Colonel Valeri Ratchev, Deputy Commandant and Dean of the National Security and Defence Department at the G.S. Rakovski Defence and Staff College in Sofia, answers questions from ALEXANDRA ALEXANDROVA.



Does Bulgaria have a cause in Iraq at all?



This is the big issue in Bulgaria's modern policy. This question should have been raised before that: "Do we have a cause in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Afghanistan?" Prior to taking up the mission in Bosnia, Bulgaria's creed was to stay out of conflicts. Bulgaria imposed a strong isolation on itself, yet later we came to realise that all decisions had been taken without our participation, all decisions that were important to us.

So, we started to gradually open up first with the engineering platoon in Bosnia, then with the complicated mission in Afghanistan and now with this major mission in Iraq. We have gradually started to realise that if Bulgaria wishes to benefit from international efforts to achieve security, it should also contribute to these efforts. If one wishes to be a beneficiary, one should be a contributor too. We wish to be integrated into the international community. We do not want to be regarded as the little brother of the US. So, we have to treat the problems of the community as ours, if we want the community to consider our problems as theirs. Naturally, all major causes have their price. The Bulgarians know we should pay this price.



Were the Bulgarian soldiers prepared for the mission in Iraq? Some observers say there is a guerilla war going on in that part of the world. If so, is it possible at all to win a guerilla war?



The answer is yes and no. I am firmly convinced the general staff of the Bulgarian army and the Ministry of Defence had followed a simple logic: the mission of the contingent is formulated following its mandate. As General Nikola Kolev said, the mission is to guarantee the stability in Iraq by safeguarding strategic sites, patrolling and guarding the echelons of necessary equipment. The battalion is then structured in a way as to meet the mission, the outfits, training and rules of engagement are also defined. So, this whole process has been observed.

Yet, in Iraq we have a situation dominated by terrorist and guerilla actions and this is a situation that is very hard to predict. There is no one in the world who can say they are absolutely ready to face terrorists. No one should feel completely ready to combat terrorism, there should always be a special focus on the development of the situation. The assignments should be kept adequate to the changing situation. Terrorism and guerilla war are characterised by unpredictability and dynamism. The attacks against powerfully fortified and strictly guarded bases, for example the US bases in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, have shown that one can always be caught unprepared. This is why terrorism should be nipped in the bud and not when it has gained speed and spite. The Bulgarian soldiers in Iraq have been contributing to the war against terrorism, which is a deed worth admiration.

As for the acts of the resistance against the forces of the coalition, it is quite obvious that it has been joined by the residual militias still faithful to Saddam, newly mushroomed terrorist Sunnis formations. Undoubtedly, Al Quaeda has also infiltrated into the country. It is too bold to say they all follow a co-ordinated plan, yet there are acts that seem pretty much similar and there are others that are poles apart in nature. The signature of the perpetrators can be told by the selection of targets as well as by the battle actions. For example, an operation, which includes a truck bomb and the use of grenade launchers and mortars, is beyond a simple terrorist act. Such an operation requires the positioning of mortars in a line of fire, and co-ordination of the action and the precision of fire. Only specially trained people can achieve this.

Then, we should consider the fact that all these groups realised they would have to re-organise their activities following the presumption that Saddam might talk. He had surely headed the resistance or at least part of it before he was caught. So now, the resistance should be acting in a way as to show that it is alive and kicking.

The third important aspect to consider touches on the relations between the three communities in Iraq - Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds, their relations with the coalition forces and the local government.

So, all these factors have incredibly complicated the mission of all foreign troops in Iraq. We cannot expect that the people there are fully adequate to all these processes. They are doing a great job, but they should be mightily supported on a political and strategic level as well. Our contingent in Iraq needs much broader support, including the participation of experts on Arab culture and language and on terrorism.



It is getting more and more likely that there will be US bases in Bulgaria. General James Jones, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said last week in Sofia that more about this might be disclosed in two months' time. Yet, parallel to that, more and more voices "against" and "in favour of" started to be heard. In fact, is the answer just as simple?



There is a straightforward answer to that issue at the political, military and strategic level where decisions are made. Perhaps public opinion is not just as one-way though with regards to all issues related to military co-operation, missions abroad, and military presence. This has been well illustrated on different occasions for example when the SS-23 missiles were destroyed or when the Sarafovo base was granted to the coalition forces for their use. The true leaders should be working to make society accept the decisions.

Bulgaria will have a successful policy with regards the bases if we manage to make our country important to US policy and in the future, that of NATO member states. Secondly, we should be working to get Bulgaria into the economic plans of America's big business in the region of South-east Europe and benefit from Bulgaria's specific location within the context of such axis, such as Central Asia - Black Sea - Central Europe and Central Europe - the Balkans - Middle East. These are destinations with major economic prospects. If we are able to use the bases as an instrument to better interoperability of Bulgaria's armed forces, if Bulgarian military participate in joint exercises, this will help us move forward rapidly.

Naturally, the bases issue has its problematic aspects. They are target for intelligence officers, target for terrorists, yet in the world we are living in, this concerns all military units. From this point of view, it will not matter much whether the base is American or Bulgarian.



Have Bulgaria's state institutions reached consensus on the location of US military bases to this country?



There is a consensus at the political level. In this case, the decisions are made by the Government and Parliament. These decisions at this stage are taken by assumption because much clarity is needed on what exactly is going to happen. It is very important that Bulgaria should be taking an active part in the decision-making process side by side with the Americans. We should be the active part. Once we have voiced our will to host foreign military presence, we cannot just play a passive role. Good policy means active participation in the decision-making of the allies.



Has Bulgaria protected its national interest in the course of negotiations over the bases?



There are several key principles that the politicians should bear in mind when it comes to all questions pertaining to the national security of small countries.

First of all, we do not "set the agenda" of international security. A successful Bulgarian policy in this context means to find the points of intersection of national interest with those of the more powerful states on the international stage. At the same time, the parallel with the biggest states should not stay in the way of cooperation with other states. Small countries such as Bulgaria should derive the highest possible benefit from all existing opportunities. The political course should be stable and supportive of the efforts of international democratic community to achieve stability in the world. This is the main direction and it should not be deviated from. Yet with regards the tactics for protecting national interests, Bulgaria should be flexible. Geographical location also has its say on this country's safety. We are the periphery of NATO and EU. There is a zone ridden by conflict issues just on the other side of the Black sea. The Western Balkans are still far from the final solution of their problems, while the terror acts in Istanbul and the information on training camps for terrorists in Bosnia signal a high degree of terrorist threat. We should be working for more opportunities to block, neutralise and repel the threats. The policy with regards foreign military presence should be part of this approach and thus contribute to the implementation of national interests.



Is there a catch in the fact that we are talking about US and not NATO bases?



This is a technical issue. On the one hand, the bases can be purely American. For example, the Bond Steel base in Kosovo. The bases can also be American-Bulgarian bases when part of the existing infrastructure is provided for the use of the US for specific purposes. Then it is a joint base with a joint regime for use, joint protection systems, joint communications and exchange of information. In this case, the Bulgarian and the foreign components are very closely integrated. Injirlik in Turkey and Aviano in Italy are bases used on this principle. Then, thirdly, the bases will be US-NATO bases in Bulgaria, when the contingent of foreign troops is delegated by the US for planning by NATO. There are no NATO bases, but rather bases of the member states.



In his book "The Grand Chessboard," Zbignew Brzezin-ski refers back to the "eternal" geopolitical idea that whoever rules Eastern Europe rules the world. Doesn't this sound rather threatening within the context of the location of foreign military bases in Bulgaria?



I am firmly against any correlation between NATO and geopolitical theories. It should be perfectly clear that there is no such thing as NATO policy. The alliance consists of member states and each of them has its own policy. These political courses are coordinated, i.e. not everything, which is U.S. policy, has a projection in NATO. Brzezinski's improvisations should be considered in a little bit older context, they were very topical when the notion of "control" still existed. The process of NATO enlargement introduced radical changes into the Eastern Europe of the past. I do not think that there can be any clash over control into the near future. There is one clear prospect though - more transparent relations between Russia and the West as a whole. Yes, there are geopolitical trends in the world, but not exactly in the context of "The Grand Chessboard."