"Leagan" made to breed spies

For more than 25 years, yes, I repeat, for more than 25 years, the rulers of Romania, be they from the Ceausescu or post-Ceausescu era, have been faced in international relations with a problem that directly affects the interests and public image of the Romanian state: the problem institutionalized children .

The common denominator for the persistence with which the international community refuses to remove this topic from the political and moral agenda is, above all, the still unsatisfactory situation of the living conditions of these children. Starting with the animal kingdom and ending with what we call a civilized human society, the way in which the mentioned communities relate to the protection of their own offspring is customarily constituted as the supreme criterion that delimits "normality" from the state of "degeneration".

Case Study

For reasons that are not exclusively of a financial-economic nature, and which should invite the Romanian intellectual elites to a serious reflection, the problem of institutionalized children and especially of international adoptions continues to be the subject of a political ping-pong in the country's international relations. A more careful analysis of the causes of this persistence can be, paradoxically, a real barometer of the general political strategy itself and especially of the foreign policy carried out by the current rulers. In this sense, the latest polemical "developments", on the edge of a barely disguised diplomatic conflict, between Bucharest and Washington represent an interesting "case study" intended to demonstrate the consistency of the above statement.

Before embarking on this foray, as one who has addressed this tragic topic several times both informally and in the mass media, I feel the need to specify from the very beginning that naturally "the place of institutionalized children was and it must be in Romania". The tradition of the Romanian people has always been that, regardless of the size of the resources, "parents should go out of their way to ensure their children maximum comfort and physical and mental well-being". How much was affected in the last 50 years the moral fiber of the Romanian to reach the situation where not the orphans, but the children abandoned by their own parents and including their relatives to "produce" today's amazing share of this category per the total number of institutionalized children, by the gravity of the social implications, it far exceeds the dimension of misery and poverty circulated as the only explanatory factor. Add to this situation the lack of social solidarity and the ignominy of the ruling political class and you will have in the mirror of 2004 a hideous image of the "actual state of the nation" in which the rulers continue to give priority, it is fair, peripheral, only to the effects and not to the causes what is proliferating this compromising phenomenon for the entire country. The great dilemma in terms of decision-making was and continues to be the critical threshold where, seriously considering the number one priority, namely "protecting the fundamental interest of the child", in the absence to a satisfactory national solution, one must resort to others, of higher quality, such as international adoptions.

Once, the former American president Herbert Hoover said to his fellow citizens: "Our children are the most precious natural resource we have". and not in the spirit of H. Hoover's words. A first example, otherwise flattering, of the "talent" of the new Romanian entrepreneurs to capitalize in the purest spirit of "wild capitalism" (about which they quickly learned that is and will continue to be accepted by the West for a good period of time) this abundant and apparently inexhaustible "natural resource" which, properly exploited, brings huge profits, strengthens individual or group relations on an international level and, why not,it can even be used by the rulers as an object of negotiation and a lever for adjusting the foreign policy.

The $200 million market

From a financial point of view, it should be noted that the estimates, considered conservative, on the subject of transactions related to the processing of international adoptions for the period after December 1989 amount to over 200 million dollars. The figure is a good starting point to understand why the problem of institutionalized children is a "big business" from which the Romanian political class cannot "afford" to be absent or to seriously leave it to non-governmental organizations -advantage. Just as during the time of the former dictator, the large illegal commercial and financial operations were augmented at the lower levels of the "business" of the lumpen-proletariat, in the same way, after December 1989, the field of action was divided between the "big entrepreneurs of the field"

As the "marriage of the money" makes its way very easily behind the scenes of political circles, including Western ones, it should not surprise anyone that Romanian entrepreneurs have found "reliable partners" for carrying out this type of operations. With one difference, not exactly negligible: while the former operated with exclusively financial motivations, ignoring or outright slandering even the simulacrum of legislation on the issue, the latter consoled themselves to a point, in relation to their own conscience, with the excuse that along with the profit obtained, they participated in the noble gesture of saving some "unfortunate people" from the "hell" in which they were kept by Romanian society and authorities. Not a few times I heard such explanations that in fact plunged Romania even deeper into the category of "barbarized" countries.

The US-EU model

The last and most recent international ping-pong match on this topic started when Baroness Emma Nicholson, as the rapporteur of the European Parliament for Romania, harshly criticized the flagrant violation by the Nastase government of the agreed moratorium on international adoptions. On that occasion, Baroness E. Nicholson revealed that over 100 children (in fact the number is much higher) were approved for international adoption "under the exceptional procedure". The investigation would find that the respective adoptions were the result of the purest trafficking of political influence with the direct participation of the heads of the Italian and Spanish governments. If, from a financial point of view, the specialized Romanian brokers reaped, as usual, their financial benefits, behind the scenes of the Victoria Palace, the approvals were considered "goodwill investments" at the two Western chancelleries (not coincidentally, during the respective period, the two countries had, as a result of the rotation principle, the presidency of the European Union). As such, the violation of the moratorium was justified by the government Nastase as "serving state interests" of Romania and therefore having a superior motivation. Being considered discreet or more precisely secret actions, the Romanian side hoped that the whole story would never come to the knowledge of the Romanian and international public opinion. And the first who were interested in learning about the feat of the Nastase government were the Western partners who were left out of the "fair" and who, out of a spirit of competition and frustration, considered themselves "duped". at the two western chancelleries (not coincidentally in the respective period the two countries have, as a result of the rotation principle, the presidency of the European Union). As such, the violation of the moratorium was justified by the Nastase government as "serving the state interests" of Romania and therefore having a superior motivation. Being considered discreet or more precisely secret actions, the Romanian side hoped that the whole story would never reach public opinion Romanian and international publics. And the first people who were interested in learning about the feat of the Nastase government were the Western partners who were left out of the "fair" and who, out of a spirit of competition and frustration, considered themselves "fooled". at the two western chancelleries (not coincidentally in the respective period the two countries have, as a result of the rotation principle, the presidency of the European Union). As such, the violation of the moratorium was justified by the Nastase government as "serving the state interests" of Romania and therefore having a superior motivation. Being considered discreet or more precisely secret actions, the Romanian side hoped that the whole story would never reach public opinion Romanian and international publics. And the first people who were interested in learning about the feat of the Nastase government were the Western partners who were left out of the "fair" and who, out of a spirit of competition and frustration, considered themselves "fooled". the presidency of the European Union). As such, the violation of the moratorium was justified by the Nastase government as "serving the state interests" of Romania and therefore having a superior motivation. Being considered discreet or more precisely secret actions, the Romanian side hoped that the whole story would never reach public opinion Romanian and international publics. And the first people who were interested in learning about the feat of the Nastase government were the Western partners who were left out of the "fair" and who, out of a spirit of competition and frustration, considered themselves "fooled". the presidency of the European Union). As such, the violation of the moratorium was justified by the Nastase government as "serving the state interests" of Romania and therefore having a superior motivation. Being considered discreet or more precisely secret actions, the Romanian side hoped that the whole story would never reach public opinion Romanian and international publics. And the first people who were interested in learning about the feat of the Nastase government were the Western partners who were left out of the "fair" and who, out of a spirit of competition and frustration, considered themselves "fooled". the Romanian side hoped that the whole story would never come to the knowledge of the Romanian and international public opinion. And the first who were interested in learning about the feat of the Nastase government were the Western partners who were left out of the "fair" and who, out of a spirit of competition and frustration, considered themselves "duped". the Romanian side hoped that the whole story would never come to the knowledge of the Romanian and international public opinion. And the first who were interested in learning about the feat of the Nastase government were the Western partners who were left out of the "fair" and who, out of a spirit of competition and frustration, considered themselves "duped".

The second set of the ping-pong match began when, after the volens nolens de "mea culpa", the Nastase government promised the emergency approval of a legislation on the issue of institutionalized children and which included drastic new specifications regarding the conditions of realization of international adoptions. With this, Baroness E. Nicholson and through her the European Union obtained an act of unconditional capitulation sanctioned by the official declarations of the Prime Minister Adrian Nastase, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mircea Geoana and many other dignitaries, more or less little important or knowledgeable about the problem.

Another half

Once the first version of the legislation passed through the Senate, a new phase of the match was triggered, this time enteringfield a player hard to ignore, namely the United States. The critical positions regarding the adopted legislative formula came successively through a letter signed by 22 American congressmen, followed by the article of the Deputy Secretary of State of the Department of State, Richard L. Armitage and then by the letter of the American ambassador in Bucharest, Michael Guest .

„As members of the United States Congress, we are writing to express our concern regarding the recent developments in the child protection policy in Romania. According to the information received from the officials of the American State Department, the Government of Romania has proposed a drastically revised version of the draft law, which includes language in conflict with the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in the Matter of International Adoption (...) a treaty to which Romania, the United States and the member countries of the European Parliament are signatories". As you know, the fundamental principle of the Hague Convention provides (in the Preamble - no) that "for the full and harmonious development of the child, he must to grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness,

A point of view hard to ignore, at least considering the formal aspect of the expression.

For the children who remain in Romanian childcare institutions, the new legislative proposal of the Romanian Government would be a tragedy. For their sake, the law should be changed, and international adoptions, with all the necessary protections, should be allowed again."

Answers

In response to these statements, as the "fireman in chief" of diplomacy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mircea Geoana would state in an official statement following Adrian Nastase's instructions:

"The article published by Richard Armitage in the International Herald Tribune must be interpreted as a signal of friendship for Romania and care for our children (…), it must be interpreted as a signal of interest or for a "more relaxed" formula of the legislation adopted in Romania… Taking into account the very unpleasant experience we had recently in the European Parliament, we preferred to go with a prudent formula and we will see what the parliament will decide in the end". Mircea Geoana then added that "Until the next day", Romania must get through April 27, when the European Commissioner Gunther Verheugen will participate in the foreign policy meeting of the European Parliament. „Let's hope that we will get through this moment as well,

The answer to Washington's criticisms should be given by a middle-ranking official, namely the Secretary of State Gabriela Coman, the president of the National Authority for Child Protection and Adoption (ANPCA). It aggressively rejected the "fears" of Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, stating that currently "Romania can afford to take restrictive measures regarding international adoption" (?!) after which, through an abusive interpretive manipulation of the correct meaning of the text in the letter of the American dignitary, Adrian Nastase using Gabriela Coman tried to put Richard L. Armitage in an embarrassing position, insinuating something that is far from the truth, such as "it is not right to you mention the fact that you granted this money. There is money for the reform of the child protection system,

difficult man

that is, as the Romanians say, "a man of one piece", who when he has something to say, does it directly, clearly and to the point. Thanks to this fact, Richard L. Armitage was and continues to be used in American foreign policy whenever or the United States needs to tell the interlocutors things "in the saddle" without too many salon formulas. I feel that his previous experience in the special military forces, the famous "SEAL" body, must have left a strong mark on this man's character. As such, the position expressed by Richard L. Armitage falls into this category, and Ambassador Michael Guest reemphasized the identity of the critics with the official position of the American government. Armitage was and continues to be used in American foreign policy whenever the United States needs to tell the interlocutors things "in the saddle", without too many salon formulas. I intuit that his previous experience in the special military forces, the famous "SEAL" body must have left a strong mark on this man's character. As such, the position expressed by Richard L. Armitage falls into this category, and Ambassador Michael Guest re-emphasized the identity of the critics with the official position of the American government. Armitage was and continues to be used in American foreign policy whenever the United States needs to tell the interlocutors things "in the saddle", without too many salon formulas. I intuit that his previous experience in the special military forces, the famous "SEAL" body must have left a strong mark on this man's character. As such, the position expressed by Richard L. Armitage falls into this category, and Ambassador Michael Guest re-emphasized the identity of the critics with the official position of the American government.

The letter from the American ambassador in Bucharest would quickly put things in order: "The truth is that none of us would have taken this step if the provisions of the Government's draft law, as they were introduced in the Parliament, were not contradicted what the Government discussed with the US Embassy (and others) for approximately two and a half years. Moreover, we believe that the provisions of the Government's draft law are not in the spirit of the Hague Convention, which clearly stipulates the preference to place children in permanent care in families (first in the country, then outside it), instead of keeping them in the institutional setting or under the care of maternal assistants. Children's lives and their future are at stake. To be raised in a protective institution is not and can never be in their interest. Undoubtedly, one day, Romania will be able to take care of its abandoned children, entirely through internal adoptions - and, indeed, we all hope that, in time, there will be fewer and fewer cases of abandoned children. But none of these cases is valid today. This is not a matter of "donating" Romanian children, as Ms. Gabriela Coman would have stated in response to Mr. Armitage's point of view. The only thing that matters is the good of the child". as Ms. Gabriela Coman would have stated in response to the point of view expressed by Mr. Armitage. The only thing that matters is the good of the child". as Ms. Gabriela Coman would have stated in response to the point of view expressed by Mr. Armitage. The only thing that matters is the good of the child".

Not in the end, the American ambassador would put the point on "", as they say, stating: "This topic in no way places Romania between the United States and Europe, nor is it an exclusively Romanian problem and of the European Union. Romania has signed international commitments in this regard, including the Hague Convention, and has repeatedly argued that the moratorium is temporary (as the meaning of the word "moratorium" also shows), pending a law that corrects the problem of corruption".

In reality, the current controversy reflects more than ever the positioning of the governors from Bucharest within the geopolitical triangle with the United States and the European Union. A situation that illustrates not only the perennial nature of the opportunism of the Romanian foreign policy but also the level reached by the deterioration of the personal relations of the Prime Minister Adrian Nastase with the political circles in Washington and especially with the State Department. You don't have to be a great expert in political analysis to understand that statements like the ones above would have been in the realm of the fantastic until a month ago, that is, on the threshold of Romania's acceptance as a member of NATO. A phase when the Romanian rulers not only made significant political compromises but also sometimes unnecessarily outbid the "offer" in Romanian-American bilateral relations. Now the situation has changed, and once you enter the "club", Nastase et al., under the known pressure of being left behind in the process of fulfilling the conditions for the hypothetical accession to the European Union, are again using the method of overbidding the offer, this time at the address of the European organization. It is not the rejection of the American "objections" on the subject of the legislation regarding institutionalized children that is the central problem, but the completely undiplomatic manner in which it happened and which did not go unnoticed both in the executive and at the level of the American legislature. The opportunism of the Nastase government was received not only as "gratuitous arrogance" but, more seriously, it reinforced the old perception of its duplicitous character. In addition, it should also be remembered that the error committed by Adrian Nastase is also based on an absolutely personal political note. In the United States, it is no secret that in political circles the Romanian Prime Minister does not enjoy respect regardless of his participation in formal activities such as the expansion of the North Atlantic Organization. For years, in the American perception, his person was associated with toleration of acts of corruption and even involvement in this type of activities that devastated and continues to parasitize the Romanian economy. A perception based on concrete information and not on rumours. I don't think there was a level of official and informal Romanian-American contacts where this subject was not brought up. In turn, Adrian Nastase is also aware of the cause regarding this situation and it must be recognized that he has made extraordinary efforts in the last two years to change this perception. Without success. For the current situation, the prime minister considers the American ambassador in Bucharest and, obviously, the responsible factors within the State Department to be primarily responsible. His last visit to Washington convinced him definitively that the existing "gap" cannot be recovered until the winter elections and then he tries to capitalize politically by compensation in front of the European Union through frond gestures towards Washington in an international political context of otherwise quite complicated of transatlantic relations. One more proof, if any more was needed, that the current rulers do not hesitate even for a moment to ensure their political survival at the expense of the major interests of the Romanian state. They "waltz" as their interests dictate to them at the international ball, showing off through their lack of manners and not shying away from publicly practicing the tricks of someone from the periphery of society. To use a subject like that of to institutionalized children is not only immoral, but also disgusting.

Old story

As such, considering the recent status of allies in the North-Atlantic military organization of Western democratic countries, I consider it appropriate and useful to inform the public opinion as bona fide of the following:

At the beginning of the 80s, during the Ceausescu regime, the Foreign Intelligence Service (CIE) received the order to organize an action of historical magnitude both in terms of size and reporting to the time coordinate: taking control, through the emigration department (UM 0225), of the process of international adoptions of institutionalized children. The operation codified under the name "LEAGAN" was aimed both at sorting and stimulating international adoptions in Western areas and especially from NATO member countries. However aberrant it may seem today,industry , mass media, etc.). Even the mention of the famous group from Cambridge University, which after recruitment would lead the most important British intelligence services, is revealing in this regard. In the case of the "LEAGAN" operation, however, the Orwellian side was taken to the extreme by the "originality" of the Romanian contribution, this time targeting both the future adoptive parents and the adoptees.

network

As a result, to the usual criteria that had to be fulfilled for the approval of the respective adoption, that of the existence of the informative potential represented by the profession, the place of work, the geographical placement, the nature of the kinship relationships or the political, economic, cultural environment frequented, etc. was added. For everyone, theoretically, the adoption of a child from Romania represented, from the point of view of the intelligence service, the "connecting bridge" in order to facilitate a natural connection, justified without raising too much suspicion of the local counterintelligence bodies. Not in the last instance, the adopted children, entered as adoptive parents in the operational database of the service, were to represent an "excellent reserve" for potential recruits in the coming decades. None of the political factors responsible after December 1989 disavowed, if not publicly at least on an informal level, the relations with the countries targeted by this operation. Given that, as it has been shown, the current ideologically recycled political class has not given up on the unscrupulous capitalization of the process of international adoptions and which have produced funds of profit of hundreds of millions of dollars, I do not think that keeping silent about the "LEAGAN" operation bodes well for the international credibility of the current rulers. Taking a clear official position in Bucharest on this issue and transferring the information from the SIE data bank to the public domain is not only relatively late, but also absolutely necessary. The wise saying: "Better late than never". if not publicly, at least informally, in the relations with the countries targeted by this operation. Given that, as it has been shown, the current ideologically recycled political class has not given up on the unscrupulous capitalization of the process of international adoptions and which have produced funds of profit of hundreds of millions of dollars, I do not think that keeping silent about the "LEAGAN" operation bodes well for the international credibility of the current rulers. Taking a clear official position in Bucharest on this issue and transferring the information from the SIE data bank to the public domain is not only relatively late, but also absolutely necessary. The wise saying: "Better late than never". if not publicly, at least informally, in the relations with the countries targeted by this operation. Given that, as it has been shown, the current ideologically recycled political class has not given up on the unscrupulous capitalization of the process of international adoptions and which have produced funds of profit of hundreds of millions of dollars, I do not think that keeping silent about the "LEAGAN" operation bodes well for the international credibility of the current rulers. Taking a clear official position in Bucharest on this issue and transferring the information from the SIE data bank to the public domain is not only relatively late, but also absolutely necessary. The wise saying: "Better late than never". Taking a clear official position in Bucharest on this topic and transferring the information from the SIE database to the public domain is not only relatively late, but also absolutely necessary. The wise saying: "Better late than never". Taking a clear official position in Bucharest on this topic and transferring the information from the SIE database to the public domain is not only relatively late, but also absolutely necessary. The wise saying: "Better late than never".

Problem

More than a year later, the President of Romania was presented with a set of informative materials regarding the main corruption activities in the Romanian economy, with nominations and direct references to the involvement of numerous politicians and dignitaries of the present government. A copy of the set was also sent to Washington. All this time the public opinion was kept in the dark about the case, except of course the independent parallel investigations carried out under the difficult conditions known by the mass media. In legal terms, as well as in politics, getting to know such information without doing anything or nothing else is simply called: complicity.

When you occupy such a high position as the head of state, the responsibility is increased by the debt to an entire country. The question that arises is whether Mr. President Ion Iliescu made the wrong choice between being a president of all Romanians and protecting his own ruling party.