As MEP constitute their committees and posts in the Commission, they may consider some background deeds of Bulgarian Socialist vis-a-vie conflicts they nurtured since 2009, besides the fact they were notified by Villepins ad hoc advisory group (on Bulgaria, commissioned by then PM and current Socialist leader Stanishev: here are some excerpts from that report (that as never made available to the public at large). Some Excerpts from Bulgaria in the EU: Building a New Partnership A Report by the International Advisory Board led by Dominique de Villepin, dated May 2009 Background 1 Ad the Rationale to accept Bulgaria in the EU, p. 2: 1 Ad Judiciary, p. 11: 2 Ad Indicative Issues, pp. 83-84, p.84, in particular: 2 Ad Bulgaria’s position b/n EU and Russia, p 87: 2 Background The report was commission by the PM Sergey Stanishev in December 2008, as a reaction to European Commission (under OLAF’s motion) to freeze Bulgaria’s access to EU subsidies – an unprecedented measure in EU’s history caused by a sufficiently misuse of funds by members and fellows of the PM’s own cabinet and political party. In asking and launching the Board’s mission, the PM claimed that “deficiencies” resulted from “a lack of administrative capacity” and it would be of everyone’s benefits if experienced and reputable public servants from lead EU members advise the policy agenda. In 2009, the report was submitted to the PM two months before the general elections and remained largely unknown to and/or unnoticed by the public at large. I received a copy by a friend interviewed by the Board in June 2009 (upon my returning back to Bulgaria, after a consulting assignment abroad) and made the following excerpts, with an intention comment on them as sensitive issues that should have been address by the Government of Bulgaria (GOB), irrespectively which party runs the country. At that moment I believed that other problems covered in the Report were also important, but somewhat more likely to be resolved if geopolitical and judiciary (i.e. rule of law, home affairs and international security) challenges were to be addressed as advised (or hinted to) by de Villepin’s group. As I witness now the affiliations and deeds of the incumbent GOB, sponsored by Mr. Stanishev and his party (in par with their junior coalition partner, the Movements for Rights and Freedoms) the May 2009 concerns not only remain valid: the current developments seem purposefully pushed into a direction opposite to the advice of the Board. This does not mean that the remaining content of this report has been address in any consistent manner by GOB in the period between July 2009 and February 2013. The challenges remain the same as at the end of the mandate of Mr. Stanishev, only the deficiencies seem more obvious than in 2008 and early 2009. [This background note was written in August, 2013, by Krassen Stanchev.] Ad the Rationale to accept Bulgaria in the EU, p. 2: In 1999, the European Council of Helsinki took a crucial decision for the future of Bulgaria in accepting the country’s application to join the European Union for political reasons. The EU wished to avoid the incubation of a focal point of instability on its Eastern border, under the watchful eye of Russia. For Bulgaria, it meant a deep commitment to Rule of Law, to democracy and to a free market economy. For the European Union, it was a step further towards the reunification of a continent divided by history and ideology, the concrete translation of a feeling that Europe was not without Bulgaria and that Bulgaria shared a common destiny with the other Member States. Ad Judiciary, p. 11: This conclusion, above all based on reality and common sense, does not mean that the Judiciary deserves any excuse of having failed to provide Bulgaria with the law enforcement system, as it was supposed to and required by EU membership. Its leaders should have stepped forward and led the reform process of its Institutions, establishing a realistic calendar of actions and measures that should be introduced progressively but systematically in the legal system in order to guarantee the credibility, efficiency and transparency of the Judiciary. Moreover, the lack of legal certainty or even worse, the certainty that the Judiciary is not fully, systematically and undoubtedly committed to Rule of Law, is already having a negative impact on foreign investment in Bulgaria. It is possible to attribute the slowdown of foreign investment mainly to the general economic crisis, but it is undeniable that a law enforcement system that does not provide the necessary legal certainty to foreign investment constitutes an additional negative burden that may hinder the decision of foreign companies to invest in Toyota Bulgariaria. Ad Indicative Issues, pp. 83-84, p.84, in particular: Vital geo-politic and strategic interests Energy security and diversification; EU policies towards South-eastern Europe, the Black Sea region, the Caspian region, central Asia, the Western Balkan countries and Russia. Development of the Eastern partnership… Ad Bulgaria’s position b/n EU and Russia, p 87: History and culture tie Bulgaria to Russia. Strong and trustful relationships have been built and are maintained at present between both authorities and citizens. Mutual respect is, beyond circumstantial political tactics, what characterizes these relations. This circumstance is a very positive asset of Bulgaria that may contribute decisively to adequately shaping EU policies towards Russia. It does not necessarily mean that Bulgaria will play a major visible front-stage role in the EU-Russia relations, but it is certain to allow Bulgaria to play the role of an “interface” in both the definition and implementation of certain aspects or issues of these complex relations. and p. 104: Geopolitical context should not be forgotten while handling the situation of Bulgaria. The country has historically been torn between the respective influence of its Eastern neighbour, Russia, and that of Western Europe. This factor explains the rapid accession of Bulgaria, despite its insufficient preparation. The relationship between Russia and the EU will be a core issue of European external policy in the next years, concerning security matters as well as energy supplies. In this regard, it is particularly important for the EU to be able to rely on all its Eastern members when trying to develop a constructive approach towards Russia. On the other hand, a situation where some of these countries would fall again under strong Russian influence could cause a rift among EU members and need to be avoided.
Posted on: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 09:32:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015