Romania rejects oil, gas-based foreign policy strategies

Foreign Minister Diaconescu seemed to be very pleased with the level of bilateral relations and is hoping the two countries will engage in joint ventures in third countries and regions.

Diaconescu said the European Union has to take into consideration the added value Turkey's membership will bring into the union and warned that his country is categorically against the use of oil and gas as political leverage. The Romanian foreign minister said he hopes both NATO and the EU will continue to grow and enlarge so as to increase their ability to cope with frozen conflicts and spread the principles and norms they were founded upon. Today's Zaman spoke with Minister Diaconescu in his office at the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Bucharest.

You served for some time as the deputy secretary-general of the BSEC. This organization was formed with high expectations, but has not been as fruitful as was hoped. What happened?

Turkey and Romania are among the founding nations of this regional organization, which can be considered the second-largest organization, after the EU, within Europe. The main purposes of this organization are economic cooperation, exchanges and strong ties between the countries around the Black Sea, either on the bilateral or regional levels. All member countries are interested in attaining these purposes. Of course, in the Black Sea region, we have various compositions of countries and ethnic communities with different perspectives and with different levels of economic development. This should have been an argument for developing specific relations within the organization and between the BSEC and the EU, but unfortunately we cannot see any major project. I think this situation should be changed and the BSEC should be considered one of the EU and NATO's main partners. Security and stability in the Black Sea region is important not only for the countries around the Black Sea but also for the whole EU. Through NATO, the international community should do more in order to maintain and promote this regional stability.

It seems Russia is not very happy with Romania's membership in NATO. It regards NATO enlargement as the revival of the policy of containment. How do you define Romania's role in NATO?

From the very beginning we have said very clearly and we continue to underscore this principle: Our participation in NATO is only with the idea to promote peace, stability and security for the international community. We are not contradicting the security interests of other countries, and we are not in an adversary mood toward any third party.

With regards to the Russian position, I have to remind you of our work to promote the idea of the “new security concept” not only for Europe, but also for the international community. The Russian Federation is a key actor in this dialogue. So, from the conceptual point of view, we are very keen to have the Russian Federation on the table hammering out positive solutions for our peoples. We recognize the importance of the Russian Federation and that is true not only for the security dialogue around the Black Sea.

What do you think about a further enlargement of NATO?

We support the process of enlargement beyond any doubt, either with regard to NATO or the EU. There are some frozen conflicts and some asymmetric threats around the Black Sea that we have to combat. But for the peaceful settlement of these conflicts, we need NATO to be enlarged.

Are you supportive of enlargement even when it comes to countries such as Georgia?

I can only repeat what we have said and what was decided at the NATO summit in Bucharest. The idea of promoting the aspirations of Georgia to become a member of NATO remains the same. On the other hand, we expect new members, or candidates of NATO membership, to respect the norms and values of the organization and to make the necessary reforms internally in order to qualify for this membership.

You also support EU enlargement, but there are others who claim Europe is losing its capacity to digest new members. What do you think of this?

There are people who claim that the process of enlargement should be slowed down until the process of digesting newcomers is over. But I think that one of the vital roles of the EU and NATO is to continue to develop and promote their principles and values, otherwise its internal development will also be frozen. It is true that it is difficult to cope with different aspirations, different levels of social and economic development of candidate countries, but the new spirit and capability to address issues from economic crises to security in different regions that the candidates will bring to the union should not be neglected. Turkey is much closer and more active in some regions of the world than some NATO and EU countries.

We encourage EU countries to take into consideration Turkey's candidacy or that of some countries in the Western Balkans seriously and to take into account the capabilities of these countries to bring a new spirit to the EU. We don't want to be skeptical. Europe has to accept the complexities of our international communities as they are. Otherwise, it won't be able to address the real needs of the people.

What does Nabucco mean to Romania? Why was Romania willing to be part of Nabucco despite its closeness to Russia?

An alternative source in terms of energy should be considered only from an economic point of view. For Romania, finding an alternative source for any raw material is not a strategic or tactical move. We speak very clearly with regard to Nabucco. Romania is part of Nabucco because it is the only economic alternative we have.

Soon after Turkey signed the Nabucco agreement, it signed another agreement with Russia. Is Romania interested in joining South Stream also?

For the time being, we have yet to receive a proposal with regard to South Stream. It is too early for me to say that South Stream should be a project we are interested in. Taking into account that we are looking at this issue only from an economic point of view, what is good economically is also good for Romania. But for the time being, we do not have an economic position with regard to South Stream, irrespective of the fact that South Stream will crisscross our continental shelf in the Black Sea.

You stress the non-strategic nature of the oil and gas trade. But Russia and Ukraine are having quite a tough time on this issue. Are you against the use of oil and gas as a foreign policy tool?

We hope that any polemic or any difference of opinion between Russia and Ukraine does not impede normal economic ties within Europe. What we want is to see that our people will not suffer in the winter. Again we are looking at the issue from an economic point of view, and we hope that the transit of gas should not be stopped for any reason. This is the only and main argument: to have the necessary distribution of gas for our people and for our economy, without having the threat, without having the perception that in some moment due to some reasons very far beyond us, such kinds of delivering gas should be stopped. We categorically reject a gas or oil-based foreign policy strategy.