<; / uıcy J)ogu /\1'tııpn :\ruil!r 1 11(ı/un !> c ı xi~i 'ı 'ı! : .2() 12 '>uy ı: .2..: ',/: 'J'J 1 I <ı CONSIDERATIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROMANIAN FOREIGN POLICY DURING COMMUNIST PERIOD Associate Prof. Dr. Cristina NEDELCU* Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ömer METİN** Abstract The topic ofthe paper is related to the developrnent ofthe Rornanian foreign policy dur­ ing few decades of the Comrnunist era. The initiative is based on the general observation that starting the 60's Rornania started to di stance herself from Moscow's guidance and it developed stronger ties with Western countries, but also with the so-called Third World group. This is the general context whi ch made possibl e questions such as Had Ronıania deve loped an autonomous foreign policy? Ifyes, who designed it? or What exactly meant an autonomous policy? Key words: Ronıania , foreign policy, communist, ideo logy Özet Bu ça lı ş ımı , Romanya ' nın komünist dönemdeki dı ş politik as ının on yıllık dönem­ ler halindeki ge li ş imi il e il gi lidir. l960'lı y ıll a rın ba ş ından itibaren Romanya ' nın , Moskova 'nın lid e rli ği ile ara s ın a mesafe koyduğu, Batılı ve Üçüncü Dünya Ülkeleri il e de bağlarını g üçl e ndirdiği gözlemlenmişti. Bu durum beraberinde Rornan ya ' nın özerk bir politika izledi mi soru sunu gündeme getirmekteydi. Eğer yanıt evet ise bunu kim tasarla­ d ı ? Ya da bu g:e rçcktcn Ö7crk hir p o liti k cı mı yd ı ? Anah ta r k:d i ıııder: i {l ı ııı ; 1 1 1 \ ; 1. dı ~ p l ı lı t ı k ; ı_ k l ıııı i 'ı ı ı ı s l. ı t k lll n j i c l J ııi ı ı..:r s it y ()ı · ı ı u c lı;ır ı..' S l. 1 k p ; ırtııı ; ıııt ll l' İıı tn ıı ı..·t ı ll ı ı l i.ı..· l ; ılİ lı ı h .;. .; . ,,\ h ; ı ı ıl İ// c l IL ı v s ; ı \ l ı ı i ı ı..·ı , it ı..: s ı. \ ; ır ı lı ll ii l i ıı ıı iı 1 11111 1 ı, '' '" t/ f ı ! r 1 1 1 '}/ 1 1 . I I )I I ' 1 i l ! / { )ı ı;, I )1 ( Jı lf{.,. •\ il 'f'İ j ~r 1ntrod uction Scco nd Word War produccd major changes in Ro mani a's general situa­ tion. The in clusion in th c sov iet sph ere of influence produced both political and soc io-cultu ra l dc ve l o pnıcnt s, which marked the future of the country for th e ncx t five dccadcs. The paper brings in to li ght so me infornıation on the foreign policy, which evolvcd fr o nı tota l s ubnıi ss i o n to So vi et puıvo ses and objectives to a certain degree of autonomy. Thi s paper is nıad e ofthree parts. The fırst is dedicated to prescnting Ronıania 's po li tical status after the Second World War, which dcternıin e d its inını cd i atc options at the end of the war. The second part refers to Ro nı a nian foreign po li cy durin g the period of absolute influence of USSR , whil e the third is concern ed with the autonomous phase. 1. Romania 's status at the end of Second World War in identify in g tlı e dircctions that were fo ll owed in Romanian foreign po licy after th e Second Wo rld War is necessary to take into account the new status of the co un try in th e post war peri od. A general overview surprises Sov iet troops stationed in Romania, a country abandoned by the Western powers, whi ch nıad e th e evolution of Romania to resemble that of the other satellites of tlıc USS R. The first stage of the conı muni s t regime in Romania (1944-1958) was defin eci by Stephen Fi sher-Ga lati as a period of destruction of Romanian national ideo logy, which was labeled as "bourgeois", concomitant with the dimini s hnı e nt of nati onal sovereignty that took place because ofthe Soviet 1 nıi li tary occupation" • The same period was described by Michael Shafir as 2 a one of "primitive accumu lation of legitimacy" by the Communist Party , and by Ke nn eth Jowitt as a process of "brcakthrough", ırnır k c d by total destruction of those va lu es, structu res or behav iors consid crcd by tlıc co ııı ­ muni sts as potenti al sources of resista nce or altern ati vc cc nt crs or powcr'. in retrospect, we see that th e second half of thc twc nti cth cc ntury brouglıt 1 Stcphen Fi sc her-Ga lati , Th e New Ru111a11ia. Fmm Peopll.' \ /) c 111n um:ı- 111 S11c i11/i.ı ! Rep11blic, Ca nıbrid gc , Massachu ssctts ln s ı i tut c of"Tcc lın o l ogy l'n::ss, 1%9 . p. l .\.'i. 2 Miclıa e l Shafir, Rumania. Politics, Economics. and Soci<:lr. />11/iti u ıl Sı r ı g 11 11ıi11 11 (//Jd Si111ulaı ed Clıwıge, Lo ndon, Bo uldcr, Franccs Pinler, 1985, p. 5(ı. 3 Kcnn eth .J ow iıt, R e voluıionaı y B reakı/ırouglı s a11d Nuıion o / O e n-!11p111 e 11ı . Jlw ( 'uıı · o/ Ro111 a11 ia , 1944- 1965, Bc rk clcy, Los Angelcs, U ni ve r s iı y o f" C ıli fo rıı ia l'ı css . 197 1. p. 7. r ;o ı ı :. iıleratio11,: 011 tlıe /)n·c!op111<·11t o/ l foııırıı ı iı111 hır,• ig11 Po !icy dııriııı; Cmm1111 11 i:;1 P.-riocl 10 ] the eastern half of Europe a political regime imposed by the Soviet Union with the support of Red Army. After the war, the issue of spheres of influence moved from the military fıeld to diplomacy. Moscow recommended the new Communist Eastern European countries to continue to work with career diplomats, as they needed their experience and relations in signing Peace Treaties. During the interwar period, the South-Eastern and Central Europe had close ties with Western democracies, particularly France mainly because their diplomats were trained in Paris. Communists in Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary needed these networks, given that their states were labeled as defeated. Therefore, the new communist governments have been careful with the "democratic reform" of their Foreign Ministries. Career diplomats were kept in jobs until the signing of the Peace Treaty because their experience was vital in negotiations. However, after the signing of the Treaty, their role has ended and the communists began to remove them using various means. ln Romania, after the peace treaty was signed (February 1947), the Communist Party propaganda started to attack the Foreign Minister George Tatarescu, who subınitted his resignation on Noveınber 6th. in this context, sorne Romanian diplomats (Gafencu, Visoianu) left the country by mid-1946. After Ana Pauker became Foreign Minister, Romanian foreign policy moved away from traditional partners and focused almost exclusively on the USSR and the socialist camp. Pauker's influence is reflected in the mimetic behavior of the embassies staff which looked for the Soviet guidance in ali their actions. There are numerous diplomatic reports, notes or diaries where is frequent the mentioning of the need to have a recomrnended action by the Soviet representative in that country before the Romanian personnel dare to take any action. A fter ıh c c kın gc ofth c Fo r c i g ıı Ministry leadership diplomats were called back lo ılı c counlry ı ·rnııı l'or c i g ıı ıııi ss i o n s . in t lı c i r pl ; ı cc s wcr sent new pco plc, w lıonı l <ı c k c d s p cc i<1 Iİ /.cd t r ; ıiıı iı ı g. so lll L' u ı · ı ıı c ııı h c iıı g rcc ru itcd <ı nı o n g fo ctory work crs. Tlı c y lwd lı ; ırd s l ı i p s iıı iııt cg rati ııg llı L' ri go rs o ı · d ip l o ııı ;ı li c lilC <1 11d rulcs. in lıi s ııı c ın oir s , M ilı ; ıİ l h.' ıı i u c , ı ·o rııı c r Ro ııı ; ı ııi ; ııı <1 nıb as s ador , wrot c ; ıh o u t thc s it tı<ı ti oı ı ol' t lı c c ı ıı h ;ı ssy !'roııı Musco\\' ;ın d ınc nti o ncd tlı a t tlı c ıı c \ v cın p l u y cc s \\·ere c o n s t ; ıı ı ıl :-"· di s s ;ı ti s ll c d a ı ı d iı ıs tıh ­ or d i ırnt c tu nıl cs aııd r cg u l ; ıti o ıı s r c qtıir c d by d ipl o ın ; ı cv ' . 1 IVl ilı : ıi l k ni ı ı c . .\ 11/ı 1)(1/m ıli !'f11/11 ri ı f 'f/ 7 / 1) 7 ~ ). l \u c ı ı ı "L· ~ ıı . h li ıu r: ı I P ı ı l ' fr,1<ıi ıı . \ <J<)').