Obama’s Wordless Message to Băsescu

We believe we may know what U.S. President Obama said to Traian Băsescu during the latter’s visit to Washington, from what we have heard and from the Romanian head of state’s accounts. But this is not all, because we are talking about diplomacy here — where things that are not said, but understood nonetheless, are at least as important as official statements.

However, Obama was extremely clear. Using diplomatic language, he did convey his message, although he may not have been clear enough for those who, without knowing a thing about international relations, are discussing Băsescu’s visit on TV. And we should bear in mind the things he said about our relationship with the U.S., about the way in which the U.S. sees Băsescu and about other things, like visas. So what did Obama actually say without talking?

“Dear Traian, Romania has been and will continue to be important for the U.S. — the thing is that we are certain it would have remained so anyway. We do not have to push the Romanians or do them special favors; as a matter of fact, we are delighted that they are the ones who want to do these things for us. We do not have to try too hard.”

In translation: It is not primarily about Băsescu; it is about Romania. Obama can throw lavish receptions for despicable dictators who violate the rights of their population and mismanage their countries, because they must be kept close or brought closer to the U.S. That is not the case for Romania. We are firmly anchored to the U.S., and we will remain so because our affinities go in this direction and our deepest interests demand it.

“We accepted this meeting because you, Traian Băsescu, wanted it and requested it. We did this for our important relationship and because it was ok for you, but it does not mean that we had to organize a state visit or receive you with special honors. It was not necessary, and we did not have reasons to do that.”

By now it should have been clear enough for everyone that the Romanian side was the one that insisted on a meeting with Obama and not the other way around, as everyone could see from the short meeting.

In fact, the meeting, whose main purpose was the signing of some agreements related to foreign affairs ministers, might as well not have existed. It was not necessary. But Băsescu knew that this was something that would help his image. And if somebody actually imagined that Băsescu went to the U.S. aimlessly, without knowing beforehand that he would see Obama, they do not know a thing about diplomacy.

The Romanian side must have pushed for a meeting until they got it, before the president crossed the ocean. And was it an image success? Probably not. It was, however, a success in that they managed to organize a meeting that had no reason to be held.

“The anti-missile shield does not mean that American politics is still focused on the Black Sea or on a confrontation with Russia in the Black Sea, as during the George W. Bush administration in 2005-2006, when Romania was the regional spearhead of anti-Russian rhetoric and action.”

The explanation? We must understand one thing. Things have changed in our region. It is not only that Obama’s policy is no longer following Bush’s projects, which were aimed at attracting the Ukraine and Georgia to NATO and which placed him in an antagonistic relationship with Russia; on the contrary. American foreign policy is no longer centered on the Black Sea and Eastern European region, but on South Asia, the Arab world and Iran, or the Pacific region. In Europe, the relationship with Russia has not been better since 2002.

There are two things that prove this. The first is the shield itself. What we can see is not the shield designed by Bush Jr. No. It is a compromise shield. Obama gave the Russians a less threatening shield, capable of intercepting only medium-range missiles. Not long-range missiles, such as the first, which would have bothered Russia more than the current one.

The second — let us think about Libya. If the Russians had not consented to it, the NATO intervention run there under the auspices of the U.N. could not have taken place. The intervention would not have been authorized by the Security Council, in which Russia has the power of veto, and would have been accused of violating international law, similar to the intervention in Iraq.

This helps us understand the importance of America’s relationship with Russia and why Romania is playing another role in the Black Sea.

“The talk on visas and taking action to waive them is a result of your insistence, but it means almost nothing. Visas will stay in place. That ’we will work on it, make efforts, do something’ does not mean we will remove the visas; we are just stalling to get you off our backs. This is what George W. Bush did as well — ‘work’ together with the representatives of Congress for this purpose. You can see the result — nothing has changed. And nothing will change too soon.”

Visas will stay in place.

“America is very cool, and we know it.”

Indeed it is.