Violating Minorities’ Rights Threatens Stability

Mariana Lenkova

Sofia Independent

(20/2/1998)

The Balkans are a complicated mixture of nationalities and historical myths, in which everyone seems to question his neighbor’s identity. The Republic of Macedonia, although only a small piece of the Balkan puzzle, plays a big role in the overall scenario, out of proportion to the size of its territory. During its historical development, it has often been "the apple of discord" between the other Balkan actors, due to claims of the latter to "own" it, or at least to have "large minorities" there. Indeed, this diverse character of the country inspired the French to call their mixed salad "salade macedoine," an emblematic name taken from a turbulent region.

Today, minorities and linguistic issues between Macedonia and Bulgaria are the most prominent between the two states. This is so not only in terms of bilateral relations, but also in regard to the two countries’ fervent desire for EU and NATO membership. The West has made it clear that serious talks will not take place until the "language issue" is solved. However, there is also a problem for the countries’ respective minorities - the Bulgarians in Macedonia and the Macedonians in Bulgaria.

The official stands of the respective governments are as follows: The Macedonian government considers the presence of Bulgarians in Macedonia incompatible with the fact that Macedonians cannot be Bulgarians, while the Bulgarian government acts as if the presence of Macedonians in Bulgaria would challenge the national myth that there is no separate Macedonian nation anywhere, let alone within the country’s own territory. Still, is it not surprising that a respected publication like the US State Department 1997 Human Rights Report mentions the fact that Macedonian minority parties are banned in Bulgaria, but "forgets" to say that the same is true for Bulgarians in Macedonia? Regrettably, too, even the self-proclaimed proponents of an "open society," the respective Soros Foundations in the two countries, in their recent publication on the otherwise commendable Joint Program with the King Baudouin Foundation on Improving Inter-Ethnic Relations in Central and Eastern Europe, are equally "forgetful" of these minorities (some may explain the foundations’ one-sidedness with "politically correctness").

Due to the importance and delicate character of the issue, a "neutral" organization - the Greek Helsinki Monitor - decided to investigate the problems of the Bulgarians of Macedonia (the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee has consistently done solid work on Macedonians in Bulgaria and related human rights violations). A letter detailing cases of alleged abuse suffered by representatives of the minority was sent, via the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in the Republic of Macedonia, to the Macedonian Interior Ministry.

The case of the non-registration of the Organization of the Macedonian Bulgarians [Macedonian Revolutionary Organization - Ohrid] on June 7, 1993 was confirmed by Dr. Zoran Verusevski, PR Assistant at the Macedonian Ministry of the Interior. In his letter, he says that the non-registration was due to "the disrespect for and the disregard of the constitutional and legal terms provided for by the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia." He subsequently makes the underlying reasons clearer, as he denies the existence of Bulgarians in his country and therefore implies, like the court’s decision, that such a party is irrelevant.

Maria Stoimenova of Skopje, considered to be a pro-Bulgaria Macedonian, claims that she was arrested and maltreated by the police on Oct. 6, 1995, as they tried to force her to confess her guilt for the attempted assassination of President Gligorov. This case of abuse was dismissed in the Ministry’s letter, and described as regular "questioning" by the police.

The allegations of Nikola Karkulev of Ohrid, that his house was searched by the police simply because he calls himself "a Macedonian Bulgarian" (Oct. 24, 1994), and those of Pepi Krastanov from the same town, who claims to have been cruelly beaten by the police (July 11, 1997) due to alleged possession of literature in Bulgarian, provoked a more "heated" answer by the ministry’s representative. Regarding the case of Karkulev, the official confirms that the police searched the house, although "not because of his [Karkulev’s] feeling of being a Macedonian Bulgarian, as he actually isn’t." The latter comment makes one wonder whether the Macedonian Interior Ministry is the only legitimate body which can determine an individual’s national identity. Both citizens were described as people who often, while being intoxicated, disturbed the peace.

And last but not least comes the well-publicized case of Vladimir Pankov, who recently underwent a hunger strike to protest the violation of his human rights by the Macedonian state. He denounced his Macedonian citizenship and acquired a Bulgarian passport, which was confiscated on November 8, 1996, due to suspicion that it was forged, while Pankov himself was arrested. The ministry’s answer claims that Pankov is still a citizen of the Republic of Macedonia and that he "cannot possess and use personal documents and passports of other states." It is interesting, however, that on March 10, 1997, the charges were changed to the failure to pay alimony to his former wife. These ex post facto excuses for the confiscation of his passport sound fabricated. The Macedonian authorities do not have the right to confiscate a foreign passport unless they suspect fraud, in which case the Bulgarian authorities should be notified to verify the fraud and charges be raised against the holder: nothing of the sort happened, and we now know that the passport was returned without Pankov having to face such a criminal investigation. But it is the following quote from the ministry’s official letter that says it all: "His [Pankov’s] statements for the violation of his basic human rights were not accepted, as he declares himself a Macedonian Bulgarian and he does not recognize the Macedonian language as native."

There is no question then that the Macedonian state intimidates its resident Bulgarians. Additional evidence comes from the rare and secretive contacts which can be made with representatives of that minority. The spirit of these meetings is characterized by fear and suspicion. The Greek Helsinki Monitor mission was provided with a physical basis for such fears, when they found the tires of their car punctured after such a meeting in Ohrid last summer.

Obviously, there are problems, ranging from the mere rejection of the Macedonian Bulgarians’ existence to open persecution and harassment. This attitude on the part of the state is not unique to Macedonia. The Bulgarian state follows a similar policy with regard to the Macedonian minority. On the other hand, there is a problem which arises from the uncompromising positions of the respective minorities themselves. The Bulgarians of Macedonia as well as the Macedonians of Bulgaria seem to want not merely recognition, but secession and border re-arrangement. This demand may be legitimate by strict human rights standards; but it offers a perfect excuse to both states in their fight against "destabilizing minority elements." Still, in the "marketplace of democracy," all ideas, however "radical," "revolutionary," or "destabilizing," have the right to exist and to freely attract followers and opponents. Politicians in Bulgaria and Macedonia alike should thus understand that they must preserve the mixture of "salade macedoine," instead of violently removing some of its ingredients.

Mariana Lenkova is a researcher on Balkan issues for the Greek Helsinki Monitor.