Crucial decisions about Serbia’s territorial integrity and the direction of its foreign relations in the context of May 11 elections are reminders of the life and times of the prime minister and party leader Nikola Pasic (1845-1926).

While one might rightly dwell on Pasic’s fundamental contributions to the development of parliamentary democracy, it was his devotion to recovery of Serbian lands under foreign domination and his determination to resist imperialist designs that make him the touchstone of national integrity.

Pasic is relevant when one considers that the United States in its current pose as the “leader of the free world” is repeating patterns of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire’s actions toward Serbia in his day a century ago and for three previous decades: harsh economic sanctions, seizure of territory, bombardment of Belgrade and the wanton killing of Serbian civilians.

The parallels between what Serbia went through at the hands of Austria from 1878 to 1918 and its experiences during the last 18 years with the United States are astonishing (although the sequence of actions differed).

Early in his career Nikola Pasic realized that Austria, in the felicitous phrase of Alex Dragnich, his American biographer, was “determined to cow Serbia and if need be to crush her.”

In 1878, the year in which he was first elected to parliament in Belgrade, Austria abruptly occupied Bosnia-Hercegovina, which had a sizeable Serbian population. This caused anguish and humiliation in Serbia. Three decades later Vienna annexed Bosnia-Hercegovina outright, in 1908.

The contemporary equivalent was the disembowelment of Serbia by Washington and its NATO subordinates in 1999 followed by their fostering of an independent state in Kosovo.

There is also a parallel in the application of extreme economic sanctions as a means of putting pressure on Serbia to submit to policy demands. Vienna imposed a massive trade boycott from 1906 to 1911 which affected 90 percent of Serbian exports – mostly pork – and 60 percent of its imports. (Serbia surprisingly emerged with a stronger and more independent economy). Washington began applying ever stricter economic sanctions against Serbia in 1992, causing inflation to skyrocket and other economic injuries. It did not lift them until 2005.

Finally there is the parallel of bombarding Serbs. Austria was in such a hurry that it started shelling Belgrade on July 29, 1914, only a day after it declared war. A month later Vienna ’s Illustrierte Kronen Zeitung declared – with a vulgar pun – “Serbien muss sterbien” – ( Serbia must perish).

Washington was more cautious, though no less imprudent, threatening military action against Serbia for nearly eight years before it launched NATO’s bombing campaign in March 1999.

The Austrian campaign was responsible for the bulk of Serbia ’s 650,000 civilian war dead over 1,566 days of fighting. The civilian toll in 79 days of NATO bombing was estimated to be 500.

Throughout Austria’s endless bullying the response of Pasic was calm realism. Even under the direst threats from Vienna in the hours before World War I began he appears to have kept his temper and to respond in a conciliatory manner where he could.

He knew Serbia was militarily weak and lacked strong allies. He had made successful arms purchases from France and, in a meeting with the Tsar in Spring 1914, sought Russian protection and assistance.

Slobodan Milosevic sought assistance/protection for Serbia in the Pasic mold from Moscow with small success. Prime Minister Kostunica, President Tadic and the Radical leader, Tomislav Nikolic, have attained much greater results from lobbying Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

So, remembering that in his career he refused to kneel before those who dealt him reverses, how would Nikola Pasic evaluate the dangers and the opportunities facing Serbia today?

As the politician who engineered the return of Kosovo and other former territories to the homeland he would surely deplore the actions leading to the proclaimed statehood of the province – and equally deplore the American and European actors who performed their opera of alternating siren songs and dire threats. Doubtless he would oppose any Serbian politicians who endorsed or accepted them.

It is of course pure speculation, but I think Pasic would have appreciated the principled pragmatism of Vojislav Kostunica. He would also feel comfortable with Nikolic, who helped found the Serbian Radical Party, the descendent of Pasic’s own People’s Radical Party (besides, both men studied engineering).

Finally, I think Pasic would smile indulgently at critics, especially from abroad, who brand Kostunica or Nikolic – or himself – as “nationalists,” much less “ultra-nationalists.”

…………………………

*David Binder (born 1931) was a correspondent for The New York Times from 1961 until 2004. He specialized in coverage of central and eastern Europe, based in Berlin, Belgrade and Bonn. The current piece was published in Belgrade’s Politika on May 6, 2008.

During the upcoming spring holiday, thousands of Romanians will head south for the beaches of Bulgaria, eschewing their own Black Sea resorts and seeking superior services. The exodus reveals the ongoing weaknesses of Romania’s own tourism industry, which has tremendous potential for growth but remains hobbled by bottlenecks, particularly labour issues and poor infrastructure.

A recent report by the World Tourism and Travel Council (WTTC) said Romania’s tourism sector was the sixth fastest-growing in the world, with tourism-derived revenues increasing by 8.1% in 2007 and expected to expand by 9.3% this year.However, despite the positive headline, the WTTC report made it clear the Romanian tourist industry has some distance to go simply to reach regional standards, let alone compete on a global scale.

Tourism will generate approximately $9.4bn in Romania overall this year, or 5.8% of the gross domestic product (GDP), according to the WTTC. By contrast, it is forecast to contribute 12% to GDP in neighbouring Bulgaria and 25.5% in Croatia, a leader in tourism in the Balkans.

These figures are “cascaded”, taking into account indirect income from tourism, such as expenditures by tourism-related companies on other goods and services, including fuel, accountancy and utilities. Direct revenues from tourism in Romania are in fact considerably lower - around $3.6bn, or 2.2% of GDP.

Despite its current slump, Romania has a long history as a popular destination. During the Communist era, the honeypot resorts of the Black Sea coast were favourite holiday spots for fellow Warsaw Pact citizens and budget-seeking West Germans, Britons and Scandinavians on package tours. However, as the economies of Central and Eastern Europe contracted as the Soviet Union crumbled, the tourist flood turned into a trickle. When the inhabitants of these countries began to become more affluent in the late 1990s, they had the freedom to travel to a new range of other destinations, many of which appeared more attractive than Romania, itself in the midst of economic crisis and political turmoil. The country’s tourism infrastructure had not developed to meet the new era of the more discerning traveller.

The progress made by Bulgaria, which neared economic collapse in 1996-1997, and Croatia, which was embroiled in a civil war for several years in the 1990s, suggest that Romania’s tourism deadlock has much to do with poor marketing and strategy, in addition to underinvestment and poor infrastructure.

Hotel capacity is limited, with high prices and low standards, and a culture of service tourism has yet to be universalised. Other problems facing the sector include long journeys on poor roads and the unsatisfactory levels of cleanliness on many beaches.

Another challenge facing the sector in Romania is the low pay and social stigma attached to jobs in the industry. While the number of people employed in tourism is forecast to reach 304,000 this year, up 10,000 on 2007, such positions are still considered a last resort for many people. The average monthly salary in the hotel and restaurant segment is just over $305, compared to a national average of around $495, according to local press.

However, the good news is that sector’s fast growth is propelling wages forward quickly; local press reported that hotel and restaurant workers’ wages increased by 27% in 2007, while salaries for those employed by travel agencies rose 31%.

Romania is, it appears, beginning to make up for considerable lost time. Authorities are keen to promote the country’s natural beauty, and have identified the potential for adventure, cultural, eco- and agro-tourism ventures. This will help to diversify business away from the often crowded and concrete coastal resorts, which, for the time being at least, have limited appeal. Additionally, these forms of tourism are less damaging to the environment and local culture than the mass variety, and the potential is there to develop Romania’s relatively unspoiled interior carefully and strategically. Nonetheless, tourism projects remain largely on a cottage-industry level, and promotion remains sketchy, with a clear “brand” for the country yet to be envisioned.

In the short term, the increasing number of budget flights into the country will improve its accessibility to foreign vacationers. Infrastructure developments for internal transport routes will lend a boost to such cities as Brasov, Cluj and Sibiu (which was designated the European Capital of Culture 2007), in time potentially stemming the yearly holiday migration to Bulgaria while inviting a new generation of travellers.

………………………

*Oxford Business Group (OBG), a UK-based publishing, research and consultancy organisation, publishes economic and political intelligence on the markets of Eastern Europe, North and South Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

OBG offers comprehensive analysis of political, macroeconomic and sectoral developments, including banking, capital markets, energy, infrastructure, industry and insurance.

OBG’s acclaimed economic, political and business reports are the leading source of local and regional intelligence, while OBG’s online economic briefings provide up-to-date in-depth analysis. OBG’s consultancy arm offers tailor-made market intelligence and advice to firms operating in these markets and those looking to enter them.

In this detailed interview, Balkanalysis.com director Christopher Deliso gets a contemporary view on Bulgaria from a unique perspective- Americans Roy and Anne Freed, at 91 years young undoubtedly among the most senior of American lovers of this Balkan country.

Roy and Anne had long and distinguished careers in the legal and psychology/social work fields, respectively. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1940, working thereafter for the Department of Justice and private law firms; then, from 1960 onwards, Roy pioneered the nascent subject of computer law. For her part, Anne graduated from Smith College in 1941 with an M.S.W. in clinical social work. She thereafter worked as a practitioner, supervisor, administrator, teacher, and researcher in this field, and set up a mental health clinic at Family Service of Greater Boston. During the Second World War, Anne worked as a community analyst at the War Relocation Authority in Washington, DC; in addition, she was the specialist on Jewish culture for a refugee camp in Oswego, NY, which took in approximately 1,000 European Jewish refugees from a displaced-persons camp at Bari, Italy.

Despite completing a full and long lifetime of professional service and help to others, the Freeds were not finished: at the age of 71, they ventured to the Balkans to interact with the locals at a time of historic change. At an age when most Americans relax to enjoy their golden years in tranquility, this dynamic couple embarked on even greater challenges. After visiting Bulgaria for the first time in 1987, the Freeds returned two years later as Fulbright scholars. They have kept up their relationship with the country and its people ever since.

Most recently, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in the US Department of State, which administers the Fulbright Program, named Roy and Anne Freed as the March 2008 Fulbright Alumni of the Month for their engagement with Bulgaria. Their memoir, Fulbrighters in Retirement: Networking With Bulgarians Keeps Us Engaged, is now available. They are probably among the few nonagenarians to maintain their own official website.

Christopher Deliso: I understand you are descendents of eastern European Jews. When did your ancestors move to America, and which ones?

Roy & Anne Freed: Our mothers came from Lithuania shortly before WWI, when Anne’s father came from Belarus. Roy’s father’s father came from Belarus in 1888, because of the notorious Kishniev pogroms.

CD: Previous to your initial Bulgarian trip, was there anything in your lives to suggest such a future encounter as a possibility? Had you wished to make trips to Bulgaria or other former Soviet states earlier in the Cold War, if so, why didn’t that happen at the time?

R&AF: Before our 1987 Bulgarian trip, we had no idea to visit any of the former Soviet states or their affiliates. Even though we knew our first Bulgarian friend Nevena Geliazkova through Anne’s meeting her at the international school in Geneva in 1937, we never had the desire to visit her until we happened to reestablish contact with her in 1986 and were about to go to Zurich.

CD: How did you happen to choose Bulgaria specifically during Communism for your Fulbright Teaching Fellowships?

R&AF: We chose Bulgaria for our Fulbrights because the person on the Bulgaria desk at the Council for the International Exchange of Scholars mentioned that possibility, out of the blue. By our futile contact with him on behalf of a Bulgarian student taking place during the Cold War, we suspect that it had a dearth of applicants for that country.

CD: Did you wonder if you would be eligible for Fulbrights at age 72?

R&AF: Anne certainly did. But when she inquired about our eligibility, we were told not to worry because there was a 75-year old male Fulbrighter in Taiwan.

CD: How were you received in Bulgaria as Americans during the Cold War?

R&AF: The Bulgarians completely ignored the ostensible Cold War antipathy between our two countries. They received us very warmly, with their traditional gracious hospitality. They welcomed us into their homes. They shared their experiences with us both during and after Communism. They eagerly sought the professional knowledge they thought that we could impart from our respective fields. Even Communist bureaucrats were hospitable.

CD: Was there any controversy with Anne’s discussion of psychology from an American perspective, compared to the Communist-inspired study then still practiced?

R&AF: Anne actually played an important in bringing psychodynamic psychology to Bulgaria. Although psychiatrists in the Soviet Union, during its early period, enthusiastically embraced Freud’s innovative, if not radical, teaching about the major role the unconscious plays through the mind and the usefulness of talking therapy, and actually almost pre-empted Vienna as the center of that learning, Stalin later squelched that and it became anathema there and in the affiliated countries, including Bulgaria.

Nevertheless, through the initiative of the late Dr. George Kamen, a Bulgarian psychiatrist, a very small group of psychiatrists, including Dr. Toma Tomov, and others started to become interested in it through psychodrama, which entails play-acting psychological situations and discussing them in that context. Nevertheless, the general population did not yet have that interest until Anne introduced it.

CD: That’s interesting! What was the reaction when she did?

R&AF: Many students at Sofia University and outside professionals enthusiastically grasped the opportunity to attend her lectures, which were opened to the public. Anne’s lectures unexpectedly planted a basic seed that matured three years later when Dr. Toma Tomov, one of the pioneers at the time and whom she met by chance when he was on a study tour in the USA right after Bulgaria abandoned Communism for a democratic market economy, enlisted her help to found the School of Clinical Social Work at the New Bulgarian University in 1992, with its curriculum based substantially on that of the Smith College School for Social Work, from which Anne graduated and at which she taught.

CD: As for Roy, how was his teaching about American law received then?

R&AF: Roy’s teaching about American law, which, as common law, was conceptually very different from the Bulgarian civil law, was enthusiastically received by both undergraduate students in the law faculty of Sofia University and professionals working in the computer industry. The latter especially were eager to learn about the American legal protection of computer programs. The students took the opportunity to express their cynicism about ostensibly positive Bulgarian laws. For example, one stated that, in Bulgaria, they adopted “dead” laws, meaning apparently socially positive ones that were not enforced.

CD: In Anne’s opinion, how is the issue of gender equality in Bulgaria progressing? Has she witnessed or experienced specific changes in the fortunes of Bulgarian women in society, and to what does she attribute them?

R&AF: Even though Bulgaria is a traditional patriarchal society, at least during Communism women achieved considerable equality, at least to do hard work. Children were raised by their grandparents, a practice which continues to date, to free up their mothers to work outside the home. Many women became professionals in what in the West had been considered men’s fields, especially in engineering. While more progress can be made, Bulgaria has achieved an impressive level.

CD: Have you ever had any dangerous experiences in Bulgaria? If so, what happened?

R&AF: We did feel as if we had a dangerous experience in Bulgaria. During our Fulbrights, we were fortunate to befriend a group of social scientists in a think tank supporting the Central Committee of the Communist Party. On a few occasions, they arranged for us to be driven by Party chauffeurs in the traditional official black Volga automobiles. We felt as if those drivers operated their cars like kamakazi pilots of the Japanese air force, as they sped heedlessly on the streets of Sofia.

CD: You witnessed a period of incredible and very rapid change in Bulgaria. What surprised you most about it? Was there ever a time when you felt that perhaps the country would not have a solid future, or that it was in danger of collapse?
R&AF: We were surprised by the lack of advance notice that the Communist Party would cease to control Bulgaria and the speed with which it occurred. We did not get a clue from our friends in the official think-tank.

While we didn’t anticipate that the country would collapse, it was obvious that it was not functioning efficiently during Communism because the people lacked the necessary incentives. As we look back, it collapsed out of inefficiency. Goods were of poor quality and services were bad. Waiters were probably the worst in the world. However, the performing arts were thriving, especially the theatre and music. As the economic reforms occurred, we often feared for the people because the efforts were weak and the people were rightfully impatient for rapid real progress. It was amazing how, promptly after the changes, the waiters reformed and performed at truly fine standards.

CD: In your memoir you state that you were able to serve as ‘citizen diplomats’ during the Cold War, to bring together Bulgarians working with the Politburo and the American ambassador. How were you able to accomplish that, and what came of it?

R&AF: We were fortunate to become citizen diplomats entirely by chance. Avram Agov, a young student whom we had met as the roommate of Zlatko Enev, another young student who introduced himself to us during our social first visit to Bulgaria, happened to cause members of the think-tank of the Central Committee to want to meet us on the possibility that we might be able to help them start to make contact with American scholars. During the late stage of Communism, they got the desire for that interaction. He told them that he knew us when he applied to work with them with respect to North Korea. We had no idea how we might help them but we agreed to try.

All we could think of was our knowing the American ambassador. But, because we were able to introduce them to the receptive American ambassador only very shortly before the political and economic changes, nothing materialized directly. There was no need to. Nevertheless, right after the changes, the Ambassador enabled one of them, a friend of ours, to lead a tour to the US. When in Boston, he visited us unexpectedly and introduced us to Dr. Toma Tomov.

CD: You have said that ‘repeated coincidences’ were frequently involved in your Bulgaria experiences. How do you explain them?

R&AF: Practically all of our countless Bulgarian experiences arose as coincidences, starting with the finding of Nevena Geliazkova, Anne’s friend from the Geneva school, in 1985 by two fellow students at the Geneva school in 1937, after losing her through Communism and our McCarthyism. In 1985, those two fellow students happened to find an old issue of Life Magazine containing a letter from her to the editor and got her address that way.

They arranged for her to meet them at the Sofia railroad station on their way back to the US from Saudi Arabia, where she gave them an unaddressed letter to Anne, which they sent to us the next year. That led to our first visit to Bulgaria.

During that visit, we met Zlatko Enev when we were arbitrarily barred from the national library. That led to our unexpectedly getting Fulbrights, which led to the start of our networking with Bulgarians. Anne’s teaching prison social workers in 1991 through the invitation of Dr. Tomov, whom we met by chance in Boston during his study visit after the changes in Bulgaria, led to the establishment of School of Clinical Social Work and our meeting Dr. Galina Markova, who attended it and became its outstanding director, and ad infinitum. We account for the coincidences only by our being active and exposing ourselves to their chance happening and then disposed to take advantage of them. We do that because we are open to meeting new people and looking for opportunities to help them.

CD: How would you rate the value of your Fulbright activities in comparison with other international activities sponsored by the American government? Can you give us some examples of your actions?

R&AF: If our Fulbright activities were more socially beneficial than many other international activities, as we think that they were, that probably was because we were mature; had professional skills, especially social work; and enjoyed meeting people to help them and establish close continuing relationships with them.

CD: Of the many Americans who have studied, done research or taught in Bulgaria, have you met any who you would single out as having done a particularly good job of being ‘cultural ambassadors,’ if so in what respect?

R&AF: We do know a number of Americans who have been very effective “cultural ambassadors.” They include the late Nancy Cook, a clinical social worker from San Francisco, who secured a Fulbright and set up a trauma center in Sofia as a placement site for students at the new School of Clinical Social Work; Prof. Joan Berzoff of Smith College School for Social Work, who taught at the School for Clinical Social Work on a number of occasions; Dr. William Deveney of Boston, who secured a number of Fulbrights to consult in Bulgaria on social work practice and taught at the School there; Prof. Jean Anastas of the N.Y.U. School of Social Work, who taught at the School there; former Ambassador Sol Polansky, who has served on the boards of trustees of both the American University in Bulgaria in Blagoevgrad and the American College in Simeonovo in Sofia; and Kay Lamer of Boston, a clinical social worker whom we inspired to go there to teach a number of times at the School.

CD: Your activities reflect constant effort to help people. What moves you
to do that?

R&AF: For all our lives, we have been motivated to foster a decent and concerned society. Specifically, both us feel that helping people is the most rewarding experience one can have. We enjoy the success of socially positive activities in which we participate.

CD: How have your Bulgarian activities affected your own lives? Did they change any of your basic beliefs or assumptions about the world, or merely provide enhanced details?

R&AF: Our Bulgarian activities have enriched our lives immeasurably during our long retirement, at a time when many of our contemporaries merely coast. In general, they have enhanced our knowledge of history, culture, psychology, and the like in many respects, confirming our basic beliefs and assumptions, but adding the important dimension in Bulgaria that people as a group can be basically civil. We observed that in the traditional Bulgarian acceptance of ethnic and religious differences in their genuinely multi-ethnic society, as exemplifed by their freedom from significant anti-Semitism, specifically manifested by their saving their entire 50,000 Bulgarian Jews from deportation to Treblinka against the goal of their Nazi ally during WWII.

CD: How do you think your activities have affected the lives of Bulgarians?

R&AF: While we know from experience countless miscellaneous ways our activities have affected positively the lives of Bulgarians, we especially are proud of them for fostering modern social work there that helps families and children in a variety of ways. Specifically, we helped our friends make their incipient travel business relatively successful economically for both themselves and the people they hired. We helped a number of Bulgarians change their careers by acquainting them with their scopes. We assembled and transported a large library of English-language social work books for the School.

CD: Bulgarians sometimes seem to be a withdrawn, even depressed people. Do you agree? If so, is this a matter of nature, or specific economic/political/whatever local factors?

R&AF: We have observed that many Bulgarians in Bulgaria have an apparent inferiority complex and some of them overcompensate by acting superior, especially those in the Sobranie [Parliament] and the government! Many also are afflicted by envy or jealousy in that they don’t want what others have but don’t others to have more than they do. That could be part of their deep egalitarian streak that moved them to favor the humanitarian aspects of Marxism. We have no idea about the source of those emotions.

CD: Since your time in Bulgaria, how have you been able to continue your cooperation from America?

R&AF: We conducted our activities with Bulgarians in Bulgaria by making fourteen trips between 1987 and 2002. Now, we continue our Bulgarian activities through the Internet, with the help of many Bulgarians who have immigrated here, and by encouraging other Americans to go there to teach and consult.

CD: I understand that you helped organize a Jewish-themed tour for your Bulgarian travel agent friends. Was there sufficient demand among American Jews to go? And do you think this is a concept that could be successful for tourism providers in other Southeast European countries?

R&AF: From the very beginning of our visits to Bulgaria, we identified it as ideal for tourism for its scenery, history, and culture. When we learned of the unique Bulgarian civility, with their freedom from anti-Semitism and saving of their Jews, we particularly thought that it should attract American Jews. We suggested this to our friends who operate a tour company there and helped them design an itinerary, drawing on our American perspective. While our repeated effort to find an American marketer for such tours was not successful, our friends finally have been able to find one to start to offer those tours. We do not know yet about the interest in those tours. Jewish tours are offered by others to Eastern Europe and Spain.

CD: You have mentioned the gratitude that Jews feel to the Bulgarians for protecting the country’s Jewish minority during World War II. However, at the same time the Bulgarian army deported the Jews under their control in occupied Macedonia and Thrace. Considering the depth of nationalistic feeling in Bulgaria especially with regards to Macedonia, have you had any encounters with any Bulgarians on this topic? If so, what is their perception of the tragic contradictory role? Is this something American Jews are aware of?

R&AF: We are aware of the unfortunate deportation of about 12,000 Jews from Thrace and Macedonia while under the administration of the Bulgarian Army during WWII. Many people who are aware of it, Jews and others, hold that against the Bulgarians, which we believe that they shouldn’t. That was solely the responsibility of wily young Tsar Boris III, who was walking a tightrope fending off Hitler from occupying Bulgaria. He, at least, was moved to call off the impending deportation of Bulgarian Jews within Bulgaria.

The Bulgarian people and Church leaders were not in a position to stymie the external action as they did in Bulgaria after word leaked out through the secretary of Alexander Belev, the person in charge of the effort. Moreover, the Nazi Army was present when that was carried out. We interviewed a Macedonian former newspaper reporter from Skopje, who witnessed the event and tried unsuccessfully to dissuade the Bulgarian Army general from carrying it out.

CD: What is your assessment of the Bulgarians through the many you have known? And can you say that this is a people that the outsider can easily understand, or does it take much more time and effort to really know them?

R&AF: We continue to have a unique opportunity to know a wide variety of Bulgarians and have a very positive feeling toward practically all of them. They were all Bulgarian Slavs except for one unusually well educated Roma. They are no more difficult to understand than most people. We find those we meet to be predominantly warm and family oriented, which they manifest to outsiders they get to know. They are generous to a fault, highly intelligent, very literate, loyal, humanitarian, and socially responsible. We found it interesting that, despite their forebears being under the Ottoman Empire for 500 years, they reflect the social and intellectual values of the Western Enlightenment.

CD: What current problems do you see confronting the Bulgarians in Bulgaria?

R&AF: A major problem we are aware of is persisting corruption and gang criminality. We hear that education, formerly highly valued, is suffering. Also, the health care system apparently needs substantial improvement. We suspect that the government pension is inadequate and many retirement-aged people are dependent upon remittances from family abroad.

CD: One problem is the zero population growth amongst Bulgarians, and the decline of marriage as an institution, amidst strong competition from an opposing popular culture and a poor economy. Do you see this as a problem that will change in the future, if so, how and when?

R&AF: We see the zero population growth as a great problem, but it is not limited to Bulgaria. We cannot see that people will be eager to have children so long as the economy is weak and lacking in the types of career opportunities many find abroad. We have no idea if and when that will be corrected.

CD: Speaking from the point of view of elder visitors to Bulgaria, are there specific things the country could do to increase the ease of travel and comfort for older guests, in terms of infrastructure or organization?

R&AF: We haven’t been in Bulgaria since 2002 and, hence, are unaware of current conditions. When we were there, conditions were not favorable for frail or disabled people. There were too many stairs and too few elevators of adequate size. We are aware, from a friend in Boston, that serious efforts are underway to improve facilities and service in the tourism sector.

CD: If you were to say any words to American potential travelers young or old, about why they should visit Bulgaria, what would they be?

R&AF: We view Bulgaria still in political and economic transition as a living laboratory for the intellectually curious. It is refreshing to get to know the type of Bulgarians we have been privileged to meet, for their warmth, civility, and intellect. People like us who like to help others well could find countless opportunities. Bulgaria is unusually rich in history, going back to the Thracians as much as 7,000 B.C.E., with succeeding Greek and Roman vestiges. For outdoors people, the countryside is very attractive. There are wonderful opportunities to enjoy classical opera and music.

CD: How do you compare the experiences of Bulgarians in America with those in Bulgaria?

R&AF: We are impressed by how rapidly and well Bulgarian immigrants take advantage of the resources and opportunities in America. The vast majority of them we know do well for themselves and make a significant contribution to our society. This shows that they simply need the appropriate environment to use their innate skills to benefit themselves and the society in which they live.

While many Bulgarians do come into their own here in America, many in Bulgaria, often against great odds, do shine for their accomplishments. We are particularly aware of those in the field of social work. Our friends are contributing to the type of positive social environment they identify as desirable and they deserve.

CD: Now, almost 20 years after your Fulbrights in Bulgaria and sixteen years after the School of Clinical Social Work was started at the New Bulgarian University, how do you see the legacy of your activities there?

R&AF: We are delighted that you asked. We recently received a very positive report from Dr. Galina Markova, the first student at that School at Anne’s suggestion, its impressive director for many years, and the holder of a doctorate from the Smith College School for Social Work.

She just completed her major assignment- to de-institutionalize the notorious Moglino orphanage, which is the subject of a recent and very critical film. This effort has been spurred by the EU to reduce orphanages in Bulgaria and move to foster care for abused and neglected children, most of who were abandoned rather than true orphans. A major challenge was to trace the developmental history of the children, many of whom lost contact with their parents.

Now, she is initiating a bachelor’s degree program at the School to complement its master’s degree program since its establishment in 1992. Also, she inaugurated an entrepreneurial culture at the University to foster a closer relationship between it and the community. Similarly, she has developed a casework approach for an orphanage in Sofia for young children. Finally, she reported that a Roma female student supported by a fund we established there won support for a Roma community program for parents and children.

CD: Roy and Anne Freed, thanks so much for speaking with us today and good luck with your future Bulgarian endeavors.

R&AF: And thank you.

By Ruth S. Farnam, over 30 B/W photos

Bobbs-Merrill Co. (1918), 229 pp.

Reviewed by Christopher Deliso

This remarkable first-hand account of the First World War in the Balkans, available infrequently and only in its original 1918 printing, is the passionately told work of an American woman who, moved by the great suffering of the Serbian people at the hands of German and Austrian invaders in World War I, volunteered to assist with medical work, humanitarian fund-raising and, by the end of the book, briefly became an honorary soldier in the Serbian army as it was on the verge of breaking the Bulgarian lines on the River Crna in Macedonia in October of 1916.

A Nation at Bay: What an American Woman Saw and Did in Suffering Serbia is not a work of immense historical significance, nor will it win awards stylistically. The author’s evident subjectivity (the Germans are presented as the ‘blonde beast,’ the Bulgarians derisively as ‘Mongols,’ etc.) might also be considered to detract from its value for some, though it should be said that the simple sincerity of the author’s voice does come through, as do her strongly held beliefs, loud and clear. For what it’s worth, however, this book does provide some unique insights into the war and life in the Balkans at the time, along with some vignettes about political figures of note.

History records little of Ruth Farnham, an American born in 1873. She was married to another American, and (as a photo indicates) possessed a rather sumptuous residence in England. She must have been a woman of extraordinary toughness. The old ‘war is hell’ ethos prevails throughout A Nation at Bay, from the vivid descriptions of horribly wounded and tortured Serbian soldiers in Belgrade to the depiction, in the penultimate chapter, of actual front-lines fighting in Macedonia. Far from shrinking from the action, the author wins the affections of the Serbian soldiers by her zeal for the cause and for her bravery in very dangerous situations. That she seldom complained, and protested when anyone wanted to put her needs before those of the rank and file, also apparently endeared Farnham to her unlikely comrades in arms.

An interesting fact about the book is that it was penned while the war was still going on, in 1918. At the time the author had returned to America from the front, via the lengthy and difficult (between the bureaucracy and the furtive German submarines) route from Greece through Italy to France and England, and was making speeches and raising funds for providing medical and other humanitarian supplies for Serbian civilians and soldiers. As such, her book might be considered a classic piece of for-the-moment war propaganda; however, it is much more than that, preserving over the long decades observations and anecdotes of a time that no longer seems recognizable to us.

Along with the more general descriptions of the Serbian countryside, village life and zadruga household system common at the time, Farnam provides interesting specific images, such as descriptions of Senegalese conscripts marching in the French army, and grand old Salonica, swarming with the allied war effort. Amusing anecdotes of dealing with surly Italian border police, and unfailingly polite British officials, are retold. The author’s personal interactions with famous individuals such as the gallant Prince Alexander of Serbia and “that splendid patriot,�? Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos, liven up the book, and provide an element of historicity to it.

There are more dramatic contentions, such as the claims that the Bulgarians and Germans were selling hundreds of Serbian girls into the harems of Constantinople, or that Bulgarians were injecting Serbian civilians with “inoculations�? composed of diseases, though these are harder to verify. The obviously partisan author does seem to have a way of getting swept up in things, though this should not detract from the veracity of her specific personal experience as recounted. And while her brief recounting of the Serbian army’s desperate flight across the mountains of Albania to be evacuated by boat to Corfu in the winter of 1915-16 is positively elegiac, this and other accounts of strength amidst great hardship do give the book, the simplicity and naïvete of style considered as well, an oddly moving feel.

In the end, considering the current situation, what is perhaps most unusual about the story Ruth Farnam tells in A Nation at Bay: What an American Woman Saw and Did in Suffering Serbia is the fact that Americans and Serbs were fighting on the same side. This fact, and the significance of it, are constantly cited throughout the book. One suspects that was this stout, uncompromising author to be resurrected today, certain American officials would be in for more than a good sound tanning.

“When they attack, what should I do first?�? a young Serbian KPS police commander says. “Should I try to evacuate my children, or fight back? We are twenty, thirty thousand. They are two million.�?

The likelihood or not of such an imagined massive assault from Albanians doesn’t matter here in Mitrovica, the city divided between ethnicities by the River Ibar, up in Kosovo’s uncompromising north.

What matters is that Serbs fear it could happen and the siege mentality that has set in – as seen in the nationalist graffiti, the stern billboard warning that ‘those who live by the sword shall die by the sword,’ the muscular young men watching warily from cafés – is as real and as thick as the tension in this grand old dilapidated post-Communist city that refuses to recognize, as with the vast majority of the world’s countries thus far, that a living country has been hacked out of the Serbian body. That the phrase Kosovo je Srbija (Kosovo is Serbia) has been consigned to the history books by Pristina’s unilateral declaration of independence on February 17 is bitterly resisted here in the north.

Indeed, ever since the ‘UDI’ (wary critics refer to the independence declaration only by the acronym now, one in the same category as the ICBM, to save their breath), the Serbs of several contiguous municipalities that border on Serbia proper have broken off cooperation with the Pristina government. The Serbs in the central and southern enclaves, though they have also protested regularly, have talked less tough, knowing that they are extremely vulnerable to an attack from all sides, should the Albanians wish to eliminate them.

One thing the Serbs have protested against vociferously was the April 4 return of Ramush Haradinaj from the Hague Tribunal. The former KLA leader and briefly, prime minister, Haradinaj was acquitted of all charges- at about the same time that former Hague prosecutor Carla Del Ponte disclosed in her memoir that the KLA had (possibly) been involved with trafficking the organs of kidnapped Serbs in 1999. Del Ponte had spent the lion’s share of her time prosecuting Serbs; as she could hardly be considered partial to them, the thinking went, the story must be true.

Of course, the Albanians have objected strenuously, while the Serbian and now Russian governments have called for a further investigation. For her part, Del Ponte was banned from promoting her book in Italy by a squeamish Swiss government, which has banished her to Argentina, to the position of ambassador. The secret to the mystery, Del Ponte intones, may lie in open graves in a small village in northern Albania.

Whether or not the story is true, for Kosovo Serbs, Haradinaj’s acquittal “sends a strong signal,�? in the words of one experienced UN official in Kosovo. “They take it to mean that the KLA’s war has won legitimacy- and that they can act with impunity against Serbs, without fear of punishment.�?

At the same time, Haradinaj aspires to an ever greater diplomatic reputation and for this reason, the official believes, the key Serbian monastery of Decani – deep in Haradinaj’s home turf in the west – is safe. “He wants to show that the international community can count on him to guarantee safety for minorities by solving their problems and protecting them… though sometimes he does seem to create local problems to offer himself as the one who can solve them.�? Haradinaj’s sometimes caring, sometimes cruel behavior in his personal fiefdom is remarkably similar to the way medieval Albanian feudal lords operated there.

Indeed, Haradinaj’s return to Kosovo was greeted by celebrations in the Dukagjin area of western Kosovo, and was anticipated by billboards saying things (in English) like Welcome home! and Ramush, we need you now! Some Albanians in Pristina love him, some are more circumspect: “he doesn’t have a lot of support,�? says one Albanian OSCE officer, claiming he will not make as tough an opposition to the government of Hashim Thaci as some among the international corps are hoping.

It is true. Some Western diplomats in Pristina have long been enraptured by Ramush. They gush about his “charisma�? and “forthright attitude.�? His closeness with former UNMIK chief Soren Jessen-Petersen was legendary. The now fired American deputy chief Steven Schook, a scathing German report later claimed, perceived his duties as “to get drunk once a week with Ramush Haradinaj.�?

The welcoming committee apparently wanted to dress him for the role: in suit, glasses, backed by a shelf of books. In the grand images, the newly academic renaissance man of Kosovo looks not unlike Nicholas Cage. He could play him in the movie someday.

But forget about Ramush- back to Mitrovica. There are a lot of opinions, and a lot of questions, on the minds of Serbs and internationals alike. Still, life is fairly normal. You can buy burek at 6:30 AM, or a purple toy turtle, or do your banking on the river at the improbable Kosovsko Metohiska Banka AD Zvechan, almost 50 years old, a creation and a survivor of old Yugoslavia. In between the old apartment blocks rising from the north side, children play badminton, with some determination, on an asphalt court.

Some Serbs follow the time-honored national pressure release mechanism of taking recourse to black humor, as well as other things. A man drinking beer in a small shop with his old friend, the proprietor, declares that “there are no Macedonians, only Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians, they were the ones fighting the Balkan Wars!�? The proprietor looks at his friend ruefully, with the long-suffering glance of someone who has been hearing it for years, when the former continues that there are no Montenegrins, either: “but he is from Montenegro!�? he declares fiercely, pointing at the proprietor. “And he is a Serb!�?

The humor is better. There are boys who are less than 20 and in the faculty of history there. They love America and love to make fun of Bush. But the (Bill) Clinton impersonations really have them roaring. They laugh when I joke thank you for not killing me and they go somewhere to enjoy themselves for another night that is still peaceful. Cafés and bars advertise visiting singers and, but for the palpable tension, you could be anywhere in dignified but decaying post-Communist Europe.

It could always be peaceful here. It depends on the decisions of individuals. Will they be rational ones? Will they be seen as fair? Many, and not only Serbs, are unnerved by the news reports speculating an attack is just around the corner. The nationalist political parties have them revved up too, ahead of elections. And Easter is soon. No one wants to believe in a conspiracy, but at the same time they know the Albanians are well-disciplined and, as officials noted four years ago, in the March riots, “nothing happens spontaneously in Kosovo.�? If something “happens,�? it will really happen.

A miniature earthquake came with the special police operation of March 17 – the anniversary of those riots – in which armed UN police from Pristina launched an assault on a courthouse that was being peacefully occupied by former court workers- most of them women. The workers had only been sitting in the hall and had stated they would be happy to come out. But someone in Pristina wanted to show the Serbs a lesson because, as another veteran UN official says, “they believe that the Serbs only respect force.�?

The mission was a disaster. They arrested the court workers and paraded them, as a victorious Roman legion would have done with its prisoners of war, through the streets of South Mitrovica before bringing them to Pristina. They were later released.

The provocation was designed to infuriate the Serbs. The police could have simply opened the door, released the occupants, and gone home, a witness says, and everything might have been fine. The locals could have forgiven even that heavy-handed and outrageous show of force. “Yet the problems started when it became clear that they were going to be sent to Pristina.�?

It didn’t help either that a local TV cameraman was on scene to stream the whole thing live. Crowds gathered. They threw rocks at first, before stronger weapons appeared. They released some of the prisoners before the terrified troops could escape. One of them was killed and many others wounded.

Damage control immediately set in, as it so often does in Kosovo. UNMIK in Pristina darkly disclosed that nefarious Serbian police elements from Belgrade had been involved. The foreign media ate it up, completely overlooking the leaked document out of UNMIK Mitrovica, which roundly ridiculed “Shock and Awe Two.�? That report brought pressure that is still far from abating, and it looks like there will be a final standoff. The situation is grim, the future is brief. And so it goes…

Nevertheless everything could still work out. The KPS officer reminds that mixed-ethnic police units are working together and only a few days ago were able to break up a rock and gun fight between Serbs and Albanians in a nearby village. In the north there are Albanians, in one neighborhood of Mitrovica, and in outlying areas. There are not Serbs living the south of the city, though they seem free to quietly come and go. Meanwhile, the EU blindly and desperately moves to placate Serbia and influence its elections of May 11, offering sped-up agreements to keep the Radicals out. This is to the displeasure of EU officials in the Balkans, who believe Brussels is overlooking other areas of tension, such as Bosnia and Macedonia, with its “Serbia obsession.�?

A problem here is that the EU is looking for agreements where agreements won’t matter. They believe controlling Serbia’s policy on Kosovo will help to lead to a final resolution of Kosovo’s status, or at least its ability to plod on, and that the new, hands-off EU mission will be able to start at the time the Kosovo constitution takes effect on June 15- “when pigs fly!�? one European ambassador in Pristina cracks, on hearing that.

Actually, what the EU forgets is that Belgrade is not as important here as are the inhabitants themselves. The Kosovo Serbs are the crucial actors, and especially in the north. These people know that the Belgrade politicians cynically use them; they also don’t realistically expect that Russia will help them in a military emergency, despite the occasional poster of Putin on the streets of North Mitrovica. They have only themselves to rely on, though they have kept good relations with the UN in Mitrovica, which they perceive as being more fair and objective than the UN elsewhere in Kosovo.

They also know that life in Serbia proper, in a collective center or impoverished anonymity, would be even worse. And there would be a cut-off in the extra financial aid from Belgrade that some get for staying. The small pocket of Krajina Serbs – already once dislocated from their former homes in Croatia by the horrors of war – are among the most adamant.

Hashim Thaci has declared the intent to “assimilate�? the Serbs and (here is the pot calling the kettle black) to punish the insolent behavior of this allegedly uncontrolled region based on organized crime. Like hell. The Serbs are not prepared to lose the one last place in Kosovo where they feel a measure of safety and normalcy. If they go, it will be after a massive attack such as the one they fear is coming at any time. If they stay, it will be because diplomacy will keep things cool, or because Pristina (and/or the internationals) cannot accept the body bags that would result.

The UN police guarding the famous Mitrovica bridge in the dark tonight in their vehicle are from Zimbabwe. “It’s all peaceful here,�? they say, listening to reggae music and smiling. It’s probably a lot better than living in Zimbabwe right now.

Yet on the other side of the bridge, in the much calmer south of the city, international forces show more concern. Heavily-armed French soldiers, most just out of high school, bump into one another with their overburdened uniforms and machine guns. They eye everything warily, on the quiet street where a few people are having a drink. They seem to be guarding their pizza.

An American policeman, in ‘Mitro’ for almost four years now, laughs when asked what the situation will be like in the north. “Hell, it could end up like another Palestine up there,�? he says. “We’ll have to wait and see.�?

Serbia is both blessed and cursed. So, too, are those blessed and cursed that are forced by geography or other circumstance to deal with Serbia. They usually become entrapped.

The reason is obvious. As defined in the last century by Jovan Cvijic, the preeminent Serbian geographer of the Balkans, “We built our house in the middle of the road.”

A cursory glance at the map proves his point. Serbia sits astride not merely the Danube, Europe’s great southeasterly waterway, but also astride the continent’s main land route from north to south. It was the road that Constantine (born near Nis) took in the 4th century on his gradual journey to Byzantium, where he built his great capital. In 1095, some 500 years after Slavs (Serbs) reached the peninsula, members of the first Crusade took that route on their way to the Holy Land. Turk, Hungarian and Austrian invaders used the road. So did the Wehrmacht.

Now the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is again at the door of Serbia’s house in the middle of the ancient Balkan road. Having bombed the house in 1999, killing hundreds of (civilian) occupants, the alliance, obese but still adding weight, is not knocking politely, but rudely hammering.

Neighboring Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria are already members. Croatia and Albania were invited in April in Bucharest, where Macedonia’s membership was deferred, due to its nomenclature issue with Greece. And Montenegro will be on the dance ticket soon.

“I do not have a shred of doubt that Serbia’s long-term future lies in Euro-Atlantic integration,�? NATO’s secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said March 14, ignoring the fact that Serbia has proclaimed neutrality - thus joining Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland in that relatively rare status.

Odd, isn’t it, that just those four should perform such an un-neutral act as rushing to recognize Kosovo independence? NATO’s rhetoric is but a smoke screen, accompanied lately by siren songs and mantra-like recitals of “Euro-Atlantic Unity.�?

That is one of history’s jokes. The alliance was created 56 years ago. Its original purpose, as Lord Ismay, the first NATO secretary general wittily but accurately remarked, was “to keep the Americans in, the Soviets out and the Germans down.�?

It succeeded in those aims, but when the Cold War ended NATO floundered for many months like Pirandello’s actors looking for someone to write their script. Along came the crackup of Yugoslavia, with Serbia conveniently playing the role of the bad guy (in a region where there were bad guys from one end of Tito’s creation to the other).

On the principle that the beast of bureaucracy never dies – it just mutates – the alliance was reborn as the eastern talon of the American eagle (the western talon reaching over the Pacific). Its putative enemies are uniformly chosen by the United States, not by NATO’s European members. Now its leaders are eying Africa and South America as future fields.

NATO’s first outside-of-area battlefield, the Balkans, was at least “European” if not “Atlantic.” Along with that came a design, at least back to 1992 – with an eye on Kosovo – to crush and then dismember Serbia. That process is embodied in the creation of Camp Bondsteel, in supporting Pristina’s independence and most recently in President Bush’s plan to send American weapons to the Kosovo government. (One of these days veterans of the KLA could be recruited to fight on one of NATO’s war fronts).

Today NATO is heavily engaged almost as far as can be from “Europe” and “the Atlantic,” in Afghanistan. Amend that: Part of NATO is actually fighting there. But Bundeswehr forces, for example, refuse to go into real combat. In other words, NATO is becoming hollowed out by the refusal of some to click heels and salute at every American command. In February Defense Secretary Gates complained that this could “destroy the alliance.�?

One must wonder in a similar vein about the political solidarity and purpose of the European Union - despite its obvious success and might as an economic power. Keep in mind that it began life in 1951 as an economic unit, the European Coal and Steel Community.

Through all of its mutations to its current membership of 27, the EU grouping has never overcome its deep political differences. They persist today whether on creating its own army, on enacting a binding constitution, on membership for Turkey, on Kosovo’s independence and of course, on the question of Serbia’s participation.

In the question of Serbia it is not just the quandary inherent in the fact it sits in the middle of one of Europe’s main roads. There are the problems deriving from the reality that, after the ouster of Slobodan Milosevic (and his subsequent deliverance to the Hague tribunal), and numerous other concessions to world powers, the demonizing of Serbs and discrimination against Serbia has not abated, much less disappeared. Far from that, if anything they have grown more intense, more all-encompassing.

For heaven’s sake! Even during the darkest days of Nazi rule the Germans were granted their Goethe, their Beethoven their Thomas Mann by the rest of the world. In the 19th century Vuk Karadzic was welcomed in Germany and hailed by Goethe and Jacob Grimm. Later Nikola Tesla was welcomed if not hailed in the United States. Today they would probably be denied visas and, if they were champion Serbian athletes, they might be barred from competing.

At least one European official seems to be aware that a road is involved with Serbia’s existence. Speaking in Sarajevo on March 20 Britain’s Europe Minister, Jim Murphy, said “Serbia is at a fork in the road of the nation’s history – the choice is Europe or isolation.�? That was of course an allusion to the May 11 parliamentary elections.

That seems a gross exaggeration. In the longer term perhaps one can see the house in the middle of the road in a more nuanced way. NATO may last for awhile, the EU a bit longer.

But I believe Serbia and its house will outlive both groupings. After all, it survived earlier empires.

…………………………

*David Binder (born 1931) was a correspondent for The New York Times from 1961 until 2004. He specialized in coverage of central and eastern Europe, based in Berlin, Belgrade and Bonn. The current piece was published in Belgrade’s Politika on March 25, 2008. It has been modified very slightly to account for events since that date.

The proposed ‘Union for the Mediterranean’, which aims to strengthen ties between the EU and Mediterranean countries in a number of key areas such as energy and security, was approved by EU delegates on March 14 after a two-day summit in Brussels. The suspicion remains, however, that the union may represent an attempt to create an alternative scheme by opponents of Turkey’s accession to the EU.

The exact details of the plan, which will endeavour to improve energy supply and strengthen civil security cooperation, will be officially announced on July 13, after France assumes the EU presidency on July 1.

President Nicolas Sarkozy, the leading figurehead behind the concept of the ‘Mediterranean Union’, made it one of his key foreign policy planks in his 2007 election campaign. However, fears that the plan would be seen as a rival scheme to the EU and that it would supplant the long-standing Barcelona Process, established in 1995 with similar policy goals, led to some resistance, with opponents to the policy accusing Sarkozy of trying to defend French economic and political interests in North Africa. In the face of stiff opposition from other EU members, primarily Germany, Sarkozy was thus forced to make compromises.

The very name of the adopted plan “The Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean” highlights it as an extension of existing agreements rather than the bold new scheme Sarkozy had fervently promoted.

Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, said, “It is not a question of burying [the Barcelona Process], to start from scratch. It’s just about bringing it up to date…times have changed, we have to adapt.”

Instead of featuring EU countries on the Mediterranean shore only, as initially intended, the new scheme will include all 27 EU member states and 12 countries in North Africa and Asia Minor. The project will not receive any additional EU funds to those allocated under the Barcelona Process, although Sarkozy said he intended to raise an extra 14bn euros in private sector funding for the project.

“We have no problem with the Mediterranean Union. After all, Turkey is the country with the longest Mediterranean coastline. So we will of course look warmly on new projects, cooperation and solidarity in the region,” one Turkish diplomat said.

Given the limited scale of the new scheme, and as Turkey has had a trade union with the EU since 1996, the potential benefits of joining the union are comparatively modest for Ankara. Still, in the days leading up to the announcement, Turkish representatives were eager to learn whether or not the union did constitute an alternative to their country’s accession to the EU.

“They (the French) have given us a guarantee that the Mediterranean Union is not an alternative to Turkey’s EU project, they say that idea has now been abandoned. They are sincere in this,” the diplomat was reported as saying.

Their concerns are unlikely to be completely relieved until Sarkozy makes an official statement that the Union of the Mediterranean poses no barrier to future accession.

As an outspoken opponent to Turkey’s membership of the EU, Sarkozy has reiterated his proposition for a ‘privileged partnership’, as a means of deflecting Turkish demands to continue to seek full membership of the EU. His policy is having some effect as the EU’s lukewarm attitude towards its eastern neighbour has led to a marked decrease in public support for EU accession in Turkey itself. A poll by the German Marshall Fund in September 2007 found that only 40% of Turks believe EU membership would be a ‘good thing’ for their country, down from 73% in 2004.

In the meantime, negotiations surrounding Turkey’s EU accession are continuing. On March 15, Olli Rehn, the EU Commissioner for Enlargement, confirmed that talks in at least two policy areas would begin by the end of June. The most likely topics of these talks will be the diversification of EU oil and gas routes through Turkish territory, and the upgrading of Turkey’s corporate law to meet EU standards. “The EU accession process of Turkey is alive and moving forward,” Rehn was reported as saying. But fears remain that an alternative EU track could derail Turkey’s ambitions of becoming a full member of the coveted economic union.

………………………

*Oxford Business Group (OBG), a UK-based publishing, research and consultancy organisation, publishes economic and political intelligence on the markets of Eastern Europe, North and South Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

OBG offers comprehensive analysis of political, macroeconomic and sectoral developments, including banking, capital markets, energy, infrastructure, industry and insurance.

OBG’s acclaimed economic, political and business reports are the leading source of local and regional intelligence, while OBG’s online economic briefings provide up-to-date in-depth analysis. OBG’s consultancy arm offers tailor-made market intelligence and advice to firms operating in these markets and those looking to enter them.

The international community has always looked for good news from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Like Bush beleaguered in Iraq, ever-looking for any glimmer of peace, so with Bosnia: every indication of reconciliation is fêted as evidence of how post-Dayton Bosnia has evolved into a credible multi-cultural state. Dayton was a great way to end a war. Whether it was a good start to building peace is quite another matter.

Whatever the reality, audiences in western Europe and the USA delight at images of the rebuilt Mostar bridge, forever citing it as representing a new mood in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Many pundits see the bridge over the Neretva gorge as somehow bridging the divide between Islam and Christendom, though whether the bridge’s architects ever intended it to bear the weight of such an awesome responsibility is quite another matter. But it is a fine ideal and in 2005 UNESCO inscribed the bridge and the surrounding complex of Ottoman and post-Ottoman buildings onto its World Heritage List.

You can read more on the Balkan region in every issue of hidden europe magazine. Recent issues have included essays on sworn virgins in northern Albania, on the Vrbas valley in Bosnia and on the Prespa lake region of Macedonia (this latter piece by Chris Deliso of Balkanalysis.com). The May 2008 issue of hidden europe includes articles on the Prokletije Mountains of Montenegro, on Pécs in southern Hungary and on the Bosnian town of Brcko.

by Paul Stephenson

Cambridge University Press (2000), 352 pp., 22 maps and tables

Reviewed by Christopher Deliso

This is one of the most important contemporary books for the history of the Byzantine Balkans. It creates a thoroughly new picture of the social, economic and political life of the time and, for good measure, it comes beautifully set within a colorful cover taken from a medieval Byzantine manuscript. For readers interested in this specific aspect of the Byzantine world, it is definitely ‘the one to own.’

Conducted during the 1990s, those frenzied years of nationalism in the Balkans, Stephenson’s research is among other things, an antidote to that nationalism. Indeed, he rejects the notion of Balkan natives as having been engaged in a chronic struggle to overthrow the ‘Byzantine yoke.’ In actual fact, he notes,

“…the peoples of the northern Balkan lands seem to have worn their political allegiances lightly. This is not to say that they did not feel intense personal loyalty to local or regional rulers: it is clear they did. However, there is no indication that this was translated into a higher loyalty, and certainly not to a sense of belonging to any abstract entity like a ‘nation.’… sources do not support the notion [that] an ethnic awareness, still less a national consciousness, motivated rebellions�? (p. 320).

In its synoptic coverage, careful attention to detail, and use of the full range of textual and tangible source materials, this book bears the signs of an influence that to most readers would remain invisible- that is, the scholarly influence of Jonathan Shepard, expert in Byzantine-Russian history, and occasionally adventurous Oxford don James Howard-Johnston, whose relatively infrequent publishing, students know well, owes entirely to that time-honored unsatisfied desire for perfection of old-school scholars. For years, fans of this eminent historian have had to rely on the ‘trickle-down’ method of attaining his insights vicariously, through the work of those influenced by him. This fact makes Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900-1204 even more significant.

Method and Limiting Factors

What makes Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900-1204 truly innovative, and a good example of modern Byzantine research methodology, is the author’s use of coin and seal finds to enhance a narrative as formerly created from the historiographical record. At the same time, Stephenson also criticizes and corrects various interpretations in the text, as well as dealing with provenance issues and the trustworthiness of the source. It is this critical eye that distinguishes Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900-1204 from other works on the topic.

The author also refers to limiting factors that the general reader might not have considered, such as the significance of geography in the shaping of political states and alliances. For the Byzantines, “…the Haemus [Stara Planina in Bulgaria] were regarded as the only secure and defensible barrier�? from certain nomad incursions (p. 110). And so, as would remain the case in later Ottoman centuries, whichever group was guarding the mountain passes that separated different contiguous areas could receive special treatment; as mountain-dwellers tended to be pastoralists, Vlach shepherds often played this role. However, the guardians of the pass could just as easily betray their ostensible patron, as the Byzantines learned the hard way in Bulgaria, when the barbarian Cumans were escorted through the passes to Adrianople (p. 109).

Another example of the value Byzantine rulers placed on geography, and those who understood it, is culled from the Alexiad of Anna Comnena, daughter of Emperor Alexios I Comnenos. Recounting her father’s decision to engage in evasive action rather than pitched battle with the Normans, she writes:

“…[Alexios] summoned one of the old men from Larissa and questioned him on the topography of the place. Turning his eyes in different directions and at the same time pointing with his finger, he carefully inquired where the land was broken in ravines, where dense thickets lay close to such places. The reason why he asked the Larissean such questions was of course that he wished to lay an ambush there and so defeat the Latins by guile, for he had given up any idea of an open hand-to-hand conflict; after many clashes of this kind – and as many defeats – he had acquired experience of Frankish tactics in battle.�? (p. 172)

The study of sigillography (lead seals) is also a relatively modern innovation which the author exploits in Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900-1204. Such seals, often stamped with the sender’s name and title, were affixed to important documents when sent; the double purpose of this practice was to indicate the rank and prestige of the sender and, of course, to preserve the secrecy of the contents. Where archeologists have discovered large groups of seals in one place, it is often found, that that place would have been the site of an imperial archive or bureaucratic office. The discovery of large numbers of seals in Bulgaria, for example, has provided insights that have dramatically revised the history of that country in Byzantine times (p. 55-61).

Stephenson makes full use of these finds, as well as the growing science of Byzantine numismatics, to make his case. The interpretation of coin hoards differs from seal hoards, however, owing to their inherent fiscal value: “…the most likely reason for concealment is generally assumed to be the desire for security, and this desire is manifested most frequently at times of unrest. Thus a series of contemporary hoards can often be associated with a rebellion or invasion�? (p. 16). An example of the author’s use of numismatics is the discussion of what the discovery of large numbers of low-level bronze coins on the Danube says about the economic life of the time in that region (p. 105).

Structure and Content

Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900-1204 is divided into nine chapters, which cover in turn the rise of the medieval Bulgarian empire, the devastating impact of Cuman and Pecheneg nomads from the north, the rise of the Serbian state and Byzantium’s interactions with troublemaking Latins from the West, the Normans and other crusaders. Allies that became too powerful for their own good, and who exploited the perfidious politics of local rulers, are treated objectively in consideration of their own interests. Indeed, Stephenson generally succeeds in the careful balancing act of not letting his main focus get away from him while also citing the main factors influencing foreign interactions with Byzantium, from both the Catholic West and the Muslim east of the Arabs and Turks.

Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900-1204 contains much more than can be described in a simple review. Stephenson’s work is one that should ideally be read, and then re-read. The details – for at bottom this is a narrative of events, battles and political succession – come thick and fast, and the author frequently finds himself challenging the veracity of Byzantine sources that had been traditionally taken at face value. While the vast amount of references to leaders and generals whom history has largely forgotten may occasionally bewilder the general reader, the writing is straightforward and not daunting; the book repays a careful study.

A New Picture

That no Byzantine maps still survive is just one of the many extremely interesting details to emerge from Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900-1204 (p. 3). Indeed, any maps retrospectively placed on the region, in terms of territorial ‘possession’ by larger state entities are inherently deceptive; in actual fact, tracts of territory large and small, usually marked by a handful of strategic highlands or water sources, passed hands frequently between the empire, rebels, local chieftains and foreign invaders such as the Pechenegs or the Normans.

Something else vitally important to remember, which the book discusses fully, is the fact that the composition of the armies involved was never ethnically or politically ‘pure.’ The actors ranged from hapless locals conscripted into the fight to hardened mercenaries specifically selected from distant lands. The emperor’s guard might have been made up of Rus Vikings, his army, composed of Greeks, Turkish mercenaries and Western adventurers. The whole structure might change during the next campaign. The same went for any of the other combatants who grew sufficiently powerful to be able to pay men for their military service.

And so what we come away with is a picture of an extraordinarily fluid region, in which allegiances were bound to be transient, and in which local power relationships were based on the recognition that any alliance was likely to be temporary, and that yesterday’s enemy could be tomorrow’s best friend. There is a name for this kind of politics, which has somehow stood the test of time: Balkan.

What Stephenson’s book does is, tacitly though specifically, to show how a convergence of physical factors, especially strategic geography, transit routes and natural resources, rather than (as has sometimes been argued) a malignant and perfidious mindset allegedly endemic to the region and its inhabitants, conditioned diplomatic decision-making and political structures.

If nationalism did not account for the frequent changes in allegiance away from the Byzantines, it was just because developments, locally and in the West, afforded newer and shinier options. “…The emergence of powerful polities in the West whose rulers became alternative patrons and suzerains for the rulers of various groups, regions and cities,�? the author notes (p 321). The Normans of Sicily, the rising maritime power of Venice, and the kingdom of Hungary were the most powerful such options.

In conclusion, with Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900-1204, we are treated to one of the best discussions out there of how, remarkably, a unique and common culture was molded and managed to survive during a period of great change in the Balkans, one that remains relatively unexplored. Nevertheless, under critical examination, remarkable signs of continuity emerge that ultimately help us to understand how the modern Balkans came into existence.