DIANA TAHIRI
In the Kumanovo region, at the “Zebrnjak” memorial, on October 24, the 113th anniversary of the Battle of Kumanovo fought in 1912 was commemorated, which represents the first major armed conflict in the First Balkan War between the Serbian and Turkish armies on October 23 and 24, 1912.
The commemoration of the Battle of Kumanovo was attended by a delegation from the Republic of Serbia, led by the State Secretary in the Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs, Zoran Antic; the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Inter-Community Relations, Ivan Stoiljkovic; the Russian Ambassador Sergey Bazdnikin; representatives from the Chinese Embassy in the Republic of North Macedonia, as well as representatives of organizations of the Serbian ethnic community in the country and clergy.
The event was also accompanied by public addresses, and the most notable speech was the one of Serbian Minister Antic, filled with epic praise of the then Serbian army, glorifying not only the Battle of Kumanovo but also the Serbian army’s advances through other towns (then Ottoman Empire vilayets) in the country and in Kosovo.
“One nation and one army, after 500 years, on the fields near Kumanovo defended the achievements of modern and Christian Europe. The victory of the First Serbian Army represents a civilizational triumph over the Ottoman Empire, a victory of European humanistic values over despotic ones, as well as the expulsion of the Ottomans from the Balkan Peninsula. A victory of Christianity over Islam. If it were not for the Battle of Kumanovo, neither Serbia, nor Macedonia, would exist today neither would other countries in the Balkans,” Antic said, among other things.
In his speech, Antic greeted the “brothers, North Macedonians.”
“Dear brothers North Macedonians, we Serbs and Macedonians are connected by a common past, religion, culture, and tradition, and whole series of great figures in the ethnic territories of our two peoples,” Antic said.
Antic’s speech also provoked reactions from several Macedonian politicians and public figures, who described it as inflammatory, spreading hatred and chauvinism towards Turks, Albanians, Muslims, and Bulgarians.
VMRO–People’s Party expressed deep concern that this year’s celebration of the “Battle of Zebrnjak”, after which Macedonia was occupied and which began the 23-year Serbian occupation of our country, was observed in a much more pompous manner and with a larger event than the Day of the Macedonian Revolutionary Struggle.
“We are also concerned that the number of events marking the Serbian occupation of Macedonia has surpassed even the national holidays of the country. Just to remind, every year major celebrations are held for the battles of Kajmakčalan, Bregalnica, Zebrnjak, Udovo, the battle at Ramne, the ‘Victory Day’ in Bitola, and all this with Macedonian state money from the Macedonian budget, celebrating an occupying army on the territory of Macedonia.
But we are especially concerned that during these celebrations Macedonia has been turned into a field of hatred, so much so that two days ago we heard hatred, revanchism and chauvinism against Turks, Bulgarians, Albanians, and Muslims, not to mention the fact that Macedonia is regularly called ‘old and southern Serbia’ and Macedonians ‘Serbs who were liberated.’”
These insults toward the Macedonian people this time were expanded with a new identity and narrative, by addressing them as ‘brothers, North Macedonians,’” said VMRO–NP, and called on “the government of VMRO–DPMNE to stop this humiliating bending of the spine and this humiliation of the Macedonian people.”
The president of the SDA–Macedonia political party, Dzelal Hodzic, also reacted, saying that in Macedonian historiography this event is assessed as the beginning of the Serbian occupation of Vardar Macedonia.
“This event, in mid North Macedonia, is being observed in the presence of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Macedonian government, together with the Russian ambassador to the country.
And you have silence from the ‘on-duty” patriots in the Macedonian political elite. You have silence from the mainstream media that defend the country every day from Bulgaria, the Albanians, and from ‘internal traitors.’ You have silence from the Macedonian oligarchy, about the economic consequences of the country’s isolation from the EU, and its integration into the so-called ‘Serbian world’.
Silence, censorship, as in the darkest days of communism!
You have silence from all the propagandists and bots who for months on all television stations, newspapers, radio stations and online portals have been relativizing the European report in which the influence of the ‘Serbian world’ was mentioned in a negative context.
The government of VMRO-DPMNE and Mickoski dare not utter a word against the producers of the Greater Serbia narratives that present North Macedonia as Old Serbia” Hodzic said, among other things.
Professor Oliver Andonov pointed out several aspects of Antic’s extremely provocative speech.
“The commemoration of the Battle of Kumanovo in 1912 at Zebrnjak, precisely on October 23, and at the same time calling us Macedonians as North Macedonians is a direct insult to the Macedonian revolutionary work (which also includes the fight against the Serbian occupation that began with the Battle of Kumanovo in 1912), and especially to the Macedonian people and nation, who, by being referred to as North Macedonians, are not recognized as a position of the Serbian government expressed on the territory of Macedonia and in the presence of the Deputy Prime Minister from Mickoski’s government.”
“The second aspect of provocation and, of course, the deliberate silence of Mickoski is the presence of Russian ambassador Bazdnikin at the Zebrnjak commemoration, at the same time of Stoiljkovic as well (who is an institutional bridge to the Kremlin regime), as Deputy Prime Minister in Mickoski’s government, as well as his coalition partner from ZNAM.
And so much for the ideology of VMRO and Mickoski’s Macedonianism.
All in all, a complete picture of pro-Russian and anti-Macedonian behavior with falsification of history and deliberate insulting of Macedonians, both concretely and symbolically.
The incitement of inter-religious conflict by sending messages that the Battle of Kumanovo was a victory of Christianity over Islam, in addition to being a historical falsehood, is a tendentious provocation and a call for continued inter-religious conflict in Macedonia by a state secretary in the Serbian government, that is, a public figure.
A call and messages delivered in front of a Deputy Prime Minister of Mickoski’s government, to which neither he (probably carried away by Bazdnikin’s warm embrace), nor Mickoski, or at least the government through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, did not react in the Macedonian public, let alone with a diplomatic note to the Serbian government,” Andonov says.
The event at Zebrnjak is not the first event where various representatives of the Serbian government have participated, with extremely provocative rhetoric, and in the presence of the Deputy Prime Minister in the Government of the Republic of North Macedonia, Ivan Stoiljkovic.
In September, at a state commemoration, the Serbian Minister of Defense, Bratislav Bata Gasic, former director of the BIA (Serbian UDBA), stated that Kajmakcalan is Serbian land, also in the presence of Ivan Stoiljkovic, Deputy Prime Minister in the government.
The Zebrnjak event once again opened the dilemma of the manner in which the state positions itself toward sensitive historical issues and symbolic narratives from the region, particularly from Serbia. There was no clear institutional response, even though the speeches and messages raised questions regarding interethnic and interreligious relations in the country, as well as serious political reactions in the public.
The case confirms that historical topics continue to be used as an instrument for daily political and interstate purposes, with the potential to influence the internal cohesion, interethnic and interreligious stability, as well as the foreign policy orientation of the state. In such circumstances, the open question remains whether the institutions will develop a clear and consistent approach that will protect the historical sensitivity, interethnic and interreligious relations, and the strategic interests of the state.