Dr. Daniel N. Nelson is Dean of College of Arts & Sciences, University of New Haven. He has taught at George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, Garmisch, Germany. He has held faculty positions at the George Washington University, Old Dominion University, Georgetown University and School for Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University. Editor-in-chief of International Politics, a peer-reviewed scholarly quarterly journal. He received his PhD in Political Science from the Johns Hopkins University.
Dr. Nelson met Milena Hristova, Editor of novinite.com and the News.
Q: How did the events of September 11th widen the gap between Europe and America?
A: Significantly. There has been a new public opinion poll released by a polling firm in the United States. It uses data from other countries as well concerning America's image in the world. Immediately after September 11 there was a lot of sympathy but that image has been harmed, decreased, become more negative. Why? A simplistic explanation would be that in Europe as well as in other parts of the world people do not like George Bush or that America is so powerful and it simply marches around the world. A more sophisticated analysis would examine the ways Americans view the world versus the way in which Europeans or other people from Latin America to East Asia view the world. That difference underlies our problems today. Americans see power, states and national interests while others increasingly see the world composed of communities, that talk and communicate with each other and they do so because they are interested in reinforcing and developing new identities. These are vastly different views of what is and ought to be international behavior.
Q: In your view the widening gap between Europe and America is due to difference in viewpoint. Don't you think Bulgaria will face communicative difficulties in its Euoatlantic integration?
A: The issues of communication are based on significantly different approaches to the international world. You will have communication problems both with Washington and Brussels, just as do other new members of EU and NATO. Poland, for example, had difficulties communicating with the EU about agriculture. There is no question that in the next years Bulgaria will have to deal delicately with Washington and Brussels, because they are in a sense speaking different languages. Still there are ways in which to fix the problems and for Bulgaria they are not insurmountable.
Q: How do you see Bulgaria's benefits and contribution to the Alliance?
The invitation to join NATO will be of significant benefit to Bulgaria. The country has been in a rather grey zone of security until now and this grey zone has been damaging. It has damaged Bulgaria because investors have not been exactly sure whether this is safe place to invest. As a result they did not come in large numbers or with as much money as they might have otherwise.
Secondly once membership is complete in 2004 the concept of national security will be seen differently. The Bulgarian military will not have to do everything, and it can be more specialized. That will allow Bulgaria eventually to focus its expenditures and may be even level off.
Finally there is an advantage regarding political life. There has been a consensus about NATO membership recently, but it was not always the case. I remember years when some political formations, particularly the Bulgarian Socialist Party, would say no. That was seen rather negatively in the rest of the world, certainly in Washington, but also in London. So it is good to have that issue resolved and that would be healthy domestically for this particular government or for subsequent governments.
Q: How should Bulgaria proceed with its military modernization and NATO-standard training so that it is fit for its role in the Alliance?
A: That specific role has to be first decided. That is partly a domestic sovereign decision but now it will be a decision in concert with NATO. It is not like the Warsaw Pact, where you were told what your role would be; rather there will be mutual discussions and considerations. Bulgaria has had for a long time all the elements of the armed forces - naval forces, MiG-29s, big tanks... A very important question is whether a country like Bulgaria ought to find specialties in a big, democratic Alliance, contributing important roles that other countries do not do or do not do that well. I just came from Slovenia, a smaller country, and people there are wondering what their very small military can do. They happen to have potentially some role in search and rescue and also in military police. That kind of discussion is going on in Slovenia, it should go on here too, but the roles would be different. Bulgaria has a very important role to play because of its geography and history, which Slovenia does not. The individual new invitees will each have an enormous contribution but they can make different decisions.
Q: How would you comment the debate on Bulgaria's response to US's enquiry for joining forces against Iraq?
A: A country is still a democracy even when the "no"s are in the majority and the population disagrees with the government regarding a particular policy. I have no trouble, nor do most Americans, with the notion that some of our allies would be less participatory were military action taken against Iraq. That does not mean that Washington and particularly the Bush administration would be happy if Bulgaria announced that it would not participate and refused air space. That might be tough, but I don't think there would be any major break if Bulgaria did not send troops. There are various levels of participation and that will be politically determined by the Bulgarian democracy.
Q: In your view identity is the strongest bond that transcends borders. Don't you think Bulgarians find it hard to fix their own identity so that they can fit into a larger community?
A: There are many smaller countries with big histories and Bulgaria is one of them. Not many know the very old history of Bulgaria, when it was so big that it encompassed most of Southeastern Europe. A lot of the Bulgarian identity and Bulgaria's European identity have to be articulated, announced by Bulgarians because other people won't simply recognize it. People cannot credit Bulgaria with its identity if they do not know the Bulgarian past and present. In North America or Western Europe, for example, there is little knowledge about the well-trained intellectual population of Bulgaria. I am thinking about the many young Bulgarians who are being educated abroad. I hope they are the people who, by returning to Bulgaria, will make it clear that the country is filled with people who can make an extraordinary contribution to Europe.
The identity of countries like Bulgaria and Romania is "Balkan" and that term is often pejorative and associated with violence and instability. Overcoming that negative identity is a difficulty, but the first step has now been taken in Prague. I suppose that you are going to see in the next ten to twenty years a significant change. I have seen a significant change in Sofia myself. Thirty years ago the only things on the streets were trucks, and these were primarily those of enterprises or the military. It was a city in which you and I could not have been sitting here and talking. The changes that have taken place particularly in the last twelve years are absolutely stunning.
Q: Can you describe Bulgaria in three words?
A: I doubt that I can limit myself to three words. Certainly in the last twelve years particularly Bulgaria has been an extraordinarily courageous country. The transition here and in Romania has been bigger, harder, steeper, more costly that any other transition. Bulgarians are also smart, intelligent and that is another word I would pick. The negative side has been the uncertainty and self-doubt. These are conflictual self-descriptions, but the good news is that the corner may have been turned towards a significantly improved, European future.
Send to Kindle
