(Abstract from the Assembly Verbatim report)

Questions and answers following the statement by Ion Iliescu, President of Romania

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Iliescu. Members of the Assembly wish to put questions to you. Some of the questions have a common theme, and I have grouped those together. There will be no time for supplementary questions.

I remind members that questions must be limited to thirty seconds. Colleagues should ask questions, and not make speeches or statements.

The first group of questions concerns enlargement of the European Union and Nato. They are from Mr Kirilov and Mr Jaskiernia. Mr Kirilov, please put your question.

Mr KIRILOV (Bulgaria). – Mr President, you recently hosted a meeting of presidents of states in the Balkan region. In what way does the common goal of countries in that region – to participate in the enlargement of the European Union and Nato – contribute to the creation of a climate of lasting stability and co-operation in south-eastern Europe?

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Jaskiernia, please put your question.

Mr JASKIERNIA (Poland). – As Romania approaches Nato membership, may I ask what membership will mean to Romania’s security, and what valuable contribution Romania can offer to the strengthening of European security?

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Iliescu, would you like to answer those questions?

Mr ILIESCU. – Thank you for your questions. For Romania and its neighbours, integration into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions are common strategic preoccupations and goals. Last year, when we were confronted with the conflict in former Yugoslavia, co-operation between the countries of the region and between those countries and Nato, the European Union and the OSCE were positive factors in solving problems, developing a more normal situation and providing an opportunity to create a new peaceful climate in the region.

There is also a programme of regional and sub-regional co-operation which unites heads of state and other regional representatives. Last week we met in Tirana to discuss our common efforts to consolidate stability and to contribute to a peaceful solution of all the problems.

That brings me to the second question. Integration into Nato is not only important for Romania; it is also in the interests of Nato to enlarge to the east and the south-east, taking into account that the most fragile zone for European stability is in the western part of the Balkans. From that point of view, the integration of countries such as Romania and Bulgaria is strategically important and the presence and capacity of Nato are crucial factors for the stability of the region. Integration therefore makes an important contribution to regional stability and the role of Nato in the area. At the same time, it is important to maintain and consolidate internal stability and make progress in our economic and social development and create a better climate in the region.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The second group concerns co-operation among regional institutions and there are questions from Mr Iwiński and Mr Pavlidis.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – There is a good and long lasting tradition of co-operation between the states in the Black Sea area. As you are now approaching entry into Nato and the European Union, we wish you all the best. What role will be played by the council of the Black Sea states, particularly in your relations with important countries such as Ukraine and Turkey?

Mr PAVLIDIS (Greece). – I come from Greece and I had the opportunity to hear you give a similar address some years ago. I am about to ask almost the same question that I put to you then. Various international bodies operate in my part of the region. I do not know whether the results of their activity were expected or not. Do you think that we need a permanent body such as the Balkan conference to promote our co-operation? What is your opinion of these developments?

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Iliescu, would you like to answer those questions?

Mr ILIESCU. – There is a direct correlation between the different organisations. Some are more important such as the Council of Europe, Nato, the OSCE and the European Union. In addition, there are regional initiatives which do not conflict with the role of pan-European institutions, but represent a complementary form of interaction between the countries of the region.

The Black Sea co-operation initiative began with the summit in Istanbul in 1992 which was attended by various countries in the region and represented a positive experience. It covered different issues – not just the economy and economic co-operation, but culture and education, including a forum of universities of the Black Sea countries, tourism and so on. This has proved a positive development in zonal co-operation which has benefited the countries involved and helped them prepare for integration into European and pan-European organisations.

Turning to the question from the Greek representative, let me set out some further initiatives. Last week there was a trilateral meeting between Greece, Bulgaria and Romania. We met in Bucharest to discuss common co-operation and the role of our three countries which represent an axis for general activities in the region. We have another meeting with Turkey in Istanbul in a month’s time. This interesting initiative between our four countries is connected with the support given to Romania and Bulgaria’s integration into Nato. The foreign affairs ministers of Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece met in Istanbul and then in Athens and are due to meet again in Reykjavik. This co-operation between our countries is in addition to other efforts, such as the south-east European co-operation process. It is a positive development. There was an idea that this forum, which has integrated all the countries of the region, could represent a permanent framework of co-operation connected with the Stability Pact which also includes the European Union and the Council of Europe.

There are other initiatives involved in issues such as the fight against terrorism, criminality and the traffic in drugs and persons. In Bucharest, there is an active centre involving co-operation of eleven countries. Representatives of the police and customs are part of a permanent body in Bucharest which works in close co-operation with Europol, Interpol and so on. These different initiatives are a positive development and help us to become more involved in pan-European initiatives.

THE PRESIDENT. – The third group of questions is on relations with neighbouring countries and there are questions from Mr Rakhansky, Mr Churkin, Mr Solé Tura and Mr Neguta.
Mr RAKHANSKY (Ukraine) asked about discussions on the border between Ukraine and Romania.

Mr CHURKIN (Russian Federation) asked about Romanian spending in Moldova.

Mr SOLÉ TURA (Spain) asked about the situation in Transnistria.

Mr NEGUTA (Moldova) asked when Romania and Moldova would conclude a political treaty and what would be the terms of that treaty.

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Laakso has indicated that his question is related more to countries neighbouring Romania than to rights of minorities. Therefore, I ask him to put his question.

Mr LAAKSO (Finland). – In Finland, we have two official state languages, Finnish and Swedish, despite the fact we have only 6.4% of Swedish-speaking Finns. We are proud of the fact that we have two official state languages. In Moldova, your neighbouring country, about 35% of people speak Russian as their first language. Why in Romania, including in official circles, is there resistance, or voices of resistance in respect of the Russian language? About the same number would speak Russian as speak Swedish in Finland.

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Iliescu, would you like to answer those questions?

Mr ILIESCU said that a recent agreement between Ukraine and Romania laid down the basis for the good, neighbourly relationship between the two countries. There were outstanding issues about where the border should lie, but they were very technical. If there was sufficient goodwill, he was confident that a solution could be found. He did not want to go into detail about that matter because it was an issue for those working in that field.

Romania’s aid to Moldova was large. The governments had to monitor the relationship between the two countries. Part of the aid money went to provide student grants to young people from Moldova who were studying in Romania. Until 1989 the Moldovan language had not been taken into account in Moldova. Romanian and Moldovan had been considered as one and the same language. However, he wanted to ask the Russian Federation delegation how much aid their country was giving to Moldova. Many Russian books were going into Moldova; that was good assistance and was not external interference.

The issue of Moldova and Transnistria was a highly complex one which Stalin had left to history. It was a matter of the territorial integrity of an independent state which was recognised by the international community. The region of Transnistria was part and parcel of that independent state. He was optimistic about the outcome regarding Moldova.

(The speaker continued in English.)

On the Finnish experience with languages, we have eighteen languages in our country. The main language is that of the great majority of the population – the 90% who are Romanian. The second largest population, at 7%, is Hungarian and they have 7% of the members of the Romanian Parliament. However, there are many other minorities – seventeen or eighteen – all of which are represented in our parliament. Our constitution provides that all minorities that cannot be represented by elected representatives should nominate representatives in parliament. In the Chamber of Deputies, there is a special parliamentary group of minorities other than Hungarians. They have the right to use their own languages. They receive support from the state to promote their cultural identity and their languages as well as to have their own newspapers and use their languages in schools. For example, for the Roma minority, in the past year there has been activity to promote the Romany language and to provide the necessary material to help that group.

Therefore, we do not have any complexes about problems with minorities. On the contrary, we consider our minorities as equal members of the community. That diversity of cultures and traditions adds to the richness of our culture. That is the only way to ensure that everyone’s cultural identity receives the respect that it deserves. It is the concept of unity in diversity.

Mr LAAKSO (Finland). – My question was on the status of the Russian language in Moldova.

Mr ILIESCU. – That is not up to me; it is up to Moldova. Please do not push me to interfere in the internal affairs of Moldova.

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Laakso is not entitled to put a supplementary question.

The next group of questions concerns social issues, with questions from Mr Cox and Mr Vis.

Mr COX (United Kingdom). – I was pleased to hear you say, Mr President, that your country is to appoint an ombudsmen for children. The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee is concerned about what we understand is the policy in your country whereby youngsters who live in institutions are forced to leave them at the age of eighteen. Exactly what policies do you follow to offer youngsters accommodation and employment when they leave those institutions, so that they can start to readjust their lives in what is both your country and theirs?

Mr VIS (United Kingdom). – According to the World Bank, there are more children and disabled people – people with both physical and mental disabilities – in institutions in Romania today than there were before the economic transition. The overall quality of care for children and the disabled in residential care is, according to the World Bank, “worse today than it was ten years ago”. When will the Government of Romania develop coherent legislation, followed up with an implementation strategy and funding, to improve the human rights of people with disabilities in accordance with Article 46 of your own constitution?

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Iliescu, would you like to answer those questions?

Mr ILIESCU. – As I said, social problems are our main challenge – the living conditions of the population. Even before 1989, Romania was one of the poorest countries in Europe. That fact was at the root of the social explosion in Romania in December 1989. The Czechs spoke of their velvet revolution and in Poland they had a round table where representatives of government and civil society discussed the transition. In Romania, none of that was possible because of the very tough character of Ceauşescu’s dictatorship. Internal conditions in Romania were perhaps the most acute in the area. That popular explosion was the only solution because of the very difficult living conditions of the people.

You are right, however, in that it is now twelve years since the revolution. As I said, we have moved a great deal in the political field. We have moved to a normal situation now, with democracy and citizens’ rights, the state of the law and so forth. However, it is much more difficult to develop the economy. Economic systems in general suffer from more inertia. The main problem is a lack of resources. Also, we have demolished the former economic structures – it is easy to demolish, but it is much more complicated to rebuild the economy on a new basis. In that respect, we have had a confused economic evolution during that period. The economy has zig-zagged. Even in that area, however, we are embarking on more normal development, with privatisation, structural reforms and so forth.

Our gross domestic product, however, represents about 80% of what it was in 1989 and the purchasing power of the population is only 60% of the level in 1989. Therefore, you will understand the challenge for politicians, the political parties and Romanian society. How do we answer the people when they question the value of democracy and the market economy if they have to live in worse conditions that they were living in 1989? Those are the main problems that must be solved. We must also solve the problems faced by children, disabled people and others.

We have taken many steps to solve the problems faced by children and to improve children’s institutions. We have a general programme to change the structure of such institutions and it promotes small communities that work with families who care for children with the help of the state. Before 1989 more than 200 000 children were in institutions. Now the number is about 90 000. The process is continuing and much important assistance is being offered. We much appreciate the assistance given by international institutions and friendly countries, such as England, the Netherlands, France and Italy.

One problem has been mentioned. The young people who live in the institutions have to leave them when they are eighteen and we face the problem of integrating them in society. The government has a specific programme to help to integrate them into society and to ensure that they are professionally integrated. However, you will understand that the problem is of a general character. Unemployment is quite high in many regions of the country and even the people who live in normal conditions face difficulties. However, we are aware of the problems and we are acting to solve them.

On the point about legislation, many moves have been taken in that regard. The government became very active in promoting many projects connected with this issue and parliament is also working hard. I remain optimistic that we shall promote the necessary measures to improve the position of all these people.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Iliescu.

We must now conclude the questions to Mr Iliescu. On behalf of the Assembly, I thank him most warmly for his statement and for the answers he has given to questions. Thank you very much.