The Anti-National Agreement for St. Naum’s Monastery: The Subjugation of Albania
A Study by Flamur Buçpapaj
The subjugation of Albania by Orthodox neighbors has never ceased. In the name of the cross, they have committed massacres against the so-called Muslim Albanian population—a pure genocide of borders, lands, cultural heritage, and cultural legacy. This first occurred as a consequence of Turkey’s loss in the war and its ultimate decline. The hegemony of the Orthodox, supposedly aimed at rebuilding the Byzantine Orthodox heritage, resulted in the shrinking of lands, territory, and massive killings of Albanians.
Secondly, the Orthodox neighbors, supported by the age-old enemy of the Albanians, Russia, have always taken care not only to subjugate our homeland but also to install their spies and servants at the helm of Albania. This is evident in the agreement made with the Serbian Prime Minister at the time, Pashitch, in 1924.
Therefore, it is time for that monastery and all cultural heritage objects to be returned to Albanian Orthodox believers. The agreement between Zogu and Pashić was a secret document signed in Belgrade on August 14, 1924, between Ahmet Zogu, an Albanian politician seeking to regain power, and Nikola Pashić, the Serbian Prime Minister aiming to extend Yugoslavia’s influence in the Balkans. The agreement envisaged political, financial, and military assistance from Yugoslavia to overthrow the democratic government of Fan Noli in Albania, in exchange for a series of conditions that would weaken Albania’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Some of the key points of the agreement were:
1. Zogu would accept becoming a vassal king under the King of Yugoslavia, and a Shqiptaro-Yugoslav federation would be established.
2. Zogu would renounce Albanian claims over the Monastery of St. Naum, Vermosh, and Kelmend, which would remain under Yugoslav control.
3. Zogu would allow a significant number of Serbian colonists to settle in Albania, who would have equal rights with Albanians.
4. Zogu would allow full Yugoslav control over Albania’s foreign policy, trade, education, military, and administration.
5. Zogu would promote close cooperation between Serbian Orthodox and Albanian Muslim churches, in order to weaken Albanian national sentiment.
The Zogu-Pashić agreement was partially implemented in December 1924 when Zogu, with the help of Yugoslav troops, managed to seize power in Tirana, overthrowing Fan Noli’s government. However, the agreement was not recognized by the major European powers and faced strong opposition from the Albanian people, who refused to lose their independence and land. Zogu was forced to declare amnesty for his opponents and gradually distance himself from Yugoslavia, seeking support from Italy.
Some scholars argue that the Zogu-Pashić agreement remains one of the most shameful acts in Albanian history, illustrating how an individual could sell out their country’s interests for personal ambitions. Albania lost a part of its territory, including the Monastery of St. Naum, Vermosh, and Kelmend, which were annexed by Yugoslavia. Albania was forced to become a vassal monarchy under Yugoslavia, with a personal union between the King of Yugoslavia and Zogu. Albania was subjected to full Yugoslav control over its foreign policy, trade, education, military, and administration. Albania was compelled to face internal colonization by Serbian settlers who would enjoy equal rights with Albanians. Albania was obliged to promote close cooperation between Serbian Orthodox and Albanian Muslim churches to weaken Albanian national sentiment.
But what was this agreement, and how was it reached?
This was a secret agreement signed in Belgrade in August 1924, while Ahmet Zogu was in exile after the June Movement. The agreement consisted of 15 points, which included:
Zogu would return to power in Albania with the help of Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia would recognize the independence and territorial integrity of Albania but would have economic and political privileges in the country.
Yugoslavia would have the right to intervene militarily in Albania in case of a revolution or external threat.
Albania would cooperate with Yugoslavia on international issues and would oppose any actions by Italy or Greece against Yugoslav interests.
Albania would accept a Yugoslav military mission to organize and train the Albanian army.
Albania would allow a Yugoslav financial mission to regulate the country’s budget and taxes.
Albania would allow a Yugoslav administrative mission to assist in the reform of state administration and judiciary.
Albania would allow a Yugoslav educational mission to assist in the development of the education and cultural system.
Albania would allow a Yugoslav economic mission to promote investments and trade between the two countries.
Albania would allow a Yugoslav health mission to improve public health and fight epidemics.
Albania would allow a Yugoslav technical mission to build and maintain roads, railways, ports, and telegraph lines.
Albania would allow a Yugoslav consular mission in all major cities of the country.
Albania would allow a Yugoslav cultural mission to protect and promote Yugoslav culture and tradition in Albania.
Albania would allow a Yugoslav religious mission to protect and promote the Orthodox faith in Albania.
The Albanian government would declare at the Conference of Ambassadors in Paris the withdrawal of its claim of sovereignty over St. Naum’s Monastery and the Vermosh and Kelmend localities, which remained under Yugoslav control.
As you can see, these points were highly unfair and detrimental to Albania, as they granted Yugoslavia complete control over the country and threatened Albanian national interests. The agreement was exposed in 1927 by the French newspaper Le Matin and condemned by Albanian and international public opinion. Zogu attempted to deny its existence but was forced to accept some of its points in subsequent agreements with Yugoslavia in 1926 and 1927.
So the question arises: Can we challenge the agreement to regain control of St. Naum’s Monastery?
In my opinion, this would be very difficult and complicated. Firstly, the agreement was never ratified by the Albanian parliament and was never an official legal act. Secondly, the agreement was a bilateral agreement between two states that no longer exist, Zog’s Kingdom of Albania and King Alexander’s Yugoslavia.
Thirdly, the agreement was a secret agreement that was never known to the international community and was never registered with the UN. Fourthly, the agreement is an old agreement dating back almost a century and may have lost its legal power under the principle of prescription. and for the serene environment of Lake Ohrid. Finding a solution to the issue of Shën Naumi should be approached with sensitivity, respect for cultural heritage, and a commitment to finding a mutually beneficial solution for both Albania and North Macedonia.
A possible solution could be a new interstate agreement that recognizes and respects the rights and interests of both parties involved. This agreement should also support the preservation and promotion of the values of the monastery as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Achieving such an agreement would require constructive and honest dialogue based on the principles of international law and mutual understanding.
International organizations, such as UNESCO, can play a supportive role in facilitating discussions and providing expertise on cultural heritage preservation. Additionally, neighboring countries, including Albania and North Macedonia, have a vested interest in regional stability and peace and can contribute to finding a resolution.
Shën Naumi holds significant cultural value for both Albanians and Macedonians. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site that reflects the history, art, architecture, and faith of the Balkan peoples. The monastery is renowned for its beautiful icons and the mosaic of Shën Naumi. Resolving the issue surrounding Shën Naumi requires a collaborative effort and a commitment to preserving cultural heritage while seeking a mutually acceptable solution. The consequences of the Zog-Pashitch agreement caused a strong reaction from the Albanian people, who refused to submit to Yugoslavia and lose their independence and lands. From 1925 to 1926, popular uprisings took place in the north and south of Albania, opposing Zog’s regime and his agreement with Yugoslavia. These uprisings were violently suppressed by Zog’s forces with the help of Yugoslavia and Italy. Zog was forced to declare an amnesty for his opponents and gradually distance himself from Yugoslavia, seeking support from Italy. The Zog-Pashitch agreement remained one of the most shameful acts in the history of Albania, showing how an individual could sell the interests of his country for personal ambitions.
These are some of the reasons that make it difficult to bring the Zog-Pashitch agreement to trial. If an agreement is not recognized and registered by the UN, it lacks international legal basis and cannot be enforced by international courts. Additionally, if an agreement is very old, it may be invalid according to the principle of prescription, which states that a legal claim may lose its force if not exercised within a certain time limit. This was a claimed agreement between Albanian King Ahmet Zogu and Yugoslav Prime Minister Nikolla Pashitch in 1924, which envisioned the personal union of Albania with Yugoslavia and the surrender of certain Albanian territories such as Shën Naumi and Vermosh. The agreement was secretly published by the Yugoslav media but was not accepted by the Albanian government and was opposed by the Albanian people. The agreement was never implemented and was considered a forgery of Yugoslav diplomacy to weaken the Albanian state and influence its internal politics. The agreement has no legal value and cannot be prescribed according to international law.
The issue of Shën Naumi is an old and complex problem that involves the borders between Albania and North Macedonia. Shën Naumi is an ancient monastery, built in the 10th century by the Albanian saint Naum, one of the disciples of his teacher, Cyril. The monastery is located on the shore of Lake Ohrid, in an area that was part of Albania until 1925 when it was given to Serbia by King Ahmet Zogu as a gesture of gratitude for the assistance in regaining power in Albania. This act was considered a betrayal by the Albanian people and declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Albania in 2010.
Today, Shën Naumi is a symbol of the cultural and religious heritage of the Albanians, but it is also a source of conflict with North Macedonia, which considers it part of its own history. A possible solution to this issue would be a new interstate agreement that respects the rights and interests of both parties and supports the preservation and promotion of the values of the monastery as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. This would require constructive and honest dialogue based on the principles of international law and mutual understanding. International organizations and neighboring countries could also play a supportive role, as they have an interest in the stability and peace in the region. Shën Naumi is an ancient monastery of great cultural value to Albanians and Macedonians. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site that reflects the history, art, architecture, and faith of the Balkan peoples. The monastery is renowned for its beautiful icons, the mosaic of Shën Naumi, and the serene surroundings of Lake Ohrid. Resolving the issue surrounding Shën Naumi should be approached with sensitivity, respect for cultural heritage, and a commitment to finding a mutually beneficial solution for both Albania and North Macedonia. Translation:
Shën Naumi is an ancient Orthodox monastery located on the shores of Lake Ohrid, currently situated in the territory of North Macedonia. This place holds significant historical, cultural, and religious importance for Albanians, as it is one of the symbols of early Christianity in the Balkans.
In 1925, King Zog of Albania, in a secret agreement with Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Pashiç, gave Shën Naumi to Serbia (which included Macedonia at that time). This agreement was made without consultation with the Albanian people or approval from the Albanian parliament. Many Albanians considered this agreement a betrayal and a violation of Albania’s territorial integrity.
When North Macedonia declared independence from Yugoslavia in the 1990s, Shën Naumi remained under its control. Albania has never formally requested the return of Shën Naumi but has supported the rights of the Albanian minority in Macedonia to preserve their cultural and religious heritage in this place.
To bring back Shën Naumi under Albanian sovereignty, an international judicial process would be required to evaluate the arguments of both parties and render a judgment based on international law. One possibility is to submit a request to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. However, to do this, a preliminary agreement between Albania and North Macedonia would be needed to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ for this issue. If either party refuses, the ICJ cannot take up the case.
Another option is to seek international arbitration, which is a form of dispute resolution between states through an independent and joint tribunal. However, here again, there needs to be an agreement between the two parties to choose an arbitrator or an arbitral panel and to respect their decision. If either party disagrees with this method, arbitration cannot proceed.
Therefore, to bring Shën Naumi to international litigation, there must be political will and cooperation between Albania and North Macedonia, which need to agree on a judicial forum and accept its decision. This is not an easy task as it requires constructive dialogue and compromise between the two states, which have different interests and positions on this issue. However, it is not impossible if there is mutual respect and a commitment to peace and stability in the region.
North Macedonia claims that Shën Naumi is part of its cultural and religious heritage since the monastery was founded by a Slavic saint who contributed to the spread of Orthodox Christianity in the Balkans.
North Macedonia also argues that Shën Naumi belongs to its territory according to international agreements, which have been respected. Translation:
In 1925, King Zog of Albania gave Shën Naum to Serbia in a secret agreement with Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Pashiç. In 1991, when North Macedonia declared independence from Yugoslavia, it inherited its borders from this agreement. In 2018, North Macedonia and Greece reached an agreement to change the country’s name from Macedonia to North Macedonia, resolving a long-standing dispute between the two countries. This, then, paved the way for Skopje’s accession to NATO in 2020.
North Macedonia says it is willing to discuss the issue of Shën Naum with Albania but does not accept changing its legal status or engaging in any territorial exchange. It demands that Albania recognize the Bulgarian minority in its country. It also requests that Albania not obstruct North Macedonia’s European integration process, as both countries would benefit from it.
Based on my internet research, I haven’t found any civil organization in North Macedonia advocating for keeping Shën Naum. In fact, the majority of Macedonians consider Shën Naum as a symbol of their cultural and religious identity and do not accept the idea of its return to Albania.
One of the organizations that has defended Shën Naum against Albanian claims is the Macedonian Orthodox Culture Association “Shën Naum Ohridski,” founded in 1995. This association has organized cultural and religious activities at the monastery and has advocated for its preservation and restoration. It has also opposed any attempts to change the monastery’s name or allow religious services in the Albanian language.
Furthermore, there have been protests by Macedonians against the issue of Shën Naum. One of the most notable was in 2012 when around 3,000 Macedonians gathered at the monastery to express their support for North Macedonia and their opposition to Albania. Protesters carried slogans such as “Shën Naum is Macedonian” and “Albania, hands off Shën Naum.”
Albania claims that Shën Naum is part of its historical, cultural, and religious heritage since the monastery was built on Albanian ethnic territory in the 10th century by Albanian saints Kliment and Naum.
Albania also argues that Shën Naum belongs to its territory according to international decisions that were violated by former Yugoslavia. In 1913, the Conference of London designated the border of Albania up to Shën Naum. In 1922, the Conference of Ambassadors confirmed this border. In 1924, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that Shën Naum should be returned to Albania. However, in 1925, King Zog of Albania gave Shën Naum to Serbia in a secret agreement with Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Pashiç. This agreement was made without consultation with the Albanian people or approval from the Albanian parliament. Many Albanians considered this agreement a betrayal and a violation of Albania’s territorial integrity.
In 1941, with the start of World War II and the dissolution of royal Yugoslavia, the decision was made for Albania to reclaim Shën Naum. However, after the war, Shën Naum returned under the control of communist Yugoslavia, which considered it a symbol of Slavic identity. Albania has never made a formal request for the return of Shën Naum but has supported the rights of the Albanian minority in North Macedonia to preserve their cultural and religious heritage in this place.
Therefore, to bring back Shën Naum, Albania relies on its historical, cultural, religious, and legal arguments, which demonstrate that the monastery is an important part of its heritage. To resolve this issue in favor of Albania, there needs to be a political will and constructive dialogue between the two neighboring countries, as well as support from the international community. One possible solution could be a border adjustment based on a reciprocal agreement and a referendum among the residents of the area. Another option could be a special status for Shën Naum, allowing for some form of local autonomy and regional cooperation. Such a solution would benefit not only Albania and North Macedonia but also the stability and integration of the Western Balkans into the EU.
Albania’s historical and cultural arguments for Shën Naum are related to the origin of the monastery, the population of the area, and the heritage of the Ohrid school. According to some sources, the monastery of Shën Naum was built in the 9th century by St. Naum himself, a missionary and disciple of St. Clement of Ohrid, who was an important figure in Christianity in the Balkans. St. Naum and St. Clement are considered protectors of the Albanian language and alphabet, as they used the vernacular language and the Glagolitic script to spread the word of God. The monastery of Shën Naum is one of the oldest monuments of Albanian culture, containing Byzantine and Romanesque-style art and architecture.
The population of the Shën Naum area is predominantly Albanian, who have lived there since ancient times. In 1913, when the border between Albania and Serbia was determined, the residents of Shën Naum and the surrounding villages protested against the decision and sought to join Albania. In the 1920s, they faced repression and violence from Serbian authorities, who aimed to displace Albanians and replace them with Serbian colonists. In 1925, when Albania handed over Shën Naum to Serbia, the residents were forced to abandon their homes and relocate to Albania or Turkey. Today, the Albanians of Shën Naum continue to seek their rights as an ethnic minority in North Macedonia, preserving their language, culture, and tradition.
The heritage of the Ohrid school is another cultural argument of Albania for Shën Naum. The Ohrid school was an important center of education, culture, and literature in the Balkans, originating in the 9th century and continuing to develop until the 18th century. The Ohrid school played a significant role in shaping the Albanian national identity, as it produced many literary, historical, and religious works in the Albanian language, and contributed to the preservation of the Glagolitic alphabet and the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet. The monastery of Shën Naum was one of the main points of the Ohrid school’s activities.” The arguments put forward by North Macedonia for Saint Naum are connected to the origin of the monastery, the heritage of the Ohrid school, and the identity of the Macedonian people. According to some sources, the Saint Naum monastery was built in the 9th century by Saint Naum himself, a missionary and disciple of Saints Cyril and Methodius, who were two brothers from Thessaloniki and used the Slavic language and the Glagolitic script to spread the word of God. Saint Naum and Saints Cyril and Methodius are considered protectors of the Macedonian language and alphabet, as they contributed to the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet, which forms the basis of the Macedonian written language today. The Saint Naum monastery is one of the oldest monuments of Macedonian culture, containing Byzantine and Romanesque-style art and architecture.
The heritage of the Ohrid school is another cultural argument of North Macedonia for Saint Naum. The Ohrid school was an important center of education, culture, and literature in the Balkans, founded in the 9th century and continuing to develop until the 18th century. The Ohrid school played a significant role in shaping the Macedonian national identity, producing numerous literary, historical, and religious works in the Slavic language, as well as contributing to the preservation of the Glagolitic alphabet and the development of the Cyrillic alphabet. The Saint Naum monastery was one of the main sites of the Ohrid school, where Saint Naum established an academy and a rich library with valuable manuscripts. The Ohrid school is part of the cultural heritage of North Macedonia, deserving recognition and protection by the world.
Arguments from Albania:
Historical argument: Albania can present arguments based on its own history and cultural connections to the region of Saint Naum. It can emphasize that the territory where Saint Naum is located has had historical and cultural links to Albania and that the return of its heritage under Albania’s control is reasonable and just.
Cultural argument: Albania can present arguments based on the cultural and historical significance of Saint Naum for the Albanian people. It can emphasize that this historical site holds unique cultural and religious values for the Albanian people and that its return under Albania’s control would ensure the preservation and promotion of this important heritage.
Tourism argument: Albania can present arguments regarding the tourism potential of Saint Naum. It can argue that its return under Albania’s control would facilitate the development of tourist infrastructure and promote the country as a significant tourist destination. This would contribute to the growth of tourism and the country’s economy. The return of cultural and historical heritage from one country to another is often linked to interpretations of history, national identity, and various political interests.
Scientific arguments that can be presented in favor of the return of Saint Naum from North Macedonia to Albania can be based on archaeological, historical, and linguistic studies. Some of these arguments may include:
Historical connections: It can be argued that the territory where Saint Naum is located has had a noticeable Albanian presence throughout the centuries. The archaeological content of the site, the language used in the Saint Naum church, and historical sources indicate early Albanian connections to this area.
Culture and language: Albanian and Albanian culture have a strong presence in the region of Saint Naum. These elements are essential to the Albanian identity, and the return of Saint Naum to Albania would be seen as a means of preserving and promoting this heritage. The arguments put forward by North Macedonia for Saint Naum to be under the control of Albania would help in the preservation and promotion of this unique heritage.
Political considerations: It is argued that the return of Saint Naum under the control of Albania would strengthen the Albanian national identity and have a positive impact on improving relations between the two countries. This argument can also be linked to the historical aspirations of Albanians to include all territories with an Albanian majority in a single state.
It is important to note that scientific arguments are just one aspect of the discussion regarding the return of cultural and historical heritage. The issue is complex and also involves political, diplomatic, and legal aspects, which influence the final decision-making process.
Historical significance: It is argued that Saint Naum is part of Albania’s historical heritage, and its return under Albanian control would be a historical and cultural restoration. If there are strong historical arguments for the connection between Saint Naum and Albania, then it can be argued that its return would be a just and reasonable action.
Ethnic and identity considerations: It can be argued that the Albanian population in North Macedonia has a strong Albanian identity, and the return of Saint Naum under Albanian control would strengthen the sense of national and ethnic identity for this community. This argument can be reinforced by the fact that the majority of visitors to Saint Naum are Albanians and that this place holds special importance for them.
Economic and tourism advantages: Albania can present arguments that the return of Saint Naum under its control would have economic and tourism benefits. Saint Naum is an important tourist destination, and its return under Albanian control would encourage more tourists to visit the region and contribute to the development of the tourism industry in Albania.
As I mentioned earlier, it is important to understand that these arguments are just some of the many possible ones, and their influence and conclusions vary depending on the political and historical perspectives behind them. The issue of returning cultural and historical heritage is highly complex and influenced by various factors that need to be taken into account in the decision-making process.
Legal and juridical aspect: Albania can argue that based on historical documents, treaties, and international conventions, Saint Naum is part of Albania’s cultural and historical heritage. If legal and juridical opportunities through negotiations or arbitration allow, Albania can present arguments based on this legal basis to support its claim for the return of Saint Naum.
Political and diplomatic conditions: It is argued that the return of Saint Naum under Albanian control would create opportunities for improving political and diplomatic relations between the two countries. This action could help in resolving outstanding issues and building a constructive and trustful relationship between Albania and North Macedonia.
Symbolic return: It is argued that the return of Saint Naum under Albanian control would have significant symbolic value for the state and people of Albania. This action could strengthen national identity and the sense of national pride, serving as a symbol of unity and national strength. It is our duty as this generation to reclaim our parts taken unjustly by Orthodox Serbian, Greek, etc., neighbors.
International influence: Albania can present arguments that the return of Saint Naum under its control would enhance its international image and promote cultural diplomacy. The return of this important heritage would demonstrate Albania’s commitment to preserving and promoting cultural diversity and historical assets. The role as a protector of cultural and historical heritage: This action could have a positive impact on the perception of Albania as a country that respects and promotes cultural and historical heritage.
It is important to understand that these arguments are just examples and the final conclusions and decisions regarding the return of Saint Naum will depend on political, diplomatic, and legal factors that influence the dialogue and negotiations between the involved countries.
Let’s examine some possible counterarguments that may arise regarding this issue:
Argument of shared history: Opponents of returning Saint Naum under Albanian control may argue that this site has a shared history with the region of North Macedonia and that both countries should work together to preserve and promote their shared heritage. They may suggest that the return of Saint Naum should be accompanied by close cultural and tourist cooperation between the two countries.
Regional stability: An argument against returning Saint Naum under Albanian control is that this action could cause tensions and new political challenges in the region. At a time when the Balkan region is striving for good relations and stability, changing cultural and historical borders could create unnecessary controversies and conflicts.
Respect for sovereignty: Opponents of returning Saint Naum from North Macedonia to Albania may emphasize the importance of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a country. They may argue that issues of cultural heritage should be resolved through consultation and agreement, giving importance to the will of the people and local authorities. All monasteries are Albanian and belong to Albanian Orthodox.
Influence of historical and cultural indicators: Opponents may highlight that Saint Naum has a historically and culturally constructed identity, and changing its control could lead to changes in the interpretation and presentation of this heritage. They may suggest that the preservation and promotion of Saint Naum’s heritage should be carried out jointly and harmoniously between Albania and North Macedonia.
These arguments present different perspectives on the issue of returning Saint Naum, reflecting the values, interests, and different perspectives of the involved actors. The discussion and negotiations regarding this issue should carefully consider all viewpoints and seek appropriate and acceptable solutions for all parties.
Protection of cultural heritage: An argument in favor of returning Saint Naum under Albanian control is that it would ensure better management and greater care for the preservation and restoration of this cultural heritage. Albania can present its plan for the preservation and promotion of this historical site, arguing that it has greater capacity to effectively carry out these tasks. For example, I have restored Orthodox churches in the territories that North Macedonia currently claims, but they are truly Albanian.
Demographic changes: Opponents of returning Saint Naum under Albanian control may argue that this action would impact the demographic composition of the area. They may express concerns that returning cultural and historical heritage under the control of another state could create tensions and divisions among different ethnic and cultural communities living in the region. Regional cooperation: An argument against the return of Saint Naum under the control of Albania could emphasize regional cooperation and the establishment of good relations between countries. It could be proposed that Albania and North Macedonia should work together to develop a common strategy for promoting and preserving their shared cultural heritage, including the site of Saint Naum.
Will of the people: An important argument could be the will of the people of North Macedonia. If a significant portion of the population in North Macedonia supports the return of Saint Naum under the control of Albania, it can be argued that it is important to respect this will and take their interests into account.
Ultimately, the issue of returning Saint Naum from North Macedonia to Albania is a complex matter that requires comprehensive assessment and an appropriate solution. Discussions and negotiations should be conducted with respect for all viewpoints and aim to find a compromise that respects cultural and historical heritage, as well as the interests and sentiments of all parties involved.
Economic impact: An argument in favor of returning Saint Naum under the control of Albania could be the positive economic impact it could bring to the area. Albania could present its plan for investments in tourist infrastructure, promotion of tourist destinations, and local economic development. Returning Saint Naum under the control of Albania could create more opportunities for economic growth and job creation in the region.
Historical perspective: An argument against the return of Saint Naum under the control of Albania could be based on the historical perspective and historical borders of the region. Opponents may argue that Saint Naum has been part of North Macedonia’s territory for a long time and that changing historical borders could have unforeseen and risky consequences.
Cultural diplomacy: An argument in favor of returning Saint Naum under the control of Albania could focus on cultural diplomacy and the promotion of shared cultural values. Albania could argue that the return of Saint Naum could enhance cultural and tourist cooperation with North Macedonia, opening the way for recognition and appreciation of shared heritage and intensifying human and cultural contacts.
Security and protection of heritage: Opponents of returning Saint Naum under the control of Albania may be concerned that this action could pose challenges to the security and protection of cultural heritage. They may emphasize that North Macedonia has worked to secure and preserve this historical site and that transferring its control could jeopardize these efforts and bring new challenges to heritage protection.
These arguments present different perspectives in the debate surrounding the return of Saint Naum. It is important to continue discussions and negotiations in an open and precise manner, considering all viewpoints and focusing on finding sustainable solutions that respect cultural and historical heritage, as well as the interests of all parties involved.
Regional stability: An argument in favor of returning Saint Naum under the control of Albania could be the support for regional stability. If the return of Saint Naum under the control of Albania could help improve relations between Albania and North Macedonia, then this action could contribute to regional stability and help resolve other outstanding issues between the countries. Because all the monasteries are Albanian and were forcefully occupied by Slavs and Greeks.
Legality and respect for agreements: Opponents of returning Saint Naum under the control of Albania could argue that this action may violate agreements and undermine the principles of respecting borders and state sovereignty. They may emphasize the importance of respecting existing agreements and implementing established mechanisms for resolving border and territorial issues.
European integration: An argument in favor of returning Saint Naum under the control of Albania could be the positive impact this action could have on the European integration process of the region’s countries. If Albania and North Macedonia reach an acceptable agreement on the return of Saint Naum, it could serve as an example of regional cooperation and contribute to the progress of countries towards EU membership.
International relations: Another argument against returning Saint Naum under the control of Albania could be based on international relations and the potential impact this action could have on relations with other countries. Opponents may express concern that returning Saint Naum under the control of Albania could lead to tensions and disagreements with other countries that have interests in the region of North Macedonia.
Security and protection of cultural assets: An issue that can play a role in the debate is the security and protection of cultural assets at the site of Saint Naum. Advocates for returning Saint Naum under the control of a specific state may argue that this action would ensure a higher level of protection and preservation of this sacred site and the cultural assets located there. They may emphasize that appropriate administration of this area would guarantee the preservation and maintenance of historical and cultural heritage for future generations.
Political and diplomatic implications: Returning Saint Naum under the control of a specific state could have political and diplomatic implications. In a region with historical and ethnic tensions, territorial changes and control of sacred areas can evoke strong sentiments and reactions from the involved parties. It is important to consider these implications and find a solution that represents an acceptable compromise and ensures stability and peace in the region.
International legality: Another aspect that can influence the debate is international legality. Decisions regarding sovereignty and control of territory are complex and often regulated by international agreements and relevant organizations. The return of Saint Naum should align with current international rules and respect the territorial integrity of the involved countries.
Protection of minority communities: Another aspect that needs to be considered is the protection of minority communities at the site of Saint Naum. Any decision regarding the control of this area should ensure the protection and respect of the rights of the minority communities living there and those who come to visit this sacred place.
It is important to continue the discussion and analysis of all the different aspects of returning Saint Naum. Ultimately, an appropriate solution needs to be found that addresses the interests and needs of all the involved parties and contributes to the preservation of cultural heritage and regional reconciliation.
Considering the respect for principles of citizenship, sovereignty, and justice in the resolution of territorial and border issues. Demographic and ethnic changes: Returning Saint Naum under the control of a specific state may have an impact on the demographic and ethnic structure of the area. If the involved country is ethnically different from the community living in Saint Naum, the return may cause concerns and fears of demographic changes and possible confrontations. It is important to consider these challenges and find ways to ensure harmony and respect for the rights of all communities.
Cultural cooperation and exchange: Returning Saint Naum under the control of a specific state may pave the way for cultural cooperation and intensified exchange between the country and other communities. Through joint projects and cultural cooperation, dialogue, understanding, and tolerance among different cultures and nations can be promoted.
Increased investment and economic development: Returning Saint Naum under the control of a specific state like Albania can bring increased investment and economic development to the area. New opportunities for tourism, infrastructure, and other economic projects can be created. This economic growth can bring significant benefits to the country and local communities.
Influence of public opinion: Public opinion, both in the vicinity of Saint Naum and in the involved countries, can have a significant impact on the debate surrounding its return. The media, social organizations, and interested individuals can express their views and opinions, influencing the decision-making process. It is important to listen to and take into account public opinion on this matter. The outcome of an international court depends on various factors, including the arguments presented by the parties involved, the evidence and testimonies presented, as well as the interpretation and application of international law rules by the judges involved in the judicial process.
If all the arguments and evidence presented by Albania in an international court regarding the return of Saint Naum are strong and supported by international rules and law, then Albania has a reasonable chance of winning the case. However, the final outcome will depend on the judges and the entities involved in the judicial process.
It is important to understand that my translation is speculative and cannot provide a definite answer regarding the outcome of a possible international court. Only an international court can make the final decision based on the arguments and evidence presented by all parties and the international law applicable to the specific case.
Regional security and stability: Returning Saint Naum under the control of a specific state like Albania can have an impact on the security and stability of the region. It is important to assess the possible consequences and ensure that the return does not cause significant tensions or new conflicts in the region. International cooperation and dialogue are crucial to secure a solution that promotes peace and stability.
The role of international organizations: International organizations such as the United Nations, OSCE, and the Council of Europe have an important role in assessing and monitoring the process of returning Saint Naum. They can provide assistance and support in negotiations and the implementation of agreements, as well as take steps to ensure respect for human rights and other international standards.
International agreements and their respect: In the case of the return of Saint Naum, it is important to consider existing international agreements that may have an impact on the issue. Respecting international agreements and conventions is essential to uphold international legal order and territorial integrity.
Influence of history and culture:
The return of Saint Naum is a matter of great historical and cultural significance for many communities. The influence of history and culture in the debate is important and should be taken into account to understand the feelings and values of all parties involved.
The weight of historical and legal arguments:
In issues of returning cultural and territorial heritage, historical and legal arguments hold particular importance. Parties must present strong arguments that are based on historical and legal foundations for their claims. Assessing these arguments is crucial to reach an acceptable and fair solution.
Respecting the rights of minorities:
In the case of the return of Saint Naum, it is important to respect the rights of the minority living in the specific area. Ensuring the protection of minority rights and the continuation of their cultural and religious practices is part of a sustainable and just solution.
Influence of public opinion and public diplomacy:
Public opinions and public diplomacy have an impact on the debate surrounding the return of Saint Naum. It is important to cultivate open and conscious dialogue with the public and ensure accurate and comprehensive information for all parties involved. Public diplomacy can help create a constructive atmosphere and facilitate finding an acceptable solution for all parties.
Potential for cooperation and regional development:
A sensitive and open debate about the return of Saint Naum can open opportunities for cooperation and regional development. Identifying common interests and potential collaborative projects in areas such as tourism, culture, and economic development can help establish a new positive center for all parties involved.
These are some aspects that may be important for the debate surrounding the return of Saint Naum. It is important to continue open discussion and raise awareness among all parties to reach an appropriate and sustainable solution that respects the interests and needs of all involved parties.
All monasteries and religious sites that belong to the Albanians will be returned to Albania in any way possible… Let the Slavs and Greeks choose how they want.
