|
Archived Articles
Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.
He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.
In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.
Global Real Estate Project
|
 |
Splitting Belgium? Better notIt's no longer a taboo topic. Not in the Belgium's top political circles. The country may be definitively split between the Dutch-speaking Flemish majority and French-speaking Walloon minority. This may, however, create more problems than it solves. In reality, there is no pure ethnic group, and those stuck in the middle will have to choose between one or another part of their identity. In addition to that, Belgium hosts the central EU institutions. With Belgium gone for good, the reason why these institutions are located there automatically stops existing. A temporary and much more practical solution will be to turn Belgium into a confederation, preserving its international status, but giving each community everything short of international recognition. Brief trip into history. What represents Belgium now was once a border territory between the Roman Empire and the Germanic tribes. It's perhaps the longest standing ethnic fault line in Europe. The Catholic Church eliminated the importance of this divide for more than a thousand years. The fact that the large majority of the population is Catholic was sufficient in order to claim independent statehood from largely protestant Netherlands in the first half of the 19th c. With the modern times and the recede of religious identities in Europe, Belgium turned from a homogenous (religiously) into heterogeneous (linguistically and ethnically) country. Nothing actually changed but the rank of religion and language/ethnicity in the peoples' minds. Another factor played a role in exacerbating interethnic animosities, the economy. Up to the middle of the 20th c., the Walloon's south was more developed industrially. Since the 1950s all this changed. Now the north is more developed, the unemployment is lower, the R&D sectors are more advanced, and as a result the people are richer and pay more taxes. Paying more taxes without proper compensation is something nobody likes. The Dutch-speaking majority, politically underrepresented in the past, now keeps the commanding control over the public money and the public policy. Extreme voices calling for complete detachment from Belgium are getting louder among this majority. At some point, like today, they may become so loud as to prevent any possible interethnic political coalition with the French-speaking minority. The voices calling for separation are growing from both sides of the ethnic border. Is this the best solution, not only for Belgium in general, but also for these two major groups? No. Alongside these two linguistic regions, the capital city of Brussels, a predominantly French-speaking community, represents an enclave into the Dutch-speaking region. Simple attachment of Brussels to a future French-speaking country will create some problems. One of them is whether it will be an enclave or other territories will be exchanged between the two new states. Another problem is what will come to the population with mixed ethnic and linguistic identity, predominantly living in Brussels. By far the most difficult question will be the status of Brussels as a capital of the European Union. When the new post World War II Europe looked for a host city for its main institutions, the choice of Brussels wasn't random. Belgium, a country that has both large French and Dutch-speaking communities symbolized the possibility of different ethnic nations to live together. One of the reasons to keep the country alive so far despite the internal tensions was precisely to keep Brussels as a capital of Europe, which involves non-negligible financial contribution to the city's economic and urban development. This factor alone, not to mention the other problems involving the liquidation of Belgium as internationally recognized state, would ultimately determine the fate of the country. If the future of the EU institutions is at stake, Dutch- and French-speaking communities may prefer to live together in a loose confederation than to live separately.
Country profile: --------------------
See also the directory of companies providing real estate services in, and general real estate information of Belgium.
|
See also:
