Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hundreds of Thousands Would Rather Be Romanian

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hundreds of Thousands Would Rather Be Romanian

    MOLDOVAN SECURITY CONCERNS
    Hundreds of Thousands Would Rather Be Romanian

    Since Romania's entry into the European Union at the beginning of this year, 800,000 Moldovans have applied for citizenship -- fully 20 percent of the country. Moldova now accuses Romania of harming its national security.

    This outpost on the Romanian-Moldovan border became part of the European Union's eastern border at the beginning of this year.

    What if you had a country that nobody wanted to belong to?

    It is a riddle currently facing the Eastern European country of Moldova, sandwiched between Romania and Ukraine. Ever since Romania joined the European Union at the beginning of this year, more and more Moldavians have been applying for Romanian passports. So far, some 800,000 people have applied -- 20 percent of Moldova's entire population.

    On Wednesday, Moldovan officials said they were concerned at the trend and complained that Romania was using its new-found status as EU member to lure Moldavians to acquire Romanian citizenship. Most Moldavians speak Romanian and a large chunk of the country belonged to Romania between the two World Wars.

    "The Republic of Moldova will not allow its citizens' future to become the target of two-faced, dangerous, behind the scenes games which undermine national security and the foundations of statehood for which its citizens made such sacrifices," the Moldovan government said in a Wednesday statement.

    Part of the accusation is that Bucharest isn't doing anything to solve the problem -- which appears to be a legitimate complaint. Some 75 percent of the Moldovan population is technically eligible for a Romanian passport and Romanian President Traian Basescu has urged that the process of screening the applications be sped up. He has even referred to Moldovans and Romanians as "a people separated as the Germans once were."

    The problem is likely to only get worse. Romanian officials estimate that by the end of the year, almost 40 percent of all Moldovans will have applied for passports -- some 1.5 million people out of a population of 4 million. As of Jan. 1, Moldovans must have a visa to visit Romania, but as compensation Romania has eased the requirements for getting a passport.

    At least one portion of the Moldovan population wouldn't be sad to see the Romanian-speakers become part of Romania. The 550,000 Russian-speaking residents of the self-declared Republic of Transnistria have long been seeking more autonomy from the the government in Chisinau.

    cgh/ap/reuters/spiegel

    Moldovan Security Concerns: Hundreds of Thousands Would Rather Be Romanian - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
    East Europe is one clusterf***.

    They just can't make up their minds and instead are a set of opportunist!

    One wonders where East Europe will eventually head!

    I sure hope someone who has some insight of East Europe could unravel the mystery!


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  • #2
    And here I am!

    Originally posted by Ray View Post
    East Europe is one clusterf***.

    They just can't make up their minds and instead are a set of opportunist!

    One wonders where East Europe will eventually head!

    I sure hope someone who has some insight of East Europe could unravel the mystery!
    Hello Ray, hello everyone -- this is my first post here.

    Just so you can assess my inherent bias on the topic from the top, I'm a Romanian living in Romania. And I come to the rescue. :) I'll try to be as neutral as possible, and where I feel I might be biased I'll indicate so.

    First, your exposure is flawed -- you start by making blanket statements, which I'm sure you'd find offensive if they were made by someone else about your region, then you admit your lack of knowledge on the topic, and you end by declaring the whole thing a mystery. Strange way your brain works, but I've seen stranger: while incoherent and offensive, your assessment is overall correct. :)

    Now, to the unraveling part. Unfortunately, you need history background to understand what's happening here -- I just hope you're curious enough on the topic to actually read what I'm about to write. FYI, this stuff is all written by myself as a response to your question; I didn't copy/paste any part of this reply from other sources, because I wanted to keep it as short as possible -- but that doesn't mean it's short, as you can see.

    Strategic considerations
    Europe and its Oriental neighbors have been a collective region of turmoil, high ambitions, and nationalism, from a historical perspective (personal opinion; probably neutral enough). Given that combination of factors, we were unable to unite in large entities, such as your India, or China, or Russia -- or the more recent nations in North America (please note I'm talking about nations, not states -- most European states are younger than US).

    In that context, Eastern Europe has always been a buffer between Western European powers on one hand, and Russia and the Ottoman Empire on the other.

    You can see how that affects the history of countries in the region: powerful, stable neighbors both to the East and West, and equally desperate neighbors in the North and South.

    Middle Ages and Before
    Take a look at a map of the region while you read this -- such as this one. Modern-day Romania, Republic of Moldova, Bulgaria, and even parts of today's Greece, Albania, Macedonia and Serbia have been inhabited by Vlachs (Vlahs are, if you wish, proto-Romanians). (Various parts of this paragraph may be disputable by Bulgarians, Moldovan government officials, Moldovan citizens of Slavic descent, some Moldovans of Latin descent, and some Hungarians.)

    Although that entire region was inhabited by a relatively uniform population, modern-day Romania was made of three principalities: Transylvania, under Hungarian rule; Moldavia, under Ottoman (Turkish) rule; and Wallachia, struggling to keep itself as independent as possible (Wallachia has traditionally been the political center for "Romanianism"; while it payed tribute to Ottomans for a long time, it has been as independent as it could manage, historically).

    (Early) Modern History
    During the Middle Ages, there have been two main powers around Romania: the Western European Powers (Hungary, and later the Austro-Hungarian Empire) to the West, and the Ottomans to the East. By mid-1700s Russia has become a power, to complicate already complex matters in the region.

    In 1768, Russia engaged Turkey in war. Long story short, that threw off the balance (many regions changed hands in a short period of time), but sticking to the topic at hand, Russia ended up controlling half of the Romanian principality of Moldova from 1812 until 1918. (That's an approximation; the history is more complex, both regarding the timeline and the breakdown.)

    Since you don't have any other context on the topic, I'll reiterate: modern-day Romania is made of three formerly distinct principalities: Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia. The three have always been Romanian by nationality, and have always wanted to unite in a single national entity (i.e. country). The reason they couldn't was the region's instability, its proximity to continental and religious borders, and as a result, the various principalities' vassalship to various powers.

    Back on topic: in 1918, Wallachia merged with Moldavia -- this was the first step towards modern-day Romania. Again, to cut the long story short, in 1940 roughly half of Moldavia was awarded to USSR -- notice how Moldavia, the Romanian principality, is spelled a little different from modern-day Moldova (Republic of).

    When USSR collapsed, the part of traditional Moldavia which had been part of USSR became independent. A referendum was held regarding union with Romania a couple of years later, but the Moldovan population decided against it (it is widely accepted in pro-unionist circles that artificial Soviet/Russian manipulation has influenced that referendum).

    Currently, roughly half of the old Moldavian principality is part of Romania, while the rest of the olden principality along with a teensy little slice of Slavic land (Transnistria) is the current-day Republic of Moldova. (Some Romanians contest the Slavic descent of Transnistria; that's quite silly in my opinion.)

    Recent Events
    So, now you have a rough picture of Romania's history: a modern country, made of three historical principalities, of which one is still halved -- and arguably most people in the separate half (i.e. Republic of Moldova) desire the union (based on the referendum, that wouldn't be true; however, the result of that particular referendum is generally assumed to have been heavily influenced by Russian FUD). (This statement would obviously be challenged by Russians and Moldovans of Slavic descent.)

    In this context, the Moldovan president has been under some serious pressure from Moscow recently (check out the Ukraine energy crisis, which was a good example of what could happen to Moldova, and the recent wine embargo imposed to Moldova by Russia). To top it off, the current Moldovan president is leftist. You do the math.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank you for the post, Gutza, it was very informative. Though having a general idea of Romanian history, the information on the three principalities and the role foreign powers play gives good insight.
      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

      Comment


      • #4
        Gutza,

        Thank you for your informative post.

        I do not regret being 'offensive' and 'confused'. It has at least got me an educated response from you, from which I have benefited. Usually, issues of Eastern Europe attracts very few posters and so it remains a void.

        Indeed, my brain does appear strange to people. Being a military person, it is an asset since if one (the enemy) could unravel how my brains worked, then I would have been a failure. Fortunately, my combat record does speak of me as a success.

        I do wish posters of the other communities/ races that comprise of Eastern Europe comment on your post so that my education is more wholesome and multifaceted in information and knowledge.

        However, to keep the record straight it would be prudent of me to state that with the demise of the Warsaw Pact, the upheavals, the wars, the continued jockeying of various political, ethnic, racial, strategic, economic interests resulting in the continued flux that one observes in East Europe, it is only a dedicated observer of East European flux, who can make some semblance of the kaleidoscope that is unfolding there. I am merely interested in the events and the fallout. Hence, the "confusion".

        It requires no effort to realise that one of the most turbulent of regions of the world is East Europe, even though no wars, at present, are raging (note: raging!). Internecine bickering, yes!

        Do, give more details through a neutral standpoint, of not only Romania, but of all countries which were of the Warsaw Pact and where are they heading.

        I ask you to do so since you would be closer to the facts than us.

        Will be obliged.
        Last edited by Ray; 10 Mar 07,, 07:52.


        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

        HAKUNA MATATA

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank you both for the positive feedback -- I'm generally not much into forums, and I was feeling a bit insecure about investing so much time into writing such a long post replying to an essentially short, blunt thread-starter. But if one person speaks and two people listen, that's already a positive ratio. :)

          Ray, regarding your request for more info. Due to the factors I outlined in my previous reply, the whole of Eastern Europe is a region with a fascinating history -- try to imagine the struggle of several intertwined nations spanning a mere half the size of India to remain independent, while having to face neighbors which have all traditionally been world superpowers. Now factor that over two thousand years. This region's history is full of local heroes, unbelievable diplomatic trick-shots, deceit, short-time alliances imposed by historical context, unions and separations, despair and exhilaration. And that has literally happened in all countries in the region, since the Roman Empire, through the Mongol invasion, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire, both World Wars, and to some degree even today.

          As such, it would be quite inadequate for me to attempt summarizing the region's history to any degree -- as you could see in my previous post, explaining a small tabloid story requires serious background, let alone interactions between states in a more general context. Not only that, but I'm not even remotely a history buff -- I have only recently become interested in history, and it's an interest I can't afford to invest too much time in. So my trying to give you any reasonable explanations would not only be inadequate, but inappropriate as well. And finally, while you appreciate my proximity to the region, it is generally accepted that people living in a region tend to be quite biased towards their own.

          If you want to learn about the region's history, a good start would be Wikipedia. While Wikipedia has its flaws, you can at least depend on it to resolve inter-state disputes, since it allows -- and encourages -- citizens of all countries to interact. So maybe you should start at the article regarding Eastern Europe and work your way from there.

          One word of advice. In order to keep its articles readable, Wikipedia has separate articles for in-depth analysis of various topics. For instance if you look at the article about country "X", you will find that it only has a couple of paragraphs in the History section, but you will find a note at the beginning of the section that you can read more on the topic in article "History of X", or something to that effect. When you reach that article, you will find a similar pattern for various periods of that country's history (e.g. an article called "X during Middle Ages", "X in WWII", and so on). And those articles may in turn point to other sub-articles, and so on, until there is no more data. The word of advice I promised is that you can usually find the finer points which make the juicy stuff only in these final articles, which don't point to any other ones.

          Have fun!

          Comment


          • #6
            I re-read my post and realized that asking you to dive into 2000 years worth of history of multiple countries looking for insights may conceivably be overwhelming, and finally discouraging. So, here are some of the more interesting bits I know of (I'm sorry they're Romania-centric, but that's what I know best):

            --------------------------------------------------------------------

            The Republic of Moldova is, as I mentioned, roughly half of the old Romanian Principality of Moldavia. An interesting bit of trivia is that the land Russians annexed from Moldavia was originally spanning south to the Black Sea. In their wisdom (and I'm not being sarcastic), the Russians trimmed the newly-created Moldova's Southern region, and "compensated" that by awarding it Transnistria. That was a win-win for them: Moldova is now land-locked (as a former military, Ray must appreciate this), and on the other hand it forced a Slavic population into the region; moreover, it complicated matters in regard to a possible reunification with Romania -- Romania can't honestly claim Transnistria, but that's where the Russians concentrated as much of the Moldovan industrial infrastructure as they could while it was a member of the USSR. To top it off, the region they trimmed from Moldova was awarded to Ukraine -- not Russia itself (compare old Moldavia with modern Ukraine). As such, it's currently impossible for Romania to claim that territory for political reasons -- and remember it's also impossible for it to claim the "compensation" as well (Transnistria) for moral reasons. That was brilliant strategy -- in a moment's inspiration regarding that territory, Moscow has done what military leaders have known since Roman times: divide et impera. Most Romanians resent the Russians for that kind of practice; I believe the same Romanians would feel very proud today if Romania would have been in a position to practice the same policy towards other states -- although my nation has been negatively affected by that Russian decision, I think they were quite brilliant. Regardless, there are other reasons for being resentful towards the Russians throughout Eastern Europe. Not only in the past, but even now, the Russians have always had a very intrusive way of doing politics, of the form "if it holds, it holds". Quite annoying.

            --------------------------------------------------------------------

            Romania (and its earlier Principalities) have traditionally been ruled by local leaders. For political reasons, in 1866, a German Hohenzollern became prince; and king in 1881 -- that was Carol I of Romania. At the time, it was a general practice throughout Europe to "lend" princes and princesses from one country to another, as need be, in order to ensure political alliances. As history would have it, World War I broke out during his reign. Romania, as you would remember, fought that war alongside the Entente (i.e. against the Germans). You can have your fun finding out how that happened.

            --------------------------------------------------------------------

            The man who is unequivocally recognized to have started organizing the Romanian medicine (both civil and military) was Carol Davila. He was a Frenchman who ended up being summoned to Romania as a young man (21 years old) by King Carol I (above), if I remember correctly (at that age, he already had a doctorate in medicine in Paris). Trivia: Carol summoned Davila; Carol was aware of Davila's schedule; several days after Davila's arrival in Romania, Carol feels offended that Davila hasn't yet presented to the Court; when he finally arrives, he comes with concrete proposals for improving health care in the country -- he had taken the time to learn about the existing facilities and practices; the typically stern King takes a liking in Davila, one that would endure throughout their lives.

            Davila fell in love with the country and felt that his contribution would make a difference (it did; even today, the Romanian "University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Bucharest, the largest of its kind in Romania, is named in his honor" (quote from Wikipedia). The Wikipedia article on him is unfairly slim as I'm writing this -- his effort towards bringing Romania's health system up to par was quite impressive: contemporary testimonials state that he was little short of being omnipresent in health facilities, ministerial decision processes, military training facilities, and so on. And even further (from Wikipedia):

            "It was due to his many activities that several scientific associations appeared in Romania: the Medical Society (1857), the Red Cross Society (1876), the Natural Sciences Society (1876). With his assistance, two medical journals entered print: the Medical Register (1862) and the Medical Gazette (1865). During the Independence War (1877-1878) he was the head of the Army's sanitary service.

            "Davila is also credited with the invention of the Davila tincture for the treatment of cholera, an opioid-based oral solution in use for symptomatic management of diarrhea."

            His wife was Ana Racovita, a descendant of TWO of the most prominent families in contemporary Romania. Historical records show he genuinely loved her. One summer day, if I remember correctly, while they were attending an official ceremony, Ana doesn't feel well. Davila remains to attend the ceremony, sends Ana to a fellow medic. The doctor diagnoses her with (known) heart problems, and prescribes guinine (as per contemporary standards). He misreads his own labels in the medicine cabinet, and administers strychnine instead, thus killing her accidentally. Davila goes on working another 10 years (until his death) towards improving the medical system of his adoptive country whose medics have killed his wife.

            --------------------------------------------------------------------

            I'm too tired to go on like this. Here are some pointers to other interesting topics:

            * The Polish liaison with Romania during WWII
            * The fate of Moldova's Thesaurus
            * How come Romania fought alongside the Axis in WWII
            * Russian troops pillaging and raping in Romania for more than a couple of months after Romania turned arms, in WWII -- relate to Communists; relate to Romania's decision to move troops deep into Russian territory during the war, and even participating to the Stalingrad tragedy;
            * Ceausescu's raise to power, in the context of many Communist factions fighting for power in the aftermath of WWII

            There's more, if you're still interested after consuming those -- let me know if you actually do want more. :)

            Cheers,
            Gutza

            Comment


            • #7
              Gutza- Very interesting posts. Thank you.

              Please continue if you have the time, it is much more enjoyable to hear things from the perspective of a Romanian citizen than some dry history test.

              What will become of Moldova? Will they be drawn back into Russia? My impression is that Russia doesn't want the problems associated with the poverty there, but also doesn't want to see an independent or prosperous Moldova that might set a different agenda than Russia would like.

              Between the doubling of their energy prices and the embargo on their main export, Russia seems to be squeezing them pretty hard. It's no surprise so many Moldovans want to get away.
              "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

              Comment


              • #8
                Gutza, is there any discussion about partitioning Moldova, with Transnistria going to the Ukraine, and the remainder of the country being absorbed by Romania?
                "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Official talks of reunification -- none whatsoever; Romania would have them, but the Moldovan government would be quite irritated if this was ever brought up on the record.

                  Unofficially, I'm sure the Romanians have approached the Moldovan government several times, with obvious lack of results.

                  Within the civil society, yes, there is much talk on both sides of the border. However, the USSR has been remarkably successful at building resentfulness against Romania within the Moldovan society. Even today, few Moldovans really believe Romania wants a unification for selfless reasons -- even some of the ones who actually desire unification think first about their potential benefits as a country, about Romania's interest at "annexing" that territory, and only last about the fact that we are, in fact, the same nation.

                  Regarding Transnistria, there is no realistic prospect of ever making it part of Romania, even in the event of unification. And it would also be wrong, as explained in previous posts. That's one of the reasons for the Moldovan unwillingness to discuss unification -- as it stands, they can still make claims on Transnistria; if unification talks are brought on the table, they would almost automatically lose that right.

                  highsea, I have no idea whether Russia would want to absorb Moldova, but I'm almost positive the Moldovans would rather go to war against Russia than have that again.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Excellent posts , Gutza. As another fellow easterner, I can only add that this whole region is divided by so many different factors : religion (Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Muslims) , languages ( Slavic, Latin-based, Baltic, Fenno-Ugric) , political systems , ethnic, historical factors - so it is rather hard to put them all in one group. And one more thing - our journalism is not better than in other parts of world , if not worse . From more distant countries the news that filter through are more of ´´postman bites dog´´ - style , not serious analysis.
                    If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

                    Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gutza View Post
                      In their wisdom (and I'm not being sarcastic), the Russians trimmed the newly-created Moldova's Southern region, and "compensated" that by awarding it Transnistria.
                      I think you are some wrong.
                      It wasn't a kind of "compensation" or any "wisdom course".
                      Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as a part of Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was created in 1924. This autonomous republic was placed in territory of modern Transnistria, on the left bank of Dnestr, despite the fact that the Moldavian population almost hadn't been presented there. There were political reasons: Stalin was going to restore the old borders of Russian empire under the new label of USSR, that's why Moldavian republic was created as a substantiation for subsequent step to re-absorb the territory of Moldova. Thus the territory of Moldovian SSR had extended beyond Moldova's historical territory. So, it may be said, Transnistria, or Pridnestrovye in Russian, was a result of Soviet state-construction's policy. That was only a legislative ground.
                      Similar situation had taken place with Finland. Soviet Union had planned to take this country and the Karelia-Finnish SSR was created. But they hadn't succeeded in the war against Finland and Karelia-Finnish SSR was renamed to simply Karelia and its status was lowered from republic of USSR to autonomous republic of Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. In such a way had happened an opposite situation to Moldavia's case.
                      So, that could be a "compensation" to Ukraine for Transnistria, not to Moldova for Black Sea coast. But I think that was just a historical accident.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Mr First,

                        Thank you for the clarification.

                        The jigsaw unravels and another aspect emerges!
                        Last edited by Ray; 12 Mar 07,, 06:24.


                        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                        HAKUNA MATATA

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          By the way...
                          Ray, did you want to know more about East Europe?
                          Speech of IMF Mission head at Moldovan parliament was about to be spoiled because he was speaking Russian

                          Speech of IMF Mission in Molodav Head Thomas Richardson was about to be spoiled by members of the parliament who became indignant at the head of the IMF for asking for a permission to speak Russian, a REGNUM correspondent was told at the Moldovan parliament.

                          MP Vitalya Pavlichenko and several other MPs interrupted Richardson’s speech and claimed that he spoke Romanian or English, but not Russian. The IMF official said that unfortunately, he does not speak Moldovan official language and prepared the speech in Russian, as he speaks Russian and wanted to avoid services of a translator.

                          In response Vitalya Pavlichenko and MP Valentina Kushnir (Christian-Democratic People’s Party) left the session as a sign of protest.
                          Speech of IMF Mission head at Moldovan parliament was about to be spoiled because he was speaking Russian - Moldavia - REGNUM

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Now that's sweet! :)

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X