What's in a name? Rather a lot, it seems, if the name is Macedonian.

Nestled in the heart of the Balkan peninsula, Macedonia is the odd man out among the disunited former republics of Yugoslavia. Since the multi-ethnic Yugoslav federation began to disintegrate last year, all five of its other republics have achieved some kind of international standing. Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina have become independent states, recognized by a growing parade of nations - including Canada, which recognized the former two in January and the latter yesterday. Serbia and Montenegro have become partners in a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia rump state. But only four countries have recognized the Macedonian government since a referendum in September overwhelmingly approved independence.

The problem is the republic's insistence on keeping the name Tito gave it nearly 50 years ago : Macedonia. This infuriates neighbouring Greece, which argues that Macedonia is a Greek name from classical times that no foreign government has the right to adopt. It contends that the name implies a potential territorial claim to the northern region of Greece that is also called Macedonia. Athens has blocked recognition of the republic by the all-important European Community, and refuses to change its mind unless Macedonia changes its name.

With no trace of whimsy, some Greek officials have suggested Macedonian President Kiro Gligorov call his new state the Republic of Vardar, after the river that runs through the capital, Skopje. Others propose the Slavic Republic of Macedonia, to differentiate it from Greek Macedonia. Mr. Gligorov is adamant : the name stays.

Though the passion of Greece's stand is impressive - carrying even to the shores of this country, where protesters wave signs saying "Macedonia is in Greece" - the logic is not. Mr. Gligorov has repeatedly assured foreign governments that he has no claim on the territory of his neighbours. French Judge Robert Badinter, head of the European Commission's arbitration commission on Yugoslavia, was satisfied enough with these assurances to report in January that Macedonia met all the conditions for recognition as an independent state.

Even if Mr. Gligorov's government did harbour secret designs on Greek Macedonia, it would be hard pressed to do anything about them. Macedonia is a tiny state of 2.1 million. The poorest of Yugoslavia's former republics, it has severe economic and ethnic problems, and no army to speak of. Greece, by contrast is a member of NATO with a substantial army and a population of 10 million.

The Greeks are right to say that independent Macedonia could, if it wished try to stir up nationalism among Macedonians in Greece. There is evidence that some private groups in Macedonia are already spreading propaganda calling for Macedonians to unify and cast off Greek "oppression". But if, as Athens claims, its Macedonian population is perfectly content with things as they are, this should pose little threat to Greek unity.

That leaves the historical argument. In the Balkans, where every hill has a story, this cannot be glibly dismissed. Macedonia has been the cause of two wars this century among Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. Greek pride in the Macedonian strand of its history is strong. Alexander the Great, the Macedonian warrior-king, spread Hellenistick culture around the known world in the fourth century B.C.

But Greek pride is no justification for denying Macedonia its statehood. Nor is historical mistrust. The problem of each of the Balkans is that its peoples blame each other for the sins of their fathers. If Greece is the modern, forward-looking European nation it claims to be, it must help to break this pattern, not repeat it.