"Dracula Is Dead ", The real Romania we experienced - An exclusive interview for members of Strada32 offered by Mr. Ambassador Jim Rosapepe and Mrs. Sheilah Kast

Your term in Romania started at a very important moment, when the country dynamic was at its peak during the transition times. There were many observers wondering why Romania evolved so differently in terms of economic and social reform, compared to its neighbors. In your opinion, what were the defining ingredients that set us apart from the rest of Eastern Europe? 

Compared to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, was Romania’s standard of living in the late 1990's low? Yes. Were there still too many abandoned children living in large institutions? Yes. Was there too much corruption and too little privatization? Yes. Did Romania have too many xenophobic demagogues in politics and the media? Yes. But did all that mean Romania was not headed toward becoming a prosperous, modern, European democracy? Definitely not. 

Analysts tend to overestimate policy and underestimate history, geography, religion, and mentality. The nations of Eastern Europe have some similarities—in particular, about a half-century of Communist rule. But the differences are not trivial. 

Consider two examples at the extreme. Poland is large and borders Germany, and has a large American diaspora, a strong Roman Catholic Church (with one of its own recently in charge of the Vatican), tiny ethnic minorities, and a tradition of private enterprise that survived Communism. After 1989, all those factors made it more accessible, and more attractive, to Western investment, as well as to Western ideas. Moldova, on the other hand, is small, and squeezed between Ukraine and Romania. It has a tiny Western diaspora, the remnants of a Stalinist economy, a struggle for identity between its Russian and Romanian histories, and Russian troops still occupying part of the country. 

Sound monetary and fiscal policy, structural reform, and the rule of law certainly improved conditions in both countries. But measuring both countries against the same narrow policy model misses most of what was difficult, and important, in their transitions. Moldova, with its potential agricultural wealth and well-educated people, will never border Germany and will never have a large American diaspora. For the foreseeable future, it will have to manage both its identity issues and its relationships with Russia and Romania. To be successful, its strategy will have to be significantly different from Poland’s. 

Or consider Hungary. One of its greatest accomplishments since 1989 was attracting foreign investment. Part of the reason it did so was policy. Part was its strong diaspora—in the United States, George Soros and the late U.S. Representative Tom Lantos come to mind. But it was not irrelevant that most of that investment was in western Hungary, essentially in the suburbs of Vienna. Geography counts. 

Before 1989, all of Romania’s neighbors, including the Soviet Union, were Communist countries. Since then, three of its immediate neighbors—Ukraine, Moldova, and Yugoslavia—have had bigger economic and political problems than Romania. Only one—Hungary—was more prosperous or was an earlier addition to NATO and the EU. Not entirely coincidentally, the most prosperous, Western-oriented region of Romania borders Hungary. 

From an economic perspective, Romania started the “race” in 1989 in a deeper hole than countries such as Poland and Hungary. Ceauşescu had imposed a Stalinist economy of no private enterprise and mammoth, energy-inefficient industrial plants long after that strategy had been abandoned in most of Eastern Europe, when Poland and Hungary had stopped most of their Stalinist economic policies and were opening themselves up to market forces. Thus, some of the biggest economic divergence came a decade or more before the fall of the Berlin Wall. History didn’t start in 1989. 

Politically, Romania emerged from a far more repressive Communist regime than most of the other countries of Eastern Europe. Without the embrace of a major Western diaspora, church, or neighboring nation, outside interest was episodic at best. Compounding these problems was the fact that, in the first six years after Ceauşescu’s overthrow, former Communist reformers, not anti-Communists, governed Romania. This was very different from the experience of all other Eastern European countries, except the former Yugoslavia. From Estonia to Bulgaria, anti-Communist forces came to power for at least a short time in the early 1990s. Not in Romania, where the break with the past was not as sharp. The result in Romania was more stability, but slower adjustment to Western democratic standards and market economic forces. 

One of the results was that many of the pre-1989 political and economic powerbrokers consolidated their positions and effectively resisted change longer than many expected. A remarkable amount of downsizing was done during this period, much more than is generally recognized, but real competition developed slowly. As late as 1998, state banks still controlled most banking assets, and for too much of the period, they were used to promote special business and political interests. Today, modern, primarily Western European banks control most of the Romanian banking market—for better or for worse. 

None of this is to argue that Romania’s problems were so deep they could not be overcome—in fact, quite the reverse. Communism did more damage to Romania’s political, economic, and social fabric than it did to many countries, and Romania has not yet climbed past some of the countries that were on a higher plane in 1989. But given the depths to which it had been driven, Romania may well have risen farther and faster than some of the others. 

We are not implying that Romania’s future is largely out of the control of its own people—that geography, history, and similar factors will determine its fate. The point is rather that Romania has made remarkable progress given the difficulties it has faced. A free press, a democratic political system, peaceful relations with its neighbors and among ethnic groups, and an economy that grew rapidly in a prosperous world economy before 2009—these are not accomplishments to be ignored. Romanians have every reason to be confident that continuing progress can and will be made, and that advances, from better health care to more job opportunities, need not wait until Romania gets courts as independent as California’s, or government as honest as Wisconsin’s.

A country with Roman origins, consequently a great mix of people, with Balkan flavor in the South, and German and Hungarian influence in Transylvania, a very strong royal impact during the 30s that still leaves a touch inside its castles while most part of the country is still rustic. How do you think we can best capitalize this eclectic cultural landscape to sell ourselves to the world?

All these elements are part of why we argue in Dracula Is Dead that Romania is the new Italy – A Latin country, with Roman ruins, government corruption, world-class creativity, a zest for life, and vivacious, attractive people.

That blend of influences you describe – German and Austrian in the north, Mediterranean in the south – we see that also in Italy.  Warm welcomes and vibrant hospitality – Americans associate that with Italy, but we found it just as true in Romania.  Impressive creativity, advancement of the arts and appreciation of them – another parallel with Italy.

But many Romanians may not recognize the economic implications of these characteristics.  Italy's dictator put it on the wrong side of history during World II.  Flat on its back economically at the end of the war, it summarily executed its dictator and set about rebuilding itself.  It now ranks as the seventh-largest economy in the world.

Romania has similar potential. With nearly twenty-two million people, it’s the seventh-largest country in the European Union. Driven by the ambition of its people and the EU, Romania’s economy grew rapidly, as Italy’s did in the decades after World War II, until the worldwide recession of 2009.  

We're confident Romania will continue to progress.  Perhaps the most important step Romanians can take to capitalize on their inherent strengths is to recognize them, take hope, and tell the rest of the world! 

When we talk about the people, we think of the future Romania. You know there are many Romanians from the generation of the ’70 – ’80 who decided to try their chance outside the country, while a great number of young and talented people are building the base for an entrepreneurial economy back home. Would you offer a diagnosis as to how Romania’s brain and talent can turn things around inside the country?

... "Emerged as the New Italy" ... frumos spus!

(Multumim frumos Mirela si Liviana, pentgru multe materiale superbe pe acest forum ... ;)

Jim Rosapepe il sfatuieste pe Barack Obama sa aplice modelul din Romania la… Irak si Afganistan:

http://ziarero.realitatea.net/1261605150-Jim_Rosapepe_il_sfatuieste_pe_Barack_Obama_sa_aplice_modelul_din_Romania_la_Irak_si_Afganistan

Intr-un articol publicat de “Washington Times”, Jim Rosapepe si sotia lui, Sheilah Kast, arata ca povestea de succes din Romania se potriveste manusa Irakului si Afganistanului. Inaintea razboiului din Irak, Paul Wolfowitz, adjunctul secretarului american al Apararii de-atunci, a comparat inlaturarea lui Saddam Hussein cu rasturnarea lui Nicolae Ceausescu. Wolfowitz preciza ca Statele Unite nu au invadat Romania, iar Mihail Gorbaciov, ultimul presedinte al URSS, s-a abtinut de la orice interventie militara. Romanii au avut posibilitatea sa se elibereze singuri. S-o mai creada mutu! Noi stim insa ca James Baker, secretarul de stat american din 1989, i-a cerut lui Eduard Sevardnadze, seful diplomatiei sovietice, ca Moscova sa dispuna invadarea Romaniei. Asa scrie Sevardnadze in memoriile lui. Dupa 20 de ani de la inlaturarea atotputernicului Nicolae Ceausescu, Romania nu s-a destramat. A devenit o democratie, cu o poveste economica de succes si membra a Uniunii Europene si a NATO. Domnul Rosapepe considera ca merita reflectat la lectiile oferite de Romania, pe care politica externa a Statelor Unite le-ar putea transpune in Irak si in Afganistan. In 1989, romanii considerau SUA si Europa de Vest modele ale puterii militare, prosperitatii economice si standardelor de moralitate, nu perfecte, dar preferabile celor din lumea sovietica. Este o apreciere corecta si aici.Nationalismul invinge ideologiileIn al doilea rand, de regula, nationalismul invinge ideologiile si, in timp ce in America problema Razboiului Rece s-a pus la modul “Lumea Libera versus comunism”, in Romania a fost “Rusia (Uniunea Sovietica) versus noi (Romania)”. Corect si aici, cu adaugirea necesara ca aceeasi perceptie au avut si polonezii, si balticii, si ucrainenii etc. Ca si in Vietnam, americanii – al caror mit national isi are radacina in ideologie (democratie si libertate), si nu in nationalism – subestimeaza puterea sentimentului nationalist in motivarea popoarelor. Perfect de acord si aici, cu diferenta ca pentru americani motorul ideologiei este PROSPERITATEA. In al treilea rand, construirea unei natiuni si promovarea democratiei nu reprezinta unul si acelasi lucru, iar din acest punct de vedere, spre deosebire de Afganistan, Guvernul postcomunist al Romaniei a avut mai mult decat suficiente capacitati de a administra intreaga tara. De asemenea, spre deosebire de Irak, Romania s-a concentrat pe construirea democratiei, si nu a unui guvern national. Autorii articolului au convingerea ca romanii, la fel ca toate natiunile din sistemul socialist, nu mai vor ca americanii sa plece din tara lor. Ei insista pentru un parteneriat strategic permanent fiindca America a ajutat Romania sa intre in NATO si in UE. Si aceasta evaluare este obiectiva, chiar daca nu este explicata. Deocamdata, tara noastra nu are un partener mai util in regiune. Pe de alta parte, nu se pot compara mecanic tari atat de diferite ca traditie si spiritualitate. De exemplu, in Afganistan, au fost asasinati un senator si 10 deputati in numai patru ani.Inca se mai asteapta un proces al comunismuluiJudecarea rapida a dictatorului Nicolae Ceausescu, in ziua de Craciun a anului 1989, a privat Romania de o examinare colectiva reala a crimelor dictaturii. AFP da ca exemplu destinul disidentului Vasile Paraschiv. “Unde este dreptatea? Astazi, cineva care raneste un pieton este judecat, dar oamenii care m-au maltratat si torturat nu pot fi judecati. Ofiterii Securitatii au pensii astronomice, iar eu traiesc cu 700 de lei pe luna”, spune Vasile Paraschiv, un batran de 81 de ani, care traieste intr-un apartament modest din Ploiesti. S-a inscris in Partidul Comunist din convingere, dar a iesit dezamagit in 1968.A militat pentru organizarea unui sindicat liber si dupa 1980 a fost arestat si torturat. Vasile Paraschiv, teroristii si mortii din decembrie 1989 fac si ei parte din aceeasi “poveste de succes” despre care ambasadorul Rosapepe nu mai aminteste

"România a ajuns noua Italie"

http://www.evz.ro/articole/detalii-articol/881128/quotRomania-a-ajuns-noua-Italiequot/

Wall Street Journal publică astăzi un articol dedicat traziţiei din România, bazat pe o carte scrisă de un fost amabasador al Statelor Unite la Bucureşti şi un jurnalist al ABC News. Soţii James Rosapepe şi Sheilah Kast cred că, la 20 de ani de la căderea lui Ceauşescu, "România a devenit noua Italie". Explicaţiile se leagă de modul în care cele două state au scăpat de dictatori, latinitate, "relaţiile paşnice cu minorităţile şi vecinii", corupţie şi creativitate artistică şi cultură. Rosapepe, în vârstă de 58 de ani, s-a născut pe pământ italian, la Roma."România a parcurs un drum lung într-un timp scurt