Letter to the editor of NYT
ddt
Wed Feb 26 20:17:21 2003

Letter to the editor of NYT

Dear Madam,

I read with great interest Maureen Dowd's article "Bush's Warsaw War Pact," published on February 26, 2003. I assume that the author has done extensive research on Bulgaria (drawing upon reliable sources such as "Casablanca") and feels competent to offer a definitive view on who the Bulgarians are and how they should be treated by the rest of the civilized world, and particularly the US.

Somewhat surprisingly, however, important facts about this rather insignificant country have escaped Dowd's omniscient gaze. Here is one example: just as the French Vichy police was busy transporting Jews to the death camps, various groups in Bulgarian society made a concerned effort to save their compatriots, as a result of which German plans for implementing the "final solution" in the country were stalled and all 50 000 Bulgarian Jews survived the war. Here is another example: after 1989, the Bulgarian majority and the Turkish minority in Bulgaria have maintained ethic peace and cooperation, thus transforming the country into the Balkans' most stable democracy. And yet another: during the Kosovo crisis of 1999, the Bulgarian government offered indispensable logistical and diplomatic assistance to the international forces that sought to bring the carnage of ethnic Albanians to an end. One may wish that Dowd's pronouncements on the apparently easy subject of Bulgaria had somehow integrated these facts as well. But then again, perhaps we have outgrown the times when illuminating the complexities of a particular issue counted as first class journalism. Profound contemporary thinkers such as Dowd seem to believe that burdening their readers with contradictory details may ultimately endanger the clarity and sharpness of an author's messages.

And what, indeed, are Dowd's main messages? First, that it is fairly easy to grasp the essence of what some deluded individuals might believe to be complex entities, such as "Bulgarians." Dowd characterizes this particular species as "sycophants" and "thick necks" who deservedly "used to be the lowest of the low here." Her merciful restraint in that regard should surely be appreciated - after all, she might have easily added "prostitutes" and "foul-smelling assassins." In at least some circles in America such treatment of entire nations might be considered a tag simplistic and perhaps even somewhat impolite. But such considerations leave Dowd unperturbed: that there may be "Bulgarians" who in fact opposed communist tyranny and spent long years in prison, or "Bulgarians" who write music and poetry, or "Bulgarians" who are simply "normal" and in no way implicated in the policies of their governments is not a view she seems ready to entertain.

The second message is: the rules of diplomatic decorum are truly unbearable, because they seem to prescribe that the same courtesy is extended to the leaders of ridiculously small nations as to the patrie of Jean-Paul Sartre. Why, indeed, should there be marine guards and motorcades, when the visitor simply represents a group of alien and strange creatures whose fully human status is, as far as Dowd is concerned, subject to further verification? One can, indeed, empathize with Dowd on that count. May be she should contact the United Nations and share with them the idea that the world will certainly become a better place if the Security Council decrees tomorrow that diplomatic etiquette will be applicable only to its permanent members - with perhaps some exceptions for countries whose wine Dowd characterizes as "truly exquisite."

The third, and ultimate, message that this article conveys is that small countries should be ghettoized while the enlightened, civilized and infinitely insightful leaders of the big nations socialize around a "limited sitting" table and, sipping good wine of whatever origin, resolve the world's problems. It is Dowd's view that countries like Bulgaria, whether they are composed of good or bad people, should be banned from this deliberative process. America should deal only with those that equal her - and treat the rest with the contempt and chilling sarcasm that permeate Dowd's unapologetically wicked article.

Now, I submit that there are two possible ways to assess Dowd's messages. One may say that American public opinion has finally matured enough to embrace the view that the world is cluttered with nations that fully deserve to be ignored and ridiculed, and therefore US foreign policy should be focused exclusively on relations with nations that have a legitimate claim to "greatness." Or, alternatively, one may conclude that the media pundits that dominate the contemporary public discourse, blinded by partisan passions, are chronically prone to succumb to ridiculous simplifications and crude insensitivity. I hope that at least some readers of your newspaper will find the latter interpretation of Dowd's Op-Ed piece more persuasive.

Respectfully,
Venelin I. Ganev
Ethnic Bulgarian
Professor of Political Science
Miami University, Ohio.

Вовата