Galery

1

None of the Balkan countries that were formed in the late 19th and the early 20th century had the boundaries that it thought it should have. After the creation of the states, all of them attempted to gradually include what they themselves called "captive national territories" and the Big Ideas were created. However, the Big Idea of each country was contrary to the Idea of the other country. The conflict was mostly concentrated on the geographical territory of Macedonia, which was still under Ottoman control, and in the region of Thrace to a lesser extent. This gave rise to the culmination of nationalism among the Balkan countries that, until then, had been mutually connected by religion. Since the late 19th century, they had been divided due to nationalism, which was the reason for problems in their relations, it created an atmosphere of hostility, animosity, doubts and stereotypes and a large number of military conflicts correspondingly, the most significant of them being the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and World War I.
 
This turn of events may have been logical, since, at that time, the people of the Balkans were no longer connected by religion and nation states were created where national consciousness defined the nations rather than religion.

You said that the geographical area of Macedonia was the most disputed territory in the Balkans. Why was that?

At the time, geographical Macedonia was inhabited by Christians and Muslims but mostly by people who spoke Greek in the southern part of the area and Bulgarian in the north. So, the claims of Bulgaria were based on the linguistic criteria whereas those of Greece on the national identity. This conflict was actually a conflict of strategic interests, since Macedonia is a vast area with an outlet on the Aegean; the largest port in Thessaloniki and the port of Kavala are there too. All this gives the country to which they belong a greater strategic power.

I would like to recommend the book by eminent Bulgarian historian and diplomat Nikolai Todorov about the participation of Bulgarians in the Greek revolution of 1821. They were hundreds in numbers because, at that time, all of these people determined themselves according to their religion.

They were all Orthodox Christians who fought against their common Muslim oppressor. The creation of nation states in the Balkans was what happened. We cannot but mention Rigas Velestinlis’ idea of the creation of a Greek Empire as a successor to the Byzantine and Ottoman ones, where all nations would have equal rights, regardless of their religion and national identity, which had had a great impact on the people from other Balkan countries. Of course, in history we cannot talk about hypothetical scenarios. What I am saying is that this trend was very pronounced. His idea was very popular among many representatives of the various captive Balkan peoples at that time. Even the Filiki Eteria, which was established a little later in 1814, in the beginning tried to start a general uprising in the Balkans. Its members had contacts with the Serbs who had rebelled early in 1804. I would like to recommend the book by eminent Bulgarian historian and diplomat Nikolai Todorov about the participation of Bulgarians in the Greek revolution of 1821. They were hundreds in number because, at that time, all of these people determined themselves according to their religion. They were all Orthodox Christians who fought against their common Muslim oppressor. Therefore, the trend was there but, after the death of Rigas Velestinlis, no inspired person appeared to trigger it in political terms and unite the Balkan peoples. Therefore, the nations turned to the opposite direction, namely to break up the Christian space of the Balkans.

A few years ago, there was a claim that the end of nation states was close. Now we see a trend of disintegration of larger countries in order to create smaller nation states. How would you comment on that?

The nation states were a modern and very progressive phenomenon at the time, because their creation was mainly linked to the preservation of liberal ideas and human rights. By that time, people did not have the rights they have today.

Therefore, we should not underestimate the power of nation states, which are a separate political organization among the people and, in my opinion, are strong even today. Of course, in this age they cannot function as they did in the 19th century. Two centuries later, there are some unions above the national ones, such as the European Union. However, just because its consolidation is based on the respect of the multiformity of the national member states, this process will evolve very slowly. Therefore, the time of nation states is not over. We are in a transitional stage, which still bears the feature of nation states. They are not something that we need to completely break away from nor do I consider this necessary. What is important in all cases and all states, in the Balkans and the world, is to observe fundamental human rights. When they are respected and every person can exercise his or her civil, political and social freedoms, the process can be completed. The organized state must protect its members when they need it. Otherwise, we will return to the forms of political organization of 200 years ago. This is dangerous and retrograde in a modern European society and a modern civilized world.