An amendment to Bulgaria’s education law, passed last month, bans the "propaganda, promotion, or incitement in any way, directly or indirectly, in the education system of ideas and views related to non-traditional sexual orientation and/or gender identity other than the biological one."

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Sep 4 2024 (IPS)

A law banning the portrayal of LGBT+ identities in Bulgarian educational institutions is just the latest piece of repressive legislation in a wider assault on minorities and marginalized communities across parts of Europe and Central Asia, rights groups have warned.

The law, passed in a fast-track procedure last month, is similar to legislation passed or proposed in many countries across the region in recent years that restricts LGBT+ rights. 

And while the Bulgarian law is expected to have a harmful impact on children and adolescents in the country, it is also likely to be followed by legislation aimed at repressing other groups in society, following a pattern implemented by autocratic rulers across the region, activists say.

“Often anti-LGBT laws go hand in hand with other [repressive] legislation. One will come soon after the other. What this is all about is for certain political parties to concentrate and gain ultimate power for themselves. LGBT+ people and other marginalized groups are just scapegoats,” Belinda Dear, Senior Advocacy Officer at LGBT+ organisation ILGA Europe, told IPS.

An amendment to Bulgaria’s education law, passed on August 7, 2024 with a huge majority in parliament, bans the “propaganda, promotion, or incitement in any way, directly or indirectly, in the education system of ideas and views related to non-traditional sexual orientation and/or gender identity other than the biological one”.

Kostadin Kostadinov, chairman of the far-right Vazrazhdane (Revival) party that introduced the legislation, said that “LGBT propaganda is anti-human and won’t be accepted in Bulgaria.”

Critics say the law will have a terrible impact on LGBT+ children in a country where LGBT+ people already face struggles for their rights. In its most recent Rainbow Map, which analyses the state of LGBTQ+ rights and freedoms across the continent, ILGA Europe ranked Bulgaria 38 out of 48 countries.

“The teachers we have spoken to are really afraid of what is going to happen now. We are expecting to see a sharp increase in attacks and abuse of schoolchildren over gender and sexual orientation,” Denitsa Lyubenova, Legal Program & Projects Director at Deystvie, one of Bulgaria’s largest LGBT+ organizations, told IPS.

“The law has just been passed so we cannot be sure of its specific impacts just yet, but what we know from elsewhere is that laws like this in schools will impact children and adolescents, it will increase bullying and legitimize discrimination by other students, and even teachers,” added Dear.

Like other rights campaigners, Lyubenova pointed out the similarities between the Bulgarian law and similar legislation passed in other countries in Europe and Central Asia in recent years.

So-called ‘anti-LGBT+ propaganda’ laws were passed in Hungary in 2021 and Kyrgyzstan last year. These were in turn inspired by Russian legislation passed almost a decade earlier, which has since been expanded to the entire LGBT+ community and followed by laws essentially banning any positive expression of LGBT+ people.

Reports from rights groups have shown the harmful consequences of such legislation.

But while these laws have been roundly condemned by local and international rights bodies, political parties in some countries continue to attempt to push them through.

On the same day the Bulgarian law was passed, the far-right Slovak National Party (SNS) said it was planning to put forward a bill restricting discussion and teaching of LGBT+ themes in schools at the next parliamentary session in September.

Meanwhile, in June, the ruling Georgian Dream party in Georgia proposed legislation which would, among others, outlaw any LGBT+ gatherings, ban same-sex marriages, gender transition and the adoption of children by same-sex couples.

It will also prohibit LGBT+ ‘propaganda’ in schools and broadcasters and advertisers will have to remove any content featuring same-sex relationships before broadcast, regardless of the age of the intended audience.

In both countries, the proposed legislation comes soon after the implementation of so-called ‘foreign agent laws’ which put restrictions and onerous obligations on certain NGOs which receive foreign funding. Critics say such laws can have a devastating effect on civil society, pointing to a similar law introduced in Russia in 2012 as part of a Kremlin crackdown on civil society. The legislation, which led to affected NGOs being forced to declare themselves as ‘foreign agents’ has resulted in many civil society organisations in fields from human rights to healthcare being effectively shuttered.

Campaigners say it is no coincidence that anti-LGBT+ legislation and ‘foreign agent’ laws are being introduced closely together.

“[The anti-LGBT+ legislation] is likely to be the first in a series of laws that will discriminate against not just LGBT+ people, but other marginalized groups, which are seen as a ‘problem’ by far right organizations in Bulgaria,” said Lyubenova.

“This anti-LGBT+ law came from the Revival party, which has previously put forward bills for a ‘foreign agent law’ in Bulgaria. We are expecting a bill for foreign agent legislation to be introduced to Bulgaria’s parliament soon,” she added.

In Georgia, where legislation restricting LGBT+ rights will be debated in a final reading this month in parliament, civil society activists say the government is using one law to fuel support for the other.

“Both laws are part of the same, great evil [the government is pushing],” Paata Sabelashvili, a board member with the Equality Movement NGO in Georgia, told IPS.

Dear said the passing of ‘foreign agent’ laws was part of a template used by autocratic regimes to hold onto power “by dismantling civil society, which keeps a watch on politicians”.

The other parts of the template, she said, were to also “dismantle the independence of the judiciary, and the media”. Russia, Hungary, Georgia and Slovakia regularly score poorly in international press freedom indexes, and concerns have been raised about threats to media independence in Kyrgyzstan. Meanwhile, Russia is widely seen as no longer having an independent judiciary and concerns have been raised about government influence in the judicial systems in Slovakia, Georgia and Hungary.

Governments that have introduced these laws have said they are essential to preserve their countries’ traditional values and to limit foreign regimes—usually specifically western—influencing internal politics and destabilizing the country. These claims have been repeatedly rejected by the civil society and minority groups the laws are aimed at.

Some rights campaigners see the introduction of these laws as part of a coordinated international effort to not just spread specific ideologies but also entrench autocratic regimes.

While ostensibly the introduction of such legislation are the acts of independent sovereign regimes, campaigners say the politicians behind these laws are not necessarily acting entirely on their own initiative.

Activists in Slovakia and Georgia who have spoken to IPS highlight the strongly pro-Russian sentiments expressed by governing parties in their countries, while Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban has been heavily criticized even among European Union officials for his closeness to the Kremlin and criticism of help for Ukraine since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbour. Meanwhile, Russia—as it does with many other central Asian countries—and Kyrgyzstan have historic ties dating back to the Soviet Union.

“These parties [behind these laws] have links to Russia. [Pushing through this kind of legislation] is strategically coordinated; it’s very well-planned,” said Dear.

“I believe this is all part of a wider trend linked to far right governments and/or parties,” Tamar Jakeli, LGBT+ activist and Director of Tbilisi Pride in Tbilisi, Georgia, told IPS.

Forbidden Colours, a Brussels-based LGBT+ advocacy group, linked the Bulgarian law directly to the Kremlin’s repression of rights in Russia.

“It is deeply troubling to see Bulgaria adopting tactics from Russia’s anti-human rights playbook,” the group said in a statement.

Meanwhile, international and Bulgarian rights groups have called on the EU to act to force the Bulgarian government to repeal the anti-LGBT+ law, while Bulgarian civil society organisations are getting ready to fight its implementation. There have been street protests against it in the capital, Sofia, and Lyubenova said her organisation was also preparing legal challenges to the law.

“What these far-right groups are doing with this law is they are testing our ability to stand up to hateful actions. We have to challenge it,” said Lyubenova.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Saudi dissident Abdulrahman Al-Khalidi says he is being kept in appalling conditions as he waits for the Bulgarian courts to confirm his asylum application. Credit: Supplied

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Jun 4 2024 (IPS)

When Abdulrahman Al-Khalidi fled Turkey for Bulgaria after his fellow Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi was murdered, he thought he was heading for safety and sanctuary in the European Union.

But, he says, he instead would end up facing the exact opposite.

“When I came to Bulgaria, I thought I was going into a European asylum system, but what I signed up to was actually a slavery contract. Where I am now, they can just treat you like animals,” he tells IPS.

Al-Khalidi is speaking from the Busmantsi migrant detention center outside the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, where he has been held since November 2021.

He says that since arriving there, he has been subjected to a “nightmare” of inexplicable detention in appalling conditions and numerous breaches of his rights, including a police beating. He has tried to take his own life and says his mental health has suffered dramatically during his time there.

“I am being treated unfairly and illegally. What is happening to me doesn’t make sense to me or to anyone else. It has been very difficult for me mentally here. Every day I wait for someone to come and tell me I am free to go, but it never happens,” he says.

Al-Khalidi, a political activist and a known dissident, arrived in Bulgaria in October 2021.

A campaigner for human rights and advocate for democratic reforms, along with prominent Saudi figures such as Khashoggi, he left his home country in the wake of mass arrests following the Arab Spring. He sought refuge abroad, first traveling to Egypt, then staying in Qatar and Turkey, where he worked as a journalist writing critical articles about the Saudi regime, before heading to the EU to apply for asylum.

He was detained crossing the border into Bulgaria and claimed asylum. But it was denied by Bulgaria’s Refugee Agency, which decided Saudi authorities had taken steps to democratize society and rejected his claim of asylum on humanitarian grounds.

This was despite Al-Khalidi’s protests, and warnings from human rights groups that he would be in serious danger if he were to be returned to Saudi Arabia.

“If I get sent back to Saudi Arabia, I will 100 percent be killed or will be ‘disappeared’ in prison,” he says.

He launched an appeal against the decision but this was rejected by a lower court. He then took his case to the Supreme Court, which last month (APR) ruled that the State Refugee Agency must reconsider his asylum request. It said the reason given for initially rejecting it—a recommendation from Bulgaria’s National Security Agency that Al-Khalidi posed a security risk to Bulgaria—had not been substantiated.

A decision from the State Refugee Agency on his asylum is expected within months.

Human rights campaigners say they see no reason why it should not be granted.

“I have never come across a case of a refugee that is as clear as that of Abdulrahman’s,” Victor Lilov, member of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, told IPS.

Al-Khalidi himself says that he has lost faith in the asylum process in Bulgaria.

“I don’t trust the authorities anymore,” he says.

His mistrust comes after spending the last two and a half years fighting not just to have his asylum request properly dealt with, but also against what he and rights activists believe is his unfair and, following a recent court ruling, unlawful continued detention at the Busmantsi centre.

Under Bulgarian migration regulations, asylum seekers should only be put in closed centers, such as the Busmantsi facility, as a temporary measure while their identity and the facts around their asylum application are established. They should not be held there solely on the grounds that they have claimed asylum. There is, however, a provision under which a migrant can be held in closed facilities if they are deemed a threat to national security.

Al-Khalidi has been in the Busmantsi centre since just a few weeks after his initial arrest.

He initially lodged a legal complaint over his detention in 2022, but that was rejected by a lower court and he was ordered to remain detained at the centre.

He describes conditions there as appalling, with inadequate medical care, a lack of basic hygiene facilities, insect infestations causing infections and diseases, and that it is run “like a prison” with strict restrictions on movements and freedoms for those housed there.

He also claims that at the end of March, security officers at the facility attacked him after he offered food to others detained at the centre. He was taken to the toilets, where there are no cameras and repeatedly beaten and choked for an hour before being taken back to his room, where he was handcuffed to his bed for another two and a half hours.

He says his ordeal over the last few years has taken a huge mental and physical toll on him, which has only been worsened by what he says have been inexplicable decisions by Bulgarian authorities in his case.

In January of this year, the Supreme Court overturned the 2022 lower court ruling on his continued detention and ordered his immediate release. But it was blocked by the National Security Agency, again on the grounds that he presented a threat to national security.

Al-Khalidi denies posing any threat to national security and says he cannot understand why he remains at the detention centre.

“I don’t know what to do anymore. I can’t see how they can still keep me here,” he says.

Lilov said his continued detention was unlawful.

“The Supreme Court decision of January 18 to release Abdulrahman was immediate and non-appealable. The State Refugee Agency and the National Security Agency have so far refused to implement this decision, making his detention unlawful,” he said.

“This ‘accommodation’ centre for migrants is generally intended for those who have fully exhausted all procedures and have extradition orders and are waiting there for the appropriate transport. Only in exceptional cases does the law allow asylum seekers to be accommodated in closed places until the circumstances requiring their detention are no longer present.

“In the case of Abdulrahman, we have decisions of last resort from the Supreme Court saying that he should be released and that the State Refugee Agency should grant him asylum status. I really don’t understand the reasons behind the Bulgarian authorities’ persistence [to continue to detain him],” added Lilov.

Meanwhile, Al-Khalidi continues to face the threat of deportation to Saudi Arabia, despite the Supreme Court ruling.

On February 5, Al-Khalidi was served with a deportation order by the National Security Agency. He has appealed against this.

In response to questions from rights groups and local media about Al-Khalidi’s situation, the Interior Ministry has confirmed this order should not be enforced until a final ruling on his asylum status is made.

Human rights organisations campaigning for his release say Al-Khalidi’s deportation is likely to be in breach of international refugee conventions and Bulgaria’s international obligations on non-refoulement, given Saudi Arabia’s human rights record and documented treatment of political dissidents.

They say he would be at risk of arrest, torture, and potentially the death penalty for his political views and activism.

“The Saudi regime treats political dissidents in a very harsh way. If he is sent back, Abdulrahman will also face very harsh treatment,” said Lilov. “Bulgaria must give him asylum.”

The Bulgarian Interior Ministry did not respond to requests from IPS for comment.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Billboard for the referendum called to strengthen a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption in Slovakia in February. It says: WE ARE DECIDING ABOUT CHILDREN'S FUTURES. LET'S PROTECT THEIR RIGHT TO A MOTHER AND FATHER. Credit: Pavol Stracansky/IPS

By Pavol Stracansky
BRATISLAVA, Mar 15 2015 (IPS)

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) groups in Central and Eastern Europe, which still faced mixed prospects as they fight for rights and acceptance, are now taking some heart from the “failure” of a referendum in Slovakia, a member of the European Union.

Last month, a referendum called to strengthen a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption in Slovakia was declared invalid after only just over 20 percent of voters turned out.

The controversial plebiscite was heavily criticised by international rights groups, which said it pandered to homophobic discrimination and was allowing human rights issues affecting a minority group to be decided by a popular majority vote.

The campaigning ahead of the vote had often been bitter and vitriolic, including public homophobic statements by clergy, and a controversial negative commercial about gay adoption, which Slovak TV stations refused to broadcast and eventually only appeared on internet.The reasons behind the relative societal intolerance towards LGBT groups in Central and Eastern Europe vary from entrenched conservative attitudes rooted in countries’ isolation under communism, to local political aims and the influence of the Catholic Church.

The commercial showed a child in an orphanage being told that his new parents were coming to collect him and, after two men appear at the door, asking: “Where’s Mum?”

Activists here say that the referendum’s outcome was a sign that, despite this campaigning, Slovaks know that LGBT people pose “no threat” to society and has positively furthered discussion about allowing registered partnerships in the country.

Martin Macko, head of the Bratislava-based LGBT rights group Inakost, told IPS: “The referendum showed that people consider the family important, but that they do not see same-sex families as a threat to traditional families. The long-term perspective regarding discussions on registered partnerships in Slovakia is positive.”

Importantly, the result has also been welcomed in other parts of Central and Eastern Europe where many LGBT groups still face intolerance and discrimination.

Evelyne Paradis, Executive Director of international LGBT rights group ILGA-Europe told IPS: “LGBT activists across Europe have welcomed the outcome of the Slovak vote … hopefully the referendum will lead to a constructive discussion about equality in Slovakia. At the same time, we know that there is a broad diversity of views in the region which means that much work remains to be done before full equality is realised.”

Compared with Western Europe, attitudes in many countries in Central and Eastern Europe to LGBT people and issues are often much more conservative and in some states actively hostile.

The Czech Republic, whose larger cities have relatively open and vibrant gay communities, is the only country in the region which allows for registered partnerships of same-sex couples.

In other countries, such as Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia and Poland, marriage is defined constitutionally as only between a man and a woman. In January this year, Macedonia’s parliament voted to adopt a similar clause in its constitution.

Adoption by same sex couples is banned in all states in the region while other important legislation relating to LGBT issues is also absent. In Bulgaria, for instance, inadequate legislation means that homophobic crimes are investigated and prosecuted as ‘hooliganism’. This, activists claim, creates a climate of fear for LGBT people.

Poor records on minority rights in general in places like, for instance, Ukraine, mean that while the state may ostensibly be committed to LGBT rights, such communities are in reality extremely vulnerable.

In Russia, legislation actively represses same-sex relationships, with federal laws criminalising promotion of any non-heterosexual lifestyle, while Lithuania has legal provisions banning the promotion of homosexuality.

Deeply negative attitudes towards homosexuals are widespread in some societies. A 2013 survey in Ukraine showed that two-thirds of people thought homosexuality was a perversion, while a study in the same year in Lithuania showed that 61 percent of LGBT people said they had suffered discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Isolated verbal and physical attacks and passive intolerance among more conservative groups are common across the region. But in some countries, specifically Russia, anyone even suspected of being non-heterosexual faces open, organised and sometimes lethally violent persecution.

Natalia Tsymbalova, an LGBT rights activist from St Petersburg, was forced to flee Russia in September last year after receiving death threats. Now claiming asylum in Spain, she was one of at least 12 LGBT activists who left Russia last year.

Speaking from Madrid, she told IPS about the continuing repression of LGBT people in her home country.

She said that although state propaganda campaigns had “switched to ‘Ukrainian fascists’ and the West” being portrayed as the public’s greatest enemy instead of LGBT people since the annexation of Crimea and the start of the Ukraine conflict, “state homophobia has not disappeared”.

“It has just faded into the background,” she added, “no longer making top headlines in the news, but it is still there and it has never left. The number of hate crimes is not falling, and they are being investigated as badly as before.”

The reasons behind the relative societal intolerance towards LGBT groups in Central and Eastern Europe vary from entrenched conservative attitudes rooted in countries’ isolation under communism, to local political aims and the influence of the Catholic Church.

In Slovakia, a strongly Catholic country where the Church’s influence can be extremely strong in many communities, supporters of the referendum welcomed Pope Francis’ personal endorsement of their cause.

It has been speculated that the conservative Alliance for Family movement, which initiated the referendum, is funded by Slovakia’s Catholic Church and that the Church was the driving force behind moves to bring about the vote.

In Lithuania, another strongly Catholic country, Church officials have supported laws restricting LGBT rights and have openly called homosexuality a perversion.

However, some rights activists also say that politicians in countries struggling economically or looking to entrench their own power can often use minorities, including LGBT people, as easy political targets to gain voter support.

ILGA’s Paradis told IPS: “Unfortunately many political leaders use the LGBT community as scapegoats … from activists we often hear that they do this to hide ‘real problems’ in countries, such as youth unemployment, access to education and healthcare. They promote ‘traditional family values’ as the way to rescue society. Sadly, in doing this, political leaders build a climate of intolerance and hatred.”

Saying that Russian politicians are now using homophobia to push wider agendas, Tsymbalova told IPS: “Homophobia plays an important role in the anti-Western rhetoric of President [Vladimir] Putin and his fellows. It is one of the main points of the conservative values that they try to promote and the public still has negative attitudes toward LGBT communities.”

The outcome of the Slovak referendum has left activists there more optimistic about the future for LGBT people in their country.

They are now pushing for discussions with the government about introducing registered partnerships and they hope that LGBT communities in other countries in the region will be heartened by the result or that, at least, people hoping to organise similar referendums will reconsider what they are doing.

Macko of Inakost told IPS: “Religious groups in some Balkan and Baltic countries are considering organising similar referendums and we really hope this will discourage them.”

Paradis told IPS that while the Slovak referendum had already been welcomed by many of its member groups in Central and Eastern Europe, progress on LGBT issues in many countries, including registered partnerships, was unlikely to be swift. “There indeed is more discussion in the region on granting rights to same sex partnerships, but what we see is a very mixed picture.”

However, the outlook for LGBT people in some places remains grim. Tsymbalova told IPS that many LGBT people in her home country have given up hope of any positive changes in the foreseeable future.

“In our community, there is almost no one who believes that the situation for LGBT people in Russia will seriously change for the better any time soon. Under the existing regime, which promotes and exploits homophobia, these changes will not happen and there is almost no hope of a regime change, so expectations are gloomy.”

She added: “Many LGBT activists have either left Russia, like me, or are going to. [As] for same-sex registered partnerships, it would take several decades to be accepted in Russia and I don’t believe I will see this in my lifetime. It is completely out of the question for the next 20 or 30 years.”

Edited by Phil Harris    

Crossing the border from Turkey into Bulgaria. Credit: Graneits, CC 2.0 on Flickr

By Claudia Ciobanu
WARSAW, May 15 2014 (IPS)

Since November last year, Bulgaria has virtually closed its borders to an inflow of Syrian asylum seekers and other migrants trying to enter the country from Turkey, while EU institutions concerned appear to have acquiesced to this. 

Faced with a massive inflow of asylum seekers in 2013 – around 11,000 people lodged asylum applications in the country in 2013 compared with 1,000 on average in previous years – Bulgaria implemented a plan in autumn last year “to manage the crisis resulting from the enhanced migratory pressure.” Its main elements included building a 33 kilometre fence on the border with Turkey and increasing by 1,500 units the border police contingents patrolling that border.

"HRW believes that the Bulgarian government has, since November 6, 2013, embarked on a systematic practice to prevent undocumented asylum seekers from crossing into Bulgaria to lodge claims for international protection.” - HRW report from April 29
It seems to have paid off: just over 100 asylum seekers managed to enter Bulgaria each month in the first part of this year, while at the start of the implementation of the plan, as many as 100 people on some days were being prevented from entering the country, according to statements of the Ministry of Interior. Svetozar Lazarov, Secretary General in the ministry, told Bulgarian media at the end of April that, since the beginning of 2014, 2,367 people have been prevented from crossing the border into Bulgaria.

The influx last year, which frightened Bulgarian authorities, came about in the context of a tightening of Greece’s borders and consequent shift northwards of land migrant routes from Turkey. Over half of the asylum seekers lodging claims in Bulgaria last year came from war-torn Syria. Over two million Syrians are currently seeking protection abroad, half of them children. Turkey alone is currently hosting over 700,000 Syrians.

Human Rights Watch published a report on April 29 in which it documents how, as part of implementation of the Bulgarian plan, people crossing the border from Turkey into Bulgaria were being summarily pushed back into Turkey, without being given a chance to lodge asylum applications and sometimes suffering abuse from border guards. The evidence of pushbacks comes from 177 interviews HRW conducted with migrants in Bulgaria, Turkey and Syria, during which 44 cases of summary return involving 519 people were reconstructed.

“From the situation in the countries of origin of most of the irregular border crossers – Syria and Afghanistan – it is reasonable to believe that many are seeking protection, yet the people we interviewed who were rejected at the border or from within the territory of Bulgaria were not given the opportunity to lodge asylum claims upon apprehension,” Bill Frelick, Director of HRW’s refugee programme, told IPS.

“HRW believes that the Bulgarian government has, since November 6, 2013, embarked on a systematic practice to prevent undocumented asylum seekers from crossing into Bulgaria to lodge claims for international protection,” says the report.

According to the rights group, this strategy by the Bulgarian government breaches the non-refoulement principle (not returning or expelling people to places where their lives and freedoms could be threatened) included in the 1951 Refugee Convention that Bulgaria has ratified, as well as in EU legislation that Bulgaria is bound to implement (the EU’s Return Directive, the Schengen Border Code and the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights).

“The border pushbacks documented in this report follow no proper procedure and carry a negative presumption that irregular border crossers are not seeking asylum when the presumption, at least with regard to people fleeing Syria and Afghanistan, ought to be that they are,” explains the report.

The study was lambasted in Bulgaria, including by the head of the State Agency for Refugees and the director of the Bulgarian Red Cross – one of the non-governmental bodies that works most closely with authorities – though both individuals have admitted to not having read the analysis. While critics focus on the fact that conditions for migrants in Bulgaria have improved since last year – a fact that the HRW report mentions anyway – no one addresses the main allegation, that the country has been implementing a systematic refoulement plan.

Bulgaria’s Minister of Interior Tsvetlin Yovchev, the main figure behind the plan, disputed claims by HRW that violence had been committed by border police against migrants entering the country. He told Bulgarian media that a guarantee of proper behaviour by Bulgarian police is the constant presence in border areas of specialists of Frontex, the EU border management agency.

That Frontex lends credibility to the Bulgarian government, at least in front of domestic audiences, is further hinted at by the fact that the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior tends to play up the numbers of Frontex troops present in the country. According to Frontex, only 40-50 Frontex officers have been present in Bulgaria at a time since 2011, and the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior is adding up numbers to report for example that, “in 2013, 3 joint operations were conducted on Bulgaria’s external borders which are also external for the European Union, with a total number of 216 experts and 30 translators from Frontex.”

Asked by IPS about Frontex’s participation in the plan implemented by the Bulgarian authorities, Frontex spokesperson Ewa Moncure replied that Frontex is an operational agency which merely implements border surveillance and second line activities (such as interviewing of migrants) agreed with the government in Sofia. According to Frontex, whatever measures the Bulgarian government has taken since November, even if Frontex was involved in implementation, are Bulgaria’s primary responsibility. Frontex also says that it investigates any complaints received about human rights abuses but that it had not received any in Bulgaria that refer to the violations cited by the HRW report.

In November last year, the European Ombudsman rejected “Frontex’s view that human rights infringements are exclusively the responsibility of the Member States concerned,” invoking as a case in point the deployment of EU border guards to Greece where migrant detainees were kept in detention centres under unacceptable conditions..

Given that refoulement is contradictory to EU legislation, human rights groups have said the European Commission could potentially start infringement procedures against the country (this can lead to legal action in front of the European Court of Justice and sanctions), but no decisive steps have been taken so far. Michele Cercone, spokesperson for the EU Commission on Home Affairs, responding to claims in the HRW report, told IPS that “the Commission is closely monitoring the asylum situation in Bulgaria and is in regular contact with the Bulgarian authorities.”

He said a so-called “pilot letter” has been sent to Bulgaria with a request for information, on the basis of which the EC will decide on the next steps; this, however, does not constitute the start of an infringement procedure, which would require a “letter of formal notice” coming only if the Commission were unsatisfied with the performance of the Bulgarian authorities.

3,000 people crossing the Bulgarian border in October 2013 compared with 99 in January 2014 are “figures which speak for themselves,” Ana Fontal from the European Council on Refugees and Exile, a pan-European alliance of 82 migrant rights groups, told IPS.

“The European Commission should examine without delay border practices at the Bulgarian/Turkish border to investigate possible breaches of relevant provisions in EU asylum and migration law and consider initiating infringement proceedings if Bulgaria fails to take action to remedy the breaches identified,” said Fontal. “Other EU countries should not send asylum seekers back to Bulgaria until conditions there improve and authorities comply with international and EU law.”

French support for the protests in Bulgaria has inspired street scenes to recreate the iconic painting by Eugene Delacroix to mark the revolution in France in 1830. Credit: Vassil Garnizov/IPS.

By Claudia Ciobanu
WARSAW, Jul 29 2013 (IPS)

For more than six weeks now, Bulgarians have been on the streets demanding an end to oligarchy and corruption.

Under the label DANSwithme, inhabitants of Bulgarian capital Sofia have been taking to the streets every day since Jun. 14. The protests were sparked by the Socialist government’s decision to appoint 32-year-old media mogul Delyan Peevski head of the national security services (DANS).

Despite Peevski’s snap removal following the public outcry, Bulgarians have continued protests to demand resignation of Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski. On peak days, crowds are in the tens of thousands.

Urbanites, often youth and professionals, have vented their anger and also celebrated the rather new experience of street action. They are a colourful bunch, bringing along kids, often wearing theatrical costumes, using art installations to send political messages, and broadcasting it all on social media.They’re a colourful bunch, bringing along kids, often wearing theatrical costumes, using art installations to send political messages, and broadcasting it all on social media.

As if to reflect participants’ desire for a well-functioning society, people have gathered in the centre of Sofia in the mornings “to have a coffee with parliamentarians” (coffee cups were collected as proof of participant numbers) and then gone to work. In the evening, they have returned to the streets, for more elaborate marches and performances.

Remarkable for their endurance, size and creativity, the protests represent the culmination of public resentment with a political class perceived to be closely tied to business and crime groups, and with dysfunctional democratic institutions.

In Bulgaria more than in other post-socialist members of the European Union, a nexus between organised crime, businesses and the political class cemented in the early 1990s remains a feature of public life. The country is also the poorest of EU member states.

Over the past years, Bulgarians have been reacting. Environmentalists often took issue with the sell-off of natural parks or pristine beaches for tourism or sports projects by prominent business figures with a murky reputation.

It took until February this year, however, for the discontent to boil over. At the start of 2013, Bulgarians were on the streets for weeks complaining about rising electricity and heating costs, and calling for re-nationalisation of the energy system.

Those protests were led by the poor who could not afford to pay the heavy bills. There were several public suicides in cities across the country during the weeks of action.

The protests were backed by others frustrated with Bulgaria’s ruling class. The centre-right government of Boiko Borisov resigned as a result.

Following elections in May, Bulgaria is now run by a coalition of Socialists and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (a maverick party representing the country’s Turkish minority which usually allies with winners of elections to form governments). Further support from the far-right party Ataka was needed to form this government.

“The situation is very unstable at the moment, with pressure on the government increasing all the time because recently even trade unions expressed their support for the protests,” Ivan Krastev, chairman of the Sofia based Centre for Liberal Studies tells IPS. “The question seems to be no longer if but when we will have early elections again. This government has clearly lost its ability to govern.”

On Tuesday last week (Jul. 23), the protests turned tense for the first time. Crowds blockaded the parliament in the evening, trapping politicians gathered for an extraordinary session to vote amendments to the budget. Those amendments sought an increase in budget deficit to finance outstanding debts to private contractors and some social spending.

Oresharski is refusing to resign, promising that the government has “a clear plan of stabilisation” and plans “urgent measures to improve the social situation.” No details were given.

President Rosen Plevneliev has meanwhile been expressing sympathy for the protesters.

As have representatives of the EU and its member states, including EU Commissioner for Justice Viviane Reding and the French and German ambassadors to Sofia. Unlike Greek or Spanish protesters targeting the EU as a main driver of austerity measures, many of the Bulgarians on the streets today still hold on to EU ideals.

Thankful for the supportive French and German ambassadors, protesters have been putting on live re-enactments of French painter Eugene Delacroix’s canvas Liberty Leading the People (strongly associated with the French Republic) and of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The French painting became iconic of the July revolution of 1830 in France. In the painting a woman personifying Liberty leads people holding up the French flag. The scene is being recreated in Sofia inspired by French support for the protests.

“In a way, these protests are producing an ideology that fits fully into the master signifiers of the post-socialist transition: anti-politics, technocratic experts, civil society, transparency, anti-communism, free market competition (an economy free from the meddling of the political class which is considered to be conducive to the mafia) – as the timing of the protests suggests,” Jana Tsoneva, a doctoral candidate from the Central European University attending the protests tells IPS.

Tsoneva adds that this mindset that distinguishes the Bulgarian movement from Greek or Turkish protests or the Occupy movement, is not necessarily shared by all participants but promoted by more prominent figures.

“As compared to the protests in February which were much more critical, for example in the stance towards foreign investors, these ones have a much more typical modernisation agenda,” Ivan Krastev tells IPS.

“Unlike in other places, like Greece, where people protested the European project, Bulgarians see Brussels as a natural ally. Therefore, officials in Europe are able to side with protesters against elites, not vice-versa.”

Both caution against symplifying the reading of these protests by linking them to one agenda or one class.

“We see on the streets people who are much more on the left, anti-capitalist, people who in the West would join Occupy, but also people with more classical liberal views who say liberals never got a chance because of the oligarchs,” adds Krastev. “This is an interesting coalition and it is interesting to see on what they agree and disagree.

“It is important that we are witnessing a big process of politicisation of the middle class and youth,” he adds, “even though the weakness of the broad, classical civic agenda of the protests is that it is unclear whether any political party can emerge from them.”

Bulgarian prime minister Boiko Borisov of the ruling centre-right Citizens for the European Development of Bulgaria (GERB), announced his resignation Wednesday, following two weeks of sustained protests across the country which were sparked by rising electricity and heating costs.

Borisov, a populist politician whose party has been in power since 2009, announced his resignation to the parliament with the words, “It is the people who put us in power and we give it back to them today.”

“Most people see Borisov’s resignation as a way to desert the sinking ship of the Bulgarian state amidst the crisis previous cabinets started and he deepened,” writes Mariya Ivancheva, a Bulgarian sociologist from the Central European University.

The prime minister’s resignation could well be meant to prevent the further downfall of GERB, whose public support eroded during the years in government and which was expected to lose the upcoming July elections. Following the resignation, it is likely Bulgaria will see early elections, no sooner than mid-April.

Bulgarians were not appeased by the gesture: people continued taking to the streets after the announcement, and a big protest is scheduled to take place Sunday in Sofia.

Rising electricity and heating prices were what got the protests started: in this poorest of EU member states, salaries average 350 euros monthly and pensions 150 euros, while energy bills are around 100 euros and often higher.

In the weeks preceding these nation-wide street actions, isolated protests had occurred in various municipalities during which people gathered in front of the energy providers headquarters and burnt their monthly bills. Two men set themselves on fire in Varna and Veliko Tarnovo.

Unlike other Eastern European countries like Romania, Hungary or Latvia, Bulgaria started the economic crisis with a balanced budget and saw no pressure to contract a loan from the IMF and the EU; but poverty levels here are higher than in neighbouring countries, and people whose salaries and pensions were frozen by the Borisov government can hardly weather the rising costs brought by the economic crisis. Sudden increases in energy costs this winter worked as ‘the last straw’.

One of the main calls of the protesters has been for the re-nationalisation of the electricity distribution system, which was privatised in 2004, with three players currently controlling the market: Czechs from CEZ and Energo-Pro and Austrians from EVN. The three companies exercise regional monopolies over parts of the network.

In a series of interventions before resigning, Borisov promised to decrease electricity prices by 8 percent (without explaining how that would be possible) and to withdraw the licence of CEZ. He went on to fire several officials, including the finance minister.

The protesters did not respond positively to those announcements; instead, they gradually started taking issue with corruption and disrespect for the rule of law in the country, and ended up decrying the functioning of representative democracy in Bulgaria as a whole.

Coordinators of the demonstrations told Bulgarian media that demands of the protests include: the rewriting of the constitution with citizen involvement; reducing the number of parliamentarians and restricting their immunity; getting citizens involved in analysing how electricity and heating bills are calculated; and giving 50 percent of shares in the energy regulator to citizens so they can participate in the management of the electricity and heating companies.

“The main sentiment during all the protests has been a critique of representation and a call for direct democracy,” says Georgi Medarov from the New Left Perspectives magazine, who participated in some of the protests. “But a total unmediated direct democracy with 100 percent national unity against the foreign oppressors (represented by the foreign companies). There are voices calling for a reduction in the number of parliamentarians because they see the parliament as the main evil, as it is full of political parties which destroy national unity.”

While a nationalistic taint has been noted in the messages of the protesters, this comes more in the form of a strong desire for self-determination and a rally behind the notion of ‘Bulgarian people getting attacked from all sides’. Attempts by far-parties such as Ataka to appropriate the protests have failed, with participants rejecting association with any political faction.

The Bulgarian protests share many features with anti-austerity protests seen across Europe since the crisis began: they started from immediate economic woes (in Bulgaria, energy prices; in the case of very similar protests in Romania last year, the privatisation of the medical system; elsewhere, cuts in salaries and social benefits, or tax hikes); participation comes from all social categories, including a middle class that feels threatened by increasing economic instability; and one of the core messages is a deep criticism of the entire political class and a call for more citizen involvement in decision-making.

Like elsewhere, the heterogeneity of the protesters presents a challenge: with participants from the middle class to the very poor, including far right and far left groups, even seeing police trade unions joining the ranks – it is difficult for the movement to coalesce and present a series of targeted demands which could be pursued in a strategic manner.

Lack of experience with using protest as a democratic tool adds to that in Bulgaria: “Many of the protesters have a low level of political culture and they don’t have their own language in which to frame their problems,” Medarov tells IPS. In this, Bulgaria differs from places like Greece, Italy and Spain, in which an old protest tradition and repertoires can be resorted to.

“Broad frustrations are being expressed in these protests, and what makes things different this time around is that there is no light at the end of the tunnel,” says political scientist Ivelin Sardamov from the American University in Bulgaria. “My real worry is that not only the political class but also Bulgarian public institutions have been delegitimised beyond the point of no return.

“But Bulgarian protests may be a part of a bigger trend of anti-systemic protests worldwide,” Sardamov tells IPS. “The events and processes which have unfolded over the last few years are truly unprecedented, and I don’t think anyone knows where we are headed.”

When European Union foreign ministers discuss a proposal to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, Bulgaria’s Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov will present his government’s case for linking two suspects in the Jul. 18, 2012 bombing of an Israeli tourist bus to Hezbollah.

But European ministers who demand hard evidence of Hezbollah involvement are not likely to find it in the Bulgarian report on the investigation, which has produced no more than an “assumption” or “hypothesis” of Hezbollah complicity.

Major revelations about the investigation by the former head of the probe and by a top Bulgarian journalist have further damaged the credibility of the Bulgarian claim to have found links between the suspects and Hezbollah.

The chief prosecutor in charge of the Bulgarian investigation revealed in an interview published in early January that the evidence available was too scarce to name any party as responsible, and that investigators had found a key piece of evidence that appeared to contradict it.

An article in a Bulgarian weekly in mid-January confirmed that the investigation had turned up no information on a Hezbollah role, and further reported that one of the suspects had been linked by a friendly intelligence service to Al-Qaeda.

The statement made Feb. 5 by Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov referred to what he called a “reasonable assumption” or as a “well-founded assumption”, depending on the translation, that two suspects in the case belonged to Hezbollah’s “military formation”.

Underlining the extremely tentative nature of the finding, Tsvetanov used the passive voice and repeated the carefully chosen formulation for emphasis: “A reasonable assumption, I repeat a reasonable assumption, can be made that the two of them were members of the militant wing of Hezbollah.”

The host of a Bulgarian television talk show asked Tsvetanov Feb. 9 why the conclusion about Hezbollah had been presented as “only a guess”. But instead of refuting that description, Tsvetanov chose to call the tentative judgment a “grounded hypothesis for the complicity of the Hezbollah military wing”.

The reason why the senior official responsible for Bulgarian security used such cautious language became clear from an interview given by the chief prosecutor for the case, Stanella Karadzhova, who was in charge of the investigation, published by “24 Hours” newspaper Jan. 3.

Karadzhova revealed how little was known about the two men who investigators believe helped the foreigner killed by the bomb he was carrying, but whom Tsvetanov would later link to Hezbollah. The reason, she explained, is that they had apparently traveled without cell phones or laptops.

Only two kinds of information appear to have linked the two, according to the Karadzhova interview, neither of which provides insight into their political affiliation. One was that both of them had led a “very ordered and simple” lifestyle, which she suggested could mean that they both had similar training.

The other was that both had fake Michigan driver’s licenses that had come from the same country. It was reported subsequently that the printer used to make the fake Michigan driver’s licenses had been traced to Beirut.

Those fragments of information were evidently the sole basis for the “hypothesis” that that two of the suspects were members of Hezbollah’s military wing. That hypothesis depended on logical leaps from the information. Any jihadist organisation could have obtained fake licenses from the Beirut factory, and a simple lifestyle does not equal Hezbollah military training.

But Karadzhova’s biggest revelation was that investigators had found a SIM card at the scene of the bombing and had hoped it would provide data on the suspect’s contacts before they had arrived at the scene of the bombing. But the telecom company in question was Maroc Telecom, and the Moroccan firm had not responded to requests for that information.

That provenance of the SIM Card is damaging to the Hezbollah “hypothesis”, because Maroc Telecom sells its cards throughout North Africa – a region in which Hezbollah is not known to have any operational bases but where Al-Qaeda has a number of large organisations.

Morocco is also considered a “staunch ally” of the United States, so it is unlikely that the Moroccan government would have refused a request from the United States to get the necessary cooperation from Moroccan Telecom.

Senior Bulgarian officials have remained mum about the SIM Card, and
Karadzhova was sacked as chief prosecutor shortly after the interview was published, ostensibly because the interview had not been approved.

On Jan. 17, the sister publication of “24 hours”, the weekly “168 Hours”, published an article by its editor, Slavi Angelov, reporting that the Bulgarian investigators had failed to find any evidence of Hezbollah involvement.

Angelov, one of the country’s premier investigative journalists, also wrote that one of the two suspects whose fake IDs were traced to Beirut had been linked by a “closely allied intelligence service” to a wing of Al-Qaeda.

The story, which is not available on the internet but was summarised on the “24 Hours” website, earned a brief reference in a Jan. 17 story in the “Jerusalem Post”. That story referred to Angelov’s sources for the information about the Al-Qaeda link as unnamed officials in the Interior Ministry.

The Angelov story’s revelation that Bulgaria had no evidence linking Hezbollah to the bus bombing was also headlined by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on the same day.

By the time the investigation’s four-month extension was due to expire on Jan. 18, there was no question among investigators that they needed much more time to reach any meaningful judgment on who was responsible for the bombing. Chief prosecutor Karadzhova told “24 Hours” there was “no obstacle to the deadline being extended repeatedly”.

But by mid-January, international politics posed such an obstacle: the United States and Israel were already pointing to the Feb. 18 meeting of EU foreign ministers as an opportunity to get action by the EU on listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Washington and Tel Aviv wanted a conclusion from the Bulgarians that could be used at that meeting to force the issue.

A meeting of Bulgaria’s Consultative Council for National Security to consider extending the investigation, originally scheduled for Jan. 17, was suddenly postponed.

Instead, on that date Foreign Minister Mladenov was sent on an unannounced visit to Israel. Israel’s Channel 2 reported after the meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror that Bulgaria had given Israel a report blaming Hezbollah for the bus bombing.

The office of the Bulgarian foreign minister and Prime Minister Boyko Borissov both issued denials Jan. 18. Borissov said there would be no comment on the investigation until “indisputable evidence has been discovered”, implying that it did not have the needed evidence yet.

Nevertheless, over the next three weeks, the Bulgarian government had to negotiate the wording of what it would say about the conclusion of its investigation.

The decision to call the conclusion an “assumption” or even the weaker “hypothesis” about Hezbollah was obviously a compromise between the preference of the investigators themselves and the demands of the United States and Israel.

The timing of that decision is a sensitive issue in Bulgaria. Prime Minister Borissov told reporters in Brussels Feb. 7 that he had decided to “name Hezbollah” after investigators had found the SIM card at the site of the bombing. That would put the decision well before Karadzhova gave her interview Jan. 1.

And in any case, the discovery of the SIM card could not have caused the investigators to veer toward Hezbollah but would have called that hypothesis into question.

Tsvetanov admitted that the Hezbollah “assumption” had been adopted only “after the middle of January”. That admission indicates that the decision was reached under pressure from Washington, not because of any new evidence.

*Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Bulgarian Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov’s dramatic announcement Tuesday on the Bulgarian investigation of the July 2012 terror bombing of an Israeli tourist bus was initially reported by Western news media as suggesting clear evidence of Hezbollah’s responsibility for the killings.

But more accurate reports on the minister’s statement and the only details he provided reveal that the alleged link between the bomb suspects and Hezbollah was merely an “assumption” rather than a conclusion based on specific evidence.

Tsvetanov was quoted by various Western news outlets as saying, “We have established that the two were members of the militant wing of Hezbollah.” The minister also said, “There is data showing the financing and connection between Hezbollah and the two suspects,” according to the BBC and Jerusalem Post.

Those statements implied that the Bulgarian investigators had uncovered direct evidence of Hezbollah’s involvement in the Burgas bombing.

But the New York Times on Wednesday quoted Tsvetanov as saying, in remarks to a session of Bulgaria’s Consultative Council on National Security Tuesday, “A reasonable assumption, I repeat a reasonable assumption, can be made that the two of them were members of the militant wing of Hezbollah.”

That statement appeared to acknowledge that he was merely speculating on the basis of data that doesn’t necessarily support that conclusion.

In a report on Wednesday by Sofia News Agency, Bulgaria’s largest English-language news provider, Tsvetanov was quoted as saying that the investigation had led to a “well-founded assumption” that two of the perpetrators of the deadly attack belonged to what the Bulgarian government is calling the “militant wing of Hezbollah”.

In an interview with Bulgarian National Radio Wednesday, the Bulgarian chief prosecutor, Sotir Tsatsarov, emphasised that the investigation of the Burgas bus bombing had not been concluded and expressed concern about the term “well-founded assumption”.

The chief prosecutor implied that Tsvetanov’s conclusion about Hezbollah might have been swayed by political pressures. Tsatsarov said that the prosecutor’s office “could not be used to make political decisions or to justify them”, according to Sofia News Agency.

In a television interview for the morning broadcast of Bulgarian National Television, Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov defended Tsvetanov’s use of the phrase “well-founded assumption”. Mladenov explained that it meant that Bulgaria had “good reason” to believe that the attack had been organised and inspired by members of the militant branch of Hezbollah at this stage of the investigation, Sofia News Agency reported.

But Mladenov did not claim that any of those “good reasons” consisted of hard evidence.

In an interview with Associated Press Tuesday, Europol Director Rob Wainright said, “The Bulgarian authorities are making quite a strong assumption that this is the work of Hezbollah.”

But Wainright also cited only the most general arguments in support of Tsvetanov’s “assumption”, declaring, “From what I’ve seen of the case – from the very strong, obvious links to Lebanon, from the modus operandi of the terrorist attack and from other intelligence that we see – I think that is a reasonable assumption.”

Europol had sent several investigators to help the Bulgarian authorities on the Burgas bombing investigation, Wainwright told Associated Press.

None of the details provided by Tsvetanov, according to press reports, involved evidence showing that two of the alleged conspirators belonged to Hezbollah or to Hezbollah financing of the terror plot.

The most important piece of evidence cited by Tsvetanov was the lengthy stays in Lebanon by two of the three alleged participants in the bombing and driver’s licenses that were forged in Lebanon.

Tsvetanov said the two alleged conspirators with Canadian and Australian passports who are believed to have helped the third member of the cell carry out the Burgas bombing lived in Lebanon between 2006 and 2010.

He also indicated that two of driver’s licenses used by the conspirators were “forged in Lebanon”, and that Bulgaria was able to piece together the movements of two of the suspects from Lebanon to Europe.

Those connections between the alleged conspirators and the bombing by themselves could hardly support an assumption of Hezbollah responsibility for the bombing. Al-Qaeda terrorist cells have been operating in Lebanon for years, and have the technical capability for such a bombing plot.

Members of one Al-Qaeda network of 13 men organised in different cells arrested in 2006 and 2007 confessed to having planned and carried out the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, although they retracted their confessions before trial.

Furthermore, Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for a series of terrorist bombings involving Israeli tourists in the past, whereas there is no known case of a Hezbollah bombing of Israeli tourists, as a Hezbollah spokesman pointed out Wednesday.

In November 2002, Al-Qaeda carried out a terrorist attack on Israeli tourists in Mombasa, Kenya in November 2002 that involved an attempted shoot-down of an Israeli passenger aircraft and a triple suicide car bombing of an Israeli-owned hotel.

Two years later, an Al-Qaeda affiliate took responsibility for bombings at three Red Sea resorts, killing 34 Israeli tourists. And in July 2005, the same Al-Qaeda-related organisation took responsibility for suicide bomb attacks that killed at least 88 people at a shopping area and hotel packed with tourists, including Israelis, in the Egyptian Red Sea resort city of Sharm el Sheik.

Nevertheless, Tsvetanov offered no other specific evidence to support his conclusion.

Another aspect of the Bulgarian investigation suggesting that information about the alleged participants is still very limited is the fact, reported by the Bulgarian daily newspaper Sega, that the investigators had found no direct communication and only “indirect indications” of ties between the Arab holding an Australian passport and the perpetrator of the attack.

The Bulgarian charge of Hezbollah responsibility for the bombing based on little more than assumption has raised the suspicion in Bulgaria that the government was under pressure from the United States and Israel to reach a conclusion that aligned with the Israeli-American position.

Foreign Minister Mladenov denied that Bulgaria was pressured into issuing a statement on the progress of the investigation. But both Israel and the United States have given evidence of wanting such a statement.

Bulgaria is a member of NATO and has expanded military and intelligence ties with Israel since Israeli relations with Turkey soured in 2009.

Israel also played a key role in the Bulgarian investigation, as Interior Minister Tsvetanov acknowledged in his presentation Tuesday. He specifically thanked the Israeli government for its support in regard to the investigation and said Israel had provided “relevant expertise” in regard to one of the indicators implicitly cited as pointing to Hezbollah – the identification of the false driver’s licenses used by the alleged bomb cell.

Ha’aretz reported Tuesday that Israel and the United States had both feared that, “while the investigation’s finding would be clear, Bulgaria’s public statement would be ambiguous and would not name Hezbollah responsible.”

John Brennan, U.S. President Barack Obama’s primary adviser on homeland security and counter-terrorism, issued a statement that portrayed the Bulgarian investigation as having reached a definitive conclusion. Brennan praised the Bulgarian authorities for “their determination and commitment to ensuring that Hizballah is held to account for this act of terror on European soil”.

*Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim Sunday of absolutely reliable intelligence linking Hezbollah to the bombing in Burgas, Bulgaria last week was apparently aimed at supporting his government’s determination to get the EU to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organisation.

The Netanyahu claim in interviews on Fox News Sunday and CBS Face the Nation of “rock solid” intelligence on the bombing was accompanied by an announcement that Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman would travel to Brussels Monday to meet with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and foreign ministers of nine EU member states to persuade them to put Hezbollah on the list of terrorist organisations.

Netanyahu, who usually emphasises Iran’s role in terrorism, focused primarily on Hezbollah’s alleged culpability.

Unlike the United States, the EU has never officially considered Hezbollah to be a terrorist organisation, but Netanyahu believes that pinning the Bulgarian bombing on Hezbollah gives him political leverage on the EU to change that.

Lieberman was quoted Sunday as saying the bombing in Bulgaria “has changed the way in which Hezbollah is seen”.

For months, Netanyau has been building a case that Iran has been carrying out a worldwide campaign of terrorism. That narrative is based, however, on a systematic and highly successful Israeli campaign of shaping the news coverage of a series of murky allegations about terrorist actions or efforts in Baku, Tibilisi, Bangkok and Delhi, and into stories fitting neatly into the overall narrative.

Netanyahu used sweeping language about the alleged intelligence underlying his charge that Hezbollah carried out the Bulgarian tourist bombing, but refused to offer any further information to back it up.

In the interview on Fox News Sunday, Netanyahu said, “We know with absolute certainty, without a shadow of a doubt that this is a Hezbollah operation….” But despite being asked by interviewer Chris Wallace for some indication of the nature of the intelligence, he would say only that information had been shared with “friendly agencies”.

When the heads of Mossad and Shin Bet, Tamir Pardo and Yoram Cohen, briefed the Israeli cabinet Sunday on those agencies’ efforts against what were described as Iranian and Hezbollah plans for terrorism in more than 20 countries, they were not reported to have presented hard intelligence supporting the claim of Hezbollah responsibility for the Bulgarian bombing.

If the Israeli government did share intelligence information on Hezbollah and the Bulgarian bombing with the Central Intelligence Agency as Netanyahu claimed, it did not register with the senior U.S. officials on Jul. 19.

When a “senior U.S. official” was quoted by the New York Times that day confirming the Israeli assertion that the bomber who carried out the operation was “a member of a Hezbollah cell operating in Bulgaria”, he was apparently merely making assumptions rather than relying on any hard evidence.

Also on Jul. 19, Pentagon press secretary George Little said, “I don’t know that anybody has assessed attribution for this cowardly action….”

On Jul. 20, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the administration was “not in a position to make a statement about responsibility”.

Netanyahu declared immediately after the news of the Bulgarian bus bombing Jul. 18 that Iran was responsible for the attack. In support of the charge, he cited recent alleged terrorist incidents in a number of other countries. “All the signs lead to Iran,” he said.

But Netanyahu offered no proof, and the Israeli Embassy in Washington acknowledged to CNN on Jul. 19 that it had no proof that Iran was the instigator of the attack.

Netanyahu also argued in his Fox News interview as well as in an appearance on CBS Face the Nation that an Iran/Hezbollah connection to the bombing of the Israeli tourist bus could be reasonably inferred from a Hezbollah terrorist plan that had been discovered in Cyprus only a week earlier.

“The whole world can see who it is,” said Netanyahu on Fox News Sunday. “You would have known or been able to surmise it from Cyprus a week ago.” A “Hezbollah operative” in Cyprus was caught planning “exactly the same attack, exactly the same modus operandi”, he said.

But the case to which Netanyahu referred is much less clear-cut than his dramatic description. In fact, it is unclear who the alleged Hezbollah operative really is and what he was actually doing in Cyprus. The 24-year-old Lebanese man with a Swedish passport was arrested in his hotel room in Limossol Jul. 7 – just two days after he had arrived in the country — following an urgent message sent to Cyprus from Israeli intelligence that the man intended to carry out attacks, according to Haaretz Jul. 14.

The Israeli press have portrayed the unnamed Lebanese as “collecting information for a terror attack” being planned by Hezbollah (Israel Hayom) and as identifying the “vulnerabilities that would allow for maximal damage among a group of Israeli tourists in their first hours on Cyprus ” (Ynet News).

But those descriptions may not reflect what the Lebanese man was actually doing. A senior Cypriot official told Reuters a week after he was taken into custody, “It is not clear what, or whether, there was a target in Cyprus.” And other Cypriot authorities were reported by the Cyprus Mail Jul. 20 and by Associated Press Monday to have said they believe the man was acting alone.

The Cypriot Greek-language newspaper Phileftheros reported that he was found with information on tour buses carrying Israeli passengers, a list of places favoured by Israeli tourists, and flight information on Israeli airlines that land in Cyprus, suggesting that he planned to detonate explosives on board a plane or bus.

But despite an intensive search, no indication has been found that the man is linked to any explosives.

A lone individual arrested in his hotel room without any explosives hardly presents a close parallel to the bus bombing in Burgas. Contrary to Netanyahu’s breathless description of what happened in Cyprus, the arrest may turn out to have been an overreaction by Mossad to unconfirmed information the agency had obtained three months earlier that someone might be interested in harming Israeli tourists in Cyprus, reported by Ynet News Jul. 15.

Details that have emerged about the cases of Lebanese and Iranian citizens arrested at the insistence of Mossad in Thailand in January and Kenya in June also suggest that sensational press accounts of alleged terrorist plans by the suspects inspired by the Israelis may have been highly distorted, and that the individuals arrested may turn out not to be terrorists at all.

*Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan.