It Isn’t Easy to be Alive Andrey RAYCHEV, Georgi KAPRIEV “It isn’t easy to be alive” is what an elderly Syrian says while we are waiting for the visitation hour at the Special Home for Temporary Foreigner Placement in Busmantsi, which is the convoluted name of something which resembles (and actually is) a prison whichever way you look at it, save for the official name and status. This piece of wisdom would, of course, apply for anyone and anytime. Sometimes it sounds eerie though. We are faced with such a swirl of the logic of the absurd that suddenly Kafka seems like a humble socialist realism author with somewhat limited imagination. Here it comes. On 28 June this year, the Sofia Administrative Court heard a case for cancellation of detention measure to M. Diouf who had been enjoying the special hospitality of this special home since 20 March, i.e. 3 whole months. The home in question is not called a prison because its inmates are people who have not committed a crime. There are basically two types: those either peacefully residing in the country but on no legal grounds, or those who are suspected (whatever that might mean) for threatening national security. This is why it is a bit difficult to place Diouf with either of these two groups, at least by the rules of common logic. He arrived in Bulgaria in the early 1980s and has never left it for any extended period. He was immediately given political asylum valid until October 2008, which he was definitely not granted by some accident. In his African country he was falsely accused of taking part in the preparation of a coup. Mind you, not just any coup but one against the current head of state. According to local political morals and the respective regime euphemistically called “dictatorship”, this would mean grave trouble and a high certainty of death (which, by the way, it continues to mean to this day). Bulgaria really did save Diouf. Shortly after his arrival, he enrolled in a philosophy course and graduated with impressively high achievement, a high level of academic skill, and a solid mastery of his field. These studies he started applying to the field of political philosophy, as he still does today. He published articles in which he tried to draft the theoretical grounding and possibilities for democratisation of his home country. His authority among the opposition circles there is exceptionally high. There, his opinion counts. At the same time, what with such a warm welcome, Diouf developed much more than a fleeting sentiment for Bulgaria. After all, this is the country where he has spent most of his life. It has actually become his second home. He has not only mastered the language and cultural codes but is also a keen defender of Bulgaria’s merits if they are ever questioned in his presence. It is not a mere coincidence that even his African fellowcountrymen call him a Bulgarian. It is not coincidence at all, as he identifies himself as one. This is something that has caused him trouble with some of his home circles as well as among those professing his religion, Islam. Diouf is a fervent Muslim. He does not try to hide this, on the contrary, he even indulges in innocent demonstrations, such as with his clothing which, added to his skin colour, has
turned him into an attraction in the streets of Sofia where he has been known for years thanks to his colourful appearance – and also because of his big smile, integrity, and openness to friends and strangers alike. His ardent professing of Islam means strictly following the moral and ritual commandments of the Koran in his private life, and, in his political thinking, and the inevitable emphasis on the democratic beginnings of the social directions set by the Holy Book of Islam. In this sense, this search for dialogue with other religions of the Scriptures is not accidental, especially so for Christianity. Against this background, the announcement that Diouf has been detained and interned into the Special Home of Temporary Placement of Foreigners was absolutely absurd. Interned why? Due to lack of legal grounds for residence? With a refugee status? Or for suspicions of threat to national security overriding this status? Is Diouf a terrorist?! Really, it would have been funny had it not been so dramatic. No terrorist looks like that. No terrorist would walk and dress so conspicuously. I doubt the respective specialists need to be told this. If there were any proof of any such activity, writing, or intentions on his part, he would hardly have been placed in this special home. Apparently, there is none. And that is only too natural for someone who has resided here peacefully for the last 25 years. Then why? Just because he is a Muslim? Or because he is black? Or maybe because, in relation to the political circumstances in his African home, Diouf allowed himself a few official publications of thoughts on a potential political path different from the current one? It does sound absurd but so is the whole story. This even seems even more ridiculous because, if that were the case, Diouf would appear to be a political prisoner in the very country which saved him from political repression. If this guess turns out to have even a grain of truth in it, then Ivan Kulekov, who is still unsuccessfully defending J. Nuri, another “inmate” of the Special home, will be proved right (as per his interview with Capital Weekly) in claiming that most cases related to its inmates simply take us back to 1968 and 1970. This would be a heavy blow to the confidence that, at least, democratic rules apply to governing this place. Even more absurd is the statement that all this is related to Bulgaria’s commitments as an external boundary of the EU and as a reliable and predictable partner. And, as if out of spite, Kulekov insists that in view of that Special home, “this is the Bulgarian Guantanamo Bay”. Why such a non-European attitude, Mr Kulekov? What is all this about? It is about the fact that people in there are prisoners with no sentence or guilt. Any effective sentence has a term, while “temporary” placement at the Special Home may be, as it were, of unlimited duration. Some people have been “placed” there for over 2 years now. Whichever way you look at it, this is pure arbitrariness, misuse of power presented as protection of pan European safety. It would be useless to explain how difficult it is to remain mentally stable under these circumstances, even if living conditions were acceptable (which they are not, and only a blind man would miss the buildings “sheltering” these temporary interns). Depression, despair, and hopelessness are the natural state of these people.
OBEKTIV 1
Attempted suicide may not exactly be a daily routine but presents a stable and consistent practice. (Reading the texts published in Capital Weekly, 16-22 June, would also be quite enlightening.) The latest tragic case was dated 20 June. One of the boys literally tried to dismember himself, and quite successfully so. One doesn’t just do such a thing. One does it when the entire world has crumbled, and everything has turned to chaos. And in “temporary placement”, chaos is guaranteed. In actual fact, there are no rules as to their detention or protection, or the procedure for investigation, or possible court proceedings, or any criteria on possible charges and acquittal, or anything at all for that matter. Here is an example. The Migration Service has recommended the filing of declarations on the part of Bulgarian citizens for proposed supporting and sheltering of the detainees, so that the latter can be released. The duly notarised declarations of said loyal citizens get buried in the directorate’s archives, while the pieces of paper with reference numbers sink into the declarers’ pockets. And then nothing. The exchange of those papers is followed by nothing. This does not say much to these Bulgarian citizens about their own country’s treatment of them. At least that is how things look. The accumulation of detail shows only one thing. We are talking about the systematic violation of most of that which the European legislation defines as basic human rights, only this time for no other reason than proudly protecting the European Community, nothing more, nothing less. It would be a good idea to bear the above facts in mind when we raise a voice with regard to how our citizens are treated outside Bulgaria. It would be good to know what we
give when we want to be given. To look at ourselves in the mirror before we wag a democratic finger. And finally, let us realise that this is about human fate and often human lives which - to use the words of a very European philosopher - never should have become a means, only an end. And its preservation, we would like to add, rather than its destruction. In Diouf’s case, however, there is more, much more. A trial is being prepared (a secret one, of course, and a closed one, too) for his expulsion from Bulgaria. And why? Based on some unclear “suspicions of threatening national security”? Or simply based on arbitrarily gathered speculative thoughts transferred into arguments in total secrecy and non-transparency? Maybe this is exactly how the successful fight against terrorism on the part of this “reliable and predictable EU partner” is supposed to look like. And expulsion to where? Where he has been long awaited to be dealt with and where it would all end quickly once and for all? Or, possibly, expulsion to a third country (a much more humane option after all) where, at the age of almost 50, he would have to start his life from scratch? Especially if this is done following the somewhat established “seeoff” practice leaving people with no luggage, means, or even any of the lawfully acquired diplomas and other paperwork? It is truly difficult to measure the absurdity of this and similar cases; the level of cynicism, too. Yes, the wise Syrian is right: it isn’t easy to be alive... especially so in Bulgaria... and for anyone... However, if you were born outside this country, transferral to something easier could sometimes be very efficiently arranged: under the chords of the Ode to Joy and the European Union flag, of course.
FROM THE EDITORS A man is to be extradited from Bulgaria? Why? Because he is “a threat to national security”, is the reply of those responsible. OK, we say, but why a threat? Don’t you see, is the answer. 1) Because, “according to received operational data” he professes extreme Islam and is practicing unlawful preaching on the territory of Bulgaria”; 2) besides, “he is maintaining contacts and assisting the emissaries of the Tablig Dzhama’at Islamic movement arriving in the country, and probably helping them as a translator, too”. Could we please try and decipher the last sentence?! The man is “assisting” somebody but how? Not known. And besides, he is “probably helping them as a translator, too”. OK, does he or does he not? And if he does, is that a criminal offence? Maybe, maybe, our opponent from amongst those who composed the original proposal would have replied, as 3) “this movement is suspected to have links to terrorism and terrorist groups... There are people who have participated in terrorist attacks and who are linked to this movement.” OK, there do seem to be suspicions and assumptions but does the movement in question have anything to do with terrorism or not? No answer, as it would have been “there are suspicions”. What is more, 4) “Diouf has exhibited intolerance to other insignificant religions”. Just how does he do that? The response to this would probably be “official secret of the investigation”. But he is “extremely religious”. Is that not enough, our imaginary opponent jumps up? And on top of it all, he knows some shady characters. Is that a crime? Well, we don’t really know but he did ask for money; “according to the data feed, at the end of 2006, Diouf communicated over the phone with the British citizen Safdar, and requested financial support for his last stay in “St. Petka”. And what about this guy Safdar? Oh, you don’t want to know, the Brits are working on him, is the answer. This is it. Based on this “data”, Mohammed Diouf is to be extradited from Bulgaria. To think that there are people gullible enough to believe that former State Security methods have been reduced to paper. If there still are any left, let them read the statement of the National Security Service above.
2 OBEKTIV