Romania’s relations with Russia in the post-December Romanian foreign policy register Trandafir Miruna Mădălina Phd candidate Year III Faculty of History.

Romania’s relations with Russia in the post-December Romanian foreign policy register

Trandafir Miruna MădălinaPhd candidateYear IIIFaculty of History and PhilosphyBabeș-Bolyai [email protected]

I.Introduction.

Currently it is difficult to presume exactly the format in which Romania redefined its main external policy terms, after December 1989, as unknown aspects still prevail regarding this complex, delicate and controversial subject.

At academic and scientific level, research approaches are various and incongruent, contrasting on the one hand with the quasi unanimous opinion that the main option for Romanian foreign policy, after December 1989, was the adherence to the Euro-Atlantic structures and mechanisms, and, on the other hand, based on elaborate investigations, validated by new informational and archive sources, a new particular approach emerges, based on the following premise: in the 90s, Romania perpetuated the relations with the Eastern Neighbor, being particularly preoccupied with the recalibration in a mutual advantageous manner of the new juridical-bilateral framework.

II. Paper’s objectives:

to dissociate itself from the unanimously accepted tendency in the academic circle, according to which the fundamental option of Romanian post December foreign policy was made up by the affiliation of Romania to Euro-Atlantic structures and mechanisms.

to emphasize the Romanian-Russian bilateral tandem specific to recent or immediate history segment, locating the ,,privileged” statute this complex relation detains at the level of the defining options of Romanian post December foreign policy.

to reveal the fact that post December Romania evolved more visible on the Eastern orbit.

III. Research methodology instruments:

interpretative analysis, through which, we have impartially attributed scientific hypothesis, essential to the comprehension of the debated thematic.

historical comparative method, through which, we examined studies and documentary materials, juxtaposing them, in order to reveal the validity of information.

structured interview, through which, we expressly aimed at reconstituting this complex subject from the statements of participants or eyewitnesses, in our case major political decision makers.

IV. Post December ,,privileged” bilateral statute.Highlighted by:

Romania’s clear declaration to remain faithful to the international commitments deriving from its membership to the Warsaw Treaty ( this situation, expressed, in fact an organic connection with Moscow, as well as, the interpretation of democratic institutions and values within the limits imposed by Kremlin’s officials.

Eduard Șevardnadze’s visit at a high level officiated in Romania on January 6th 1990, ( the visit of the Soviet Union’s Foreign Affairs Minister in Romania marked a precedent at the level of bilateral relations by the size and the amplitude of the objectives traced under its different aspects, both politically and economically and technical-scientifically). On the agenda of the official debates the issues of bilateral relations had been examined in a stringent way, expressing the mutual decision to develop them on a healthy, efficient basis, in the interest of both parties, with the aim to propel the bilateral collaboration both on the world scene and within international organisations.

The working visit of Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergiu Celac in the Soviet Union upon the invitation of Eduard Şevardnadze on March 08th, 1990, with the explicit purpose to grant substance and gravity to bilateral relations on new and solid grounds, of real convergence concerning both states. The debates remarked by the working character allotted to practical objectives and of tangible results recorded on short term, marking thus a moment of reconsiderations in bilateral relations

The visit of the counsellor of Romanian presidency, Ioan Mircea Paşcu at Moscow, on February 09th, 1991, with the purpose to transmit a personal message to Mihail Gorbaciov. The meaning of the visit, otherwise emblematic, highlighted in the most eloquent manner, the consensual desideratum to institute a new formula of interaction, as organic as possible, at the level of both states with the view to increase the bilateral process. Synthetically, Romania was aiming to perpetuate the bilateral relationships, distinguishing itself actively in the scene of reconfiguration efforts of the entire policy destined to Kremlin.

V. Romania’s orientation towards East: The Treaty of Collaboration, Good Neighborhood and Friendship

Subsumed to the entire strategy dedicated to the Eastern Neighbor, the bilateral treaty represented the legal guarantor of bilateral relations recalibration based upon new and modern principles according to the norms of the international law. In such a referential optic, Romanian diplomacy was undertaking, by the voice of the president, to sign on April 05 th, 1991, during a tour officiated in the Soviet Union, the Treaty of Collaboration, Good Neighborhood and Friendship, a document eminently positive that reflected both the metamorphosis carried on publicly, economically and socially in both states, and the processes developed in the European dimension and the international relations.

Contrary to the Old Treaty of Friendship, Collaboration and Mutual Assistance, signed between the Socialist Republic of Romania and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was visibly impregnated with the ideological component, the new Romanian-Soviet treaty, meant to replace the one of 1970, presented a flexible and new structure, on the basis of 23 articles prefiguring the main action directions, as well as the primordial objectives that were underlying the relationships between the two states.

In its subtle dimension, the gesture of signing the Treaty of Collaboration, Good Neighborhood and Friendship, can be interpreted as one that reflects the signal of contiguity on a bilateral level, both parties promoting a policy of substantial proximity. Related to the complexity of bilateral topos, nothing is more probative than the clause inserted in article 4, clause by which both parties are interdicted from participating in any military alliance perceived as hostile by any of the signatory parties. Confronted with the probability of having its legitimate right of choosing for the security arrangements in compliance with the national interest obstructed, Romania showed an impassive attitude, which is not surprising at all, having in view the simplistic and superficial approach with which this matter had been treated. Undeniably, the ease allotted to this stringent matter denotes the insistent will of Romania concerning the perpetuation of relations no matter what. With the same ease, the territorial claims towards Bessarabia, North of Bucovina and Herța region, old Romanian regions attached to the Soviet Union on the grounds of secret protocol of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact were dropped out.

Contrary to the ambivalent enthusiasm, the treaty did not reach its stipulated objectives, the issues of internal order of the Soviet Union, ended in the putsch in August 1991 and then in the dissolution of the heterogeneous conglomerate of USSR, supervened in December 1991, irretrievably hindering the ratification of the international document.

VI. Conclusions

By an ascertaining analysis of the events trajectory characteristic to ’90-’91, it may be concluded that Romania showed an increased interest concerning the elaboration of the best modalities and procedures of re-establishing a modus vivendi in a bilateral dimension, adopting a particular strategy related to Moscow.

With the intent to imprint a redefined form to these relations, the political decision makers promoted a policy based upon the logics of the consensus in relations with Moscow. The multiple contacts at high level and even the initiative of rescheduling the juridical frame under the format of the Treaty of Collaboration, Good Neighborhood and Friendship, obviously attest this reality.

Not for a moment did the Romanian political leadership practice spacing in the bilateral dimension, but rather pleaded for a policy of substantial proximity. As a conclusion, post December Romania cherished a harmonization of bilateral interests, still gravitating within the orbit of Moscow’s influence.