Connect with us

Europe

Borissov’s administration uses Cold War spy blueprints to go after critical voices in Bulgaria

Published

on

borisov

Days after the sizzling-hot US-China Alaska Summit, US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, is visiting Brussels this week for the NATO ministerial in attempt to secure a buy-in from European NATO on the freshly-unveiled American policy of confrontation towards China. In parallel, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borissov’s administration, which faces parliamentary elections in the coming days, announced it cracked a major Russian spy case, which Bulgarian authorities unveiled on Friday. These separate at first sight events are related.

Let’s say that it is not uncommon for governments to investigate government critics such as intellectuals, activists, lawyers and journalists, and equate them with foreign assets, spies channeling foreign influence, and even terrorists, as I have argued about the FBI in the American progressive media previously. American voters are themselves not fine with the FBI’s approach. The concerning pattern I see in the American and Bulgarian contexts is illustrated in an interview on Bulgarian television that the Bulgarian chief prosecutor Ivan Geshev gave. In the same context as the Russian spy-ring case, he expressed the will to also go after other organizations which may enjoy foreign financing or channel foreign influence. And that’s not a small jump to make from actual spy activity, strictly in legal terms. I have previously written for Euronews about the Borissov administration’ attitudes and attempt to close down the oldest and largest Bulgarian human rights organization. As usual, it is not a question of whether you like what they do – the question is that they have the right to exist without being put in the same category as actual spies. I see concerning parallels between the way that American and Bulgarian agencies see political critics and activist voices.

It is not a small jump when grouping organizations benefiting from foreign financing together with actual spy activities, the latter of which the present Russian spy-ring case undoubtedly contains. To make the jump and put “foreign” organizations in the same group is not just a stretch, it’s a huge jump. We’ve seen what happened across Europe in places like Hungary, Poland and Slovakia when regular NGOs, universities, media and think-tanks that are uncomfortable, politically critical voices get put in the same group as enemies of the state and dangerous actors who threaten national security. I don’t have to tell you that, legally speaking, it’s not the same thing.

The truth is that Bulgarian Prime Minister Borissov who faces elections on 4 April is just afraid of the new class of political strategists, analysts, media people, activists and intellectuals rising in Bulgaria because they represent what he is not – true pro-European, internationalist, pro freedom and pro rights, anti-corruption, progressive political thinking. Borissov likes to present himself as center-right and pro-Western – hence the pre-election frenzy to signal to the new Biden Administration that under Borissov, Bulgaria will remain pro-American, pro-Western and will be tough on Russia. But that’s a very cheap, old-fashioned Cold War spy scenario that won’t get Borissov very far this year. Rule of law, rights and freedom are about values, not about one-layered, geopolitical signaling from the past century. In that same framework of Russian spy-catching and pleasing the Americans, Prime Minister Borissov is willing to throw under the bus free-thinking, critical, authentic Bulgarian political voices, which in many ways are the actual progressive right in Bulgaria.

Indicative is the position expressed by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Senator Bob Menendez and the ranking member, Senator Jim Risch. The two Senators launched a statement exactly one month ahead of the elections in Bulgaria, expressing concern about corruption, rule of law, freedom and rights in Bulgaria. That got the Bulgarian Borissov administration quite flustered – the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry rushed in frenzy to prove to the Bulgarian public that the position does not represent the official American position. Except that it does – as the Senators do represent the official position of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee as its leaders. It only comes from a different corner of the American government, and not the Biden’s State Department led by Secretary Tony Blinken. The State Department has very good reasons to keep quiet right now. Senators at the Foreign Relations Committee have no such limits or constraints, and they can say it as it is.

Boyko Borissov likes to think of himself as a Europe-oriented, right leader, but he is not. Beneath the surface, there also has to be a solid foundation of rule of law and rights – the cornerstones of what it means to be EU. This summer Politico called Bulgaria the “EU’s mafia state”.

The EU funds crimes enterprise in Bulgaria is now of the scale of regular mafia organized crime activities, according to recent studies.

EU chief prosecutor Laura Kovesi  recently rejected most of the Bulgarian candidates for EU prosecutors, not convinced that the ones nominated by the Bulgarian institutions will be the most qualified and most committed hounds she can rely on in Bulgaria to go aggressively after EU funds crimes, as I argued in op-eds for New EuropeEmerging Europe and Modern Diplomacy.

For the sake of Cold War virtue signaling and in order to get the American approval ahead of the elections 10 days from now, Bulgarian Prime Minister Borissov is willing to do something much worse – in that group of spies that the Bulgarian agencies are after, Borissov is willing to serve on a platter also political critics and media personalities to the American intelligence agencies.

We, in Europe remember that in the 2000s, when the Bush Administration was pushing the war on terror on the EU, the EU-US relations were greatly strained when it was discovered that the CIA operated extrajudicial rendition flights. This activity was largely opposed by the American public. At the time I was on the other side in the US government, working for Congressman Delahunt, Chairman of the Subcommittee on international organizations and human rights, in a team adamant at holding US intelligence agencies to account to the American people as to why they are straining relations with the EU over their unlawful actions in Eastern Europe. The US government has always been trying to find cracks and weak links in the EU – from President Bush’s cherry picking in Eastern Europe in trying to gather support for the 2003 Iraq War, to present day efforts by the US State Department to chip away Eastern European countries from the common European position on non-confrontation against China, in an effort to fragment and influence the EU more towards militarism and unnecessary confrontation. A new Cold War with China is on the horizon and the US wants to involve Europe in it.

The US is trying to find a weak link in the EU in Borissov’s government in Bulgaria – but not vis-à-vis Russia. It’s about China and fragmentation within the EU. And Borissov is willing to play along, as long as Washington, or a the least the Biden Administration, continues to close its eyes for what the Borissov’s administration is really about – a cleptocratic, old-style authoritarian club of thugs willing to bow to the US government even when it is wrong. To that end, Borissov is willing to gladly sacrifice “as spies” Bulgarian free-thinking citizens who are pro-European values, pro rights and pro-democracy and who are willing to speak up when the US government is wrong on major foreign policy and human rights actions and decisions, such as the European NATO views on what the China policy should look like. Europe doesn’t have to blindly follow the US into a new Cold War against China that will necessarily have clear military escalation components, and saying this shouldn’t automatically make one a foreign asset or a spy.

Serving blindly the American government in their efforts to erode European human rights, freedoms, and the media, and to silence critical political voices on things like foreign policy – while trying to sell international audiences old-fashioned spy scenarios– doesn’t make Borissov a European man. It makes him a bland, Eastern-European puppet who will go down in history with nothing memorable, except for being the guy who tried to sell out the new, critically-thinking, progressive Bulgarian elite that stands for European values, and is willing to speak up when the American government is wrong. And in Eastern Europe, the Americans have been wrong in similar ways in the past, relying on lower human rights standards. But what Tony Blinken and the US State Department are about to learn is that in the EU, the human rights standards are actually higher.

Iveta Cherneva is an Amazon best-selling author, political commentator and human rights activist. Her latest book is “Trump, European security and Turkey”. Cherneva’s career includes Congress and the UN; she was a top finalist for UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech in 2020. Iveta’s opinions appear in Euronews, New York Times, Salon, The Guardian, Jurist, Washington Examiner, Modern Diplomacy, Emerging Europe, EurActiv, The Fletcher Forum, LSE, Daily Express. She comments on TV and radio for Euronews, DW, Voice of America and others.

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

French Senator Allizard: Mediterranean – Theatre for future Europe

Published

on

On the historic date of March 08th – International Women’s Day, a large number of international affairs specialists gathered for the second consecutive summit in Vienna, Austria. This leg of the Vienna Process titled: “Europe – Future – Neighbourhood at 75: Disruptions Recalibration Continuity”. The conference, jointly organized by the Modern Diplomacy, IFIMES and their partners, with the support of the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, was aimed at discussing the future of Europe and its neighbourhood in the wake of its old and new challenges.[1]

Along with the two acting State Presidents, the event was endorsed by the keynote of the EU Commissioner for European Neighbourhood and Enlargement, Excellency OlivérVárhelyi. The first, of the three-panel conference, was brilliantly conducted by the OSCE Sec-General (2011-2017), current IFIMES Euro-Med Director, Amb. Lamberto Zannier. Among his speakers, the first to open the floor was French Senator Pascal Allizard, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Vice President (and its Special rapporteur for Mediterranean issues). Discussing regional issues of the southern Europe, its relations with the black sea and with North of Africa, this is what Senator outlined in his intervention:

As 2021 is the ten-year anniversary of the Arab spring, Senator Pascal highlights that a decade later, the events of the Arab Spring are crucial to the problems of today. Europe should reevaluate the region through European lens. Excellency Alizard criticizes Europe, due to the fact that it tends to take a step back from the region of the North African affected area of the Arab Spring conflict as there is an abundance of issues which are unlikely to be solved with ease. One must still do its duties difficult or not to question the region. Turning a blind eye to the problems there is something that Senator says Europe tends to do to elevate their consciousness.

However, one must look at the problems head-on. The biggest concern is that there is an explosive growth in population, a rise in radicalism and the Black Sea is what separates that northern conflict region of Africa and the Mediterranean coast of Europe.

The Mediterranean Sea is known to be one of the most crucial routes to transport illegal cargo such as drugs, hydrocarbon and human trafficking into Europe, specifically through Spain and Italy. It’s crucial for Europe to have a discussion and plan for this region as it is a necessity to keep Europe safe. The different countries along the Mediterranean must come together to create a cohesive, inclusive yet firm diplomatic strategy to answer all the challenges. The region along the Mediterranean Sea is a strategic area for Europe as there are many ships that come from around the world into those ports.

Senator Pascal proceeded by stating that the eastern Mediterranean region escalated after the discovery of significant oil and gas reserves. It is also the ongoing war in Syria, and the destabilization of the region with yet unsettled situation in Libya (with presence of multiple external players which generate instability).

Senator reminded the conference audience that Europe must also mention the actors in the Mediterranean on the European side;

‘’The European Union is a leading player, at least for the display of its normative ambitions, also for its diplomacy of the checkbook and its discourse on human rights. However, the EU is not a power in the state and sovereign sense of the term, and it systematically curbs the sovereign aspirations of its own member states. The EU does not yet project itself sufficiently as an international actor capable of implementing a foreign policy. The EU appears, I believe, seen from the Mediterranean at most as a soft power which, in word, watches over the balance of power in the region. And the hopes placed in EU policy dedicated to the Mediterranean have been in vain, to the extent that they do not seem effective, neither economically nor politically, at least from my point of view, insufficiently. And if on the northern shore a few countries are interested in the Mediterranean area, we can see that this is not the center of European concerns and that no common vision is really emerging.’’

Unification of that region is vital, because if the Mediterranean nations do not collaborate as a union and show their strength, control of that area could fall into the hands of Turkey, Russia and China. Turkey walks bold on the so-called Exclusive Economic Zone in Euro-Med, which would – if accepted – project its power in the Mediterranean, giving it a more prominent regional political role. Russia, which is once again becoming a key player in the Middle East, in the Black Sea area, in the Mediterranean and even in Africa walks bold too. Lastly, China which mainly projects itself through its trade, investments, and its bilateral agreements is pressing on maritime space too. Lately, Chinese military navy can be also seen.

The navies of the regions are preparing for a hardening of relations at sea in a strategic area where world trade flows, but also now, for the exploration, the exploitation of hydrocarbons. This is why questions of sovereignty are once again emerging, naturally in the sense of our concerns.

Hopefully the new US administration will also pay attention to the Mediterranean Sea and not just the Indo-Pacific. 

The only way to establish more of a grip in the Mediterranean theater is cooperation. This is also the key to success for all the European nations gathered around unified code of conduct and rule of law.

Concluding, Excellency Pascal stated that the European Union must recognize realities of unresolved conflicts that are interwoven, as well as to understand the new challenges that can threaten the very fabrics of the Union: security, demography, unregulated immigration. If not equal to these challenges, the universalist European model might lose its grounds beyond point of return – warned Senator.

*the above text is based on the informal French language transcript as per conference recordings, which may have no intentionally caused minor omittances or imprecisions in the reporting.


[1]This highly anticipated conference gathered over twenty high ranking speakers from three continents, and the viewers from Australia to Canada and from Chile to Far East. The day was filled by three panels focusing on the rethinking and revisiting Europe and its three equally important neighbourhoods: Euro-Med, Eastern and trans-Atlantic (or as the Romano Prodi’s EU Commission coined it back in 2000s – “from Morocco to Russia – everything but the institutions”); the socio-political and economic greening; as well as the legacy of WWII, Nuremberg Trials and Code, the European Human Rights Charter and their relevance in the 21st century.

Continue Reading

Europe

Vienna Process: Re-visiting and Re-thinking the Euro-MED

Published

on

On the historic date of March 08th – International Women’s Day, a large number of international affairs specialists gathered for the second consecutive summit in Vienna, Austria. This leg of the Vienna Process titled: “Europe – Future – Neighbourhood at 75: Disruptions Recalibration Continuity”. The conference, jointly organized by the Modern Diplomacy, IFIMES and their partners, with the support of the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, was aimed at discussing the future of Europe and its neighbourhood in the wake of its old and new challenges.[1]

Along with the two acting State Presidents, the event was endorsed by the keynote of the EU Commissioner for European Neighbourhood and Enlargement, Excellency OlivérVárhelyi. The first, of the three-panel conference, was brilliantly conducted by the OSCE Sec-General (2011-2017), current IFIMES Euro-Med Director, Amb. Lamberto Zannier. Among his speakers were academics, government and IGO representatives of different yet complimentary backgrounds. Following is the brief, yet not conclusive, overview of the discussed. 

Although not new, the EURO-MED cooperation matter remains a distinguished area where the field of possibilities is immense, and where progress vis-à-vis this transregional collaboration would tremendously impact all involved parties’ crisis management abilities. Thus, re-discussing EURO-MED with, if necessary, a novel overall geometry is rightfully referred to as a both compelling and heat-on point of the agenda by the conference panellists.

Admittedly, the Barcelona Process of 1995 and PEM Convention having entered into force in early 2012 were remarkable initiatives aiming notably at introducing institutional frameworks and promoting deeper economic integration based on the “rules of origin” concept. However, the initiatives did not blossom as was hoped, and this is due to several reasons that keynote speaker Monika Wohlfeld (German Chair for Peace Studies & Conflict Prevention) and Ettore Greco (Vice-President of the Institute for International Affairs) have touched upon during the 8th March international event. Given that our awareness and understanding of the lack of prosperity having surrounded those first initiatives is key to re-thinking, re-calibrating and, in turn, re-engage in an auspicious direction, this piece will be taking you back to the salient message vehicled by Wohlfeld and Greco respectively.

First, Monika Wohlfeld took the floor and opened up by acknowledging the past attempts at reaching cooperation security agreements as well as their relative deficiency up until now. Equally as important to recognize are the causes of such failings: actually, little traction was brought on following the emergence of the first initiatives due to, notably, an absence of lasting peace climate and old relational patterns within the involved regions. The context having been set, she moves onto the juicy bit: the inherent inadequacy of the multilateral approach whose prints are all over the 90s and 2000s proposals. What is more, she brings to the table a counter-approach as the path to engage in: minilateralism.

The aforesaid concept offers an alternative cooperation modus that is more selective, flexible and mostly more conscious of, and focused on, the fact (or rather the reality) that States can participate in various ad-hoc frameworks with fluctuating membership. The latter would then be assessed through case-by-case interests, shared values and pertinent capabilities. In that sense, by contrast to a multilateralist angle, a minilateralist attitude would be oriented towards the sub-regional rather than the international; would be a voluntary undertaking rather than a binding one; would concern fragmented but specialized fields of application rather than general comprehensive ones; would tend to be multi-stakeholders rather than State-centric; and would proceed from a bottom-up thinking rather than top-down. Monika’s suggested shift in approach answers an important need, backed-up by local expert voices, which is that of the serious taking into account of sub-regional diversity in the process. By doing so, the odds of reaching cooperation agreements with MED countries – and moreover the chances of those agreements panning out – would be extremely favourable.

As a matter of fact, Ettore Greco endorsed a consubstantial view in his intervention during the conference. More specifically, he believes that a looser approach based on an empowered co-ownership and greater attention to actual regional dynamics and situational constraints ought to be adopted.

Drawing on the Barcelona Process experience, which rendered apparent its shortcomings and the recent state of deadlock having affected the EURO-MED coop, Greco equally provides alternate lines of thinking. What is clear to him is that the integrationist approach and the idea according to which cooperation should equate to structural convergence makes for an unworkable avenue. Indeed, he also pointed out that one main issue encountered with regard to earlier cooperation models (whether in the Barcelona Process or even in the ERANET Project of 2013) was the transfer and, by way of symmetry, the reception of Western policies in the Middle-East and North Africa. This cannot help but to ring an old bell; that of Watson’s concept of the ‘legal transplant’ and related limits. His famous metaphor of the mountain plant being uprooted and planted back in the desert, incurring changes to the plant’s nature remains particularly striking and timely. This goes to show, or rather to remind some, that purely transplanting policies that are specific to a certain ethos without adjusting to the new local particular context can often prove inefficient.

Consequently, is it well-advised that the EU places more emphasis on, and deploys more energy towards, stability and resilience as goals set out for the cooperation in lieu of democratization along with institutional reforms. That being said, Greco concedes that in the absence of profound transformation – and hence, reforms, to some extent – stability in itself is seldom achievable.

Setting aside the MED inner conflict dynamics over which the EU has very little if no control over, new forms of partnerships should be relentlessly explored and promoted in a world where the concurring, mutually-reinforcing challenges can only be optimally addressed through wider pan-regional operative frameworks. In that spirit, Ettore Greco, as emissary for the IAI, lays out some ground requirements we need to achieve as a roadmap to making successful advances. These are:

  • The promotion of a comprehensive concept of security. That is, one more inclusive and of broader scope – and thereby more realistic.[2]
  • The creation of better synergies between the different cooperation frameworks (NATO-MED dialogue, OSCE MED partnership, Union of the MED) and clarification of each initiative’s own added-value.
  • The involvement of valuable non-EU actors such as Russia or the United States of America.

Those guidelines, whether proposed by Monika Wohlfeld or by Ettore Greco, prove that the re-thinking of the EURO-MED cooperation is a breeding ground already being cultured. Besides, this political activation or mobilization towards re-shaping a functional and tighter cooperation scheme can be observed across the board of regional and sub-regional players directly affected by the issue. But mostly, there is one common thread in the discourses of those airing opinions to lead the best way: acknowledgement of the omnipresent diversity and pluralism at play. Only by factoring in the diversity of the partners and their sub-regions can there be beneficial arrangements and progress be made. This, of course, has to be understood as a central remark directed to the European side of the table. All and any relic of hegemony need be completely done away with, so as to fully respect and integrate the diverse identities in the process. And in fact, this shouldn’t be hard to comprehend and assimilate from a EU perspective considering the various cultural bundles interacting within the EU block itself. What is more, the European Court of Human Rights is King as revering and upholding the national particularism of its Member States – it makes it a point of honour in the crushing majority of its judgements whenever harmony flirts too close with a homogeneity requirement that comes short of negating a region’s tradition.


[1]This highly anticipated conference gathered over twenty high ranking speakers from three continents, and the viewers from Australia to Canada and from Chile to Far East. The day was filled by three panels focusing on the rethinking and revisiting Europe and its three equally important neighbourhoods: Euro-Med, Eastern and trans-Atlantic (or as the Romano Prodi’s EU Commission coined it back in 2000s – “from Morocco to Russia – everything but the institutions”); the socio-political and economic greening; as well as the legacy of WWII, Nuremberg Trials and Code, the European Human Rights Charter and their relevance in the 21st century.

[2] On that, see the OSCE model proposal

Continue Reading

Europe

U.S government’s own negative impacts in eroding human rights and media freedom in Bulgaria

Published

on

The US State Department’s annual human rights report is out and just like every March, critical voices and activists around the world rush to their own country’s section to see what’s included and what they can use openly, with the stamp of criticism by the US government.

This year, the State Department’s report on human rights violations in Bulgaria covers the usual ground and what’s publicly known. There were no surprises. The section on Bulgaria includes very prominently violence against media and journalists, and excessive use of force by law enforcement.

What the US government does not include in the Bulgaria section is the US government’s own role in the erosion of human rights and media freedom in Bulgaria through US government agencies such as the FBI, the CIA and even the US State Department. This is not something that US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, is willing to admit – at least not yet.

Ever since the US Ambassador to Bulgaria, Hero Mustafa, stepped into office back in 2019, the US Embassy in Sofia has maintained media freedom as a main theme. And what was not to like about that? Many of us over here cheered. But not so fast.

The US government construes media freedom only in the narrow sense that only speech praising the US government and going after US enemies should be free and protected. “Direct your freedom of speech against them, not us” is not freedom of speech. That’s not a rights-based approach; it’s authoritarianism. This was my first-hand experience with the US government when I was a top finalist for UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech in 2020. This is also my experience with the US government, as I try to spearhead the debate on the joint European position on China, and as I criticize the new US confrontational policy on China in pumping a new unnecessary Cold War with China, while expecting Europe to follow blindly. When the US is provoking China into a military and defense race at China’s own door step, while pointing to the Chinese reaction as “aggression”, hoping to draw Europe also into this, European voices have to speak up and warn about what’s coming on the horizon.

The FBI and the CIA operating under the hat of the US Embassy in Sofia make sure that independent, politically critical voices are kept under check through a variety of illegal means that the US government somehow believes it can allow itself to use on EU soil. The US State Department is happy to tag and sing along with the US intelligence agencies, here in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian authorities are also happy to help the US government in the US government’s repression against progressive, politically critical voices in Bulgaria.

The key take-away for the US government in Bulgaria has to be that the history of US human rights infringements in Europe shows that things like that only drive the transatlantic bond further away, and don’t bring it closer. This is also something that US President Joe Biden is about to learn very soon.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending