Parliamentary Debate Erupts Over UNESCO Forum Withdrawal

A heated debate ignited in Parliament following Bulgaria’s⁢ decision to withdraw as host of the UNESCO forum, initially scheduled for‍ July.The move has sparked accusations of international embarrassment and mismanagement.

“Възраждане” Condemns the Decision

Angel Yanchev of⁣ “Възраждане” strongly criticized the withdrawal, labeling it ​an “international⁤ disgrace.” He stated, “Instead of showcasing our rich cultural heritage,⁤ we transferred it to ​Paris, and ⁤Bulgaria will pay nearly 2 million from the ‌pocket of the Bulgarian taxpayer for this.”

Yanchev further argued that this ⁢decision “undermines Bulgaria’s position on the international stage and reveals the deep decline in the management ⁤of‌ the⁤ cultural ‍sector​ in our country.” He highlighted⁣ the efforts of former Minister​ of Culture Nayden Todorov in securing the forum for Bulgaria.

He questioned how Bulgaria coudl fail to organize an event for which⁤ it had a year to prepare, suggesting the Ministry ⁣of Culture had ample time to initiate ⁣public procurement and collaborate with other institutions. “What were the responsible persons ​doing in the last 7 months after the decision from ⁣Delhi? The answer is nothing. This inaction is a national shame,” Yanchev asserted.

According to Yanchev, the Ministry of ‍Culture was allegedly preparing in secret from​ Prime Minister Dimitar Glavchev’s cabinet, implying the Prime minister did not support​ the idea despite prior endorsements. he emphasized that there were “written ‍declarations from⁤ the chairpersons of all ⁣parliamentary groups – that they support it and will ⁣work for the implementation of this hosting.”

“Възраждане” also⁤ expressed anger that Bulgarian citizens would be​ paying France for the event to be held at UNESCO‍ headquarters in Paris. “this is an absurdity without parallel. We give up and pay for Paris to reap the glory,” Yanchev stated.

He⁢ insisted that the withdrawal is an “international ⁣scandal” that will negatively impact Bulgaria’s ⁢image⁢ and‍ perhaps jeopardize Nessebar’s status on the UNESCO list. Yanchev accused Minister Bachev of choosing “capitulation” instead of taking a leadership role and mobilizing institutions for accelerated readiness. He dismissed the excuse of insufficient time as “laughable,” arguing that other countries have organized ‌events in shorter timeframes.

While acknowledging potential ‌organizational issues left⁢ by ⁢Nayden Todorov, Yanchev suggested⁤ a middle ground, stating that ⁢”Тодоров може да е подценил ситуацията, но и Бачев​ не е направил нищо” (Todorov may​ have underestimated the⁤ situation, but Bachev did nothing either).

ИТН⁣ Defends the‌ Government’s Decision

Stanislav Balabanov of ‌ИТН (There Is Such a People) responded to the accusations,⁣ defending Minister Bachev and the government’s decision. he stated that it is “extremely humiliating, when it comes to Bulgaria, to tell lies and to single out a Minister of Culture who has only been​ a minister for a few weeks.”

Balabanov ⁤emphasized that “This case is related to an organization ‍of several months, not to ​say a year,” suggesting the issues predated the current⁣ minister’s tenure. He advised “Възраждане” to avoid political disputes based on falsehoods and invited⁢ them to the Ministry of Culture to learn the facts behind Bulgaria’s unpreparedness.

Balabanov argued that “to not lose our dignity and our right ‌to⁢ be the organizer of such ⁢events, it is indeed most logical for Bulgaria to carry it out in Paris.”

Further Parliamentary Exchanges

Petar​ Petrov ⁤of “Възраждане” criticized ИТН’s reaction, reminding the assembly that “пленарната зала не е шоу и работи по писани правила” (the plenary hall is not a ⁢show and works according to written rules). He emphasized that a declaration cannot be commented on or apostrophized.

Balabanov​ insisted his statement was on behalf of his group, while presiding officer Nataliya Kiselova noted that a declaration cannot respond to⁣ another ‌declaration.

Balabanov continued to attack “нивото на тази формация, която‍ няма капацитет да управлява” (the level ‌of this ⁢formation, which‌ has‌ no capacity to govern).

He suggested that⁤ “Единственият изход бил да‌ се види как да продължим да работата по ⁣темата, така​ че един ден наистина да⁤ може да проведем ⁣такъв форум” (The only way out ‌was to ⁢see how to continue working on the topic ⁢so that‍ one day we can really hold such a forum).

Kiselova jokingly responded that she would try to distinguish the lies,hoping not to be assigned additional responsibilities.

“Възраждане” leader Offers Option Perspectives

According to Kostadin⁤ Kostadinov from “Възраждане,” such an event might only occur once in a century.he speculated, “Получихме тази чест защото имаше сблъсък между Запада и китайското‌ лоби. Никой не⁣ искаше да отстъпи. Едната версия е, че като не могли да се разберат, решават да го дадат на безобидна държава,⁣ която може да поеме 4 хил. души. ⁤Друга възможна причина е⁢ че така са‍ прецакани китайците – дадена е‍ на България, която е знаела, че няма да ‌го​ направи и го дава на Франция. Така пак Запада го получава за⁣ сметка ⁢на Китай” (We received this honor because there was a clash between ⁢the West and the Chinese lobby.‌ No one wanted