Political scientist Antoniy Todorov in an interview for the program "Bulgaria, Europe and the world in focus" on Radio "Focus"
Mr. Todorov, I invited you to talk about a very, very big topic, namely – the future of the European Union, the need for reforms and future changes. What is your opinion – should the European Union as a whole be changed? Is there a need for this to happen now?
There is always a need for change, but that the European Union that was created – we know his history and this history has accumulated all kinds of elements – there is no question of revising this at all. The change excludes any kind of disintegration of the European Union, the reduction of ties, the intensity of European integration above all. On the contrary, in my opinion, it should be done the other way around. While we are talking about the future of the European Union, it is good to have an idea of how we imagine the future in general. Sometimes we imagine it, as Ivan Vazov says in the poem about Levski – "In the dark future he saw clearly“.
It is as if this future is predetermined, and all we have to do is to uncover a little of the things that hide it and see what this future is. But we should imagine the future in a completely different way, namely – in the plural. In other words, if we do one thing, one future will happen, if we do another, another future will happen. And so the question is what do we want to happen, ie. how we imagine the European Union in the future, so that we can work for it. And in this regard, it seems to me that we in Bulgaria in our debate about the European Union simply leave it out. Much more often we talk about what the European Union will bring us, but almost nothing about what we would like to contribute to the future we wish for it.
Which is an extremely big problem. I.e. here, in Bulgaria, the debate is not up to par. Even now, when the European Parliament elections are 2 to 1 with the national elections, do you expect the dialogue to be raised to a higher level?
Unfortunately no. On the contrary – I rather expect that domestic political topics will completely overshadow European ones, although we should be well aware that everything that is happening in Bulgaria at the moment cannot help but be related to the general development of the European Union. Also, whatever happens in Bulgaria, it will affect the European Union. Therefore, we should not separate these issues somehow. But talking about the European Union will in any case remain in the background, and I am afraid of that. I'm sorry it will be like that. It's a coincidence – the coincidence of the elections. If the political agenda did not coincide in this way, perhaps it would be better if they were on different dates, precisely so that the European debate could stand out as separate.
But that's how it happened, so we'll talk less about the European Union, more about domestic political problems. But it is good that all the participants in the elections, whether they are only the European ones or the European and parliamentary ones, constantly talk about Europe and constantly connect what they imagine for Bulgaria with what they imagine for the European Union. We are no longer just part of the European Union – it is trite to repeat it. We must be such a part that works for the development of this European Union.
Do you think this Union is open to accepting new member states?
There are currently difficulties for the European Union to continue with its enlargement. At the moment we are so outnumbered that it is very difficult to reach any kind of consensus agreement. This is the problem. But democracy is such a political instrument and such a political regime, in which the consent of the governed seems to matter. I.e. agreement is important, and it is much more important than having some very strong leader whom we can even trust, but who dictates what should be done, because we have already experienced this on our backs with leaders, who decide alone.
The European Union must reform before expanding. There's the work, and that's the big difficulty now – how to reform. Well, look, if the principle of unanimity continues to operate, not of consensus so much, because consensus can even be in the form of, if someone is not strongly against, the decision is considered adopted. But unanimity requires that everyone be "in”, and definitely "in”. And when there are many, this is difficult to achieve. One can twist everyone else's arms. Of course, someone will say: yes, but the small countries are somehow put in check, how to say. It's just that the European Union is dominated by small countries, that's where the problem lies.
And everyone is in chess?
So they can't all be in chess. Small countries could, in the case of the possibility of taking decisions by majority vote, impose part of the agenda themselves. So it is not a question of this majority decision-making replacing unanimity, becoming a tyranny of the majority. No way. This will lead to the collapse of the European Union. But this leads to the end of any democracy – the tyranny of the majority. So – no. I think that the European Union should develop in this direction in order to be able to open up – more opportunities for joint projects to be realized.
But you said to reform before expanding, which is key. Mr. Todorov, where do you think the need for reform is most acute and what are the proposals made so far?
I will say that there is a need for a larger reform related to the de-bureaucratization of the European Union. Too many people are unhappy that the bureaucracy in Brussels decides very important things, but it is still about officials who are not elected, i.e. are not under democratic control. The other thing that is now tied up in these wars that surround the European Union is European defense. Europe certainly needs to start thinking more seriously about its own defense efforts. This defense cannot be against or outside of NATO, but it also cannot depend solely on the US.
And who should it depend on?
From all members of the European Union. There are currently two countries, Cyprus and Austria, which are neutral. Such countries as Sweden and Finland entered NATO. So it's like you can't tear that away. But when it comes to who it depends on, well, everyone will have to contribute. In other words, we will not be able to expect that someone will spread a defensive umbrella over us, we will cower below and only draw security – we must give security, i.e. participate in it. Europe must get out of its total, almost total, dependence on this umbrella of the USA, without of course coming into conflict with the USA, which makes no sense at all.
In your opinion, what security can Bulgaria provide and what proposal can we make to the European Union?
First we have to think about what we can do from our side. With our military, economic resources, it is obvious that we cannot fully ensure our security, therefore we need alliances, allies. And because of that, we should try to show some loyalty. So, let's do what they do – to contribute as much as we can in the same way that others like us contribute. I.e. not always to play the role of the small, the poor, the unfortunate, the wronged, who must follow other people's demands. We must have our own requirements for our own security.
Do you think there should be 27 European Commissioners, for example? Because this is also a debated issue.
The European Commission plays the role of a government. The average composition of governments is this: 20-30 and no more ministers. So the number itself is not that important. But if I decide not to be 27, that is. not every country has a European Commissioner, then one should think very seriously about the transformation of the European Commission into a truly executive body that is subordinate to the Parliament and subordinate to the Council. But in the current situation, this is not exactly the case. So, for now, I don't think the European Commission will be very easily transformed into fewer European Commissioners. But from there, the question is: How are specific responsibilities of European commissioners sought?
It is often the case: we must have 28 different ministries. Well, that's stupid to me. It is even better to think about the possibility of having two EU commissioners in the same direction, for example, who are in some kind of cooperation. Whether it will be a rotation, it does not matter at all, but the management of pan-European affairs must obey some common logic, not the logic of the 27 European Commissioners.
The need for reforms. And the need for expansion, and that of countries from the Western Balkans? Let me remind you that the US special envoy for the Western Balkans, Gabriel Escobar, said that, in his opinion, Montenegro will be the next member country of the European Union. What is your prediction?
It is not Mr. Escobar's job to comment as a US representative on such a problem. Because what does this mean: that the USA will give some funds specifically for the preparation of Montenegro for membership in the European Union? That's the question, isn't it? Better for Mr. Escobar to talk about what the US would do in transatlantic relations, etc.
Countries in question: Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina – we really imagine the expansion of the European Union there, because from Bulgaria's point of view, it is the most direct route to most of the countries of Europe. So we have a great interest in that happening, but these countries are very different.
Yes, they are different. We saw what happened in neighboring North Macedonia: a new government, VMRO-DPMPE, led by a woman president for the first time. We know what their rhetoric was during the election campaign.
I just hope that this remains the rhetoric of the election campaign and that they still come down to earth, get into reality. Moreover, their possible coalition partners are unequivocal in this regard, and say: "No, no. The path to the European Union is fundamental. And really start your presidential term…
"Damage“ and "Know“, their coalition partners you mentioned.
That's right, the Albanian parties. But let's talk about the newly elected president. Yes, very good that she insists on the role of women, etc., this is something really new in the political life of North Macedonia, but to start your term with a scandal, to enter into an open confrontation with your neighbors immediately, almost without nothing as they say, but bad job. And that's why I say, let's hope this remains only at the level of stories, and at the level of actions, on the contrary, let it go differently. Otherwise, North Macedonia can simply close its path to negotiations with the European Union for a long time. Whatever the politicians there say, it is clear that there is a negotiating framework and she must abide by it. Point. There is nothing to discuss. But the other countries, they are ready and not ready in different ways.
Let's look at Serbia.
Let's look at Serbia. Serbia of course has a big problem with recognizing Kosovo. But Kosovo as an independent country is not recognized by other countries of the European Union. So this is a pan-European issue. Serbia, whatever it is at the moment regarding Kosovo, even if it finds some kind of compromise, I think the best compromise is for both countries to enter the European Union and all the issues related to borders and whatever you want, maybe the tension will be reduced. But there are some symbolic meanings, which of course are good to keep in mind.
Which Serbian government would convince Serbian society to immediately recognize the independence of Kosovo? There is the work. Some compromises and agreements must be sought. Kosovo of course. And does Kosovo itself have problems with organized crime, for example? Well, there are, they continue to be. And until he clears them, what European perspective? Somewhat the same applies to Albania by the way. An Albania that may seem compared to others is perhaps the most ready: There are no territorial disputes for example with its neighbors, they have desires to enter the European Union, but they need to do more in their preparations so that things can move forward.
You said nothing about Montenegro.
Montenegro - there, however, we still see the influence of today's Russia. When I say today's Russia, because when we say Russian influence, as if that's always a bad thing – well, at the moment it is like that, because that is how the government in Russia is. Yes, there is a problem. There you have an attempt at a coup, literally, which should not shock us. Montenegro, I don't know what Mr. Escobar is thinking, but maybe it is not as ready as it seems, although it is very important for it to become a member of the European Union.
Why, Mr. Todorov?
Well, because this part of Europe in general, the so-called Western Balkans, must be integrated into Europe to stop all grounds for ethnic wars, conflicts and whatever you want. On the contrary, we have every reason to want it.
But is there any way to solve corruption?
Well, look, did we manage to solve it?
That's exactly what I want to ask you, yes.
The point is that this should also be the basis of our debate now around the elections - internal and European: but to what extent do we, ourselves, the Bulgarians, correspond to the European criteria? Well, there is a lot to do.
Outside the countries of the Western Balkans, do you have more exotic suggestions? Which countries are ready and less ready?
Ukraine is being talked about, the door was opened.
Yes. And it was widely assumed that she would be included in the fast track, precisely because of the situation she is in right now.
No, no. See, only that would be wrong. Wrong compared to others to whom all the criteria are applied. No, Ukraine must meet these criteria and it must be helped to meet these criteria, but most of all it must be helped to stop this war. It should not be possible for a country to enter a war just like that. Concessions must be made, concessions must be made, for the time being especially while the war is being waged, so that Ukraine itself can be assisted in its defense, but we cannot imagine that a member state of the European Union will be at war, moreover, with such a country as the Russian Federation, and it will simply be accepted by the fast procedure. No, that doesn't seem right to me.