LESSONS ON LANGUAGE

Subject :Skopje - BULGARIAN-MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE PROBLEMS

AIM, Skopje, April 13, 1995

On the occasion of the recent international conference titled "Carnegy's Report and the balkans Today", one could hear that Bulgaria was the one which preserved the independence of Macedonia, since its troops did not march into Skopje once the former Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) had withdrawn.

Considering the course matters have taken, especially since such proposals could already be heard, Macedonia and Bulgaria might be signing their interstate agreements in a third language. Probably in English. Such conclusion can easily be drawn on the basis of an unbelievable persistence with which Bulgarian officials in an unusual linguistic dispute are refusing to put their autograms on agreements and contracts which are, according to an adopted practice, defined and worded in languages of the countries signatories. The Bulgarians in fact do not want to sign documents in which it is explicitly stated that they are written in Macedonian and Bulgarian language, and Macedonia has no intention of accepting a neutral formula according to which disputable names of languages are simply denoted as "official".

The situation in this aspect has not changed even for one tiny bit by the fact that a delegation of the University in Bulgarian town Donja Trnava has visited Skopje recently and that on the occasion, as eyewitnesses claim, although sweating profusely, signed an "action plan on scientific cooperation" written in Bulgarian and Macedonian language. Mild optimism that linguistic misunderstanding could soon be resolved was dispersed, however, just a few days later, after the delegation of the Ministry of Communications of the Republic of Bulgaria refused to ratify a program of cooperation concerning a very important and urgent project of a communication corridor between the East and the West, although it has very powerful sponsors who are interested in it. This showed that in Bulgaria, a very sharp distincion is made between an inter-university "action plan" and an agreement backed by the state and personified by one of its ministries. And the case of the "heretic" people from Donja Trnava whose University, which is also not completely without significance for the whole story, is called "St. Kiril and Metodij" just like this one in Skopje, testifies best that the Macedonians and the Bulgarians can understand each other very well, but despite that or maybe even because of that, chances are very small that they will ever come to an understanding.

An extremely keen gift for linguistic nuances was manifested by the Bulgarians about a year ago when a high delegation of culture workers refused to sign a very carefully negotiated protocol on cooperation. It was all interpreted in Skopje by internal political motives, namely it was believed that the "rascals in their own ranks" are trying to stick a knife in the back of their own head of the state, Zeljo Zelev, and disqualify him on the eve of the announced visit of the Macedonian President, Kiro Gligorov, to Sofia, which raised expectations sky high. But, when the latter returned empty-handed from the Bulgarian capital, because the pompously announced agreement on good neighbourly friendship and cooperation was not signed (one cannot but wonder why?), it became clear that this was no joke. It turned out, in fact, that some former exaggerations about good intentions of the Eastern neighbour concerning their recognition of the Macedonian state in the very first hours of its independent life might have been rash.

Linguistic hair-splitting, of course, is not completely irrational and unfounded. Recognition of the existence of the Macedonian language implies the existence of a nation which spoeaks that language, and the Bulgarians wish to avoid this by all means. Even a superficial reader of Bulgarian newspapers, documents and official statements coming from that direction, will not fail to see that existence of the Macedonians is never mentioned whatsoever. It is permissible to mention the existence of the people who live in the region of Macedonia, which again is not disputable as a state entity, although any Bulgarian who is not burdened by official restrictions would much rather talk about "South-Western provinces". In this sense, what Sofia "Standard" wrote on the occasion of nomination of Mr. Natanijel, Metropolitan Nevrokopski, for the adminstrator of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, was highly indicative. Disregarding possible comments of the Bishop Pahomije from Vranje who was previously commanded by the Serbian Orthodox Church to be the "coercive administrator" of the defected Macedonian fugitives, the Bulgarian Synod "accredited" its Bishop to take care about the souls of compatriots in "Western provinces and in Albania". Although it was not explicitly said, it is not difficult to conclude that the Church in Bulgaria, just like its secular parallel, believes that in Macedonia there are no other Bulgarians but Macedonians!

Watching from that aspect, it is not too difficult to interpret this fundamental denial of the existence of a nation and at the same time recognition of full legitimacy of its state. Some local analysts with good reason lately remind of a parallel drawn in certain quite serious and above all influental political circles in Bulgaria between the current situation in the Balkans and, for instance, two Korean states, Romania and Moldavia, Cyprus and Greece. Or, even more graphically, what once used to be two, and now just a single Germany. "Duma", the journal of the Bulgarian ruling party is cited, because it instructs President Zelev to tell his Macedonian colleague that this country is considered as the "second Bulgarian state", but not because there are any territorial aspirations towards Macedonia, but simply because it is also inhabited by Bulgarian people. As concerning the state border, it is not difficult to understand that it is considered to be the result of unfavourable historical conditions, but it is implied that they too will be changed in time.

Therefore, it is no wonder that Macedonia was recently the main topic of the international conference held in Sofia under the title "Carnegy's report and the Balkans Today". As a specific political spicy story, the stance of a few participants who are more or less close to the Bulgarian government is cited in Skopje, since they claimed that Bulgaria enabled independence of Macedonia, but not because it recognized it in 1992, but because its troops did not march into Skopje when the former Yugoslav People's Army withdrew. Is it just a spicy story?

Budo Vukobrat