[ad_1]
© Anelia Nikolova
The photo is from archive
Zero “meeting in which the Bulgarian side talks about withdrawing from commitments and” relativizing “Macedonian history, and colleagues on the other side of the border talk about trying to impose a unique vision of the past. This is how the experts of the Board Joint Bulgarian-Macedonia a commission of experts on historical and educational issues, which gave a briefing after their virtual meeting today.
“The remote work of the commission … created a problem in the work for education. The eleventh meeting is zero. Not a single step has been taken in our work,” said the president of the Bulgarian side, Professor Angel Dimitrov . He explained the problem with various obstacles. “Colleagues refused to sign the protocols with the request to include the adjective ‘Macedonian’ everywhere,” Dimitrov said. According to him, this contradicts the rules and North Macedonia’s commitment to the United Nations, and the presence of two meetings with protocols creates a problem with the work. “Things seem precarious and they show a reluctance to work hard and with results.”
According to Dimitrov, in addition to the attempt to discredit the Bulgarian position, there is a problem with the allegations that the commission rejected three periods: the early and late Middle Ages and the early beginning of the Ottoman period in the Balkans, and this is far from the truth . “Our statements were 14 points, we are only in the fourth, for King Samuel. It was completely unsuccessful and there is a backtracking of a joint text drawn up by the two governments. “We are moving so slowly at a snail’s pace. “The life of a contract does not count for anything with the longevity of the turtles, and I really want, if we work hard, not to work this way, because it has no place in the Neighborhood Agreement.”
Until now, the Bulgarian authorities have had problems with the term “Macedonian” in terms of language. As Bulgaria does not recognize the existence of the Macedonian language, it wants this concept not to appear in the negotiation framework for EU accession. Furthermore, Bulgaria did not sign a contract with Frontex due to the use of the same term.
Greece also opposes the term “Macedonian”, which is associated with the attributes of statehood; this is stated in the Prespa Treaty, but is not known to refer to historical issues.
“We speak different languages”
“The meeting was held in an academic environment, the result of a multi-level discussion, which unfortunately did not yield any results. I can agree that there are no results, but sometimes since there are no results from a certain meeting, that shows something. the part with the notes (from previous meetings) and here a big problem is the use of the adjective “Macedonian”.
Georgiev explains the problem of the Prespa Treaty and its different interpretation. “Unfortunately, I have to say that this was introduced into the work of the commission” and refers to the agreement with Greece, according to which Skopje agreed to change its name from the Republic of Macedonia to the Republic of North Macedonia. “Unfortunately, I must say that this was introduced into the work of the commission after the sixth meeting and our country was not informed about it, but our Bulgarian colleagues started to practice.”
The Bulgarian side rejects the accusations of connection with the Prespa Treaty and talks about a formula for the use of “Macedonian”, enshrined in a series of agreements. She cites a document from the Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which explicitly states not to use the adjective “Macedonian” as attributes of statehood, but does not cover issues of history and culture (which are not covered in the Prespa Treaty of Macedonia ). When asked about the adjective, he said that according to the guidelines of the Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, official bodies and public institutions, as well as private entities, cannot be called “Macedonian”, it is correct to use “in / from North Macedonia “.
Dimitrov subsequently did not specify where in the protocols the adjective “Macedonian” is a problem in response to a clarifying question from Dnevnik, but Georgiev continued to focus on the agreement with Greece. “We do not agree in what context it can and in what context it cannot be used according to the Prespa Treaty. If we are talking about the Macedonian cultural tradition, the Macedonian language, the Macedonian people … I must say that we have a misunderstanding “.
In fact, the Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs guidelines contain the unequivocal statement that the adjective “Macedonian” is used to refer to the ethnic and cultural identity of a people, “language, history, culture, heritage, territory and other attributes. “. In this context, “these terms are clearly different from those used for the Macedonian region of Greece.”
According to Georgiev, there are no consultations with colleagues from the Bulgarian side to overcome this problem. The problem with the adjective “Macedonian” remains, it will be discussed at a higher level. “We speak different languages,” Georgiev said earlier, referring to disputes over the representation of Samuel’s state in history textbooks. According to him, the use of different perspectives in textbooks and attempts to impose “one vision for this country” and be the only thing that students will receive is avoided.
“We are relativizing everything and the reluctance to go ahead is extremely unproductive,” Dimitrov said, criticizing the Macedonian side.
What was actually done
Dimitrov described Dnevnik’s attempt to find out whether the dispute over the minutes that no textbook recommendation had been sent to authorities in both countries as a product of the commission’s work, and what exactly the steps were, as “strange “and” informative. , which turn the commission’s work into a real change for the educational system and an opportunity for the general celebration of historical figures, which is actually its purpose.
Despite the dispute over the minutes of the meetings, Georgiev reiterated what Dnevnik had already been told this week that comments had been sent for the fifth and sixth voices for the Bulgarian textbooks and for the sixth grade for For the Macedonians, the dispute was over seventh grade textbooks.
But what should be done after receiving them from governments? Georgiev told Dnevnik this week that they should be approved at an intergovernmental meeting, but the institutions in Sofia and Skopje have not confirmed this, nor if such a meeting is taking place solely because of the coronavirus pandemic.
