centuries. For them those symbols have a huge historical and national significance. Still, as you can see, they have absolutely no problem to share those symbols with other nations, unlike Greece which is jealously possesive over the Vergina Sun, although the symbol is most probably not Greek at all. Under that symbol King Philip and his son Alexander were killing Athenian soldiers and conquering and burning the greek city-states. What a paradox.

But anyway, Greece continues to make such a great fuss about it. The hysteria goes so far, that sometimes the Greek nationalists even forget their real national flag: the well-known one with the blue and white stripes and the cross in the upper left angle.
Instead, they give so much importance to a recently adopted flag of a geographical province:
Since the flag dispute with the Republic of Macedonia began, the Vergina Sun suddenly started to appear everyewhere in Northern Greece: on governmental buildings and offices; at celebrations and political meetings; on various documents, military insignia, tourist souvenirs and even everyday products such as hotel soaps, sugar bags and bus tickets (hopefuly not on condoms and toilet paper too, but everything's possible in a country where unfortunatelly, the extreme nationalism is an everyday fact).

100 Drachma coins (the former Greek currency later replaced by the euro)

Hellenic Armed Forces arm patch

Greek sugar bags (author: cakesniffer)

So after all this, we have a full right to ask: How come all those countries are allowed to have almost same flag designs only with minor differences, while at the same time, the Republic of Macedonia was not allowed to keep its 16-ray sun symbol?

Wasn't the red backround sufficient enough to differentiate it from the Greek blue version?

Even if we decide to beleive in the official Greek claim that the modern ethnic Macedonians are not descendants of the Ancient Macedonians, but Slavs, still, this sun symbol was found in Ohrid in present-day Republic of Macedonia, so this country has every right to use it, in a same way that the modern Arabic Egyptians have nothing incommon with the Ancient pharaos, but still they are proudly promoting their country with the pyramids and the sphynx.

Greece should finally get rid of its blind ultra chauvinism once and for all. We need peace, stability and cooperation in the Balkans.

Извор: http://vbb.blog.com.mk

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tags: Ελληνική Δημοκρατία Μακεδονία Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας Ελλάδα Σημαία Ήλιος της Βεργίνας Βεργίνα Θεσσαλονίκη Καβάλα Σέρρες Κατερίνη Βέροια Δράμα Κοζάνη Πτολεμαΐδα Γιαννιτσά Νάουσα Έδεσσα Κιλκίς Καστοριά Φλώρινα Αλεξάνδρεια Γρεβενά Χρυσούπολη Άργος Ορεστικό Λιτόχωρο Πολύγυρος Μανώλης Ανδρόνικος Βαλκάνια Αθήνα ΝΑΤΟ ΠΓΔΜ όνομα Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας Φίλιππος Β' ο Μακεδών Χρυσή Λάρνακα Πέλλα Σκόπια βέτο Μακεδόνες Ελευθερία ή θάνατος Κωνσταντίνος Αλεξάνδρου Καραμανλής Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη Νέα Δημοκρατία Πανελλήνιο Σοσιαλιστικό Κίνημα Κομμουνιστικό Κόμμα Ελλάδας Ελληνικός Εμφύλιος

GREEK'S TERRORIST

Shame On Greece: Messing With Macedonia

The Macedonians walked out of the NATO summit on Thursday and we can’t say we blame them.

Croatia and Albania were granted membership in the western alliance at a leaders’ meeting in Bucharest, but Macedonia was barred for an absurd reason: Greece doesn’t like its name.

That decision shames Greece and it dishonors NATO, which has far more serious problems and challenges to worry about.

The name “Macedonia,” is shared by the former Yugoslav republic and by northern Greece. From the moment the former-Yugoslav Macedonia declared independence in 1991, the Greeks — reflecting byzantine Balkan politics — vehemently objected to the new state’s use of a name and symbols they regard as theirs.

As a result, the United Nations provisionally designated the country as “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” — or, rather uneuphonically: FYROM.

Athens has since normalized relations and many countries, including the United States, have abandoned the clumsy FYROM in favor of Republic of Macedonia, which is what Macedonia calls itself.

A United Nations mediator tried to work out a compromise but in the end, Greece — a NATO member since 1952 — exercised its veto. The alliance operates on consensus.

Tiny Macedonia doesn’t threaten Greece under any name. In fact, bringing it into the NATO fold would enhance regional stability. Now, there are concerns Macedonia’s failure to gain alliance membership could fan nationalism and anti-Western sentiment as well as jeopardize its ability to join the European Union.

President Bush and European leaders should have worked harder at finding a solution to this corrosive problem before Greece exercised its veto.

Now they must ratchet up the pressure on Greece to achieve that compromise so that NATO’s insult to Macedonia is reversed as quickly as possible.

The New York Times

Macedonia & NATO

Treaty of Alliance, Political Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance Between the Turkish Republic, the Kingdom of Greece, and the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (Balkan Pact), August 9, 1954(1)

The Contracting Parties,

Reaffirming their faith in the principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to contribute, by co-ordinating their efforts, to the safeguarding of peace, the strengthening of security and the development of international cooperation;

Resolved to ensure in the most effective manner the territorial integrity as well as the political independence of their countries in accordance with the principles and provisions of the United Nations Charter;

Animated by the desire to widen and reinforce the bases of friendship and cooperation established in the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between their countries, signed at Ankara on February 28, 1953, which proved to be an extremely effective instrument;

Having in view that the said Treaty has always been considered an initial step toward an alliance;

Considering that the conclusion of such an alliance is necessary;

Convinced, furthermore, that the institution of a system of collective security among them through a treaty of alliance would not only constitute a decisive factor for their own security and independence, but would also benefit all the other countries adhering to the cause of a just and equitable peace, especially those situated in their area;

Have decided to conclude the present Treaty and, for this purpose, have appointed as their respective Plenipotentiaries:

who, having exhibited their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed on the following provisions:

Article I

The Contracting Parties undertake, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to settle by peaceful means any international dispute in which they may be involved, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article II

The Contracting Parties agree that any armed aggression against one or more of them in any part of their territories shall be considered an aggression against all the Contracting Parties, who, consequently, in the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, shall jointly and severally go to the assistance of the Party or Parties attacked by taking immediately and by common accord any measures, including the use of armed force, which they deem necessary for effective defense.

The Contracting Parties undertake, without prejudice to Article VII of the present Treaty, not to conclude peace or any other arrangement with the aggressor in the absence of a prior mutual agreement between the Parties.

Article III

To ensure in a continuous and effective manner the attainment of the objectives of the present Treaty, the Contracting Parties undertake to assist each other to maintain and strengthen their defensive capacity.

Article IV

With a view to ensuring the effective application of the present Treaty, it is agreed as follows:

1. There is hereby established a Permanent Council to be composed of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and any other members of the Governments of the Contracting Parties whose presence might be required by the needs of the situation and the nature of the subjects to be treated.

The Permanent Council shall meet regularly twice a year. It may hold additional meetings whenever the Governments of all the Contracting Parties deem this necessary

When the Permanent Council is not in session, it shall perform its functions through the Permanent Secretariat of the Treaty of Ankara according to a procedure to be determined.

The Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs provided for in Article I of the Treaty of Ankara shall be replaced by the Permanent Council.

Decisions of the Permanent Council on substantive matters shall be taken by unanimous agreement.

2. The General Staffs of the Contracting Parties shall continue their common task begun in application of Articles II and III of the Treaty of Ankara, with due regard to the provisions of the present Treaty.

Article V

As soon as the situation envisaged in Article II of the present Treaty occurs, the Contracting Parties will consult immediately and the Permanent Council shall meet at once in order to determine the measures which should be taken in addition to those already adopted pursuant to the aforesaid Article II, referred to above and which it would be necessary to take jointly in order to meet the situation.

Article VI

In the event of serious deterioration of the international situation, and more particularly in the areas where such deterioration might have a negative effect, whether direct or indirect, on the security of their area, the Contracting Parties will consult each other with a view to examining the situation and to determining their attitude.

The Contracting Parties, recognizing that an armed aggression against a country other than one of them may, by spreading, threaten directly or indirectly the security and the integrity of one or more of them, agree as follows:

In the event of an armed aggression against a country toward which one or more Contracting Parties has or have, at the time of signature of the present Treaty, obligations of mutual assistance, the Contracting Parties will consult each other regarding the measures which should be taken in accordance with the purposes of the United Nations and in order to meet the situation thus created in their area.

It is understood that the consultations referred to in this article might include an emergency meeting of the Permanent Council.

Article VII

The Contracting Parties will immediately inform the United Nations Security Council of any armed aggression against them, and of the measures of self-defense which have been taken; they will discontinue the said measures when the Security Council has effectively applied those mentioned in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Likewise, the Governments of the Contracting Parties will immediately make the public statement provided for in United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 378 (V) A of November 17, 1950 (2) relating to the duties of States in the event of an outbreak of hostilities, and they will act in accordance with the said Resolution.

Article VIII

The Contracting Parties reaffirm their decision not to participate in any coalition directed against any one of them and not to make any commitment incompatible with the provisions of the present Treaty.

Article IX

The provisions of the present Treaty do not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations.

Article X

The provisions of the present Treaty do not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of Greece and Turkey resulting from the North Atlantic Treaty of April 4, 1949.

Article XI

The Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation concluded between the Contracting Parties at Ankara on February 28, 1953 shall remain in force in so far as it is not modified by the provisions of the present Treaty.

The Contracting Parties agree to apply the provisions of Article XIII of the present Treaty in respect of the duration of the Treaty of Ankara.

Article XII

The provisions of Article IX of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of February 28 shall apply to the present Treaty under the same conditions.

Article XIII

The present Treaty is concluded for a period of twenty years.

If none of the Contracting Parties denounces this Treaty one year before its expiration, it shall automatically be extended for one more year, and so on until it is denounced by one of the Contracting Parties.

Article XIV

The present Treaty shall be ratified by the Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. It shall enter into force on the date of deposit of the last instrument of ratification.

The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Greece.

The Treaty shall be registered with the United Nations.

It has been drawn up in the French language three identical copies, one of which is to be delivered to each of the Contracting Parties.

In witness whereof, the Plenipotentiaries of the Contracting Parties have affixed their signatures hereto.

Done at Bled, August 9, 1954.