FYROM and the President of FYROM have shown their arrogance for the second time towards the neighbouring state of Kosovo and the President of Kosovo, Fatmir Sejdiu. Two weeks ago, all presidents of neighbouring countries, barring the President of Kosovo, were invited to the inauguration ceremony of the new President of FYROM. While the new President was discussing his ideas of strengthening relations and cooperation with his neighbouring counterparts, the President of the immediate neighbouring state of Kosovo was absent. Even though FYROM has recognized the new state of Kosovo, the new President Ivanov, who cannot be prematurely called Ivanoc the Great, has decided with a dangerous air of arrogance not to invite the President of Kosovo while inviting all other counterparts in the Balkans.
Furthermore, as if this was not enough, an invitation of Skopje for a formal visit of the President of Kosovo turns into an informal invitation, in disrespect of the official protocol of visits of heads of states. In the most bizarre way possible, FYROM reinforces an equally arrogant provocation to that of two weeks ago.
Since the genesis of states, arrogance in foreign policy has been a feature of big, powerful states. From antiquity to modern times, state arrogance has proved inevitable in international relations, even though not necessarily beneficial. Nevertheless, arrogance in the conduct of foreign policy has never been and it definitely is not a ‘privilege’ of big and powerful states only, but of the small and weak too. As a rule of thumb, the arrogance of the small and weak in foreign affairs is generally explained by the nature of the regime and mental stability of leaders.
Totalitarian regimes generally pursue an arrogant and aggressive foreign policy. No less than two decades ago, Albania, for instance, was a very arrogant state in its foreign affairs. Or at least it pretended to be arrogant and the center of the world.
However, as already mentioned, this can be explained with its totalitarian regime and its mad leader Enver Hoxha. Although far from being a perfect democracy, FYROM is to a certain degree a democratic country and the current explanation, that arrogance in the foreign policies of countries that can barely hold their own can be justified under a totalitarian regime, is not plausible.
In addition, President Ivanov is a mentally healthy leader and must also be very loving since he was elected head of state by an overwhelming majority FYROM’ Macedonians Accordingly, if theory cannot help explain the FYROM and IVANOV case, what then can explain that a country like FYROM, surrounded in and out by Albanians, should at all costs antagonise them?
