Interview I took from Sir Graham Watson, President of the liberal ALDE party, 7 May 2013, Brussels.

The European Parliament Civil Liberties LIBE committee will vote today (7 May) to decide what follow up the European Parliament and the EU in general should decide on the unfolding eavesdropping scandal in Bulgaria, which was dubbed by the foreign press “the Bulgarian Watergate”. This is happening just before the early parliamentary elections on 12 May. What is your comment?

Clearly, with allegations like this surfacing during an election campaign, the European Commission is going to be reluctant to intervene for fear of being seen to take sides in such an election campaign. There is in any case, as the Commission points out, an issue to be dealt by national authorities.

However, I share the concerns of many in Europe from all political parties at some of the developments in Bulgaria of which this is a part. Whether there is truth in these allegations or not, the fact that so many people believe that it could be, is already a sign of big concern about recent developments in Bulgaria.

Do you think that the Commission has been too gentle with Borissov’s government overall?

I think the Commission has been too gentle with his government on some areas in particular. I think there could have be more done in the pressure for judicial report, there could have been certainly more done in the pressure for greater drawdown on European funding, on wiser spending, and I think perhaps in the area of energy, of electricity, the initial cause of some of those riots.

It’s easy with hindsight to look back and say: more could be done. But the Commission needs the support of the member states. And member states themselves have to take a more active role in policing what is happening on each other’s territory.

The slogan of the GERB campaign is “We have [good] will”. It is taken from the Commission reports who said that. They actually didn’t see progress, but “good will”.

Well, good will is like motherhood or apple pie. It sounds great, but it needs to be backed up with action.

I am publishing without any interference the insightful interview my colleague Veselin Jelev took from Bulgaria’s Ambassador to the EU Dimitar Tzantchev I kept the original title chosen by dpa. Georgi

By Veselin Jelev, dpa, copyright dpa Insight EU. On photo: Dimitar Tzantchev, MFA

Why has Bulgaria joined Greece in opposing an immediate opening of accession negotiations between the EU and Macedonia?

Bulgaria was the first to recognize the FYROM’s (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s) independence under its constitutional name and to help this newly established state during the hard times of the embargo against the ex-Yugoslavia. We used our influence on the leaders of the Albanian ethnic minority in the FYROM to prevent its further destabilization when the country was on the verge of civil war in 2001. We know well our responsibilities for the stability of the region.

Bulgaria is a staunch supporter of the European integration of the Western Balkans as it is the only way to guarantee peace, democracy and prosperity for the entire region. Regretfully, the current political leadership of FYROM has pushed our bilateral relations back to the past. Anti-Bulgarian stereotypes throughout the media, cinema, literature, history and geography textbooks in the official education system are widespread. Citizens of FYROM who openly declare their Bulgarian identity often face discrimination (dismissals from work, intimidation, police interrogations, institutional and media pressure). Provocative projects like “Skopje 2014″ clearly outline potential territorial and other claims against Bulgaria. FYROM has crossed certain limits, causing wide discontent in the Bulgarian public opinion. Skopje’s policies engender serious concerns already in two EU member states from the region and this should ring the alarm bell.

Should disputes about history stand in the way of EU integration in the 21st

century?

We have to face the reality. Macedonia is a geographical area that nowadays lies within the boundaries of at least three states (Greece, Bulgaria, FYROM). For this reason, the use of the geographical term Macedonia as an official name for the newly established state is burdened with political sensitivity in neighbouring countries where the term ‘Macedonian’ is used to indicate the link to the geographical area, but not to a national identity.

All historical facts show that by the time one part of this geographical area was included in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia after the WW I, the overwhelming majority of its Slavic population were identifying themselves as Bulgarians. The failure to eradicate the Bulgarian identity between the two World Wars by imposing a South Serbian identity, prompted Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito to launch in 1944 a policy aimed at forging a new Macedonian national identity in the then Socialist Republic of Macedonia. The communist leadership of former Yugoslavia would claim that every Slav inhabitant of the entire geographical area is Macedonian, belonging to the Macedonian nation. This policy included also the decreeing of the local Bulgarian dialect as a Macedonian language, as well as fabrication of historical background for the new Macedonian identity at the expense of neighboring countries’ history. Any attempt of the local people to manifest its Bulgarian identity was suppressed through Stalinist methods including imprisonment and arbitrary executions in 1944-1946 of the local political and the intellectual elite who selfidentified as being Bulgarian.

But even this couldn’t delete the collective memory of the people in our two countries. We share the same history, the same linguistic and cultural tradition. Therefore, we don’t see any reason why our common history should divide and not unite us. The fact that so many monuments of Bulgarian historical figures have been recently erected in Skopje, no matter how they are labeled now, only confirms that we have been one ethnical entity in the past.

Can’t your differences be tackled in the process of EU accession negotiations rather than before them?

The new EU members should be committed to the European values and respect their EU neighbors. Radical nationalist ideologies belong to the past. There will be long-term repercussions and risks to regional stability if the current policies of Skopje vis à vis neighboring countries continue. That is why such issues should be solved before, and not after the start of the accession negotiations. FYROM has a much bigger interest in starting accession negotiations than to continue its intransigent claims for non-existent minorities and stealing neighboring countries’ history.

The people of FYROM should look to the future and not to the past. We in the EU should help them do that. Because if they continue to look to the past, the only true fact of history they will find is the Bulgarian identity of the Slavic population in the geographical region of Macedonia. They will also face the undisputable fact that the Slavic population has arrived in that region many centuries after Alexander the Great. These are the facts of history and they cannot be changed. As the great Danish thinker Soren Kierkegaard observed: Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.

Bulgaria insists on concluding a treaty on good-neighborly relations with Macedonia. Macedonian foreign minister Nikola Poposki has recently said he saw no need for such a treaty. At the same time four rounds of talks on it have already taken place. What should we expect?

Indeed, Minister Poposki openly questioned the need for a Treaty the same day (April 16, 2013) the Commission’s progress report on FYROM was released. We don’t understand Skopje’s reluctance to commit itself to a legally binding document that would ensure it will not use its Constitution to interfere in Bulgaria’s affairs for the purpose of defending the status and the rights of persons who are not and who have never been FYROM’s citizens, but whom Skopje sees as belonging to the Macedonian people. FYROM has already undertaken such a commitment in the 1999 Joint Declaration with Bulgaria, as well as in its 1995 Interim Accord with Greece. It is only the Constitution of FYROM that contains such a claim and this engenders concerns in neighboring states.

We must say it very clearly: no matter what the result of the efforts to build a Macedonian nation is, it cannot be used as an argument for Skopje‘s minority claims vis à vis Bulgaria. No citizens of Bulgaria have taken part in such a nation-building process as it was started in 1944 and has been confined only to the territory of the then Socialist Republic of Macedonia, and after 1991, in FYROM. Therefore, any claims by Skopje for Macedonian national minority in Bulgaria are completely baseless and unacceptable.

Serbia and Kosovo have struck an agreement to normalize their relations. The Commission has consequently recommended opening accession talks with Serbia and association agreement talks with Kosovo. It has also issued a progress report on FYROM. The Member States are expected to decide in June whether to start membership negotiations with Serbia and FYROM. What are your expectations?

The agreement reached between Serbia and Kosovo is an impressive example that if there is a political will and commitment, there are no unsolvable problems, no matter how difficult they seem to be. The compromise that FYROM has to make is much smaller: to agree with a Treaty on good-neighborly relations based on a political declaration Skopje has already signed in 1999. We are, of course, aware that FYROM faces serious challenges also in other important areas – inter-ethnic relations, economic and financial stability. Recent months have marked a setback in the functioning of the democratic institutions and the freedom of expression.

Aren’t you concerned that FYROM may be destabilized if it loses its immediate EU-integration prospects?

Let me reply with a question: If a candidate state would be destabilized by the simple fact that it does not get immediately what it thinks it deserves, then what is the real level of stability and political maturity of that country? In such a case, there should be other factors challenging its stability. And it might be worth taking a closer look at the situation on the ground.

Copyright: dpa insight

This is the title of Bulgarian daily “24 chasa” yesterday (25 April). I thought this was a decent newspaper, but I was wrong. The article was included in the daily press review of the European Commission (see photo).

I know how the Bulgarian press works. This is a publication commissioned from very high places, which the newspaper had no other choice but to write according to specifications from the client and publish.

The aim of the publication is to discredit the European Commission. Without any doubt people in high places fear that messages from the Commission could make them feel very uncomfortable ahead of the 12 May early parliamentary election.

So whatever the Commission will say, they would respond: “Before you accuse us, look at yourselves, you bunch of Maoists, Communists and totalitarian secret police agents!”

Will badmouthing the enemy do the trick this time?

Those who commission such publications are from the former ruling party GERB, which is embroiled in an eavesdropping scandal of Biblical proportions.

Media in Bulgaria have dubbed the unfolding eavesdropping scandal “the Bulgarian Watergate”, alluding to the 1970s secret taping of the Democratic party headquarters, which led to the downfall of President Richard Nixon.

In recent developments, a minister from the GERB government, Miroslav Naydenov, confirms that all ministers and other personalities have been illegally spied by former Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov, who is the N.2 in the party after Boyko Borissov and the engineer of GERB’s election campaign.

The leader of the opposition Bulgarian Socialist Party Sergei Stanishev, who is also leader of the Party of European Socialists (EPP), called Tsvetanov “toxic to Bulgarian politics”. He also said that the support of the European People’s Party (PES) to GERB had become “untenable”.

Meanwhile, an eavesdropping recoding was sent anonymously to several Bulgarian media, including to the daily Sega where I have worked for several tears. The audio file, the authenticity of which leaves no doubt, features Borissov, Naydenov and Sofia’s prosecutor Nikolai Kokinov. Leaving aside the many cynicisms in their gangsters’ language, this is what is been said:

Naydenov complains to Kokinov that he is been harassed by the prosecution (Naydenov is in the centre of several corruption cases. I have reported about one).

Kokinov too complains to Naydenov that he is not in command any longer, that somebody is trying to isolate him from the important issues.

Naydenov says he had asked Borissov who is after him. He adds Borissov told him it is probably Tsvetanov.

Kokinov replies that in fact this is probably the recently elected prosecutor general Sotir Tstatsarov. He adds that Naydenov’s case is been hidden from him, so he cannot help.

Borissov arrives. Kokinov complains to him as well about the “repressions” which he suffers. He tells Borissov he wants to be moved from Sofia prosecutor to the job of Appellate prosecutor. Follows a long exchange in which they discuss the homosexual inclinations of various magistrates.

Borissov asks Naydenov for advice regarding the court proceedings against Naydenov.

Naydenov says he is not optimistic and warns Naydenov that the woman he lives with has been promised a plea bargain if she testifies against him.

Borissov interevenes and says he warned Naydenov about that woman.  (She is one of the beneficiaries of the Twitter-Facebook affair.)

Before leaving, Kokinov gives Borissov the results of prosecution inquiries which are not yet made public.

At the end, Borissov tells Naydenov that his problems are serious, because there is European money involved.

As I was writing this text, Kokinov resigned, following a meeting with Prosecutor General Tsatsarov. It also became known that the recording was made on 15 April in Borissov’s house.

Borissov basically confirmed that the conversation took place, blaming “parallel structures” for being “impudent enough” to spy in his house.

A suivre…

In an earlier draft had a more hard-hitting title “Do you sponsor little lies”, but I’m happy that my blog gets attention even without using such gimmicks.

I take the view that in the Balkans in the EU, we should trust each other and that we should report with eyes open, rather than wide closed.

I like Fleetwood Mac, they have song which goes :

“Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies
(Tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)
Oh, no, no you can’t disguise”,

Precisely, which you can’t disguise.

The President of Macedonia Mr. Gjorge Ivanov “undertook a number of

initiatives, including visiting the Bulgarian Cultural Club”, the Commission report says on its page 11.

But the Bulgarian Cultural Club (BCC) and its director Lazar Mladenov tell me that the President Gjorge Ivanov has never visited BCC and that “somebody is cheating on Commissiner Fuele about the real situation in the Republic of Macedonia and its good-neighbourly relations with its EU member states”.

Let me add to this the “little lie” I found about Skopje still using “double speak” about what is seen by many as irredentist claims.

http://www.euractiv.com/enlargement/macedonia-erases-irredentist-cla-news-519167

Tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies
Oh, no, no you can’t disguise, you can’t disguise.

This is not Wikileaks, it’s actually better. A document in the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Macedonia says that according to estimates by Skopje, 750.000 Macedonians live on the territory of Bulgaria and 700.000 other on the territory of Greece.

This is the document, which is a bit difficult to be found, as it is on the Macedonian language version of the website, in the section ‘Diaspora’, then down to “Повръзани документи”, and click on „Список за Броjност, Лекторати и Здружениjа”. I made a web copy because it could be removed or hacked.

Greece doesn’t accept the name ‘Macedonia’ for this new country on the map of Europe because it fears that it entails territorial claims.

In fact, Macedonia is a wide geographic region stretching across three countries that for decades was called Pirin Macedonia in Bulgaria, Aegean Macedonia in Greece and Vardar Macedonia for the territory corresponding to the former Yugoslav republic.

The latest census has shown that 1.654 Bulgarians have identified themselves as Macedonians. Skopje doesn’t quote this poll, but an earlier one from 2001 where the figure was 5.071. But the document adds that the “estimation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs” (МВР проценка) is of 750.000 Macedonians in Bulgaria. Similarly, the estimation for Greece is of 700.000, adding that on the occasion of the 1925 census the number of Macedonians was 162.506. Strange, because in 1925 Macedonia was neither a nationality nor an ethnicity.

If indeed 750.000 Macedonians live in Bulgaria and another 700.000 in Greece, this probably means that the entire population of Pirin Macedonia and Aegean Macedonia are populated by “Macedonians”, whatever that means (see map I ‘borrowed’ from a Skopje nationalist blog).

(I was born in Pirin Macedonia myself, in the beautiful city of Blagoevgrad, and I was probably “counted” as “Macedonian” too…)

Greece has claimed that Skopje puts an equal sign between the name of the country and the name of the region. The document I found it the website of the Macedonia Foreign Ministry appears to confirm these suspicions.

On 16 April the Commission will publish a report on FYROM, as the EU executive calls Macedonia. My expectation is this will be a self-congratulation by Commissioner Stefan Fuele for his recent (messy) troubleshooting in this country, nothing more. I should say something about his troubleshooting on another occasion.

A decision whether to start accession negotiations with Skopje is due in June. No chance, from my perspective. A EU diplomat told me that Skopje expects that its EU accession would “authorize it to make territorial claims to its two EU neigbours”.

By the way, why the newly built Triumph Arch feature “Pirin” (Bulgaria) alongside “Vardar” (FYROM territory)?

In case you have missed it watch this video, it was made last Wednesday and released by Euronews.
 http://www.euronews.com/nocomment/2013/0…

My title is probably not very precise. I imagine that protestors booed the very fact that the EU flag was raised at the Prague Castle, a vast compound where the administration of the Czech President is located. The Czechs being quite eurosceptic, and the former Presidents Vaclav Havel and Vaclav Klaus never having raised the EU flag, the initiative by new President Milos Zeman was obviously controversial.

So it would have been more correct for me to say to say that Czech protestors booed the EU flag, Zeman and Visiting Commission President Barroso. Sorry, but I chose a shorter title.

Croissants will be no longer on offer in the cafeteria or restaurants of EU institutions, a Council source told this website. EU institutions have apparently surrendered to pressure groups who claim that the crescent-shaped pastry offends Turkey, a candidate for EU accession.

Croissants are no longer available in the cafeteria of the Commission, the Parliament and the Council. Asked to comment, the various catering services contracted by these institutions said they have been unofficially requested to remove their best-selling viennoiserie from their price lists.

Reportedly, EU institutions have surrendered to pressure from pro-Ankara groups, who claim that historically, the croissant is an offense to Turkey.

Indeed, the origin of the pastry date from 1683, when the Battle of Vienna was held on 11 and 12 September of that year, after the city was besieged by the army of the Ottoman Empire for two months.

The battle was won by the combined forces of the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. It is seen as the beginning of the hegemony of the Habsburg dynasty in Central Europe, and the abandon of plans by the Ottoman Empire to conquer this part of the continent.

To celebrate victory, the citizens of Vienna asked the city’s bakers to invent a pastry to mock the Turks. Apparently, the crescent-shaped pastry became a huge success also internationally. It is not by chance that in France and French-speaking countries croissants are referred to as viennoiserie.

Asked to comment, representatives of the secretariats of the EU institutions kept a low profile, saying that they did not interfere in the culinary choices of the catering services.

However, croissants remain on offer in cafes and bars outside EU buildings, as it can be seen. Their owners or managers were unaware of culinary developments inside the EU institutions. Some of them expressed the hope that the ban would bring them more clients, while others wondered if Brussels city authorities would follow suit. One cafeteria owner defiantly said he would massively advertise that he sells “EU-banned croissants”.

The Council will no longer offer free food to journalists during EU summits. This is also the end of the free croissants, soft drinks and sandwiches, available at every corner of the press centre on such occasions. The decision is part of a belt-tightening in expectation of a EU budget with deep cuts in the category of administration. By the way, coffee in the press bar has already gone up from 60 cents to 2 euro.

As sources from the Council explained, the free meals were an inheritance from the past. Until 2004 the rotating presidencies hosted journalists in their capitals and provided very generously food and drinks (even alcohol) free of charge to accredited journalists. The rotating presidencies continued to foot the bill for the food (but not for alcohol any longer) until 2010, when the Council started to pay the expense. Presidencies also used to give journalists presents. Those were usually neckties for gents and scarves for ladies, with the Presidencies logos, but this practice was discontinued a couple of years ago (by the way Presidencies still give presents to officials.)

I think the decision to stop with the free food was long overdue. Although I cannot believe that a journalist could be “bribed” with free food, our readers and audiences should not suspect us paying lip service to the Union just because we eat croissants for free.

There is one aspect though. As we are many in number, I cannot figure out how long it could take to queue at the cashbox. At the next summit two weeks from now, I will bring home made sandwiches.

I received minutes ago this email from Prof. Krastyo Petkov, a distinguished Bulgarian intellectual whom despite the age difference I consider as a friend. I thought I should share it immediately.

The crossroads of the Bulgarian revolution

Prof. Krastyo Petkov

Remember “17 February! That date has marked the end of the ruling party GERB” – wrote in an article a few days ago one of the leading Bulgarian political analysts.

What really happened last Sunday? Does 17 of February deserve such attention?

It was the eight day of permanent protests of citizen against the high/speculative prices of the electricity, fixed by the private monopolies, operating in the public utilities. Between 100 000 and 150 000 people from 50 cities and smaller settlements went out in the streets, occupying the space in front of the headquarters of CEZ, Energo-Pro and EVN (the tree foreign companies, running the business with the electricity network distribution) all over Bulgaria.

At a certain point the anger blew up against the government and the whole power elite; the crowd everywhere began to shout: “Mafia”, “Resignation” , etc. The most aggressive behavior was observed in Varna and in Sofia. In the capital thousands of mainly young protestors moved from the emblematic spot of their actions “Orlov Most” (“Eagle Bridge”) to the national parliament, crying political slogans like „The System must be changed!”, „All corrupted parties and politicians-out!” and so on.

On the next day the financial minister  and vice-prime minister Simeon Djankov resigned. The prime minister Boyko Borissov accepted his resignation, met some of the protest leaders and declared a whole package of anti-monopoly measures, including an 8% price decrease for the electricity supply! He said publicly , that his government will stay in power another  five months -until the end of the mandate. But, in less than 24 hours after this firm declaration, Borissov announced the resignation of the whole cabinet.

Yesterday (21 February), Bulgarian parliament approved  the resignation. A caretaker government and early elections are coming (the date mentioned so far is 28 Apil).

What stands behind this chronology? What will be the faith of the newly born Bulgarian protest movement?

Below I am trying to find some answers, after almost two years of analytical/field research of the events in the public space  the results are published in my recent book „ L’Etat c’est moi!”, dedicated to the rise and fall of the authoritarian regime of the populist party GERB and its charismatic leader Boyko Borissov).

Citizen and leaches

We have to distinguish between at least tree segments among the protestors: authentic, custom/paid and marginal.

a) The authentic/true protestors do really represent the citizenry – but the new generation, different from those, which were active in 1989/90 and 1997, when Bulgaria experienced similar kind of discontent. The present generation was born after 1989; they do not share the same values as there parents (especially the typical/national mantra: „If you bow your head, the sword will not cut it”, claiming instead: „We are The Children of Transition”.  Youngsters of today want clear demarcation from the previous generation and political elite about all black/negative developments in the last 23 years (corruption, criminality, clientelism, poverty, unemployment etc.).

The Children of Transition generation lacks political experience. Yesterday, after the Victory (the fallen government) it was clear, that they reached the first crossroad. They feel their own growing power (the main slogan became „ We are many, we are strong!”); they want to continue „till the End” – to change the System, wanting Great National Assembly and a New Constitution, but they don’t know how to achieve that goal! (the same syndrome we observe with „Indignados” and „Occupy” movements). The first attempts yesterday to elect leaders and representatives for a National Assembly of Protestors brought most of the local movements almost to brink of separation. In the same time young/true protestors do not believe in any of the parliamentary parties (newly emerging formation like the Greek Sirysa still do not exist in Bulgaria).

b) The leaches (antipode of the emerging authentic citizen) kept silent for many months, but yesterday they appeared on the main square in Sofia: first, to confront the protestors; second, to greet Boyko Borissov (already ex- prime minister) after his final speech in the parliament. Around 2000 people, most of them brougth by busses from the province, emotionally cried in his face : ”Boyko, we love you”. „Please stay, do not resign”, etc.). It became obvious, that the scenario with the „spontaneous” support, the rulers wanted to create a base for the legitimate return to power of Borissov and GERB after the early elections.

c) The marginals. As usual, drunk and sociopathic individuals joint the rallies and try to provoke clashes and violence. The same was the tactics of the embedded provocateurs (with covered faces).  In the last days the civil activists are trying to remove these marginal/outsider groups from the protest.

Other political actors

Their common feature is their state of shocked, than trying to adjust to the storming situation!

This is a very short description of what has happened with the main political players after the 17 February:

-The Inner Circle of Borissov (ministries and close oligarchic figures in the shadow )  were taken by surprise: both – because of sudden/ strong protests and the unilateral decision of their leader to resign . The government and the parliamentary group of GERB learned  about  the resignation a few hours before it was publicly declared. He autocratic style of Borissov has reached its extreme!

-The opposition in the parliament also was surprised and unprepared to react properly. The fall of the government was not their victory, but the Victory of the Angry Citizen, which had shown remarkable will and resistance.

-Trade unions kept silent until the last moment. Only after the resignation of the financial minister they declared support (in principle!) to the protestors. CL „Podkrepa” called for a „ general/political strike!”; CITUB asked for a Great National Assembly. Too late and outside the mainstream of  the civil movement’s expectations and demands!

-The mainstream media. It is well known, that in Bulgaria since many years the classic media are controlled by the corporate/oligarchic networks, and in the last four yours- also by the government. A lot of journalists tried to be objective in transmission and comment of the events, but obvious duality in the whole mass media approach  to the 17 February events must be mentioned specially. Here I have to exclude most of the social media, including Facebook, which were the catalyst of the mass rebellion!

Some preliminary conclusions

1. The already started mini-revolution could develop into a real radical change of Bulgarian society and contribute to the European citizen pressure from below to democratise the System. Bulgarians still have chances, but the revolutionary/young citizen groups lack concepts, experienced/visionary  leadership and  reliable partners .

2. Society is split: 90% support the protest movements, but much less believe that they will succeed! Conformism even among intellectuals and working people is still strong!

3. The old political/transitional elite is totally rejected by the population. Trade unions lost ground. New dynamic/progressive civil/political formations are needed. No strong prototypes yet. May be exchange of pan-European citizen initiatives will help! Pan-European meetings of the grassroot movements, study trips and citizen based road shows are of vital importance!

4. Bulgarian young generation is showing strong potential for change. They have been able to attract public sympathies, to respect the police (even to get its hidden solidarity-in Varna). New symbols and mobilizing logos are being born: „ Children of Transition”, „Eagle Bridge”; new heroes (the young man in Varna, who put fire on him-like Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia) , etc.

The February Revolution in Bulgaria will continue! This is my forecast at the present moment…

20-22 February, 2013Athens-Sofia-Varna

Today a Macedonian TV journalist invited me to comment on Skype the “substantial announcement” made by the European Commission today (15 February) regarding the deteriorating political situation in Macedonia.

This is a precise quote of what Peter Stano, spokesperson to Enlargement Commissioner Štefan Füle said:

“In the context of the High Level Accession Dialogue (HLAD) with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, I had originally intended to visit Skopje next week to assess progress in EU-related reforms.

This fourth round of the HLAD would also have formed part of the preparation of the European Commission’s upcoming Report, requested by the December 2012 General Affairs Council.

However, in light of the current political impasse, I do not consider that my visit to discuss these issues would be appropriate at this particular time.

Both in public statements and through visits by senior officials and my own – offering to facilitate the process of finding a solution – the European Union and its partners have expressed their concerns regarding the events of 24 December and their handling.

I am frustrated by the lack of progress in putting an end to the political stalemate. The previous rounds of the HLAD and the December Council conclusions created an opportunity to make further progress on EU-related reforms and for opening the accession negotiations. The current situation is putting at risk this opportunity.

It is now imperative for political leaders in Skopje to take responsibility and find a solution, demonstrating the maturity of the democratic institutions and putting the best interests of the country and its citizens first.”

Watch it here:
 http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/player/st…

Just a little bit of a reminder about the context:

>> Read: Macedonian opposition: EU ignores democratic backslide

Well, it appears that the EU is not ignoring the nasty political context in Macedonia. According to my sources, Füle has NEVER canceled a visit to a country under his portfolio, and I hear that he is quite annoyed from his contacts with official Skopje. The EU-Macedonia relations have never been worse. It’s a crisis impossible to be ignored.

This is what I wanted to tell the Macedonian TV. Actually I said it, twice, but I was told the sound was too bad.

So I will not appear on Macedonian TV. But for those interested, the message is clear.