In his interview with Deutsche Welle, the VMRO-DPMNE leader Hiristijan Mickoski spoke about the unsuccessful leadership meeting with PM Kovacevski that ended without an agreement.

DW: Did you analyze what was the goal of the leadership meeting, provided that your position is subject to free and incorrect interpretation by SDSM?

“SDSM is completely aware of what I offered at the leadership meeting, however, the persistent manipulation done by presenting incorrect information and imputing in practice reflect the genuine situation in the party and means lack of will to make areal step toward a solution which would mean preservation of the identity and a real and fast integration of the country. It became clear after the meeting that there is no agreement, and we are still waiting on SDSM to decide which of the two proposals I offered they are willing to accept. Kovacevski  was adamant even during the meeting that there is no agreement, which I confirmed in my statement to the media. My goal was to deblock the processes and give them a different perspective, to create a solution that won’t harm the citizens and the future of Macedonia. I regret that SDSM missed a huge and historical opportunity”.

DW: Can you explain which points of the PM’s proposal and  your counterproposal match, and which ones are in collision?

“I offered a change of the circumstances, protection of the national interests, and EU integration. The first proposal I offered is a transitional government without DUI in it, constitutional amendments that would come into force with the end of membership negotiations with the EU. The second proposal is early elections this Autumn, EU guarantees for the national identity and language, economic aid package, and protection of the Macedonians in Bulgaria by implementing the Court in Strasbourg’s decisions. In that case, the amendments would be implemented by the winner, supported by the opposition. The PM Kovacevski offered amendments under Bulgarian diktat and broad government with DUI. It is not our goal to win the power in some broad government, but to build a process based on a national unity pact to protect the national interests”.

DW: Did you talk to any representatives of the international community after the meeting, and what is their position?

“We have a permanent communication with the international community, but I don’t want to interpret their positions, I’ll leave that to them. What I know is that VMRO-DPMNE showed constructiveness and care for the future, which the Government has no capacity to valorize. In that context, all DUI’s  statements are irrelevant, since they are not the ones to decide if they leave the Government. SDSM is the factor that should find courage to accept the offered hand for a transitional government”.

DW: If SDSM doesn’t respond to your proposals, will there be any following steps on your part?

“It is clear that if we miss this opportunity the process will be completely stuck, that the only SDSM’s goal is to impose a solution that will be harmful, and the only palisade against it is and will be the VMRO-DPMNE and its MPs. In that case, early elections are the only logical solution.”

DW: Tell us briefly: was your participation in the meeting abused for different goals?

They created a problem that they can’t solve, they accepted an agreement that they can’t implement, the Macedonian EU integration is blocked, the only logical solution was to talk about the European future of Macedonia. I accepted that with pleasure, I talked and I offered a solution despite not being a part of the problem. Completely aware that certain structures of the society – in constant communication with DUI and SDSM – will certainly attack me. Responsibility and statesmanship mean offering solutions that are not harmful to the identity, while providing a European future. DUI and SDSM decided to use those very well paid installations within the political system, the so-called oppositioners, to attack me and VMRO-DPMNE.”

DW: How do you assess the DUI’s condition (first the valid constitutional changes, and only then to  leave the Government), as well as their proposal for vetting of all political parties, chairpersons, officials, MPs?

DUI is in no position to set conditions. If SDSM really accepts one of our proposals – that’s it. Regarding the vetting proposal, my position is clear: we should start with the politicians and their closest relatives and friends. The politicians’ capital amount to billions of euros, let them prove how did they earn them, let us see the origins of their possessions, and then we  can go on with the rest. I volunteer to be first in that process”.