Andrei Miroiu is the Director of the Bucharest based Center of Security and International Studies

According to the Director of the Bucharest based Center of Security and International Studies, Romania and Bulgaria have joined a much weaker European Union, than they initially planned. Major overseas partner of Romania, Miroiu says, must be the USA, as they can balance the relations of Western Europe and Russia with Romania. The issue of terrorism as a tool in the international relations will fade, he says.

Mr. Miroiu, was the right moment for Romania to join the European Union now? What is your opinion on the EU’s capability of handling two new members? 

It’s a bad moment for the EU. For us it’s good. The accession is going to stop. Croatia will join, may be 2010 – the earliest. And then it’s going to stop – for a very long period. The reason for which is bad – we entered far weaker union, than we planned. In the mid 90s Bulgaria and Romania planned to enter quite different organization than the organization we are in now. It was one of prosperous western countries, basically committed to developing a system, based on a social redistribution.

 We were aiming for a monetary and political union, but not anymore – we entered a union, which is no longer western European Union. We entered a union that has to force more and more liberal economy. If they don’t go to a liberal economy, they will be finished until the year 2020 – basically if they don’t globalize. If they don’t do that, Europe might become a poor region. Not poor, poor, I am not speaking of Africa, or parts of Latin America, but it’s going to be poor, compared to other parts of the advanced world – China, India, parts of Russia. The EU of 1992 no longer exists. 

The EU of Maastricht. 

Yes. The union stopped functioning politically. This happened back in 2003. It’s not functioning from cultural point of view; it’s not functioning from economic point of view. Politically the positions are too many. Definitely the United Kingdom and parts of Eastern Europe are far against power type generation that the French and some Germans used to have in mind. Germany, you know, under Schroeder was too good friend with Russia for us to encompass. We are in Eastern Europe and we have one political constant, from geopolitical point of view, I am speaking about Romania now – no Russia. No Russia and preferably no Germany. As long as the great power of soviet system is away from us – the better for us – this is from the point of view of the European Union.

The second reason of why our joining the union is bad is that because now it happen great shift of power in the international system. The international system becomes multipolar, as we speak. It’s no longer the question of 2015 and the rise of China as a threat. The system is already multipolar and in this respect the United States is cornered, from my point of view. 

Can’t that shift of powers be an opportunity? 

For Romania and Bulgaria it is a bad thing. The American leadership in the late 90s and the beginning of 2000 helped, we were backwards. We never fulfilled the Copenhagen criteria. It is clear that we failed them. For example, the Kosovo moment in 1999 was extremely important, the fact that we agreed to join the western part. That was the moment when the Russians were chased out of the Balkans, geopolitically and from military point of view. We caught a train, we were lucky. The Republic of Moldova, Bosnia, Albania, and Macedonia are not that lucky, they lost it.

The Americans are now losing power. Not because somebody balance them. They lose power, because they didn’t use enough of it in the right moment. They are using strings of power. And they are preparing to do that now – the Iranian crisis is arising closer and closer. And if they pull the military card on Iran – this is the end of the American domination. 

The ironic thing seems to me to be the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not have the constitutional rights to negotiate; he does not possess power to define Iran’s foreign policy. 

Of course, he is not even the head of state. The head of state is practically Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad is just a big mouth. But eventually the terrorist issue will fade as a priority. 

It’s already fading. 

It’s already fading. Let me be straight about it – bombs are going to explode, cars are going to explode, people are going to drive jeeps with explosives into buildings, probably not at this scale. But it will seize as a problem for the power game in the international system.

After all, Al Qaeda failed. And I mean by that the entire Islamic radicalism. They failed – they didn’t bring Islamic radicalism to any Arab nation, they failed to radicalize Muslim youth in the Arab states, as well as in the western world.  

They brought it in Palestine. 

Yes, but as soon as Hamas came to power, it had to become a political organization. And they saw that you don’t achieve things by randomly blowing things up.

Muslim youth did not strive to power. Yes, few, who set the bombs in London. Yet, too few. They are millions. They did not rise against the system; they chose the system because they thought it was better, like in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Morocco. Only in France, the Muslim population is five million. How many Pakistanis are in the UK and more Muslims of all kinds in India? Now the issue terrorism against the West is under control. There will be no 9/11. 

Neither in Europe? 

No 9/11.  

Coming back to the European issue, what is your view on the common constitutional project of Europe? 

I read recently in a French newspaper that the Constitution is dead. “We don’t care about the states which ratified it”. They are right from legal and realistic point of view. But to say “we don’t care”? Those states say, “Look, we will do that again…” What if they don’t ratify it now? What if Denmark rejects it? UK will definitely say “no” to everything.  

How about the military presence of the US on our soil?  

After the move of US forces in Romania, Romania will become the country with the largest American troops after Germany, Great Britain and Italy. They will move forces from Germany and they will position some of them in Constanta.

As for the security issue in Europe in a broader plan, France is speaking about enhancing the nuclear resources, the UK is focusing on power projection, and Germany does nothing, because it still fears the subject. Probably it won’t fear for long, because, as you know, Japan already forgot about not having an army. It established a department of defence.

There exists the problem with Russia and the energetic relations between Russia and Europe. Germany was dealing very well with Russia, while Schroeder was there. Now, with Merkel the things are not going too good. Actually Russia is not a very good position as well. They play too much of the energy card. They need to sell. If you look at their commercial balance, it’s only the gas and the oil. But the price of oil will go down. The deliveries from alternative sources will multiply, the Europeans started reconsidering and appreciating the idea of nuclear energy, which is the right thing to do – this is an internal success. Finally the Greens are down – there is going to be the nuclear energy. It’s safe, after all.

So we need to know how strong our security situation is. It’s very much influenced by few facts. How strong involved will Americans remain here. Will they be interested here? If they are interested, we go with them, definitely. First, they are far away, they ask for few things. They don’t ask you to transform yourself. They don’t put economic constrains, like the EU does. The relations are basically political and military. The economic exchanges are not significant, from global point of view. That’s why we prefer them. Basically they can balance the closer guys that can dominate us – the western Europeans and the Russians.

Our big problem will arise, if Americans are forced to focus somewhere else – if the Middle East mess will become too great, or on the longer term, something related to Asia, China, or something else, we will be probably losing.  

NATO? 

From my point of view, NATO becomes more and more temporary solution. It might not last long. I know these predictions go from the closure of the Cold War, but nevertheless, it might not last much longer. It will loosen. If Europe is to loosen, it will loosen too.

Probably the interoperability will not be that high, on European level. Probably we will witness arise of bilateral alliances, more useful than those 20-30 members unions. In November 2006 I’ve been to Brussels. NATO is becoming more and more like social protection institution – it provides jobs. The Ambassador Sorin Dumitru Ducaru is very good. But he is professional ambassador. He is former Ambassador of Romania to the US. But the lower level! And I have absolutely no reason to think that the other countries send their best. Because their job is to endlessly negotiate. We met a guy from the Turkish delegation, who was extremely proud. He was part of the NATO-Russia council. He was extremely proud that after two years of negotiations they managed to get the Russians to send a frigate for a one week operation. NATO will loosen up. And that will be the point when we’ll think about double type of balancing powers, through bilateral alliances.

That’s why Romanian President Traian Basescu is talking so much about the special relations with the Americans. The goal is to have a direct link with them. This is why we are keeping our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan – hoping to get the treatment, that South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Israel do in their relations with the United States. My view is that we will fail to do that, unless a big crisis will arise. We prefer them, instead of anybody else. Probably, I don’t know, may be we will follow France. I don’t think we will ever have great relations with Germany. We can’t, there are too many scars. We will fail to the agenda. We won’t construct military, able to fight terrorists.  

Will Bulgaria and Romania become terrorists’ targets for hosting US bases? 

No way. No way, because we do not represent any interest for them. As a matter of fact, the threat for Romania, I think for Bulgaria too – came not from the outside. It came from the inside, after the Cold War. It came from incredibly bad management of society and economy. You had problems with the Turkish, Muslim population. 

Yes, and it is happening now, especially since 2005 the problem renewed, as the far-rights entered… 

National party "Attack".  

Namely. 

I’ve been in Bulgaria during the crisis (when there was no Government, in 2005), I stood there and I came to the conclusion that the EU dropped all criteria for letting Romania and Bulgaria in… So, the threat came from the inside. It came from robbing the economy by economic interests groups, came from social pressure, came from the revanchism of the left, and came from – for Romania, from the Hungarians, for Bulgaria – from the Turks. Largely, however, the ethnic pressure is lowered, or somehow kept down.  

Speaking of neighbours, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko negotiated last week with Traian Basescu free visas for Ukranian citizens, entering Romania, as a new EU member state.  

From my point of view, we don’t have to forget what kind of neighbour they are. They had to make up their mind. We had to make up our mind. We were in the same mist in 1991 – we did not know which way to go. How strong will Russia remain, how interested is the West in us, how interested are we to go there. And I don’t think Ukraine is prepared for that. And frankly – Ukraine is too big and too divided and I don’t think there is a strong desire for Ukraine anywhere in Europe.             

We are slowly reaching the Black Sea region policy and the countries, involved into the policy making process, South East Europe, how do we cope in the new realities?  

You know, I don’t think this Black Sea security issue is a very coherent political entity to talk about. From my point of view it is more or less rhetorical, in a foreign relations aspect. President Basescu talks a lot about it and this is for three main reasons. He came to power when it was already decided that we are going to get into the EU. Three months after he became president, he signed the Accession Treaty. Couldn’t talk more about that.

Secondly, there is an obsession since mid 90s in Romania, may be since Ceausescu, to talk about ourselves as some sort of regional leader. Emil Constantinescu, the president from 1996 to the year of 2000 wanted to be leader in South Eastern Europe. It’s an obsession to prove that you are significant in as many places in Europe. French would call it grandomania.

The third reason is to impress the US and the UK, to show that this is our area and we are very important here. Moreover we have nothing in common with the Caucuses countries. We are in the axe Istanbul – Vienna, not Kiev – Tehran.

As for the energy dependency from Russia, which brings us back to the federation, as a partner, on January 10, the European Commission launched an official document outlining the present situation and the development anticipated for the European energy sources and resources. Together with an augmented pressure to speed the process of opening the national gas and electricity markets. Now we have the great gas discovery of the coasts of Norway. French are planning fusion type of energy development. Nuclear researches are ongoing. So, more than the half of Europe’s energy will be produced within the continent. I am optimistic for the future distinguishing from the Russian dependency.  

In the perspectives of the future of Romania as an EU member, in political aspect, do you have a prognosis for the present political crisis? Will there be preliminary elections in Romania? Can the President Basescu take down the Prime Minister if he loses the majority in both chambers of the Parliament? 

That no. It was prevented by changes in the Constitution in 2003, after the situation in 1999, when Emil Constantinescu removed from power Prime Minister Radu Vasile, based on very stupid considerations. The main thing is to “force” the Government to fall.  

Can there be a shift of interest, if the governance of Romania changes? 

No. Probably Basescu was the most east-orientated person until now. But if there is as a shift in power within Romania, the entire right spectrum, which is much weakened right now, mostly the people who can win in such situation are the left and the nationalist parties. Because, as Tariceanu is compromised now with this, so is Basescu. I mean, you hide an evidence for corruption for two years and you show it now? It’s obvious that you use it for political reasons. They will throw mud at each other, if the Government falls.

But, still, early elections are too hard to call now. They depend very much on the opposition party. However, the Social Democrats don’t want elections now, because they will diminish in the political space, or the least, won’t come to power. If elections are held in regularly, they can come to power in the autumn of 2008. Now, Basescu can still impose his Democratic Party, together with some Hungarians, who are continuously in the governance since the Revolution or other opposition.

Prime Minister can become either Vasile Blaga (at present Minister of Interior) or Monica Macovei. However, it will be a weak government, which will only prepare the arrival of the left parties. But anyway, we are too dependent now on the EU economic requirements and they will have to follow the union’s policy.

 Print This Article      Email This Article