The dossier theme that has occupied Bulgaria’s public life for more than two weeks has turned into a debate as to whether all of the archives of the former communist police State Security, or just those of informers, should be opened.

After, almost two weeks ago, Interior Minister Roumen Petkov disclosed the dossiers of some prominent public figures, everyone in the country – from politicians to NGO members – said that the archives of the State Security should be opened and the issue should be cleared up for once and for all.

The problem, however, is that, under communism, State Security was responsible for all of the secret services of the country, including foreign intelligence. If authorities meet the public demand for complete disclosure of the State Security archives, it might mean that people who had worked for foreign intelligence would be exposed, which might harm the country’s interests in international relations.

This was one of the impressions Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev created on June 6 after meeting Simeon Saxe-Coburg and Ahmed Dogan, the other two leaders of the tripartite ruling coalition. At a news conference after the meeting, Stanishev said that the opening of the archives would be based on the principles of the Council of Europe, on the experience of other Eastern European countries and “will take into account the fact that there were people working for the security of the state; there still should be some restrictions linked to national security, external affairs and individual right to privacy”.

Stanishev said that there was “a big difference between people who have informed against a friend or a neighbour...and those who have worked for the national security”.

Stanishev’s words coincided with those of General Kircho Kirov, head of the National Intelligence Service, who, in a May 30 interview with Bulgarian-language daily Trud, said that it was not all shameful to have worked for the First General Directorate of State Security, which was a mammoth system, and its staff and collaborators should not be put under a common denominator. People who had taken part in immoral activities had to bear the responsibility themselves.

“The guilt for such actions is concrete and individual,” Kirov said.

However, probably to calm down those who might think that the Government would pick a selective way to open the dossiers, Stanishev said that it was the political will of the ruling coalition to maximally reveal to the public the whole truth about the work of the secret services in Bulgaria. The principles to be applied were utmost transparency and objectivity in order to disperse any impression of selection or protection of specific people. He acknowledged that there were some discrepancies in the legislation on the issue, “which sometimes create an unhealthy environment for the opening up of the archives”.

The dossiers issue received its first foreign comments on June 3. Speaking in the Bulgarian Parliament, Geoffrey van Orden, deputy chair of the foreign affairs committee of the European parliament and rapporteur for Bulgaria, said classified files in Bulgaria should become public, but a special committee should be set up to closely monitor the process. The process should not serve political interests, van Orden said.

Some might think that this message from van Orden was aimed at Petkov’s actions. He has been severely criticised for the selective disclosure of the files of several public figure, among which were two prominent TV journalists and three active politicians. Despite receiving direct criticism from Stanishev and President Georgi Purvanov, Petkov’s previous party boss, he held his ground, claiming that his actions had followed the law.

At his regular briefing, on June 6, Petkov said that he did not have the impression that his Bulgarian Socialist Party was critical of his actions. No doubt a brave thing to say from the person who has been receiving nothing but criticism from everyone in Bulgaria’s political sphere for the past two weeks.