LANGUAGE FOR (MIS)UNDERSTANDING

AIM Skopje, April 25, 1996

To what extent politics is delicate is best illustrated by the fact that in this sphere, in some cases, much more can be concluded from the fact that something did not happen than if it did. One of such, extremely indicative situations was recently noted in Macedonian-Bulgarian relations. Namely, Minister of foreign affairs of Bulgaria, Georgi Pirinski without any reluctance had accepted the invitation of his colleague Ljubomir Frckovski to visit Skopje, but when everything was organized and when the journalists were acquainted with the program of his visit, it was suddenly cancelled. Although Skopje is restrained in making bitter qualifications of the event, it all had a dangerous smell of an unprecedented diplomatic scandal, since, apart from the ususal Macedonian-Bulgarian skirmishes, nothing has happened that could have discouraged Pirinski, if indeed his initial motivation had been sincere at all.

Indeed, foreign Ministry in Sofia did its best to find an excuse, but it sounds quite unconvincing, moreover naively ridiculous. Journalists were indicated as the guilty party again, who, according to what a high official of Bulgarian diplomacy, Strahila Cervenkova said, "too often write in an anti-Bulgarian tone in Macedonian media, not creating an atmosphere suitable for a ministerial visit". To be on the safe side, reasons were intensified by the explanation that "the proposed formula for resolving problems in mutual relations was not constructive". The latter reason, if it can be called that, opens a possibility of anticipation of the real reason.

It seems that what blocked the way to future relations between Sofia and Skopje again was the notorious "linguistic problem", which is actually a synthesis of a cluster of entangled historical encumbrances, and, at least for the time being unsolvable contradictions. This was the reason why two years ago Macedonia-Bulgarian contacts on high level were interrupted, and the mentioned visit of Minister Pirinski to Skopje was meant to reestablish relations between the highest representatives of the two countries. Perhaps one should be reminded that about this time in 1994, President Kiro Gliogorov went to Sofia, with yet unseen pomp, embraced his host President Zhelyo Zhelev, made a speech in the Assembly, reached all kinds of agreements, but returned home empty-handed. Namely, he failed to talk the Bulgarian party into signing an inter-state contract in languages called "Bulgarian " and "Macedonian", and he on his part refused to accept the compromising solution to skip the names of the languages and mark them simply as - "official".

To anyone who is not well acquainted with the circumstances in the Balkans, such straining of relations might appear, to say the least, inapprehensible. However, for Macedonia it is a question of top political significance to persuade official Sofia to recognize the existence of its language. In view of the "controversial" problem of the name of Macedonia in its relations with Athens, the question will be easier to understand, although any further pursuit of the analogy could lead to a wrong track. In any case, Bulgaria was the first of all states which recognized independent Macedonia under its natural, as they like to say here, constitutional name. The act of recognition of singularity, independence, state integrity and sovereignty of the Macedonian state, however, not for a moment meant recognition of existence of a nation bearing the same name. Simply, for Bulgaria Macedonia continued to be a territorial term of reference inhabited by Bulgarians who now wished to proclaim themselves Macedonians. To admit that they speak their own, Macedonian language, and not a dialect of Bulgarian strongly influenced by Serbian, for official Sofia would be crucial evidence of authenticity of the population living in Macedonia, which it refuses to recognize.

According to certain opinions expressed in Macedonia, its eastern neighbour who has in mind similar situations with two Korean or better still with two German states, secretly watches for the right opportunity or waits for a denouement similar to the latter analogy. The question of language, equally as the question of national histories will probably for a long time to come continue to encumber relations between Sofia and Skopje. It is a fact that majority of prominent figures in Macedonian national history, especially those from the beginning of this century, are also underlined in Bulgarian history textbooks and their names and acts immortalized by monuments, names of toponyms, streets, parks, stadiums, institutions, which causes great confusion, but constantly also provokes various incidents as well. It might sound as an anecdote that in the course of this year the two heads of the states, first Zhelyo Zhelev, and later on Kiro Gligorov, in their addresses to the Croat parliament during their visits to Zagreb, equally wholeheartedly expressed their appreciation of the fact that in 1939 the collection of poems "Beli mugri" /White Slaves/ by Koce Racin, founder of modern Macedonian lyrical poetry and an authentic poet whose magnificent talent, if it were not for these profane reasons, would be worth fighting for to be classified in one's national literature.

All things considered, Bulgarian Ministry assessed that new negotiations, this time on the level of foreign ministers Purinski and Frckovski, could trip over the same block, and therefore, although diplomatically incorrectly, receded. It ought to be said that the Macedonian Minister in a way encouraged them with a statement made during his recent Scandinavian tour, that Macedonia would not give up its firm stance to make and sign its agreements in Macedonian language. There is nothing strange that this does not seem "constructive" to the Bulgarian party.

Possible motives for the decision of Pirinski to remain at home could also be sought in another statement of Minister Frckovski. In an interview for the Russian daily Sevodnya, he expressed doubts about success of the announced meeting of foreign ministers of the Balkans, which Pirinski and his "superior", Prime Minister Zhan Videnov are advocating with maximum efforts. The Balkan summit conference is actually an idea launched by Videnov with a clear intention to pave the road for a possible regional association. In accordance with Macedonian decision to restrain itself from shutting itself into regions, Minister Frckovski at first elegantly "stood up" a Bulgarian envoy, but now, pressured by powerful European institutions, he had to agree to contacts. The new attempt of Frckovski, going along with certain Greek doubts about the range of Balkan summits, to step out of the initiated activities, probably did not appeal to the Bulgarians. Contacts on such a high level which would pass without any specific results would be a big blow to Bulgarian diplomatic mainstay - regional associations, which is the point in which it reaches a pronounced level of agreement with Belgrade.

LULJETA K. NIZAMI