THE PRESIDENT
Thank you
very much, Mr Băsescu, for your most interesting address. Members
of the Assembly have expressed a wish to put questions to you.
I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds
and no more. Colleagues should ask questions and not make speeches.
The first question is by Mr Vareikis, on behalf of the Group
of the European People’s Party.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania)
You talked
in your speech, Mr President, about national minorities in Romania
and Romanians who live outside the country. As a former rapporteur
on Moldova, I want to ask you about the issue of so-called passportisation,
or issuing Romanian citizenship to Moldovans. The numbers cited
by various sources in this regard differ, sometimes by up to 10
times. What is your country’s long-term policy on that issue?
Mr Băsescu, President of Romania (interpretation)
said that Romania had a principled approach to the quality
of citizenship which now entitled citizens and their relatives to
regain citizenship in a manner which had not been previously possible.
This applied to people living in the USA, France, Germany or any
other country, and represented a marked departure from the communist
era in which, if you left Romania, you lost your citizenship. Between 1990
and 2010, 170 000 people had re-acquired their Romanian citizenship.
Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland)
According to Article
80 of the Romanian Constitution, you, Mr President, should exercise
the function of magician between state powers as well as between
the state and society. How do you respond to the increasing number
of accusations that, on the contrary, you have in recent years been minimising
the role of parliament, breaking the independence of justice and
refusing any dialogue with opposition groups? As a sign of protest,
opposition members in the Romanian delegation to this Assembly are not
present here today.
Mr Băsescu, President of Romania
Are you a socialist?
Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland)
I am from the
Polish social democrat party.
Mr Băsescu, President of Romania (interpretation)
said that he had not asked which country Mr Iwiński was from,
but merely whether or not he was a socialist. In his experience,
socialist parties did not respond well to invitations to participate
in joint events. He had not asked the members in question to leave
the room, in fact it was his understanding that they had chosen
to absent themselves. He wondered whether it perhaps had something
to do with the fact that an opposition politician had the previous
day been arrested for fraud in Romania, details of which could readily
be found in the Romanian press. Unfortunately, these parties never
wanted to discuss anything, and it was possible that Mr Iwiński
had been misinformed by his ideological colleagues.
Mr SOLONIN (Russian Federation) (interpretation)
said
that Mr Băsescu’s answer to Mr Vareikis had not cast much light
on the situation. He wondered whether, in fact, Romania’s objective
was to merge with Moldova in order to create a greater state.
Mr Băsescu, President of Romania (interpretation)
said that Romania had no experience of annexing or desire
to annex any country.
Ms GUŢU (Moldova) (interpretation)
thanked Mr Băsescu
for his speech and his tireless support of Moldova in its European aspirations.
As President of a country which had itself been monitored for 15
years before accession, she wondered what Mr Băsescu thought of
Moldova’s chances of acceding to the European Union as part of the Western
Balkan package.
Mr Băsescu, President of Romania (interpretation)
said that this was a political battle that they would fight
together. Moldova would indeed become a member of the European Union
when it was ready. Romania’s strategic goal was to persuade colleagues
in the European Union to allow Moldova’s accession at the same time
as the Western Balkan nations. The interest taken by the European
Union in the recent Moldovan elections had demonstrated the seriousness
with which Moldova was being considered by the European Union. He
hoped that the newly-elected government would continue to work towards
that objective.
Mr PETRENCO (Moldova)
Mr President,
today Romania is the only country in Europe, and in the world, whose
authorities openly do not recognise Moldovan identity, stating that
all Moldovans are in fact Romanians. You personally have declared
many times that the Republic of Moldova is a second Romanian state,
refusing to sign the basic political treaty between two neighbouring
countries or to recognise the state border between Moldova and Romania,
and accepting only signing the technical document on this issue.
Do you not think, Mr President, that these attitudes and this official
position are a serious challenge to stability and security in this
part of Europe, as well as a real obstacle in the Transnistrian
conflict settlement process?
Mr Băsescu, President of Romania (interpretation)
said that he had to remind Mr Petrenco of a few facts. The
current border had been set following the Treaty of Paris in 1947
and Romania had never questioned that border. Indeed, in 1991, Romania
had been the very first country to recognise Moldova as an independent
state and she never tired of supporting it in reinforcing the territorial
integrity of the Transnistrian region. Romania was not a member
of the Five-plus-Two Group, which was responsible for these matters,
but fully supported its objectives. Romania had never tried to take
territory from Moldova, and he noted that the question supposed that
his country did not in fact respect its borders. Romania fully accepted
the Treaty of Paris and had, more recently, signed a newer border
agreement. He asked what more they could be expected to do.
Mr FOURNIER (France) (interpretation)
reminded President
Băsescu that France and Germany indicated that they were not in
favour Romania joining the Schengen area in March 2011 because of
its failings in preventing migratory flows and drug trafficking.
He stressed that this was not an attack on Romania’s aspiration
to accede to the Schengen area in the medium term. He asked President
Băsescu what more Romania could do to assure its accession to Schengen
in 2011.
Mr Băsescu, President of Romania (interpretation)
remarked that he had a short answer and a long answer. The
short answer was that Romania had fulfilled all its obligations
and had addressed the issue in the same manner as had the European
Union. The longer answer was that Romania’s agreement to enter Schengen
was part of the acquis communautaire which
applied to all member states, and it set a dangerous precedent if
states suddenly received more obligations with which to comply a
few weeks before a decision was made on their accession.
He could prove that Mr Fournier’s question was incorrect,
since Romania had done everything it could to fight corruption and
he would provide the figures to support his case. In the previous
five years, 51 customs officers and more than 120 border police
had been arrested and prosecuted for corruption. He urged Mr Fournier
to monitor developments in Romania in February.
Mr POZZO di BORGO (France) (interpretation)
said that President
Băsescu that, until 2009, Romania had seen many years of economic
growth. Then, as on the rest of the continent, there had been an
economic slowdown. The result was that 23.4% of the population still
lived in poverty and 33% of the population faced severe material deprivation.
He asked President Băsescu what he intended to do to reduce those
figures.
Mr Băsescu, President of Romania (interpretation)
disputed the figures because they did not take account of
alleviation measures introduced in 2010. He conceded that the figures
were from EU sources but those sources did not take into account
the full situation in Romania. For example, 90% of houses in Romania
were privately owned. What was the figure for France?
There had been an economic boom in Romania between 2004 and
2008, then, in 2009, the economy had fallen by 7.4% and again by
1.9% in 2010. He anticipated that there would be a slight recovery
in 2011. The boom and bust had taught Romania a tough lesson. The
economic boom had been based on excessive consumption and on real
estate. Romania had now learnt to base its economy on sustainable
development and real investment. As a result of the slowdown, Romania
had had to introduce some tough measures, including a 25% reduction
in civil service salaries, a new tax on pensions and an increase
in the retirement age from 62 to 65 for men and from 58 to 63 for
women. Measures had been taken to broaden the tax base. Together,
these measures increased the likelihood of sustainable economic
development in Romania. He acknowledged that they might lead to
accusations that Romania was no longer a “social” country with a
place in “social Europe” but Romanians considered it essential only
to live within their means and not to borrow in order to speculate.
Ms STAVROSITU (Romania) (interpretation)
noted the unconditional
support given by Hungary to Romania’s accession to the Schengen
area. She asked the President what the basis was for his belief
that Romania would soon accede to Schengen and what was his opinion
on the new education law and on the measures he had taken to protect minorities?
Mr Băsescu, President of Romania (interpretation)
said that, as the Head of State of Romania, it was his duty
to support Romania’s accession into Schengen in line with the treaty.
There was a clear commitment for Romania to accede in 2011 and the
experts agreed that this ought to go ahead. There was therefore
no reason to abandon the objective.
The new education law was the most open in the European Union.
The law meant that there was no obstacle to a child being taught
in his native language. This was the first time such a law had been
introduced and it granted significantly greater protection to linguistic
minorities. There were 20 official minority groups in Romania, all
of which were represented in the parliament. The education law meant
that, if a child could not be taught in his native language in his
resident community, the state would provide transport to a school
with the right language skills. He suggested that, since European
Union officials only ever discussed the negative impact of legalisation,
the fact that they had not mentioned this policy meant that, in
their eyes, it had no negative impact.
Mr BÉTEILLE (France) (interpretation)
recalled that,
on 16 December 2010, the Commissioner for Human Rights had written to
the Romanian Prime Minister to express his concerns about the treatment
of the Roma in Romania. The letter had called for a plan to tackle
problems of education, social welfare and discrimination which affected
the Roma. He accepted that, in the current economic climate, it
was not easy for states to make resources available for such matters,
but he nonetheless asked what Romania was doing to improve the treatment
of the Roma people.
Mr Băsescu, President of Romania (interpretation)
said that there were officially 500 000 Romanian citizens
who were Roma. The reality was that 1.5 million Roma were also Romanian
citizens. Between 2000 and 2010 Romania had introduced a strategy
of integration. Since education was the only viable method of ensuring
the long-term integration of the Roma, Roma children had been exempt
from the exams which allocated places at schools. The result was
that there were no restrictions on the schools that Roma children
could attend. In addition, a separate government department for
Roma integration had been established. Unfortunately, it had became clear
in 2010 that the strategy had failed and did not justify the financial
investment involved. The problem was not a matter of resources for
much of the funding was provided by the European Union; the problem
was finding a long-term solution which worked.
A new strategy, to run between 2011 and 2015, was to see the
department for Roma integration become part of the Ministry for
Interior Affairs. The Romanian Government had discovered that previous
efforts had failed because of excessive centralisation. Moving the
department for Roma integration into the Ministry for Interior Affairs
would provide stronger links with local governments which he hoped
would be beneficial: previous strategies had not engaged sufficiently
with local authorities and had only interacted with NGOs.
Mr KALMÁR (Hungary)
I should like
first, Mr President, to welcome you to the Council of Europe. According to
the European Union, by 2013 you will have to redraw the borders
of the regions in Romania. This should comply with the NUTS 3 standards.
When Romania takes this decision, do you intend to take into account, besides
the EU recommendations, the historically, culturally and ethnically
distinct nature of the cities in these territories? Will it be possible
even to change the territories of the departments if that seems
necessary?
Mr Băsescu, President of Romania (interpretation)
said that Romanian policy makers universally considered that
they could not agree with a theory of autonomy based on ethnic criteria.
Romania was increasing local autonomy: the police were managed at
a local level, as were hospitals and museums. The new Education
Act delegated management of schools to local authorities. Local
authorities had powers of taxation. He envisaged greater local autonomy
within Romania and thought that the process of decentralisation
was more advanced in Romania than some other European Union countries.
Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary)
The Council of
Europe documents on regionalism and autonomous regions make it clear
that regional autonomy is not a danger but a guarantee of greater
political stability. It is part of the Council of Europe’s values.
South Tyrol is a perfect example. Since the unjust Treaty of Trianon,
a great number of Hungarians have been forced to live in Romania
and their fate has been unresolved. In 2007-08, there was a referendum
in Szeklerland – in Hungarian, Székelyföld – and 99% of the people
voted in favour of creating an autonomous region there. Is the Romanian
state ready to implement this status for Szeklerland, which is inhabited
by more than 600 000 people who have their own specific cultural
and historical tradition, and who share the Hungarian language and
identity? When will you start to negotiate with the representatives of
this community, the Szekler National Council?
Mr Băsescu, President of Romania (interpretation)
said that he would like Romanians in Hungary to enjoy the
same rights as Hungarians had in Romania.
THE PRESIDENT
Thank you
very much. We must now conclude the questions to Mr Băsescu. Mr President,
on behalf of the Assembly I thank you most warmly for your interesting
address and for the answers that you have given to questions.
