Solomon Pasi: It Would Be Completely Natural if Bulgaria Hosts Elements of the U.S. Anti-Missile Shield
Published in Dnevnik
(Bulgaria) on 12 February 2010
by (link to original)
(Bulgaria) on 12 February 2010
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Boryana Vasileva.
Edited by .
In the spirit of the established military cooperation between the U.S. and Bulgaria, it would be “very appropriate if we offer to host elements of the U.S. anti-missile shield in our territory,” said Solomon Pasi, the president of the Atlantic Club in Bulgaria after today’s lecture by the U.S. ambassador to Bulgaria, James Warlick. Pasi added that experience has shown that extensive military infrastructure brings more security.
The Bulgarian ex-minister for foreign affairs commented that the decision of where the missile shield will be situated is half mathematical and half political. When asked what Bulgaria would get if it agrees to host the missile shield, Pasi responded that “the first thing we win is security as our fears of missile attacks are growing.” According to Pasi, Bulgaria should participate in the early phases of the building of the defense shield. He disregarded Russia’s fears that the anti-missile shield could be directed against it, insisting that Bulgaria could convince Russia that the shield has nothing to do with Russia.
Another former foreign minister and now Euro-diplomat, Ivaylo Kalfin, told the agency, Focus, that during his tenure as a foreign minister Bulgaria did not discuss hosting the American anti-missile defense system. He recalled that the U.S. carried out talks with Poland and the Czech Republic to host its anti-ballistic missile interceptors, but in the end, it scrapped its plans, causing loud reactions in Poland and the Czech Republic. Kalfin added that there was an older NATO plan for a missile shield that covered wider European territories. During the discussion of the anti-ballistic shield in Czech Republic and Poland, Bulgaria complained that it would be left out of it. According to Kalfin, the U.S. now plans an entirely new anti-ballistic system.
But whatever the Bulgarian government decides, it needs to provide the most possible information to the society, because hosting foreign military elements on Bulgarian territory is a sensitive topic, commented Kalfin. He also noted that the European Union did not have the legal right to take a stand on security matters of its member states.
The Bulgarian ex-minister for foreign affairs commented that the decision of where the missile shield will be situated is half mathematical and half political. When asked what Bulgaria would get if it agrees to host the missile shield, Pasi responded that “the first thing we win is security as our fears of missile attacks are growing.” According to Pasi, Bulgaria should participate in the early phases of the building of the defense shield. He disregarded Russia’s fears that the anti-missile shield could be directed against it, insisting that Bulgaria could convince Russia that the shield has nothing to do with Russia.
Another former foreign minister and now Euro-diplomat, Ivaylo Kalfin, told the agency, Focus, that during his tenure as a foreign minister Bulgaria did not discuss hosting the American anti-missile defense system. He recalled that the U.S. carried out talks with Poland and the Czech Republic to host its anti-ballistic missile interceptors, but in the end, it scrapped its plans, causing loud reactions in Poland and the Czech Republic. Kalfin added that there was an older NATO plan for a missile shield that covered wider European territories. During the discussion of the anti-ballistic shield in Czech Republic and Poland, Bulgaria complained that it would be left out of it. According to Kalfin, the U.S. now plans an entirely new anti-ballistic system.
But whatever the Bulgarian government decides, it needs to provide the most possible information to the society, because hosting foreign military elements on Bulgarian territory is a sensitive topic, commented Kalfin. He also noted that the European Union did not have the legal right to take a stand on security matters of its member states.
Previous article![]( "The Yuan: At the Heart of Dispute")
