By XHABIR DERALLA
You know that I rarely get into individual communication in comments. Therefore, for those who have found themselves “affected” by my writing these days, I would like to clarify some things. Not to make excuses, but to reinforce my sporadic short comments. To announce that they are part of strong viewpoints, built on the basis of a decades-long experience in the media and in civil society.
My posts on the social networks, as well as my texts in CivilMedia and Frontline recently, have been very clear. I really try not to leave anything unsaid both as an author and as an editor in the mentioned media. I don’t think there is any need for me to prove anything about the broadness and openness to all the different opinions, just one scroll through the media that I edit is enough. And as I nurture full respect for the opinions of those with whom I disagree, I expect the same from other as well. If they don’t have the virtue to the same in return, that does not speak ill of me, but rather of them.
A short reminder
Another important chapter of the European path of North Macedonia has ended. Fortunately, while the attack on the country’s European future was strong, the process did end successfully. North Macedonia, along with Albania, no longer have any obstacles in starting the EU accession negotiations. The Bulgarian veto against our country, with absurd demands and conditions that were questioning the Macedonian language and identity, was an obstacle for both the countries. The government of Kovacevski said decisively NO to the first version of the proposal, also known as the “French proposal”. In the second one, an expressly revised proposal, the requirements related to the identity and language were left out. But instead of broad support and well-structured public debate, this success was welcomed “with a knife”. Which was no surprise.
The radical opposition used all means in a fierce and violent campaign against the European proposal, which overcomes the Bulgarian veto. The opposition organized violent protests and incidents, with a ferocious nationalist rhetoric and hate speech on the streets, on the social networks and in the media. Around fifty police officers were injured, buildings were demolished, and there was even gunfire. The militant opposition tried not only to block the European proposal and thus keep the country outside the EU integration process, but to also destabilize the country.
This “episode” ended with a vote in parliament, with 68 votes FOR and not a single “against”. North Macedonia can now start the EU accession negotiations, for which it has been waiting for 17 years.
What do I mean by the term “rashists”?
The anti-European campaigns and protests were assisted by the Kremlin with know-howand many other means, including with русские деньги (Russian money). Some of them perhaps dispose with their “own” money or “objective” judgements, but their action certainly goes in favor of the Russian interests that are carried out through fierce hybrid attacks. And those who (perhaps) had no intention, became part of the Russian hybrid attacks. That is why in my texts that express a personal view, I usually call rashists those who are obviously connected to Russian interests, propaganda and hybrid attacks. This term– rashists – has a different use in international public communication, but in the context of the Macedonian social-political processes and trends it implies to, first of all, political and militant nationalists who act under the direct dictate of the Kremlin. Such are Apasiev and his ultra-right Levica, Janko Bacev and his United Macedonia, the Rodina party and others.
By rashists I also mean their members, followers and supporters.
Though not quite openly, VMRO-DPMNE also didn’t show with a single move of theirs that they are not part of the anti-European movement and even less showed disagreement with the Russian policy in regards to North Macedonia. For example, they didn’t condemn the Russian invasion against Ukraine. Hence, in a freer and broader sense of the word, they too are rashiststo me.
At the same, all those who allowed themselves to fall under the direct or indirect influence of the Russian propaganda found themselves called upon. Even though they were not referred to as rashists, those who with their actions in public communicationhelped the Russian propaganda, regardless of how much they are not pro-Russian, also identified themselves as such. But what can I do if they themselves have recognized themselves under that name?
At the beginning, in my “definition” I didn’t include, though I should have, also those who didn’t mind standing, even with their silence, on the same line with the organizers of the July ultranationalist and anti-European protests. Certainly, they “joined” by themselves. Among them, to my great and unpleasant surprise, were many intellectuals, journalists, editors and “European” NGO leaders.
Why are the rashists bothered by my comments?
It can be debated how wrong I have been in the qualifications and scope of people I mean by the term rashist, but that’s completely unnecessary.
The problem is in accepting the rashist narrative to which some of the intellectuals (with and without quotation marks), NGO leaders and activists, journalists and their editors all so easily surrendered to. They haven’t solved the problem by telling me that I am not right for calling them rashists, but rather have just emphasized their inability to find a better excuse.
Indeed, one or two of my posts on Facebook or Twitter shouldn’t mean anything to them, if their conscious is clear. They are faced with far more important issues than with what I think about them. I am honored that my opinion means something to them, but they must answer other questions, not to me, but to themselves, to the public and to the judgement of time. The questions are simple, but I admit they are unpleasant.
Simple, but unpleasant questions
Should anyone trust them now when they speak about EU integrations, after they fiercely attacked the European proposal and the government’s pro-European course and other progressive forces in the country?
How will they justify the millions of euros of European money (!) that they have been drawing out ofEuropean funds for years and decades to help the country implement the national strategic goals and to develop according to the criteria of EU democracy? This refers to those with a big account with European money.
How will they justify their direct and/or indirect participation in the attack against interethnic relations?
If they are not pro-European, can they further present themselves at least as “neutral” and “objective”? Or are they “neutral” and “objective” only if they attack the EU agenda? Well, anti-vaxxers too think “neutrally” and “objectively” that there are chips to control the mind in the vaccines!
They didn’t say a word about the threats, hate speech and calls for genocide
They didn’t have a word about the fierce hate speech and calls for genocide on the streets and in the media and social networks. They didn’t even condemn the ultranationalist speeches at the 81st session of the parliament, where VMRO-DPMNE and Levica MPs hindered others from speaking (they even insulted the President of the EC, Ursula von der Leyen), threatened fierce revenge and used open hate speech. Why did they remain silent to all that?
The “big” experts and journalists also didn’t comment the fact that, while they carried out a fierce and violent campaign, the anti-European MPs didn’t vote AGAINST, but chose the comfort of leaving the parliamentary hall. They didn’t write a single word neither about the hypocrisy of three smaller parties of the ruling coalition, though that would have been most painless for them.
Does all that mean or doesn’t necessarily have to mean that they are part of the “special operation” against the European integration? Having all this in consideration, is it a big “crime” to think that they are “motivated” from the Kremlin?
They should at least answer themselves
It seems they really feel untouchable. But they should at least know this much – it’s one thing to think and feel you are untouchable, and completely another to run away from answers and responsibility.
I think they should have enough intellectual and human virtue so as to at least answer these questions, at least to themselves, since they have already undermined the public so much. Perhaps they think that they are untouchable, having climbed to “expert” heights they have reached with the help of millions of euros from European funds, but that means nothing to me. Maybe in order to get new European money, the rashists will easily convince the Brussels bureaucrats of their “innocence” and “expert objectivity”, but not me. Like before, they will not convince the public of their “sincere and European” project neither after this episode. The people are not naïve.
We cannot and must not allow ourselves the luxury of naivety, as it concerns the European future of our country.
*This does not mean that I will change my editorial policy. Their views will always be welcome in my inbox and will be treated as always. That is, among else, the difference between a democratic and rashist society.
PPS. Here, I would also like to thank everyone for the support on the social networks, but also for the numerous messages of praise, expressions of support and well-meant criticism of hundreds of people across the country and the world. I sincerely THANK YOU! And once again, congratulations for our great European victory!
Translation: N. Cvetkovska
