Romanian withdrawal from the “socialist community” and the elimination of totalitarian regime was concurrent with the reorientation of national policy toward rapprochement with the European Union and NATO while the relations with Russia went to the back burner. Obviously, transformation of Romania into a base area for the deployment of the US Air Force and Navy, and stationing of American ABMD system also impedes Russian-Romanian rapprochement in the future.
Romanian withdrawal from the “socialist community” and the elimination of totalitarian regime was concurrent with the reorientation of national policy toward rapprochement with the European Union and NATO while the relations with Russia went to the back burner. Obviously, transformation of Romania into a base area for the deployment of the US Air Force and Navy, and stationing of American ABMD system also impedes Russian-Romanian rapprochement in the future.
Collapse of “Ceausescu era” and withdrawal from the socialist camp
The events in Romania of December 17-22, 1989 are a rare example in modern European history of a social outburst which was an unprepared happening without obvious leaders. A spontaneous uprising began with the protests in Timisoara where the Hungarian majority was subject to violent national discrimination. Then the protests spilled over to Bucharest where the rebels were supported by army units. On December 25 Romanian dictator Nikolae Ceausescu and his wife Elena who also held important government posts were arrested at an attempt of escape, handed over to a military tribunal and eventually executed.
Initially, the influence of an external factor was cited as a prerequisite of the events – landslide changes in the GDR, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria. In fact, the key reason and the prologue to the December events was the heaviest crisis of the society and state based on the Romanian version of authoritarian and totalitarian system of economic and social relations crystallized after the Second World War. The essence of the system are lawlessness and voluntarism based on incompetent economic and political decisions, de facto duplication of the Stalinist “model” spiced with outright nationalism.
In the 1950s, taking advantage of the USSR material and financial assistance the Romanian leadership managed to make progress in the economic development of the country. After N. Ceausescu had come to power in 1965 the government set an ambitious task to turn Romania into a developed European economy in the shortest possible time. Expectedly, the plan had to be implemented through intensive attraction of Western credits and their investment into promising economic spheres – oil extraction and processing. Foreign policy was also aligned appropriately. Romania criticized the USSR stance in the Soviet-Chinese conflict, called for the revision of relations in the Comecon (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance) framework, and also vehemently denounced the Soviet military invasion of Czechoslovakia of 1968. Despite brutal violations of human rights, especially the rights of ethnic minorities, Romania was declared a “dissident in the socialist camp”, and was granted big Western credits.
However, Western assistance did not do any good to the totalitarian rule. Sooner or later the implementation of the accelerated development plans void of tangible ground had to crumple. Already in the late 1970s the Romanian foreign debt made $ 12 billion and in the second half of the 1980 it exceeded $ 20 billion. Repeated economic failures, growing shortage of foodstuffs, rigid energy-and gas-saving rules, kickbacks and fines, heavy forced labor – all those could not but lead to a social outburst, collapse of the totalitarian regime and Romanian walkout from the “socialist community”.
Focusing on European and Euro-Atlantic integration
Romania was one of the first East-European countries to declare its intention to join NATO and the European Union. Despite the fact that in general the relations between Romanian President Ion Iliescu who took the office in 1990 and the Russian leadership were developing positively, the factor of “historic memory” has been always evident in the Romanian policy. There is no coincidence that at the times of the August 1991 putsch the Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs was sent to Brussels to discuss potential negative ramifications of the developments in Moscow on the neighboring countries. On October 11, 1991 the Romanian leaders supported by 95% of the population [1] made an official statement on their resolve to strengthen relations with NATO and to seek further accession to the alliance. However, Romania managed to obtain NATO membership only on April 1, 2004 upon implementing a whole range of requirements.
Romanian entry to the European Union was even a more difficult endeavor as the process stretched out for more than a decade. In 1993 the sides signed an Association Agreement providing for a gradual removal of customs barriers and establishment of a free-trade zone in the long run. Romania became a full EU member only on January 1 2007. Prior to the entry the European Commission pointed out inadequate openness of its economy and underdevelopment of political structures, as well as existence of the shadow sector and corruption as a systematic issue undermining national economic development and citizens’ confidence in the law.
Romania was most severely hit by the world financial and economic crisis. Later in 2008 the exchange rate of the Romanian currency went down by 5% against the Euro while the unemployment rate rose to 6.3% of the able-bodied population which was a tangible burden on the state budget because of the necessity to pay unemployment benefits ($1.5 billion annually). As compared to neighboring Bulgaria, the winter energy crisis of 2009 was less difficult to Romania as it provides 65% of its natural gas consumption from its own gas deposits.
In general, recent EU documents indirectly recognized “certain haste” in Romania’s and Bulgaria’s admission to the European Union. The same is corroborated by the actual situation in those countries as the compliance with certain EU preconditions, especially in agriculture and in medium-size and small businesses, strongly affect the living standards of sufficiently vast layers of the population.
Romania and Russia: current level and future prospects of relations development
Russian-Romanian relations retained a negative touch of a protracted dispute on the appurtenance of the historic region of Bessarabia. Romanian and Russian historians were coming up with various arguments in support of their views often conflicting each other, which were brandished by the politicians at the times of tension (for instance, in the mid-1960s N.Ceausescu used the territorial issue to turn his back on the USSR).
The same arguments are used in the rhetoric of current Romanian President Traian Basescu who has repeatedly been insisting on the necessity to “rectify a historic injustice” as regards Bessarabia. Declarations of this sort concern the interests of Moldova and Ukraine rather than Russian interests as parts of historic Bessarabian territory also belong to the Chernovtsy and Odessa Regions respectively. As to the Russian-Romanian relations, blowing up of the “Bessarabian issue” provides an unacceptable background for their development though today Russia and Romania don’t have common borders. In this connection suffice it to remind the reader of a recent T.Basescu’s statement that if he had been in the boots of the former fascist dictator Ion Antonescu, Hitler’s ally, on June 22, 1941 he would have given the same order: to cross the Prut river and liberate Bessarabia.
The Romanian leadership regarded its accession to NATO as a “defensive umbrella” of sorts in case of aggravated relations with Russia. However, in its turn, Romania made a commitment to play a geopolitical role of NATO and US bridgehead targeted at the countries of the Black Sea basin, of the Middle and Near East, and, to a certain degree, on Russia. American naval bases were established in Romania already in 2005. In September 2011 Romania and the US signed an agreement providing for deployment of the US ABM defense in Romania, and a joint declaration on strategic partnership in the 21st century. In response to the protests of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs the Romanian President declared that his country was disinclined to give any legal guarantees to Moscow. Russia seeks legal guarantees that the US ABMD systems deployed in Europe are aimed at the officially designated targets, and would not upset the balance of forces in the region and in the world in general.
Thus, in contrast to his predecessors, Social Democrat Ion Iliescu and Liberal Emil Constantinescu, the acting Romanian President steered the country on the dangerous track of one-sided alignment with the US and NATO and deterioration of relations with Russia.
Despite a whole number of difficult issues in bilateral relations, Russian-Romanian consultations on the settlement in Transdniestria were held in October 2011. Russia is interested in Romanian involvement in the resolution of the crisis as it relates to an opportunity to indirectly influence the EU position, as the Union enjoys an observer status in the format of “5+2” group. However, the consultations are but a small segment of potential widening of Russian-Romanian political relations which have been significantly minimized over the recent years.
The level of Russian-Romanian economic cooperation is extremely low too, despite an objective necessity of its development for both sides. A sharp fall in trade turnover between the USSR and Romania was registered already in the later 1990s, and the task of consolidating economic ties with Russia was consistently put high on the agenda by the predecessors of the incumbent President. Though in July 2003 the Russian Federation and Romania signed the Treaty on Friendly Relations, this positive trend has never gained momentum.
During his working visit to Russia in February 2005 President T.Basescu made special emphasis on the development of trade and economic relations between the two countries. As a results of mutual arrangements the trade turnover between Russia and Romania gradually increased making USD 3.5 billion in 2010, however, the level of cooperation remained quite low.
Objectively, Russia and Romania would be interested in the development of regional cooperation in the field of security and conflict settlement in the Black Sea region, as well as in establishing additional routes of transit of energy resources to the Balkans and Europe. Yet a one-sided focus of the present Romanian leadership on cooperation with the US and NATO, making its territory a stronghold for the deployment of the American Air Force and Navy and stationing of the ABMD elements significantly diminish the potential of pro-active Russian-Romanian cooperation.
1. Ministry of Foreign Affaires. White Book on Romania and NATO. Bucharest, 1997. P. 13.
