|
The
recovery of the Bulgarian state system in the XIX century
is the culmination in the restructuring of the Balkan’s
geopolitical map. It was due to the sacrifice of the Bulgarian
rebels in 1876 and bloodshed and heroism of the Russian,
Ukrainian, Belorussian, Romanian and Finnish soldiers in
1877-1878. Despite the unjust decisions in Berlin 1878,
in the next decades, the activity of Bulgaria turns it into
one of the main factors of the complex and dynamically changing
configuration in the European South-East. World cataclysms
in XX century, as well as the cardinal changes in the beginning
of XXI century reflect on the Bulgarian state. Russia takes
up a significant part in the Bulgarian history, politics
and diplomacy. Its role in the Balkan, respectively Bulgarian
processes are often disputed, politicized and often denied.
The
evaluation parameter of the bilateral relations cannot be
taken out of the framework of the historically-philosophical
reflection of the past, which predetermines the results
of almost every analysis if the last decade of XX century.
The absence of a political censorship, as well as the emotional
bias of a large number of authors, outline the subjective
parameters of the researches.
This
anniversary of the establishment of the Bulgarian-Russian
diplomatic relations is a good occasion to actualize issues
from the past and to outline the perspectives before two
of the most active participants in the regional and global
events, which have common past, but are still in the process
of forming their future.
During
the last decade discussions about Bulgarian-Russian relations
in the context of world processes are most often concentrated
in two questions, which are part of the political-diplomatic
problems. The first one is related to the term “occupation”,
used to describe different periods of the Bulgarian-Russian
history. The second one, considerably more important and
comprehensive is oriented towards relations of the type
– small country – big country. The study of these two problems
through the prism of the bilateral contacts and their results
determines their specifics and increases the objectivity
of the analysis.
* * *
The
term “occupation” is a significant part of the characterization
of the Temporary Russian rule in 1878-1879 in Principality
Bulgaria, as well as of the period October 1944 – February
1947. And the problem is not in the term, it is in its meaning.
This word is charged quite negatively, which affects the
estimation of the processes studied. The occupation period
is inseparable part of the after-war regulation of the international
relations in the respective region. The meaning of the term
“occupation” is universal and unchanging – “holding a territory
and controlling it”. But do we have to use it synonymously
as a definition for the last quarter of XIX century, or
the middle of the XX century? Aren’t there any components,
which can differentiate the processes and in the same time
reveal the difference in meaning, oriented not towards changing
the term, but towards its adequate use?
What
is common for the two periods is the fact that each one
of the occupations is arranged beforehand with the rest
of the Great Powers after successful for the Russian state
war actions. The Temporary Russian Rule is part of the preliminary
contract from San Stefano in 1878, which with a change in
the time (from two years it is changed to nine months) is
confirmed by the European “concert” states in June same
year in Berlin, The Soviet occupation is a result of the
arrangement between the three big countries (USSR, The United
Kingdom, The USA) in the period of the Second World War,
whose concrete expression is the Peace Agreement with Bulgaria,
signed on October, 28 1944. The control over the processes
in the Bulgarian state is exercised by the Union control
Committee, which has representatives of London and Washington.
And if the occupation framework of the Bulgarian territories
matches the juridical criteria of the international public
law, the differences in the historical periods mentioned
are bound by the specifics of the era and the participants.
The results of the Russian and Soviet occupation are significant
for Bulgaria, and this determines the place of the state
in the European South-East in XIX and XX centuries.
For
Bulgaria the period of Temporary Russian Rule sets the foundations
of the Bulgarian state system. The establishment of the
local and central authority institutions, as well as the
passing of the Turnovska constitution, outline the state-law
parameters of the de jure tributary, but de facto souvereign
Bulgarian Principality. This process of evolution starts
from the Russian occupation period, in which the restrictive
clauses of the Berlin’s decisions are gradually violated.
A proof for this is the progressive for its time Bulgarian
constitution, in which one can clearly see the striving
for independence from the suzerain – the Ottoman Empire.
This document, as well as the number of self-dependent actions
of the prince and the Bulgarian governments in the next
decades in economic, political and military aspect, underlines
the formal character of the dependence on the ottoman sultan.
The establishment of diplomatic relations with the Great
Powers and neighboring countries begins on July 7 1879 when
the Russian Diplomacy Agent A.P.Davidov gave the letters
credential to the Bulgarian prince Alexander Batenberg.
This is the beginning of the active participation of Bulgarian
politicians and diplomats in the multi-layer relations in
the European South-East, which develop in the context of
the established in Berlin Balkan status quo. The sequence
of political actions, diplomatic steps and military operations
in the last quarter of XIX – beginning of XX century form
the Principality as one of the main factors in the Eastern
problem. In the period until the Balkan wars 1912-1913 Bulgaria
turns into a modern and prospering state with a big territory
(After the Union of East Rumelia with Bulgarian Principality),
with a rapidly developing infrastructure, with a big and
well-trained and well-armed army.
Naturally,
the negatives of the Russian imperial self-confidence and
the disregarding of the Bulgarian striving towards self-confirmation
as a self-dependent political entity inevitably accompany
the constructive process in the Principality. Namely during
the decade after the Liberation of Bulgaria this emotional
reflection of the Russian anticipation for endless gratitude
and voluntary humble dependence and the Bulgarian inertia
for unselfish help in the bilateral relations have been
built.
Unlike
the positive for Bulgaria results of the Temporary Russian
Rule, the Soviet occupation from the middle of XX century
is part of another tactical and strategic plan. The Second
World War goes under the flag of world fight with Hitler-fascism,
but also determines the main powers and landmarks in the
post-war opposition. In the relations between the three
Big (The USSR, The United Kingdom, The USA), the suggested
variants, differences in the discussions, as well as decisions
taken are predominantly in accordance with the military-strategic
plans, which aim at the Third Reich. The victorious movement
of the Soviet army to the West predetermined the geopolitical
restructuring of the European map. After the crash of the
fascist Germany, the conference in Potsdam in the summer
of 1945 turns out to be the logical peak of Moscow’s efforts.
Its concrete expression is that Central and South-East Europe
are under Soviet military-political and ideological control.
Part
of the eastern block is Bulgaria, where until the signing
of the Paris contracts from February 1947, a dramatic change
of the system is being set up. For nearly two and a half
years there is a radical transformation of the society,
in which the destructive component prevails.The physical
liquidation of people from the political and financial elite
of czar’s Bulgaria an of the opposition, the gradual elimination
of the professionals in all fields, as well as the imposing
of the Soviet politically-economic and ideological model,
turn Bulgaria into one of the devoted satellites of the
Soviet Union. The period after October 1944 imposes the
force method of convincing and confirming the Soviet paradigm,
which becomes one of the two sides of the bipolar model
of the Cold War. As in Bulgaria, in the rest of the countries
of the socialist block, Moscow imposes state-party principle
of the unification and obedience.
The
Soviet occupation sends Bulgarian society a few decades
back. The difference with the Russian occupation after June
1878 is huge. The last quarter of XIX century regardless
of the undisputed role of Russia in the military crashing
of the Ottoman Empire, its place and role in the Balkan
processes, respectively Bulgarian processes, is constantly
being restricted and disputed. The reason is the big number
of political players in the Eastern problem and their opposed
interests and different influence abilities. This allows
the Bulgarian society to develop and modernize in a competitive
atmosphere. However, after the Second World War, all comes
down to closing the system, which limits the possibilities
and minimizes the variants for development and prosperity.
* * *
During
the 125-years-old existence of the contemporary Bulgarian
state, relations with Russia cannot be put into the framework
of the traditionally oriented towards unilateral dependence
relations of the type “small state – big state”. In the
context of the politically diplomatic practice of the bilateral
contacts there are numerous proofs for breaking the imposed
stereotypes.
An
evidence for such an approach is the Union of East Rumelia
with Bulgarian Principality in 1885, which is a self-dependent
action of the Bulgarian society. Heroically defended in
the Serbian-Bulgarian war in November the same year, this
event turns into a triumph not only for the Bulgarian army,
but also for the Bulgarian prince Alexander Batenberg. The
hostility of the Russian Emperor Alexander III towards him,
inspired by the Russian diplomats in the Principality, lead
to crucial decisions, which radically change the situation
in Bulgaria and on the Balkans for decades to come. The
refusal of the Russian Emperor to confirm the restitution
of the prince on the Bulgarian throne after an unsuccessful
coup in the Principality leads to his abdication and to
the beginning of yet another eastern crisis, known as “The
Bulgarian” crisis. Its results are not only the election
of prince Ferdinand Coburg Gota as the prince of Bulgaria,
but also a ten-year long termination of the Bulgarian-Russian
diplomatic relations.
The
rule of St. Stambolov and K. Stoilov in the end of XIX century
are the most successful for the economic prosperity and
foreign policy actions of the Bulgarian Principality. During
this period not only the Bulgarian economy is modernized,
but with a successful maneuvering between the great powers
and the Balkan neighbors, significant successes are achieved
in defense of the national Bulgarian interests in the Balkan
provinces of the Ottoman empire. In addition other processes,
which reveal specific moments in the Russian-Bulgarian relations,
are observed.
A
well-known fact is that the Russian Empire in the end of
XIX and beginning of XX century does not have stable economic
positions and interests in the European South-East, respectively
in Bulgaria. It is not competitive with the West European
states, amongst which Germany and Austro-Hungary stand out
in terms of pace of development and activity. The increasing
financial dependence on Berlin and Vienna however, does
not predetermine the political obedience and consideration
of Sofia with their preferences in internal political aspects.
Examples for violation of the universal principle, that
economy predetermines politics, are the events, related
to the resignation of the government of K. Stoilov (January
1899). The election of the D Grekov cabinet, as well as
those of the following cabinets of T. Ivanchov are accompanied
by active consultations for political castling and party
variants. They, however, are not done with the diplomatic
representatives of Germany and Austro-Hungary, but are very
actively carried out with the Russian diplomatic agent Gr.
Bahmetiev.
This
surprising and out of the diplomatic standards fact cannot
be explained with the personality of the Russian imperial
representative. On the contrary, Bahmetiev as an easily
swayed and manipulated figure is a convenient for the Bulgarian
politicians mediator for implementing in Peterburg beneficial
to the Principality information and opinions. However, it
is more probable that the quicken interest of Sofia in the
Russian opinion is related to an important for the Bulgarian
foreign policy plans fact. The organized by the initiative
of the Russian international peace conference (18 May –
29 June) is a good opportunity for the establishment of
Bulgaria as a full-right member of the European community.
Regardless of the strict and limiting instructions of the
Russian foreign minister M.N.Muraviov, thanks to the consistent
efforts of the Bulgarian premier D. Grekov before Muraviov
and of the ambassador in Tsarigrad Iv. Zinoviev before the
Turkish sultan, the Bulgarian delegation takes part in the
Hague conference. Moreover, it signs the documents passed
at the international forum together with the independent
states. This inconsistency of the Russian position towards
Bulgaria, which is a complex combination of defense, but
also of distancing, sometimes even a refusal of Sofia and
preferences most often to Beograd, is in a direct connection
with the ad hoc, but mostly the strategic interests of the
Russian Empire, and later, of the Soviet Union.
The
fight between Bulgarians and Serbs for the sultan’s document
(berat) for the Scopie eparchy, which lasts five years (1897
– 1902) ends with the election of metropolitan Firmilian,
which is a success for Beograd. The strong and unambiguous
support, which the Russian ambassador in Tzarigrad Iv. Zinoviev
gives, sets the beginning of the Serbian church, followed
by the political-military, offensive of Serbia, which creates
favorable conditions for the future restructuring of the
Balkan borders.
Russian
playing the Serbian card in the race for influence in the
European South-East does not stop Peterburg several years
later to participate actively in another configuration,
in which the stake is the Bulgarian sovereignty. The crisis
in Bosna in 1908 is the last eastern crisis before the Balkan
wars 1912-1913, which for yet another time changes the imposed
in Berlin in 1878 Balkan status quo. The announcement of
the Bulgarian independence, followed by the annexation of
Bosna and Hertzegovina by Austro-Hungary in September 1908
causes numerous diplomatic shuttles and political deals.
There is a danger of a Bulgarian-Turkish conflict, which
is prevented by Petersburg. The Russian suggestion for regulation
of the problem through financial castling with the Turkish
debt to Petersburg decides in favor of the Bulgarian sovereignty.
In
each of the instances given the unusual or positive reactions
or decisions are within the framework of an ad hoc interest
or traditional politics. Important also is the fact that
during the period between the Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878
and the First World War, the processes in the European South-East
accelerate, and the participation of the Balkan states in
them is very active and unpredictable as a whole. This forms
an unusual situation, in which the great powers in most
cases follow the events, instead of forming and controlling
their development.
This
does not change the main imperative in the Bulgarian-Russian
relations, which outlines their political-diplomatic parameters
through the next decades. The common Slavic “paradigms”
– language, religion, spirituality, are a significant part
of the political plans, actions and decisions. Permanently
used by the political elite of both countries idea for belonging
to the Slavic world, as well as the periodically actualized
topic of the orthodox community, create favorable conditions
for expanding and deepening the Bulgarian-Russian relations,
but also going out of the framework of the standard decisions.
A typical example is the fact that in both World wars Bulgaria
is ana enemy of Russia, but no one soldier fights at the
East front. A lot is written on this issue, but an adequate
answer to this phenomenon is hard to find. Shall we seek
the reasons in the Slavic spirituality, Bulgarian appreciation,
political sense?
Until
the 90s of XX century, regardless of the social-political
cataclysms and transformations in the Bulgarian and Russian
societies during the whole century, the inertia of the imperial
behavior, in which Bulgaria is stably an obedient and helpful
player in South-East Europe, as well as this of Bulgarian
politicians, seeking interest, protection and support in
the superpower, is traditional and consistent. The end of
the Cold war tests the methods and means used more than
principles of political behavior. In the last decade of
XX the model “big brother and younger brother” and “brothers
Slavs”, on which the Russian-Bulgarian relations had been
built, crashes. This period is marked with active nihilism
in Bulgaria and unpleasant surprise and disappointment in
the Russian Federation. The mutual refusal for more active
political contacts and concrete economic agreements (apart
from the bilateral contract signed in 1992) leads to very
bad results for the Bulgarian economy. Gradually relations
Sofia-Moscow are like in the remote time in the end of XIX
when the economic disinterest of Russia puts it at the end
of Bulgarian’s list of economic partners. The difference,
however, is in the fact that in the last near half of a
century, the Bulgarian economy has been modeled by the Russian
economy, which has made it dependent on the Federation for
materials and spare parts. We should also consider the fact
that the economic vacuum in Russia and post-soviet space
is rapidly filled by transnational companies and firms from
all over the world.
After
going through the catharsis of the broken illusions and
harsh realities in the beginning of XXI Russian-Bulgarian
relations have the opportunity to develop on a new basis.
September 11 2001 created the new vision for the world,
set new tasks and restructured the global space according
to the new enemy of humankind – terrorism. The common enemy
unites, but also creates an opportunity to outline new alternatives
in bilateral aspect. Real conditions for breaking the dichotomous
dependence “small country-big country” are being created.
The new-old players in international relations (The European
Union and NATO) outline the new accents in the global space
and respectively the new foreign policy priorities of Bulgaria
and of the Russian Federation.
Pre-union
obstacles, which Sofia consistently overcomes in the last
years, establish it as a devoted ally to NATO and the USA
in peace missions in different places of the world. The
recognition of Bulgaria as a full-right member of the North-Atlantic
pact on 2 April 2004, as well as the last stage before its
membership in the European Union, turns Bulgaria into an
active component of the world’s changes. Besides, the new
positions of Sofia enable it to develop its relations with
Moscow on a fundamentally different basis. Optimism in this
direction can be looked for in the change of the foreign
policy priorities of the Federation. After Vladimir Putin
came into power, Moscow has changed its vision and accents
as a whole. Russia has started an active cooperation with
the European Union and NATO. Moreover, it has turned into
their strategic partner, which makes possible to look for
common interests with Bulgaria.
The
Euro-Atlantic priorities of Sofia and the bound for Euro-Atlantic
cooperation Moscow are the foundation, on which their future
relation can be based. Evidences for the mutual quicken
interest in the last years are the numerous delegations
of various rank and character, which discuss and sign documents
of mutual interest. During this period is noticed the component,
which is non-existent in Bulgarian-Russian relations in
the past – striving for equal in rights dialogue, in which
prevails the pragmatic interest, rather than the historical-emotional
reflection. The variant of a bilateral, oriented towards
mutual interest cooperation has no alternative. This is
the only way not only to prove the necessity, but to create
conditions for adequate decisions in the globalizing world,
in which each country of the post-soviet system has to find
its worthy place.
* * *
For
125 years diplomatic relations Bulgaria and Russia go through
the complex cataclysms of the political and military opposition,
through imposed ideological unity and the community of the
Slavic “paradigms”. Political models and diplomatic actions
outline the multi-layered, full more with surprises rather
than predictability relations between the two countries.
Geographical parameters has predetermined the common past,
which with the distance of time shapes into a well-closed
cupboard, from which only from time to time certain fact
or phenomenon is taken out just to prove or deny given political
thesis. The unstable present needs no past problems, but
adequate decisions for forming future cataclysms. In an
era when the national problems are narrowly interweaved
with the global processes, the alternative before the political
elite of Bulgaria and Russia is just one – pragmatism in
the regional parameters of the global problems.
References
Àôàíàñüåâ,
Þ. Îïàñíàÿ Ðîññèÿ. Ìîñêâà, 2001
Äþëãåðîâà,
Í. Áúëãàðî-ðóñêèòå îòíîøåíèÿ â êîíòåêñòà íà ñâåòîâíèòå è
ðåãèîíàëíè êîíôëèêòè – Â Ìåæäóíàðîäíè îòíîøåíèÿ, 1998, 5,
ñ.77-85.
Äþëãåðîâà,
Í. Åâðîïåéñêîòî íàïðàâëåíèå âúâ âúíøíîïîëèòè÷åñêàòà äîêòðèíà
íà Ðóñèÿ ñëåä Ñòóäåíàòà âîéíà. - Â: ÕÕI âåê - íàñëåäñòâî
è ïåðñïåêòèâè, Âàðíà, 2002, ñ. 245-254
Äþëãåðîâà,
Í. Ðóñèÿ â ãëîáàëèçèðàùèÿ ñå ñâÿò - Â: Íàó÷åí àëáàíàõ. Ãëîáàëèçàöèÿòà
è íîâàòà ðîëÿ íà äúðæàâàòà. Âàðíà, 2002, êí. 4, ñ.67-72
Äþëãåðîâà,
Í. Ðóñêè ùòðèõè êúì èçòî÷íèÿ âúïðîñ 1894-1904. (Àìáèöèè
è ïëàíîâå íà èìïåðñêàòà äèïëîìàöèÿ). Ñîôèÿ, 1997, ²² èçä.
1999
Ôüîäîðîâ,
Â. Öóëàäçå, À. Ýïîõà Ïóòèíà, Ìîñêâà, 2003
Óòêèí,
À. Ìåðîâîé ïîðÿäîê ÕÕÑ âåêà Ìîñêâà, 2002
Dawisha
K., Parrott B. Russia and the New States of Eurasia, Cambridge,
1994
Dyulgerova,
N. Bachmetieff dans la vie politique de la Bulgarie (1897-1905)
- Bulgarian Historical Review, 1992, 3, p. 31-48
Dyulgerova,
N. The Russian Doctrine for the Eastern Question - www.vfu.bg
Goodby,
J.E. Europe Undivided: The New Logic of Peace in U.S. –
Russian Relations., Washington, 1998
Hoesch,
E. Geschichte der Balkanlaender. Von der Fruehzeit bis zu
Gegenwart. Muenchen, 1977.
Le
Donne, J. The Geopolitical Context of Russian Foreign Policy:
1700-1917. – Acta Slavica Japonica. Journal of Slavic Research
Center Hokkaido Univercity, 1994, No 6, p. 1-17.
Lederer,
I. J. Russia and the Balkans.-Russian Foreign Policy. Edites
by I.ederer. New Haven and London, 1968
Rutland,
P. Putin’s levitanion act. – In: Russia and Eurasia Review
Volume 1, Issue 1, June 4, 2002
Seton-Watson,
H. The Russian Empire 1801-1917.Oxford, 1967
|
