[ad_1]
© Twitter @TPetricek
The Foreign Ministers of the Czech Republic and North Macedonia, Tomas Petricek and Bujar Osmani, in Prague, on December 17, 2020.
The notion of “falsifying history” would be “extremely damaging to the enlargement process and has the potential to create other complications” if it becomes part of the conclusions on enlargement, stabilization and association.
This is stated in an official statement from the Czech Republic and Slovakia, published on the websites of their permanent representations in the EU.
The message is addressed to Bulgaria and in practice, it is part of the dispute between Sofia and Skopje, which has gone beyond the limits of the negotiation framework and continues on other EU issues. The conclusions on the enlargement were endorsed by the ambassadors of the EU member states and it seemed a mere formality for the Environment Ministers at their meeting yesterday to approve the text in an extraordinary way (since this did not happen in the Affairs Council Generals from last week).
The Czech Republic and Slovakia are explaining their position publicly less than a day after an angry reaction from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for blocking the conclusions of the EU enlargement. Sofia did not mention the two countries by name, but clarified that they blocked the conclusions on enlargement and association in the EU, after Bulgaria insisted on adding a “sentence on the importance of the agreements of the Republic of North Macedonia with Bulgaria and Greece, and that its implementation will put an end to all claims based on a misinterpretation of history. “
However, even before the Czech-Slovak announcement, the two countries were mentioned by sources from the Macedonian state news agency MIA, as well as the Macedonian edition of Free Europe. Sources in the latest Brussels media stated that “too much has been given to Bulgaria.” In general, the Macedonian media is much more willing to share information about the months-long dispute that has blocked Macedonian talks in the EU.
According to a Wall Street Journal correspondent in Brussels, the draft conclusions use the term “misinterpretation” of the story (misinterpretation, while the Czech-Slovak message says falsification). Another interesting phrase approved at COREPER (Permanent Representatives) level to make a gesture to Germany is: “The Council underlines that there is no place in the EU to praise war criminals from anywhere.”
It is not specified whether this definition affects Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito, whose death anniversary also added fuel to the fire between Sofia and Skopje.
“The EU cannot be a judge”
The official Bulgarian position, which in fact corresponds to reality, is that there is no formal link between the EU Council conclusions on enlargement and the approval of the negotiating frameworks with Albania and North Macedonia. Sofia supports Tirana’s but cannot accept Skopje’s, insisting that three demands be met, while discussing separately with North Macedonia over the history and other neighborhood issues.
However, seen from Bratislava and Prague, the problem seems different. Their joint statement contradicts Sofia in absentia. It says that, on the one hand, the conclusions should send a general message about enlargement policy, but on the other hand, they should describe the progress and shortcomings of specific candidates and “They have a direct impact on a number of political aspects and pave the way for the EU’s focus in the next period”.
There is no way for the Czech Republic and Slovakia to agree to a text with elements of “falsification of history”. “From our point of view, it would be extremely detrimental to the enlargement process and has the potential to complicate the process … We believe that the final approval of the text should have been done during the General Affairs Council” (probably referring to the Council on 8 December, which due to the Bulgarian disagreement removed the EU enlargement from the agenda).
The next two paragraphs describe the relationship between the two processes as seen by the two countries:
“The main objective is and still is to adopt the negotiating framework as soon as possible and we believe, after further analysis, that the current text would make it difficult to adopt. We are convinced that a solution can be found to meet the demands of our colleagues. without profound implications for the EU approach. “
“We will not allow the union to be a judge of our common history, how we define ourselves or what language we use. These issues are in the hands of specific countries and we are here to support them with the experience of our own healing process.”
The last line adds: “Furthermore, we are deeply disappointed that the negotiating frameworks with North Macedonia and Albania have not been approved.”
Bilateral issues and identity: speaking “different languages” in the EU
This is the great dividing line between Bulgaria’s position and the attitude of others in the EU towards the dispute with North Macedonia. The Czech-Slovak position reiterates the notion that historical issues have no place in the EU negotiation process.
It is also clear from the text that Prague and Bratislava understand the insistence on resolving the historical disputes between Sofia and Skopje as an invasion of the self-determination of the Macedonians. Bulgaria denies it. Sofia’s position is also reflected in her demands in the negotiating framework regarding the use of the words “Macedonian language”, which she wishes to be omitted from the framework and replaced by “the official language of the Republic of North Macedonia “.
EU member states like Germany have signaled in recent months that they view historic disputes as “bilateral issues” and that they have no place in the negotiating framework. At the same time, Macedonian ministers are on tour in European capitals, where even countries that have not been active in such positions have expressed their desire to start negotiations quickly. This also happened at the meeting of the foreign ministers of North Macedonia and the Czech Republic, Bujar Osmani and Tomas Petrzycek, earlier this week.
The concept of “treatment” is unclear. The Czech Republic and Slovakia were peacefully divided when, on January 1, 1993, after a public debate, the Czechoslovak Federation ceased to exist. Scholars are not unanimous as to which factors prevail: economic (in fact, the “Czech subject of the federation” resisted the Slovak at the time) or historical and identity. Today, their relationship is marked by peace and close cooperation, despite some differences in interpretations of the recent and distant past.
Who else is involved in the dispute?
The question whether only the Czech Republic and Slovakia are against Bulgaria on this issue remains open at the time of publication.
A look at the Brussels edition of Politico explains the change in position as an “enlargement saga” and quotes an EU diplomat who said: “This time the so-called friends of enlargement vetoed important EU-level conclusions. ministerial after ambassadors Solo approved the texts yesterday (Wednesday). It is tragic for the Western Balkans that various camps in the EU are mutually blocking enlargement policy. ” It is explained that on paper the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Bulgaria are friends of enlargement.
On the other hand, the Macedonian media cited Cabinet representatives, according to which not only the Czech Republic and Slovakia, but also Austria, and (secretly) other countries are in the same position, although they have not officially expressed it. However, Vienna has not made such statements either. Dnevnik asked Austrian authorities for comment.
