ROMANIA- “RAW MATERIAL” FOR THE OCCIDENT?

“Romanian people expressed their will through their votes, and this is the best message for Russia or any other country”. (Daniel Nelson, international relations expert).

The battle for the role of president of Romania is over now, at least for the 5 next years. The Romanian state managed to create a new government, and IMF will reward it with a 2.3 milliards of euro loan for this “performance”. Of course, behind the scenes there will be intrigues, because some have to return something back, while others have to revenge. The political nobility did its utmost during the election campaign in order to prove who of the presidency candidates is more diplomatic, more corrupt and more able to save Romania from the political and financial crisis.

Traian Băsescu and Mircea Geoană, showed that the concept of “national interest”, which they frequently used, is nothing else than an “election trick” for their speeches. They both lead a bitter fight, but only for the political power, exactly the same way as their predecessors did it. The incapacity of the political elite to negotiate and to make concessions during a crisis situation proved that the problems of the Romanian citizens, for the moment are not included in the “agenda” of the Romanian politics. Since 1990, in Romania (the same as in other Eastern- European countries) the political leaders “fought”, but not for making the “national interest” come true. The priority has been almost all the time given to the personal and clan goals. What about USA and Russia, the ones who “crucified” Romania after the 2^nd World War, they always dictated the rules of the game, on the stage of the stage of the Romanian politics. All this time, the Romanian politicians were the puppets of the leaders of the White House or Kremlin. They were different from one another not through their competency or patriotism, but through their loyalty level towards Russian or American side. According to the expert in international relationships, Daniel Nelson, “Romania’s problem is that, for the last years, nobody knew how to keep the control, what number to dial or how to make the next step”. Therefore, which is the best choice for the citizens of Romania? The victory of Băsescu is an answer to this question. The crowd has never understood the subtle side of the political game. And exactly this un- knowledge was what Băsescu made use of. There has been a lot of talking about the diplomatic abilities of Mr. Geoană, in Băsescu’s populism favor.  But in spite of his talent, he couldn’t defeat Băsescu, neither during the race for the Bucharest mayoralty in 2004, nor in the fight for the chair of the president of the state. The Romanian community, especially the one from Republic of Moldova, wasn’t the one that stole the victory of Geoană, but generally, the superficial approach of the problems of the Romanian people. If the senator of Romania took in consideration this subject, the community would have appreciated it for sure.  The press has been debating for a long time the relationship of Geoană with Russia and the one of Băsescu with USA. What is better or worse for Romania- a president loyal to the American interests or to the Russian ones? For the simple citizen, who is being fed with populist messages, there is no difference, because no matter who will be the next president of Romania, his problems will not change. The “national interest” is being materialized only in the case when a country can project by itself its foreign politics. Administrating and managing the politics together with the “national interest” is possible only when there is a real financial independence towards the big powers. As long as a state is economically weak and still has ethnicity problems, the “national interest” will keep being a populist subject. In these circumstances, Romania (and it’s not only its case), will not be able to offer priority to the “national interest”, if this one runs against the interests of USA or Russia. Romania has always been dependent on the approval of the West or East, and the decisions that it often took, didn’t reflect the will of the Romanian people. Today the foreign politics of Romania it’s not being done in Cotroceni, but in Washington or Brussels. I don’t think that Băsescu actually deserves to be appreciated for the hostile approach towards Kremlin or the ex- communist government from Chisinau. The leader of the Romanian state would have never had so much courage to provoke Russia in such a way, if he hadn’t had an approval for this coming from the West side. The president of Romania made a show of himself all these years, and his merit was probably that he was able to play his role very well. The victory of Geoană (in case we admit that he has a “conspiracy” with Moscow) wouldn’t have given Russia too much space for manipulation anyway. The day since NATO and EU got to the borders of Republic of Moldova, Kremlin knows exactly what it’s allowed and what is banned. And the things that are allowed, can be materialized wether the position of the presidents of Romania is pro american or pro russian. It is true, for Russia it’s more simpler to have a political partner easier to approach, comparing to a difficult one, who is hostile to the russian interests in the area. After all, if there is something prioritary for the East, which let’s suppose will include also the „national interest”of Romania, Kremlin will know how to „get to a common point” with USA. At the present moment, Russia is an imposing rival for the USA, so that it could ignore its claims. Romania shouldn’t rely on the solidarity of the West when Russia and USA will destroy its „national interest” at the round table. Meanwhile, USA will take advantage of Romania’s economic vulnerability, and will use it for its projects, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. In exchange, Băsescu will reinforce the relationships with USA and will create a favorable enviroment for the american investitions. Also, the Romanian state has to be “grateful” to France, because it was the 1^st one who managed to get the unexpected position of European commissary for Agriculture. The way Romania will express its gratitude, will be visible in the next few years. It is known for sure that unconditioned favors in the international politics are not being done, and no matter how “convenient” wouldn’t be Romania for the Occident (in some moments), it will not be an exception. “France and USA are two essential pillars for the foreign politics of Romania”, and by this statement, Băsescu pointed out what position will take Romania, on the foreign plan, during his new mandate.  As for the Russian Federation, the Romanian president suggested that this one doesn’t come up as a priority for the foreign politics of Romania. Moreover, the victory of Băsescu is a clear message for Russia- the dialogue Kremlin- Cotroceni will keep having the same tensioned atmosphere. It’s hard to say “how well would have Geoana managed to repair the relationship with Russia” trying the same time “to consolidate the transatlantic relationships”. It’s impossible for Romania to fit the same time both different interests, of West and East. The conciliation with Russia that is wanted by some of the politicians from Bucharest is a phantasmagoric desiderate. Because, still since 1994 the interests of Romania were actually the ones of USA, but since 2007, they became the ones of European Union.