Sunday, 27 September 2020 | News today: 0

Bidding with names of ambassadors is a dangerous mistake


Nenad Mircevski


The message of British Ambassador to Macedonia, Charles Garrett, saying that the request for a new government should be a topic of discussion between the government and the opposition, additionally intensified public speculation over his involvement in the “Putsch” case, and that he is the famous Ambassador from Zaev’s letter, who assisted in the “making of the bombs.” His (un) intentional statement follows the writings of some of the media about his recent meeting with journalists close to the opposition where he spoke that in no way should institutional handling of the “Putsch” case be allowed and that it should be insisted on extremely political agreement.

Following the information, some of the citizens have already recognized Garrett as Zaev’s partner and interpreted his reaction as an attempt to increase the pressure on the government to meet the demands of the opposition leader. In addition to these speculations, the ambassador spoke about the bombs with any problem, but at no point did he mention the allegations of involvement of foreign services.

For now, we do not really know whether Ambassador Garrett is the man who helped Zaev “from above” and whether London was the destination where Verusevski was supposed to go to by the new car that SDSM leader gave to him and it would be very wrong if we were to make such conclusion prematurely without seeing substantial evidence to prove it. The information about the meeting with the journalists and the statement of the diplomat can mean a lot in terms of the scenario of the foreign service, but may also not have any background in relation to the case.

We must be aware that placing theses over his involvement in the “Putsch” case without solid evidence is a very dangerous game, which can only worsen the situation in the country and disrupt the relations with the country he represents.

However, the very bidding with names of ambassadors as possible collaborators of Zaev is merely an argument of crucial importance so that the “Putsch” case can reach legal solution which will reveal the real foreign collaborator of the opposition leader. For these reasons, the prosecution has a huge and difficult obligation to support the case with strong and irrefutable evidence that will directly indicate to the foreign collaborators. Moreover, the prosecution is not entitled to do a mistake as to leave no room for further speculation and manipulation.

If the case closes with a political agreement, as Zaev and the Soros media insist on, the case will get messed up, and the public will never know the whole truth, which it has undeniable right to.