An invitation to an open, constructive dialog

A former communist country, Romania has trodden a very complicated path to NATO and EU membership. The end of the despotic regime came on December 25, 1989, when a popular uprising resulted in the execution of its leader Nicolae Ceausescu. How does the country evaluate the consequence of this event and its influence on Romania’s further development? Why are Romania-Ukraine relations so complicated, and how does Bucharest see the prospects of cooperation with Kyiv? This is what Cornel IONESCU, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Romania to Ukraine, told The Day in a special interview.

Romanian communism differs from communism in the other Eastern European states in two ways: the small number of communists in the interwar period (a little over 700 members), as well as the bloodshed that resulted in the overthrowing of Nicolae Ceausescu’s dictatorship — with a loss of over 1,000 lives in December, 1989. The communist regime of Romania was born in violence, and ended in violence.

“The revolution of 1989 brought about a radical change in the development of my country; the totalitarian regime was overthrown, the monopoly of the communist party was terminated; the country returned to a multi-party system and democracy. It was a long road, but as we look back we can see that the past two decades have been a very favorable period for Romania.

“From a country which arose on the ruins of communism, debilitated and totally devoid of contacts with the outside world, Romania is now a member of NATO and the EU. By the way, the creation of a strong civic society, consolidating democracy, European and Euro-Atlantic integration were goals that enjoyed irrevocable support among the Romanian public and elites.”

On December 23 the European Commission rejected the motion by six former Soviet bloc countries, including Romania, to condemn communist regimes and equate communist repression with Nazi war crimes. Why do you think the great powers of Europe refuse to do so? Isn’t this a challenge to European identity and the European system of values, and thus disregard for neo-totalitarianism, which is rising in some former Soviet republics?

“This discussion reflects reality, namely, that the new EU members in Central and Eastern Europe remember the communist totalitarian regimes, while Western European countries do not. This results in a different perception in political leaders and public opinion. What is important is the fact that in European institutes, the EU or the Council of Europe, the condemnation of totalitarian regimes, be it Nazi or communist ones, should be in the focus of permanent attention.

“I would like to mention here just a few of the relevant documents passed by these institutions: Resolution No. 1096 of June 27, 1996, of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the legacy of the former communist totalitarian systems, and Resolution No. 1481 of January 25, 2006 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the necessity of international condemnation of the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes. On the EU level, one can note the Resolution of the European Parliament of April 2, 2009, on European awareness of totalitarianism.

“Underlying these documents is the idea of preserving the memory of Europe’s tragic past in order to commemorate the victims, condemn the criminals, and create the foundation for reconciliation, based on truth and dignity.

And I think there is no country in the EU which would not admit that last century’s totalitarian and authoritarian regimes in Europe took their toll: millions of victims killed, deported, imprisoned, and tortured.

“In Bucharest, two commissions were created under the high auspices of the president: the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania, with Nobel laureate and Auschwitz and Buchenwald survivor Elie Wiesel as its honorary chairman, and the International Commission for the Investigation of the Crimes of the Communist Regime in Romania. Based on the reports by the researchers — members of the two commissions — the president of Romania condemned those two totalitarian regimes.

“Two research institutes were created in Romania: one studying the Holocaust and one researching communist crimes. Studying the Holocaust and the communist regime in Romania was included in school curricula. These issues are continually being discussed in academic circles and among the Romanian public.”

Is your country prepared to follow the example of the Czech Republic and Poland, which have legislation concerning denial of crimes committed by communist regimes?

“The communist regime in Romania was officially condemned by the president, who spoke before the parliament on December 18, 1996, after the report to the Presidential Commission about the study of the communist dictatorship in Romania. Yet actually there is no law which would punish the denial of communist crimes. I know that there have been debates to this effect, including those in the Presidential Commission.”

What solutions does Romania see for the Transnistrian conflict, and what threat does the presence of Russian troops in the region present for your country? In one of his interviews, the president of Romania said, “That year’s events in Georgia prove that anything can happen at any moment. Transnistria is several kilometers away from our border. We cannot put our security at risk.”

“Romania shares the EU viewpoint concerning the Transnistrian conflict. In this sense, we support the need to produce a viable and stable solution for the situation in Transnistria, with regard to the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova.

“In 2010, the Transnistrian dossier drew a lot of attention at the European level. The Republic of Moldova is an important element in the creation of safe and stable neighborhood, and a more active participation of the EU in the Transnistrian solution is a must.

“Romania supports the direct and unconditional resumption of the official talks in 5+2 format. The EU shall be present in the 5+2 format as an observer. We believe that the current growing interest in the Transnistrian dossier at the EU level can justify the growth of the role of the EU in mediating the process.”

At the end of 2010 Oleh Voloshyn, director of the Information Policy Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said, “This is our standpoint: no one in Ukraine shall make any claims against Romania, neither territorial nor any other. We want Romania to have none of these claims as well. We do not want to be seen as a fragment of an empire, which keeps 200 thousand ethnic Romanians in captivity.” We would like to hear why the process of normalization of relations between our countries is so complicated, and why some Romanian nationalistic forces often voice territorial claims against Ukraine. There have also been cases when controversial issues were brought before international arbiters, instead of being mutually settled. This concerns Zmiiny Island, as well as the rejection by the Romanian authorities of Ukraine’s actions aimed at the development of its navigable canal through the Danube Delta.

“Personally I noted Mr. Voloshyn’s recent statement, and I would like to clarify my point here. Mr. Voloshyn emphasized in his speech that Romania’s alleged claims were not Bucharest’s official standpoint, but rather that of some nationalistic political forces. Therefore I would like to specify this very fact from the start: in mutual relations, Bucharest takes Kyiv’s official standpoint into account.

“I would like to remind that in Ukraine, too, some very incendiary statements about Romania were made by certain politicians; besides, our country was an object of the election campaign for certain political forces. Yet what matters are the official standpoints of the two countries.

“Your statement to the effect that in Romania, allegedly, ‘some nationalistic forces often voice territorial claims against Ukraine’ is contrary to reality. I don’t think there are examples which would support this allegation. None of the political parties represented in the Ukrainian parliament will encourage territorial claims against any of our neighbors. Picking certain statements out of context and labeling them with biased comments will not lead to anything good in our countries’ mutual relations.

“As far as they are concerned, I would like to say that Romania and Ukraine have created mechanisms for a dialog on a wide scope, including those aspects which are considered to be more ticklish in our mutual relations. Romania is very interested in optimizing the framework for bilateral dialog and increasing its efficiency.

“As far as the two examples from your question go, I would like to offer some explanations. The delimitation of the border between Romania and Ukraine on the Black Sea has been an object of a long negotiation process that lasted many years, and yet failed to reconcile the standpoints of the two parties. Romania’s decision to appeal to the International Court at the UNO (whose jurisdiction Ukraine, too, accepted in 1997) was determined by the necessity to obtain an operational, swift solution, and was taken in strict compliance to the principles of international law on delimitation, to the benefit of both parties.

“In case of the Ukrainian project of the navigable canal Danube-Black Sea, and the ecological aspects in the Danube Delta, Romania has always had a well-balanced standpoint based on strict compliance with international law, and demonstrated goodwill, openness, and readiness for a dialog.

“As far back as in 2002, the Romanian government decided to solve this problem via a mutual dialog, without resorting to legal mechanisms provided in the international ecological convention and suggested in the Ukrainian project. Despite our mutual demarches and the concern that we had expressed, we noted that the Ukrainian party had not reacted to our requests, or that it had offered evasive and incomplete answers. Moreover, the work on the project began without informing and consulting the Romanian party. Thus we had no other choice left but to employ the legal mechanisms stipulated for by international conventions on environmental protection.

“I also reiterate that we want to settle our mutual problems via dialog between our representatives.”

What role is Romania prepared to play (the question is if it is interested in it) in helping Ukraine join the EU as soon as possible?

“As an EU member, Romania is strongly interested in having democratic and stable states on its eastern border, which would spur economic and social progress, and which would have a transparent and predictable domestic and foreign policy.

“We support Ukraine’s accelerated approach towards the EU’s system of values and standards through the full use of the possibilities granted by Eastern Partnership and the Black Sea Synergy. In this respect, we are satisfied with the rate of talks between the EU and Ukraine on the new Association Agreement which we hope to complete this year, including the issues related to the creation of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), or the problems of mobility of Ukrainian citizens on the EU space.

“A recent example of Romania’s unfailing support of Ukraine’s European choice could be seen at the EU-UKRAINE Summit which took place on November 22, 2010, in the course of preparations to which our country unconditionally supported the signing of the Action Plan for the liberalization of the visa regime for Ukrainian citizens. I want to assure you that in the person of Romania, Ukraine has a reliable partner on its way to Europe.”

You came back to Ukraine after eight years’ absence. What changes can you see and how do you think our country differs from Russia, where you spent the last years?

“I have only been two months in Kyiv, so it would be too soon to jump to any conclusions about the changes in Ukraine. Of course I have noticed the work on developing the infrastructure in Kyiv, related to the European football championship of 2012. From the political perspective one can perceive the growth of a generation of young politicians who are chiefly oriented towards democracy and European values.

“As far as the differences between Ukraine and Russia go: although there are similar processes, and here I first of all mean the transition to democracy and a market economy, these processes are individual in each country.

“I would also say that I have come back with a desire to ‘lobby’ a positive course in our mutual relations, as Ukraine’s friend who, in the relations between Bucharest and Kyiv, will support the invitation to an open and constructive dialog.”