Last news in Fakti

Ognyan Gharkov before FACTS about the "Nenchev case": Glavchev made a blunder **** It is clear that Nikolay Nenchev is u

It is clear that Nikolay Nenchev is unsuitable, says the career diplomat

Jul 29, 2024 13:30 165

Ognyan Gharkov before FACTS about the "Nenchev case": Glavchev made a blunder **** It is clear that Nikolay Nenchev is u - 1

The procedure for appointing a Bulgarian ambassador to Ukraine remains a subject of disagreement between the institutions – president, prime minister, foreign minister... The press office of the president stated that as early as last fall, President Rumen Radev and the "Denkov" cabinet have approved the candidacy of the former employee of our embassy in Kyiv, Petar Tanev, but the Council of Ministers has not sent the relevant proposal to the presidency. According to Prime Minister Dimitar Glavchev, the caretaker government should not propose a holder for the post of ambassador to Kyiv. Glavchev announced that the Bish Minister of Defense Nikolay Nenchev was designated as the temporary manager of the embassy (b.r. - even at the beginning Dimitar Glavchev and Solomon Passi announced the non-existent position/+title/temporary managing ambassador) after a competition. What diplomatic moves are these… Career diplomat Ognyan Garkov spoke to FACTS.

- Mr. Gharkov, how do you view the incident that has been happening in recent days, regarding the appointment of Nikolay Nenchev as temporary manager of our embassy in Ukraine?
- Unprofessionalism. In short. Ignorance of the Constitution and so on.

- How is an ambassador appointed?
- Everything starts from the Foreign Ministry. When I was offered the position of ambassador to the Czech Republic (in 1996), and in 2006 to Slovakia, I appeared for interviews-“interrogation” in the National Assembly before the Foreign Policy Committee. In general, the proposal is for the foreign minister to decide who becomes ambassador. It also goes through the Council of Ministers. But the president must also be informed. It is best for the foreign minister to first agree with the president about his intentions to become an ambassador to a given country. To ask him directly if he would sign a decree if the party concerned consented, as they say, for one who is a man. In the case of Nenchev, the president clearly did not approve. They probably went the other way and didn't ask him first. The president issues a decree after this person receives an agreement – in this case from Ukraine, from Kyiv. Apparently, they did not probe the president in advance and now Glavchev is appointing him as temporary ruler... because this does not require the initials of the head of state. Glavchev is doing stupid things. Glavchev made a blunder. That is. He can appoint a temporary manager of the embassy, but not an ambassador, and without the president being involved. Glavchev is prime minister and foreign minister. Even a Council of Ministers is not needed, and Glavchev himself can make a decision as Minister of Foreign Affairs.

- Is there any rivalry between Radev and Glavchev?
- In this case, Radev has every right to be angry because Glavchev is acting illegally. I'm repeating myself. They should not bother the head of state with a temporary manager of the embassy. Apparently, Radev decided that he would not sign a decree for Nenchev. Why…? That is his job, beyond anyone else's discretion. It is normal for President Radev to be offended by all their actions. It is clear that Nikolay Nenchev is not suitable. It also became known that Radev was previously offered another person by Maria Gabriel.

- Petar Tanev…
- Exactly. But due to some circumstances they don't send it. And now they are proposing a person whom they did not agree with the president. According to Radev and his advisers, perhaps Nikolay Nenchev is not suitable. Radev does not approve of it, even though Glavchev has a different opinion. This is the strength of this version of democracy, because we have different degrees of power, with divided powers.

- Since hostilities between Russia and Ukraine have been taking place, Bulgaria has not had a diplomat in Ukraine. And this happened after Kostadin Kojabashev - whether he withdrew himself, whether they withdrew him, is not very clear, but he left Ukraine…
- Kodjabashev - experienced diplomat, later deputy minister from Galab Donev's office, "escaped" from the embassy. Our embassy and consulate general from Odessa left Ukraine at a gallop. Undoubtedly with a sanction from Sofia. People (in the sense of “in/from abroad”) don't do that. When it became clear that it was getting hot, at least we had left some military. No - our cowards hid so that after some time Kodjabashev's ambassador to the Vatican could go “in peace”. When there is a military conflict, people connected to the military are usually sought. Someone in the military usually who is willing, of course, not pushed by force. But such a person as would cope with the local conditions is sent. And what our people did is an absolute foul.

- How do you view the fact that two and a half years after the start of the conflict, Bulgaria does not have a diplomatic representative in Kiev?
- This speaks very negatively about Bulgaria. And, at the same time, we treated the refugees from Ukraine most warmly. They were accepted and placed under ideal conditions if we compare with other countries like Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, etc. This on the one hand. On the other hand, we came out the biggest cowards because our diplomats ran away. With Sofia's consent, of course. I repeat, if they had left at least the military attache. If he is also an official. This is the great trouble and sad fate of us, of the European Union, of NATO – the bureaucracy rules us. Adding to this our shortcomings, we become a laughingstock.

- How important is the work of a diplomat who is in a foreign country during a military crisis?
- It is extremely important to have a person who is on the spot. It is one thing to watch and read only in the media without maintaining “live contacts on the ground”. Because we know that the majority of media information also contains disinformation - will it be politically correct or manipulated in a certain direction… Another thing is to have a person on the spot who can navigate the situation, have contacts with people and so on. Otherwise, what is the point of diplomats? Why should we spend money abroad from the state budget on expensively paid officials… We can just stay in the country, read, listen and draw conclusions. Especially for some forums in which Bulgaria takes an obvious parrot position, we can simply set up a robot or use artificial intelligence. We focus on how a representative votes, and the bot votes the same. “Correct”, “parrot”, “as it should”. And this can be a “form of diplomacy”. We are very bad because we do not defend our Bulgarian interests.