Jim Rosapepe
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?
Romanians already are turning things around, although it may not feel that way during the recession.
Economically, Romania's most important strength is the strong capabilities of its people. Part of that strength is their work ethic, which we heard U.S. employers repeatedly praise, and which we have seen in our own investments there since returning to the United States. Part is the strength of Romania’s family values, which leads to much lower rates of crime and drug abuse than we are used to in America. Part is their creativity, which can be seen in their art, their advertising, their software, and unfortunately, on occasion, their computer-hacking.
But the greatest source of their capabilities is the breadth and depth of their education. Here, to be fair, the Communist period was not all bad. Before Communism, Romania made a major effort to expand literacy as well as to achieve high levels of achievement in higher education. To their credit, the Communists built on that base. They expanded educational access dramatically. Like other Communist societies, they provided an “iron rice bowl” for average people, relieving the pressure on young people, particularly the rural poor, to go to work, and thus allowing larger numbers of children to attend school. Likewise, they created opportunities for the smart, hardworking children of workers and peasants to go to college along with children of the professional classes.
Now Romania graduates software engineers at a higher rate for its population than the United States does. Dozens and dozens of American and European companies have come to Romania because of readily available engineering skills. For example, Wisconsin Machine Tools bought machine-tool plants in Romania, intending primarily to use Romanians’ manufacturing skills. When they got there, they realized that Romanians also had world-class engineering skills, and began using Romanian engineers. We saw the same thing in the farm machinery, auto, and hydroelectric industries.
Indeed, there’s almost a happy irony in this: Ceauşescu intended to create a self-sufficient industrial sector, built on the model of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. He failed, but in the process, he helped create a skilled, multilingual workforce well-prepared to thrive in this century’s globalized information economy.
Another example of the economic strength that Romania brings to the new century is the fact that since the Revolution, the number of students in higher education has doubled. Interestingly, that’s not because the government has invested more in higher education—it has not been able to do so. It’s because the culture of education is so strong in Romania that private, tuition-financed universities have been created from scratch in little more than a decade.
We were all looking, after December ’89 for a new feel of Romania, to replace Dracula, Eastern European former communism gloomy heritage, the ambiguity of relations with Hungary in Transylvania. You offer just that! The new Romania’s identity. How would you place Romania on the world map, in the next decade? What is the perspective you offer in terms of geo-political role and diplomatic relations?
Romania has a more important economic and diplomatic force in the EU and NATO than some westerners realize.
With nearly 22 million people, Romania has the seventh-largest population in the European Union. Even though it emerged from communism in a deeper hole than almost any other former Soviet satellite, it has come a long way in a relatively short time. It has attracted more than $100 billion in direct foreign investment. For five of the last six years, its growth rate was almost 7%, one of the highest in Europe, East or West.
In less than two decades, it has become the 11th largest EU country by nominal GDP and eighth largest in purchasing-power-parity terms. Prior to the recession of 2009, it had become the tiger of the Balkans. There's every reason to expect that growth will resume, and Romania will continue its economic progress.
As a member of NATO, Romania is seen by the U.S. as a valuable ally. Just days ago, Vice President Biden discussed with President Basescu Romania's plans to contribute additional troops to the NATO effort in Afghanistan, and efforts to deepen military cooperation between our countries.
As you know, Mr. Ambassador, you were exceptionally fast adopted by the Romanians, at the time of your assignment. In return, you and Mrs. Sheilah Kast offer a refreshing new book to highlight the most of your relationship with Romania. What are your personal expectations from Romania? How would you like to see our country in relation with the United States and their citizens?
We saw time and again that when Romanians and Americans engage, they become great friends and good partners. Our hope is to broaden and deepen those relationships.
That's why we wrote our book, Dracula Is Dead – so that Americans would get to know the real Romania we experienced, beyond the two-dimensional stereotypes so many Americans hold, limited to Dracula, dictators and orphans. We hope that will encourage more Americans to visit Romania, and get to know it for themselves.
Similarly, we'd like to see more Romanians visit the United States. Currently, only visitors from about three dozen countries, primarily Western European ones, could come to the United States without visas. Romania is not one of them. However, because Romania is a member of the European Union, and a key EU principle is the free movement of people, Romanians can travel all over Europe without a visa.
Our Romanian friends ask us, “Why is it OK for us as Romanians to travel to France, the U.K., and Germany visa-free, but not to the U.S.?” Good question.
Part of Romanians’ concern about U.S. visas is practical. Thousands of Romanians want to be able to easily visit their new grandchildren, attend college graduations, work with business partners, and study at colleges in the United States, just as they do in Europe.
But it’s also symbolic and emotional. Romanians do not understand why they are treated differently by their American and European allies—why their soldier sons can lose their lives, as they have, serving beside American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but can’t visit America.
It’s a measure of how far Romania has come in twenty years that Romanians are kept out of our country by U.S. visa rules, not Ceauşescu’s border police, who shot those trying to leave the country.
The difference in visa rules between the U.S. and the EU dramatizes how effective the EU has been in building a real European community, while the United States, all too often, needlessly alienates our friends. From the Romanian point of view, NATO membership is about security—military security and, probably more important, psychological security. This is a dimension that Americans should find easier to understand in the post-9/11 world. Romanians know well that they suffered forty-two years of Communism, not because of a strong indigenous Communist movement, but because Russian tanks “liberated” Romania from the Axis powers at the end of World War II. So whether or not there is likely to be a Russian military threat to Romania in the foreseeable future, or ever, the psychological security that comes from being part of the Western alliance is of enormous importance to Romanians, from the top levels of government to those in the most remote village.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Sheilah Kast is an award-winning journalist well known to viewers of PBS, ABC, and CNN, and to listeners of NPR. For ABC, she reported on the collapse of Communism from Moscow and Tbilisi and covered Hillary Clinton’s first trip to Eastern Europe. She hosts AARP’s weekly newsmaker cable TV show, Inside E Street, as well as her own daily magazine show on WYPR, the public radio affiliate in Maryland.
Jim Rosapepe represented the United States as ambassador to Romania from 1998 to 2001, bringing to the job experience in American government and business, as well as in the former Communist world. Since returning to Maryland, where he is a state senator, he has served on the boards of various investment funds and companies active in Europe and the former Soviet Union. He has written on economic and security issues for The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Harvard International Review. Jim and Sheilah have been married for twenty-six years, and live in College Park, Maryland.
DRACULA IS DEAD How Romanians Survived Communism, Ended it, and Emerged since 1989 as the New Italy By Sheilah Kast and Jim Rosapepe Published by Bancroft Press, Publication date: November 9, 2009 www.DraculaIsDead.com
Versiunea Interviului in limba romana:
Mandatul dvs in Romania a inceput intr-un moment foarte important, cand dinamica tarii era la un nivel de varf in perioada tranzitiei. Mai multi specialisti au observat cu surprindere evolutia Romaniei, atat de diferita din punct de vedere al reformelor sociale si economice, in comparatie cu vecinii geografici. In opinia dvs, care sunt elementele esentiale care ne diferentiaza de restul Europei de Est?
Comparand cu Polonia, Ungaria si Republica Ceha, standardul de viata al Romaniei era oare mai scazut in perioada tarzie a anilor '90? Cu siguranta. Erau inca prea multi copii abandonati, traind in institutii? Da. Era inca un nivel prea ridicat de coruptie si unul mult prea slab de privatizare? Da. Avea oare Romania prea multa demagogie xenofoba in politica si in media? Da. Dar oare toate astea inseamna ca Romania nu se indrepta spre a deveni o democratie Europeana prospera si moderna? Ca siguranta nu!Analistii au tendinta sa supraestimeze politicul si sa subestimeze istoria, geografia, religia si mentalitatea. Natiunile Europei de Est au cu siguranta similaritati – in mod particular, acea jumatate de secol de regim comunist. Dar diferentele dintre aceste natiuni nu trebuie cu siguranta vazute ca triviale.
Putem sa consideram doua exemple aflate la extreme. Polonia este o tara mare, se invecineaza cu Germania, un numar mare de expatriati americani traiesc aici, are de asemenea o prezenta puternica a Bisericii Romano-Catolice (cu un reprezentant care conduce astazi la Vatican), cu grupuri etnice minoritare mici si o traditie a intreprinderilor private care a supravietuit Comunismului. Dupa 1989, toti acesti factori au facut din Polonia un spatiu mai accesibil si mai atragator atat pentru investitiile cat si pentru ideile Occidentale. Moldova, pe de alta parte, este o tara mica si inghesuita intre Ukraina si Romania. Are o Diaspora Occidentala nesemnificativa, reminiscente ale economiei staliniste, e marcata de lupte pentru recuperarea identitatii intre istoria pe care o reclama atat Rusia cat si Romania si ocupata inca de trupe militare rusesti.
Politica fiscala si monetara valida, reforma structurala si conducerea legislativa au imbunatatit cu siguranta conditiile in ambele tari. Dar acest demers de masurare a ambelor tari in functie de un model politic destul de ingust pierde din vedere ceea ce a fost cu adevarat dificil si important in procesele lor de tranzitie. Moldova, cu potentiala bunastare pe care i-o pot oferi agricultura si oamenii bine-educati, nu se va invecina niciodata cu Germania si nu va avea o Diaspora americana semnificativa. Pentru perioada care urmeaza, va fi nevoita sa clarifice atat problemele identitare cat si relatia cu Rusia si Romania. Pentru a avea succes, strategia va trebui sa fie cu totul diferita de cea a Poloniei.
Sau putem considera Ungaria. Una dintre marile reusite ale acestei tari incepand cu 1989 a fost atragerea investitiei straine. In parte, motivul pentru care a reusit sa obtina aceste investitii a fost strategia politica; un alt motiv, Diaspora puternica – in Statele Unite, George Soros si Tom Lantos, cel mai recent reprezentant al Statelor Unite, imi vin in minte. De asemenea, este la fel de relevant sa precizam ca aceste investitii s-au concentrat in partea de Vest a Ungariei, in suburbiile Vienei. Geografia conteaza.
Inainte de 1989, toti vecinii Romaniei, inclusiv Uniunea Sovietica, au fost tari comuniste. Inca de atunci, trei dintre vecinii imediati – Ukraina, Moldova si Iugoslavia – au avut probleme economice si politice mai mari decat cele ale Romaniei. Numai una – Ungaria – a fost mai prospera si o aditie timpurie la NATO si in Uniunea Europeana. Nu este cu totul o coincidenta, cea mai prospera regiune a Romaniei, cea de Vest, se invecineaza cu Ungaria.
Din punct de vedere economic, Romania a inceput cursa in 1989, cand se afla intr-un impas mai semnificativ decat situatia unor tari precum Polonia sau Ungaria. Ceausescu impusese o economie stalinista, lipsita de orice reactie privata si bazata pe uzine industriale mamut, consumatoare de energie, intr-un moment in care aceasta strategie fusese deja abandonata in majoritatea tarilor Europei de Est, cand Polonia si Ungaria incetasera cele mai multe dintre tacticile economice staliniste si se deschideau catre fortele pietei. Astfel, una dintre cele mai importante divergente economice a venit un deceniu sau si mai mult inaintea caderii Zidului Berlinului. Istoria n-a inceput, iata, in 1989.
Din punct de vedere politic, Romania a supravietuit unui regim comunist de departe mai represiv decat in cele mai multe dintre tarile Europei de Est. In absenta imbratisarii unei Diaspora occidentale majore, a bisericii sau a unei natiuni vecine, interesul din afara a fost in cel mai bun caz episodic. O realitate care a facut aceste probleme si mai semnificative a fost faptul ca, in primii sase ani dupa caderea lui Ceausescu, vechii reformatori comunisti au fost cei care au guvernat Romania si nu anti-Comunistii. Acest fapt nu a marcat experienta celorlalte tari comuniste din est, cu exceptia fostei Iugoslavii. Din Estonia in Bulgaria, fortele anti – Comuniste au venit la putere pentru cel putin o perioada scurta in primul interval al anilor 1990. Asta nu s-a intamplat si in Romania unde pauza de trecut nu a fost la fel de scurta si trecatoare. Rezultatele in Romania s-au materializat intr-un nivel mai inalt de stabilitate dar o capacitate mai scazuta de ajustare la standardele occidentale democrate si la fortele economice ale pietei. Unul dintre rezultate a fost si faptul ca multi dintre atotputernicii politici si economici de dinainte de 1989 si-au consolidat pozitiile si au rezistat efectiv schimbarii pentru o perioada mai lunga decat se asteptau cei mai multi. S-a lucrat semnificativ la reducerea monstrilor economici, la disponibilizari si s-au facut progrese remarcabile in acest sens dar adevarata competitie s-a dezvoltat destul de incet. Chiar intr-o perioada asa de tarzie precum sfarsitul anilor '90, bancile de stat controlau inca cele mai multe active bancare si pentru un interval prea lung de timp s-au obisnuit sa promoveze anumite tipuri de afaceri si interese politice. Astazi, unele dintre cele mai mari banci Occidentale controleaza cea mai mare parte a sistemului bancar roman – mai bine sau mai mai rau.
Niciunul dintre aceste argumente nu este menit sa sustina faptul ca problemele Romaniei erau atat de profunde incat nu puteau fi depasite – de fapt, este chiar invers. Comunismul a facut mai mult rau sistemului politic, economic si social roman decat s-a intamplat in multe alte tari si Romania nu a reusit inca sa se pozitioneze deasupra catorva dintre tarile care erau la un nivel mai ridicat in 1989. Dar considerand profunzimea prabusirii in care a fost antrenata, Romania ar fi putut sa se ridice mult mai repede si mult mai sus decat alte tari.
Nu e intentia noastra sa sugeram ca viitorul Romaniei se afla in afara controlului oamenilor sai – ca geografia, istoria si alti factori similari ii vor determina destinul. Ideea pe care am vrea sa o fixam tine de faptul ca Romania a facut un progres remarcabil date fiind dificultatile cu care s-a confruntat. O presa libera, un sistem politic democratic, relatii de pace cu vecinii imediati si in cadrul grupurilor etnice si o economie care a crescut cu rapiditate intr-o sistem economic mondial prosper inainte de 2009 – acestea nu sunt reusite demne de ignorat. Romanii au toate motivele sa fie increzatori in faptul ca aceasta continuare a progresului se poate face si se va face si ca evolutia, de la un sistem de sanatate mai performant pana la oportunitati de munca, nu trebuie sa astepte pana cand Romania va avea un tribunal la fel de independent precum cel al Californiei sau un sistem de guvernare la fel de onest precum cel al statului Wisconsin.
O tara cu origini latine, in consecinta un incredibil mix de culturi, balcanic in Sud, cu influente germanice si maghiare in Transilvania, un impact semnificativ al regalitatii din anii ‘30 care se simte inca vizitandu-i castelele in timp ce cea mai mare parte a tarii isi pastreaza aerul rustic. Cum credeti ca am putea capitaliza cat mai bine acest peisaj cultural eclectic pentru “a ne vinde” cat mai bine lumii?
Toate aceste elemente vin sa sustina afirmatia noastra in Dracula Is Dead ca Romania este Noua Italie – O tara latina, cu ruine romane, guvern predispus catre coruptie, creativitate la cote inalte, pasiune pentru viata si oameni atractivi, plini de spirit.
Amalgamul de influente pe care le descrii – germana si austriaca in nord, mediteraneana in sud – le vedem de asemenea si in Italia. Primiri calde si o ospitalitate efervescenta – Americanii tind sa le asocieze cu Italia, insa noi le-am descoperit la aceeasi intensitate in Romania. Creativitate impresionanta, proliferarea artelor si capacitatea de a le aprecia – o alta paralela cu Italia.
Multi romani insa poate nu recunosc implicatiile economice ale acestor caracteristici. Dictatura Italiei au plasat-o pe latura incorecta a istoriei in timpul celui de-al II-lea Razboi Mondial. Epuizata economic la sfarsitul razboiului, aceasta a decis fara intarziere sa-si execute dictatorul si sa se lanseze in procesul propriu de reconstructie. Este cotata la momentul actual ca a saptea mare economie mondiala.
Romania are un potential similar. Cu o populatie de aproape douazeci si doua de milioane este al saptelea mare stat in cadrul Uniunii Europene. Sustinuta de ambitia poporului sau si ghidata de catre EU, economia Romaniei a crescut rapid, ca si cea a Italiei in deceniile de dupa Al II-lea Razboi Mondial, pana la momentul recesiunii mondiale din 2009. Avem convingerea ca Romania o sa continue sa progreseze. Poate ca cel mai important pas pe care romanii pot sa-l urmeze pentru a capitaliza fortele lor inerente este sa le recunoasca, sa aiba curajul sa spere si sa vorbeasca despre ele intregii lumi!
Cand vorbim despre oameni, ne gandim la viitorul Romaniei. Asa cum stiti, sunt multi romani tineri din generatia anilor ’70 – ’80 care au decis sa isi incerce sansele in afara tarii si in acelasi timp un numar mare de tineri talentati construiesc bazele unei economii antreprenoriale in tara. Ati putea sa oferiti o prognoza relativ la cum ar putea talentul si inteligenta romaneasca sa schimbe lucrurile in tara?
Romanii deja au pornit sa schimbe lucrurile, desi poate parea ca acest lucru nu se intampla in timpul recesiunii.
Din punct de vedere economic cea mai importanta forta a Romaniei sunt puternicele abilitati ale oamenilor sai. Parte din aceasta forta este etica de munca pe care o detin, despre care am auzit ca fiind apreciata de multi angajatori din Statele Unite si pe care am observat-o in propriile noastre investitii in tara de cand am revenit in Statele Unite. O alta parte este reprezentata de soliditatea valorilor de familie ale Romaniei, ceea ce se reflecta intr-o rata mult mai scazuta a criminalitatii si abuzului de droguri decat cea cu care suntem obisnuiti in America. Iar un alt aspect este creativitatea care ii reprezinta, si care poate fi observata in arta pe care o creeaza, publicitatea, programele software si, din pacate, ocazional, in veleitatile legate de computer-hacking.
Insa cea mai importanta sursa a capacitatilor lor este extinderea si profunzimea educatiei la care au acces. In acest sens, daca privim in mod onest, perioada comunista nu a fost in intregime negativa. Inainte de comunism, Romania a facut un efort major sa extinda gradul de educatie si sa atinga nivele inalte de performanta in educatie avansata. Pentru a le acorda credit, comunistii au construit pe aceasta baza. Au extins accesul la educatie in mod notabil. Ca si alte societati comuniste, au prevazut un sistem garantat de munca pentru omul de rand, in beneficiul unei presiuni mai reduse asupra tinerilor, in mod special in cazul celor saraci din zonele rurale, pentru a avea munca asigurata si in felul acesta permitind unui numar mai mare de copii sa mearga la scoala. In acest mod, au creat oportunitati pentru copiii inteligenti si muncitori ai lucratorilor si taranilor sa mearga la universitate impreuna cu cei ai claselor profesionale.
La momentul actual Romania genereaza ingineri software la o rata mai ridicata in raport cu populatia sa decat Statele Unite. Zeci si zeci de companii americane si europene au venit in Romania pentru accesul la aptitudinile ingineresti gata create. Este de exemplu cazul Wisconsin Machine Tools care a cumparat intreprinderi de instalatii mecanice in Romania, cu intentia initiala de a utiliza capacitatile de productie din Romania. Cand au sosit in tara, au realizat ca romanii aveau de asemenea aptitudini ingineresti de varf si au inceput sa lucreze cu ingineri romani. Am observat aceeasi situatie si in cadrul industriilor de mecanica agricola, auto si hidroelectrice.
In mod cert, exista aproape o ironie fericita in aceasta situatie: Ceausescu a intentionat sa creeze un sector industrial de sine statator, construit pe modelul perioadei tarzii a secolului nouasprezece si inceputul secolului douazeci. Cu toate ca a esuat in demersul sau, in procesul initiat a ajutat in crearea unei forte de munca capabila, cu veleitati multilingvistice, pregatita sa reuseasca in economia globalizarii informatiei din secolul actual.
Un alt exemplu al fortei economice pe care Romania o exercita in secolul actual este faptul ca in perioada de dupa revolutie, numarul studentilor in educatie inalta s-a dublat. In mod surprinzator, aceasta nu se intampla datorita faptului ca guvernul a investit mai mult in educatie inalta – nu a fost in postura de a realiza acest lucru. Se datoreaza culturii pentru educatie care este atat de puternica in Romania incat universitati private, finantate prin taxe individuale au fost create de la zero in mai putin de un deceniu.
Cu totii ne-am dorit, dupa Decembrie ’89 o noua reprezentare a Romaniei, pentru a inlocui mitul Dracula, mostenirea sumbra a perioadei comuniste, ambiguitatea relatiilor cu etnia maghiara in Transilvania. Reusiti sa oferiti exact aceasta noua reprezentare! O noua identitate pentru Romania. Cum ati plasa Romania pe harta lumii in noua decada? Care este perspectiva pe care o oferiti in ceea ce priveste pozitia sa geo-politica si relatiile diplomatice?
Romania este o forta economica si diplomatica in EU si NATO mult mai importanta decat multi reprezentanti din Vest o realizeaza.
Cu aproape 22 milioane de oameni, Romania detine a saptea mare populatie in cadrul Uniunii Europene. Desi a iesit din comunism intr-o prapastie mult mai adanca decat aproape toate celelalte state din fostul satelit sovietic, a progresat simtitor intr-o perioada relativ scurta de timp. A reusit sa atraga peste $100 miliarde in investiti straine directe. Pe perioada a cinci din ultimii sase ani, a inregistrat o rata de crestere de aproape 7%, una dintre cele mai inalte in Europa, Est sau Vest.
In mai putin de doua decenii, a devenit al 11-lea cel mai mare stat European dupa coeficientul de GDP nominal si al 8-lea cel mai mare in termeni de paritate relativi la puterea de cumparare. Inainte de recesiunea din 2009, a devenit tigrul Balcanilor. Exista toate motivele sa ne asteptam la o revenire a cresterii economice si la faptul ca Romania va continua progresul sau economic.
Ca si membru NATO, Romania este vazuta de catre Statele Unite ca si un aliat valid. Doar cu cateva zile in urma, Vice-Presendintele Biden a avut o discutie cu presedintele Basescu despre planurile Romaniei de a contribui cu trupe aditionale la eforturile NATO in Afghanistan si eforturile de a adanci cooperarea militara intre tarile noastre.
Asa cum stiti, Domnule Ambasador, ati fost extrem de repede adoptat de catre romani, la momentul mandatului dvs. In schimb, dvs si Dna Sheilah Kast oferiti o perspectiva cu totul revigoranta in noua dvs carte in care marcati momentele importante ale relatiei pe care ati avut-o cu Romania. Care sunt asteptarile dvs personale de la tara noastra? Cum ati dori sa vedeti Romania in relatie cu Statele Unite si cetatenii lor?
Am observat de-a lungul timpului ca atunci cand romanii si americanii sunt impreuna, devin prieteni excelenti si buni parteneri. Speranta noastra este sa extindem si sa adancim aceste relatii.
Acesta este motivul pentru care am decis sa scriem noua noastra carte, Dracula Is Dead – ca in felul acesta americanii sa afle despre adevarata Romanie pe care am cunoscut-o noi, dincolo de stereotipurile bi-dimensionale pe care atat de multi americani le pastreaza, limitate la Dracula, dictatori si orfani. Speram ca acest lucru sa incurajeze mai multi americani sa viziteze Romania si sa o cunoasca ei insisi.
La fel de mult ne-ar face placere sa vedem mai multi romani vizitind Statele Unite. La momentul actual, numai vizitatori din aproape treizeci de tari, cu precadere din Vestul Europei pot sa vina in Statele Unite fara viza. Romania nu este una dintre ele. Cu toate acestea, datorita noului statut de membru al Uniunii Europene, si unul dintre principiile esentiale ale EU fiind acela al circulatiei libere de persoane, romanii pot sa calatoreasca oriunde in Europa fara sa obtina viza.
Prietenii nostri romani ne intreaba mereu, “De ce este OK pentru noi ca romani sa calatorim in Franta, U.K. si Germania fara sa fie nevoie de viza, dar nu si in U.S.?” Buna intrebare.
Parte din preocuparea romanilor despre vizele U.S. este de natura pragmatica. Mii de romani ar vrea sa aiba posibilitatea sa isi viziteze cu usurinta nepotii nou-veniti, sa asiste la festivitatile de absolvire, sa lucreze cu parteneri de business si sa studieze la universitati in Statele Unite, la fel cum o fac si in Europa.
Dar este de asemenea un motiv simbolic si emotional. Romanii nu inteleg de ce sunt tratati diferit de catre aliatii lor americani si europeni – de ce fii lor soldati pot sa isi piarda vietile, cum s-a intamplat, servind alaturi de trupele americane in Iraq si Afghanistan, dar nu au posibilitatea sa viziteze America.
Este o masura a cat de departe Romania a ajuns in douazeci de ani astfel incat romanii sunt tinuti in afara tarii noastre de reguli de viza U.S. si nu de catre politia de frontiera instaurata de Ceausescu, care ii impusca pe acei ce incercau sa paraseasca tara.
Diferentele in regulamentele de viza intre U.S. si EU puncteaza cat de eficienta a fost Uniunea Europeana in a construi o comunitate europeana reala, in timp ce Statele Unite, de prea multe ori ii izoleaza fara a fi necesar pe prietenii nostri. Din perspectiva Romaniei, a fi membru NATO este un element de securitate – securitate militara si probabil mult mai important, securitate psihologica. Aceasta este o dimensiune care ar trebui sa fie mai usor de inteles pentru americani, in contextul lumii de dupa 9/11. Romanii stiu prea bine faptul ca au suferit patruzeci si doi de ani de comunism, nu datorita unei puternice miscari comuniste pe plan local, dar datorita faptului ca tancurile rusesti au “eliberat” Romania de Alianta puterilor la sfarsitului celui de-al doilea Razboi Mondial. Asadar, fie ca o sa existe posibilitatea unei amenintari militare rusesti sau nu, pentru Romania, in viitorul apropiat, sau mai indepartat, securitatea psihologica generata de apartenenta la o alianta vestica este de o enorma importanta pentru Romania, de la cele mai inalte nivele ale guvernului pana la acelea in cel mai indepartat sat.
DESPRE AUTORI
Sheilah Kast este jurnalist distins, mult apreciata de catre publicul programelor de stiri PBS, ABC si CNN, si ascultatorii programului NPR. A transmis pentru ABC colapsul comunismului in Moscova si Tbilisi si a comentat prima calatorie a Dnei Hillary Clinton in Europa de Est. Este gazda emisiunii TV saptamanale de stiri AARP, Inside E Street, ca si a propriei emisiuni magazin zilnice pe WYPR, post de radio national afiliat la Maryland.
Jim Rosapepe a reprezentat Statele Unite ca ambasador in Romania intre 1998 si 2001, oferind mandatului sau din experienta acumulata in guvernul American si din mediul de business, precum si cea din fosta zona comunista. De cand a revenit in Maryland, unde activeaza ca senator de stat, a fost implicat in bordurile a diferite fonduri de investitii si companii active in Europa si fosta Uniune Sovietica. A scris editoriale pe probleme de economie si securitate pentru The New York Times, The Washington Post, si The Harvard International Review. Jim si Sheilah sunt casatoriti de douazeci si sase de ani si locuiesc in College Park, Maryland.
DRACULA IS DEAD (DRACULA A DISPARUT) Cum Romania a Supravietuit Comunismului, l-a Eradicat si a Revenit dupa 1989 ca Noua Italia De Sheilah Kast and Jim Rosapepe Publicata de Bancroft Press, Data publicatiei: 9 Noiembrie, 2009 "http://www.draculaisdead.com"www.DraculaIsDead.com
Comentarii:
Nu sunt comentarii inca.
