SECRET EMAILS EXPOSE E.U. CONSPIRACY

Secret emails between the Bulgarian MEP, Antonyia Parvanova, and Estonia’s European Commission vice-president, Siim Kallas, reveal they were part of a conspiracy to discredit Bulgarian Foreign Minister, Mrs. Rumiana Jeleva, before her January 12 hearing to become her country’s next E.U. Commissioner.
A media campaign branded Mrs. Jeleva a “Mafia Bride” and she was accused by Liberal MEP, Mrs. Parvanova of lying about her financial history. It therefore came as no surprise on January 19 when Mrs. Jeleva withdrew her candidacy to be a commissioner for humanitarian affairs.
Evidence now shows Mrs. Parvanova, who was one of Mrs. Jeleva’s chief accusers at a live televised hearing in Brussels on January 12, was instrumental in spreading false claims that Mrs. Jeleva lied about her relationship to a company called Global Consult.
The other major player in the saga was Siim Kallas, a former Estonian prime minister, who is one of the European Commission’s five vice-presidents. His role in the plot was hidden until January 18 when I linked him to Mrs. Parvanova in an article published in the Bulgarian newspaper, Standart, and also in the online Home Page of Euro News. Kallas, a former member of the Soviet Communist Party, is a powerful E.U. figure. His title is EU Commissioner for Administrative Affairs, Audit and Anti-Fraud but that did not give him authority to investigate Jeleva, or to circulate information about her on behalf of anyone, especially Parvanova.
When a “New Europe” journalist contacted his office on January 19, his Press Officer angrily denied Kallas knew Parvanova.
“The story is complete rubbish,” the Press Officer insisted and then curtly denied that Kallas “had anything to do with the allegations against Jeleva.” The reporter told me it was “highly unusual for a press officer to be so aggressive.”
If Kallas did not know Parvanova and had nothing to do with the allegations against Mrs. Jeleva, what will he say when he is confronted with evidence to the contrary? The following emails exposing a Parvanova-Kallas link have not been altered by me, neither in terms of substance, spelling, capitalization, or layout. The CAB in the emails refers to the Cabinet, meaning personal office of each commissioner.

From: MAURY Etienne (mailto:etienne.maury@europarl.europa.eu)
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:05 PM
To: HOLOEI Henrik (CAB-KALLAS)
Subject: Commissioners hearings – Violation of Bulgarian laws governing the visibility of the assets of holders of public interest by Ms Rumyana Jeleva
Dear Mr. Hololei,
On behalf of Antonyia Parvanova, you will attached – for your personal reference – the translation of two documents regarding the violation of Bulgarian laws governing the visibility of the assets of holders of public interest by Ms. Rumyana Jeleva, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Best regards,
Etienne Maury
Etienne MAURY
Parliamentary assistant, Head of office
Office of Dr. Antonyia Parvanova MEP
European Parliament
ASP 9G263 / WIC M02030
Rue Wiertz / Allee du printemps
B-1047 Brussels / 67000 Strasbourg

Tel: +32 2 284 7568 / +33 3 88 17 7568
Fax: +32 2 284 9568 / +33 3 88 17 9568


That email demonstrates how Mrs. Parvanova provided documents to Kallas by way of his personal office. The recipient of the email, HOLOEI Henrik, then passed the documents to LAITENBERGER Johannes in the Cabinet of the Commission Chairman, Manuel Barroso. The second email read as follows:





From: HOLOLEI Henrik (CAB-KALLAS)
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:53 PM
To: LAITENBERGER Johannes (CAB-BARROSO)
Subject: FW: Commissioners hearings – Violation of Bulgarian laws governing the visibility of the assets of public interest held by Mr. Rumyana Jeleva
Dear Johannes,
I thought it would make sense to forward this to you as well as for info if you have not got this already!
Rgds,
Henrik

From the emails, it is apparent the fix was in by January 7, 2010, and that Parvanova and Kallas both knew what they had in place. It would not be unreasonable to conclude they had been working on the scheme for some time, which would explain how there was such a speedy turnover of Parvanova’s material from CAB-KALLAS to CAB-BARROSO.
By using CAB-KALLAS as a willing conduit, Parvanova clearly intended to keep her fingerprints well away from the conspiracy. It is a technique intelligence agencies use when they spread disinformation. They will leak damaging information about an enemy by employing a conduit that does not lead back to them. Parvanova, and perhaps others who remain at this time in the shadows, must have been convinced no one in Barroso’s office would link the Estonian, Siim Kallas, and his Cabinet, to a conspiracy against the Bulgarian Commissioner Designate, Rumiana Jeleva. Therefore, the Bulgarian connection in the conspiracy probably felt safe it would not be unmasked. In fact, damaging information on Jeleva being quietly conveyed from CAB-KALLAS to CAB-BARROSO was more likely to be perceived as an act of good faith – an attempt by a well-minded Estonian Commission vice-president to tip off his boss, Manuel Barroso, to the dangers lurking in the Jeleva candidacy. However, one must ask why Mr. Kallas got involved, or permitting his Cabinet to be party to a shady enterprise that breached E.U. rules governing the investigation of Commissioners or Commissioners Designate. Kallas had the authority, if he had so wished, to instruct his legal staff to investigate Mrs. Jeleva, but in so doing he would have had declare his interest by informing the Commission Chairman, Mr. Barroso, as well as Mrs. Jeleva. That would have raised red flags and encouraged people to ask why Jeleva mattered to him. Instead, he broke the rules by allowing his office to be used for the dissemination of information from a source not authorized to investigate Jeleva, namely Mrs. Parvanova.
As for Parvanova, she may have broken her own nation’s laws by secretly investigating its Foreign Minister and then spreading false information about her financial history.
The conspiracy against Mrs. Jeleva was an egregious example of wrong-doing and it requires serious journalistic investigation, which has been lacking in the overall coverage of the Jeleva affair. Before, and after the January 12 hearing, many journalists preferred to repeat base and defamatory allegations fueled by rumour and hearsay. In so doing, they ignored the crux of the case.
Mrs. Jeleva has bowed out of the race but what remains is a tale, which highlights a political sickness within the E.U. body politic. That sickness is manifest in the partisanship, lies, defamation, personal savagery and the kind of political narrowness that makes strange bedfellows of parties that only have their own survival in common.
Anyone who knows Rumiana Jeleva will confess that she is a fine, intelligent woman with a real sense of justice. In her role as Bulgaria’s Foreign Minister, she impressed many foreign dignitaries. She made mistakes in her presentation on January 12 when she was subjected to an interview more akin to an interrogation. Some of the questions she faced exposed a real political naiveté among MEPs. She was asked about Aden. Did that mean the port of Aden, South Yemen or the Gulf of Aden? And where is the E.U. Aden policy? Questions of that kind highlighted the incompetence of some in the undergraduate school of E.U. politics.
From a journalistic standpoint, I was shocked by the willingness of some media outlets to follow the herd to the point where there was a wearisome reiteration of defamatory allegations, which featured prominently in publications like “Die Welt.” It will now be up to others to find out how Kallas was encouraged to become a conduit for Mrs. Parvanova and who else was involved. Perhaps some journalists, who regularly cover the work of the Commission, will get their heads out of the reflex news trough and give proper coverage to this case. Perhaps, they will follow the paper trail and also ask the Bulgarian Justice Ministry and the Bulgarian Prime Minister what actions they will take when they see the correspondence between Parvanova and Kallas.
I met and interviewed Mrs. Jeleva when she was in the United States in November 2009. She impressed me as she did others I have spoken to.
On January 19, Mrs. Parvanova wrote the following letter to me:
Dear Mr. Dillon,
My office brought to my attention the following article published yesterday on the website of Standart News Bulgarian newspaper:
http://paper.standartnews.com/en/article.php?d=2010-01-19&article=31889
As I was quite astonished by the language used in this article, coming from a journalist with such references as yours, I would kindly invite you to discuss this matter with me. I would be glad to share with you all the pecularities of this hearing, which further interpretations I do not appreciate and support in any possible mean.

Best regards,

Antonyia Parvanova
Member of the European Parliament
Vice-President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)
I responded that I hoped she would answer questions I would send her by email. She did not reply but three hours later I sent her a series of questions. She ignored that email too, making it clear she was not interested in transparency. As this story plays out, those at the centre of this conspiracy may be asked to account for their actions.