Here us again in a pre-election situation – for the 7th time in just over three years. This, of course, is a sign of democratic immaturity, above all of the self-proclaimed Bulgarian elite, but also to a considerable extent – of the Bulgarian civil society.
On June 11 and 16 of this year, two of my articles were published, dedicated to two of the most important foreign policy topics in the just-passed election campaign for the National Assembly and the European Parliament, for the elections of June 9 of this year. : “The war in Ukraine. What to do?“ and “The European Union at the crossroads”. The purpose of the articles was to reveal the essential aspects of the mentioned issues: philosophical-political and value assessments, geopolitical content; the need for professional diplomatic approaches and some specific proposals for Bulgarian foreign policy, the actual motivation of the directly or indirectly involved persons. In two words – the debating should focus on the true interpretation and the possible incorporation of the Bulgarian national interest in the ongoing international processes, and not be based on pre-learned reference points. Exactly the latter happened, which, together with the “preferences”, also led to some exotic electoral results. Therefore, this time I am proceeding in the opposite order: I offer the candidates for deputies texts for debate before the start of the election campaign, containing in the form of a thesis some important aspects of Bulgarian foreign policy.
From now on, it seems that most foreign policy disputes will once again take place along the lines of our shaken antithesis: “Euro-Atlanticists” – "Russophiles". I put the two concepts in quotation marks, because in the conditions of our country, neither this antithesis necessarily and completely exists, nor the Bulgarian political forces claiming to be Euro-Atlanticists or Russophiles and their individual representatives are necessarily and completely such in reality.
This is because the differentiation of politicians in Bulgaria is rather due to their self-interested desire to derive material or other benefits from the exerted geopolitical influence, using assets of our state for personal purposes. The approach has been developing since the Liberation to the present moment and has received the general name “satellite syndrome”. It must, of course, be pointed out that this choice of the different Bulgarian elites at the time found its practical applicability under the active tutelage, and often also the dictates, of the so-called Great Powers or some of them. This does not justify the spinelessness of the Bulgarian elites towards the powerful of the day in the international arena, but when it comes to strengthening national sovereignty, all the facts must be taken into account. (During the mentioned period, on the other hand, there were acts of heroism, national dignity and self-sacrificing defense of Bulgarian sovereignty and national interests. As is known, these acts almost always ended tragically for the Bulgarian patriots who carried them out (that should say something!) , but that's a topic for another conversation.
The above type of foreign pilgrimage not only turns its back on the glorious pages of our history, not only “guarantees“ the continuation of the satellite syndrome and the comprador tradition, which caused the existence of a wide range of incompetents and kleptomaniacs in power, but the worst thing is that it “guarantees“ the weak development, and in a number of cases the regression of the Bulgarian society. In other words, this foreign pilgrimage to another “big brother” and the international nomenclature networks he created “guarantees“ our impersonal and uncertain future. In the end, no one has finished and will not finish the work of our national diplomacy, for which sovereign Bulgarian decisions should be leading!
The described current foreign policy dichotomy “Euro-Atlanticists“ – “Russophiles“ is naturally combined with poorly disguised servitude and the ultimate inability of the Bulgarian rulers to guide social conditions in an efficient and fair way. (Just in passing, I would note that in our NATO and EU allies, the main contradictions in their election campaigns are manifested along the lines of globalists – national-conservatives.). It seems that in the field of foreign policy, in general (there are always exceptions!), Prof. Ivo Hristov's definition of the “political nothings we have called the elite” is fair.
The majority of politicians and analysts know very well that the division of Bulgarians into Russophiles and Russophobes is a historical atavism, deforming and hindering the development of our country. Indeed, most of them emphasize the defining Euro-Atlantic priority, but do not deepen the debate on the satellite syndrome, relying also on the passive silence of the major national media. Even a large part of otherwise perceived as non-mainstream media adheres to this degrading silence about Bulgaria's worst foreign policy disease. Well, if we abstract from the nominal mention of the “embassy“ in some joking context, but without delving into the subject.
The above problem is multi-layered – it is not only in the suppressed national intelligence and dignity. With their clear and silent complicity in covering up the ingrown defects of Bulgarian society and foreign policy, the Bulgarian media are racing to invite the same analysts and political scientists (and so for more than 30 years!) who eat up all the political media time, especially prime time time. There is no time, space, but above all, there is no desire of the media to provide a platform to those Bulgarian-philes defending with arguments (not with slogans, like the patriots!) the authentic national interests and their adequate defense, exposing in principle the satellite syndrome and its negative consequences. In this regard, I do not expect significant changes, because “elitist nothings” and subordinate media cannot live and work otherwise.
If everything written so far about Bulgarian foreign policy was the result of an objective development, it would be very easy to perceive – so we can, why are you so slanderous? Fortunately for us, Bulgaria, both in the past and now, has quite a few respectable, dignified, educated and able people who have the abilities, and some the will, to lead our country on the path of the most possible creative, dignified and fair development.
Proceeding from the above, I must make an obligatory deviation, which is due to the direct and powerful impact of the internal socio-political development on the foreign policy of our country. I propose to begin with a brief answer to the question: What did the demiurges of the grossly unjust and criminal transition succeed in?; and, depending on it, to look for the answer to the question: What should be done?
First of all, those who prepared the transition (in the Russian style!) managed to denigrate and marginalize from political life many of the capable, educated and honest Bulgarians, using the entire arsenal of lies, compromising material and violence of the high communist nomenclature and its subordinate state forces institutions and secret services. The aim was to eliminate the politically strong competitors for power and open the way for the children of the upper nomenclature or for trained people dependent on the scriptwriters. At the beginning, to remove the most prominent public figures, and then to implement a development model, removing in general all those who do not accept quasi-capitalism and pseudo-democracy. In order to carry out this hellish plan, they mainly needed the combination of two things: broken institutions and corrupt people. This goal was almost entirely achieved. Moreover, in some unknown (so far) mafia way, the demiurges of the transition and their successors manage in political crisis periods to form “alternatives“ which can improve some things for camouflage, but which fulfill one main task - to keep the unjust unchanged public relations, ownership and power positions. I have no direct evidence for this claim, but I also have no other logical explanation for the actors and the course of events in this matter.
The above emphasis on the subjective factor does not underestimate the structural policy: the legislative fixation of the primary role of democratic institutions for the prosperous and fair development of the state, rightly emphasized by almost all analysts. And yet, people should be aware that institutions are not shiny buildings with some stuffing, but socially accepted structures, norms and rules under the mandatory rule of law, enforced by respectable, educated and trained civil servants working under an efficient parliamentary and judicial control.
In second place – economic reforms, including criminal privatization; thoughtless and hastily carried out restitution (I still wonder how the Bulgarian lands and other assets ended up!); the campaign and indiscriminate destruction of the large agricultural complexes and cooperatives through the so-called “quick return of the land to real limits”, and it took much more time to establish the truth and justice of the respective demands. Not to mention the need for land consolidation. To this we could add the thefts at the entrance and exit of the large state-owned enterprises, which brought them to bankruptcy or near bankruptcy, and subsequently – to privatization “for pennies“; financial legislation promoting the creation of financial pyramids, and many other criminally conceived and carried out "reforms" coinciding in directing the natural human desire for profit - to non-productive, speculative, and downright - illegal activities. And in this sphere, the demiurges of the criminal transition achieved impressive successes.
Thirdly, the above-described ineffective for society and parasitic forms of economic and financial-credit development received their cultural coverage – chalga culture, while real cultural and artistic life was going through a terrible crisis. I would recommend Nedyalko Yordanov's poems from the 1990s to younger Bulgarian citizens, if they want to understand the tragic circumstances in which writers, poets, artists, artists lived, including great Bulgarian artists. Chalga-culture achieved a serious social spread, which affected the younger generations the most. A society historically known for always elevating education to the highest possible pedestal was forced to accept international estimates of an unimaginably high percentage of “functionally illiterate” young people!
Fourthly, foreign policy – Bulgaria generally shared the change in geopolitical orientation of the other former communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe. But the similarity seemed to end there. Instead of extracting the lessons of history in the interest of our national development and taking the possible maximum from Bulgaria's membership in NATO and especially – in the European Union, the “elites” who define Bulgarian foreign policy raised the satellite syndrome to a new level, redirecting it almost automatically to the new “big brother” and the other major allies, while retaining many of the dependencies to the old one. This straggling position of the Bulgarian compradores in the east and in the west destroyed the last opportunities for them to do something significant for their country. Only after the beginning of the Russian aggression in Ukraine and the pressure of important NATO allies, Bulgaria began to make serious efforts to eliminate its heaviest dependencies on Russia. Unfortunately, the government of the time went to the other extreme: in order to certify and strengthen the place of its members in the international Western nomenclature, it overstepped the mark, literally and unnecessarily nullifying relations with Russia. They (ministers, MPs, senior state leaders and oligarchs) still do not understand the meaning of the term “integral foreign policy”, which is understandable, since the compradores by definition cannot lead an independent and even less an integral foreign policy.
The general picture of the Bulgarian transition was markedly gloomy, eliminating in favor of certain families and individuals significant opportunities for the economic, social and cultural development of the Bulgarian nation, which still keeps us in last place in almost all areas monitored by European statistics . The resulting large concentration of national wealth is a very serious structural problem that has many negative ramifications. One of them, for example, is the export of part of the illegally acquired capital abroad, contributing to the definancing of the Bulgarian economy.
Naturally, this internal political and socio-economic development has a negative impact on the main characteristics of Bulgarian foreign policy. Once again, I want to emphasize that the above deviation from the main foreign policy topic is not superfluous. Because before we evaluate Bulgarian foreign policy thought and activity, we should very clearly realize the stifling weight that Bulgaria's internal political development has placed on the neck of Bulgarian diplomacy! In this regard, I would like to give a short and, as far as I can, a summarized answer to the mentioned question, before sharing some views on the Bulgarian foreign policy and its emphasis.
The first point of success of the demiurges of transition, which we can tentatively call “the denigration and marginalization of a large part of the intellectual capital of society”, is undoubtedly the most important of all. There is no alternative to the absolute and urgent need to address this problem and find adequate solutions! When Bulgarian citizens learn to “sift the hay from the chaff” in political life, throwing out the manipulators and their puppets and choosing their own authentic political leaders, then the real revival of Bulgaria can begin. It won't start any sooner!
On the second point, a little can be corrected. With the legislatively fixed economic and financial changes, radical reformation and drastic removal of injustices would be voluntarist and tantamount to an attempt at a revolution for which there is neither internal strength nor external support. In this area, socio-economic changes should be carried out consistently, as in other democratic countries, mainly in the way of increasing the level and quality of fair competition and the gradual reduction of social contrasts.
It may seem a bit paradoxical, but with the greatest optimism I see the possibilities for consistent and significant positive changes in the cultural and artistic field. It is a direct area of the intellect and social sensitivity, it is in constant contact with the intellectual circles in Europe and the whole world, which is why I do not believe that it can be conquered again by the Bulgarian political regression. Often successful attempts are made to divert critical inquiries to secondary issues in order to unnecessarily polarize society and divert public energy from the main – the decisive solution to the problem of broken institutions and corrupt people! Resistance to such retrograde attempts must be consistent and effective. In this, first of all, we must be equal to other European nations!
On the main topic of the present text – Bulgarian foreign policy in the upcoming pre-election debates, I have no intention of proposing for debate detailed and comprehensive foreign policy positions of our country. First of all, because it is not necessary, and secondly – because it is difficult to implement. Instead, I offer a brief analysis in three thematic areas defining Bulgarian foreign policy, without claiming to be comprehensive:
- Philosophical and political foundations of the Bulgarian foreign policy;
- Priorities and integrity of Bulgaria's foreign policy;
- Bulgarian national interests and national dignity.
Philosophical and political foundations of Bulgarian foreign policy
It is known that part of the unique historical narrative of any sovereign state is the development of a certain foreign policy philosophy. It is influenced by the scale, the geographical location of the country and its surroundings; from the peaceful (or not) relations between the ethnic groups inhabiting the country; religious features; a possible long history of subjugation by another country and many other factors. The Bulgarian people, for example, achieved an impressive level of state and social development during the Middle Ages with the first manifestations of the Renaissance, interrupted by the invasion of the Ottoman Turks. Similar interruptions of social development are also known in world history under the same term (interrupted development). It does not simply set progress back, but in our case, as a result of centuries of incessant struggle of the Bulgarian people for survival, the latter enters permanently into its folk psychology. Added to this are the psychological consequences of the restoration of Bulgarian statehood as a result of the Russo-Turkish War of Liberation 1877-1878, which established as the main foreign policy priority the desire of the Bulgarian elites to tie our country to a powerful “big brother”, ignoring often times own national sovereign dignity and interests (satellite syndrome). Later drastic social changes such as the establishment of the communist regime with the direct intervention of the Soviet Union confirmed and strengthened the satellite syndrome to the point of insanity, while after the fall of the regime 45 years later some opportunities were created for the gradual liberation of our country from this harmful tradition. which, however, are not yet utilized, but are being reoriented and modified. And now the change in this foreign policy philosophical attitude, in my opinion, is necessity No. 1 for Bulgarian foreign policy.
The second foreign policy topic with a value-philosophical content that I propose for reflection is how our country understands the main trends in contemporary international relations, what is its attitude to global issues and challenges. Bulgaria shares the understanding of the majority of countries in the world that international relations are going through a transitional period from a monocentric to a polycentric world order. The problem, however, lies in determining the nature of the processes through which this transition takes place and the positions of global powers in these processes. The US considers China, Russia, Iran and North Korea to be revisionist powers, in the sense that they are attacking the current world order and aiming to destroy it and build an order based on force without much regard for the rights of nations and individuals. China and Russia accuse the US of the same and declare their disagreement with the American leading role in the current international system, receiving as a result, in the words of the Russian president, “the hegemon's rent”, and emphasize the poly-centricity of the future new world order. The EU welcomes the world's movement towards poly-centricity, but insists on the unwavering compliance of these processes with international law. Bulgaria shares the thesis of the European Union.
In today's congested international relations, the chances of restoring trust between global powers are not great. But whatever these possibilities are, they are based on the need for at least minimal convergence of their philosophical and political international understandings and positions. This is also necessary for the creation of the methodological and conceptual basis for the future negotiations for a new world order. In one of my previous posts, I opine on the existence of such possibilities in the following three areas: world peace; the consistent application in international life of the principles of sovereignty and sovereign equality; humanity and human rights.
Unfortunately, the current positions of the global powers on what the world order should be are too far from each other, almost opposite, and the lost trust and conflict over Russian aggression in Ukraine significantly limit the possibilities for solving the problems at the negotiation table. For example, as long as each of the warring parties in Ukraine is willing to accept a ceasefire only on its terms, in order to subsequently negotiate from a position of strength, the war will obviously continue.
My opinion on the Bulgarian position on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is that military and other aid to Ukraine should continue (limited, of course, by the needs and plans of the Bulgarian Army), while at the same time and according to its real capabilities, Bulgaria increased essential diplomatic efforts to assist in transferring the problem from the battlefield to the negotiating table. (In the two articles mentioned at the beginning of the text, I have expressed some specific proposals). I think that our position that Bulgaria does not support (along with other 7 NATO member countries) the wording “help for Ukraine until victory” is a correct decision. Recently, there have been claims that the European Union is preparing for war and is not interested in peace talks with Russia. My opinion is that this is false, and moreover unnatural – The EU has always wanted and now wants peace, regardless of the reckless statements of some of its top leaders. The problem is that he either does not know what to do to achieve this goal, or he is simply waiting for the results of the US presidential election this November, cementing his dependence on this issue. It becomes, therefore, even more urgent to build “strategic autonomy“ of the EU, taking into account, of course, general democratic values and Atlantic alliance commitments. That is why it is necessary and right to start building a European defense union. Bulgaria must undoubtedly actively participate in this EU initiative first – for security reasons, and second – with pragmatic goals of including our defense industry in it.
Another very important trend in international relations is the ever-increasing international weight of the countries of the Global South, not only countries such as China, India, Brazil and other large countries, but also the large majority of medium and smaller countries from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. They seek international guarantees for their security and development, as well as beneficial participation in meeting global challenges, and are a factor that global powers are increasingly taking into account. It is highly likely that the awareness of common interests and the dangers arising from the rivalry between global powers will lead to the unification of their efforts for peace and for the fuller application of the principle of sovereign equality, including – for the creation of a future authoritative global community of legally fully equal members (if it turns out that the UN cannot be radically reformed, eliminating the right of veto in the Security Council and other privileges). The latter may seem unrealistic today, but with the consequences of the confrontation of global powers sharply worsening and in the face of a possible nuclear global war, this approach may become the only reasonable way out for the rest of the world. After all, all peace-loving and constructive countries should remember Henry Kissinger's promise: Chaos in the international arena will only continue until the world learns to develop international relations on an “ecumenical, egalitarian and procedural basis” (recognizing differences, equal rights and procedural basis).
In conclusion, I would like to point out that Bulgaria should overcome the underestimation of its relations with many of the countries of the Global South and start purposeful work on restoring its positions in some countries, entering others, as well as developing new areas of cooperation with them.
Priorities and integrity of Bulgaria's foreign policy
The goal of national foreign policy is to achieve the maximum possible implementation of national interests, values and priorities, preserving and even, if possible, deepening its integrity.
In the first part of this text, the antithesis “Euro-Atlanticians“ – “Russophiles“ and efforts were made to prove its illegality. It is possible for someone to conclude from this that “equidistance“ is being propagated. of Bulgaria in these two directions. Nothing more wrong than that. The defining foreign policy priority of Bulgaria is its Euro-Atlantic membership. As a loyal ally in the European Union and NATO, our country fulfills all its Euro-Atlantic commitments. Another question is how much we can benefit from our membership in these two organizations, especially from European integration, to accelerate our socio-economic development. My opinion is that in this area our progress is more than modest. In two words – I see Bulgaria's Euro-Atlantic priority as undisputed and structurally defining our foreign policy. Therefore, I cannot accept as serious the fears expressed with aplomb by some politicians that it is possible to "return Bulgaria to Eurasia". Such statements are pure party propaganda. On the other hand, I categorically reject and condemn attempts to replace the necessary democratic reforms with permanent declarations of “Euro-Atlantic allegiance”. Although this exercise verbally wore out, it would be very funny if, still, catching dikish, it was not so sad.
On the other hand, the Russian Federation can at best be a good commercial and economic partner for us, but even that is practically impossible under the current geopolitical realities. In any case, I don't expect the standoff between the EU and Russia to last forever – economic, technological, European security-related and other objective circumstances after the end of the war in Ukraine will impose their restorative influence on the relations between them. Therefore, it was neither necessary nor expedient to reset our relations with Russia. Of course, integral expediencies can change in a large-scale war, but this danger is not immediate for now. After all, everyone involved in foreign policy and international relations should know very well the difference between an ally and a partner and forget about “equal distance”.
The main priorities, no matter how categorical and defining for the foreign policy, should not unnecessarily limit the development of Bulgaria's relations with the countries of other priority areas (Southeastern Europe, the Black Sea region, Central and Eastern Europe) and other important directions (China, India, Japan, South Korea, the countries of Central Asia and other important for our country countries from the rest of Asia, from Africa and Latin America). The successful combination of foreign policy activity in all these directions gives the effect of integrality. Bulgarian foreign policy is integral when it reconciles its priorities in the most effective and constructive way with other important foreign policy directions and emphases, creating the greatest possible added value for Bulgaria's national development.
Bulgarian national interests and national dignity
According to the theory of a strong (not forceful!) foreign policy of a country, a flexible combination between the national interests of the state and the values accepted by the society is necessary, and in case of possible contradictions between them, in most cases the national interests had a relative advantage. When crafting a foreign policy strategy (a real one, not like the one from a few months ago!) three kinds of wrong deviations are possible: the first kind – when interests and values, instead of being reconciled, are sharply opposed; the second kind of wrong deviation – when there is a blind subordination of national interests to accepted or imposed values; and the third kind – when values are used to hide misleading vested interests. For example, too often Bulgarian national interests have been subordinated to the ideological considerations and geopolitical ambitions of yet another “big brother”, paying Bulgaria a heavy price for this subsequently.
It is important to know the basic technology for protecting and realizing national interests in the international arena. In most cases, it is counter-productive to declare your national interest and firmly state that you will not budge from it (there are such cases, but they are very rare). Because the national interests are not manifested in a stylized form, but in a specific form, and the possibilities for their implementation in each individual case depend on the specific circumstances. Therefore, the preparedness and intelligence of the Bulgarian statesmen and diplomats participating in a given international case are of particular importance, who must faithfully and accurately interpret these opportunities in order to make the most of them. That is why countries that are stable in their foreign policy appearances make special efforts to form a high-quality national diplomatic service with career diplomats prepared in every respect. Unfortunately, readers will remember many examples of the opposite in the case of Bulgarian foreign policy. That's why we should realize and remember that fake contests, partisanship, shurobajanism and other similar scams in the personnel field of foreign policy are crimes – threat to national security and national interests.
A basic moral and political characteristic of Bulgaria's foreign policy, not only in words, but also in deed, should be the primary importance it attaches to the principles of sovereignty and sovereign equality. Without sovereignty there is no state, and without sovereign equality there is no system of international relations. This also applies to integration unions, whose member countries grant part of their national sovereignty to supranational union institutions. In this specific case, the equality of both the union rights of the member states and the sovereign rights remaining in them is assessed. Bulgaria's efforts to protect its legitimate interests in the EU and the world as a whole fully meet the European criteria, which does not mean, as stated above, an absence of flexibility.
In principle, any violation of sovereign rights is a blow against the international system and as such should be condemned by all sovereign actors. Some objections are made to the ever-fuller application of the principle, such as that the application of the legal principle of sovereign equality is one thing (it is enshrined in many multilateral and bilateral international documents, including the UN Charter), but its application in practice as a moral-political principle it is quite another, since there is no way to measure it. In fact, the fuller application of the principle in practice affects the quality and content of cooperation between sovereign actors and this effect is felt by them. There is no measuring stick for him, but there is a growing sense of sincere attitude, mutual respect, readiness to develop equal relations and ultimately – the philosophical-political rapprochement and increase in the volume and quality of mutually beneficial cooperation. This further strengthens the main content of the principle - the legal one. And I imagine the ever more complete application of the principle of sovereign equality in international life as a long historical process of development of the very system of international relations!
At the end, I would highlight the most important factor for conducting an independent and integral foreign policy - national dignity, which develops most fully in a free, democratic and prosperous state. It is true that it sounds like a slogan, but it is national dignity that makes it possible to practically unite national interests, general democratic values and efforts for the possible enhancement of Bulgaria's international subjectivity into a constructive and purposeful whole.
No one is greater than the adopted sovereign Bulgarian decision!, this should be the quintessence of Bulgarian national dignity and Bulgarian diplomacy, which should be complemented by the principled readiness of our country for constructive, creative and equal cooperation of the international arena.
In the beginning, I focused on the internal political limitations for Bulgarian foreign policy. Now I would like to supplement this with the opposite effect (I have a separate article on this issue): Bulgaria will not be able to achieve significant democratic, economic and social development if it does not have a strong, independent and integral foreign policy. For the success of the Bulgarian state and the Bulgarian nation, harmonious development of our domestic and foreign policy is necessary!
Sofia, August 2024