What kind of ambassadors did America send to Romania?
The ambassadors of the United States of America to Bucharest have scolded us, one by one, even if some of them ran the risk of grossly violating essential provisions in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations from April 1961. [Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 41(1) Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.]
His Excellency Henry Mark Gitenstein has been responsible for one of the most recent examples of such repeated interference into and critical statements regarding the internal political affairs of Romania, when he declared the following: “(…) The U.S. Embassy is concerned about the decision of the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the proposals to amend the Romanian Constitution. The desire of Romanian authorities to strengthen the administration of justice in Romania in the fight against corruption is laudable. Critical to that effort are amendments to the Constitution to allow the seizure and confiscation of illegal assets (…). Not only does the Court’s decision thwart that effort but, in the name of ‘fundamental rights,’ it takes this decision away from the people.”
It is plain to see that Henry Mark Gitenstein’s void statement reflects his partisan position on one of Romania’s internal matters, as well as his support for President Traian Băsescu and opposition to the Constitutional Court’s decision. If one of Romania’s ambassadors to Washington had dared to commit such impertinence, he would have been immediately summoned to the State Department, where, after being harshly reprimanded, he would have received a kick in the rear strong enough to send him rolling out the back door and directly onto the sidewalk.
Like some of his predecessors, ambassador Gitenstein set himself up as a champion in the fight against corruption. Who were some of the other American knights in the Romanian joust against corruption? Were they experienced career diplomats aware of Romania’s problems? Most of them were not. Romania had the “privilege,” or “misfortune,” depending on which side of the truth we stand in order to examine the U.S. political and diplomatic reasoning, to have several political ambassadors instead of professional diplomats. When appointing these individuals, U.S. presidents were conditioned by their allegiance to contributors to their electoral campaigns.
One such ambassador [A. Moses] played his part, in the name of the fight against corruption, of course, in robbing the Romanian state of $160 million in what was known as the “Transchem scam.” Subsequently, the same ambassador made several attempts to impose the buying of the “Bell” military helicopters, for a “good price,” obviously, which amounted to the equivalent of approximately five percent of Romania’s gross domestic product.
The next ambassador [J. Rosapepe] orchestrated the controversial privatization of the Steelworks in the town of Reşita, a deal which failed following an international trial, the first wide-ranging trial of this nature that Romania has managed to win.
His successor [M. Guest] lobbied in favor of the Bechtel company (owned by America’s blue-eyed boys), which was responsible for the racket called the “Transylvania Highway.” The contract, which was extremely costly for Romanian taxpayers, may as well have been very useful for financing the special operations conducted by the “Agency” abroad, which cannot be accounted for in the annual tax act of the information community, for democratic and international usage reasons. When Romanian Prime Minister Adrian Năstase came to his senses and realized the scale of economic undermining entailed by the conditions imposed by Bechtel and the C.I.A., he denied the ambassador the next business opportunity: he refused to accept consulting services from a certain company on the matter of the privatization of the Romanian oil company “Petrom.” From that point on, Adrian Năstase’s career in politics would change its course… The ambassador began a series of fierce attacks against the prime minister by publicly expressing his harsh criticism against the government, which he claimed did not implement any measures against corruption.
Another American knight in the fight against corruption in Romania [J.D. Crouch] had the delicate mission of supporting the rise to power of a government which consisted of as many corrupt individuals as possible, who could secure the interests of certain American companies in Romania and who would not raise any objections to the interference of the embassy in Romania’s internal affairs, especially not through open letters, like Adrian Năstase had done.
Ambassador N. Taubman did his best to relieve the Romanian state of the burden of approximately $1 billion in favor of the Ford Company, by exonerating the latter from paying the customs due from the previous contract with “Daewoo.”
The current ambassador declared, upon being confirmed by the U.S. Senate, that his objective was “to improve the environment for U.S. businesses and to increase trade between our two countries. Key to that effort will be convincing Romania to invest the resources needed to fight corruption.” Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama’s America continues to send fighters against corruption as ambassadors to Bucharest.
Mr. Gitenstein’s resume includes a clear reference to the American business looking for a friendly and attractive environment: “Lockheed Martin,” the company that is directly interested in drawing into its accounts billions from Romania’s future defense budgets in exchange for the “F-16” aircrafts. This political and financial deal is controversial, to say the least. The cases of high-level international political corruption which involved Lockheed Martin need no publicity. They were responsible for the fall of governments, political parties and politicians whose reputations had been spotless before then.
We do not have the authority to ask Mrs. Hillary Clinton to clarify whether his Excellency the ambassador acted with the express authorization of the State Department when he criticized the Constitutional Court of Romania. However, as free citizens of Romania, a sovereign and independent state, we must ask our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Teodor Baconschi, when he intends to summon the U.S. ambassador in order to notify him of the Romanian Government’s official position on the new partisan statement he made in a matter that was the sole concern of the authorities of the state to which he was appointed, a state whose laws and traditions he is bound to observe.
We cannot conclude this article without advising the ambassador, on behalf of the independent civil society, not to attempt to provide counseling to any state authority in order to further escalate the war between the Romanian president and the Constitutional Court, in order to exert pressure on the justice system so as to prolong and ultimately hinder the registration of the Social-Liberal Union, nor in order to impose, as a matter of urgency, exemplary sentencing in a series of criminal proceedings that have been poorly instrumented and that concern minor offences as compared to other counts, which are more serious but which have been hushed because their nature transcends parties and nations.
Goodbye, Mr. Gitenstein!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.