ROMANIA VA INTRA IN SCHENGEN CAND VA FI CREDIBILA SAU….. NICIODATA!

Leave a comment

March 5, 2013 by diplomatiepublica

ANALIZA DE DIPLOMATIE PUBLICA – ROMANIA SCHENGEN 2013

Also available in English!

Semnalele receptionate de administratia de la Bucuresti din partea Germaniei, prin inermediul ministrului de interne, domnul Hans Peter Friedrich, cu privire la aderarea Romaniei la zona Schengen, nu surprind pe nimeni cum de altfel, nu surprinde pe nimeni nici reactia si mesajele pe care administratia de la Bucuresti le transmite in interiorul Romaniei si in strainatate.

Desi intre Mecanismul de Cooperare si Verificare si criteriile de aderare nu exista o legatura institutionala evidenta, occidentalii folosesc totusi acest instrument pentru a nu fi nevoiti sa denumeasca in chip insultator starea de fapt din Romania, marcata de un grad senificativ de coruptie pe muliple paliere si pentru a sugera in termeni “diplomatici” indirecti ca tara noastra are serioase probleme de credibilitate si reputatie.

Schengen

Din pacate, vechile trucuri comuniste romanesti (interlocutorul te intreaba ceva iar tu ii raspunzi cu totul altceva) se regasesc in tipologia mesajelor oficialilor guvernamentali romani – fapt care agraveaza suplimentar status ul credibilitatii tarii, status ul reputatiei si pe cale de consecinta, deznodamantul eforturilor Romaniei de a adera la zona Schengen. Atunci cand vorbim despre credibilitate, in mod obligatoriu si imediat vorbim despre consecventa, iar faptul ca Romania si-a abandonat cel mai important obiectiv de politica externa (de altfel cuprins si in programul de guvernare votat de Parlament), pe de o parte descalifica  iremediabil responsabilii guvernamentali care si-au asumat anuntul public, dar si credibilitatea tarii in general.

DIN PACATE

Din pacate, ne intalnim si de aceasta data cu un mesaj dublu al Guvernului – pe de o parte Guvernul abandoneaza tema Schengen (“pentru ca se poate trai foarte bine si fara Schengen”), iar pe de alta parte “ne mentinem obiectivele fundamentale de integrare”. Acest tip de mesaj dublu, din pacate, aduce prejudicii semnificative credibilitatii dar si reputatiei.

Din pacate, lucrurile nu se opresc aici – chiar daca Premierul Ponta este rezervat aparent in a transa aceasta problema inr-o cheie autentic nationalista, colegul sau de coalitie ceva mai neexperimentat si cu un discurs mai colorat, insa si mai dezordonat, (presedintele PNL Crin Antonescu) nu se menajeaza in nici un fel si incearca sa aduca jertfe europene pe altarul nationalist arhaic si desantat romanesc. Presedintele Crin Antonescu spune mai mult, faptul ca aderarea la Schengen nu a reprezentat niciodata un obiectiv major al Romaniei – de unde se poate trage concluzia ca Romania a inselat intr-o oarecare masura disponibilitatea Comisiei Europene care ar fi finantat cu jumatate de miliard de Euro investitiile in securizarea frontierelor romanesti. Acesta, alaturi de toate celelalte este un mesaj distrugator atat pentru perceptia publica internationala europeana (orice contribuabil din Europa se poate intreba daca CE a cantarit corect investitia in frontierele Romaniei) cat si perceptia la nivel decizional european, zona pe care Romania, prin mesaje precum cel al domnului Crin Antonescu, pune intr-o lumina extrem de nefavorabila si o situatie delicata pe demnitarii europeni, atat fata de organismele europene, cat si fata de liderii statelor contributoare din Uniunea Europeana.

Pentru ca am deschis subiectul manierei tipic comuniste de eschiva comunicationala – desi occidentalii reclama in mod clar elemente de coruptie drept un real si iminent pericol pentru securitatea frontierelor Romaniei, oficialii guvernamentali romani raspund permanent cu invocarea elementelor tehnice, deci cu investitiile pe care Romania le-a facut indiscutabil in acest domeniu. Nuantat, occidentalii vorbesc foarte direct despre coruptia personalului care manipuleaza vize europene, iar Guvernul raspunde cu faptul ca Romania a platit peste jumatate de miliard de Euro pe instalatii de supraveghere a granitelor – in mod clar doua aspecte fundamental diferite.

Un alt aspect important de mentionat este faptul ca problema admiterii Romaniei in zona Schengen a fost transformata din obiectiv de politica externa al Romaniei, in subiect de polemica politica interna – altfel spus, ceea ce in diplomatia publica se denumeste “brand purpose” se transforma intr-o inutila atribuire a unor elemente de vina intre diverse categorii de “executiv” romanesc.

Este evident pentru toata lumea ca USL – alianta socialista care a castigat alegerile in Romania, in scurt timp sarbatoreste un an de guvernare, iar guvernarea i-a fost incredintata tocmai pentru a se rezolva, poate altfel, ori poate intr-un alt ritm, probleme fundamentale precum este aderarea Romaniei la zona Schengen. A nu se asuma aceasta responsabilitate de catre actuala putere si actualul guvern, reprezinta atat in perceptie interna cat si in perceptie internationala o recunoastere a faptului ca USL a obtinut guvernarea tarii pentru sine si nu pentru a satisface exigentele electorale la acre s-a angajat initial. Pentru toate aceste probleme exista expertiza teoretica in lucrarile profesorului Nicholas J. CULL, totul este sa le si consulte cineva cu relevanta guvernamentala.

Nu putem spune ca guvernul nu face “eforturi” pentru o mai buna perceptie sau pentru ameliorarea factorului de credibilitate si reputatie in exterior. Mai multe publicatii romanesti, dar si vectorul international de media al Federatiei Ruse (Vocea Rusiei) confirma faptul ca Guvernul Romaniei ar fi contractat servicii de management si corectare a perceptiei de care “se bucura” acest executiv in UE. Gestul Guvernului, daca asa stau lucrurile, nu ar fi catusi de putin neobisnuit. Desi este cunoscut faptul ca nu este posibil tehnic de a se “confectiona” credibilitate prin campanii de media si mesaj public, totdeauna guvernele socialiste cad in pacatul de a plati (ca doar nu platesc de la ele) serviciile unor binevoitori care pana la sfarsit, sigur, nu au cum sa vina cu rezultate concrete, insa aduc argumente suficiente pentru a se acoperi artistic pierderea. In Nation Brand Index, nu exista nici macar un singur caz de stat care sa fi inregistrat imbunatatiri de credibilitate (mai cu seama la capitolul guvernare) in urma unor “campanii” mai vizibile ori mai putin vizibile. Simon Anholt – Nation Brand Index.

Pe de alta parte, compania despre care se vorbeste in piata, pare sa cunoasca limbajul socialist  – aceasta fiind si arma redutabila cu care l-au convins, probabil, pe domnul Victor Ponta – anume,  aceasta companie se ocupa de managementul imaginii Kremlinului in interiorul UE. Din pacate, insa, decidentii romani au cazut din nou in plasa “drumului pe scurtatura” intrucat studiile independente releva ca oricati bani ar investi Kremlinul in diplomatie publica, rezultatele sunt totdeauna sub asteptari, sub nivelul investitiei si dezamagitoare, fiind lipsite tocmai de elementul credibilitate.

Ar fi interesant de retinut care sunt principalele elemente care fac astazi necredibile demersurile Kremlinului pentru o imagine mai buna in Europa: mesaj dublu, mesaj nationalist, revolutia politica continua, cautarea permanenta a unui dusman comun pentru intregul popor, o comunicare abundenta a guvernului in interior fata de o comunicare saraca si evaziva in exterior, lipsa unor preocupari in a se observa “ce “asteapta” comunitatea internationala de la noi, lipsa unor politici publice competitive. Toate acestea se regasesc in studiile doamnei Katherine P. AvgerinosRusia’s Public Diplomacy Effort: What The Kremlin is Doing and Why is Not Working.

Ceea ce mi-a atras atentia in aceste studii, banuiesc ca v-a atras si dumneavoastra, deci ar fi fost oarecum natural ca si Guvernul Romaniei sa ia in calcul aceste aspecte, mai cu seama ca respinge categoric ideea infiintarii unei entitati profesioniste care sa gestioneze problemele reale ale Romaniei in domeniul managementului perceptiei publice.

In afara de mesajele majore si cu impact imediat, exista o categorie de mesaje clare si deosebit de ostile din partea unei specii de politicieni descrisi ca fiind oameni cu o moralitate nu foarte solida, pregatire profesionala precara, deosebit de oportunisti si ale caror pozitii publice afecteaza devastator atat credibilitatea Romaniei cat si reputatia acestei tari (ex: Radu Stroe – Ministru de Interne – “Germania a pierdut ocazia sa taca”; Titus Corlatean – Ministru de Externe – “Romania poate trai foarte bine si fara schengen” sau “straduindu-ne sa intram in Schengen Romania a pierdut bani neoferind vize unor cetateni din state cu potential investitional”).

Fara indoiala, transformarea unui deziderat de politica externa intr-o disputa bipolara in interiorul Romaniei, produce zone de vunerabilitate extrema mai ales in spatii extra-comunitare care “vaneaza” ocazii pentru a puncta. (Vocea Rusiei – Romania nu va intra niciodata in Schengen!)

CONCLUZII

  1. MCV este o chestiune “despre” credibilitate – credibilitatea Romaniei fiind la cote inimaginabil de mici, nu exista nici un argument de a-I convinge pe occidentali ca ne putem evalua singuri.
  2. Credibilitatea Guvernului se transfera in incarcatura de credibilitate a tarii. Cu cat credibilitatea guvernului roman este mai scazuta cu atat credibilitatea tarii este mai jos…si invers.
  3. Atata vreme cat exista suspiciuni in zona de credibilitate, va exista si MCV in ceea ce priveste Romania.
  4. Atata vreme cat va exista o nuanta de nesiguranta in MCV, nu se pune problema admiterii Romaniei in Schengen.
  5. Pentru a fi mai simplu de asimilat, putem spune ca admiterea in Schengen este o chestiune de credibilitate.
  6. Vectorii secundari de mesaj ai coalitiei care sprijina guvernarea socialista de la Bucuresti doresc ca Traian Basescu sa isi asume vina intarzierii aderarii la Schengen  – intrebarea care se pune este “la ce foloseste asta pentru scopul aderarii?”. Daca se urmaresc scopuri interne, atunci acest demers are logica. Daca insa, obiectivul de politica externa devine tema interna, atunci Romania risca sa nu mai poata scoate capul in Europa.
  7. Prin cererea de explicatii catre statele care refuza aderarea Romaniei la Schengen, ministrul de externe roman favorizeaza exprimarea de mesaje suplimentare negative si defavorabile Romaniei.
  8. Reprezentarea diplomatica a Romaniei in exterior este inadecvata si politizata, iar lipsa diplomatiei publice se resimte in palierul de perceptie internationala a tarii.
  9. Invocarea faptului ca unele state resping Romania din considerente electorale nu face altceva decat sa angreneze in aceasta chestiune un numar si mai mare de politicieni straini care vor lua pozitii publice pe subiect si care in alte conditii nu ar fi fost activati in nici un fel.

 Romania will be admitted when it becomes credible or… never!

Analysis of public diplomacy – Schengen Romania 2013

 

 

The received signals by the administration in Bucharest from Germany, It offers by the Interior Minister Hans Peter Friedrich, on Romania’s accession to the Schengen zone, does not surprise anyone, as a matter of fact, no surprise the reaction and messages from Romania to Europe.

 

Although, between Cooperation and Verification Mechanism and the criteria for  Schengen membership, there is no obvious institutional links, Westerners still use this tool to not have to name the insulting status quo of Romania, marked by a significant degree of corruption on multiple levels and to suggest in the “diplomatic” about Romania which have serious problems of credibility and reputation.

 

Unfortunately, former Romanian communist tricks (interviewer asks you something and you return with something else) are found in the typology  of messages belongs to Romanian government officials – which further aggravates the credibility, the reputation and as a consequence, the Romania’s efforts to join the Schengen zone. When we talk about credibility, we necessarily and immediately talk about consistency, and the fact that Romania has abandoned the most important foreign policy objective (otherwise included in the government program voted by Parliament), on one side hopelessly disqualify the government officials who have committed the public announcement, and automatically, the country’s credibility in general.

 

Unfortunately, we meet and this time with a double message of the Government – on the one hand the Government abandons Schengen theme (“because you can live very well without Schengen”), and on the other hand “we maintain our fundamental integration objectives “. This double message, unfortunately, brings a significant prejudice for credibility and reputation.

 

Unfortunately, it does not stop here – even though Prime Minister Victor Ponta is apparently reserved to solve this problem “genuine nationalistic”, his colleague, inexperienced and a little more colorful speech, but more disordered (President Liberal Crin Antonescu) no spares in any way and tries to audience for domestic target. President Crin Antonescu said more that – Schengen accession has never been a major objective of Romania – where it can be concluded that Romania had cheated, in some measure, the kindness of European Commission which funded with half a billion Euro, the Romanian border security investments. This, along with everything else, is so destructive message to the international public perception in Europe (all European taxpayer may ask if that Commission weighed right the border investment in Romania) and to the European decision-level perception, the area that Romania, as well as messages that of Mr. Crin Antonescu, put in a very bad light and delicate situation the European officials, both vs. European institutions and vs. to the leaders of major contributing states of the European Union.

 

Because I open question of communicative manner “typical communist“- although Westerners claim now clearly elements of corruption as a real and imminent threat at the Romanian border security, the Romans officials always respond with technical elements, in other words, with the investments that Romania undoubtedly made ​ in this field. Nuanced, Westerners speak very directly about corruption of the personnel  which handling the European visas, and Romanian Government responds that Romania has paid over a half billion euros on border monitoring systems –  which means, clearly, two fundamentally different issues.

 

Another important aspect to note is that the issue of admission of Romania in the Schengen zone has been converted from a “legitimate foreign policy objective of Romania”, in a domestic policy debate – in other words, what the public diplomacy calls “brand purpose” in Romania turns into a useless assignment of faults between different categories of Romanian “executive”.

 

It is obvious to everyone that USL – Socialist Alliance which won elections in Romania, shortly will celebrate a year of governance, and the government has been entrusted with to solve in other way, or maybe in a different rhythm, the fundamental issues as is the accession of the country in to the Schengen zone. If is not assumed this responsibility by the current government the perception, inside and abroad will be very    very  bad. For all these problems exist theoretical expertise in scientific studies published by the remarkable Professor Nicholas J. Cull. It will be interesting to see who will read these scientific studies in Bucharest.

 

We can not say that the Romanian government doesn’t “work” for a better perception of credibility and reputation in Europe. More Romanian publications, and international media vector of the Russian Federation (Voice of Russia) confirms that the Romanian Government had contracted “some” management services to correct the perception that in EU. Government gesture, if this is so, it would not be unusual. Although it is known that it is not technically possible to be “made​​” or “invented” the “credibility” through media campaigns and public message, all socialist governments fall into sin to pay campaigns. The Nation Brand Index shows that there is no such an single state to be marked a increase of credibility after money spent on communicational campaigns. Simon Anholt – Nation Brand Index. On the other hand, that company seems to know very well the language of socialism and this being the redoubtable weapon with which they persuaded perhaps Mr. Victor Ponta – namely, this company handles the image management of Kremlin within the EU. Unfortunately, however, the Romanian officials fell into the sin of the ” short cut road ” as independent studies reveal that any money invested in public diplomacy by Kremlin, the results are always below expectations, as the investment, and the lack of credibility compromise any action.

 

It would be very interesting to note, what are the main elements that make today unreliable the Kremlin’s efforts for a better image in Europe: double message, the nationalis message, the continues political revolution, a permanent search of a common enemy, a government communications abundance inside and a poor communication and elusive for abroad, the lack of interests in to see “what” expected “the international community in our competitive public policy and many more. All this is found in studies of Mrs. Katherine P. Avgerinos – Russia‘s Public Diplomacy Effort: The Kremlin is Doing What and Why Is Not Working.

 

What caught my attention in these studies, I guess you’ve noticed, so it was quite natural that the Romanian Government to consider these issues, although they do not do that in reality.

 

Besides the major messages with immediate impact, there is a category of clear messages and very hostile, belongs to the politicians from a “species” described as “people with not very strong morality, poor professionalism, particularly opportunistic and whose public positions affect in a devastating way, both Romania’s credibility and reputation of this country (ex: Radu Stroe – Interior Minister – “Germany lost the opportunity to shut up” Titus Corlatean – Foreign Minister – “Romania can live very well without Schengen” or “striving to enter the Schengen Romania lost money because it not providing visas to citizens of countries with investment potential”).

 

Undoubtedly, the transformation of foreign policy goals in a bipolar dispute within Romania, produces vulnerability areas, especially in outer space Community which “hunt” that type of opportunities to score. (Voice of Russia – Romania in Schengen will never come!)

 

 

Conclusions:

 

1.    The CVM is an issue “about” credibility – Romania’s credibility is at unimaginably small odds, so there is no argument that we can convince the West that we can evaluate from inside of Romania.

2.    The Government credibility is transferred to the load of the credibility of the country. As the Romanian government credibility is low, the country’s credibility become lower … and vice versa.

3.    As long as there are doubts in the field of credibility, there will be CVM regarding Romania.

4.    As long as there is a shade of uncertainty in CVM, there is no question of admission of Romania in Schengen.

5.    To be easier to “digest”, we can say that admission to Schengen is a matter of credibility.

6.    The secondary message vectors of coalition which support the socialist government in Bucharest want Traian Basescu to take the blame for the delays of  Schengen accession – the question to ask is “what uses it for the purpose of accession?”. If you follow internal purposes, this approach makes sense. If, however, the goal of foreign policy is in fact a domestic issue, when Romania risks enormous in the field of perception in Europe.

7.    The request of explanations from the states which refuse Romania’s accession to Schengen, Romanian Foreign Minister encourages some additional negative messages and unfavorable for  Romania.

8.    Romania’s diplomatic representation abroad is inadequate and politicized, and the absence of any kind of institutional public diplomacy is felt in the field of the international perception of the country and nation.

9.    Invoking the fact that some states reject Romania with electoral reasons make to involve the in this issue a greater number of foreign politicians who can take public positions on the subject and who otherwise would not have been activated in any way.

 

 

March 2013

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: