Everything fell into place. About a month and a half or two ago, I wrote that Rosen Zhelyazkov would not be the Bulgarian prime minister who could make a breakthrough in our relations with North Macedonia. Moreover, I expressed my concern that he would rather lead them into a dead end from which it is difficult to get out. I was referring, first of all, to Zhelyazkov's definition of the Bulgarians across the border as a "Bulgarian minority". For them, as is known, we insist that they be included in the country's constitution as a state-building element and part of the people, which is an irrevocable condition of the so-called “French proposal“, which later became a common position of the European Union.
This was warned about in an analysis for “Trud” by Kostadin Filipov.
This fact alone - the “Bulgarian minority“ in North Macedonia, was enough to reduce the civic trust in the previous prime minister, who had already resigned. Not that it matters, but fate had its say. The protests created a situation in which there was no other useful move for the prime minister and the coalition government he led. Of course, Zhelyazkov's attitude towards our relations with North Macedonia and towards the Bulgarians there was the last reason, if it was taken into account at all, for the resignation of the cabinet and the creation of a new political and social situation in our country. The reasons were different, the motives were different, the direction of the protest energy from streets and squares throughout our country was different. There is someone who can explain them.
And to this day I don't know who misled Zhelyazkov to use this incorrect and extremely unacceptable definition for Bulgarians near the Vardar. It does not appear in the dictionary of a politician and statesman by chance. Moreover, two years ago, when as chairman of the National Assembly he went to Skopje to open a wonderful Bulgarian exhibition in the Archaeological Museum there, diplomats from the embassy, and local Bulgarians had told me that he behaved very much like a person who is aware of things. So, on the way from head of parliament to prime minister this “clarity of things” It was clearly leaked somewhere, perhaps not without the help of advisors, assistants or other people from his entourage.
But all this is part of the current political reality in our country, which is full of unknowns. Including the personal and political fate of Rosen Zhelyazkov, as well as the ministers from his tripartite cabinet.
But in this case, we are interested in how his resignation is viewed in Skopje and what it means for our bilateral relations with North Macedonia. I cannot hide that the media there carefully followed the protests in our country and reported widely about them. In many cases, the information was tied to that about the student marches in Serbia, and at times the unrest in Bulgaria and Serbia was even used as a motive to activate public energy near Vardar and for people there to follow us and take to the streets. The latest mass protests near Vardar were within the framework of the so-called “Colorful Revolution“ since 2016 against the government of VMRO-DPMNE leader Nikola Gruevski. Gradually, however, the idea of the “colorful” faded, disappointment took over, the government changed, Zoran Zaev formed a cabinet, on August 1, 2017, we signed the Treaty of Good Neighborhood and Friendship and supposedly put our bilateral relations on a stable, healthy and fast track. We also became partners in NATO, while the Bulgarian caretaker and regular cabinets, which then took power with their clumsy policies and with the understanding of temporary rule, brought them to where they are now. While Teodora Genchovska was Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of Kiril Petkov, she at least managed, together with her colleague from North Macedonia, Buyar Osmani, in July 2022, to sign the protocol of the Second Meeting of the Mixed Intergovernmental Commission, which later became an irrevocable part of the Negotiating Framework for Skopje's membership in the European path. And which protocol, unfortunately, is almost always forgotten when it comes to what the authorities near the Vardar must do to continue on their European path. Bulgarian politicians seem to forget or simply do not know that reducing the condition that North Macedonia must fulfill to only and solely the inclusion of local Bulgarians in their constitution is one-sided and in this way serves the interests of the political elite in Skopje. Not that the current authorities and government of Hristiyan Mickoski have rushed to fulfill it, but narrowing the Negotiating Framework only to the constitutional change is extremely wrong, and completely untrue. It is more or less like Zhelyazkov's “Bulgarian minority“.
If we were to try to summarize the reaction in Skopje to the situation with the resignation and the protests in our country, we would have to share the assessment of the analysts there that it is a matter of a “profound political lack of orientation“ of the Bulgarian political class. Their politicians are silent for now. In this atmosphere, commentators say, it was pointless to look for an interlocutor in Sofia with whom to hold talks, or even negotiations on foreign policy issues or relations with neighbors. The thesis that Skopje has no interlocutor in our country with whom to try to change our country's position regarding the European consensus is not new and there was no need to wait for the resignation of Zhelyazkov and the cabinet to launch it again. It was also contained in statements by President Gordana Siljanovska and Minister of Foreign Affairs Timcho Mutsunski. However, Prime Minister Hristiyan Mickoski, in his speech to the VMRO-DPMNE congress in Kavadarci recently after being re-elected as the party leader, warned that seeking an interlocutor in Sofia for talks would mean that North Macedonia is striving for a bilateral solution with Bulgaria on the issue of continuing the negotiation process with the EC. And this is not right, according to Mickoski, which can also be taken as another reminder to Siljanovska to be careful with the application of cultural diplomacy as “soft power“ in relations with our country.
Bulgaria would be in a situation of “political knockdown” for a long time to come, it is estimated near Vardar. Something like deja vu during the official cabinets, when the aforementioned Buyar Osmani complained that he could not catch up with his colleagues from Bulgaria. He had already worked with six - one comes, another leaves. There was already a fear that even if something were to be agreed with Bulgaria, “Sofia's institutional memory would be subjected to amnesia“, which would be a prerequisite for Bulgaria to return to “the old anachronistic paths of hegemonism“.
Cliché upon cliché, as you can see, and they have become obsolete. But personally, this takes me back to the beginning of 2007, when our country entered the European Union. This Bulgarian success in Skopje was met with accusations that we do not deserve to have taken the place of the Republic of Macedonia as the most prepared country in the Balkans to enter the European family and that a day will come when Skopje will stand at the doors of the EU and it will be up to Sofia whether it will enter or wait outside for a long time.
What to do in this already seen situation, which unties their hands and gives them arguments not to seek development of relations with Sofia? How what - will they activate the foreign policy of North Macedonia in order to seek “creative solutions” in Brussels and Washington to overcome the challenges that Bulgaria poses to North Macedonia on its European path. Well, this would be in complete harmony with the recent statements of Silyanovska and Mutsunski that two or three very influential countries outside the Balkans are needed to put pressure on Sofia and for the issue to finally be resolved.
What, are they going to fish in murky water, as our and their proverb says? Well, if they don't want to do what
is necessary, to take and throw the bait.
And we should mind our own business.