Traian LAURENTIU CRISTEA: “NATO is an instrument that guarantees better security”

Relations between Romania and Ukraine are somewhat strained. In the last while, both countries have been taking each other to the International Court of Justice. Bucharest and Kyiv almost simultaneously announced their intention to integrate into Euro-Atlantic institutions. Romania is already a member of NATO and will be admitted to the European Union early next year, while Ukraine is still standing at the threshold of these organizations.

Are relations between the two countries set to change now that there is a new government headed by Viktor Yanukovych, which has more powers as a result of the constitutional reform? Why was Romania more consistent in its aspirations to join NATO? Will this country help Ukraine integrate into Euro-Atlantic institutions? Why does Romania need to have US bases on its territory? The Day discussed these questions with Traian LAURENTIU CRISTEA, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Romania to Ukraine.

“I do not think that bilateral relations should change because there is a new government in power. I came here primarily to give fresh impetus to the development of relations between our countries. A certain evolution is already discernible. For example, work is underway to establish a joint commission of the presidents of Romania and Ukraine. We are expecting the Ukrainian president’s foreign policy advisor to visit Bucharest to sign the commission’s routine schedule. Part of this structure is already in operation. For instance, our ministers of foreign affairs recently met to coordinate the issues that will be discussed by the presidents’ commission. I think our bilateral relations are effective and dynamic. The parliamentary elections in Ukraine were recognized as being the result of a democratic process. So we see no reason why our bilateral relations, which began with the election of the current presidents of Romania and Ukraine, should be reversed.”

“When do you think a breakthrough can be expected in solving existing problems?”

“It depends on what kind of a beginning you want to see and when you want to see this breakthrough. We already had a breakthrough in our relations after 2004. We became more realistic and pragmatic, and enriched our relations with European values, which our two countries share. And now we would like to make sure that this trend continues in our relations. But I am not sure that we mean the same thing when we talk about a breakthrough in bilateral relations.”

“By a breakthrough, I mean that our countries will be addressing problems at a bilateral level instead of turning to international courts.”

“I do not think that our bilateral relations are only marked by sensitive problems. Those kinds of problems reflect certain issues that are by no means dominant in the region where Romania and Ukraine are situated. I mean that we are ‘doomed’ to cooperation and neighborhood, and one should not necessarily emphasize these problems, which are naturally highlighted in the media.”

“Why then did the Romanian side sue Ukraine at the International Court of Justice over Zmiiny Island? Could this problem not have been resolved among ourselves, on the basis of good-neighborliness?”

“I would like to specify that the object of dispute is not Zmiiny Island but the delimitation of the continental shelf and the two countries’ exclusive economic zones in the Black Sea. No one questions Ukraine’s sovereignty over the island. But it is true that Romania took the initiative to take this case to the International Court because the two sides had failed to settle this issue on a negotiated and mutually acceptable basis for a very long time.

“It is very important to note that this should not be regarded as an unfriendly step towards Ukraine. This is a normal technical procedure that often occurs in Western and international practice. Romania fully trusts the authority of this high-level international institution. Ukraine, too, has never questioned the International Court’s jurisdiction in settling this issue.”

“Will Romania obey the court if it rules against Bucharest’s interests?”

“Obviously, Romania will obey any International Court ruling, no matter what it is. I would like to stress that the Romanian side firmly believes in the ability of this court to resolve the dispute in compliance with international law and principles of justice. In any case, Romania does not intend to raise the question of ignoring the decision of any international institution. Our country believes in abiding by international law in interstate relations.”

“Romania was building socialism for almost half a century. Are there many people in your country who still endorse socialist ideas and struggle to implement them?”

“On Dec. 30, 1947, the Communist Party of Romania, supported by the government of the former USSR, proclaimed our country a people’s (socialist) state and abolished the monarchy. This event is part of our history; its consequences were felt for decades and finally triggered the revolution of Dec. 22, 1989. Since then the Romanian government has been pursuing the goal of returning to the European ‘club of values’ to which our country had always belonged. These efforts are sure to be crowned with success through the cleansing and radical transformation of our society. This will result in Romania’s accession to the European Union on Jan. 1, 2007.”

“Will the scandal centering on the dismissal of Romania’s defense minister and the chief of the general staff hinder your country’s admission to the EU?”

“First of all, I’d like to point out that the defense minister was not dismissed. He was temporarily relieved of his duties, and the chief of the general staff applied for reserve duty. There is nothing surprising about this. Both cases are the manifestation of the normal democratic process. The president made an appropriate decision within the framework of national law.”

“Are you sure that in October the EU will finally give your country the green light to integrate into the European community? Will the Romanian government manage to achieve progress in carrying out a number of reforms by this date?”

“True, Romania is now facing the acute problem of completing reforms in some sectors. These signals were received after the European Commission published a report in July on the state of affairs in Romania. This report was the first paper that confirmed our country’s chances of becoming an EU member. It also singled out four fields in which progress have to be made. It was about Romania’s ability to meet challenges as part of the European Union, which was expressed graphically by replacing the red flag with the yellow or green one. This report also offered us some important guiding principles on resolving problems.

“As for the implementation of reforms in these fields, good progress has been achieved, and the European Commission’s report of Sept. 26 confirmed that Romania will become an EU member on Jan. 1. Naturally, some technical aspects must be resolved, but this is a question of minor corrections. There are no obstacles that could hinder making these corrections by Dec. 31, 2006.”

“How do you think the problem of Transdnistria can be solved, given the results of the referendum in which 97 percent of the population voted for this unrecognized republic to be part of the Russian Federation?”

“In our view, this cannot be considered a normal referendum because it was not based on normal democratic premises. The situation in Transdnistria is not conducive to people’s freedom of expression in this breakaway republic. Romania supported the EU’s declaration that it does not recognize the so-called referendum and its results.

“In our opinion, the most important thing now is to continue negotiations. There is already a plan to settle the Transdnistrian conflict on the negotiating table. We have often confirmed our readiness to offer expertise to resolve this problem. That is why we welcomed the involvement of the EU and the US as observers of the settlement process. Naturally, we welcome close cooperation between Ukraine and the EU in accomplishing the EU’s mission to tighten customs regulations on the Moldova-Ukraine border. Representatives of the civil societies of Romania, Ukraine and Moldova have mapped out the ‘Three D’ plan to settle this conflict.”

“Do you think there is any truth to Transdnistrian claims that Moldova may become part of Romania one day, and therefore this unrecognized republic should not accept the settlement calling for Transdnistria to remain part of Moldova?”

“Oh Lord, I think this question has been asked so many times that it has become meaningless. From the very outset, Romania recognized the independence, territorial integrity, and sovereignty of the Republic of Moldova within internationally recognized borders. Indeed, Romania was the first country to announce that it would support a settlement on these principles in order not to impair Moldova’s European future. We are prepared to provide assistance to that country and help it embrace European values and standards, and complete the process of transformation and reforms. It took us 15 years to go through this process, and we know how difficult it is. But we also know what fruits it bears.”

“Your country is a member of NATO and has a lot of experience with integrating into this defense bloc. What benefits do you think Ukraine could derive from this experience so that the public can be informed about the alliance and the advantages of joining this bloc?”

“I would like to stress that NATO need not necessarily be regarded as a military alliance - it is a club of values. By taking the decision to join NATO, the Romanian government expressed the will of Romanian society, which wanted to return to a club based on Euro-Atlantic values. The decision to join NATO and the EU was based on the positive results of building a civil society, rule of law, a market economy, and, furthermore, on the creation of a truly democratic society. Incidentally, NATO was not an end in itself but an instrument that guarantees better and stable security for Romania. Integration into NATO was based on the reforms and lessons in other countries and on consensus inside Romanian society. This consensus materialized in what we call the Snagov strategy. It was in the city of Snagov where we determined Romania’s European and Euro-Atlantic integration as the chief goal of our foreign policy.”

“Who was doing the main job of informing and convincing the public?”

“This work was well-coordinated and based on the principle of transparency. In this process, every segment was making its own contribution. The government would conduct discussions with NATO member states. Concurrently, reforms were steadily carried out inside the country. Civil society was interested in finding out about NATO, what benefits could be reaped from membership, what responsibility should be borne, what contribution should be made to the overall capacity, and what consequences the admission to the alliance would entail.

“A very important role was also played by the mass media, which became a true fourth estate in the country after the 1989 revolution. Romanians read and believe newspapers. The media became an important instrument that was used independently and not necessarily in conjunction with the government. Sometimes the media went beyond the government’s actions and efforts. On the whole, I can say that informing the public was a joint, concerted effort of political parties, civil society, the mass media, and the government. A great contribution to this process was also made by Romania’s parliament, consisting of two chambers - the Senate and the House of Deputies.”

“What was the reaction of official Bucharest to Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych’s statement in Brussels that Ukraine is not prepared to join the NATO Membership Action Plan? Was this statement predictable or not?”

“I cannot say whether this step was predictable. This is a sovereign decision of Ukraine. The main thing is that such steps should be taken in conditions of transparency. Nobody refuses to cooperate. Nobody stops. It is very important that cooperation between NATO and Ukraine develop, and for the alliance to keep its door open. If Ukraine fully meets the alliance membership requirements, nobody will raise any objections. This is my own point of view.”

“How would you assess the development of bilateral relations between our countries? How do Romanian businessmen feel in our country? How satisfactory is the investment climate in Ukraine?”

“I’d like to say right away that our bilateral economic relations are not meeting their actual potential. As for Romanian investments in your country, they cannot compete with German, British, American, or Russian investments. The point is that Romania itself requires direct foreign investments. These resources are now being earmarked for the transformation, modernization, and activation of market-oriented production facilities. Trade between Ukraine and Romania has become more balanced in the past three years. International investors with headquarters in Romania are showing greater interest in Ukraine. The same applies to Romanian capital-exporting investors.

“Bilateral trade and Romanian exports to Ukraine are clearly on the rise. I dream of seeing Romanian wines and furniture on the Ukrainian market again, which was traditionally present here. I hope the Ukrainian government succeeds in joining the WTO as soon as possible. This will further encourage both sides to increase bilateral economic cooperation by reducing customs duties in accordance with World Trade Organization requirements. Romania’s entry into the EU on Jan. 1, 2007, will mean that existing Ukraine-EU customs duties will be applicable between our two countries. Trade relations between Ukraine and Romania will in fact be controlled by Brussels, i.e., the European Commission. This means better trade conditions than we have now.”

“What pluses or minuses can Romania’s EU membership have on Ukrainian-Romanian relations?”

“I do not think that somebody is sitting at his desk conducting an in-depth analysis of the positive and negative consequences of Romania’s accession to the EU. It is simple to explain: there are no negative consequences. As for bilateral relations between Romania and Ukraine, I can say with complete certainty that there will be no negative effects.”

“Romania has proposed that the US set up military bases on its territory. Aren’t you afraid that this step may worsen your relations with Russia, which has always opposed NATO’s eastward expansion and the stationing of NATO bases on the territory of the alliance’s new members?”

“Setting up small US military centers on the territory of our country is the natural result of a more intensified strategic partnership between Romania and the US in general, and a higher level of defense and security cooperation between the two allies in particular. In the regional sense, the establishment of such military centers in Romania means recognition of the positions and constructive role that our country has assumed in the south-eastern European dimension and, at the same time, confirmation of an effective Romanian-American strategic partnership to develop a Euro-Atlantic strategy aimed at stabilization, greater security, and advancement of democracy in our common space.

“The bilateral treaty, which regulates the status of these centers and the activities of the US armed forces on the territory of Romania, sets out the principles of respect for each side, the goals of the UN Charter, as well as commitments that the two sides assumed via international treaties and agreements, as the foundation of specific Romanian- American cooperation. The treaty on access to the territory of Romania emphasizes that the presence of US armed forces will promote regional security and stability and that the prospected US military centers in Romania will not be directed against a third country. Stationing them is a sovereign decision of our country, which, incidentally, the Russian Federation has also recognized.”