Historical Commission Between Bulgaria and North Macedonia Ends Without Agreement

On November 5 and 6, Bulgarian and North Macedonian officials met in Skopje for the Joint Multidisciplinary Commission of Experts on Historical and Educational Issues, a forum created to reconcile differing historic narratives and ensure curriculum neutrality. The meeting, covered by Bulgaria’s news agency BTA, yielded no new agreements and reaffirmed the status quo, according to the report.

During the first day, Bulgarian delegates reiterated concerns over how the historic Archbishopric of Ohrid has been portrayed in North Macedonian history textbooks. They also presented a proposal to honour Dame Gruev, a prominent figure who has been a symbol in the shared past of the neighboring peoples. Both initiatives were met with silence from the North Macedonian side, leaving the issues unresolved and indicating a deepening impasse.

The following day, the commission engaged in a discussion on a joint commemoration of anti‑fascist resistance that emerged in both countries in 1941. North Macedonian members presented the proposal, but the Bulgarian representatives rejected it, citing that such resistance is already honoured throughout Europe and should not be narrowed to a bilateral focus. The talk was halted at the point that the commission remains dedicated primarily to 11th‑century sources and interpretations.

Concurrently, the European Parliament’s latest report on North Macedonia’s progress applied pressure on the commission to deliver tangible results. The report stressed that the texts must reflect an interpretation grounded in objective, authentic, and evidence‑based historical sources, scientific analysis, and historical records, in line with the Second Protocol to the Treaty of Goodneighbourliness with Bulgaria. That stance reflects broader European expectations of factual neutrality in educational content.

Similarly, the European Commission’s assessment of North Macedonia’s reform trajectory noted that the commission has held four meetings between September 2025 and March 2026, yet none have produced concrete outcomes. The Commission reiterated its willingness to maintain engagement but urged the two parties to adopt a deeper commitment for progress toward a historically inclusive curriculum.

The next deliberation is scheduled in Sofia in early December, a move that highlights an attempt to break the deadlock in its own capital. Yet stakeholders remain skeptical, given the prior discussions stagnated in both cities, suggesting that the committee’s physical location may not resolve the underlying historiographical disagreements.

For the citizens of Bulgaria and North Macedonia, the commission’s stalled proceedings reverberate in schools, media, and public forums. Students may continue to encounter contested names and events in their textbooks, which can reinforce divergent national identities and hinder a coherent discourse on shared heritage. Likewise, policymakers who rely on these commissions to inform cultural policy risk perpetuating mistrust between the two governments.

Public accountability is also at stake; community groups and independent historians have called for the commission to publish its findings publicly and to invite expert input from neutral scholars. The absence of published outcomes raises questions about transparency and the legitimacy of the process, potentially eroding public confidence in bilateral cooperation.

Finally, the continued impasse in this historical commission illustrates a broader challenge facing nations with intertwined histories seeking EU integration. The European Union’s emphasis on evidence‑based historical narratives places joint commissions in a crucible where diplomatic effort must meet academic rigor. Without clear, consensus‑driven results, the path to genuine regional cooperation remains uncertain.