After the tumultuous events in the Commission for Historical and Educational Issues with Bulgaria, we speak with former member Dr. Ognen Vangelov, one of the dismissed individuals accused by the top government official of "betraying" national interests. In the interview, we covered all topics: the resignation and return of Vancho Gjorgjiev, the tensions surrounding Tsar Samoil, public criticism, the political maneuvers involving the Commission, the attitude of the Bulgarian colleagues, the honorariums, and everything else that can be heard firsthand from an insider. Vangelov remains constructive, believing that the Commission will have a future if its work is guided by science rather than politics.
Mr. Vangelov, what is happening in the Commission for Historical and Educational Affairs with Bulgaria? You were dismissed a few days ago, but you were a member for a long time. What do you think the reasons for the dismissals are?
-First of all, I would like to congratulate the new members of the Commission on their selection and wish them successful work. Otherwise, the Commission was established in 2018 based on Article 8 of the Friendship and Good Neighborliness Agreement with Bulgaria, and I have been a member from October 2020 until my recent dismissal. From the existing composition of the Commission, all members have been dismissed except for one, Mr. Ljorovski, who is moving to the new composition. We have not received any individual notification about the reasons, so the only information we have is what the prime minister stated, which is that he believes the current composition did not protect the interests of the Macedonian people. As former members of the Commission, we have given a statement to the media regarding that statement and some others, so I have nothing to add to that.
The government appointed Vancho Gjorgjiev as president, despite his resignation from the Commission in 2021. What has changed between then and now for him to return, given that the function of the Commission remains the same and the topics of conversation with Bulgaria are unchanged?
-Practically nothing significant has changed since Mr. Vancho Gjorgjiev's departure until today regarding the topics being discussed and the working principles of the Macedonian part of the joint commission. Mr. Gjorgjiev left the commission in October 2021 when the agenda included discussing the presentation of Tsar Samoil's Kingdom in Macedonian textbooks for the seventh grade. However, this topic was also discussed in several meetings before Mr. Gjorgjiev's departure and in several meetings afterward. At that particular meeting, no decision was made regarding a recommendation from the commission, and I personally could not understand why Mr. Gjorgjiev decided to leave at that time, as, in my opinion, there was nothing in the meeting that required such a radical step from any of us. I personally asked him not to leave, but he was determined to do so because, as far as I remember, he disagreed with the course of the discussion. Until then, Mr. Gjorgjiev had already been a member of the commission for more than three years, and the same topics that were discussed with our colleagues from Bulgaria had been on the agenda continuously.
We had no pressure from politics
Were there really political influences in 2021 as Vancho Gjorgjiev complained during his resignation?
I can most responsibly assert that there were no such influences or pressures from representatives of the previous government toward us as members. Personally, I never received any call or message from any representative of the former government during my membership over the last four years. I also do not recall the former government ever making any public announcements or statements about the commission's work, except to say that the commission's issues were its own and that it would not comment on them. Other members can be asked, and I am sure they will give the same answer.
I cannot know whether Mr. Gjorgjiev was personally pressured by anyone, especially after he was no longer a member of the commission. However, at the moment of the meeting when he decided to leave the commission, I can claim that there was no political pressure to make any decision at that time. It is true that at that particular meeting in October 2021, a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Metodija Belevski, was present, but he neither participated in the discussions nor could he participate or exert any pressure. During meetings, only members of the Commission from both sides can discuss, although representatives of the two ministries of foreign affairs are also present. If any representative of the ministry had tried to interfere in the debate, we as members would certainly not have allowed it.
What do you think is behind these developments?
-Actually, there are minutes of all meetings, as well as audio recordings and transcripts. The practice of audio recording meetings and then transcribing them began several meetings before Mr. Gjorgjiev's departure, so one can see exactly what was discussed at that time and determine if there was anything unusual to suggest that any kind of pressure was occurring. During that period, there was significant public interest in the Commission's work because sensitive issues were being discussed, such as the representation of the Kingdom of Samoil and the joint honoring of Gotse Delchev. That point practically never returned to the agenda due to the failure to reach an agreement on the recommendations, and the political turmoil surrounding the Bulgarian veto was still very current. I have no doubt that the government may have been interested in resolving the issues in the Commission more quickly.
However, both then and many times afterward, I and other members have stated publicly that the decisions of the Commission do not depend on, and cannot be influenced by, daily political interests, and that if such pressure were to arise, no member would agree to remain on the Commission. I repeat, at that meeting, no recommendation proposal regarding the Kingdom of Samoil was adopted, as the members from the Macedonian and Bulgarian sides could not find common ground despite numerous meetings. Such a recommendation was only adopted by the Commission in February 2022, but that adoption is also conditional—namely, according to the principles of the Commission's work, no recommendation agreed upon by the Commission is final until the entire package of recommendations for the relevant period or matter is completed. Let me remind you, this is still not the case to this day because the Macedonian and Bulgarian members have not been able to agree on closing the package of recommendations for the Macedonian textbooks for the seventh grade, and that topic remains for further discussion.
There are different interpretations in the public regarding what the Commission has achieved so far and whether the so-called red lines have been crossed. You addressed this in the joint letter to the public after the dismissals. Can you explain precisely what has been agreed upon with the Bulgarian side so far?
- The Commission is working on harmonizing recommendations to the governments of the two countries regarding educational issues (so far only for history textbooks). Another aspect of the Commission’s work is to make recommendations to the governments for possible joint honoring of historical figures significant to both peoples and countries.
To clarify for those unfamiliar with the details, the recommendations are based on objections from both sides about the textbooks currently in use in their respective education systems. The Macedonian side provides its objections on the Bulgarian history textbooks, and the Bulgarian side on the Macedonian ones. So far, the focus has been solely on textbooks for primary education, not secondary education. These objections are discussed in order, with each side making suggestions about what recommendations to issue to the governments to address these objections. Not all objections refer to equally sensitive topics. However, from the beginning of my membership in October 2020 until now, the Bulgarian objections on Macedonian textbooks have been on the agenda, while the Macedonian objections on Bulgarian textbooks and the adoption of recommendations for Bulgarian textbooks occurred even before I was part of the Commission. For four years now, the Commission has been practically stuck in discussions about the Bulgarian objections on the Macedonian textbooks.
But you still managed to adopt something?
- The only recommendations that have been finally adopted by the Commission are those for the fifth-grade textbooks in Bulgaria and the sixth-grade textbooks in Macedonia, which pertain to the ancient period, as well as five recommendations for joint celebrations with Bulgaria. These decisions were made in 2019 when two of the newly appointed members, including the new co-president Vancho Gjorgjiev and Professor Aleksandar Litovski, were members of the Commission. These recommendations are fully known to the public, as almost all media outlets published them in their entirety in the summer of 2022.
From 2020 until today, during my membership in the Commission, five more recommendations have been harmonized for the seventh-grade textbooks in Macedonia. However, as I mentioned earlier, that package has not been finalized, so none of these harmonized recommendations are considered final. The most public interest was around the discussions about Samoil's Kingdom and the Ohrid Archdiocese. For the Kingdom of Samoil, a recommendation was harmonized in February 2022, but for the Ohrid Archdiocese, a recommendation was not fully harmonized, although the Commission was close to reaching an agreement at one point.
It is important to note that when recommendations are harmonized and the package is finally closed by the Commission, they are submitted to the governments of each country separately. The implementation of these recommendations, and how they are implemented, is the full responsibility of the governments and the relevant ministries. This is what happened with the recommendations adopted in 2019, which the Government of Macedonia decided to publish in 2022. We have explained all the details about the current status of the proposed recommendations and where we stand in discussions with the Bulgarian side in a report that we recently submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in the hope that it will be useful to the new members of the Commission.
Tsar Samoil brought tensions
Gjorgjiev left because of Tsar Samoil's Kingdom, if I'm not mistaken. With his return, can the agreements reached with the Bulgarian side be revised?
-I must note that the recommendation for Tsar Samoil's Kingdom for the 7th-grade textbooks, which was agreed upon in February 2022 and will become final once the entire package is closed, is similar to the recommendation previously adopted for the joint celebration of Tsar Samoil in 2019, but there are certain differences and nuances. I personally believe that the 2022 recommendation for the representation of Tsar Samoil's Kingdom in textbooks even contains a better text compared to the 2019 recommendation for the joint celebration of Tsar Samoil.
This raises the question: if the text of the 2019 recommendation for the joint celebration of Tsar Samoil is so bad, even disastrous (as characterized by a number of politicians, former diplomats, and others close to the current government), why didn't Mr. Vancho Gjorgjiev publicly withdraw from the Commission at that time if he disagreed with it? It should be noted that the recommendations are adopted by consensus, and if someone on the Macedonian side of the Commission has major problems with a particular text, the team either coordinates until they reach a common viewpoint or, alternatively, if a member does not agree, they can leave and publicly state that they cannot agree with a specific recommendation and, therefore, should not remain a member of the Commission. However, this did not happen in 2019, and two of the members who have now been re-appointed gave their consent to those texts.
Of course, no recommendation is a Bible, and even adopted recommendations can be problematized and critically assessed by the public. Still, those who claim that the texts from 2019 are disastrous for the Macedonian side should now ask the new co-president, Professor Vancho Gjorgjiev, why he agreed to those texts then, and, as far as I know, he has not yet publicly stated that he is withdrawing his consent to the 2019 recommendations. I, for example, was not part of the Commission when those texts, which people close to the new government say are disastrous for Macedonia, were adopted, whereas two of the now reappointed members, Gjorgjiev and Litovski, participated and gave their consent to such formulations. It remains to be seen whether the texts harmonized and adopted in 2019 will now be reconsidered.
What issues and topics need to be agreed upon with the Bulgarian side?
- I have said many times in public that working with our colleagues from Bulgaria has been very slow and laborious due to the diametrically opposed views on how the commission should function in general, particularly regarding the methodology of the work itself. Consequently, it has been very challenging to reach even a minimal mutual understanding of what a recommendation should contain. As a result, over the last four years, as I explained in the previous answer, there has been limited progress in harmonizing five recommendations for textbooks in both countries, but that package remained open because our colleagues from the Bulgarian side refused to accept an equal number of recommendations for both sides. This practically means that the topics related to issues of the Middle Ages are not yet resolved, and issues from more recent periods are still far from being on the agenda. Perhaps the new Macedonian team will agree with their colleagues from Bulgaria on a different approach and methodology, but based on my experience so far, this will be extremely difficult, if not almost impossible. It remains to be seen how this will all unfold.
What is your prediction, given that you were a member of the Commission for a long time and are well-versed in its dynamics?
- I will reiterate what we stated in the joint statement: it would be extremely important to involve external experts in the Commission's work, primarily from UNESCO and the Council of Europe, who, of course, will not serve as arbitrators but will help establish a solid working methodology. This does not guarantee the Commission's success, but at least all possibilities will be considered. Ultimately, one of the parties may withdraw from the 2017 Good Neighborliness Agreement, thereby eliminating the need for a joint commission, or both parties, Macedonia and Bulgaria, may decide that a commission is unnecessary and cancel it with an annex to the Agreement or through a new agreement. It remains to be seen if any of these scenarios will occur.
My prediction is that if the 2017 Good Neighborliness Agreement remains in place, the commission will continue to work for many years to come, but it will likely struggle to achieve significant results. Therefore, for there to be any prospect of success, it is crucial that the Commission be free from political pressures, particularly the pressure from Sofia linking the Commission to Macedonia's progress toward the EU. If the Commission is freed from such political burdens imposed by the Bulgarian side, I believe the chances of success will be greater—not necessarily in the immediate future, but over the medium to long term.
What obstacles did you encounter while working in the Commission?
- The main obstacles were the public political pressure and the direct politicization of the Commission by Sofia when it decided to use the Commission's progress as a tool for political blackmail against Macedonia, as outlined in Bulgarian government's framework position and the parliamentary declaration. This evaluation would determine whether Sofia would allow progress in Macedonia's European integration process. As a result, it was clear that the public in Macedonia would be both interested in and concerned about such obstacles, because Macedonia's progress towards Europe was essentially dependent on whether the Commission had made sufficient progress in Sofia's eyes.
It created disturbances at home as well...
-Such domestic concern is clearly understandable because it logically raises the question of whether the Commission might succumb to political pressure and operate according to the dictates of daily politics. Both then and now, I have freely and openly stated that if such pressure had come from the former government to make decisions so that Sofia would eventually agree to lift the veto, none of us would have remained a member of that commission. It is clear that, at no point so far, have we succumbed to any public pressure from Sofia to make decisions that would satisfy their political goals. In fact, on this subject, I have written and published in international journals and contributed a chapter in a book published in Great Britain. These views are available to both the domestic and international scientific community.
The Commission must not be part of the EU membership negotiations
What was the atmosphere like on the Bulgarian side?
- The atmosphere during the meetings varied depending on the specific topic being discussed, so there were often tense situations and raised voices, which should not be surprising. There were also periods of calmer discussions, particularly when technical issues related to the harmonization of the joint minutes were discussed, which constituted a significant part of the joint work. I believe that the colleagues from Bulgaria had a clear aim to implement the publicly established policies as detailed in the Bulgarian Government's Framework Position and the Explanatory Memorandum sent to all EU Member States. For me, there was no doubt about this, nor was it any kind of surprise, considering that some members of the Bulgarian team, known to the public here, regularly expressed their views in both Bulgarian and our media. However, from our side, it was unequivocally emphasized that with such positions, there would be no progress in the Commission's work and that, for us, those positions held no significance.
Given the internal political disagreements about the content of the negotiation framework, can the Commission achieve any results?
-I personally believe that the Commission must not be linked to Macedonia's EU negotiations in any way. Given that the negotiation framework indirectly refers to the Commission through its mention of the Friendship and Good Neighbor Agreement and the so-called protocols, it remains to be seen whether Sofia will continue to insist that our path to the EU will largely depend on progress in the Commission's work. Despite the negotiating framework, there are arguably creative ways for the Commission to move away from such conditionality, but it is up to the political representatives in both countries to resolve these issues. In other words, the Commission itself has no reason to be concerned about the negotiating framework. If a common understanding is reached for a solid working methodology and there is goodwill, the Commission can hope for some success in the future. However, this is a long-term and painstaking process, and quick solutions should not be insisted upon.
After the dismissal, you publicly responded to the propaganda against the Commission and to the inappropriate statements and attacks by Mickoski and Mutsunski. Aren't you concerned that some circles might perceive this as taking sides in politics?
-We were practically forced to issue such a reaction because when the Prime Minister declares that the previous members of the Commission "did not protect the interests of the Macedonian people," it carries serious weight. Those accusations are, of course, unfounded, which is why we responded with a joint statement. As I explained in detail earlier, three out of the seven newly appointed members were part of the previous Commission. Does that mean they, too, failed to protect the interests of the Macedonian people during their time on the Commission? Two of them, in fact, agreed to the texts of the recommendations adopted in 2019. Does that mean they did not protect the interests of the Macedonian people at that time, especially considering those recommendations were sharply criticized by people close to the new government? Of course, I don't believe that at all. And if that were the case, then the new composition should distance itself and revoke those 2019 recommendations, which had also been approved by the new co-president from the Macedonian side.
Did you receive any personal reactions from your colleagues on the Bulgarian side following the changes and reshuffles made by the Government in the Commission?
-There were certain statements made by some of the Bulgarian members to the Bulgarian media. I saw a statement from Mr. Kiril Topalov, who said, paraphrasing, that he doesn't understand why changes are being made to the Commission's members when the now dismissed members fiercely defended Macedonianism. I haven't seen any other statements, and I have no personal contact with the members from the Bulgarian side.
Why do you believe that representatives from the international bodies you mentioned should also be part of the Commission?
-Because similar commissions have existed and still exist in Europe, and it is clear that the current way of working is not producing results. Furthermore, instead of reducing antagonisms and tensions between the two peoples and states, they periodically intensify. That is why we believed, and still believe, that it is necessary for international experts to become more involved in the work of the Commission — to have insight into how it operates, what is expected of it, and so on. As I mentioned earlier, this does not guarantee success, but it does provide an opportunity, with the help of international expertise, to draw on positive experiences from similar commissions in Europe. In my opinion, the presence of experts from UNESCO or the Council of Europe would reduce the likelihood of the Commission being politically instrumentalized, particularly by Bulgaria, which is precisely why the Bulgarian colleagues have been, and remain, firmly opposed to the inclusion of such experts.
Do you think the current government is more rigid and conservative than the previous one regarding the objectives and function of the Commission?
-It is too early to say, but it would be best if the Government does not interfere in the Commission's work at all, and I hope it stays that way. I will repeat that, during my time as a member, no one from the previous government tried to influence any views, decisions, or positions. Of course, the Commission is appointed by the government, and it has the right to be interested in how matters are progressing; that is not in dispute. It would be problematic if the government directly suggested to the Commission what it should or should not do, either through public announcements or direct contact with its members. I hope that the new composition will not experience such influences.
If it’s not a secret, what are the honorariums for the commission members? I ask because the prime minister mentioned the honorariums with a rather negative connotation.
-We had contracts with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and did not have our own budget to set our own honorariums. The honorariums were determined based on the seriousness and responsibility of the Commission's work, and they are lower than the current salary of an MP. I would prefer not to discuss specific figures, as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will offer new contracts to the newly appointed members.
Journalist: Sonja Kramarska
Photographer: Tomislav Georgiev
