Four years after its accession to the EU, Romania is facing its first big test: the accession to the Schengen zone. Part of the accession treaty, but conditioned by the fulfilment of clear technical criteria regarding border management and security, the accession of Romania and Bulgaria was scheduled to take place in March 2011. But, as we all know, the EU seldom functions by written Treaty rules only. Instead, it is all about a perpetual horse-trading, formal and informal negotiations and- not to be neglected- political games. The old Member States know this game all too well and naturally use it to their advantage. The new Member States (and I cant help wondering how much longer we will be calling them “new”, after 7 and respectively 4 years from accession) are still learning. And like in every learning process, some pupils are learning quicker than others.
Unfortunately Romania proves to be one of the slow learners and the way it is handling the Schengen accession issue is a very good illustration. After France and Germany made it clear that they would rather see Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession postponed to a later date when the two countries will be better prepared, bringing as the strongest argument their still very corrupt justice system, Romania decided to take a strong position. That would be all perfectly justifiable, especially given the fact that technically, it is ready to join the Schengen area, if only Romanian politicians had benefited from the socialisation process in the last four years and had learned how to properly use the rules of the game in their favour. Instead, the messages Romania has been sending in the last days come across as desperate childish attempts to threaten the EU with blocking ongoing processes such as Croatia’s accession (on the pretext that any future Member States should also have a Co-operation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), like Romania and Bulgaria do) and the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty amendment allowing for the new 18 MEPs to take their seats in the European Parliament. What Romania is naively trying to achieve with this is to “hurt” France and Germany (although it is Spain that benefits the most from the additional MEPs), but such statements and, even worse, actions fit much better in a kindergarten than in the EU arena.
What Romania is proving in the last days is that:
- it has not learned anything in the last four years about how the EU really functions, what are the main institutional players, what is the balance of power and how can one best influence the decision-making process; and here I mostly refer to the informal mechanisms, the things one learns by doing, the product of the so called “socialisation process”, although I still have doubts about how clear the formal mechanisms are to Romanian politicians, and the latest developments are only reinforcing these doubts;
- it lacks a coherent strategy to reach the goal of Schengen accession; after the EU accession process was completed, the various political forces in Romania have not been able to work together to create a constructive position for Romania to assume at the EU level; instead, contradictory messages from Romanian officials kept reaching Brussels, each one defending its domestic political position, without even realising the harm they do to Romania’s image and interest. In a sense, one can say that all these inconsistencies and the lack of a clear official stance fueled the arguments against the March 2011 accession. Romania has thus shot itself in the foot, thanks to the messy internal political scene but also to the ignorance (and lack of interest) regarding the functioning of the EU and the role Romania can and should be playing in it;
- its officials lack tact and diplomatic skills; not that this is any news, but this situations proves once more the inability of Romanian politicians and diplomats to, first of all, prevent such incidents from occurring and, secondly, once they’ve occurred, to try to suggest reasonable solutions or at the very least (and I am really lowering my expectations here!) refrain from making ridiculous statements. Not only was it bad enough that the Foreign Minister said that Romania can, and probably should, unilaterally withdraw from the CVM, President Basescu suggested yesterday, while assuming his responsibility for the possible postponing of Schengen accession, that in case Romania is not offered a clear and definite deadline to join Schengen, the funds that were meant to be used for securing the borders should be used for other purposes, such as helping SMEs. No comment.
While, on the one hand, it does not seem fair that new conditions are added while the process is ongoing (the criteria are, after all, just of a technical nature, although, in principle, one can easily link corruption with border security), Romania should have been prepared for such a situation and should have come up with a lobbying strategy for the major EU capitals instead of the lame attempts to blackmail the big Member States with issues that can, at best, only backfire and hurt the country’s image in the EU. Unfortunately, this is just an example of Romania’s negotiation “skills” (or lack thereof) in the EU arena; if this trend continues, Romania can forget about ever exerting any influence (despite its size) in the decision-making process. The first lesson it needs to learn is how to use the power of informal mechanisms in its favour instead of falling victim to it, like in the Schengen accession story.
Update 7/1/2011: According to EUobserver, Romania’s president Basescu announced that Romania would not take any of the proposed retaliatory measures (see above) because they could “backfire against Romania”. But Basescu also complained about the lack of solidarity: “It was overnight and without a warning. I would have expected that one of my colleagues in the Council – either Mr Sarkozy or Ms Merkel – to say ‘look, Mr President, we will be against it.’ But they didn’t and you know that normally in the Council there is talk about solidarity.” Be that as it may, early warning is also the task of the Romanian diplomats in Brussels…
Four years after its accession to the EU, Romania is facing its first big test: the accession to the Schengen zone. Part of the accession treaty, but conditioned by the fulfilment of clear technical criteria regarding border management and security, the accession of Romania and Bulgaria was scheduled to take place in March 2011. But, as we all know, the EU seldom functions by written Treaty rules only. Instead, it is all about a perpetual horse-trading, formal and informal negotiations and- not to be neglected- political games. The old Member States know this game all too well and naturally use it to their advantage. The new Member States (and I cant help wondering how much longer we will be calling them "new", after 7 and respectively 4 years from accession) are still learning. And like in every learning process, some pupils are learning quicker than others.
Unfortunately Romania proves to be one of the slow learners and the way it is handling the Schengen accession issue is a very good illustration. After France and Germany made it clear that they would rather see Romania's and Bulgaria's accession postponed to a later date when the two countries will be better prepared, bringing as the strongest argument their still very corrupt justice system, Romania decided to take a strong position. That would be all perfectly justifiable, especially given the fact that technically, it is ready to join the Schengen area, if only Romanian politicians had benefited from the socialisation process in the last four years and had learned how to properly use the rules of the game in their favour. Instead, the messages Romania has been sending in the last days come across as desperate childish attempts to threaten the EU with blocking ongoing processes such as Croatia's accession (on the pretext that any future Member States should also have a Co-operation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), like Romania and Bulgaria do) and the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty amendment allowing for the new 18 MEPs to take their seats in the European Parliament. What Romania is naively trying to achieve with this is to "hurt" France and Germany (although it is Spain that benefits the most from the additional MEPs), but such statements and, even worse, actions fit much better in a kindergarten than in the EU arena.
What Romania is proving in the last days is that:
it has not learned anything in the last four years about how the EU really functions, what are the main institutional players, what is the balance of power and how can one best influence the decision-making process; and here I mostly refer to the informal mechanisms, the things one learns by doing, the product of the so called "socialisation process", although I still have doubts about how clear the formal mechanisms are to Romanian politicians, and the latest developments are only reinforcing these doubts;
it lacks a coherent strategy to reach the goal of Schengen accession; after the EU accession process was completed, the various political forces in Romania have not been able to work together to create a constructive position for Romania to assume at the EU level; instead, contradictory messages from Romanian officials kept reaching Brussels, each one defending its domestic political position, without even realising the harm they do to Romania's image and interest. In a sense, one can say that all these inconsistencies and the lack of a clear official stance fueled the arguments against the March 2011 accession. Romania has thus shot itself in the foot, thanks to the messy internal political scene but also to the ignorance (and lack of interest) regarding the functioning of the EU and the role Romania can and should be playing in it;
its officials lack tact and diplomatic skills; not that this is any news, but this situations proves once more the inability of Romanian politicians and diplomats to, first of all, prevent such incidents from occurring and, secondly, once they've occurred, to try to suggest reasonable solutions or at the very least (and I am really lowering my expectations here!) refrain from making ridiculous statements. Not only was it bad enough that the Foreign Minister said that Romania can, and probably should, unilaterally withdraw from the CVM, President Basescu suggested yesterday, while assuming his responsibility for the possible postponing of Schengen accession, that in case Romania is not offered a clear and definite deadline to join Schengen, the funds that were meant to be used for securing the borders should be used for other purposes, such as helping SMEs. No comment.
While, on the one hand, it does not seem fair that new conditions are added while the process is ongoing (the criteria are, after all, just of a technical nature, although, in principle, one can easily link corruption with border security), Romania should have been prepared for such a situation and should have come up with a lobbying strategy for the major EU capitals instead of the lame attempts to blackmail the big Member States with issues that can, at best, only backfire and hurt the country's image in the EU. Unfortunately, this is just an example of Romania's negotiation "skills" (or lack thereof) in the EU arena; if this trend continues, Romania can forget about ever exerting any influence (despite its size) in the decision-making process. The first lesson it needs to learn is how to use the power of informal mechanisms in its favour instead of falling victim to it, like in the Schengen accession story.
Update 7/1/2011: According to EUobserver, Romania's president Basescu announced that Romania would not take any of the proposed retaliatory measures (see above) because they could "backfire against Romania". But Basescu also complained about the lack of solidarity: "It was overnight and without a warning. I would have expected that one of my colleagues in the Council - either Mr Sarkozy or Ms Merkel - to say 'look, Mr President, we will be against it.' But they didn't and you know that normally in the Council there is talk about solidarity." Be that as it may, early warning is also the task of the Romanian diplomats in Brussels...
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by kosmopolit, kosmopolito. kosmopolito said: Romania’s clumsy way to Schengen http://bit.ly/emZKYE [...]
Your position is not correct. Maybe our government is clumsy, but Romania had fullfiled the conditions for the acces in Schengen.And a aspect ignored by all commentators is the fact that Romania it’s a poor state of EU and the amount of money spend for the access in Schengen it is big. We romanians we’re ready to accept their not ethical opinion, but the real problem is the the spending of our money .That’s the reason that those countries hide the favourable reports of European Commision in the matter of Schengen & Romania.So when Germany & France will compensate the financial efforts and the good results of our country, people of Romania will be ready to admit arguments about corruption etc.Otherwise everyone will be thinking that Germany&France work in this problem with a hidden agenda.
I never claimed that Romania did not fulfill the technical criteria for the accession to the Schengen area. My point was that the government did not see it coming and was clumsy in reacting to it in a diplomatic and efficient way. Moreover, Romania is tied with Bulgaria on this issue and it is only possible for them to join the Schengen area together, which is quite unfortunate for Romania at the moment, as Bulgaria is not yet fully prepared. As for the cost of accession, how would you calculate it and do you have any statistics on that?
[...] writes about Romania's “clumsy way” to the Schengen zone. [...]
Hi!
Very interesting. I wonder if this controversy is part of a larger problem. I really think that Eastern Bloc integration perhaps’s not resulting as expected.
Enzensberger told the Spanish press that East – and Turkey – integration was part of a U.S. policy for weaken the EU.
I don’t agree with conspiracy theories but the slowness that you mention, could indicate that enlargement was precipitated?
Regards.
1) Considering options is not something that’s necessarily bad. They never said that they would block Croatia’s ascension, but they did consider it. In politics everyone considers their options. Their fault (one of the many, and unfortunately not the biggest one), was not being prepared for the scenario. They clearly had a disappointing reaction. Then again, so did the Bulgarians, who even said initially that they would attempt to join the Schengen area without Romania. Noble as it did sound, it wasn’t exactly doable due to simple geography. I don’t think that they were prepared to add 400-500km of Schengen border to their protected area overnight, especially since most of it is over the Danube, which is hard to protect.
2) Lack of tact and diplomatic skills. While I do tend to agree to some respect on that, I would also like to point out that there are some bigger examples straight from the Western side of the EU. The handling of the Roma in France (a clear violation of the fundamental laws of the EU) would be a good example, and a related one since quite a lot of them are of Romanian origin. Silvio Berlusconi, Nicolas Sarkozy, while clearly charismatic and rather enjoyable on TV (at least for non-Italians/non-French citizens) don’t exactly show a lot of tact, with private, national or EU-wide matters.
3) Contradictory messages and lack of a coherent strategy. Here’s another example: recognition of Kosovo. Spain didn’t recognize it (it already has the Valencian community and the Basque province to deal with, they shouldn’t give them any ideas), Andorra, Greece & Cyprus, Slovakia and, last but not least, Romania. All the countries listed above (and others) have internal disputes regarding the level of autonomy of some provinces and they voted in their national interest as opposed to the EU interest.
I agree that both countries are technically ready (while I have minor doubts about the OTP airport). I agree that the reaction was chaotic. I don’t agree that this is out of norm in the EU, it’s been known to happen before. Plus, we’re still new at this, right?
My take on this: it’s not a big deal. We weren’t Schengen state members until now, it’s not a big deal if we won’t be for some more time. I do travel a lot and it’s in no way inconvenient for me. It might be for the transport industry though, but the lack of motorways has a higher cost on them anyway. On the other hand, I do believe that it costed the ruling party (vague parliamentary majority, prime-minister and president) the few votes, if any, that they had left for future elections. That might explain their show of strength for the TV cameras.
Don’t worry, the true Romanian diplomats (the ones that got us in the EU) will be coming back in the next elections. They are worthy successors to Nicolae Titulescu.
Kind regards,
Răzvan
The Balkans countries should get rid of EU and form the Balkans Union, the most strategic point for further business.
The border protection in Schengen area won’t stop the Muslim Invasion of Europe. Muslims are already 20% from Central Europe population and they got there by airplane. Romanians fought the Turks since middle ages and will continue to make history in this regard. I totally agree that Romanians don’t need EU and the Balkan Union is the best money making solution.
Which country are yo from Anda?
Why would that be important?
Anda,
Thank you for your replay!
Let me to introduce myself: I’m a young Romanian who has traveled, lived on three continents and who have had the opportunity to work and interact with more than 100 nationalities under an International renowned business corporation at beginner level career for the moment. I have seen the world with good and bad altogether. I’ve made great friends around the world and I always invite them with pride to visit my country and Europe. I learn something valuable from every place or person. Here are the most of them: listen, think, learn, do and never judge.
I knew that Romania was a candidate to Schengen area and I want it to get to know more about it. I have seen news on Google’s first search page from BBC, Reuters or various European representatives. The news were not in high spirits for both Romanians and Bulgarians – but were to the point and professional presented.
But there was the headline from “Kosmopolito – The Blog with the European perspective” that caught my attention. I couldn’t stop thinking why the author has so recklessly name it.
I do believe that a professional journalist who attempts to engage in such large scale subjects and furthermore identifying himself with “European perspective” even at blogging level should take responsibility for the articles contents.
The freedom of speech used via various channels of communication was one of the greatest achievements of our democratic system, yet in this particular Kosmopolito article about Romania and as in many others it has been used to instigate towards hate and discrimination instead promoting European values as tolerance, care and understanding.
Back to the article – the latest social and political events on Northern Africa and Arab world which provoked mass migration have had an increased negative influence and an unfortunate timing on Bulgaria and Romania ascension additionally it has created divergent opinions between actual Schengen member states regarding free movement within EU with Holland at the point to restore border checks.
Beside the technical procedures which were accomplished, there were other aspects that France and Germany has introduced which were not used as criteria in previous Schengen enlargements. In addition to that was the lack of open and constructive communication towards Bucharest and Sofia. As far as I comprehend politics I do agree with you on that the communication at EU level needs to be improved towards both 2004 or 2007 members.
I wouldn’t agree with you totally regarding on how Romanian political scene has reacted, moreover getting to know that France has had such an unexpected and great opposition. One thing is true Romania has more things and challenges ahead to overcome but has the potential and the people to do it. Maybe more guidance from older EU member states will be highly appreciated.
Like everywhere in Europe from West to East or North to South tackling corruption is a real dispute. Imagine that for Eastern communist countries like Romania or Bulgaria is even more difficult due the economical challenges encountered.
Today June 9, 2011 I read the admission has been rescheduled latter this year or spring 2012 despite an overwhelming YES vote from European Parliament. So be it, we will move on keep doing improvements and hope for the best to come.
I hope in the future Anda you will be able to write about things using the – think out of the box – principle and also using a larger perspective. If you believe that you are in position to offer assistance or support (and I strongly believe that you are) then do it by finding the right ways and in a constructive manner otherwise restrain yourself to do harm to other people. Also avoid associate yourself with “European perspective” if you are not able to embrace it!
I believe that overall media had become just another greedy and corrupt tool eager to collect: fame, readers, clicks and money by taking advantage of others distress, pain or problems. Sad but true!
Alex
Hello,
I have been in Romania for quite sometime. So I have a few questions would be happy to get answers for.
First question: What has been the effect of Romania joining the EU?
Reason I ask is because I understand most of farming(all kinds) have been destroyed in the name of quotas. Now Romania has to import these from countries rich Western countries who hold the maximum quotas for these. If the quotas were not in place and Romania could grown its own products, perhaps they would cost much less. See this in the context that the average salary in Romania is a fraction of that in Western Europe. But the average Romanian is forced(Because of the quotas) to pay the same price for food as the Westerners. Is this fair? Why does Romania want this?
Second question: Does Romania need Schengen?
Romanians being part of the EU now can move freely even now. Romanian businesses are part of the EU and have the same rights and freedom as the western countries. All this without the Schengen. Schengen only helps immigrants like myself, not the Romanians directly. Yes it might help boost trade, but for that to happen the infrastructure should be good, if not world class. So till that happens, I do not see how Schengen can help Romania in the near future.
Final question:Isn’t Romania allowing itself to be manipulated further by the Western countries in trying to join the Schengen? This is paving way for a kind of western colonialism, isn’t it?
While it is true that corruption and justice system should be reformed in Romania, it should NOT happen because others ask for it, this would result only in an artificial and only cosmetic change. But will not bring true change of hearts. The change should happen because Romanians themselves want it. This will take time. But the process should be internal and organic. The civil society should become more vocal and active in forcing the political call and the bureaucracy. I hope we will get to see an active civil society soon in Romania.
You couldnt be more on the level
[...] across its border. Their accession was blocked earlier this year in January, which also saw inept diplomacy by [...]
Aderarea la UE este foarte scump. De ce lupta Ministerul de acceptare a procedurii de Schenger? Băsescu are dreptate atunci când spune că costul ridicat al aderării la UE. Băsescu şi susţinătorii săi trebuie să treacă mai întâi o socio – politică economică? Traian Băsescu creează o impresie falsă în ţările UE. Aderarea la UE este foarte scump. Dar cum financeerd contribuţia Ministerului român de la UE? Eu locuiesc în România de cinci ani şi, prin urmare, cred că ştiu despre scris. Opinien mea: bogaţii se îmbogăţesc şi săraci obţine mai sărace. Traian Băsescu ar trebui să normal social-democrate a politicilor. Departamentul de nu se poate ridica in mod constant preţurile, fără compensaţie a salariilor şi a pensiilor. Social-Democrat de gândire implică: 1) Toţi cetăţenii trebuie să aibă o sănătate de bază, indiferent de venituri. 2.) Toţi cetăţenii trebuie să aibă dreptul la un beneficiu financiar. 3.) Un salariu minim şi un beneficiu minim să fie introdus. 4.) Toţi cetăţenii au dreptul la o viaţă sănătoasă normală. Este un cetăţean nu poate, indiferent de motiv, atunci de asistenţă financiară pentru cetăţean şi Ministerul municipalitatea poate solicita
Deci, acum am văzut oameni de multe ori complet financiar la rochii şi dezavantajaţi de către Ministerul. De aceea nu este surprinzător faptul că sărăcia şi criminalitatea merg împreună.
De sănătate şi o viaţă socială normală este dreptul cetăţenilor într-o societate democratică. Mi-e dor în acest Roemenien. De sănătate poate şi nu poţi cumpăra. Până în prezent, am constateerd că multe persoane bani de la ultima lor de a colecta costurile de asistenţă medicală pentru a plăti. Se pare că, uneori, centrele medicale pentru a compara cu Kaufland si Bila.
De ce ar trebui UE, cu România problema Schenger, chiar dacă România nu acceptă străini. Rasismului şi a discriminării este starea de lucruri. Un exemplu. Cel mai mare rascist şi discriminarea am întâlnit în Banca BRD. Am vrut să facă afaceri cu această bancă. Am fost bun venit la banca. Mai târziu am aflat că nu am nici un drept. Pot depune şi retrage bani. Internet Banking a fost, de asemenea, în onoarea de RFG şi pachetul de asemenea, un card de credit de aur. Dar am putut vedea doar cu banca mea de internet cât de mult am bani în contul meu. Cu “carte de aur” I-ar putea retrage doar de bani. În două luni am avea un total de 280 de euro plătite pentru serviciile bancare.
Când am fost un împrumut la Banca BRD devreme, banca a declarat: “Putem Kredit nu uaan va da pentru că nu sunt vorbitoare de limba română, nici românească.” Şi am putea menţiona mai multe lucruri care nu sunt acceptabile în gândire democratică.
Este timpul pentru minister (de multe ori format din oameni cu comonistische achtergroend), pentru a face loc pentru tineri cu gândire democratică.
Străinii care locuiesc în Roemenien au aceleaşi drepturi ca şi cetăţenii de Roemenien.