change font size

print version

copyright

Other languages:

Comment: 'Two Georges' Fail to Connect in Sofia

18 06 2007  It was not quite a meeting of minds between Georges Bush and Purvanov over Kosovo or US defence plans in Eastern Europe.

By Albena Shkodrova in Sofia

With President George Bush visiting Sofia, the President of Bulgaria has been having a difficult time. As a Russian humourist might put it, he has had to try to embrace the unembraceable.

While seeking to squeeze important promises out of his guest on Monday, Georgi Purvanov was at the same time trying hard not to annoy Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Mindful of the recent disagreements between Moscow and Washington on Kosovo and the new US plan for a European anti-missile defence system, that was virtually a lost cause.

The most likely outcome of Purvanov’s doomed efforts will be for the US President to start doubting his Bulgarian counterpart’s assurances that Bulgaria’s partnership will never be affected by “changes in political management” in Sofia.

The wish list that Purvanov presented to Bush on Bulgaria’s behalf comprised difficult requests: removal of visas for Bulgarian citizens; support for the freeing of the Bulgarian nurses sentenced to death in Libya; more investment; support for diversification of energy resources. All these questions are of great concern in Bulgaria and the consent of the United States in tackling them is of crucial importance.

The US has become an important ally to Bulgaria in the last decade. Washington has supported the country throughout its transition from Socialism to a market economy. In 2004, it pushed for Sofia’s membership in NATO. In 2006, it signed an agreement to deploy military bases, which was broadly seen as a good economic deal for Bulgaria. In return, Bulgaria became an active partner in a number of US-led or brokered military missions, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But while pursuing his tough requests, Bulgaria’s President on Monday offered little in return.

Bush seemed to have arrived with two main issues in his agenda: to receive support for Kosovo's independence, and to make sure that Russia's objections against his new plan to build a anti-missile shield in Europe do not disturb too much Moscow's former allies.

But in spite of the declared intimacy between the two leaders, calling each other “George and George”, Bush’s enquiries received only hesitant replies.

“America believes Kosovo ought to be independent,” Bush forthrightly told Purvanov. The reply from behind closed doors was not so resolute. Bush recalled Purvanov’s words as “independence is one thing, but Serbia has to have a clear perspective of EU and NATO membership and better relations with the United States”.

What the Bulgarian leader thinks of Kosovo’s independence itself has remained unclear. He has always avoided stating any concrete position on the matter in public, and he managed to do this time once more.

The little that came out didn’t sound like unambiguous support for the US position on the matter. In fact, it looked like a combination of the European Union position (independence, but let’s make it a world’s decision), with a strong Russian element in it (only if Serbia gives consent).

The other Bush priority, the anti-missile defence system, announced at the recent G8 summit in Prague, garnered an even cooler response. Although Bulgaria is not a part of the longer-range missile shield, which is currently being negotiated, it will certainly be involved in its development. As a part of Bush's broader security plan, and as a NATO member, its position on the issue matters.

Purvanov said Bulgaria would “accept any decision that would give more security… and is not aiming at another country, including Russia”. His words were echoing the Bulgarian government’s sympathy with Moscow’s objections to the plan.

Days earlier, Bulgaria’s Foreign Minister, Ivaylo Kalfin announced that his country would tell Bush during his visit that any future agreement ought to be reached with Russia’s consent and be done on behalf of NATO.

The official argument for this position was that within NATO all member states would then receive equal security and be equally covered by the shield.

But it can also be seen that that pushing matters in the direction of NATO saves Bulgaria from having to take a unilateral decision over whether to support the US on the defence issue. It would allow the country to justify participation as one of its obligations to the Alliance, which it joined in 2004, and thus diminish the offence to Moscow.

Thus, Bulgaria has staked out a markedly different position from that of Poland. Days earlier, during his meeting with Bush on 9 June, the Polish President, Lech Kaczynski, underlined Warsaw’s support for the proposed system, which would involve the US installing 10 anti-missile interceptors on Polish soil. “Does Poland have certain expectations tied to this system? It does”, Kaczynski said, resolutely.

The Polish President insisted the system was not aimed at Russia, at the same time making it clear enough that his country’s decision would not be affected by Russian objections. This line differs substantially from Purvanov’s claim that “Bulgarians must not choose between their friendship with the United States and that with Russia,” and that “just as I am friends with George and with Vladimir, we can maintain… friendly relations with both”.

In fact, there are situations in which one cannot be friends with everyone and there are issues on which one needs to reveal one’s priorities. Nor is it up to Purvanov, as a head of state, to choose between George and Vladimir; this choice is up to parliament and it was made when the parliament decided to join NATO, and the President is obliged to heed their decision.

Albena Shkodrova is BIRN Bulgaria country director. Balkan Insight is BIRN`s online publication.