The Regional Dilemma |
Elation
at the fall of communism in Eastern Europe has obscured in the west the
persistent character of history in the east. As George Santayana in his
work, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905, wrote, “Those who
cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Romanians, having
been tossed about by geopolitical forces for over 2,000 years, have no
problem remembering the lessons of history and planning effectively to
avoid repeating their blunders. Romania’s past affords it with a view of
the present that sees pessimism and pragmatism as the same thing.
Romanians have grappled with both a quandary and a dilemma in resolving
their national security interests. The first was the question of how
best to balance Romania’s participation in the European institutional
bulwarks of NATO and the EU for protection from future foreign
interference, with Romania’s historic geo-strategic inclination to
fashion alliances with remote powers. The question of upon which power
Romania should place its greatest reliance, although never in doubt, was
decided by recent events that have put in question the extent of the
reliability of European institutions, and put Romania’s main focus on
the United States. But the dilemma for Romania is how to deal with its
greatest national security threats -- the mischievous influences in the
region that endanger Romania’s potential prosperity; particularly when
the guarantors of its sovereignty have, at best, a secondary interest in
Romania and the region in general. The extent of Romania’s own role in
securing regional stability and how to fashion this task in cooperation
with its neighbors is the dilemma that it has yet to resolve. |
[ Up
to Contents ] |
A History Not to Be Repeated |
History has not been too kind to the Romanians. Although the end of
World War I and the collapse of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires
created a new and greatly enlarged Romania, the nation was soon caught
between a belligerent Soviet Union in the east that coveted the return
of Bessarabia (now the Republic of Moldova) and a fascist Germany that
coveted Romania’s oil and demanded its fealty. To protect itself,
Romania sought and obtained military and political alliances with France
and Great Britain, which at the time appeared to be its most rational
strategy and one that Romania had successfully pursued in World War I.
When World War II broke out, Romania declared its neutrality but
supported Poland by facilitating the transit of the National Bank
treasure and granting asylum to the Polish president and government. The
defeats suffered by France and Great Britain in 1940 created a
precarious situation for Romania. The Soviet government applied article
3 of the secret protocol in the von Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of August
23, 1939, and forced Romania by ultimatum notes of June 26 and 28, 1940
to cede not only Bessarabia, but also Northern Bukovina and the Hertza
land (the latter two had never belonged to Russia). Under the Vienna
Dictate of August 30, 1940, Germany and Italy gave to Hungary the
north-eastern part of Transylvania, where the majority population was
Romanian. Following German directed Romanian-Bulgarian talks in Craiova,
a treaty was signed on September 7, 1940, under which the south of
Dobrudja (the Quadrilateral) went to Bulgaria.
The dismemberment of Romania in the summer of 1940 led to the abdication
of King Carol II in favor of his son Mihai I and to Ion Antonescu's
take-over of the government. In the hope of getting back the territories
lost in 1940, Antonescu participated, side by side with Germany, in the
war against the Soviet Union (1941-1944). The defeats suffered by the
Axis powers led after 1942 to enhanced attempts by Antonescu's regime to
take Romania out of the alliance with Germany. On August 23, 1944,
Marshal Ion Antonescu was arrested under orders from King Mihai I. A new
government, made up of military men and technocrats, declared war on
Germany and Romania brought her whole economic and military potential
into the alliance with the United Nations until the end of World War II
in Europe. Despite the human and economic efforts Romania made for the
cause of the United Nations for nine months, the Peace Treaty of Paris
denied Romania co-belligerent status and forced her to pay huge war
reparations. However, the Treaty did provide for the return of
north-eastern Transylvania to Romania while Bessarabia and Northern
Bukovina (now in Ukraine) stayed annexed to the USSR.
The Soviet Union, devastated by the German invasion, was intent upon
including Romania as part of a buffer zone protecting it from any future
invasions launched from Western Europe. Soviet troops were stationed on
the territory of Romania and the country was abandoned by the West. The
government was forcibly taken over by Russian-backed communists who had
theretofore been only a tiny political party. Other political parties
were banned and their members were persecuted and arrested; King Mihai I
was forced to abdicate and a people's republic was proclaimed on
December 30, 1947. A single-party dictatorship was established supported
by the omnipotent and omnipresent surveillance and repression of the
Romanian people, and linked to the Soviet economy creating generations
of poverty.
It is therefore not difficult to understand that in the 15 years since
the fall of communism, Romania has pursued a consistent foreign policy
driven by the primordial fear that Russia remained the dominant power of
the region, coupled with an initial anxiety concerning Germany. But two
things comforted Romania: NATO accession and membership in the European
Union. With regard to Germany, so long as it was integrated into both
structures, so long as Germany spoke and acted through multinational
institutions, Romania felt that Germany was contained. To be sure, the
extent of German investment in Romania has been significant and
supportive. Russia is another story.
With the collapse of communism, Moscow is no longer the core of an
aggressive power. But Russia is also not a nation that is content with
its diminished position in the world. In the past few years, it has
become increasingly hostile towards the resolution of a number of
conflicts on its borders with its former Soviet Republics. Its
discontent has also spilled over into relations with other neighboring
states. Three months ago, the head of Russian intelligence, accused the
US and Britain of covertly using political groups to try to destabilize
and destroy Russia. Although the reversal in Moscow's tone over the past
few months is unsettling to Romanians, it is not unexpected. Romania’s
hope was that Russia would pass the point of no return before it
considered shifting policies. At the moment, it is simply unclear
whether that point has been reached. But the continued Russian troop
presence in Transdniestria and its economic and political domination of
neighboring Moldova for the past fourteen years eliminates all illusions
as to Russia’s intentions in the Balkans. Its continued involvement in
other regional frozen conflicts and its current row with Poland leave
Romanians apprehensive. When French and Dutch voters recently rejected
the proposed European constitution, upending the notion that a European
state was about to emerge, Romania’s balanced geopolitical focus tilted
in such a way as to create a distinctive inclination towards the United
States. A stalled or fragmented Europe, coupled with an increasingly
hostile Russia, is Romania’s worst nightmare. Of course, Europe is not
close to break up and Moscow has not launched a new Cold War, but
Romanians are people who comprehend their geopolitical position better
than most. They have learned from history and so they are busily
re-charting the course of their security through Washington. |
[ Up
to Contents ] |
The World Through the Eyes of Romanians |
To
see the world through the eyes of Romanians, is to understand why over
one hundred and thirty thousand Romanians wept in a rain-soaked
Revolution Square to celebrate the nation’s entry into NATO when they
heard US President George W. Bush tell them that Romania need never
again fear foreign domination; that America was its ally and was
prepared to send its troops to protect its democracy. Those words are
the fundamental reason for Romania’s exhaustive efforts to enter NATO.
But Franco-German policy and Anglo-American policy concerning Iraq soon
paralyzed NATO, which requires consensual decision-making, and the
institution is having trouble recovering. The US commitment is firm, but
the NATO process is a bit less certain now. The French and Dutch votes
compounded Romania’s predicament. Romania stood to gain two benefits
from the European Union: membership in an extremely prosperous and
successful economic entity, and the creation of a transnational European
state that would permanently contain nationalism with its simmering
ethnic-blood right that can be its ugly underbelly, and protect Romania
from perceived Russian hegemony. Romanians thought that the EU might be
a permanent solution to both problems.
Whatever comes out of the French and Dutch repudiation of the EU
constitution, it will not be a robust solution that will systematically
suppress Europe's multi-nationalisms. After all, the French and Dutch
votes were votes for French and Dutch nationalism. And in any
competition of nationalisms, Romanians know they will lose. The Russians
have not returned to Central Europe, but the mood in Moscow is angry.
NATO hasn’t collapsed, but it is less effective. The European Union
remains the center of gravity of Europe, but it is not likely to evolve
into a political and military entity. And there is a recognition in
Romania that its geopolitical situation has deteriorated, and that it
will not improve much either for some time to come. The events in
Europe, the damage to NATO, and Russia’s bellicosity have shaken
Romania’s geopolitical plan for security and driven Romanian leaders
closer to Washington on security matters. |
[ Up
to Contents ] |
The Washington-Bucharest Axis |
Even in the early nineties, Romanian foreign policy, particularly
beginning with Foreign Minister Teodor Melescanu, was geared towards the
development of a multifaceted alliance with the United States that would
compliment Romania’s European commitment. Recent developments have
placed a larger importance on Romania’s relationship with the United
States for its security. In the circumstances, it is no wonder that
President Traian Basescu has called for closer ties with the US and
Britain, and shied away from deeper involvements with France and
Germany.
To augment its efforts, Romania conducted what appears will be a
successful campaign to get a US military base situated in the country.
Romania has offered its airbase at Kogalniceanu near the Black Sea and
also a shooting range in nearby Babadag. U.S. troops used the
Kogalniceanu airbase in southeastern Romania as a hub to send equipment
and 7,000 combat troops into Iraq during the early stages of the 2003
Iraq War, and temporarily kept up to 3,500 American troops there.
History has shown the Romanians that faraway powers cannot project
military strength at a distance, but US forces permanently on the ground
in Romania, even in small numbers, combined with NATO treaty
commitments, are not a bad substitute for the security that it cannot
find elsewhere in Europe. Romania has some of its best military
contingents, such as its famed Red Scorpions, operating along side US
troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and US soldiers from the US Dragons
unit in Afghanistan are now under the command of a Romanian battalion
from Craiova. In the United Nations Security Council, it has crafted a
balanced diplomatic strategy, but one that articulates a pro-American
policy. And in what had to be at the behest of the US administration,
Romania has just forgiven $2 billion of Iraqi debt -- amounting to 80%
of its claims – which it can ill afford economically, but which may be
money well spent politically. Indeed, Romania has engineered so
effective a pro-American policy, that the US administration readily
characterizes Romania as one of America’s best allies in Europe.
Having made itself useful to the United States, even to the sometime
consternation of the French, the Germans and the Russians, Romania has
obtained a modern security blanket that could not have existed in 1940,
but can go a long way today in securing the nation’s defense. But the
US-Romanian relationship will not, in and of itself, make Romania or the
Balkans safe from all forms of mischief. This requires much more work.
The national security dilemma for Romania now is not the balance between
European-based institutional protections or a US-based alliance, but in
how it will take the rewards of its successful geo-strategic diplomacy
and turn them into successful regional leadership. |
[ Up
to Contents ] |
Protecting the Balkans from Further Mischief |
The
main external security threats to Romania today are not of a military
nature (with the exception of the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and terrorism). They arise from the financial and social
consequences of regional mischief that foments xenophobia and
nationalist separatism. Much of the problem, though certainly not all of
it, springs from Russian interference in the region and the pernicious
influence of the Russian-based mafia.
To counteract this security threat, Russia must be mollified -- somehow.
The problem is that Russia now has its back up. And while the interests
of the United States in this matter coincide with those of Romania, they
do so only at a secondary level. The Russians, however, are fighting for
what they perceive as their fundamental national interests. So are the
Romanians -- but in the end, they have minimal influence to bring to
bear. The United States is far away. The Russians are next door. The US
may protect Romania from invasion, but not from regional mischief which
affects its prosperity and could affect its stability. Romania must
protect itself from such turmoil by taking a regional leadership role –
which is precisely what the US hopes the Romanians will do.
The dilemma for Romania is how to gain the confidence of its neighbors
so that it can take a leading role in finding conciliatory solutions
with Russia. Two developments would be significant for the security of
Romania. First, the long-simmering dispute regarding Transdniestria must
be ended in a democratic fashion, and Russian troops must leave Moldova,
as is Russia’s obligation by treaty and by international law. Second,
the new Ukrainian government must be strengthened, and its disputes with
Romania should be settled.
Moldova has finally concluded that its best friend in the region really
is Romania, which has led to a Romanian diplomatic initiative raising
the Transdniestrian problem in dialogue with western leaders every
chance it gets. Ukraine’s addition to such dialogue has been
tremendously helpful in underscoring to Russia that its presence in
Moldova must come to an end soon. Were Romania to improve its
relationship with Ukraine, the entire region would benefit enormously.
Romania is, indeed, supportive of the new Ukrainian leadership. It has
redoubled its efforts to resolve the environmentally appalling actions
of Ukraine in the Bistroe Channel and, possibly, the lawsuit begun
against Ukraine in the International Court at the Hague over the control
of the continental shelf in the Black Sea. In April of this year, the
Presidents of Ukraine and Romania created a high-level commission to
resolve outstanding Ukrainian-Romanian issues, including the Danube -
Black Sea Canal, and also to find a joint solution to the
Transdniestrian conflict. They also signed a political declaration which
sets forth their commitment to improve the relationship between Kiev and
Bucharest.
No one disputes that it is in the best interests of both Ukraine and
Romania to settle their differences quickly and concentrate on the much
larger and mutually shared national security threats they face together
in the region. It is not always easy for neighbors who have been
quibbling for a long time about a lot of things to step back and see
that their common concerns far outweigh their disputes. Both countries
see themselves as the leader in the region – Ukraine because of its 50
million people and Romania because of its impending EU accession and its
membership in NATO. Both nations need to come to terms with the fact
that the other has a set of unique attributes that propels it to
regional leadership too. If France and Germany can work together
harmoniously after hundreds of years of acrimony, then certainly Romania
and Ukraine can find a way to do so and focus together on how to resolve
the stability and security issues they face in the region. |
[ Up
to Contents ] |
Editors Note: It is our policy not to mention our clients by name in
The Romanian Digest™ or discuss their business unless it is a matter of
public record and our clients approve. The information herein is correct
to the best of our knowledge and belief at press time. Specific advice
should be sought from us, however, before investment or other decisions
are made.
Copyright 2005 Rubin Meyer Doru & Trandafir, societate civila de avocati.
All rights reserved. No part of The Romanian Digest™ may be reproduced,
reused or redistributed in any form without prior written permission
from the publisher.
|
RUBIN MEYER DORU & TRANDAFIR
societate civila de avocati
Str. Putul cu Plopi, Nr.7, Sector 1
Bucharest, Romania
Tel: (40) (21) 311 14 60
Fax: (40) (21) 311 14 65
E-Mail:
office@hr.ro
VISIT OUR WEB SITE:
http://www.hr.ro
The Romanian Digest Archive
|
AFFILIATED WITH:
Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C.
125 Broad Street
New York, NY, 10004
Tel: (212) 471-8500
Fax: (212) 344-3333
http://www.herzfeld-rubin.com
Herzfeld & Rubin LLP
1925 Century Park East
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel: (310) 553-0451
Fax: (310) 553-0648
Chase, et al.,Herzfeld & Rubin, LLC
5N Regent Street
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
Tel: (973) 535-8840
Fax: (973) 535-8841
Israeli Affiliated Law Firm
Balter Guth Aloni & Co.
Textile Center, 2 Kaufman Street, 68012
Tel Aviv, Israel
Tel: (972)-3-5111-111
Fax: (972)-3-5102-166 |
|
New York — California — New Jersey — Romania |
If you no longer wish to receive emails
from us, please send an e-mail with UNSUBSCRIBE
in the subject line to
Romanian.Digest@hr.ro. |
|