Archive for category Romania Abroad
“Russia should be treated with decency”, and the United States of America should not be allowed to “dictate” the policy of the European Union when it comes to Moscow, Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, said last Friday, precisely during a trip to Germany. In whose name was this gentleman talking? Was he speaking for the whole Union or only for those European countries that have concrete interests when it comes to their relationship with Russia?
It is an obvious fact that for a while now, arguments in the European family have escalated between the relatives in the West and those in the Center and the East. There is shouting over serious matters – the issue of the refugees, the relationship with Russia, the supply of natural gas and the afferent pipelines, the conflict in Ukraine -, but frequently due to petty reasons, which concern the sharing of the wealth. Up until the issue of the mandatory refugee quota, the European Commission seemed to act like a mediator and that it was trying to deal with the issues in a – “relatively transparent” manner, despite the sordid stench emanated by the political axiom that Jean-Claude Juncker nonchalantly uttered four years ago, when he said that “when things get serious, you have to lie”.
Germany and France, countries which have a tradition in music, want to continue leading the European choir, to write the sheets for the Eastern and Central Europeans, and to discreetly set the tone for the other Western countries. In sociology, what these two countries want to prevent is called “the dispersion of the authority” and it occurs upon the creation of large groups or of crowds – inherently, the increase in the number of members of the European Union has been accompanied by the risk of the newcomers eventually contesting the political authority and the economic interests of the “founding parents”. The German-French couple, seconded by its close historical relatives, sincerely believes that it represents the EU to a higher degree than the former communist states that joined it later.
Had Jean-Claude Juncker honestly carried it out his mandate as president of the European Community, he should be asking the Western members of the Union to show decency in their intra-community relationship with the Eastern members, not at all with Russia. Furthermore, it is now obvious that the apple of discord is also the relationship with the US, which the central and Eastern-European countries consider a vital alliance, while to the “heavyweights” in Western Europe it has come to be annoying and detrimental to their own interests.
The example of the failed sale of the two “Mistral” warships is telling: France was ready to deliver them, even though their becoming part of the Russian military navy would have allowed Russia to checkmate all of the neighboring NATO states in the Black Sea, starting with Turkey, which has the biggest and most modern military fleet in the region. The US has required the canceling of the initial deal, but it was also the US that subsequently recommended an alternative buyer – Egypt, which it has essential leverage on: the Egyptian armed forces are financed by the American federal budget with over one billion dollars a year.
And on the economic side, the behavior of the Western countries in relation with the central-eastern European ones is indecent and it is found in the argumentation made by the South-Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang in his best-seller, “The bad Samaritans. The myth of the free-exchange and the secret history of capitalism”. Heavily developed countries act with the goal of keeping the advantages they have gained over time, by juggling with tools such as rights of ownership and protectionist fees. Their history is rife with government intervention, but the same countries now plead in favor of the free trade in the international markets. The EU in particular has set itself up as a champion of environmental protection on a global level, in which context the policies on the matter can be understood as being a part of the collection of means by which the Western countries are keeping their lead over the rest of the world, including the Eastern members of the Union.
One example of protectionism derived from the environmental protection policies has been snuck into the provisions of the Directive 2009/128/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council, “for the setup of an environment of Community action for the durable use of pesticides”, which led to the prohibition of airborne spraying of these substances. The European directive in question has been transposed in the domestic legislation through Emergency Government Ordinance no. 34/2012, which led to the drastic limitation of the use of utility aviation in agriculture, to just a few exceptional situations.
There are plenty of arguments that can support the hypothesis that this directive has been sized by the specifics of Western agriculture and that it has disregarded the situation in Central and Eastern Europe, a region which is far more economically and socially dependent on that sector than Western Europe – through the larger share of the population employed in agriculture and through the greater impact it has on the GDP.
In the European Union, there are no significant manufacturers of aircraft usable in agriculture. Only Poland had a tradition in the manufacturing of that kind of such aircraft, with the most successful models being M18 Dromader and PZL-106 Kruk. The first is still being made at the plant in Mielec, which is now owned by American companies Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation and United Technologies Corporation. The second one was made at a factory near Warsaw, currently owned by EADS; theoretically, it is still in production, in two modified versions, but it is no longer part of the current offer of the European company. As for helicopters, the only manufacturer present on the niche of utility aviation is Airbus Helicopters, but agriculture is a marginal market segment for the “European-French company”.
On the other hand, the global market is dominated by the aircraft makers from the US and the former soviet space. Especially in the Central and Eastern area of the EU, utility aviation meant predominantly aircraft made in Russia (the Kamov Ka-26 helicopter), Ukraine (the Antonov An-2 aircraft) and Poland. Besides, the diverging routes that the two factories in Poland have followed perfectly illustrate the divide between aviation and agriculture: the one owned by American companies is still manufacturing aircraft, while the one owned by EADS no longer sells.
On the other hand, the European production of agricultural machines is concentrated in Germany (27%), Italy (17%) and France (14%), representing one third of the global market. In particular, Germany is the leader when it comes to the manufacturing of spraying machines, followed by Italy. The application of directive 2009/128/EC led to the creation of a large market for ground-based spraying equipment, while at the same running utility aviation in Central and Eastern Europe into the ground. In Western Europe, the impact of the new legislation was insignificant, because over there the median farm surface is approximately 400 hectares and family owned farms are predominant, meaning that aircraft are rarely used for spraying the crops.
In Romania, the utility aviation meant what was left of the fleet created during the communist period, as well as the aircraft acquired by the private operators, using their own funds. The existence of that technical base would translate into savings for the budget of the local farmers, especially the major ones that operated on the grains segment, who were thus freed from the burden of additional investments and for whom the version of airborne crop dusting was beneficial, as it became quicker and cheaper as the size of the plots of land increased, compared to the alternative of using tractors outfitted with dusting installations.
Once applied, Directive 2009/128/CE, and Government Emergency Ordinance 34/2012 respectively, have made it mandatory for central and Eastern European farmers to invest in ground-based crop spraying installations, either using their own funds, or by accessing European grants, in which case of course, the acquired product would have to originate from the EU, meaning predominantly from Germany, Italy and France. On the segment of equipment meant for agriculture, the three countries have a mostly integrated circuit, because, with almost no exception, the machinery in question incorporates parts made by German, Italian and French companies, that have various forms of cooperation.
The environmental protection desideratum claimed by Directive 2009/128/CE failed from the start, since the European lawmaker felt the need to intervene radically on the spraying tools and less on the chemical substances themselves. The current list of pesticides approved at the level of the EU is full of chemicals with a high degree of toxicity, which, regardless of the way they are sprayed, will still end up in the soil, and from there, into the agricultural produce. For example, the third pesticide approved is Lambda-cyhalothrin, which has very high half-lives: 7 days in water, 5 days in plants and 30 days in the soil. From the same perspective of environmental protection, also ignored was the fact that a difference in the levels of pesticide pollution existed between Western and Central Europe, to the benefit of the latter. Historically speaking, in the East, the use of chemicals for the optimization of farming (as well as the “flooding” of foods with preservatives), began later, a situation which nowadays represents an ecological advantage, in relation to the consumers’ legitimate preference for “clean” fruits and vegetables.
When corroborating these legislative practices at the level of the European Union, with the statements recently made by European politicians, such as Jean-Claude Juncker, Angela Merkel or Francois Hollande, a question legitimately arises: what is the difference between the lies and hypocrisy that Brussels is dusting over the member states and the “controlled democracy” applied on a doctrinary level from Moscow? Hasn’t the selfishness with which some Western countries look towards the Eastern “colonies”, by being too adamant that they remain at a level of political infantilism, become far too strident?
Whatever they may be, the future proposals of the European Commission need to be examined carefully, by every member state of the Union, in terms of the real intentions behind them, of their immediate and later goal, when it comes to their formal and informal beneficiaries. The European Union has come to the unfortunate point where it is precisely its ” founding parents” that are undermining the solidarity between the members and the legitimacy that derives from the fundamental notion of shared interests. For Romania, the strategic surprises that can come “furtively” from the West, are just as dangerous as the recurring and obvious ones coming from the East.
This article was written by Iulian Mares, translated by Cosmin Ghidoveanu, and published by the “Bursa” Journal. Please follow the link http://www.bursa.ro/maximum-caution-when-it-comes-to-the-future-proposals-of-the-european-commission-the-bad-european…&s=english_section&articol=280986.html
The stand-by agreement concluded by Romania with the International Monetary Fund expires at the end of September and the political environment is abuzz under the rhetorical responsibility of whether a new one ought to be signed or not. Both the government, as well as the parliamentary are revolving their speeches around necessity: does Romania really need another agreement with the IMF or could Romania “perform”, from now on, without help from the international financial institutions?
Also two years ago, the Turkish government, led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, implemented a similar action when it comes to the payment of foreign debts – which Romania also succeeded in doing in 1989 -, as in May 2013 Turkey fully paid off its debt to the IMF and repaying one last installment of 421 million dollars. But unlike Nicolae Ceauşescu, Recep Erdogan did not want to terminate his working relationship with the IMF, quite the opposite, he sought the role of a leader within it: one month later, Ankara made available to the institution a fund of 5 billion dollars, to finance the debts of the European countries.
In doing so, Turkey changed its debtor status it had for over 50 years in its relationship with the IMF to a new status, of creditor to others. Compared to Romania, the Turkish state does not lack its own capital, nor political will.
In Turkey, domestic capital is dominant, so a “national economy exists”, which gives the Turkish state the power to negotiate with other states, with multinational companies and within the international organizations it is a part of. Romania also lacks the money, as well as the political perseverance subsumed to strategic economic objectives and with a national nature. In short, Romania isn’t setting the goal for itself to become a standalone economic power, it only reaps the predominantly positive fruits of the foreign investments made here over the last ten years, as a new territory generated by the expansion of the European Union.
Therefore, the Romanian government, as manager of this country, is not in a position to negotiate effectively, and that applies not so much in its relationship with the IMF as it is on the relationship with the international finance. When it sits down in Bucharest at the negotiating table, the Romanian state sits on a chair that isn’t its own and it is held up by its armpits through the not always congruent efforts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Public Finances. At this time, when the issue of the vulnerability of nations to the volatility of foreign capital is at its most ardent, Romania in fact has a symbiotic connection with the IMF: it is like Bambi, the deer, and it is safer in the courtyard of the IMF, than off by itself in the forest, where it is stalked by many hungry wolves, disguised as private financial institutions and corporations with turnovers that exceed the GDP of many countries.
To weak countries, the protection fee charged by the IMF is preferable to the devastation which the major banks can wreak, especially since it grants the prospect of eventually getting its own seat at the table, like Turkey does now. At the opposite end of the spectrum, an example from Mexico’s recent history shows how these banks can influence the political will of an allegedly sovereign state.
Today, the United Mexican States celebrate their National Day – Happy Birthday! – with September 16th being the day when, almost two centuries ago, the insurgency movement began which led to gaining their independence from Spain. On January 1st, 1994, in the Mexican province of Chiapas a different kind of insurgency began, started by a guerilla group called “The Zapatista Army of National Liberation”, which most of the locals rallied behind. The Zapatistas were accusing the Mexican government of disregarding the needs of the people and declared war on it the day the NAFTA agreement – which had as its signing parties the three North-American states – was coming into effect, because they viewed it as extremely detrimental to the rural population in Mexico. In particular, they were demanding that the local population get a fair share of the exploitation of natural resources, as well better healthcare and education.
After two weeks of heavy fighting, the Catholic Church negotiated a truce between the Mexican Army and Zapatistas, which lasted a year, and the latter kept their control over the Chiapas police. In January 1995, the Chase Manhattan bank sent a memorandum to the Mexican government, in which it expressed the opinion that “even though the Zapatista movement does not represent a threat to the political stability of Mexico, it is perceived as such by many people in the investor community. As a result, the government must eliminate the Zapatistas to prove the effectiveness of the control it holds over its territory and its security policy”. The author of that memo was Riordan Roett, emerging market consultant for Chase Manhattan bank, which subsequently a consultant to the National Intelligence Council of the CIA. Two days later, the Mexican army started a massive offensive in the Chiapas province, and succeeded in “liberating” from the Zapatistas and even to drive away the residents of the villages that were allied to them.
Chase Manhattan bank already had a less than honorable reputation, as it was known for the deals it made with Nazi Germany, which culminated in the freezing of the bank deposits that Jews had in occupied France. In 2000, it merged with J.P. Morgan & Co. and became J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, which currently has over 2.6 trillion dollar in assets and is part of the “Big 4” group of US banks. Meanwhile, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation has survived and still holds control of a large part of the Chiapas province.
In the context of this story, what is worth noting is that no bank ever sent a memorandum urging the Mexican federal government to “more effectively control the territory” ruled over de facto by the drug cartels in Mexico. In other words, the cartels aren’t a problem, but the potential of revolutionary movements to destabilize governments which support the major lenders is.
Romania is a member of the IMF and within the Fund it has allies, with the help of which it can follow along Turkey’s model or follow its own path. A new standby agreement can even prevent slip-ups of those holding the political reigns in Bucharest, whoever they may be in the coming period, especially when it comes to directions suggested “in a friendly manner” by the secretive agents of such foreign private banks. The relationship with the IMF is in fact, the only support that Romania has in relation to the international financial.
The major powers are struggling to resolve the conflict that has been raging in Syria for more than four years now, but their efforts have been “rewarded”: the protests on the edge of the Syrian state have become a devastating civil war, which spread to Iraq and Lebanon, international terrorism has been reinvigorated under the Iraqi – Syrian ISIL/ISIS brand and, metamorphosed into DAESH (the Arabic acronym for ISIL), has proliferated further, to Libya and Nigeria, and Europe has become overwhelmed by waves of Syrian and African refugees.
During this time, Romania had the strength and the wisdom to stay neutral, despite the outside pressure which insistently advised Bucharest to suspend its diplomatic relations with Damascus, the denouncing of the criminal regime led by Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, and other actions of with a tone of hostility that were lacking discernment. Starting in 2011 and up until now, only two member states of the European Union have kept their embassies open in Syria: Romania and the Czech Republic (the Romanian party has constantly mentioned the demographic data of the traditional relation with this Arab country: over 20,000 Syrian students have studied in Romania, in Syria there is a community of Romanian citizens which is estimated to count between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals, Syrian ethnic members account for the majority of the Arabian community in Romania etc.).
The international priority of the moment is putting a damper on the expansion of ISIS, as demonstrated by Russia’s recent ambition to get together a regional coalition for that purpose, the air strikes conducted since back in 2014 by the US against the areas controlled by the terrorist organization in Iraq and Syria, the joint Turkish-American offensive recently discussed by Mevlut Cavusoglu, the Turkish minister of foreign affairs. But both the ISIS phenomenon, as well as the flow of Syrian refugees in Europe are symptoms of the conflict in Syria, which nobody has truly made it their goal to resolve peacefully, not even the regime in Damascus (which, honestly and justifiably, can not concede to share power with opposition factions that are financed from abroad, by countries and sheiks that have interests that are hostile to a strong Syrian state). As a result, the expected neutralization of the ISIL and the redistribution of the refugees in EU member states would generate only a temporary relaxation of the effects induced internationally by the Syrian civil war, without eliminating their recurrence potential.
The agreement concluded in July between the major powers and the Islamic Republic of Iran to resolve the so-called Iranian nuclear dossier changes the approach of the situation in the Middle- East strategically by the interested parties and secondarily, opens a window of opportunity for the Romanian diplomacy as well, when it comes to Syria. Romania does not have the means nor the reason to contribute to fighting ISIS, but it can make a name for itself as a political mediator in the Syrian civil war, because in Damascus, Romania still matters and it is viewed as a desirable proxy for a dialog which would bring the Syrian regime and the US closer. The successes that the Romanian diplomacy achieved in the Middle East in the 70s, confirmed even by Israeli declassified documents and by memoirs written by Israeli diplomats, can be used as evidence of that.
The time is now right for such a diplomatic action, including because Turkey’s ability to get involved has now reached its upper limits, because of several factors: prime-minister and subsequently president Recep Tayyip Erdogan can not be an accepted mediator, because he has led a policy of open hostility towards the Syrian regime, which however received very weak support from the Turkish public opinion. The elections in Turkey held in June this year have brought about for his party, AKP, the loss of the absolute majority in the Parliament and the unprecedented electoral rise of the pro-Kurdish entity HDP, which makes even more problematic the bombing by Turkish aircraft of the Syrian Kurds, who are fighting the Islamic militants in the border area between Syria and Turkey and who are the main allies of the US against the ISIS in the area.
Seizing the current opportunity would mean minister Bogdan Aurescu putting together and coordinating a team of people whose knowledge of the Middle East issues is beyond dispute, who currently hold key positions along the coordinates of the “Syrian case”, such as George Maior (ambassador in the US), Radu Onofrei (ambassador in Turkey) and Dănuţ Sandovici (ambassador in Syria). With that kind of team, the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs can perform a large scale diplomatic brokerage, in low risk circumstances, which would bring Romania foreign policy capital, which can easily be “invested” later on multiple “diplomatic markets”: towards reinvigorating the traditional relations with the Arab countries, towards improving the strategic partnership with the US, bolstering Romania’s position within NATO and the European Union, even for attracting a little more attention from China.
Written by Iulian Mareş and translated by Cosmin Ghidoveanu.
This article was originally published by the “Bursa” Journal. Please follow the link below:
The video below shows a cimbalom performance of Romanian musician Radu Seu. He has left Romania a few years ago and he lives now in the Netherlands.
The second performance is different, but it is worth listening, for sure. Please, check out no. 3 in this playlist.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, on one hand, and the US, United Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, on the other, two days ago reached a common solution to the problem of the “Iranian nuclear dossier”, thus concluding over two years of negotiations and 12 years of international disagreements. The parties have signed a Common and Comprehensive Action Plan, and also agreed upon has been a roadmap concerning the subsequent collaboration between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (AIEA).
The essence of the agreement is that, in exchange for the gradual elimination, starting in 2016, of the international sanctions that it is currently being subjected to, Iran will reduce its civilian nuclear program to a level that will make unlikely its diversion towards military purposes and will provide unrestricted access to AIEA inspectors, to check the implementation of the agreed measures.
Immediately after it became official, the deal was hailed by the leaders of the negotiating countries and has been described as a “historic agreement”, while Israeli prime-minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, called it “a historic error”. Regardless of the view, the agreement in Vienna was desired by all the parties involved in negotiations, not just for the benefits expected when it comes to military security, but especially because it will be followed by mutual economic benefits.
Iran will have easier access to the superior technologies needed to develop its industrial output even further (a ratio it already holds the 21st position globally on) and will return to the international financial circuit, without being forced to resort to complicated schemes and greedy intermediaries to elude the restrictions that have been forced upon it so far. If it sticks to the agreement, Iran can hope to be included in the G20 group as well.
The other signing parties, especially the European ones, will be able to direct quickly towards the Iranian market, of over 75 million citizens, their inventories they have been unable to sell due to the sanctions against the Russian Federation. In the medium and long term, “the new horizons” invoked on Tuesday by Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, can mean Europe being supplied with natural gas and oil extracted from Iran, an something which Tehran has long desired, in order to free itself from Russia’s extortion, through the small prices imposed it paid when buying Iran’s natural gas, in exchange for its veto in the UN Security Council.
Germany’s presence at the negotiating table is eloquent in that regard: it is not a major military power and it is not facing the threat of a military attack from Iran, but it is its main trade partner among the EU member states. The sanctions regime imposed on an international level did not prevent German diplomacy from being active in its relationship with Iran, especially at the land or local level, through frequent meetings between parliament members, mayors, businesspeople or intellectuals from both countries. Those kinds of interactions, formal and informal, have paved Germany’s way towards its current status of massive exporter to Iran, but also an interested advocate of the resolution of the “Iranian dossier”.
Unlike Germany, Romania dropped its traditional relationship with Iran, which began when Shah Reza Pahlavi was leading the Persian state (not after the instauration of the Islamic Republic) and, until 1990, it resulted in bilateral commercial trades of over 1 billion US Dollars a year. Subsequently, the political lack of interest and the domestic lack of diplomatic ability have worked in tandem with the international sanctions regime and have caused a drastic drop of the bilateral trade: 375 million US dollars in 2011, 340 million US dollars in 2012, 158 million US dollars in 2013, with the only constant element being the ratio between exports and imports which definitely is in Romania’s favors.
After years of Romanian officials avoiding the receptions organized on its national day by the Iranian Embassy in Bucharest, they will from now have the ability to be present in that kind of events to promote Romania’s economic interests.
Iulian Mareş (Translated by Cosmin Ghidoveanu)
This article was originally published by the “Bursa” Journal. Just follow the link below
During the past decade, Romania has been confronting with a phenomenon of mass emigration, widely known as “brain drain”, the latest trend being the growing relocation abroad of skilled labor force like medical personnel, engineers and IT specialists. The official statistics show some relevant figures in this respect: for instance, the domestic medical system loses about 3,000 doctors every year and the amount of losses is more than double when it comes to nurses or other mid-level medical personnel.
The issue got so serious that it was tackled during a parliamentary debate organized a couple of months ago, which was in fact a meeting attended by several foreign ambassadors who openly pointed out that the emigration of skilled labor force has become a problem even for their national companies that are doing business in Romania. The media widely reported that one ambassador concluded his intervention by addressing the Romanian officials with the following words: “YOU ARE BLEEDING!” Also, the Romanian President officially addressed the issue twice this year, first expressing his concern during an official visit to Germany and later asking the government to put out a plan to manage the causal elements of this on-going situation. These concerns are legitimate, no doubt. I will not argue about the financial reasons which motivate this trend, I will only assess that more and more Romanians choose to leave because of the lack of respect constantly shown by the politicians, translated into daily strife and poor governance.
Nevertheless, I believe this issue also has a good side. The sociological studies and demographic researches conducted in various countries, like the United States of America or Norway, during the 20th century or more recently have shown the following specificity of the Romanian immigrants: they integrate faster than others in the adoption countries and never form social enclaves. Normally, these people should have been by now more visible – in a good sense – and speak by default about themselves and their country of origin, but this is only a recent tendency. It must be considered that for almost 50 years, during the former communist regime which Romania had, emigration was forbidden and the flow began only after 1990. For instance, in 2012 there were nearly 500 Romanian employees at the Microsoft headquarters in the United States and they keep coming.
(this piece of street art was made by an unknown artist in the surroundings of my hometown and I see it as a bleeding version of the Romanian red-yellow-blue national flag)
The point I want to express is very well illustrated by the following example: Colin Powell, the former US Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was born on American soil as the son of a couple of Jamaican immigrants. Hence he represents a second generation. And the United States is an amazing adoption country that gives the opportunity for a second generation immigrant to become one of the most powerful men in its political and military elite.
It is not a good thing the Romanians are leaving their country of birth, but on the long term there is at least one foreseeable positive effect. Those who are highly skilled will strive to make the best of their migration endeavor, as for them failure is not an option. And after all, everyone has the right to pursuit happiness.
Last week, a series of new ambassadors have been appointed as representatives of Romania in various foreign countries. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs put forward the proposals and the President agreed. Among them, two choices seemed to me, in particular, very fortunate: the journalist Emil Hurezeanu – appointed ambassador to Germany, and the former director of the Romanian Intelligence Service, George C. Maior – appointed ambassador to the United States of America.
Although they have very different backgrounds, almost opposite, both are reputable professionals with solid careers concerning the world of foreign affairs. Both have a rather intrinsic patriotic conscience, on behalf they prefer the effective action instead of empty speeches. Each in his way is the right man in the right place and such a fortunate situation is rare in Romania.
Emil Hurezeanu has spent almost a lifetime in Germany where he had built an image of integrity and has a wide network of connections in the political, economical and, of course, media environments. He also has a double citizenship, German and Romanian, and he was involved in the dissident movement against the former communist regime from Romania. His personal charm and erudition are acknowledged not only by his public audience, but also in the discrete chambers of the German power. Also, his journalistic background of more than two decades should be an asset in dealing with the vigilant German media.
George C. Maior recently ended his nine years tenure as director of the Romanian Intelligence Service. Since the beginning of the ’90 he made a consistent career as a diplomat in the Minister of Foreign Affairs and later in the Ministry of Defense. Most remarkable, he led the team who negotiated the accession of Romania to NATO.His entire professional activity has been focused on developing the political and military ties, and the cooperation in the field of national security between Romania and the United States of America. He is a man who honestly believes that embracing a pro-American path is in Romania’s best interest. I assume such a commitment of conscience is acknowledged in Washington D.C., therefore his voice should be heard in the crowded chambers of the American power.
Good luck to both of you, gentlemen!