/ world today news/ Hardly anyone doubts that everything that has happened so far with Irina Bokova’s candidacy for UN Secretary General and the government’s decision to replace her with Kristalina Georgieva is a consequence of the strong struggle for power, influence and positions not only in the UN, but also in the EU and pressure on the Bulgarian Prime Minister both from outside and from internal political circles. However, the questions are about cost, dignity, professionalism and morality in this complex tangle and the consequences of it all.
First, regarding the price there are two clear and two unclear answers. It is clear that Bulgaria missed its unique chance to have a UN Secretary General and one will not appear in the coming decades. It is clear that the Bulgarian government also failed its rightful opportunity for the group of countries from Eastern Europe to reach the highest post with its own candidate. The unclear questions are: whether, as a game obviously in the interest of a candidate of another country, the Bulgarian prime minister asked for something in return. Judging by the mentality and behavior of our statesmen, he probably did it without asking for anything or, at best, played the ball on the principle of “a horse for a hen”. Isn’t that how we refused “South Stream” so that weeks later Germany could launch “Nord Stream-2”? The second question is, didn’t we pay too much by losing at the same time the post of Secretary General and that of European Commissioner for Financial Affairs, which is extremely important and with much more direct benefits for Bulgaria?
Second, regarding the dignitythere is no doubt that we have hit rock bottom, and in international relations this reverberates for years to come. There is no country that has betrayed its own candidate and worked behind the scenes against him. From here on, every diplomat will know that they can negotiate with Bulgaria, they can buy it, they can use it for their own interests. What we will increasingly feel is missing will be respect for us on the international stage. Didn’t we carry the messages of Erdoğan, who is blackmailing us, to Brussels, and didn’t we get isolation and Merkel’s call to comply with “Dublin-3” and Orbán’s to turn us into a buffer for refugees? And today’s case also raises other questions: Are we going to wait from the outside for them to tell us who to elect as president? Will we agree to become a refugee camp to please those who caused the refugee crisis but want to live in peace? Will we live up to the name given to us by Mrs. Newland of a “frontline state” by allowing ourselves to be turned into the focus of a military conflict?
Third, regarding professionalismthe Bulgarian diplomats and every moderately intelligent Bulgarian citizen can only imagine with what mockery, ridicule and irony the foreign diplomats in the country observe and comment on the arguments of the Bulgarian government. Because everyone knows that the real election hasn’t started yet, and only from October 5 will voting be done with colored ballots, which will show the support of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, whose votes are decisive. And all previous advance voting was aimed at weeding out only the unsuccessful candidates and for them to opt out themselves. The politicization and ideologization of the UN Secretary General selection process by Bulgarian politicians shows a lack of elementary knowledge of international organization and diplomacy, a lack of political culture, and betrays their primitive idea of it as the election of a mayor in some provincial village. And if a prime minister can be “misled” by the fact that the EPP insisted on having its own candidate, when it should be clear even to a journalist-intern that the candidates for general secretary are nominated by states and not by parties, then, how does this prime minister lead a government and a country? The remark from the Reformation Bloc that there should have been a “right-wing” person in this position sends them to the darkest corner of our society. Not only in international organizations, but also in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defense, there is a mandatory depoliticization. And serious politics cannot be done with ideologization. The inability of rulers and politicians to appreciate Bokova’s professionalism betrays their own lack of professionalism, disregard for the requirements of the UN to allow themselves to recall a candidate with established authority and a world-class diplomat and replace him with a financier who offered us to solve our demographic problem with refugees from Muslim countries.
Fourth, regarding moralitythe differences between those who wrote vile letters to the UNSC, highlighting inadequate and already buried by the world arguments from a bygone era and the vast part of Bulgarian society, as shown by the latest sociological research, which support the established professional on the international stage, were clearly outlined . The question is, these little souls who poured scum against Bokova, would they have refused to operate on their sick child if she was such a world-renowned surgeon? Let the psychologists explain what these people must have in their hearts and heads, who cannot rejoice at the success of a Bulgarian woman, and this success explodes hatred and meanness in them? The other side is the immorality of the government’s decision. It suggests the well-known truth in our society that even if you are a professional, you have no chance of appearing if you do not enter the combination and games of political forces. If Kristalina Georgieva had at least some morals in her, she would not have organized a slander campaign against another Bulgarian woman, she would not have threatened the prime minister, she would not have remained silent when they asked for an answer about her intentions.
As for the proposals of some for resignations of ministers and no confidence in the government, this can hardly help. So when the president and the defense secretary made blunder after blunder, did something happen? What is the difference between the two foreign ministers Mladenov and Mitov? One brought us terrorists to a meeting in Pravets, the other convinced us that Bulgaria might not have its own foreign policy. The problem is much deeper, it is systemic, we have a crisis of statehood, and this is precisely what is worth thinking about and decisively acting on, if our «chip» is not really «wrong». Otherwise, we will continue to fly the sled down the slide they let us down.
#chip #faulty
