Parteneriatul strategic dintre România şi SUA: istorie şi semnificaţii geopolitice
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Romanian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Cluj-Napoca
Presa Univ. Clujeană
2010
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Abstract Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| Beschreibung: | Zsfassung in engl. Sprache |
| Beschreibung: | VI, 528 S. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. |
| ISBN: | 9789735951122 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV036884621 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20131023 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 110103s2010 abd| |||| 00||| rum d | ||
| 020 | |a 9789735951122 |9 978-973-595-112-2 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)706853235 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV036884621 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a rum | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Toboşaru, Nicolae |d 1957- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1081571810 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Parteneriatul strategic dintre România şi SUA |b istorie şi semnificaţii geopolitice |c Nicolae Toboşaru |
| 264 | 1 | |a Cluj-Napoca |b Presa Univ. Clujeană |c 2010 | |
| 300 | |a VI, 528 S. |b Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache | ||
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 1996-2008 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Außenpolitik |0 (DE-588)4003846-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Partnerschaft |0 (DE-588)4026924-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a USA |0 (DE-588)4078704-7 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Rumänien |0 (DE-588)4050939-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Rumänien |0 (DE-588)4050939-4 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a USA |0 (DE-588)4078704-7 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Außenpolitik |0 (DE-588)4003846-4 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Partnerschaft |0 (DE-588)4026924-3 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 4 | |a Geschichte 1996-2008 |A z |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020799924&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2 |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020799924&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |f 09049 |g 498 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |f 0904 |g 73 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |f 090511 |g 498 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |f 090511 |g 73 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 300 |e 22/bsb |f 090511 |g 498 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 300 |e 22/bsb |f 09049 |g 498 |
| 943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-020799924 | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1812649249827979264 |
|---|---|
| adam_text |
ABSTRACT
Introduction
At the turn of the 21st century Romania experienced a historical
transformation process from a communist type of society to a capitalist
one. It was a process that caused the reformation of the Romanian
society, the implementation of democratic values, and the integration of
our country into the fundamental Western institutional structures
represented by NATO and the
EU.
These objectives represented the
options of the majority of our society regardless of the parties' political
doctrines and ideologies. To these, a third objective was added:
establishing a strategic partnership with the USA-the first and only
world superpower-during an exceptional period-on 11th July
1997.
The significance of these events, both real and discrete, represents
the main motivation for approaching this topic. The research work
started from ambitious plans. I was interested especially in revealing the
historic aspects of the partnership between
1996
and
2008
and the
geopolitical and strategic implications on the two parties involved. In
this book, my purpose is to describe the circumstances that determined
the decision of the two states to set up a strategic partnership and the
historic, doctrinal, political, and security principles that allowed its
implementation. I was also interested in identifying and characterizing
the partnership's functional parameters. The conclusions of my book
would like to offer a larger and more detailed perspective on the present
and future historic relationship between the USA and Romania and a
notable support for publicizing the new directions and approaches of
the bilateral agreement.
Being aware of the impossibility of embracing a complete approach
of the partnership, which represents the entire bilateral relationship, a
clear delimitation of the analysis was necessary; thus, the book focuses
on the period between
1996
and
2008.
The two landmarks,
1996
and
2008,
symbolize the years of change in the paradigm of the bilateral
partnership, the beginning of
Emil Constantinescu's
Presidential
Administration, as well as the year decided upon by the author himself
453
Parteneriatul strategie
dintre România şi
SUA
in order to ensure a minimal historic perspective on the issue. The
analysis of the subject is not limited to these time boundaries. The book
deals with the period before
1996
by referring to the history of bilateral
relationships and it also refers to the year
2009
in order to provide
further information.
In my book I concentrated mainly on Romania's position in this
relationship. The information regarding the USA was introduced in
order to complete the analytical context that had led to our country's
position. My objective was to identify the most important directions in
the development of the partnership without an extensive analysis of the
different programs of the bilateral cooperation. Three factors played an
important role in deciding which aspects to analyse: the short period of
time (almost insignificant) between the events and their historic analysis,
the general database (sophisticated, but poor in content), the secret
database (with restricted access to the public), and the lack of research
into this topic among Romanian scholars.
The book consists of four chapters regarding the historic evolution
of the situation, the historic relationship between Romania and the USA,
the history of the bilateral partnership and the geopolitical significance
of this relationship. A final chapter containing some conclusions was
added to the book.
I. Historic Perspectives
The number of books published on the Romanian-American
partnership is extremely small. Actually, there are only two works
published by Romanian authors: a book published by General Cornel
Paraniac, Ph. D. and entitled The Strategic Partnership between Romania
and the USA and my book The Strategic Partnership between Romania and
the USA-History Fragments in Interviews. The first book, although a high-
quality premiere, did not benefit from a very wide distribution in
bookshops and the academic environment. The research is limited to the
year
2002
without dealing with the impact of the events on H"1
September
2001
on the Romanian-American relationships.
Unfortunately, the author completely ignores the contribution of
President Constantinescu's Administration and the achievements of the
project, in this way affecting the depth and the aspects of the approach.
The second title represents a collection of interviews taken by the
author from different political, diplomatic, and military personalities
írom
Romania, people directly involved in the birth and development of
this partnership: the first three Romanian democratic presidents
ministers Adrian
Severin, Niculae
Spiroiu, and Gheorghe Tinea, and
diplomats Napoleon Pop and Victor Micula. In spite of the restrictive
conditions of the National Archives Law, the book's aim was to make
available specific information to the public by relying on an instrument
of the media accepted by researchers of recent historic events: the
interview. This allows direct and interactive access to the information
possessed by the historic participants, but obliges the historian to be
objective and careful about distortions.
Mircea
Mureşan
and Gheorghe
Văduva
are the authors of the book
The Partnership Strategy, the Strategic Partnership which analyses the
partnership from a more general perspective: as a type of relationship in
the international context of the time. Occasionally and indirectly, the
subject was taken up in some memoirs by some Romanian political
personalities. An important role in the study of the partnership was
played by the political analyses made by
Ovidiu Şincai
Studies Institute
regarding Traian
Băsescu's
Administration. All in all, I consider that the
historiography of the topic in the Romanian scientific and publishing
environment is only at the beginning.
In what the American contribution to the study of the partnership is
concerned, we can notice its complete absence with the exception of one
memoir where the event is mentioned without any development.
Politics researcher Ronald
Asmus
expressed some remarks in his book
Opening NATO's Door. The informational contribution of this book has
to be mentioned. The lack of an American historiography dedicated to
the Romanian-American partnership has at least two causes. On the one
hand, it is due to the restricted archive access and on the other hand, it is
due to Americans' reduced interest in the topic. The Final Report of the
International Commission for Action represents a document which richly
completes the database for the analysis of the activities undertaken by
The American-Romanian Action Commission.
As mentioned before, one of the major difficulties in writing this
book was the small amount of information made available to the general
public. The arbitrary application of the law regarding the free access to
information of public interest drastically restricts the access to official
documents. Regarding recent history, this shortage was greatly
455
Parteneriatul strategie
dintre România şi
SUA
compensated for by the official resources of the USA, Romania and some
international institutions presented to the public: the documents of the
Presidency, Government, and Parliament and the declarations of some
officials.
The belated computerization of the Romanian institutional data was
countervailed by the opposite situation in the USA. The materials found
on the web (varied and thoroughly checked from the point of view of
their accuracy) were an abundant source of information.
IL
Launching the Strategic Bilateral Agreement
-
Historic Development
The purpose of this chapter is to give an answer to the question: is
this partnership the natural outcome of a historic evolution of bilateral
relationships? Or is it rather a spontaneous and accidental aspect of
history? The answer is that the partnership is not an accidental event. It
is the result of a series of realities and the beginning of a new chapter in
the history of the Romanian-American alliances and partnerships. Even
though the partnership has no precedent in the history of bilateral
relationships, it has a real historic support represented by the wide
range of events taking place before
1997.
It was a remarkable action
carried out in spite of the geopolitical differences between Romania and
the USA.
In my book, the research is organized on two levels: revealing the
common points in the bilateral relationship and identifying the relevant
aspects of the historic and geopolitical context before the partnership. In
identifying and describing the events, I started from three characteristics
of the partnership: i) the partnership was a premiere for bilateral,
regional, and sub-regional relationships; ii) Romania's decisional
autonomy and its spirit of initiative;
iii)
the significance of the
partnership for bilateral, historic, and geopolitical realities.
From the point of view of the first characteristic, the approach is
structured according to two periods:
1859-1989
and
1990-1996
(the
beginning of President
Emil Constantinescu's
Administration). The
period between
1859
and
1989
includes the following most important
events: the visit of the first American Consul to Romania two months
after the unification of the Romanian Principalities and Richard Nixon's
visit in
1969,
the first visit of an American president to a communist
456
Istorie şi semnificaţii
geopolitice
country. The latter was the starting point in the initiation of the bilateral
treaty based on the principles of the most-favored-nation clause. This
treaty, if accepted by the USA, would have been the first extremely
important diplomatic, political, and economic event. The correspon¬
dence between the Romanian external policy doctrines announced on
26th April
1964
and President L.B. Johnson's "bridge-building" doctrine
on 23rd May
1964
should also be mentioned.
From the point of view of the third criterion, I took into conside¬
ration three important elements: i) events relevant for the bilateral
agreement; ii) events relevant from a geopolitical and multilateral point
of view, and
iii)
the remarkable support provided by the public opinion.
Consul Romertze's presence in
Galaţi
in
1859
and The National
Patriotic Mission's attempts to found a Legion of the American Romanians
during the First World War are two relevant examples of bilateral
relationships. The contacts between Corneliu
Mănescu
and Dean Rusk
in October
1963
and the American reaction to Romania's position during
the events of the years
1964
and
1968
can be added to the list. Launching
the Action Program for Romania in February
1964
to support the
application of Corneliu
Mănescu
for the position of high dignitary at the
United Nations in
1967
by President L. B. Johnson's Administration is
another example of the relationships existing between the two states.
The diplomatic relationships between the USA, Romania, and the
Democratic Republic of Vietnam for ending the Vietnam conflict and the
support given to Romania to adhere to the International Monetary Fund,
the World Bank and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in
1971
and
1972
are other examples.
The third element, namely the public opinion, is best exemplified by
the phenomenon "Americans are coming!" with its variants:
Transylvanians' "We will go to America!" during the 19th century, "We
will flee to America!" during the entire communist period, "We will
emigrate to America!" after
1989
and "The Americans are here!" after
2005
when the first American soldiers arrived to Romanian military
bases. The emotional implications on Romanians during the visits of
American presidents to our country were obvious and undeniable.
Between January
1990
and
29*
November
1996,
the bilateral
relationship developed through two channels: a direct channel and
NATO. During the first years after December
1989,
the USA focused on
the process of the German reunification, the democratization of Russia,
the inclusion of the six states belonging to the
Visegrad
Group into
ict
Parteneriatul strategie
dintre România şi
SUA
occidental structures and redefining their position in the European
security system.
The superficiality and confused attitude of the Romanian leaders
between
1990
and
1993
together with the oscillating politics between the
West and the East were overcome in
1994
when Romania adopted a
strong position regarding the
EU
and NATO. The founding of the
Bilateral Working Group on Military Problems on 11th October
1993,
the
support provided by the USA to some consistent military assistance
programs for Romania and our accession to the Peace Partnership
Program on 26th January
1994
confirmed the beginning of post-
communist bilateral relationships.
In a nutshell, the process of clarifications, adaptations, and
quantitative and qualitative accumulations in Romania's relationships
with its neighboring countries, the USA, and the states included in the
European and Euro-Atlantic structures began in the period
1990-1996.
This process triggered and sustained the actual configuration of
Romanian and American interests. The main element was the military
implication with a clear aim: Romania's accession to NATO.
The Romanian relationship was conditioned by the geopolitical,
national, and European context. The reconfiguration of the Central and
Eastern European ex-communist states (conflictual or consensual) and
the quick birth of new sub-regional differentiations (mainly the
Visegrad
Group) marks this context. The European community did not wish and
was not ready for the integration of this region while Russia wanted to
restore its influence on the neighboring countries by founding the
Commonwealth of Independent States, strategic maneuvers in the
Balkans and the ex-Yugoslavian countries, and trying to establish pan-
Slavic unions on the coasts of the Baltic Sea and the Adriatic Sea. The
USA, which was consolidating its status as first and only world
superpower was asked to mediate the situation in the Western Balkans,
thus solving for NATO the dilemma "out of area or out of business"
while configuring its own geopolitical, strategic, and energy interests in
the
Pontic
and Caspian regions.
Emil Constantinescu's
Presidential Administration marked the
maturation of the rapports between Romania and the USA creating the
benefic
circumstances for a strategic partnership. Thus, Romania found
the necessary resources in the middle of violent, fluid, and
unpredictable realities outside an articulated and secure system. A
considerable part of these resources was provided by the two centuries
458
Istorie
şi semnificaţii
geopolitice
of political relations with the USA correlated with common interests at a
given time: the values symbolized and promoted by the USA and the
Romanians' desire for security, welfare, and freedom.
III. The History of the Romanian-American
Strategic Partnership
This chapter consists of
5
sub-chapters. The first sub-chapter's
purpose is to analyse the partnership's political and diplomatic
foundations. The partnership is seen as an instrument of collaboration
and a way of establishing relationships in an international context.
Taking into consideration its recent and various uses, an integrating and
generally accepted definition has not been given yet. A possible
definition is that a partnership is an association between two entities to
achieve some common or convergent goals; the nature and the resources
of these goals may have a strategic significance. The partners may have
different characteristics and a different status, implying states and
groups of states, organizations, and sui-generis international structures
which can form even intercontinental partnerships (e.g. The Euro-
Mediterranean Partnership) and global partnerships (e.g. Global Partnership
Forum).
Their purposes are directly connected with the assumed objectives
and their presence embodies this kind of relationship. The aims of such
partnerships may be oriented towards one or several interests, either
identical or complementary. In time, the initial aims of a partnership
may be changed or completed through an agreement. The good results
°f a partnership depend on common purposes, internal cooperation,
equal treatment, credibility, predictability, and the permanent
communication between the parties involved. Usually, the initiation of
such a project is made by the party which has a more imposing identity.
There are some exceptions, however, and the Romanian-American
strategic partnership is the perfect example.
Naturally, the appropriate outcome of a political decision requires
the structuring of a mechanism that can function well. There are no
political and diplomatic norms in this respect. According to politician
Adrian
Severin,
the structures and the names of the partnerships may be
varied, but the most important elements are cooperation, collaboration,
consultation, and informing the partner. The different action programs,
Parteneriatul strategie
dintre România şi
SUA
institutions, and organizations are more practical instruments. The
capacities to implement decisions, to identify the ways and means of
actions, to mobilize and allocate resources are determined by the
strategy adopted, being directly influenced by the objectives and the two
partners' doctrines and political and security strategies. In its evolution,
the partnership underwent a series of stages. The partners' freedom of
action influenced directly the names and the nature of these stages.
The process starts with the identification of common sections,
problems, objectives, and a potential partner. It is then necessary to
adjust to the potential partner's perspectives and interests and to
implement the decisions of the partnership. Certainly, there is a final
stage of de-structuring the relationship and the mechanism. The causes
may vary: starting from achieving the objectives and ending with a
change of the objectives (even their incompatibility). There are two other
possible steps in a partnership: that of normalizing the general
relationship between the partners as a necessary condition in case of a
negative development of the relationship in history and the reactivation
(or intensification) of a partnership when the concrete and necessary
requirements for such a process are fulfilled.
The temporal dimension has a triple conditioning: i) the degree to
which common interests persist, ii) their consistency, and
iii)
the period
of time planned and/or necessary for their fulfillment. From this point
of view, we can notice the existence of relationships with clearly defined
limits of time as the Romanian-French partnership (planned for
5
years)
or for an undefined period. One of the causes for using this way of
establishing relationships is the fact that it has a lot of advantages as it
does not have to obey the regulations of international public laws. Thus,
the lack of a legislative interference in a partnership's ratification offers
the Executive a greater freedom and more efficiency in foreign affairs by
avoiding the rigors and constraints of the international regulation.
The partnership was promoted as a way of establishing
relationships by the USA starting with the last decade of the 20th century
when the American bipolarity was replaced by unipolarity. It is the type
of relationship that allows the overcoming of political, economic, and
strategic barriers and offers better communication channels.
Partnerships permit the direct exploitation of compatibilities and they
constitute an excellent operational instrument in an ever-changing
international context.
460
Istorie
şi semnificaţii
geopolitice
The Romanian-American partnership has two main characteristics.
The first is the fact that the partnership was launched during an official
and public political declaration, a gentlemen's agreement in other words.
The second is that the American partner did not conceive the
relationship only as an intergovernmental relationship, but it also took
into consideration the civil society. The bilateral partnership is not a
contradictory political attitude and it is not against the doctrinal and
strategic foreign policies of the two states.
Moreover, when the terrorist attack on 11th September
2001
shocked
the public opinion, the two countries found the resources for the
continuation and development of the relationship. In order to create a
better picture of the relationship, I structured my work according to the
periods of time represented by the Romanian and American Presidential
Administrations and I extended the analysis to the period
1990-1997
by
taking into consideration the fact that the major purpose of the
partnership was to prepare Romania for the integration into NATO.
I relied on four documents when approaching the Romanian
doctrine between
1989
and
1997.
The first one is the National Salvation
Front's Message to the Country (22nd December
1989)
which supported
the decision taken by the Treaty of Warsaw. This document was
followed by The Integrated Concept regarding Romania's National Security
together with the Military Doctrine. These two documents did not
contain any provision in connection with a special relationship with the
USA. The National Salvation Front's Program The Future Today
(1992)
included contradictory information without any concrete measure. The
integrated concept regarding national security (April
1994)
was adopted
by The Supreme Council for Self-Defense, but it was not approved by
the Parliament. Although subsequent to our Peace Partnership, it did not
refer to a partnership with the USA. In spite of all these, President
Iliescu's Administration started programs of bilateral military
cooperation with the USA as the integration into NATO became more
evident. For the period
1997-2008,
I took into consideration the
programmatic documents of foreign policy and national security
mentioned in the Government's Emergency Ordinance no.
52
issued on
12th August
1998
and Law no.
473/4*
November
2004.
Emil Constantinescu's
Administration changed the way of relating
to the USA, a change proved by the strategic partnership (July
1997).
Launched in
1999
and approved by The Supreme Council for Self-
Defense, Romania's National Security Strategy-Democratic Stability, Durable
461
Parteneriatul strategie
dintre România şi
SUA
Economic
Development
and Euro-Atlantic Integration considered this
relationship as a way of adding to our country's security in foreign
affairs. The governmental programs of the three Prime Ministers
between
1997
and
2000
together with the Government's White Charter-The
Romanian Army
2010-Euro-Atantic
Reform and Integration and The Military
Strategy issued in
2000
mentioned the strategic partnership with the
USA more or less. I consider that these documents are a proof of the
changes in the Romanian doctrine and foreign affairs between
1996
and
2000
due to the influence of the strategic relationship with the USA.
Ion Iliescu's second presidential mandate marks the issue of
Romania's National Security Strategy guaranteeing democracy and
fundamental liberties, sustained and durable development, integration
into NATO and the
EU
(approved by the Parliament on 18th December
2001).
Issued after 11th September
2001,
it refers to the strategic
partnership with the USA as the main direction in Romania's foreign
affairs and the participation to the global fight against terrorism. The
doctrine of the geopolitical and security realities not included in these
documents were supported by a series of documents of The Supreme
Council for Self-Defense and Parliamentary Decisions (e.g. The Decision
of The Supreme Council for Self-Defense issued on 11th September
2001
proclaiming that Romania would act as
a defacto
NATO member and an
ally of the USA and The Decisions issued on 19th September
2001
and 30th
April
2002
regarding the Romanian participation to the operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq as an American partner). The Government added
its own actions (The Agreement with the USA on
1st
August
2002
regarding the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, starting
the negotiations for a future dislocation of the USA Army on Romanian
territory and the Letter of the Ten states, members of the Vilnius Group to
sustain the military campaign in Iraq).
Although the Presidency's doctrinal and political orientation
documents did not define clearly the state's policy, the documents
issued by the Government and the Parliament generated historic actions
never experienced before.
Traian
Băsescu
started his presidential mandate on 21st December
2004
and initiated a strong foreign policy based on the so-called
Washington-London-Bucharest Axis and a strategic partnership. Thus,
Romania declared again that it would respect its previous engagements
in connection to the USA (even without the Parliament's approval of The
462
Istorie şi semnificaţii
geopolitice
National Security Strategy-adopted by The Supreme Council for Self-
Defense on 29th March
2007
with no reference to the bilateral agreement).
The President's Counselor on national security issues, General
Constantin Degeratu
confirmed the American doctrinal support in
building the Romanian strategy. Our presence in conflict regions, the
politics and strategy for the Black Sea region and signing the Access
Agreement with the USA were the concrete actions generated by this
obvious pro-American orientation. The foreign policy strategy presented
by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 20th January
2005
named the
bilateral partnership an essential and privileged action point. After
Romania's invitation to adhere to NATO and especially to the
EU on
1st
January
2007,
the position of the partnership with the USA in the
documents referring to foreign policy and security matters became less
visible although the political practice and the strategic realities of the
Romanian state remained on the same coordinates. I consider this a way
of diminishing the impact of the Romanian pro-American attitude by the
EU due
to the promotion of community solidarity.
The clear differences between the pro-European attitudes of C. P.
Tăriceanu's
Cabinet and the pro-American attitudes of the Presidential
Administration represent a unique reality in the Romanian political
perception of the post-revolutionary period. The existence and the
operations carried out due to the strategic partnership with the USA
influenced profoundly Romania's national security policy and its foreign
affairs between
1997
and
2008
as a result of the common interests of the
two states. No doctrines or national strategies had ever treated the
relationship with the USA as an alternative or substitute to Romania's
integration into NATO. The treaty was not regarded as a purpose in
itself, but as a way of sustaining fundamental national interests. In spite
of the common interests and objectives, Romania did not give up on its
own traditional doctrinal orientation and the best example is the refusal
to recognize Kosovo's independence sustained by the main Euro-
Atlantic members including the USA.
Romania's post-communist process of geopolitical redefinition
required a great effort of establishing relationships from our country in
spite of the historic differences in economic development and resources.
The partnership could have served such a purpose. The aim of my book
is not to provide a detailed description of the six bilateral strategic
partnerships signed with Italy, Hungary, Great Britain, Spain, France,
and South Korea after
1997
by Romania. However, I would only like to
Parteneriatul strategie
dintre România şi
SUA
underline the fact that these partnerships (with their characteristics)
added to the significance of the Romanian-American partnership.
My analysis is based on four elements: i) the characterization of the
documents that initiated and prepared the relationship, ii) the specific
instruments, mechanisms and relating principles,
iii)
the purposes
decided on, and
iv)
the characteristics of each partnership. Even though
these relationships are extremely complex because of the nature and the
number of objectives and the resources used in the activities carried out,
none of them reaches the complexity of the Romanian-American
partnership and its significance (this is mainly due to the unique
geopolitical and strategic position).
In analyzing the functional and constitutional parameters included
in the partnership with the USA, I took into consideration the
instruments, mechanism, statuary and functional principles, the
objectives and the actions involved, as well as the different stages of
evolution. I would like to underline the numerous values and
significances of many of these parameters. The research is structured
according to the different presidential administrations between
1997
and
2008.
Each period of time (namely each presidential administration) is
characterized by different doctrines, strategies and government
programs which influenced the evolution of the relationship. The
analysis of the three presidential administrations was preceded by the
identification and the research into the period before the partnership
(22nd December
1989-29*
November
1996).
In the survey, I started from
the periods characterized by unitary features, either during a well
defined period (that of presidential administrations) or several periods
(e.g.
Ћге
Intensified Strategic Partnership started on 3rd February
2000).
The objectives assumed by the two parties correspond to four
domains: i) Romania's economic and political reform, ii) regional and
sub-regional consolidation of security,
iii)
the reform of the Romanian
Army and military cooperation, and
iv)
the protection against
unconventional risks. The participation in the fight against terrorism
was added to this list after
11*
September
2001.
I identified four categories of common Romanian and American
objectives: i) general, common, and permanent objectives mentioned by
State Vice-Secretary Marc Grossman on 16th January
1998,
ii) common
objectives during a certain period or event (e.g. the integration into
NATO until
2004
or the participation to the anti-terrorist campaign after
2001),
iii)
different objectives (e.g. the American policy in connection
464
Istorie
şi semnificaţii
geopolitice
with the stabilization of the pro-Occidental processes in the South-
Eastern European region and the support provided to the pacification of
the ex-Yugoslavian region together with Romania's attempt to obtain a
plus of security, even informal, through the partnership with the USA),
and
iv)
objectives related to a certain field.
The partnership had a double function: that of instrument and
operational mechanism, both from the point of view of its structure and
actions. The conceptual instruments of work, which constituted general
functional principles, were consulting, coordination, and continuous
cooperation. Regarding action oriented instruments, I can mention:
political and diplomatic documents and actions, governmental working
structures (e.g. The Partnership Committee, The Bilateral Working Group on
Military Issues) and parliamentary working structures (e.g. The Support
Group for the Strategic Partnership with the USA). Non-govemmental actors,
such as The USA-Romania Action Commission, were also key elements.
The mechanisms used were the permanent consultation, information
flow, and interaction between the American State Department, the
Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Presidents of the two
states. There were high level annual sessions of The Partnership
Committee, meetings due to an important event, or meetings of the
Romanian representatives belonging to the Committee on a monthly
basis and the meetings organized by the Romanian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs with the other ministries. One of the main principles in setting
up the partnership was the equality between the two partners.
The general principles are accompanied by a set of principles
characteristic for each state: conceptualizing the relationship, attributing
strategic characteristics to the initiative, covering the set of bilateral
relationships, eliminating the possibility that this arrangement should
constitute a formal guarantee of security from the Americans.
The USA insisted on simultaneous governmental and non¬
governmental activities. Adrian
Severin
synthesized the functioning
Principles in the formula C3I in which C3 represents cooperation,
consulting, and coordination and I represents providing information.
For the period
1996-2008,
I dealt with each period
oí
development
separately by identifying the prominent participants, the two partners'
main objectives, the actions planned and carried out, and the main
historic coordinates. Thus, I identified three main periods during
Emil
Constantinescu's Administration: i) between 29th November
1996
and
И*
July 1997-configuring the partnership, ii) between
11*
July
1997
and
Parteneriatul strategie
dintre România şi
SUA
3rd
February 2000-launchig and activating the partnership, and
iii)
between 3rd February 2000-20th December 2000-intensifying the strategic
partnership.
The identification and the nominalization of the first two stages
were made by the author himself in an attempt to reflect the analysed
historic realities in a scholastic manner. The principle factors I would
like to mention were the main politicians and the governmental
institutions of the two states. The military and external relationship
structures played an important role. President
Emil Constantinescu
and
the Minister for Foreign Affairs Adrian
Severin
had a determinant role
in conceptualizing the partnership together with operational
participants (The American-Romanian Action Commission-the main non¬
governmental structure formed ad hoc). The permanent action
directions were decided upon at the reunion held on 4th-5th October
1997
in Bucharest.
In my opinion, during a difficult historic event,
Emil
Constantinescu'
s
Administration changed the relationship with the USA from the role of
partner within the Peace Partnership Program to that of direct partner on
11th July
1997.
In spite of the lack of an official framework document, the
relationship proved its viability and efficiency. This reality does not hide
the reduced capacity of the Parliament to sustain and consolidate this
segment of the relationship and the inability of the Romanian party to
sustain and develop the non-governmental component of the
partnership.
Moreover, there was a reduced capacity to exploit the new economic
opportunities made available by the strategic partnership with the first
global superpower. Ion Iliescu's second Presidential Administration was
marked by
G. W.
Bush's appointment to the White House, the terrorist
attack on 11th September
2001,
and the accomplishment of the main
objective: the integration of Romania into NATO. The Administration
took over and developed the main objectives and the instruments of
Constantinescu's Administration, the continuation of the relationship
being promoted by the Americans as well.
After inviting Romania to become a member of NATO on 21st
November
2002,
the strategic bilateral partnership enters a new stage
-
The Strategic Partnership between Romania and the USA as NATO Allies.
The Romanian Parliament confirmed itself as a major factor in
developing the strategic partnership with the USA through important
successive legislative documents sustaining the Romanian participation
466
Istorie şi semnificaţii
geopolitice
to the global anti-terrorist fight led by the USA. By taking part in this
campaign Romania consolidated the position of its army and the
military and security establishment as two main participants in the
Romanian-American relationships and as active instruments in our
external policy. Unofficial participants were Brace P. Jackson and
Ronald
Asmus
who contributed directly to the development of the
Romanian-American strategic relationship. The fundamental initial
objectives, declared and reconfirmed by the new Presidential
Administration, were completed by an active fight against terrorism.
Furthermore, the procedures for Romania's integration in the
American plans to change the position of its global military forces were
accelerated. Consequently, the actions were adapted to these new
objectives and described in the partnership's New Action Plan. The pro-
American attitudes caused Romania and other ex-communist states,
members of the
EU
or the Vilnius Group, to come into conflict with a
series of European states (e.g. France and Germany) which promoted a
different view on the issue of a military campaign in Iraq.
All in all, this period marks a great and profound development of
the relationship. Due to the terrorist attack on 11th September
2001
and
the strategic partnership with the USA, Romania adopted a series of
significant attitudes such as: acting as
a de
facto member and ally
oí
NATO and the US, taking part in two conflictual regions with military
support, signing an agreement regarding extradition to the International
Criminal Court, signing the letter sent by the Vilnius Group sustaining
the American policy in Iraq, and offering itself officially to host
American military bases in Romania.
Traian
Băsescu
started his presidential mandate on 20th December
2004.
Thus, the strategic partnership entered a new stage of
development. The President became a promoter of the relationship; the
Romanian Army consolidated its position as an active and important
participant. New participants appeared as for example American think-
tanks (The German Marshall Fund of the U.S. or The Project on Transitional
Democracies). Other important elements disappeared (the USAID in
2007
when Romania became a member of the
EU).
Continuity will remain the main characteristic of the relationship,
both from the point of view of the actions and the objectives. However,
the geopolitical realities will trigger others: Romania is trying to gain
access to the Visa Weaver Program, increase the influence on the
467
Parteneriatul strategie
dintre România şi
SUA
decision making process of its partners and determine their receptive-
ness regarding major topics for our country.
The American partner wanted to consolidate Romania's partici¬
pation in the global antiterrorist fight, the Nabucco Project and the
expansion of NATO to the Black Sea area. Both partners opened two
new directions. The first direction is the integration of the Black Sea
region with an important component in energy supplies and security. In
this respect, President
Băsescu
launched the idea of a Washington-
London-Bucharest Axis and then The Black Sea Forum for Dialogue and
Partnership and it supported the American intention to offer Ukraine and
Georgia The Action Plan for Accession at the NATO Summit in Bucharest.
The USA encouraged the Romanian policy connected to the Black Sea
region, brought military devices to Romanian military bases, constituted
The Black Sea Trust Fund for Regional Cooperation and sustained the
organization of the NATO Summit on 2nd-4th April
2008
in Romania. The
second direction is the launching of The Romanian-American Foundation
for Supporting Education and offering scholarships to Romanian students
within the frames of a project worth
$ 1
bn. The relationship started to
experience a slight change of focus from political, military, and security
issues to education and the youth. For the first time in its post-
communist history, Romania was experiencing two unique political
situations due to G. W. Bush's Administration, namely the dichotomy
between President
Băsescu
and Prime Minister
С. Р.
Tăriceanu
due to
Romania's participation in The Will Coalition and the Parliament's
decision to suspend the President based on the Social Democratic Party's
motion. The participation in the coalition had previously been
mentioned when talking about the Washington-London-Bucharest Axis
without consulting the Government and the Parliament. Furthermore,
for the first time after launching the bilateral strategic partnership,
Romania sustained an opinion contrary to that of the USA and the
majority of Western states in an extremely serious matter of external
policy: that of not recognizing the independence of the Kosovo region.
In conclusion, I consider that this partnership was developed from
all points of view although the military and strategic elements are the
most visible and consistent. The Romanian party managed to channel
some of the resources represented by the relationship with the USA
towards the Black Sea area and to attract new American economic and
financial investments.
468
Istorie şi semnificaţii
geopolitice
However, the
economic
relationship did not develop to its full
potential, the visa system remained restrictive, and Romania caused
antagonist relationships with Turkey and the Russian Federation. I think
that it is essential to approach the factors that influenced the strategic
relationship with the USA in my book as it is necessary to underline the
importance of the common interests on both sides in maintaining the
partnership, any modification of their content affecting its parameters
and continuity. The analysis describes the nature of these factors
(political, economic, judicial, and procedural and human and natural
catastrophic factors), the typology (factors with general and systemic
effects influencing the general state of the relationship), the factors with
effects on certain sectors (with random or well programmed effects), and
other effects (favoring, accelerating, and deepening the strategic
partnership with the USA or slowing it down and even stopping it
completely). All these factors can co-exist causing extremely complex
outcomes. Certainly, the future development of the project can modify
this range of factors.
IV. The Geopolitical Importance
of the Strategic Partnership with the USA
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the geopolitical meanings
of the partnership. I organized my work according to three important
aspects: i) the geopolitics of the strategic partnership, ii) the implications
of the relationship on the geopolitical and strategic post-communist
characteristics of Romania,
iii)
the geopolitical and strategic implications
of the partnership on Romania's relationship with the
EU.
The first
aspect includes an analysis of the geopolitics in the relationships and the
implications on Romania's main interests. I considered it necessary to
answer the question if the partnership had the significance of a certain
important geopolitical action which could justify such an analysis. I
consider that the partnership has important dimensions. Romania's
geographic position, the historic aspects, its geography and the
economic and demographic realities make it an important actor in
South-Eastern Europe and the Black Sea region. The Pontic-Baltic Bridge
played an impressive role in the area of the Eastern European border.
Our position in the region represents an unquestionable aspect in the
roles our country had to play in history: from the role of eastern
469
Parteneriatul strategie
dintre România şi
SUA
European frontier of the
Roman
Empire and the
European
Christianity
under the siege of the Ottoman Empire to the position of an occupied
country included in the European communist block with no relevant
geopolitical importance and playing the role of a buffer state without
being included in a geopolitical and strategic organization during
1990-
1997.
This shift of roles has determined the existence of three types of
Romanian political actions: i) Romania promoted cooperation and
alliance axes between the East and the West, ii) our political actions were
confused and not well structured, and
iii)
we adopted defensive political
actions built on trilateral and multilateral sub-regional structures. The
partnership had a substantial impact on Romania's neighboring regions
and the sub-regional processes with effects on regional and global
realities.
In this chapter, I also analysed the degree to which this partnership
is a strategic one and in what way the requirements for this
characteristic are fulfilled starting from the declarations of the two
parties involved (Romania and the USA officially declared it to be a
strategic partnership) and ending with the nature and the importance of
the actions carried out, the objectives, resources, and effects involved.
The unique geopolitical position of the American partner completes the
argumentation.
The second main interest was represented by the implications of the
partnership on Romania's geopolitical and strategic profile after
1997.
It
is difficult to make a clear distinction between the effects of the
programs introduced by the partnership with the USA and those
initiated due to Romania's transition process. There are different causes
that led to this. For example, the partnership covers the whole spectrum
of a bilateral relationship and it was initiated on 10th October
1993
with
the birth of the Bilateral Working Group on Military Problems. My opinion
is that Romania's desire to be accepted into NATO was one of the main
interests in creating this new geopolitical profile.
The analysis is structured according to two periods:
1997-2004
and
2004-2008.
Between the years
1997
and
2004,
the partnership i) constituted the
frame of the national security system even if the decision did not include
any reference to a formal security support for the Romanian state being
a complex support, but only informal, ii) motivated the status of NATO
member and ally of the USA, a unilateral political attitude in spite of the
lack of doctrinal specifications, and
iii)
contributed to Romania's
470
Istorie şi semnificaţii
geopolitice
transition from the position of buffer state belonging to an non-
integrated area of the European continent to that of Eastern Euro-
Atlantic border.
In conclusion, Romania experienced a transition from the role of
beneficiary of the partnership with the USA to that of sponsor of the
relationship and effective supplier of services and benefits to its partner.
Between
2004
and
2008
the strategic partnership led to Romania's
geopolitical consolidation in the Black Sea region (which was
undergoing a full, but slow process of re-defining itself from a
geopolitical and strategic point of view). In my opinion, the partnership
i) represented the starting point of the Washington-London-Bucharest
Axis and the support for The Black Sea Forum for Dialogue and Partnership,
and ii) ensured Romania's integration in the world system of American
military bases after
2005.
The 3rd direction regards the relationships existing between
Romania and the
EU.
I focused on the periods mentioned above because
the time elapsed between Romania's accession to the
EU on
1st January
2007
is too short to be considered relevant. Certainly, I tried to take into
consideration the most important elements. Thus, the year
2004
represents both our integration into NATO and the end of the
negotiations for being accepted into the
EU.
The
EU
does not have any
common security and foreign policy doctrine and there is no common
positioning of its members regarding such matters. This is why I
considered necessary to name the group of states, as well as the
structure of the
EU
during the events and processes. The relationship
was influenced by two factors: on the one hand, objective factors
determined by the logical development and the succession of the
processes (unique, in their way) of the society and the primary and
stable national interests of the European democracy and on the other
hand, subjective factors which are connected to the personalities that
conceived and conducted these processes or collateral ones.
The two processes of integrating Romania into NATO and the
EU
took place at different moments in time. In spite of this, there is a strong
and complex relationship between the two generated by the set of
common values, ideals, and interests characteristic for the Euro-Atlantic
democracies and the fact that both processes imply the same states and
personalities. I would like to underline the fact that the two events took
place between groups of states constituted on geographical and
geopolitical criteria.
Parteneriatul strategie
dintre România şi
SUA
Between
1997
and
2004
the requirements for the political and
economic reform due to the candidature to NATO coincided with the
ones for the
EU.
There were no contradictions between the two
processes and the objectives of the two states, Romania and the USA,
were in compliance with both accessions.
The terrorist attack on 11th September
2001
and the position of the
USA after the attack marked profoundly the geopolitical realities of the
entire world and subsequently those of Europe. Unfortunately, the most
pessimistic Euro-Atlantic event appeared: the Old Europe versus the
New Europe, in which Romania was involved as well. The attitudes
adopted by Romania created problems in the relationship with a group
of European states including the French-German group. A series of
actions carried out by Bucharest representatives were in opposition with
the attitude of some of the major European states and I am referring here
to the so-called flights and CIA jails on Romanian territory and The Letter
of the Six ambassadors in Rome representing allied states-including
Romania-and referring to Italy's implication in Iraq.
Conclusions
I consider that the partnership embodies the idea that our country is
a necessary presence in the European area from the Euro-Atlantic states
to the Eastern borders. The partnership has sustained our role as an
important contributor to the significance of the Euro-Atlantic strategies
for South-Eastern Europe. Romania appreciated correctly that the
security of the Euro-Atlantic region is unbreakable and the dilemma
Euro-Atlantism versus Europeanism is a false one under the
circumstances. The USA is not only our strategic partner, but also the
ally and the strategic partner of the European Community. There are no
essential and unsolvable differences and incompatibilities between the
two coasts of the Atlantic Ocean. Being an active part of Romania's
recent history and achievement of
Emil Constantinescu's
Administration,
the strategic partnership with the USA is the materialization of a
remarkable political idea, not only because of its theoretical construction,
but also because of the way in which it came to life and was supported
by the two partners. The major geopolitical lack of balance between the
two partners was compensated for by at least three factors: the partners'
permanent determination to support this relationship, the history of
472
Istorie şi semnificaţii
geopolitice
bilateral
agreements, and the coincidence between the two states'
fundamental interests.
In my opinion, the strategic partnership with the USA is a necessary
and accessible way of sustaining our struggle to adhere to European
values and institutions even though the objectives and the program did
not always have the planned outcome. The partnership, which was a
Romanian initiative, was not conceived as an alterative to Romania's
position outside the first wave of the Alliance's expansion or as a gift to
us. The strategic bilateral agreement serving both individual and shared
purposes was a necessity for the two partners.
Thus, as a result of the reform and modernization of the structural
components of the Romanian society, the relationship favored our access
to the
EU as
planned. An important aspect would be that the
partnership benefited from the support of the Romanian population
from its beginning. The Romanian-American strategic relationship
influenced not only Romanian realities, but it also influenced American
attitudes and policies regarding the South-Eastern part of Europe and
the Black Sea.
I consider that the partnership made possible and strengthened the
Romanian geopolitical and strategic redefinition process in the region at
the turn of the 21st century. It does not represent a "panacea" solving the
problems we have to confront, but in my opinion it offered Romania
new and indispensable elements of power.
473
CUPRINS
CUVÂNT ÎNAINTE
.
iii
LISTA ABREVIERILOR
.1
LISTA ANEXELOR
.3
INTRODUCERE
.5
I.
ISTORIOGRAFIA PARTENERIATULUI STRATEGIC
DINTRE ROMÂNIA ŞI
SUA
.15
1.1.
Lucrări de cercetare româneşti
.15
1.2.
Lucrări de cercetare americane
.26
II.
REPERE ALE CADRULUI ISTORIC DE LANSARE
A PARTENERIATULUI STRATEGIC DINTRE ROMÂNIA ŞI
SUA
.29
ILI.
Relaţiile
romàno-americane:
convergenţe istorice
.29
II.2. Repere ale contextului istoric şi geopolitic
regional şi naţional premergător lansării
Parteneriatului strategic dintre România şi
SU A
.66
III. ISTORIA PARTENERIATULUI STRATEGIC
DINTRE ROMÂNIA ŞI
SUA
.83
ПІЛ.
Fundamentele teoretice
ale Parteneriatului strategic dintre România şi
SUA
.83
111.2. Fundamentele doctrinare, politice şi de securitate
ale Parteneriatului strategic dintre România şi
SUA
.125
111.3. Alte relaţii de parteneriat în istoria recentă a României
.188
111.4.
Parametrii Parteneriatului strategic dintre România şi
SUA.
194
111.5. Factori de influenţare-modelare a evoluţiei
Parteneriatului strategic dintre România şi
SUA
.327
Parteneriatul strategie
dintre România şi
SUA
IV.
SEMNIFICAŢII GEOPOLITICE ALE PARTENERIATULUI
STRATEGIC DINTRE ROMÂNIA ŞI
SUA
.335
IV.l. Geopolitica Parteneriatului strategic româno-american
.335
IV.2. Implicaţiile Parteneriatului strategic româno-american
asupra profilului geopolitic şi strategic al României
.357
IV.3. Implicaţiile
geopolitice ale
Parteneriatului strategic
dintre România şi
SUA
asupra relaţiilor României cu Uniunea Europeană
.409
CONCLUZII
.431
BIBLIOGRAFIE
.445
ABSTRACT
.453
ANEXE
.475 |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Toboşaru, Nicolae 1957- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1081571810 |
| author_facet | Toboşaru, Nicolae 1957- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Toboşaru, Nicolae 1957- |
| author_variant | n t nt |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV036884621 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)706853235 (DE-599)BVBBV036884621 |
| era | Geschichte 1996-2008 gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte 1996-2008 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>00000nam a2200000 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV036884621</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20131023</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">110103s2010 abd| |||| 00||| rum d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9789735951122</subfield><subfield code="9">978-973-595-112-2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)706853235</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV036884621</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">rum</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Toboşaru, Nicolae</subfield><subfield code="d">1957-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1081571810</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Parteneriatul strategic dintre România şi SUA</subfield><subfield code="b">istorie şi semnificaţii geopolitice</subfield><subfield code="c">Nicolae Toboşaru</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Cluj-Napoca</subfield><subfield code="b">Presa Univ. Clujeană</subfield><subfield code="c">2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">VI, 528 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill., graph. Darst., Kt.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1996-2008</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Außenpolitik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4003846-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Partnerschaft</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4026924-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">USA</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4078704-7</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Rumänien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4050939-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Rumänien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4050939-4</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">USA</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4078704-7</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Außenpolitik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4003846-4</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Partnerschaft</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4026924-3</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1996-2008</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020799924&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020799924&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09049</subfield><subfield code="g">498</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">0904</subfield><subfield code="g">73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">090511</subfield><subfield code="g">498</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">090511</subfield><subfield code="g">73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">300</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">090511</subfield><subfield code="g">498</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">300</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09049</subfield><subfield code="g">498</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-020799924</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | USA (DE-588)4078704-7 gnd Rumänien (DE-588)4050939-4 gnd |
| geographic_facet | USA Rumänien |
| id | DE-604.BV036884621 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-10-11T20:03:52Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9789735951122 |
| language | Romanian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-020799924 |
| oclc_num | 706853235 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | VI, 528 S. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. |
| publishDate | 2010 |
| publishDateSearch | 2010 |
| publishDateSort | 2010 |
| publisher | Presa Univ. Clujeană |
| record_format | marc |
| spelling | Toboşaru, Nicolae 1957- Verfasser (DE-588)1081571810 aut Parteneriatul strategic dintre România şi SUA istorie şi semnificaţii geopolitice Nicolae Toboşaru Cluj-Napoca Presa Univ. Clujeană 2010 VI, 528 S. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Zsfassung in engl. Sprache Geschichte 1996-2008 gnd rswk-swf Außenpolitik (DE-588)4003846-4 gnd rswk-swf Partnerschaft (DE-588)4026924-3 gnd rswk-swf USA (DE-588)4078704-7 gnd rswk-swf Rumänien (DE-588)4050939-4 gnd rswk-swf Rumänien (DE-588)4050939-4 g USA (DE-588)4078704-7 g Außenpolitik (DE-588)4003846-4 s Partnerschaft (DE-588)4026924-3 s Geschichte 1996-2008 z DE-604 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020799924&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2 application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020799924&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| spellingShingle | Toboşaru, Nicolae 1957- Parteneriatul strategic dintre România şi SUA istorie şi semnificaţii geopolitice Außenpolitik (DE-588)4003846-4 gnd Partnerschaft (DE-588)4026924-3 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4003846-4 (DE-588)4026924-3 (DE-588)4078704-7 (DE-588)4050939-4 |
| title | Parteneriatul strategic dintre România şi SUA istorie şi semnificaţii geopolitice |
| title_auth | Parteneriatul strategic dintre România şi SUA istorie şi semnificaţii geopolitice |
| title_exact_search | Parteneriatul strategic dintre România şi SUA istorie şi semnificaţii geopolitice |
| title_full | Parteneriatul strategic dintre România şi SUA istorie şi semnificaţii geopolitice Nicolae Toboşaru |
| title_fullStr | Parteneriatul strategic dintre România şi SUA istorie şi semnificaţii geopolitice Nicolae Toboşaru |
| title_full_unstemmed | Parteneriatul strategic dintre România şi SUA istorie şi semnificaţii geopolitice Nicolae Toboşaru |
| title_short | Parteneriatul strategic dintre România şi SUA |
| title_sort | parteneriatul strategic dintre romania si sua istorie si semnificatii geopolitice |
| title_sub | istorie şi semnificaţii geopolitice |
| topic | Außenpolitik (DE-588)4003846-4 gnd Partnerschaft (DE-588)4026924-3 gnd |
| topic_facet | Außenpolitik Partnerschaft USA Rumänien |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020799924&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020799924&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT tobosarunicolae parteneriatulstrategicdintreromaniasisuaistoriesisemnificatiigeopolitice |