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:

1. 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;
2. 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;
3. 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…

Accelerated through the fear from the attacks of 9/11 and all what followed, the so called ‘Western Society’ is constructing the greatest wall ever build on this planet. On different building sites on all five inhabitable continents, walls, fences and high-tech border surveillance are under construction in order to secure the citizens and their high quality of life within this system. The fall of the Berlin Wall was described as the historical moment that marks the demolition of world’s last barrier between nation states. Yet it took the European Union only six years to create with the Schengen Agreement in 1995 a new division only 80km offset to the east of Berlin.

“Every state needs its own Balkan”

With this words philosopher Slavoj Žižek started his lecture on ideology and the fall of state borders. The lecture was given in Italian Gorizia which was until 2007 a border town with Slovenia and is a well known habitat of Italians and Slovenes. From this point of view, the place for discussing such a topic could not be better. Žižek, “the superstar” appeared in front of the fully packed theatre in his typical, a bit nervous manner and made us think about today’s presence of borders. Having in mind a Europe without boundaries, he pointed towards the difference between the physical and mental presence of borders. The latter is more difficult to remove and is usually transferred from one generation to another in a process known as mental mapping . ‘Balkan’ in the European mental perception presents ‘the other’. However, ‘Balkan’ is nowhere, if we approach it from the position that no one wants to belong to it. But at the same time every state needs its own ‘Balkan’ for dividing itself from the others.

The geographical category has been even more intensively labeled as a scapegoat after the last conflicts, often wrongly presented as perpetual, unforgettable clashes between different ethnic groups. The situation was in a false way presented in Kusturica’s Underground, where the former state is shown as a place of passions, alcohol and sexual desires. The place where memories rule and ancient hatreds exist. Žižek negates this with the idea that people that were involved in a conflict were also able to forget about past events and continue to trade and exchange goods regardless of the crimes committed. He claims that the reasons for the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia should be sought in a crisis of legitimacy of leading party nomenclature after the death of Tito and not in a hypocritical apolitical plot of the Underground and its picturesque simplifications of the carnival state. However, the time for the carnival arose latter, with the rule of Milošević which, under a totalitarian surface established a situation in which everything was allowed.

Slavoj Žižek

Žižek claims: “What we need today is not more understanding, but more distance.” Physical borders fell too fast and societies have not been culturally prepared for such a proximity which can result in clashes and reactions. In this sense, he negates a liberal idea of multiculturalism and he rather advocated his position with the image of “the house with many floors in which people live together but not necessarily interact”.

The lecture was concluded in a rather worrying tone. Under the illusion that the borders are disappearing, they are actually rapidly growing. State of emergencies keep appearing in political discourses (e.g. Italy in July 2008) and this should be taken into consideration very carefully. The globe is more dangerous than ever before. Not in a typical old way, but with the presence of biotechnology, ecological catastrophies and similar issues, more sensibility is needed if we don’t want to live in a total misery in the next 30 or 50 years.