Photo: Canva collage
Neither the EU is a fascist organization, nor does Bulgaria lead a genocidal policy against our people. The fact that the EU is in a powerless position to rein back the current demands of Bulgaria, previously of Greece, does not set a precedent, since Croatia was also caught in this sort of “tug-of-war” with neighboring Slovenia. Thus, it is the apparent stagnation in the European integration process that creates space for familiar malicious disinformation narratives to spread and manipulate public opinion
Author: Matej Trojachanec
One of the narratives that has recently been spreading more and more through most disinformation is that Greece, and in recent years Bulgaria in particular, are leading a genocidal policy towards the Macedonian people. And, since they are members of the EU, which cannot seem to rein them back, it is portrayed as if it is the official policy of the EU towards us. In other words, because of the behavior of one or two of its members, the EU is presented as leading a fascist, Nazi, and genocidal policy towards the Macedonian people. This raises two issues. The first one refers to the labelling of Bulgaria and the EU as fascists, Nazi, and genocidal entities. The second refers to the foreign policy of the EU as a supranational union, as opposed to the policy of the individual EU members.
Regarding the first issue, it should once again be mentioned that the EU is based on values and principles that are completely opposite to those of fascism and Nazism. Fascism is an extreme right-wing, totalitarian, ultra-nationalist political ideology, led by a dictator with a centralized autocracy, etc. The EU was founded after the Second World War on the values of freedom, democracy, equality, and human rights, with the primary purpose of fostering peace, unity, and cooperation among European countries. The European Union explicitly rejects authoritarianism and totalitarian ideologies, including fascism and Nazism, which were responsible for most of the killing and destruction during the war. The EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 2012 “for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.”
Despite such fundamental values on which the EU relies, the story of “Bulgaria leading a genocidal policy towards the Macedonian people,” for which purposes it allegedly has the support of the EU, keeps being rattled about.
The United Nations (UN) first recognized genocide as a crime under international law in 1946 at the General Assembly. According to the UN definition, genocide means any act “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” as such:
1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group, reads Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Nothing currently being done by the EU or Bulgaria as part of their foreign policy vis-à-vis North Macedonia can be considered a “genocidal policy.”
Furthermore, within the framework of the EU there is a Common Foreign and Security Policy through which the member states collectively decide on issues such as diplomacy, sanctions, and security measures. Decisions are typically made by consensus, meaning that all member states must agree for a policy to be adopted. Furthermore, agreed policies and decisions are externalized through the European External Action Service. This diplomatic service is responsible for implementing and representing the interests of the EU at the global level.
Regardless of the existence of these internal EU mechanisms for harmonizing foreign policy among member states, it does not mean that individual states automatically lose autonomy to act independently. Strictly speaking, there are cases where member states prioritize national interests in foreign policy, which may differ from the EU’s collective stance.
The gap between the foreign policy of the EU and the individual member states is effectively described in Paul Taylor’s article for “Friends of Europe,” think-tank of the European Commission.
“The dysfunctional EU response to the Israel-Hamas war was a reflection not only of persistent institutional rivalries but also of deep-seated differences in sympathy and interests on the Middle East among the main member states. For historical reasons, Germany–von der Leyen’s home country–feels a special responsibility to protect Israel. For reasons of geography and history, France, Italy and Spain–Borell’s home country–feel closer to Arab states and the Palestinians. Central European states that joined the EU in the 2000s mostly align instinctively with Israel and the United States. […] “writes Taylor for “Friends of Europe.”
In other words, it is not unprecedented that Greece and Bulgaria set conditions for us, nor do they contradict the laws of the EU.
A brief history on obstructions, blockades, and setting out conditions
Chronologically, the first example of this were Germany’s demands to Eastern European countries for market liberalization, democratization of institutions in the nineties. These requirements then became part of the basic requirements upon entry into the EU, the so-called Copenhagen criteria.
Almost the same problem that North Macedonia has, Croatia had as well, while Turkey still has it on its European integration path. Since 2005, Cyprus has effectively blocked Turkey in the EU negotiations due, among other reasons, to the fact that Turkey does not recognize Cyprus but only Northern Cyprus (officially the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). Northern Cyprus, on the other hand, is recognized by only one country in the world—Turkey.
Not very different from our case, Croatia had no problem starting negotiations, but towards the end of this process, in 2009, Slovenia blocked Croatia’s negotiations on several occasions. The main reason was the few unresolved territorial and border issues that the two neighbors resolved through arbitration. But despite the completed arbitration and the formal conclusion of negotiations in 2011, Slovenia again blocked Croatia’s accession to the EU, being the last EU member to sign and ratify its neighbor’s accession agreement only in 2013.
There are also known cases of obstructions even after the formal entry of some of the countries into the EU. For example, Bulgaria and Romania are the only two member states that are not part of the Schengen area. Several member states, including France and the Netherlands, have expressed concern about high levels of corruption and insufficient judicial reforms in Romania and Bulgaria. After which Bulgaria and Romania were formally conditioned so that they could continue the path towards full integration in the Schengen zone. And, according to the research of the European Economic and Social Committee, the fact that the two Balkan countries are not fully integrated in the Schengen zone costs Bulgaria 834 million and Romania 2.32 billion.
The latest is the example of Hungary, which is actively blocking the start of negotiations in Ukraine, mainly because of their concerns about the Hungarian minorities in Ukraine and the functioning of the single market in the country.
Brakes and brakemen on the road to EU
The narratives that are being spread are also worthy of mentioning. Ones that claim the EU, despite the opposition of two (or now one) of its members, can and must do more to help us in this whole process, as well as that there cannot be any reconciliation of the historical complexities of Macedonia with Greece and Bulgaria.
Considering the first narrative mentioned, several facts must be emphasized. Greece is among the first members of the EU, joining the Union in 1981, as the fourth member in a row after the entry of Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. Bulgaria, together with Romania, entered two and a half decades later in 2007. Apart from the fact that both Greece and Bulgaria are larger in terms of area and number of inhabitants, both countries are of exceptional strategic and economic importance for the EU. Mainly because both countries have important trade ports. The port of Piraeus in Athens is among the largest and fastest growing in Europe, and together with the port of Thessaloniki, as well as Burgas, are commercially and geostrategically important for the access of EU countries to the Aegean Sea, the Ionian Sea, and the Black Sea.
“Realpolitik” works like that—bigger states will always have influence over smaller states, while the member states of the EU will always have influence over the candidates for membership. Unfortunately, our case confirms that.
The second narrative—the insistence on fully resolving all open historical issues before EU accession, prioritizing these topics—is also controversial. States that had much more serious problems realized that cooperation and partnership are more profitable in the long term than the constant return to the past and historical conflicts that block the way to the EU.
A “par excellence” example for this are France and Germany. Not only was France occupied by its neighbor, but according to the French Ministry of Defense’s “Chemins de mémoire” (Paths of Memory), around 400,000 civilians died during World War II. Instead of revisiting historical conflicts, the two countries together realized that they would benefit more from cooperating rather than hindering each other. Proof of the success of cooperation and overcoming problems is the fact that the two countries are each other’s biggest trade partners.
Pressure for success
Following the previous two narratives, it is often mentioned that “we are the only ones asked to make compromises, concessions, and sacrifices, we are the only ones who are under pressure, we have humiliated ourselves by changing the name, and now we are forcefully pressured to change the identity.” In addition to the visible stagnation in the European integration process, such narratives expressed in a populist manner play on the map of national feelings, the emotions of the people.
Considering the example with Bulgaria, it is not true that they have not faced pressure. Some examples can be noted in the claims by the President of Bulgaria, Rumen Radev, examples here, here, here, here, and here.
Now, no matter if Bulgaria is in the right or not, as a member state of the EU, it insists that the start of negotiations will happen as soon as the agreed constitutional changes are made. So, from there, if our goal is to join the larger European family, we need to find a way to move things forward. Apart from the fact that with the very start of the negotiations there are still many other obligations in various areas that need to be worked on until we conclude the Treaty of Accession.
Proof of that is the latest Report by the European Commission, where, apart from the constitutional amendments, it is pointed out that there is almost no progress in strengthening judicial independence and improving the legal framework for the protection of fundamental rights, as well as other remarks.
Russia throwing a spanner in the works for Macedonia
In the meantime, the Macedonian people’s support for the country’s entry into the EU is slowly declining, and the citizens’ disappointment is growing. However, whether and when we will make the constitutional amendments to include the Bulgarians, among other minorities in the Constitution, depends on us.
But it is precisely in this space, between the insistence of our partners to fulfill the Agreement with Bulgaria and the dissatisfaction of the Macedonian people with the progress of European integration, that there is an opportunity for someone to manipulate public opinion. In almost all cases, it was (is) the Kremlin. As Prof.Dr. Mirjana Najchevska writes for Truthmeter.mk, but in other analyses as well, the existing skepticism creates fertile ground for further inflaming tensions and spreading anti-EU narratives.
These narratives are especially powerful because they adapt to already existing problems and create additional division in society. The calls and interpretations that Bulgaria and the EU are leading a genocidal policy and those of Russia, for the Russians in Ukraine, are almost mirrored. Proof of this is Vladimir Putin’s statement before the war began that the conflict in eastern Ukraine “looks like genocide.”
This kind of slowing down of the entire EU accession process is in Russia’s favor, because it means that it will still have the opportunity to influence our country. This will not change as long as North Macedonia is on the threshold of the EU, because it has been shown that the disinformation of the Kremlin, regardless of whether it is imported from its neighbors, or from another European country, or it is from a domestic disinformation kitchen, only goes against our ambitions and aspirations and worsens the existing crises in the country.
