7-8 seminary presentation
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 7-8 Seminary Presentation
1/8
The National Security Strategy of Romania (2001). Safeguarding democracy and
fundamental freedoms, sustainable economic and social development, and integration into
the NATO and European Union
By 2001, Romania had organised four general elections, through which tried to
establish at least the basis of democracy. It was still in the middle of the transition that had
brought multiple domestic transformations in the political, economical and social systems. In
the late 90s, it was clear for the political forces that the main foreign strategy goal should be
the NATO and EU integration.
Despite the fact that we were not invited to join NATO in the Madrid Summit (97),
Romania pursued its efforts put in the long term project of becoming part of the defensive
military organisation. In exchange of our failed expectations, Romania was offered the
Membership Action Plan (september 1999) that prepared candidate states for accession as
well as the special status of favourite candidate state for the second wave of enlargement.
As we noticed in the previous discutions, Romania has always been in the search of having a
priviledged relation with a great power. It gladly regained its most favoured nation status in
1993 and US-Romania Startegic Partnership (1997) that continues and is strenghtened
nowadays through The 21st Century Strategic Partneship.
The relationship between USA and Romania marked The National Security Strategy
of Romania (2001), taking into consideration the consequences that the 9.11.2001 terorist
attack had on USAs foreign policies. This was partly the result of our security interests and a
result of the transformations in the international system.
For :
- the strategy stresses asymetrical, unconventional threats in accordance with the new
challenges to the international security (terrorist networks, transnational organised
crime, non-conventional arms, proliferation of mass destruction weapons)
- it states the need of support from the civil society for the advancement of national
security goals (social partnership); attracting civil, non-governamental, academic and
commercial structures within the system of national security (new resources).
Against:
As we have seen, the 2001 Romania`s National Security Strategy shows an vision
created under the auspices of 9/11 terrorist attacks. This aspect can be especially observed in
the fact that ,, unusual`` threats till then ( obstructions in Romania`s economical growth
-
7/29/2019 7-8 Seminary Presentation
2/8
process, transnational organized crime, illegal migration, xenophobia, extremism, separatism,
etc.) became suddenly very important. And somehow, like a perverse effect, the usual ,
realistic threats tend to be neglected. (,,Terrorism, however, represents one of the most
dangerous phenomena, being encouraged by the virulence of fundamentalist trends, based on
frustration and extreme poverty in large areas of the planet`` [... ],, Romania is not confronted
with and will not be , in the near future , with major threats of classic military types, against
its national security() They ( risks ) appear particularly in the economical, financial, social
and environmental fields.``) .In my opinion,Realistic aspects of this Strategy should not have
been ignored by a country which were preparing for NATO adheration . The main reason is
that Romania should have had the possibility to show that it is able to provide a basic military
support ( if not material, at least ideological ).
Moreover, even though RNSS speaks about that unusual ( until then ) threats for NS ,
at that moment, Romania, who was being in the middle of a transition process would not have
been able to fight against this sort of threats because of two major reasons. The first one is the
lack of funds necessaries in order to support these new threats for a country like Romania.
The second major reason ( and the most important, in my opinion ) is that the lack of a culture
for this kind of fight. This lack of culture brings with it different inconvenient aspects like: a
bad training of the persons who should have been able to fight against these threats, a
skeptical attitude of the security institutions regarding this sort of ,,new enemies``, fact which
involves a ,, refreshment`` of the bureaucracy, etc.
The White Charter of the Government the 2010 Army: Reform and Euro Atlantic
integration
In the context of the transition period of the late 90s with efforts made towards the
integration into the European and Euro-Atlantic structures, Romanias necessity of having a
clear image of the states defense system was accomplished by elaborating The White
Charter of the Government the 2010 Army: Reform and Euro Atlantic integration ,
adopted through the Ordinance no 52 of the Govern/ 1998. The documents importance is
given by the new geostrategic framework of the Romanian state, after ten years since the
Revolution, which places it at the interference of several strategic evolutions, developed in the
area of the Independent States Community (very much influenced by the Russian Federation),
in central-European area (with states that are likely to know a regional flourish and that
already started the negotiations for the accession to the E.U), in the south-east European area
-
7/29/2019 7-8 Seminary Presentation
3/8
(an area of instability and uncertaintiesdue to the crisis of the old Yugoslavian Federation andthe weak development of some of its neighbor) and in Black Seas area (seen both as an
opportunity and as a risk zone).
For
As a reference document of the executive power, The Charter synthesizes:
Romanias Security Policy which envisages :
the fundamental national interests of the state
the risks, threats and opportunities brought to Romania in the new geostrategic
context and its status of regional security generator
Romanias offer towards the option of becoming part of the European & Euro-
Atlantic structures and the ways in which our country could adapt its military
system to the NATO/E.U/ OEU
The changes brought by the new democratic regime to Romanias Army.
Action areas of the Defense Policy which illustrate:
How Romania intends to follow the courses of the actions expressed by its
Defense Policy
The purpose, premises & objectives of the Armys Reform
Romanias strongly efforts during the process of integration in the European &Euro-Atlantic Structures
The second part of the White Charter presents the partnerships, the objectives and
the requirements that NATO has imposed on Romania. Moreover, it involves the
steps to fulfil the objectives of the international military cooperation.
Participation in NATO Security Investment Programme, NSIP is aimed at improving
the infrastructure of the Romanian Army elements using NATO funds. Fulfilling the
requirements stated can consequently improve the Romanian military forces, not only military
but also economically.
The fact that Romania is given the possibility to send its military personnel for training
at the NATO training bases equips them to carry out different missions like: sustaining,
humanitarian aid in regions close to Romania that are in the NATO or UEO.
1. Establishment of units and elements of infrastructure that are up to NATO standards,
holding training courses by NATO or NATO member countries.
-
7/29/2019 7-8 Seminary Presentation
4/8
2. Establishing and achieving interoperability.
3. The basic documents regarding the management and control of interoperability are based
on the established priorities + rigorous control tests.
4. Continue purchasing the publications, the instructions and standards + strengthening the
translation process, distributing and implementing them in units.
5. Selection, training and commissioning commanders, staff officers and other personnel.
6. Establishing the interoperable technical requirements, evaluating the necessary budgetary
funds.
7. Acquiring, planning and management the budget resources (funds).
8. Reorganization and restructuring.
9. Using Individual Partnership Programme, and bilateral cooperation programs.
10. Ensure meeting the required conditions for the transition to the next stage.
Against
I will start my argumentation approaching Barry Buzan's theory, which says that the
security of a state is divided in five sectors: military, economic, social, ecologic and politic.
Barry Buzan says in his theory that great powers have the role to intervene in unstable states
to maintain peace. This was not the role of the Romanian state that has not yet establish it`s
democratic system.
We saw that Romania always tried to approach the European system of values and
their way of thinking, and we can remark a huge progress after communism, but we need to
admit that we are still far away.
Well, I am saying this because I saw in the White Book of the Government a special
interest to military security.
The second argument has in view the interest regarding military security, that is
affirmed in the W.B. This interest means investments and way not, costs. Defense industry
requires a cost on research, military equipment and training an so on to achieve EU and
NATO standards, given that Romania is confronted with a difficult situation, due to other
deficiencies within the country.
Informally, we know that NATO was a precondition for EU membership, in order to
ensure stability in Eastern Europe.Romania assumes the role of "great power" in the region
to maintain stability and peace, but it has other internal priorities regarding social, political
and economic sectors
-
7/29/2019 7-8 Seminary Presentation
5/8
Infrastructure is another important point raised in the White Book because of
Romania`s geostrategic position, though approached, it`s only mentioned without any
measures taken in reality.
As a conclusion to my presentation I will say that Romanian national security has to
take in consideration at the same time the economic, politic and social issues, not just the
military defense system.
After 9.11, terrorism has been a worldwide problem. Romania mentiones this problem
in the White Charter several times. The first time it is mentioned as a risk factor against
Romania along with uncontrolled proliferation and dissemination of nuclear materials and
technologies. Then it is noted as a possible extern action (diversionary terrorist actions
triggered outside) and as an internal destabilizing actions( diversionary terrorist actions,
sabotage or the block of civil objectives). It is a bit absurd to believe that somebody will
actually want to attack Romania in a terrorist action, using weapons of mass distruction. So
the terrorist risk toward Romania mentioned in the carta is actually an imitation of a real risk
that big powers confrunt with. Romania being a small country/ power, does not have a threat
to its national security when it comes to terrorist attacks. So terrorist risk to national security
is nothing more than a plagiarism of the great powers real threat, mainly of the USAs.
Another argument against the Charter is the one that aimes the military potential. The
modernization of the military potential is noted as an oportunity and as an objective. This
looks really good on the paper, but I have to combate this. Our government spend little on
Romanias military power (spend little on almost everything), so we should not expect to se
improvements in the military domanin, and in case of God forbid an event I doubt that the
army can face an threat or agression as mentioned in the document. As an example we have
the case a few years ago when Romania bought sewcond-hand F16 planes because of the
limited funds of our country. So we can not praise with a good and performant army that
would be capable in any situation when we can not afford to improve or military power.
The National Security Strategy of Romania 2007
The current security environment is mainly characterized by the globalization
phenomenon; it implies the emergence of new risks and threats as well as, new opportunities.
Thus, within a volatile international security environment, as a responsible member of a
dynamic and conflicting world, Romania has built its national Security Strategy (2007) on
-
7/29/2019 7-8 Seminary Presentation
6/8
three pillars: joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and European Union, and
strengthening the strategic partnership with United States.
The National Security Strategy of Romania from 2007 begins with briefly stating the
values, interests, risks, threats, vulnerabilities, opportunities and resources of the Romanian
state.
The national values are elements of cultural, spiritual and material nature that define
the Romanian identity; such as: democracy, freedom, equality and supremacy of law; The
national interests reflect the most important, stable and institutionalized perception of the
national values and aim to preserve promote and protect and defend, by legitimate means, the
values on which the Romanian nation builds its future, through which it guarantees its
existence and its identity and for which it is integrated in the European and Euro-Atlantic
community and takes part in the globalization process. The collapse of communism as a
political system and establishment of democracy, the enlargement of NATO and EU, opening
the frontiers, intensifying the flows of persons, goods, services and capital, the technological
development, as well as its geo-political situation, represent important strategic opportunities
for Romania; all these phenomena are augmented by the NATO and UE membership, as well
as by the strategic partnership with the US. The main risks and threats towards Romanias
national security, its values and legitimate interests, as a member state of the European Union
and North-Atlantic Alliance are considered to be: international terrorism, proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, cross-border organized crime, and bad
governance.
The 2007 Romanian National Security Strategy proposes the following means by
which the national values and interests should be promoted, protected and defended, in order
to achieve the national objectives: active participation in building international security; build
Romanias new European and Euro-Atlantic identity; achieve regional security in the context
of a new political paradigm; take the role of a dynamic vector of Security in the Black Sea
Area; approach comprehensively and properly the homeland security issue; good governance
as an essential tool in the process of building national security; a competitive and highly-
performing economy as a solid pillar of national security; transform the national agencies with
national security competencies; develop and actively protect the strategic infrastructure;
For
The argument that supports the 2007 Romanian National Security Strategy: In my
opinion, Romanias decision of fighting against terrorism was the best way of supporting our
-
7/29/2019 7-8 Seminary Presentation
7/8
cause of becoming a democratic state, that shares the same values with the international
community and which has gained its right to be part of the Euro-Atlantic structures.
Against
I will focus on some aspects of the National Security Strategy of 2007 and argue that
they are not that they are either not well placed in terms of priority or to some extent
inconsistent with the way the internal system (political, economic, social, even education) is
functioning.
The Strategy states that Romania finished the transition period from democracy to
totalitarianism . It is true. Well, almost. I wonder what measures were used when this was
decided to be included in the strategy, because, while progress has been made at all levels in
Romania, much has yet to be done and one can bet that most people would say that we are
still in transition in many respects. So we can say that transition is over on paper, but we
cannot say with the same certainty that in reality.
Terrorism is a big deal nowadays, probably too much so. Probably the attention given
to it is one cause of its danger, not vice-versa. This is an important aspect related to the sense
one might get after reading the strategy, that we live in a messy world, with violence and
terrorists all around. Yet, the world is better off today than it ever was. We live longer, we
have better health care system, we have advanced scientifically more than Newton could have
dreamed in his wildest dreams. The world isn`t only a better place, it is considerably so.
Steven Pinker wrote 832 pages explaining why this is so.
The problem with the strategy is not that terrorism is mention, but that it receives to
much attention as part of a broader focus on non-conventional and asymmetrical threats and
risks. It is mention before good governance. Actually international terrorism is mention first,
and good governance last. Wouldn`t it be better for Romania to take care of its internal
system first and take care of the rest after. It is very hard, but nevertheless not impossible to
imagine that some officials from Bucharest received a call from some US officials saying to
the former: since we are friends, probably we should have the same enemy, and probably we
shall give the same importance to it.
Democracy also is a big deal, but certainly not a weapon to be used against terrorism
as the strategy says. Unless of course it was meant to be taken metaphorically.
We like to be forecasters. We do this job every day. We forecast each morning how
the day is going to be. We love to predict the future, using data analysis, mathematical
models, risk management textbooks and fields such as econometrics. But the truth is that
-
7/29/2019 7-8 Seminary Presentation
8/8
forecasting works only in certain parameters and when talking about world order and new
risks, one has to be either Nostradamus to predict the future, or hope that his bet will match
reality. And this is exactly what the Strategy does. The proliferation of new risks and threats
amplify the insecurity of the global scene, so that in the next 10-15 years the world order will
look sensitively different. Well, it is self-evident that the world will look different even
tomorrow than it looks today, and it is even more evident that it will look different 10 years
from now, but I would assume that the writers of the strategy had something specific in mind.
The question is how did they get to this knowledge? How do they know that the world will
look different (in that specific way) especially when talking about the proliferation of new
risks and threats.
I am not saying that by looking at the strategic picture today, we can`t say anything
about the future, but the Strategy talks about the world 10 years from now with the same
certainty that I would employ talking with my friend now about this presentation tomorrow,
which is not the best way of thinking about the strategic environment when dealing with the
future.