“EU offers reassurance to Ukraine,” read a BBC headline. “EU offers no promises to hopeful Ukraine,” wrote the Irish Times. “EU Makes Positive Noises But Offers Only Vague Deal to Ukraine,” stated Deutsche Welle. “Nervous EU offers Ukraine hope for the future but no seat at the table,” concluded The Times.

The negative part of the assessment of the Summit's results stems from the EU's decision not to include the term “membership perspective” in the description of Ukraine’s future relationship with the EU - a phrase, which, according to Vitaly of The 8th Circle, “would identify Ukraine’s EU aspirations as something more than a hypothetical idea”:

[…] To myself, I thought that this is not surprising. With the EU still digesting the 2004 and 2007 enlargement waves, experiencing the Romania-Bulgaria fatigue syndrome, and dealing with an internal problem caused by Ireland’s vote against the Lisbon constitution treaty, any talk of further enlargement perspective for other states, especially those like Ukraine with 46 million citizens or Turkey with 70 million, must be nauseating. Although, smaller states, like Serbia with a population of 7 million, have a more realistic perspective as we have recently learned from Mr. Barroso […].

The 8th Circle points at another alleged reason for deciding against Ukraine's “European perspective” - the ongoing political crisis in Ukraine - but argues that “what Ukraine is going through right now SHARES quite a bit with the European values”:

[…] Furthermore it is puzzling why the withdrawal of one section from the ruling coalition, and the consequent potential for a pre-term election is NOT an example of shared values between the EU and Ukraine. As a democracy with competitive, free and fair elections, Ukraine is attempting to find an institutional solution that will accommodate all of its political actors.

It is a democratic process through which every democratic state must pass through if it is to move beyond the adjective - “transitional.” Well consolidated democracies, such as Canada and Japan are currently going through the same coalition formation/pre-term election process, and Belgium in the past year took 196 days to form a coalition, which almost beat their 1977 record of 208 days. […]

J Clive Matthews of Nosemonkey's EUtopia thinks that the EU should adopt a more practical approach to dealing with Ukraine:

[…] So Ukraine’s less welcome than tiny Albania and Macedonia? Less welcome than Serbia, a country built on a genocidal civil war and still in dispute with much of the EU over the status of Kosovo?

Yeah, cheers for that. Really encouraging. Nice one.

The promise of future EU membership can be a force for good, inspiring positive shifts towards greater democratic freedoms. But the promise has to be made. Taking a carrot and stick approach is a tried-and-tested method for getting people to do what you want - and that goes for countries too. Yet in the case of Ukraine, the EU’s carrot would appear to be largely imaginary - while at the same time, Ukrainians know that Russia has both stick and carrot, and isn’t afraid to use either.

Taras of Ukrainiana takes a harsh stance on the performance of Ukraine's politicians:

[…] Sure, Euro-beggars can’t be Euro-choosers. Especially if you come to the negotiation table in such a grotesque disarray.

In the meantime, let our oligarchs buy a little more of Monaco. Maybe then we’ll have our chance to join the EU? […]

Part of the passage above is actually a reaction to Victor Yushchenko's seemingly awkward and inappropriately positive response to what Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly said on behalf of the EU at the end of the Summit. Ukrainiana posted a news report broadcast by one of Ukrainian TV stations and provided an English translation of the Ukrainian voiceover translation of Sarkozy's words:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy: This association agreement [to be signed in 2009] does not close any paths, nor does it open any paths. That’s all we could give.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko: We very much appreciate what we reached today.

It turns out, however, that Sarkozy's remark has been mistranslated, and the incorrect translation was then featured prominently in the Ukrainian and a few Western media outlets (more about it - here). The original statement - “[…] cet accord d’association ne ferme aucune piste, que même il en ouvre” - apparently translates as “[…] this association agreement does not close any route, it even opens some.”

“Well, let's see what that means in practical terms,” concludes Ukrainiana after posting a correction.

The 8th Circle believes that the EU should “stay engaged with its Eastern Neighborhood” and that the Polish-Swedish Eastern Partnership project might be “a good small step in that direction.” Here is why:

[…] This partnership more than anything will show that the EU retains its leadership role in Europe by staying actively engaged with “neighborhood countries” that are at various stages of democratic and economic development.

[…]

Note that the question is not about making a promise of membership or candidateship - like the one made by Barroso vis-a-vis Serbia - rather it is about signaling to politicians in Kyiv and the Ukrainian population that if they want to and if they reform accordingly, then the EU is a viable option. […]

Macedonian blogger Mecheto Ushko, disgusted at the pointless verbal crossfire between Bulgarians and Macedonians, laid the foundation of the initiative “With Literature, Against the Balkan Provincialism”:

What's happening on Blogeray [Macedonian blogging platform] is no longer NATIONALISM, it is PROVINTIALISM.

[…]

Let’s make a brief retrospective.

At the outset it all started normally on Blogeray. As it should. There appeared a group of bloggers who started writing what they wanted to write. We live in the era of freedom of thinking and speech. Not a single word, not a single thought, is fearsome and dangerous as long as it does not hold in itself elements of hatred, genocide and intolerance. Each word spoken outside the street vocabulary is by itself sufficient for discussion and analysis.

There appeared a countergroup of bloggers sharing the same outlook and way of action in the reverse direction. There appeared that blog propaganda from OUR NEIGHBOUR (Bulgaria), that was condemned by every reasonable person – but it raised so much dust that it cannot settle and the clear perspective cannot reemerge.

The blog provincialism went on as a method of self-expression, a heap of semi-literates and simple thickheads, who went on spitting as far as they could, appeared. Nobody is capable of avoiding this regardless of where they are. This whole attitude is getting ridiculous, comical, farcical and commonplace. There is a blog with nearly 7,500 comments to a single post. I wonder who those people could be, who read and comment on such texts. But those are most often people who never read and who think even less.

There appeared a petition that called to the owner of this blog service (blog.com.mk) to ban access to all those who write stuff that they (the petitioners) dislike.

We are forgetting that the internet is a global medium and that practically it is very hard to censor or ban something. Leaning against the windows of their closed rooms, we are looking at only the part of the world that we can see when opening or closing the window. Where the horizon of this scope of visibility is, only thus far we can see. We do not want to look further ahead in the future and we have the computer in front of us. Isn’t that a paradox? With the internet you have the world on your palm and we do not want to look inside it. We do not want to accept the influence from the western democracies. We are looking at only the negative things, the positive seem not to exist. We are sealed in not only our own country but in our towns, a very parochial closure.

The whole thing is even more tragic, because this attitude is connived at by the liberal and intellectual circles of this Blogeray, who cannot accept the fact that the world has been changed and we remain all the same in a big waiting room where we wait to be accepted somewhere. Remember that all you do and you are done to remains. All that you are going to say or write. You cannot pretend that you do not see something which is in front of your very eyes. It is before you and you must fight to change it because (otherwise) you will leave it as a burden for your descendants.

Because of that in the next few days, as a reflection of my revolt against all this provincial-chauvinistic farce there will appear short stories by renowned Bulgarian writers and actors. Let us raise the voice of reason.

The voice of the cultured and well-educated person that can be stronger than the voice of the Balkan chauvinism.
This is the start of the new era, the era of LITERARY CHAUVINISM.
WITH LITERATURE, AGAINST THE BALKAN PROVINCIALISM.
Because the past cannot vanquish the present!
Because hatred cannot vanquish love!

A similar initiative on the Bulgarian side had already been undertaken by the Konstantin Pavlov. In a blog called “Lozari-Vinary” specifically made for the purpose, he introduced young Macedonian authors to the Bulgarian public. But Pavlov did not stop there. He was the first to publish on paper and at his own expense a contemporary Macedonian author. We are referring to Alex Boukarski - one of the most renowned young authors, publicists and bloggers. Boukarski has been awarded the literary debut price of Macedonia in 2006. His short stories and books are extremely popular with the younger generation of Macedonians. His blog is among the most authoritative ones and boasts one of the highest counts of visitors in Macedonia, and we will be justified to say that he is among the informal leaders of the blog community there. He has participated in a number of discussions about cultural and social problems. For a while he was an author with the Macedonian weekly “Nedelno vreme,” where he had a column on the problems of youth, culture and literature in Macedonia.

Although Boukarski and Pavlov differ in their views on a number of questions, between them there has developed a friendship that led to the appearance in Bulgarian of a debut collection of short stories by Boukarski titled “People whose parachute does not open.” The event attracted the attention of the Bulgarian blogging community. In some 40 of the most authoritative blogs in Bulgaria there appeared reactions and comments on the book's promotion.

Blogger Peter Dobrev writes:

[…] Instead of muttering that there is no state called Macedonia and that the language spoken there is actually Bulgarian, we can try to get to know the Macedonia in question. To see what on Earth the people who live there could be like. And not like a nice student from the Varna Free University ask whether the people there are Christians. We might perchance make some cultural exchange and perchance get closer. Because no matter how common our roots are, they have become quite entangled.

So… every normal Bulgarian who is not obliged to be a historian but is interested in Macedonia, about which Slavi [famous Bulgarian showman] slips in dumb jokes, can see the book by Alex Boukarski “People whose parachute does not open.” The book is out in the Bulgarian market…

[…]

“People whose parachute does not open“ is precisely about the real life. In it there are no brave heroes, fair ladies, there is even no Boyko Borisov [Sofia’s mayor well-known for his macho behaviour and popular with the masses]. Inside the book are, however, neighbourhood drunks, wanker students, little gamer boys from the “Cyber” [internet café in Bitola], miserable little gypsies and menopause-stricken old bags. The language is lively, as colourful as you can hear it in the neighbourhood. In the original it is not even the literary Macedonian but rather the Bitola dialect. In the translation of Konstantin Pavlov the dialogue retains its brightness still not losing its savoury Macedonian flavour.

The book, the promotion and the author are all worth it.

Promo poster of the book
Image: http://komitata.blogspot.com

Indeed the book by Boukarski introduced to the Bulgarian audience an unfamiliar Macedonia. Thanks to it the external observer can orient in Macedonia’s present which otherwise remains inscrutable to them. That's why it is no wonder that the presentation of the book had unprecedented success. In the crowded room, apart from university students, bloggers and literary authors, were representatives of a number of mainstream media. (Footage from the presentation in Bulgarian and Macedonian: Bukarski in Bulgaria 1, Bukarski in Bulgaria 2. Source: http://bukarski.blog.com.mk/)

The works by Boukarsky were highly praised by his Bulgarian colleagues. The renowned writer Bogdan Rousev writes that “at its best the prose by Boukarski is so raging and full-blooded as though it pressed to escape from the page and punch you in the nose.”

Of interest is the fact that the content of the book was licensed under the conditions of CC 2.5 – which had not happened in Bulgaria before. Maybe this step will be the start of a new era in the book distribution in Bulgaria, if other authors follow suit.

In the following days of Boukarsky’s stay, his interviews appeared in a leading printed media. The guest appeared on a number of well-known TV shows.

We can say that through his initiative Konstantin Pavlov contributed more to the improvement of the Bulgarian-Macedonian relations and the familiarization of the people in the two countries than the Bulgarian and Macedonian governments from the recent years.

Kuwaitism [Ar] paints the picture here:

حبيت آخذ هالفرصة لشكر بعض ممثلينا العرب –
سامويل فرانسيس (قطر)
جايمس كواليا كوكوروي (قطر)
فيلكس كيكواي كيبوري (قطر)
سلطان زمان (قطر) الإسم الأصلي أونيسفور نكونزيمانا (بوروندي)
جمال سالم (قطر) الإسم الأصلي توماس كاتيو (كينيا)
دهام بشير (قطر) الإسم الأصلي دايفيد إينياغا (كينيا)
عيسى راشد (قطر) الإسم الأصلي دانييل كيبكوسكي (كينيا)
جابر سالم (قطر) الإسم الأصلي ياني مارشوكوف (بلغاريا) – حول جنسيته بـ1,000,000 دولار عام 2000.
مبارك شامي (قطر) الإسم الأصلي ريتشارد ياتيتش (كينيا)
أحمد حسن عبدالله (قطر) الإسم الأصلي ألبرت تشيبكوروي (كينيا)
بلال منصور علي (بحرين) الإسم الأصلي جون ييكو (كينيا)
مريم يوسف جمال (بحرين) الإسم الأصلي زينيبيش تولا (أثيوبيا)
نادية الجافني (بحرين) الأصل مغربية
يوسف سعد كامل (بحرين) الأصل غريغوري كونشيلا (كينيا)
آدم اسماعيل خميس (بحرين) الأصل هوسيا كوسغي (كينيا)
حسن محبوب (بحرين) الأصل سايلاس كيروي (كينيا)
رشيد رمزي (بحرين) الأصل مغربي
ناصر سعيد (بحرين) الأصل ستيفان لورو كامار (كينيا)
طارق مبارك طاهر (بحرين) الأصل دينيس كيبكوروي سانغ (كينيا)
محمد عبدالله زكريا (بحرين) الأصل مغربي
قطر و البحرين مثلهما 11 كيني 3 مغربيين 1 بوروندي 1 أثيوبي 1 بلغاري 3 غير معروف من أفريقيا

I wanted to take this chance to thank our Arab representatives in the games:
Samuel A. Francis (Qatar) [Nigeria]
James Kwalia C'Kurui (Qatar) [Kenya]
Felix Kikwai Kibore (Qatar) [Kenya]
Sultan Zaman (Qatar) - born Onesphore Nkunzimana (Burundi)
Gamal Salem (Qatar) - born Thomas Katui (Kenya)
Daham Bashir (Qatar) - born David Nyaga (Kenya)
Essa Ismail Rashed (Qatar) - born Daniel Kipkosgei (Kenya)
Jaber Saeed Salem (Qatar) - born Yani Marchokov (Bulgaria) he changed his nationality for 1,000,000 Dollars in 2000.
Mubarak Hassan Shami (Qatar) - born Richard Yatich (Kenya)
Ahmad Hassan Abdullah (Qatar) - born Albert Chepkurui (Kenya)
Bilal Mansour Ali (Bahrain) - born John Biko (Kenya)
Jamal Maryam Yusuf (Bahrain) - born Zenebech Tola (Ethiopia)
Nadia Ejjafini (Bahrain/Morocco)
Yusuf Saad Kamel (Bahrain) - born Gregory Konchellah (Kenya)
Aadam Ismaeel Khamis (Bahrain) - born Hosea Kosgei (Kenya)
Hasan Mahboob (Bahrain) - born Silas Kirui (Kenya)
Rashid Ramzi (Bahrain/Morocco)
Nasar Sakar Saeed (Bahrain) - born Stephen Loruo Kamar (Kenya)
Tareq Mubarak Taher (Bahrain) - born Denis Kipkurui Keter (Kenya)
Mohammad Abdullah Zakaria (Bahrain/Morocco)
In brief, Qatar and Bahrain were represented by 11 Kenyans, 3 Moroccans, 1 from Burundi, 1 Ethiopian, 1 Bulgarian and 3 others.

Below are some of the views from the blogosphere.

Edward Lucas reposted his story that appeared in the July 24 issue of the Economist, providing background and analysis:

By the polite standards of Brussels, it was quite tough. On July 23rd the European Commission issued critical reports on Bulgaria’s and Romania’s progress (or lack of it) in fighting corruption and spending European Union money. Yet after intense lobbying, the language was weaker than in the scalding drafts leaked earlier. And the commission dropped an explicit warning that Bulgaria was endangering its chances of joining the euro and the Schengen passport-free travel area.

Even so, the reports hit home, complaining of a “striking” absence of convincing results in Bulgaria’s anti-corruption fight, and of a “grave problem” over the “lack of accountability and transparency in public procurement” when spending EU funds. The commission announced severe sanctions, suspending aid worth as much as €486m ($770m). Without reform, the suspended sum will rise sharply by November.

[…]

What scandalises ordinary Bulgarians is that their country, the poorest in the EU, is missing a vital chance to modernise. Public services are dire—shown by a crisis this month in Sofia’s rubbish collection, which has left the streets piled with rotting piles of garbage. So foreign criticism, which in some countries might arouse defensiveness, is in fact welcomed. The EU’s popularity has rocketed, whereas the government’s negative rating is now as high as 73%. […]

[…]

In Romania, by contrast, politicians are relieved after escaping sanctions in a softly worded commission report on their anti-corruption and legal reform efforts. […] The commission bemoaned the lack of practical results but welcomed a “move in the right direction”. In Bulgaria, sadly, outsiders find it hard to see any movement at all.

[…]

Bulgarian blogger Maya Markova wrote this on her blog, Maya's Corner, on July 17, roughly a week before sanctions were announced:

In its Bulgarian variant, democracy means that people elect rulers entangled in corruption and organized crime and then the country is shaken by an endless row of corruption and crime scandals, till the next elections.

[…]

Probably countries with developed civil society and rule of law can afford the EU subsidizing industry without sinking into the quagmire of corruption (though the quagmire of inefficiency will remain). However, countries like Bulgaria haven't much rule of law. And while ordinary citizens are struggling with Third World-like poverty, EU subsidies only serve to further enrich the gang that is ruling the country.

On July 31, Vitaliy of The 8th Circle noted that “corruption [was] not enough to bring down Bulgarian government”:

Following a damning report from the EU, Bulgaria’s center-left government survived a no-confidence vote Wednesday. This is despite the EU’s decision to freeze over 800 million euros of farming, road and regional development aid for the country. […]

[…]

It makes you wonder how far can a government in Bulgaria go before it stumbles? With politicians not being held accountable, it is little surprise that the public lacks much trust in their government […].

[…]

This perpetuates the vicious cycle whereby a disinterested public withdraws from the political process easing the pressure on politicians who are then - even more so - left to their own devices.

That’s too bad. Bulgarians deserve better.

J Clive Matthews of Nosemonkey's EUtopia/Europhobia, however, wasn't sure why Bulgaria was in the EU at all:

It’s a question I’ve asked before, not least when the backwards Balkan oddity first joined. And now, finally, the EU powers that be seem to have noticed that, erm… letting in a notoriously corrupt, organised crime-ridden country with a dodgy economy and poor track record on human rights may just have been a bad idea.

[…]

Of course, corruption alone is nothing too unusual within the EU. But Bulgaria also falls down in countless other areas, as the US State Department’s 2007 report on Human Rights in the country notes:

The constitution and law prohibit such practices; however, police frequently beat criminal suspects, particularly members of minority groups… Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) reported complaints of police brutality from Romani victims who were too intimidated to lodge official complaints with authorities… Human rights groups continued to claim that medical examinations in cases of police abuse were not properly documented, that allegations of police abuse were seldom investigated thoroughly, and that offending officers were very rarely punished… Prison conditions generally did not meet international standards, and the government did not allocate funds to make significant improvements… The constitution and law prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention; however, there were reports that police at times ignored these prohibitions… Impunity remained a problem. All complaints involving interior ministry personnel and other police forces, as well as military personnel, are adjudicated by the military court system.

And on, and on… They could also have mentioned the arbitrary arrest of political dissidents. […]

Maya Markova, for one, did mention it on her blog:

[…] We Bulgarians are too overwhelmed by our hardships and too selfish to care about those who are in even more miserable situation. We often forget that, at least, we have been given freedom while billions of human beings are still oppressed, and we do not show much solidarity with them. Some of my earliest posts from 2006 (dated May 10, 12 and 15, respectively) told the story of a Belarussian dissident to whom our authorities refused political asylum.

[…]

I have no details [on the Turkmen dissident's case], so I can only hope that this isn't true! But I feel obliged to post it - let the Turkmenis are cautious about seeking asylum in Bulgaria.

As for Romania, Anda of Kosmopolit wrote about how the progress report was taken in Bucharest:

[…] One can almost hear the sigh of relief in the high governmental offices in Bucharest, at the confirmation of the fact that (1) no safeguard clause will be activated, (2) no funds will be suspended, (3) Bulgaria is considered to do worse and is more harshly sanctioned. ‘Schadenfreude’ and relief, that’s all.

Unfortunately. Now they can happily continue their holidays. They “escaped” this time again. This makes me doubt the effects of such a neutral report. Maybe next time the Commission can act more severely. It is sad, but only a “shock therapy” might make the Romanian political class aware of the importance of fulfilling its commitments and not just indulging in the mere satisfaction of doing slightly better than the neighboring country.

In a follow-up post, Anda wrote about “one of the most prominent debates stirred by the report […] about the re-confirmation of Daniel Morar as Chief Attorney of the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA)” - and the subsequent reaction from the European Commission:

[Morar's] mandate is due to expire on August 12 and various scenarios have been voiced in the media that all aim at Morar’s replacement. […] Fears of being prosecuted for corruption, as well as the quasi-paranoid assumption that the DNA (and implicitly its leader) is a political tool of President Basescu can be traced as the main roots of these positions.

One should not forget that this discussion takes place only few days after the Commission harshly criticized Romania precisely for the politicization of the justice system and fight against corruption. So, as could be imagined, all this political maneuvering is not at all well seen in Brussels. […]

[…]

[…] But the Commission probably realised that its neutral approach leaves too much room for interpretation to Romanian politicians. By putting aside the diplomacy for a moment and calling the facts by their name, the Commission is increasing the pressure on Romania. Controversial as it may seem, this attitude might prove to be the only “mild” weapon the Commission has left before it starts deploying its artillery of sanctions and safeguard clauses.