26 October 2009 | Most Macedonian bloggers scoff at the opposition's intention to challenge the new Kosovo border agreement in constitutional court.
Since Macedonia recognised Kosovo's independence in October of last year, relations between the two countries have been on the upswing.

And those relations continue to grow. Last week the two Balkans states established diplomatic ties after parliament ratified an agreement that settled a mutual border dispute.

According to the agreement, Macedonia obtained 160m of land near Lukovo Pole on Sar Mountain, while Kosovo received 155m near the strategic high point Kodra Fura.

Opponents in Macedonia say that a two-thirds vote is necessary to spark a border change, and that the agreement violates the constitution. Certain parties also allege that the agreement snuck through parliament almost secretly.

The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), supported by the Social Democratic Party of Macedonia (SDSM), said they will challenge the agreement in constitutional court.

The government claims that Article 5 of the previous 2001 border agreement gives both countries "a mandate for necessary balanced corrections of the border".

The debate spread into the blogosphere recently -- here's a taste [all links lead to blogs in Macedonian]:

Zoriv argues that rarely is any opposition satisfied when the ruling party scores a good deal. "Yesterday, we couldn't avoid listening to such complaints but nobody unfamiliar with this agreement's issues … would think that a treasonous agreement was made as if through voluntary accession of Macedonian territory to Kosovo."

But he raises a question about legal standing. "What will happen if the constitutional court rules on behalf of [LDP's] complaint? Which has a stronger standing in legal terms: a constitutional court rulling or an agreement signed between two states? If the constitutional court ruling is stronger … will we then play games in front of the world and return to the old borders? Will the world community allow us such childish adventures?" He concludes, "it hardly will."

Oggie Doggie asks, "If everything is so proper as you want to present it to us, that Macedonia has gained [by this agreement] and not lost territory, why then all the conspiracy and all the hurry?"

Activist and university professor Biljana Vankovska explains what the Macedonian Constitution stipulates. "The border is inviolable and any change requires not only a two thirds majority in the parliament but an additional and compulsory referendum to confirm the parliament's decision," she says. Thus, the agreement's impact is negative. "A procedure imposed in such a forceful and urgent manner creates frustration and distrust on both sides instead of friendship."

Vmroid disagrees. "The exchange of territories is not disputable … it only matters whether it was voted in by a simple or a two-thirds majority."

*This text is courtesy of the Southeast European Times (SET), a web site sponsored by the US Department of Defense in support of UN Resolution 1244, designed to provide an international audience with a portal to a broad range of information about Southeastern Europe. It highlights movement toward greater regional stability and steps governments take toward integration into European institutions. SET also focuses on developments that hinder both terrorist activity and support for terrorism in the region.

Read more about Macedonia BalkanTravellers.com
Use BalkanTravellers.com's tips to organize your trip to Macedonia