Gen. Anyu Angelov and the Paradoxical Misunderstanding of Bulgarian 'Imperialism'

Bulgaria's Defense Minister Gen. Anyu Angelov appears to have made a couple of blunders with international repercussions that might seem inexplicable to an outsider. However, they do tell a lot about how senior Bulgarian officials view their own country's security and standing.

Angelov's gaffes were vocally exposed on the front page of the largest Bulgarian daily. They were said to have infuriated Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov to the extent that he was mulling sacking the defenseless Defense Minister.

Borisov subsequently made it clear that not only did he have no intention of axing his fellow general from the Cabinet but that he even considered Angelov the best Bulgarian Defense Minister in the last 20 years.

With all that said, the statements made by the reservist general heading the Defense Ministry do deserve some attention because of their international impact – which is pretty big for the scope and scale of Bulgaria.

But before going into detail, it is essential to note that these statements went largely unnoticed in the Bulgarian society, which prides and excels in being overwhelmingly ignorant – from school kids to high-ranking state officials – about international issues and international politics. An eloquent example in hand is the finding of a last year's poll that about 3% of the Bulgarians have a decent understanding of what the EU actually is.

Angelov's blunders exposed in the Bulgarian press are three: first, in June he justified Bulgaria's need to become involved with the US missile defense in Europe with the development of medium-range missile technologies by Iran and Syria.

Second, he announced Bulgaria will be training a real combat battalion to be sent to Afghanistan for front-line fighting by 2012-2013. (As opposed to its current 600 peace-keeping troops there.)

Third, he got into a fierce row with President Georgi Parvanov over the appointment of the new head of the military intelligence, suggesting the powers of the Bulgarian commander-in-chief, i.e. the President, must be reduced substantially.

The third statement clearly had little international impact; but the first two did. For one thing, Syria is reported to have reacted with an immediate threat to break off its diplomatic relations with Bulgaria and the situation was saved only with a swift secret visit of Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov to Damascus.

For another, according to the reports, it turned out that Bulgaria had not formally been asked by the United States and/or NATO/ISAF to send a combat battalion to Afghanistan, and the Borisov government had made no such commitment.

Then why the heck did the Defense Minister go for broadcasting these kinds of statements?

Angelov is a general, and no diplomat; otherwise, it would have been clear to him that he did not have to make public things that are up in the air as justifications for policies that are accepted anyway by the Bulgarian public with very little questioning.

Yet, his statements are probably best explained within the context of the constant misunderstanding by the Bulgarian leadership of Bulgaria's obligations to its major ally, or rather, patron, the United States, which occasionally takes the form of some kind of weird, perplexing, and ill-founded "imperialistic" rhetoric and endeavors. What is more these often turn embarrassing not just for Bulgaria but for relevant American officials as well.

Because Bulgaria's participation in the future US/NATO missile shield in Europe is hardly resisted by anybody in the country. Romania and Bulgaria in the Obama Administration plan are likely to assume the role of Poland and the Czech Republic in the plan of the Bush Administration, i.e. the first would host the interceptor missiles, and the second – the radar.

So Angelov should have just said that the missile defense is good for Buglaria's security and/or it's a part of Bulgaria's commitment as an US/NATO ally. Period. The same goes for sending a combat battalion to Afghanistan – even though it makes little sense, if any, to even mention that without the Americans having requested it from Bulgaria.

Mentioning Syria – and even Iran – as enemies of Bulgaria can do no good. Not to mention that it is also rather ridiculous as it is not clear what reasons these two nations might have to focus on attacking Bulgaria.

Sure, Bulgaria is concerned about the Iranian nuclear and missile programs just as much as the rest of the world, and that has been made clear by the Foreign Minister. Sure, the Syrian regime might be suspected of having certain armament ambitions – the existence of a Syrian nuclear facility destroyed by an Israeli air strike in the fall of 2007 could be seen as evidence.

But Minister Angelov's words amount to antagonizing these nations over nothing at a time when Bulgaria is hoping to boost its economic ties with the Middle Eastern states; when Syria agreed to settle its debt to Bulgaria; and when Bulgaria and Iran have formed a joint transport commission to figure out how to increase bilateral trade and international freight transit.

The simple fact of the matter is that while Bulgaria is fully dependent for its security and sovereignty (to the extent that this term can be used in the case of a fourth-rate power) on the USA, and is and should therefore be 100% committed to honoring this alliance, ever since 1997, with a few exceptions, the Bulgarian leadership has reacted inadequately to that by being overly eager about American security requests even before those were made.

This was not really a big deal until 2003 when Bulgaria became an enthusiastic participant in the "Coalition of the Willing" of the Bush Administration taking responsibility of one of the toughest spots in Iraq, the holy Shiite city of Kerbala.

Back then it became clear that if America asked any Bulgarian government to send troops anywhere, for example, to the Korean Peninsula, the Bulgarian government will not only do so but will also volunteer to take up the toughest part of the border between the two Koreas even though it has no capabilities, and apparently no idea what it might be getting into. To the logically thinking outsider, this might be taken as a sign that Bulgarian capitalism and business is so powerful that it needs a foothold on the Pacific coast, or something. Which clearly is not the case.

In 2003, the ill-founded, ill-equipped, and ill-conceived rhetoric and policies of the Bulgarian leadership with respect to meeting US demands before they were made backfired for both America and Bulgaria – a terrorist attack was carried out in Kerbala killing several Bulgarian troops forcing the American command had to relocate the Bulgarian contingent and to take over the city itself.

Angelov's recent statements are similar to the situation of the new commander-in-chief of the Bulgarian navy in February-March 2010, after he made the blunder of suggesting that Bulgaria should send its newly-acquired second-hand frigate Drazki to chase Somali pirates around the Indian Ocean – for which he was severely scolded because the Cabinet grew very uneasy upon the prospects of its US or EU allies picking upon the admiral's words and involving Bulgaria in a very costly effort.

The extreme eagerness of senior Bulgarian officials with respect to international security tasks did not go unnoticed abroad. For example, a couple of months ago, a number of articles in the Russian press declared that Bulgaria had become increasingly assertive and trying to establish itself as a regional power as it had been emboldened by its firm backing and alliance with the US.

This is how international observers are forced to misconstrue the irrational outbursts made from time to time by the representatives of the leadership in Sofia.

The big issue in Angelov's case is that his embarrassing statements are largely overshadowing the fact that he has made certain good steps in improving the situation and condition of the Bulgarian military. What is more, they are complicating unnecessarily Bulgaria's relations with its major ally.

The entire defense procurement strategy of the Bulgarian government and military is focused on buying equipment designed to help the country honor its international security commitments – that is, to NATO and the US – frigates and fighter jets to patrol the Black Sea region, armored vehicles, trucks, and helicopters for missions abroad, transport planes to provide logistical support. There are no plans to acquire any defensive weapons with offensive capabilities because Bulgaria is relying on American power and on participating in international missions as a means of paying back.

This security model could warrant some criticism but in Bulgaria's case and situation it actually does make a lot of sense. The major issue here is clearly the constant failure of the Bulgarian leadership to comprehend that being a good ally means shying away from uncalled for eagerness and initiatives that are more appropriate for a rising 19th century imperialist power, and that it is key to know your limits, while simultaneously developing actual capabilities so that you can provide real assistance to your partners rather than embarrassing them.

We need your support so Novinite.com can keep delivering news and information about Bulgaria! Thank you!