Download Article (PDF)

Südosteuropa 62 (2014), no. 3, 326-347 TONKA KOSTADINOVA 60 Years of Diplomatic Relations between Greece and Bulgaria: Challenges and Benefits of the Reconciliation Process Abstract. In 2014, Greece and Bulgaria celebrate the 60th anniversary of the 1954 restoration of diplomatic relations . The history of the Greek–Bulgarian rapprochement after decades of hostility and national rivalry represents a unique case of postwar recovery and reconciliation, comparable only to the German–French example . Indeed, the course of Greek–Bulgarian relations is particularly interesting because it often transcends the specific aspects of bilateral developments and takes account of broader geopolitical processes, such as the conflicting uS and Soviet stances on key Cold War issues or the energy rivalry in the post-1989 period. Using the method of diachronic analysis, the article gives an overview of the development of Greek–Bulgarian relations, as it seeks to outline the major achievements of the past and the possible challenges for the future . Tonka Kostadinova is assistant Professor at the National Museum of Military History, Sofia. Greek–Bulgarian Relations in Times of Transition, 1954–1974 Greek–Bulgarian relations during the last six decades offer an interesting precedent in Balkan and European diplomatic history . Although they were “traditional” national rivals and were military and ideological opponents during the Cold War, Greece and Bulgaria managed during this period to overcome the burdensome legacy of the past and establish constructive political, economic, and cultural relations for the first time in their common history. This article seeks to reveal the major path dependencies in their relations and argues that the foundation for the post-1989 rapprochement and the role that the two countries assumed as partners in the EU was created during the Cold War era . The period between 1954 and 1989 constitutes a specific “transition” phase that prefigured the trajectory of cooperation and the ability to cope smoothly with key challenges after the end of the Cold War, both internal (the fall of the communist regime in Bulgaria) and external (the dissolution of Yugoslavia) . The approach Diplomatic Relations between Greece and Bulgaria 327 to bilateral relations as a continuous process of reconciliation proves still more interesting as it reveals the role of the Cold War as a normalizing rather than a destabilizing factor, even though Greece and Bulgaria belonged to two op- posing military alliances and their common border was a NATO–Warsaw Pact boundary. These specifics make a diachronic overview of the Greek–Bulgarian reconciliation process a necessary step toward a better understanding of con - temporary bilateral relations within the context of the dynamic developments taking place on the national, regional, and global level . Shortly after the end of the Second World War, Greece and Bulgaria seemed fated to continue a course of hostility inherited from the nation-state for- mation period . Bulgarian postwar claims regarding an outlet to the Aegean, the reparations issue, and the Greek plea for a revision of the common border constituted the main obstacles to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations . These unsettled wartime issues, together with the beginning of the Cold War in the Balkans, threatened to harm the relations between the two neighboring states still further . The 1947 peace treaty, which regulated postwar relations between Greece and Bulgaria, obliged Bulgaria to demilitarize its southern frontier and to pay $ 45 million in reparations to Greece . The demilitarization of the common border facilitated Bulgaria’s assistance to communist guerrilla groups in the Greek civil war that had flared up in 1946.1 The civil conflict had multiple repercussions upon Greece’s relations with its northern neighbor. Geostrategically, the war gave the common Greek–Bulgarian frontier, which in the past had borne most of the nationalistic rivalry, an additional meaning as the border between the american and Soviet spheres of influence in the region. From a humanitarian point of view, the most serious effect was the influx of an estimated 6,880 Greek political refugees to Bulgaria in the aftermath of the conflict, which remained a “pending” issue in bilateral affairs until the beginning of repatriation in the 1980s (Fig. 1). During the entire Cold War period, Bulgaria followed a consistent policy of financial and administrative support for the Greek refugees, giving an estimated $ 25 million of aid.2 The legacy of the civil war is still present today, as Greek political refugees and their heirs continue to play a role in the cultural interactions between the two peoples in contemporary Bulgaria . Bulgaria’s assistance to the Greek communists and its support for Tito’s plans to unify the region of Macedonia within a single state deepened the hostility and mistrust that already dominated Greek–Bulgarian affairs. The legacy of 1 For more information, see Jordan Baev, Bŭlgaria i grazhdanskata voĭna v Gŭrtsia, Voennoistoricheski sbornik (1992), nos. 2–3, 88–117. 2 The data is based on official documentation of the Bulgarian Communist Party,Central State Archive Bulgaria (CSAB), Inventory 1- B, Record 32; Inventory 296, Record 2, quoted in: Georgi Daskalov, Grŭtskite Politemigranti v Bŭlgaria. Sofia 2008, 276. 328 Tonka Kostadinova Number of Greek civil war refugees permanently settled in Bulgaria (estimated 6880) Fig. 1. Greek Refugees in Bulgaria 1947-1950. Source: Central State Archive, Inventory 296, Record 2, Archive Unit 84 . the past, along with the impact of the Cold War, prevented the development of constructive bilateral contacts, and the two countries failed to re-establish diplomatic relations even though a peace treaty had been signed . Communism appeared as a new line of division, one reinforced by the two countries’ incor - poration into the political, economic, and military structures of the emerging blocs. In 1947, the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan brought Greece into the american efforts to contain communism by fostering healthy political and economic environment in postwar Europe. The leadership in Sofia, in turn, adopted a policy of “active defense” and signed treaties of cooperation with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary, thus placing Bulgaria’s security policy in the Soviet orbit well before the formal creation of the Warsaw Pact in 1955. The dependence of Greek and Bulgarian foreign policy on external powers appeared in the early 1950s during the process of normalization of bilateral affairs that was inspired by geopolitical rather than domestic factors . The NATO accession of Greece and Turkey in 1952 and the signing of the Balkan Pact in 1953 consolidated the Western influence in the Balkans. These events, along with the death of Stalin and the prolonged Soviet military effort in Korea, necessitated a new Soviet foreign policy course, one aimed at strengthening Moscow’s position in the region, including a consolidation along the common Greek–Bulgarian frontier . Soviet security considerations implied a political rapprochement between Bulgaria and Greece, and in 1953 Sofia initiated negotiations to restore diplomatic relations with athens. The agreement, concluded in May 1954, included a pledge from Bulgaria to fulfill its obligations under the 1947 peace treaty and obliged Bulgaria to provide a record of all Greek civil war refugees living within Diplomatic Relations between Greece and Bulgaria 329 its territory, with the aim of repatriating Greek nationals who were living in Bulgaria against their will .3 However, despite the restoration of diplomatic relations, Greece and Bulgaria failed to reach an agreement on the reparations issue and did not exchange am- bassadors for another ten years. Sofia claimed Greek financial duties from the interwar period (stemming from the 1927 Kafantaris–Mollov agreement) and demanded a reduction of the amount it had to pay, based on Bulgarian spend- ing to improve the infrastructure during the occupation of Western Thrace . The pending reparations issue in the aftermath of the Second World War was not exclusive to Greek–Bulgarian relations, but when added to Bulgaria’s postwar demands for an outlet to the Aegean, the result was additional distrust and hostility. To Greece, Sofia’s reluctance to adhere to the economic clauses meant a general rejection of the terms of the peace treaty, including those on disarma- ment. Greek fears of yet another attack from the North were thus reinforced. In fact, Sofia’s unwillingness to pay reparations was not so much a manifestation of revisionism as a consequence of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s reluctance to take responsibility for the wartime policy of the monarchist government . Such a move would have inevitably collided with the anti-fascist postulates in the ideology of the Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP), and, more importantly, with that of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) . In the early 1960s, the new Bulgarian leader, Todor Zhivkov, decided, “at his own risk”, to settle the reparations issue with Greece in order to secure Bulgaria’s uN membership and to escape the growing international isolation of the country 4. In May 1964, Greece and Bulgaria signed the so-called athens accords, which included an agreement regulating Bulgaria’s payments to Greece as well as 12 other agreements covering all spheres of economic and cultural cooperation . Bulgaria agreed to cooperate with Greece with regard to the use of the waters of rivers running through the territories of both countries, to restore road infrastructure in the border regions, to set up direct telecommunication links (until then created via Paris), and to establish a direct air route between athens and Sofia. In 1965, the railway systems of the two neighboring states were finally connected through the construction of a 20-km section between Kulata and Siderokastron . Thus, with a delay of half a century, Thessaloniki was finally connected by railway with Sofia and the rest of Bulgaria.5 Trade exchange and tourist flows between the two countries increased significantly.

Load more