A very warm welcome to my blog! I am Alexander Ivanchev, 28, from Bulgaria. This is the space where I write about where my energy is, share ideas & views. I hope you enjoy your time here!
Have
you ever had the feeling of: “Ah, what shall I do now with my life?
What is the next ‘best’ choice”?
Having
recently graduated, I face that exact same question that undoubtedly
so many others do. Leaving the comfortable and protected space under
the ‘wing’ of Alma Mater, we have to make choices. “The world
is mine”, as the famous song (OK, not so famous perhaps) goes – I
could virtually chose any place on the map and build a life there. So
many possible paths and options.
So,
what’s next?
The
trouble of choice
The
generation of our parents and grandparents often faced a life with
little to no choice – you had to work on the field if you wanted
food, you would live in the same village or town, or at least in one
country only, and most people worked in one place for 20-30-40 years,
one job, one town, one factory.
Our
generation is confronted with the other extreme: vast,
incomprehensible availability of choice. Wanna live in (whatever
country)? There’s the airport. Wanna study (name it) subject?
Here’s a long list of universities in various countries. Wanna work
in (name a country)? Just go and do it. The combination of choice(s)
is uncountable, and facing it can be overwhelming. To make matters
worse, some of us, like myself, tend to endlessly doubt and re-think
the choices made. Yes, silly and unproductive, but it is linked to
the trouble of choice, and is not easy to overcome. Or am I the only
one troubled here? I doubt.
‘There
must be something better!’
A
trap I face personally is the constant seeking of ‘better options’.
That is, you (think you) chose one place, but it is not rare to hear
a voice in your head: “Arghh.. that [other] place… I could
have been there now! The weather/people/food/education/job/standard
of living is better there!” And you almost regret the choice you
made, not living fully in the here and now, and definitely not living
in that other, ‘better’ place, leaving oneself in a sort of a
‘nowhere’. But is there a cure to it? I’d be glad to hear
opinions and input.
The
deeper question: What do I really want?
Today,
after work, I sat down and wrote for about an hour. Just threw my
thoughts on a sheet of paper, and, reflecting upon the
above-described themes, I reached the conclusion that these are
intrinsically linked to answering the question for oneself: “What
do I really want?” Not my parents, my friends, or
anyone else. To discover this lifelong question (it definitely has no
static answer), we need to get closer to ourselves, and try to feel
the pulse of our own destiny and heart. For, if we do not, this quote
of Seneca is very applicable:
For
a ship that knows not its port of destination, no wind is good wind.
How
to find one’s ‘port of destination’?
By
doing, and not over-thinking (a notorious trap). Just get your hands
on something and try. Even if the port is not perfectly visible, you
are still moving. For if the ship stands still at quay, it definitely
will reach no port.
Before
the year really starts rolling in, I decided to write some goals to
achieve. The beginning of a new year, though now slightly behind, is
a great ‘excuse’ to sit down and reflect upon.. upon so many aspects
of your life, such as where you are, where you are going, with whom,
what is dear to you, what would you like to achieve, etc. Here are
the most prominent of goals I have for this new 2016.
Do
one thing at at time: just how tough is this for me, but
surely for others too. So easy to be busy in the head with 5+ items
simultaneously, jump from one task to the other.. This is a noble,
but almost impossible to achieve goal: do one thing, sit still,
finish it, and do the next task. But I’m keen on trying my best!
Live
here and now:
largely related to the above, because when the head is full of
thoughts for what’s next, it rarely is actually here. Another noble
goal.
Eat
as healthy as possible: Takes
some effort, but a very rewarding one, plus cooking is sort of
meditative. The
one goal I am definitely likely to achieve this year.
Rest,
relax, meditate. All
that is necessary to curb the already endless flow of energy I seem
to have, which
often results in restlessness.
Sport:
Essential
part in keeping the body and soul more rested and peaceful. With the
notable advantage of being fun,
leaving you fit
and healthy.
Read
more. Not
online articles, but books. As my father says: “the computer /
Internet is an endless ocean, but a little bit shallow. The deepest
sea is
the books”. The man has read thousands of books. Well, I’ll start
modest and realistic: 5 pages a day. But, surely, if the book is
involving, that’d mean more pages.
Speak
less (and slow), listen more. It
is so so easy to carry on blabla-ing. I am an expert myself. I’d
much rather I could use the ears-to-mouth proportion also in terms
of output: we have two ears and one mouth for a reason.
Write
neatly: I
catch myself writing utterly scruffy and often unreadable. A friend
once even asked me, upon seeing my writing: “Alex, did you forget
how to write?”. Sometimes it does really look like I did. Well,
it’s worth putting an effort in it.
Putting that just small extra effort into writing, really, how much
more time would it take?
Those are already quite enough, and if
I achieved even a small part of them, I’d be happy.
What are your goals, have you thought
about this yourself?
Thanks
for your time and I hope you enjoyed reading it.
For
some time I have been thinking about re-writing stuff in my blog. Not
too political, or academically loaded, as the previous few posts of
mine, but to start writing about personal experiences and thoughts.
Why
now?
Well,
firstly, I have the illuminating and inspiring example of one human I
am blessed to know, Smilyan Pavlov (link), who is writing openly,
honestly, but importantly – on a regular basis. Secondly, there are
quite a few events in my life for them to be just ‘passing by’
without a proper attention. Why not on a blog, so that I can see what
my surroindings think like?
Why
did I not write for more than a year?
There
is always the excuse of “I had no time”. But it’s too cheap
(right, Smilyan? ^^), and far too easy. The truth is, retrospectively
looking, that I have been 'scared’.
Scared
of my own 'voice’, to be 'wrong’, and/or 'attacked’, or confronted
A
recurring fear of mine. Always scared to underperform, to not be
'perfect’. If you look at my other three posts, they are not perfect,
of course, but perfection is sought – I have double, and
triple-checked all data I put, with constant citing of respectable
sources – like I do not dare to write stuff on my own. All my other
posts are easily defendable, and, as profound and well-researched
they appeared to be at the time, they offer little to no personal
appraisal or points raised. Well, how boring is it if all we do as
people is to re-cite what others have already written (or re-quoted
themselves?^^). I am inspired to write some of my own thoughts, at
the risk of making new “enemies”, or some who 'dislike me’. If
they do, who says their views are the 'right’ ones anyway?
What
I wanted to share now:
Very
recently I packed all my stuff, jumped onto a trian, and off I went
from Trento, Italy, to The Netherlands – a new (old) destination,
for a new adventure. On one hand, I was struck by how 'trivial’ this
seemed to my brain – Alexander, you have done this plenty of times.
What’s the big deal?
But
it’s quite a deal. What a weird 'trivialty’ that our generation has
lived to know, don’t you think? Only a generation or two earlier,
this was something unpracticable at best, and unthinkable at worst.
How has this become such an often occasion, that one leaves the roots
and his surroundings, to change environments completely? Like a
snail: with my 'house’ everywhere. That’s how I felt boarding that
train with literally all my belongings, all what is dear to me
(notably, the two bicycles I love the most :)).
Is
this normal?
I
don’t know, and I am not looking to give a sweepingly generalising
answer. I know it is a fact in my life, (surely in many others’) and
will keep observing its effects on me.
What
are your thoughts? Feel free to share them, or not, of course.
For
almost twelve years, Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party
(AKP) have dominated Turkish politics, winning all elections since,
the most recent one in March 2014. This essay will endeavour to
provide an insight into how and why is it that the AKP and Erdoğan,
all the criticism and scandals notwithstanding, remain the political
power number one in Turkey.
1.
The context of Erdoğan’s rise to power
The
party won the elections in 2002 in the background of, as described by
Istanbul lawyer Selim Yavuz1,
“a society that was sick of political and economic chaos, of
unstable coalition governments, inflation, high unemployment,
constant political and economic instability and no good prospects for
the future”.2
Therefore, when in 2002 the AKP won a landslide victory against its
opponents and formed a one-party cabinet for the first time since
1987, the Turkish society was “excited”, Yavuz continues, with
people’s main expectations on Erdoğan “to stabilise Turkey’s
economy and politics”. Further, in a country that for decades had
to strictly set religion aside in the Ataturk’s Republic, Erdoğan’s
openly Islamic rhetoric reassured the hopes of many in Turkey (a
country with a 99% Muslim population3).
And one may well argue that the AKP hardly failed living up to many
of these hopes, as will be analysed.
2.
Turkey’s political, strategic and economic growth under Erdoğan
Even
Erdoğan’s most fierce opponents would find it difficult to deny that
Turkey’s economic, political and strategic importance has been
steadily growing since the AKP took power.
2.1.
The economy under AKP rule
The
economic policies adopted by the AKP raised the GNP4
from $300 billion in 2002 to $750 billion in 2008, and the average
annual per capita income from $3,300 to over $10,000 in the same
period. The real GDP5
rose by 64 percent during 2002-2012, and real GDP per capita by 43
percent.6
This is not a bad record of growth, and the
AKP government, even if indeed, as often alleged, corrupt, it most
certainly has delivered on the economic field with a very visible
rise in the income level and standard of living of the average
Turkish citizen.78
This is a significant factor that must not be overlooked when
analysing Erdoğan’s electoral successes.
2.2
Political stability. The army as a factor in Turkish politics
There
is a one element of Turkish democracy that renders unique – the
military. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk,
the Father of the Turkish republic, was a vehement opponent of the
inclusion of religion in the politics, and to this aim, he envisaged
the military to be the guardian of secularism in Turkey, or the
guardian of the Republic. The army, however is not just a calm,
stand-by guardian; it has been actively involved in the political
life of Turkey, with several military coups staged against
democratically elected civilian governments in the last decades.
Thus, the military is an element that the AKP leader has had to take
very seriously into account.
And
indeed, Erdoğan has found his own way to address the issue of the
military – he has decreased the army’s influence in politics since
he came to power through various means – change of the
constitution, attempts to influence top officers, as well as outright
suppression, arrest and imprisonment.910
The result is that the army is less likely than any time in the last
decades to stage a coup or to actively meddle in Turkey’s political
life. In this way, Erdoğan has assured he has all the space for any
political manoeuvres he may wish, and it is absolutely crucial to
acknowledge this as an integral element of Erdoğan’s relatively long
rule.
2.3
Restoring Turkey’s image internationally
It
is not only Erdoğan’s religiously observant image or the economic
successes that appeal to his followers. It is his combative
personality – the fact he does not hesitate to take on the
entrenched Turkish elite as well as global powers – that appeals to
them as well. He personifies the desire of the majority of the
Turkish population to demonstrate that they count both domestically
and internationally; that they are autonomous actors both at home and
abroad.11
Example of this new approach to foreign policy is Turkey’s active
role in the Syrian crisis, its extended involvement in the Balkans,
the Middle East, and, generally, towards all its ex-Ottoman
vilayets12.
Some
have called it “neo-Ottomanism” — an attempt to restore the
former Ottoman Empire and its vanished regional glory. Whatever the
label, Turkey managed to become a key foreign policy player in the
eyes of American and European leaders.13
3.
Authoritarianism, corruption, scandals, human rights violations and
Erdoğan still in power: how is it possible?
Some
Turkish commentators seem puzzled by the fact that “half
of the corruption claims [faced by Erdoğan] in any other democratic
country would be enough for the collapse of the government.”14
In Turkey, this is clearly not the case.
3.1
No real alternative: “Uninspiring opposition”
There
is another aspect of the story – the opposition, as a commentator
put it, is “uninspiring”.15
For example, Ataturk’s Republican People’s Party (CHP, the next
most popular party after AKP), is riven by divisions and is hampered
by the lack of a compelling leader to take on Erdoğan.16
Although, undoubtedly, the party’s leader Kemal
Kılıçdaroğlu did
his best in the circumstances of the March 2014 elections, the CHP’s
competition with the AKP is an unbalanced one on most fronts – poor
media coverage and low support in the Kurdish regions, to name a few.
The Nationalist Party of Turkey is also hardly a match to the support
that the AKP receives.17
Therefore, even though Erdoğan’s rule is far from perfect, to say
the least, it quickly becomes apparent that there is virtually no
viable alternative.
3.2
Media coverage and freedom of press (or lack of it thereof)
According
to the Middle-East journal Al-Monitor’s
Turkey’s
Pulse,Turkish
mainstream media
appears to be under
the direct control of AKP elites.18
An example they give is that it has been a long time that Erdoğan
participated in any one-on-one live19
debate with an opposition leader, attributing it to the assumption
that all media outings are well-designed to minimise any ‘mistakes’.
This
leads to the second element, namely, the “information deficiency.”
The majority of the AKP’s
core electoral
base – 80%,
according to the SONAR Research Centre – do not get their news from
the Internet (which is also diligently filtered by the government
anyway, e.g. recent shut-down of Twitter in late March 2014).20
The point to make here is: for the vast majority of AKP voters, there
is a Turkey that might be completely different to what we as
outsiders may perceive it to be, and this is a factor very important
to recognise in understanding Erdoğan’s support in Turkey.
3.3 Repression of any dissent
Repression
of any kind of dissent, be that be journalists, intellectuals,
judges, or military officers, is commonplace in Turkey and has become
integral part of Erdoğan’s rule. Arrest and imprisonment of large
numbers of journalists, NGO activists, or top military officials is
no news in Turkey. In terms of law, this has been made possible
through various controversial changes of legislation that have
widened the scope of some crucial criminal definitions, such as
'enemy of the State’ or 'offence against the State’ etc.21
For example, Turkey has the highest number of journalists behind
bars, and it has recently jailed almost 200 members of the military
for “plotting a coup d'Etat” against Erdoğan’s government.22
Although Erdoğan’s electoral victories cannot be attributed only to
repression, it clearly shows the methods used to crush any dissent
with a view to ensuring a full control over any 'inconvenient’
elements within the country, thus strengthening further AKP’s grip on
power.
4.
Conclusion
For
reasons, some of which discussed above, one may perceive today’s
Turkey as an ever more authoritarian state, with Erdoğan and his AKP
steadily going down the road of dictatorship.23
However, in spite of the AKP’s colourful and controversial
background and its inconsistent human rights record24,
it must be acknowledged that the party has managed to address a
number of major problems. Since the AKP’s assumption of power in
2002, the political scene has been much more stable and any need for
military intervention has been averted, something not to be taken for
granted in the Turkish context.25
The economy is yet another area in which Erdoğan’s government has
performed remarkably.
Therefore,
I would argue that, on the basis of the analysis above, it is most
evident and natural that Erdoğan’s support seems not to dwindle with
the years and scandals. It appears that the Turkey that we as outside
observers see is not quite the same as the Turkey seen through the
eyes of those living there and voting for Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, an
assertion seemingly proven by the recent elections.
1
Important to note is that Yavuz himself could hardly be considered a
supporter of the AKP, as his father, a renowned general within the
Turkish military, is now imprisoned for 14 years, sentenced with
“plotting a coup”.
2
As quoted in De Putter, J., Minidocu: Turkije onder spanning.
Verliest premier Erdoğan de macht? (Mini-documentary: Turkey under
tension. Is Erdoğan losing the power?), April
2014, De Correspondent.
3
According to Government statistics, quoted in Country Profile –
Turkey, January 2006, United States Library of Congress, 2008-1;
6
Rodrik, D. How well did
the Turkish economy do over the last decade?,
Dani Rodrik’s weblog, June 20 2013
7
Ayoob,
M., Erdoğan’s
election victory could be good news for Turkish democracy, The
Guardian
8
De Putter, Jos, In
Turkije zou dit niet uitgezonden worden
(In Turkey, this would not be broadcast), April
2014,
De
Correspondent.
9
Vezenkov,
A., Ислямът
и демокрацията в Турция (Islam and Democracy in
Turkey), 16.03.2013
10
De Putter, J, Minidocu: Turkije onder spanning. Verliest premier
Erdoğan de macht?(Mini-documentary: Turkey under tension. Is Erdoğan
losing the power?), April
2014,De
Correspondent.
11
Ayoob,
M., Erdoğan’s
election victory could be good news for Turkish democracy, The
Guardian, 31.03.2014.
12
The Vilayet was the
administrative unit at the times of the Ottoman empire, equivalent
to Italy’s “regione”.
13
Ishlir,
A., Turkish
foreign policy in the Erdoğan era, Middle
East Monitor, 23.01.2014, accessed on 01.05.2014
14The Naked Truth of Turkish Politics,
Hurriyet
Daily News, 31.03.2014,
15
Vick, K., Can Turkey’s Erdoğan Stay in Power?, The
TIME, 27.02.2014,
21
The
Economist, Enemies
of the state, Mar
17 2012.
22
De Putter, J., Minidocu: Turkije onder spanning. Verliest premier
Erdoğan de macht? (Mini-documentary: Turkey under tension. Is
Erdoğan losing the power?), April
2014.
24
Credible human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch,
have documented grave violations of press freedom, freedom of
expression and the fundamental rights, such as those of the Kurdish
minority, for example.
25
See s2.2 on the importance and relevance of the military in Turkish
political life.
In
the last days of November 2013, in Vilnius, Lithuania, Ukraine was
set to sign a landmark trade agreement with the EU, also known as the
Association Agreement (AA).
However, only a week before the official signing date, Ukraine’s
president Viktor Yanukovich announced that his country is
reconsidering its decision and will not sign the AA. Instead, he
decided to strengthen and deepen relations with Russia and set the AA
aside for the time being.
This essay will endeavour to analyse
the factors and reasons that influenced Yanukovich’s decision. It
would do so by looking at the Ukraine-Russia and Ukraine-EU
relationships, as well as what in my view would likely serve the
Ukrainian interests best.
1.
Internal political, demographic and economic context
1.1.
The political and demographic context of Ukraine
Ukraine
gained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 and has ever
since been in a continuous crossroad between West and East. It has
always been difficult, if not unthinkable, for any President to only
focus on one direction, either west or east, at the expense of the
other. This has been the case mostly for political, demographic and
economic reasons.
Important
to mention in this context is that Ukraine is a multi-ethnic country,
the two most significant groups being Ukrainians and Russians. The
former live predominantly in the West of the country, and the latter
– in the east and south-east, including, notably, the beautiful and
strategic Crimean peninsular. The Ukrainians from the west of the
country are in their larger part EU-orientated, and the
Russian-speaking ones are, naturally, pro-Russian. In this
complicated ethnic and religious mosaic, it is a very sensitive topic
for any leader of Ukraine whether to set on a pro-EU or pro-Russian
path, for this would mean losing a huge part of the votes at home.
And presidential elections are just around the corner, due in 2015.
It
is in this complicated political and demographic context at home that
Yanukovich had to make his choice in late November 2013. On top of
this, he had to take into account the most important and absolutely
rudimentary element, namely, the economy.For
abstract politics and rhetoric is one aspect, but ensuring the
country’s economical and financial survival is a very tangible and
pressing matter for Ukraine. And the current economic
state of Ukraine looks very grim.
1.2.
Economic context
Ukraine’s
GDP has been steadily declining in the last three years
(2011-2012-2013), and so have production output and exports to its
two largest export destinations: Russia and the EU. This has led to a
steep decrease in revenues, which has prompted the state to borrow
profusely. According
to July 2013 Central Bank [of Ukraine] data, the
sovereign debt of Ukraine was at the staggering $136 billion, facing
a debt repayment of more than $60bln in 2015, or a third of the
country’s GDP.
The list with problems goes on and on, however, the main point here
is: The country’s economy is on the edge of catastrophe, on the verge
of bankruptcy and default in fact, and only decisive and clear steps
would ensure that it stays afloat and, hopefully, grows.
2.
The repercussions and prospects of joining the AA
2.1.
No duties for import/export
By adhering to the AA and joining the
EU’s customs union, Ukraine’s borders would be open for a two-way,
customs duty free flow of goods. This is an excellent opportunity for
both sides to increase trade. There is, however, one major issue for
Ukraine before it could fully benefit from one such move:
Standardisation and competitiveness of Ukrainian goods.
To briefly explain what is meant by
standardisation, the EU has a policy of very strict standards for
products produced/imported within the Union. Should a product not fit
within these standards (say, milk or poultry products etc.), they are
not allowed into the EU market, thus rendering Ukrainian producers
completely unable to compete with their EU counterparts, at least for
the time being. The reality on the ground is such that very few
production lines in the country are ready to produce within those
standards and there is a long way before the whole economy modernises
accordingly. In fact, some experts estimate the cost of this
modernisation at more than $100bln, money that Ukraine simply does
not have at its disposal right now or at any point in the near
future.
Therefore, even if Ukraine joined the
AA tomorrow, by no means does it mean that Ukrainian products would
immediately flow all over the EU, thus boosting the local economy and
creating jobs. This, however, does not preclude EU products entering
the rather lucrative Ukrainian market of 46mln people. These products
will likely undermine the local economy severely, potentially causing
loss of business, closure of factories, job loss and many other
unpredictable consequences for a country already so deep in an
economic crisis.
2.2.
Effects on relations with Russia (political and economic)
Russia
is more than simply a trade partner. With the free trade zone between
the two states, Ukraine’s manufactured goods sell well in Russia
because of their competitive prices and superior quality. It has been
affirmed by President Putin that, should Ukraine sign the AA (and
thus reset its trade tariffs with the EU), this would automatically
affect Russia and would lead to the cancellation of the preferential
tariffs with Kiev. If
these links are severed, thousands will be left jobless as factories
and businesses close down.12
In
this context, signing the AA carries some very real and tangible
negative consequences for the Ukrainian economy with regard to its
Russian ties. Even“The
Economist”
agrees that, if Russia sticks to its threats, Ukraine will also need
substantial financial assistance from the EU to see it through the
winter.3
Something that it hardly has to offer at these difficult for the EU
times.
3.
The repercussions and prospects of getting closer to Russia
Russia, on the other hand, has also
been very keen in attracting Ukraine in its sphere of influence. And
this is not surprising – the two countries have long-standing
cultural, geographical, linguistic, historic and economic ties. In
its attempt to hold on to this relationship, Russia has, on its part,
also “reached” to Ukraine. In sharp contrast to the EU’s
fascinating and enchanting words and promises of free market, free
trade, bright future in the happy democratic European family, Russia
had quite some tangible and immediate offers on the table.
Firstly, on 17th Dec 2013 in Moscow,
Russia purchased Ukrainian state bonds of the value of $15bln,
essentially providing a preferential 10-year loan to Ukraine. This
gave Ukraine the so-much-needed fresh finance to keep Ukraine afloat.
Secondly, President Putin and
President Yanukovich agreed on a significant reduction of the gas
price, from $400/1000m³ down to $268.50/1000m³. This was a welcome
ease of tension in the gas deals between the two states,
particularly in light of the more than $2bln that the Ukrainian
state-owned company, Naftogaz,
owes
to Gazprom
for
past purchases of natural gas.
Thirdly, Ukraine and Russia signed
another 14 agreements in the area of trade and economics, such as
agreeing on certain products purchases, easing tariffs for import and
other facilitations of the trade between the two states; All steps
that would aim at boosting the stock and goods exchange between the
two states.
Finally,
and to conclude, suffice it to mention the ample and very tangible
opportunities that Russia offers to Ukraine for its development.
These are not mere words, but immediate assistance and a goodwill to
cooperate, as proven on 17th December 2013. Of
course, it is not as if Russia offers it all simply because of a
goodwill and a warm-heartedness; it most certainly expects that
Ukraine would take a pro-Russian stance, and, particularly, that
Ukraine would stay away from the EU and, notably, NATO.
However, this changes not the fact that Ukraine is given a lot in
times of great difficulty.
CONCLUSION
Should
Ukraine decide to sign the AA, it would open up the door to many
opportunities within the context of the EU. However, these positive
effects could only be cashed-in upon in the unforeseeable future. As
for the very near future, the EU seems to offer nothing
substantive and very little to tackle the urgent economic problems of
Ukraine. In fact, not only does it not suggest solutions, it would
create more problems and has no prospect of how the Ukrainian economy
would deal with them. With many Member States in deep economic
crisis, the EU can offer very little of the much, much needed fresh
help and finances.
Russia,
on its part, has offered Ukraine a most tangible and immediate relief
and support, and this is exactly what Ukraine needs at this very
moment.
I
would therefore wholeheartedly advise President Yanukovich to do
exactly as he did, because this serves the interest of his country
best.
“Military option
is not off the table”, “Military action against Syria”;
“Surgical strikes against the government in Damascus”, “Teach
the thug Dr. Bashar al-Assad a lesson”, “Limited strikes to deter
a monster, the new Hitler, from using chemical weapons again”.
These are just part
of the firm and menacing statements that have been coming out from
Washington and others since the alleged attack with chemical weapons
in al-Ghouta area, east of the Syrian capital Damascus on 21st August
2013. Necessary and urgent, they argue. Others, like Russia, oppose
the move for various reasons, among which the lack of clear evidence,
the unpredictability of such an action and perspectives of drawing
the entire region into an extremely dangerous and unstable situation.
The situation now
appears to have calmed down with the latest Russian initiative to put
the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile under international control.
However, the US was extremely close to launching a unilateral
military action and has now made it very clear that they do not take
the military option off the table.
I argue that such a
move would be an inconceivable catastrophe.
I write the
current article because I sense an alarming reality if the US is to
ever launch unilateral strikes against Syria.
Writing my current
piece, I remain aware that I am no deep expert in the internal issues
of the countries in the region; nor do I claim to have THE answer to
the Syrian crisis. All I share are my views which I have gathered
throughout extensive and continuous research and by closely following
events.
I believe that
Syria matters to all of us right now, regardless of whether you are
Syrian, Jordanian, Israeli, Turkish, American, British or any other
nationality.
Structure
In the first part of my article, I shall outline the (recent)
historical, political and strategic context of the crisis. In the
second part I shall explain the consequences of any foreign
intervention in view of the very same context.
I.
HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT
How did it all
begin?
In March 2011, in the time of the “Arab Spring”, protests broke
out in various Syrian cities.
Why? Well, let us have a quick look at Syria right
before the unrest began in March 2011.
No doubt, Syria could not have qualified in any way as a ‘democracy’
or a 'free’ country in the Western sense. It has virtually been a
one-party (Syrian Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party at the forefront) state
for more than 40 years. There should be no illusion: Syria would most
certainly qualify in the description of a police state. For what I
have researched, one could be in trouble for simply expressing
opinion, or for open affinity to the “wrong” party/ideology, get
fired or even arrested. The security apparatus was ubiquitous.
Administration and bureaucracy is highly over-floated and corruption
was and still is literally everywhere, at all levels.
There was no real elections, or constitution.. The President, Dr.
Bashar al-Assad, was voted on a referendum, being the only candidate
– with 97%. Well, hardly any competition or choice, one might
argue.
And the list goes on… But what I want to underline here is:
Syria pre-2011 was by no means a paradise on earth in terms of
politics, freedoms and rights, to say the least.
The need for reform was clear and, arguably, urgent.
Protests
going violent
It
is said that the first city to revolt was Dara'a, in the south, in
mid-March 2011. Firstly, the protest was mostly peaceful. Varying
reports claim that government forces opened random fire at unarmed
protesters from the very first days1.
The government has denied any such allegations and sustains that no
fire was opened on peaceful protesters but only response to attacks
from armed men. Where the truth lays I cannot say for certain, as I
was not there personally and am bound to be unable to establish this
with a certainty beyond any reasonable doubt. What
is clear, though, is that there was social energy and need for a
change. And it cannot be denied, those were and still are most
legitimate calls.
However, the peaceful and reasonable calls for change could be
said to have been immediately 'backed’ by violence and from the first
days of the uprising, there have been armed men and casualties on
both sides, which suggest a quick spillover from “peaceful protest”
to armed activity on both sides from the very early stages.2
Syria’s
complicated religious and ethnicity jigsaw
Not many countries are as ethnically and religiously diverse as
Syria. It is home to approximately 10% Christians, 10% Kurds, some 10
to 15% Alawites (an offshoot of Shia Islam, the sect of Dr Bashar
al-Assad), and a majority Sunni population. Further, there are also
some sizable Druze, Jewish and Armenian minorities, among others.
In brief: governing and securing the complicated ethnic mosaic of
Syria would not be an easy-peasy job for anyone.
One thing must be admitted about the ruling Arab Socialist Ba'ath
party and President al-Assad: Syria is a secular state where everyone
could freely exercise any religion. Prior to the war, I am being told
by some good Syrian friends of mine, no one would have ever asked
whether you were Sunni, Alawi, Christian, or whatever. One was
Syrian. And there was a reasonable degree of stability, security and
peace for any of the minorities.
Today in Syria there are hundreds, if not thousands, of different
rebel armed factions, many of whom with extremist and Takfiri
ideology. Such are Jabhat al-Nusra,
an offshoot of Al-Quaeda, and the Islamic State for Iraq and the
Levant (ISIS), with some commentators defining them as 'the most
efficient forces fighting against Dr al-Assad’s government’. The
Christians of Syria, for example, mostly support the government and
is perhaps not because they are particular supporters of President
al-Assad or his Party’s policies. It has a lot to do with a fear that
a scenario in which extremists take over or chaos ensues, they will
be in the gravest of dangers. Something not so unthinkable when they
just look across the border and see what happened to the Christians
of Iraq following the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 (an invasion in
violation of international law and without a UN sanction, by the
way).
To summarise: the reality is that if the Syrian government was
to fall or was forced out by bombs, few could guarantee what would
happen to the complicated ethnic jigsaw of the Syrian society.
The
opposition
Like in any country, there is not a unitary, one single opposition
against the current ruling government.
Nowhere could this be more true than Syria. Hundreds of groups fight
on the ground, not to mention the political side (with its innate
disagreements and infightings) – the Syrian National Council (SNC).
The SNC is an organisation based in Turkey and run mostly by Syrian
ex-pats, sponsored and supported by the West and some regional
players.
Either way, it is the case that there is hardly anyone who could
stand up and claim that he or she has a reasonable and sufficient
command and control of the “opposition” armed groups on the
ground. Not to mention the Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS, who take no
orders from anyone and are thought to be the strongest fighting force
among rebel groups. In fact, the al-Nusra front recently executed one
of the top commanders of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighting the
government of the Syrian Arab Republic. Skirmishes between jihadists
and FSA are not rare and the jihadists now openly oppose the more
moderate elements.
This leads to the clear conclusion that, were the government of
Syria to collapse, there is absolutely no guarantee that anyone could
take the matters in control and form a stable government, let alone
ensure the safety of all the sects and ethnic groups.
Demonisation
of a single man
We hear it so so often: “Criminal”, “dictator”, Brutal
dictator, “Assad is a criminal”, “Assad’s army”, “Assad's”
this, Assad’s that… Looking from the outside, one might as well
think that in Syria, everything is about Dr Bashar al-Assad. As in,
he is everywhere and everything, in any second. He is all of it.
Equating an entire country of 23 million people to one man. Syria =
Dr Bashar al-Assad. An occurrence seen over and over again in almost
every conflict, demonising and equalising to one man, e.g. “Saddam
is a terrorist/dictator/tyrant/[etc.]”. And this is not to get the
Syrian government off the hook. No, they certainly have a long list
of crimes to account for.
But Syria is not Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian Army is not “Bashar
al-Assad’s army”. No, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) belongs to the
Syrian people. For anyone interested, it might be curious to know
that the SAA corps are comprised of all the ethnicities, layers and
sects within the Syrian society.
Regional
context
What happens in Syria is not at all about Syria only. The entire
region is on the verge of a very big fire that could hardly be
extinguished. Syria is, among other things, the battle ground of a
nasty proxy war and major geo-political interests and considerations
by many players. They all have their reasons.
Either way, it must be crystal clear that the Syrian crisis is
not about Syria only. It is not even about Dr Bashar al-Assad. Not at
all.
The Persian Gulf
states
On one side, there are the Persian Gulf states (Qatar and Saudi
Arabia mostly), who are among the most generous sponsors of funds and
weapons to the rebels. This, of course, could hardly have anything to
do with a push for democracy and human rights on their part, there is
just something not genuine in such 'motives’, it is a joke-like idea.
That is, Saudi Arabia, for instance, is a dark-age feudal theocratic
autocracy, ruled by a ruthless monarch. No, such nation can
definitely not claim to be supporting democracy and human rights,
thus, we definitely cannot talk about it being a true reason for
intervention. It has nothing to do with Dr Bashar al-Assad, nor with
freedoms and rights.
These states fund and arm armed groups against the Syrian government
for various reasons, inter alia, the close ties it has with
Iran, the strongest Shia state in the region, (Saudi Arabia and Qatar
are mostly Sunni). They want to see themselves as the honourable and
deserving 'front-liners’ of Islam and leaders in the region. A
defiant Iran (and Syria) in this context, is a thorn in the sight for
the Persian Gulf states.
Further, there is a new gas pipeline project from Iran through Iraq
and ending into Syria and the Mediterranean coast. This would be a
huge competition for Qatar, for example, who has one of the largest
gas reserves in the world and is looking for potential ways to bring
it to the European markets. What is the shortest way for a potential
pipeline? The answer lies in a quick check of the map.
There are further reasons, but my point is: as far as Saudi
Arabia and Qatar are concerned, this is not about President al-Assad,
nor is it about democracy and human rights. These states are
following strictly personal agendas.
Iran
Iran is a key player in the current crisis. It has not many allies
in the Arab world, and Syria is definitely its strongest one. For
Iran, Syria is an absolutely rudimentary element in their support for
Hezbollah, and in their opposition to Israel. Syria is at such a
strategically important location (located on the Mediterranean,
bordering Israel and Lebanon) that for Iran to lose such an ally
would mean an end to the support (at least logistically) to Hezbollah
and the Palestinian cause. It would also significantly diminish their
leverage against Israel. The list goes on with other geo-strategic
goals of Iran related to Syria.
Iran would surely do its absolute best to support the Syrian
government.
Israel
For Israel, Syria
has been a pain in the neck for quite a while. It is geographically
too close to Israel itself (and Lebanon/Hezbollah), and it is
'uncomfortably’ allied to Israel’s biggest foes: Iran and Hezbollah.
The current Syrian government is not under the (indirect) control of
neither the Americans nor the Israelis, which makes it all the more
difficult to effectively exert pressure. The way they choose to do it
is by unilaterally conducting air strikes against the Syrian Army
which the IDF has done on numerous occasions in the last 1 year.
On the other hand though, Israel is confronted with another danger:
Dr Bashar al-Assad’s government could be called everything, but it is
mostly predictable. As in, it is extremely unlikely that Syria would
ever, in its right mind, attack Israel. Were the Syrian government to
fall, Libyan-style chaos would most likely ensue, with strong
extremist element and Al-Quaeda presence. This is a much more
undesired state of affairs than the current one. Therefore, Israel is
trapped in quite a complicated puzzle, and this explains why Israel
has not been so adamant on the “Assad must step down” rhetoric.
Turkey
Turkey has been an absolutely essential element in the entire Syrian
crisis. It has contributed enormously to the war effort of the
rebels. Turkey provides direct and indirect logistical and other
support to endless amounts of rebels infiltrating from Turkey into
Syria. The reason?
Well, not just one, but perhaps it could be summed up that Turkey
likes to see itself as the growing power both in the Middle East as
well as in the Balkans (and in fact, in many ex-Ottoman dominions).
It also is a close ally of the US and a NATO member. Further,
Islamist Prime minister of Turkey Erdogan likes to see himself as the
new ruler of the Middle east, establish authority and “strength”.
Dr Bashar al-Assad even qualified him as the new “Caliph”.
Whether this is the case is arguable, but it certainly is the case
that Turkey’s influence in the current crisis is absolutely crucial
and essential.
Turkey also has a particularly sensitive topic: the Kurds. Dr
Bashar al-Assad decided soon after outbreak of the insurgency to
withdraw units of the Syrian Arab Army from most of the North-east
Kurdish lands, effectively making them an autonomous region. They are
a considerable force to be recognised. Matching this with the Iraqi
autonomous region of Kurdistan, this poses a great threat to the
Kurdish question of Turkey, just across the volatile borders of the
region.
Erdogan has recently stated that he is “ready to enter Syria also
by ground forces” and he was even amassing troops on the border.
This is the bravest call from anyone so far involved, even the US
loudly claiming: no boots on the ground. Surely, not all about
altruism, human rights or democracy.
On a quick note, in my view Erdogan has somehow failed to observe the
reality that what he is doing is to pour petrol onto the burning
flames of his neighbour. Sooner or later the fire will definitely
spread.
The
West
The West, particularly the US and the UK, remain extremely close to
their long-term ally and protégé in the region: Israel. It is
Israel’s interest they would defend before all.
Further, it is also about the fact that exerting influence upon the
Syrian government is virtually impossible, as in, it is not a puppet
state. Pre-2011, Syria had virtually no national debt, and it was not
a member of either the World Bank or the IMF. Adding to this its
close ties with ever-inconvenient Iran, it is no wonder that the West
would naturally dislike Dr Bashar al-Assad and would ideally like to
see him out of the place. And this is not about the person, Bashar
al-Assad, it is about the defiance of Syria as a state.
Further, it is about geo-strategic interests and dominance. If the
West is to topple Dr Assad, or help to topple his government that is
not under their control and install a marionette state, such as Libya
or Kosovo, then its influence in the Middle East would grow
significantly, having only one more country to 'take care’ for after
Syria: Iran.
Russia
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world was turning
into a sort of a hegemony lead by the West that “won the cold war”.
Russia, on the other hand, was on the verge of economic, territorial
and political collapse. In this context, it was not difficult for the
US to become the world’s 'rightful and deserved’ policeman, as the
'winner of the Cold war, the better system’.
This has now effectively come to an end, particularly since Putin
re-took power again in 2012, most visibly on the international arena.
The Libyan fiasco of 2011 is to never be repeated again, Putin
stated. Moreover, Syria is not just any country for Russia. The ties
between the two states originate back in the 60s. Russia has been
supplying Syria with various weaponry and equipment, the economic and
cultural ties are too strong. There are thousands of Syrian-Russian
families as well. Some have speculated that Russia’s support for
Syria is only because of Russia’s naval base at the strategic port of
Tartous, on the Syrian Mediterranean coast (a small facility, it is a
reload/repair location, and could hardly be called a naval military
stronghold). I argue the context is much broader, and ultimately, it
has to do with Russia’s influence in the Middle East, but also very
much to do with the wider international context. Russia’s stance on
the international arena is at stake in Syria too. This is too much to
allow for and just let go.
With Russia rising so strongly and opposing the USA (very much so in
terms of law, concerning the UN Security Council resolution votes),
it has become clear to the US that it could no longer so easily be
the policemen of the world and act abroad at will, “because we
can”.
Crucially, for Russia growing extremism in the region poses a direct
threat to its national interests. Looking on the map again, the
distance between Syria and the Caucasus is not very large at all, and
a further problem is that there are reports of a large number of
Chechens fighting jihad against the government of Syria. Surely,
Russia’s eyes would be close on the activities of those individuals.
There seems to be a difficulty in appreciating the reality
that the US is no more the single, most exceptional hegemonic power
in the world. This has brought US/Russia stand-off to a new level,
unseen since the Cold war.
II. “INTERVENTION IN SYRIA”: THE WAY TO HELL
I have now taken quite some time to outline some of the most
significant players and factors that are playing an important role in
the ongoing Syrian crisis. I deemed it as necessary for the purpose
of being able to put the above words of aggression and military
intervention into context and to effectively dissect them into what
the actual implications today might be. Not just taking words or
events out of their context, as nothing in the Syria’s terrible
suffering is an isolated case.
The casus belli: the chemical attack of
21stt August in al-Ghouta, Damascus countryside.
What we heard from all sides was that the 'monstrous and disgusting
regime in Damascus has used chemical weapons against its own people.
On those grounds, we are going to teach them a lesson and carry out
strikes, as the world cannot stand by.’
Great, OK, fair enough! One crucial problem though: there is no
irrefutable evidence.
We heard John Kerry and other US politicians using “reports”,
“information from credible intelligence sources” and “we
strongly believe”. The pure fact is, no one could show to us, the
mortals, a single piece of undeniable evidence.
For the sake of probability, let us for a second imagine that the
Syrian president, Dr Bashar al-Assad and “his army” did order the
use of chemical weapons. Now, let’s also imagine that this was a
court of law, where, of course, the presumption of innocence exists,
and the guilt must be proven. The prosecutor states: “He or she is
guilty of a heinous crime!” Then follows an accusation, trying and
conviction. However, without a crucial part: an undeniable evidence,
beyond any reasonable doubt. Is this really how it works? Can we
convict without evidence? My answer is: this is unthinkable and
simply illegal.
Furthermore, what exactly might the motive of Dr Bashar al-Assad be
to use chemical weapons in his own capital where he lives himself,
and, moreover, knowing that UN inspectors are 5-10km away? This would
be utterly suicidal for him politically, militarily and, very likely
– physically. It makes no sense at all. He is not silly or stupid,
that is for sure.
Then, lacking clear evidence or motive, how on earth are we supposed
to back and accept a military intervention based on “credible
sources”? Are these sources just as credible as those of the Iraq
invasion of 2003? Sorry, Mr Cameron, Mr Obama, but we have seen that
film already. Not again.
Legality
of a strike
In 1945 following the disastrous World War II, virtually all nations
agreed upon the slogan: “never again”. They bid on the hope that,
by creating the UN with its Charter, war would become unthinkable.
Therefore, this beautiful document called the UN Charter, has very
clearly provided for when force may be used.
Self-defence (i.e. a State is attacked illegally by another State,
then there is the right to respond with force);
Through a sanction of the UN Security Council.
Statements have been made by the White House and top US officials,
including Nobel Peace Prize Barack Hussain Obama, that they would not
seek UN Security Council support for a strike on Syria. This has been
the case even after the chemical weapons deal from September 2013
(under which Syria would cede its stockpiles under international
control) with the US stating clearly that force is still in the list
of options. Obama even said that, should the Congress approve
military action, that would be enough. This is a treacherous and
extremely dangerous challenge to the UN as an institution, and to the
whole world order as we know it.
Should the US take positive steps towards a military strike,
this would be a wholly defiance of the standing international order.
This would set a dangerous trend and render the UN all but obsolete.
This would mean we are going into a new international order, a new
era, and it is not quite clear, how would it look like.
Opening Pandora’s box
It
is probably not so difficult to order a Tomahawk cruise missile
strike in the direction of Damascus. And then? What exactly is the
final strategic purpose, the objective of such a strike(s)? We do not
have motive/evidence, we do not have legality for such a strike. And
the consequences may be dire for all.
The war rhetoric of top US officials after 21st August 2013 went too
far. The US was seemingly too far to revert. Were it not for the
rather unexpected and surprising for almost all chemical weapons deal
initiated by President Vladimir Putin, it could as well have been the
case that missiles and bombs would be (illegally) 'travelling’ to
Damascus today. Luckily, this was reverted in an almost last hope /
second move.
As for the US, instead of spending millions on a missile, they could
surely find better use in terms of in aid for the dire, catastrophic
humanitarian situation in Syria and its neighbours.
The last thing Syria needs right now is more blood. How could one
stop a conflict with more weapons and escalation? Makes no sense.
Escalation
In case of strike, Syria would have the legitimacy and legal ground
to respond with a counter-strike on the US and its regional bases. It
is unthinkable to imagine what would happen if Iran and/or Israel was
involved too. Then we would be engulfed in an open-ended conflict
with unimaginable repercussions that would change the shape of the
whole Middle East, if not the whole world.
Why this all matters to all of us?
I shall point three reasons, but there surely are many others:
1, Refugees and the humanitarian catastrophe
The number of Syrian refugees is growing as we speak, estimates put the internally displaced at 5 million, and those who were forced to flee outside of it at about 2 million. Most of these are in the neighbouring countries, posing an enormous social, political and financial burden on the surrounding countries. Some of those countries, such as Lebanon, have already a long list of problems to solve already and a very fragile socio-political orders.
The refugee crisis, however, does not stop with the surrounding countries. For example, in the last 1.5 months, in a small and poor country called Bulgaria, more than 1,000 Syrians crossed the border illegally. Bulgaria could neither provide for them in the short-run, nor offer any sustainable integration plan. And there are more and more destitute Syrians coming every day.
Escalating the conflict would deteriorate the humanitarian disaster and render it a true catastrophe.
2. Extremism
Very disturbing. There are reports that hundreds, if not thousands,
of European nationals are 'fighting jihad’ against the secular
government of Syria. What would these people do when they come home?
They surely will not just sit home and calmly look after their
gardens.
Further, who can guarantee that among the thousands of refugees that
enter illegally there will not be any Al-Quaeda-linked elements? It
only takes one for a suicide attack, God forbid.
3. Unpredictable consequences
No one could say what the consequences of escalation would be. There
are many aspects: military, humanitarian, rise of extremism in the
region, but also very much economic: the price of oil would likely
surge, which would inevitably have a massive domino effect, affecting
each and all of us. In essence, there would be dire consequences not
just for the region, but across the entire world.
CONCLUSION
In this article, I have attempted to present why I believe anything
but a political solution to the Syrian crisis would be more than
disastrous. I have also tried to make it clear why I am absolutely
convinced that the least likely solution would be any military
intervention.
I also hope to have helped raise awareness of why the Syrian issue
truly matters to all of us and that it should not be just a quick
report on the news.
I sincerely hope for an internal political solution to this
shockingly and painfully long and destructive conflict. I underline
internal; Syrian issues must be left to the Syrian people to resolve.
Not the US, not Russia, not Iran, not the Persian gulf states.
Democracy is not a tool you install in a place with a bombing
campaign or a military intervention. How the Syrians want to live in
their country is entirely up to them, and this is a long and
comprehensive internal process.
And I sincerely hope that the bloodbath would come to an end as soon
as possible. There are no winners in this disgusting war, the biggest
losers, however, certainly are the ordinary Syrian people and this is
why the message of peace is so crucial, as opposed to escalation and
warmongering.
And I hope that I have succeeded at conveying at least a small part
of this message.
In the last month events from Bulgaria
have circulated the national and international press, claiming that
high energy bills brought people to the streets. Many of my loved
ones and friends asked me: “What’s going on in Bulgaria”? The
issue is much bigger than simply energy bills. Therefore, to answer
this question thoroughly, I need to give an insight into the context
and the bigger picture leading to the protests.
How did it all start: short-term causes
In early February this year, after receiving an unusually high bill
for the month of December/January, a lady from Blagoevgrad
(south-west Bulgaria), called Lyudmila MANOVA, shared on her Facebook
that she had an unusually high bill. Other friends started commenting
and sharing. Spontaneously, people realised that all of them had very
high bills for this month and they organised for a gathering of
around 2,000 people outside the office of the energy company (the
exclusive monopolist for western Bulgaria – ČEZ, a Czech
state-owned energy company that privatised the sector nearly 9 years
ago).
The crowd went out of control and, although no violence erupted, they
did not obey police orders. MANOVA, identified as “the organiser”
for the purpose of police rules, was arrested for a brief period. Her
arrest immediately went viral on all media and social media and
sparked a nationwide fury over the arrest itself, but also sympathy
to the cause. As a result, the social media organised a nationwide
protest for 10th February, Sunday. Llarge amounts of people gathered
on a civilised, non-violent protest against the high energy bills and
the monopolists energy companies.
The quick
spill-over: long-term causes
By 10th February, the popular energy was out on the streets, the
genie was out of the bottle. For most people protesting, the link
between the high electricity bills and the long-term status quo in
the country was something apparent. That is, the total destruction of
the nation for the last 23 years since socialist system in Bulgaria
collapsed. The list is long. To mention a few of the long-term issues
of our country:
Extremely low income: minimum salary in Bulgaria is 310 leva,
or around 165 Euros, average salary is around 350-400 Euros per
month.
Criminal “privatisation”. Since the collapse of
socialism, endless number of NGOs, economists, political and
non-political analysts have flooded the public spectrum with the
mantra of: “The state is per definition a bad owner”, “Privatise
immediately and now” etc. And it did happen. Privatisation in
Bulgaria has largely meant: very dodgy deals of often huge and
lucrative state-owned assets (factories or companies) sold to dodgy
buyers in non-transparent ways, whereby corrupt officials sell huge
assets to the “right” circles of people for very low prices.
In
a similar way, for no obvious economic reasons, the profit-making
state-owned electricity provider was privatised in 2004. Since then,
electricity prices have risen with more than doubled or even
tripled.
Economy has been going down to zero, there is virtually no
production. In the last 23 years, more than 2,200 factories closed
or “privatised”.
This has meant that numerous jobs were lost, especially in the
countryside.
Joblessness and lack of opportunities have lead to serious
depopulation of entire regions and an enormous exodus of people,
emigrating either to the large cities or abroad. The population of
Bulgaria in 1989, at the collapse of socialism, was almost 9mln
people. Currently, it stands below 7 million, around 6.9 million.
This is a decrease of 2mln people in just over 20 years, or
almost 25%. Some experts rightfully call it a demographic
catastrophe. No war or disaster in the history of this
country has lead to such a catastrophe.
…
The list is very, very long.
Thus, the high electricity bills at the end of January were simply
the very last drop that made the glass spill. A glass that was
already absolutely full. Therefore, portraying these as “protests
against high energy bills” is a gross over-simplification that does
not take the essential background into account, the very context in
which these protests erupted.
“Non-partisanism
of protests”
There is one underlying, constant element of all protests
in all cities: the non-partisan nature of these protests. People
came out to the streets against an entire system. People are
tired from 23 years of promises. Parties from the entire political
gamma have switched in the last 23 years of “democracy” in
Bulgaria: left, right, centre, right, left, again, right, centre…
The direction, however, has seemed to remain all the same: a one-way
free-fall to low income, high living costs, unbearable social
conditions, extremely low pensions, “privatisation”, and a
political class that has seemed to only become richer and covered in
corruption.
“Protest every day”
Throughout almost entire month of February, people
gathered in Sofia, Varna, Plovdiv, Burgas and all other major cities
to express their discontent with how the country was being run in the
last 23 years. Some ministers came out to explain that “checks and
audits into the electricity companies WILL
begin
soon”. This could hardly do anything to calm the protesters down.
On the contrary, it raised question as to: where was the State so far
to control them? Are you really beginning the audits just
now?
It
was not enough. Protesters united in their demands of withdrawal of
the licences of the electricity companies (ČEZ
(Czech),
EVN (Austrian)
and
“Energo-pro”
(Czech))
and,
ultimately, their nationalisation. However, ministers made it
categorically clear: “No nationalisation is possible.” Again,
they reiterated that checks and audits will begin soon.
This, naturally, could hardly calm protesters down.
“Turning
point”
On Sunday 17th February, more than 100,000 people went out in over
35 cities across the country, making this the largest protests in the
country since January 1997. The revolutionary energy could be felt
everywhere, the country was shaken by an enormous wave of peaceful
protests. This weekend, the Prime Minister, Boyko Borissov, usually
on TV almost every day, speaking “modestly” of the “enormous
success” of his government, was nowhere to be seen. It turned out
that on Sunday, he played football with some friends. Fair enough.
None of the main officials came up on TV (with the notable
exception of poor economics minister, put to the forefront as a media
scapegoat) or any media for 3 (three) days. Something big was going
to happen, this was the sentiment in the air.
A
huge protest on 17th February. Picture taken from Varna. Source: PIK
news agency
On Tuesday 20th February, after 3 days of silence, the prime minister
Boyko Borissov organised a press-conference. He was asked whether he
would resign, something he denied vigorously.
On the table, next to him, was a lady, called Daniela PELOVSKA, which
was presented as “the representative of the protesters”. A lady
no one had ever seen at any protests, all of a sudden, appeared on TV
as the “uniting” figure. She claimed to have a list of claims of
“the protesters”. Journalists quickly checked on their tablets
and smartphones: it turned out the lady is a millionaire
businesswoman, who never participated in any of the protests, and her
two children work for the ruling party in different local
authorities.
Therefore, the attempt of the prime minister to calm down the
protests and present himself as “accepting the demands of the
protesters” was highly counter-productive. People were totally
disgusted by this cheap Balkan circus and a lame attempt to
manipulate public opinion. This time, however, unsuccessful, thanks
to the Internet and the social media. People remained informed and
pressure on the prime-minister was huge.
The fall of the government
On the night of 19th February, after the press-conference of Boyko
Borissov, a protest turned violent. Starting as a peaceful gathering
of people, all of a sudden, some football hooligans entered the
protest and started provoking the police and the police answered
accordingly. Stones were thrown, clashes and arrests ensued. One man
had his head completely covered in blood. His image circulated all
national and international media.
A
man with a head covered in blood, Sofia, 19th Feb. Source:
Rozali.com
On
the next morning, the Prime Minister came to Parliament to announce
that he and his government were resigning as he “could not watch
blood upon the asphalt in the city centre of Sofia” and that
“Having a parliament constantly encircled by police fences and riot
police was not normal. […] We were given the power by the people,
today we return it back to them”. (Sounds noble, doesn’t it.)
A man with a head covered in blood, Sofia, 19th Feb 2013. Source: Rozali.com
On
the next day, the Parliament accepted his resignation . The
protests had made a government collapse.
Life after Boyko Borissov and the ruling GERB party
There we were, Bulgaria had no government. The Prime Minister had
fallen.
Protests, however, continued. The media, the
political class and elite seemed deaf to the real issue: this
is not about ousting one government/party and replacing it with
another. This is about this same one-way street to catastrophe that
ALL political parties had been leading the nation to in the last 23
years of “democracy”.
As a result, protests did not stop. Every day, they continued. At the
end of the day, not a single one of the demands of the protesters
were met or heard. Boyko Borissov simply resigned, leaving all the
issues at stake unsolved.
Enormous rallies took place on 25th February and the largest so far,
probably, on the 3rd March (which is also the National holiday for
the Liberation of Bulgaria from the Ottoman empire, end of
Russo-Turkish war, 3rd March 1878)
“Bulgaria”
written in Cyrillic with people, Varna,
3rd
March 2013. Source: Bulgariaoggi.com
On
top, there are 4 people who set themselves on fire to date. Three of
them died, one of them is in critical condition in hospital. All in
desperation against the status quo in Bulgaria. Media tries to play
down the importance of this act of ultimate desperation by claiming
they are “mentally insane”, but they clearly sent a strong
message: Something is just not right here.
“Why
keep protesting?”
Media, political analysts, shows, programmes etc. kept questioning
the movement. Media seemed desperate to find a leader,
a list of demands, to somehow confine the protesters in
the terms they are used to; they asked, why don’t the protesters
create a political party and run for the elections… They were
trying to somehow put it into a box.
But this case is different. This gigantic pressure that has been
gathering and impending upon an entire nation was finally unleashed
with huge force. An explosion. A huge energy that HAD to leave, to
come out. A nation sick of its ruling class and status quo. A
resignation in this context meant nothing of significance.
Elements
of the movement
Horizontal: protesters, “organisers”
and “leaders” alike are adamant that this is not a political
party speaking, this is not a movement that seeks a certain
political party in power. This is a horizontal movement, where
everyone can speak, participate, express discontent, simply come out
and speak. Media and analysts have been critical, asking “who is
your leader”, the answer: “We are here and stand behind ideas,
not people”.
Social media and the Internet: A huge
strength and advantage to the recent protests. Attempts to
compromise the movement, to manipulate, to undermine the movement..
People are not silly anymore, they have Internet, where censorship
is impossible.
Non-violent: At the very beginning, there
was a campaign: “Give the police a hug and flower”
Source: kliuki.bg
Source: btv.bg
The police, as a result, has
mostly been very tolerant to protesters. At the end of the day, they
also have the high bills, we live in the same country.
What’s
next?
The protests continue nationwide, every Sunday. I went to the
protests on Sunday and I must admit, the energy was somewhat lower,
in terms of numbers at least, not as many as before. However, the
energy remains there. It is not so easy to change an entire system.
Those on top, who have a lot to lose, will hold on to what they have
and will fight back vigorously. There will be a huge opposition.
On Tuesday 12th March, the president appointed an expert cabinet with
new faces that people have hardly ever seen. Their mandate is until
the next elections take place (12th May). It remains to be seen what
their policy will be. However, I have many indications to believe
that the times ahead will be vibrant. The social tension is huge and
the caretaker government, if it fails to deliver, will be swept away
by other protest waves. I am afraid a long-term political crisis is
highly likely to happen in Bulgaria.
