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

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

(an area of instability and uncertainties due to the crisis of the old Yugoslavian Federation and the 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 & EuroAtlantic 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.

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

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

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 highlyperforming 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

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

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.