"The Oostlandson effect"

Views on BG | February 17, 2004, Tuesday // 00:00

The Ziua Daily, Romania
By Adrian Severin

The deep origins of the "children crisis" emerged between Bucharest and Brussels and threatening with suspending the EU accession negotiations with Romania, still remain, and we'll make use here of the paradigm used by Churchill, the famous fellow countryman of the equally famous Baroness Nicholson, for the former USSR - a secret covered by a mysterious mystery.

We don't claim that the Romanian governments are performing irreproachably. There is however information proving that the behaviour of the Western critics is not irreproachable either and not very different from the Dambovita faulty style.

That's why, without emphasizing the formal rightness of the European exigency and the need for the Romanian society to answer positively - it is, firstly to its own benefit and next, to the satisfaction of the EU monitors, we'll indulge into an analytical exercise starting from the following thesis insufficiently explored: when the state reasons are at stake, the moral reasons are latent.

Let us start by noticing that both Baroness Nicholson and Mr. Oostlander come from countries and political trends, which are most Atlanticist. Also, their serious accusing coincided, in time and contents, with the American ambassador in Bucharest reproaching Romania.

How can we explain therefore, the transatlantic intransigence towards Romania, at a time when Romania expresses its transatlantic feelings while Europe seems more and more shaken by anti-American feelings?

The US are of course observing principles, but for instance, the wise flexibility the US proved in dealing with the Khan case - the Pakistani expert who provided with nuclear technology the rogue states, allegedly without Pakistani Government knowing anything - proves that observing principles doesn't go beyond the limits of efficiency.

The Euro parliamentarians are also said to be attached to their values (including financial values) and they are also supporters of the political relativity concept, when they instance speak discretely about Turkey's meeting political criteria, or when they overlook the "non-citizen" status of the Russians in Latvia (other Atlanticist countries) while they impose, as eliminating condition, the interdiction to turn Romanian street children into children of decent families, in their own countries.

What's the sense of this fuss, then? To postpone Romania's accession to EU? To impose overwhelming conditions upon this accession? To change the balance of political forces in Romania? Or maybe, something related to each of these! Let us take them in turn.

Why would anyone wish Romania to stay out of the EU? Because it wouldn't be a Trojan Horse, as the Euro-centrists believe and fear? Irrespective of its politicians' duplicity, Romania will still be a country, which objectively has transatlantic vocation, so America and the European Atlanticists should wish Romania to become part of the EU as soon as possible. It will reinforce the group of those, which, for the sake of internal European equilibrium, America is and will remain a European power.

Or because, on the contrary, it would be a Trojan Horse of the US? The Convention on the future of Europe proved that Romania is, above all, a European consciousness; more genuine than those invited to join the EU in 2004 which, by defining their national interests outside of the European context, thwarted the attempt of adopting of the European Constitution at the end on 2003. No ambitious opportunist could change such genetic data.

Within the EU, Romania will strengthen the group of those sharing the view of a political Europe. On the other hand, to leave Romania with its Magyar minority outside the EU for a long time after Hungary's joining the EU means to pave the way for tensions in Central Europe. Since, politically speaking, the EU would be part of such conflict, and the US would be far away, geographically speaking, Russia would become the referee. Who would want this situation to evolve?

Frightened by economic and social disparities resulted from the current massive expansion, corroborated with the blockage resulted from the delays in internal reforming or in re-founding the EU, some people may wish Romania's negotiating force to become weak and therefore, the EU capability of controlling Romania also after accession to strengthen, thus diluting Romania's influence.

The year 2007 is to remember, - and, even if these days, signals have been sent in a certain way, apparently contradicting Oostalander-Nicholson motions -they will have to prove that Romania cannot meet the accession criteria by 2007.
That's why Romania will be asked to accept a conditioned accession, i.e. to be a monitored member, always with Damocles sword of the potential penalties imposed by Luxembourg Court above its head. This would not require such a significant deployment of forces on the two Atlantic sides.

Finally, there is the issue of the domestic balance of political forces or the non-equilibrium between PSD and Opposition. An issue already pointed to with concern. For many people, until 2004, the correction towards a "Romanian single-party democracy" - like in Japan, or Sweden, - consisted of the "counterweight Iliescu-Nastase".

Since after 2004 the prospects for the above-mentioned system become uncertain, a change may be desirable, even if artificially imposed, of the weight of PSD and its main leaders on the Romanian political stage. Since it's more unlikely to speak of their replacement, - also because the competitors are missing - it's possible to envisage a weakening of their stability.

Thus it'll be easier and more reliably to work with Romania. However, we don't know for sure if this would be to Romania's benefit as well!

How have we managed to reach this point, after having satisfied each one's request, no matter how controversial they were? The secret resides not in the way one says "Yes", but in the way one says "No".

Caught in between the requirements of the Big ones, the Little one is only left with observing the principles. When, in the context of non-favourable international power balancing, the foreign policy lacks morals, the sum of tactical victories represents a strategic defeat. This is the "Oostlandson effect".

We need your support so Novinite.com can keep delivering news and information about Bulgaria! Thank you!

Views on BG » Be a reporter: Write and send your article

Advertisement
Advertisement
Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) and Sofia Morning News publish the latest economic, political and cultural news that take place in Bulgaria. Foreign media analysis on Bulgaria and World News in Brief are also part of the web site and the online newspaper. News Bulgaria