Normally Jonathan Scheele prefers to talk in obscure language about the EU's role in Romania. It can be a nightmare for journalists, both local and foreign looking for clear opinions from the EU's top representative in the country about where things are going. If he had not taken this role, I could see him instead brilliantly playing the role of a secret agent perhaps in North Korea or Iran. Even if he confessed under interrogation, I'm sure his Byzantine style of language would disorientate his captors. They would realise that an enormous mistake had been made. Agent Scheele had no secrets to reveal or, if he had, they would take forever to decipher. With undisguised relief and profuse apologies he would be let go, his cover as a travelling salesman accepted as genuine. But on 26 May Ambassador Scheele threw aside his wooden language and revealed a startling vision of how Romania could be in 2016. He said that 'Romania must become the seventh power in Europe from an economic point of view'. It should be a model for the Republic of Moldova and it was his goal to see a rural population in Romania that enjoyed access to a network of modern amenities, such as good roads and water and gas systems. Maybe the speech had been written by an aide under the influence of a hallucinogenic drug. Or so impressed had he been by the relentless hospitality of his Moldavian hosts that Mr Scheele at last allowed his innermost thoughts to be revealed. Whatever the case, I cannot recall any significant decision-maker speaking in such electrifying terms since Nicolae Ceausescu himself. And here one must become very critical of Scheele and spring to the defence of Ceausescu. Evidence suggests that the Redeemer of Romania genuinely believed that thanks to his efforts it was becoming a world power in its own right. Of course, he and his grand vizier, his very own wife Elena, were tricked by officials who fed them bogus information. Thanks to the stone age industrial strategy being pursued, Romania's economic performance was bringing the country down towards the level of Morocco and not up to Spain or Taiwan. Ceausescu went to his death believing the exact reverse. When Scheele leaves will he be convinced of his Iasi declaration? He shouldn't be. Unlike Ceausescu he gets to see accurate statistics. Indeed the EU compiles many of them. No other individual in European or Romanian politics has been so continuously involved with Romania and its problems than he has. He has met everyone and seen them at close quarters. He knows the extent to which reforms in key areas were met only at the rhetorical level in the 4 years the PSD ruled. Indeed, Adrian Nastase is a non-person whom he no longer mentions in public. He will know all about the memos marked urgent sent to Brussels about the justice system and even the conduct of elections and which were never answered, storing up huge difficulties later. He knows how poorly the Romanians negotiated terms of entry compared with the Poles or the Hungarians. Above all, he will know that the unsuitable procedures the EU used to try to modernise the country have backfired disastrously. After 7 years of close EU supervision, Romania lacks the capacity to co-finance projects or access much of the 27 billion Euro which Brussels has promised. The ex-President of Germany Roman Herzog may be close to the truth when he said last month that the accession of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007 is 'a scandal and an immense farse'. In fact, the EU Commission is making up its strategy as it goes along. A personal battle between Commissioners Frattini and Rehn right up to the eve of the 16 May decision on the timing of entry meant that EU officials had no idea what would be announced. Last week, the EU was still drawing up the list of 'exact measures' that needed to be carried out by Bucharest in order to convince Brussels by October that all was now well. Olli Rehn continues to repeat the nonesensical message perfected by his predecessor Gunther Verheugen about 'the need to make the final effort and go the very last mile' in the summer months of 2006. The need is just as pressing in 2006 as it was for Verheugen in 2003 and I suspect we will be hearing about this last extra mile long into the future. Many Romanians know that the idea of Romania being no 7 in Europe is crazy talk. They go to Hamburg and Milan and they can see within a few days that these cities have more economic dynamism and wealth than in the whole of Romania. Jonathan Scheele must explain in crystal clear language why he thinks Romania has a chance of being the 7th economic power in Europe. If not, then we have to conclude that one of the key figures shaping Romania's destiny in the new century (someone who will be remembered long after Sebastian Vladescu or George Copos) is as economically illiterate as Ceausescu. Parliamentarians in Brussels but preferably in Bucharest should quiz Mr Scheele in order to find out if the plans he is helping to coordinate make any economic sense. If not, the 1990s will surely be seen as a golden interlude between two dark periods in Romanian history, the first relatively short the other stretching far into the future.

Tom Gallagher