ZIUA daily made a mistake with no ill intention. It published on the front page an analysis that readers may misinterpret, because this article doesn't express ZIUA journalists' view. Dan Pavel is the author of this analysis on an issue much debated lately, concerning undercover officers in the press. This is a pain in the neck first admitted by the SRI (Romanian Intelligence Service) spokesman and then by the ex SRI chief. The President of Romania Traian Basescu also admitted it to be true. Dan Pavel opines that the existence of undercover officers in the press is as normal as possible and he assumes that the unmasking of such staff would do much harm to the secret services of a democratic state. With all the respect for this ZIUA analyst, whose texts I have never censored and I never will, I must mention his opinions are in contradiction with our publication's editorial view. Therefore the mistake I am talking about is that the respective analysis was published on the front page, but not on the opinion one. It has fuelled the wrong impression that the newspaper has changed attitude. But it is not so, hence my present initiative, which will argue against Dan Pavel's view. It will also complete the comments made yesterday by Adrian Severin, another outstanding ZIUA analyst. Since the state became the nation's enemy and its interests were different from citizens' under the Communist regime, it is clear that the Securitate (Communist Secret Service in Romania), as main instrument for repression, must be condemned as political police. I am not developing on the idea right now, because public opinion is fed-up with it. Given this premise, all those who collaborated with the ex Securitate one way or the other, journalists included, must be condemned. What about what was after 1990? Is such collaboration of journalists and secret services necessary and motivated in a state slowly returning to citizens? Can we tolerate or even encourage a status like journalist-informer? Can we put up with the fact that undercover officers are among us? In order to give the right answer, I have to continue Adrian Severin's analysis. The latter starts with a reasonable question. Why would the secret services need to protect newspapers' offices by means of undercover officers or informers, as Traian Basescu said? If there is any foreign enemy among journalists, he/she can be identified and uncovered not necessarily in the office he/she works. If we admit that foreign services' spies and influence agents are swarming in Romania, we implicitly admit they are be present where decisions are reached and then in the press. We also admit that in the last 15-16 years our intelligence services should have grabbed a few such people. The infiltration of moles should be everywhere, such as in a police-like state. Romania has not actually seen unmasked spies, caught, sued and sentenced. Can we admit this is because of the so many secret services? Anyway, in the last 16 years we have heard about no foreign spy sneaking to a Romanian daily's offices, except for the accusation Adrian Severin expressed while he was a foreign minister. At that time he claimed there were two directors of dailies who had collaborated with the KGB in the past. Not even today do we know whether Adrian Severin was right or not. The fact is that the Securitate sacked him, not a foreign secret service and he lost status as head of Romanian diplomats. As far as the Romanian press is concerned, we enjoy full calmness. Despite all the "protection" we have been granted, there has been reached no spy or influence agent threatening press freedom. No matter how optimistic and biased we are as far as the Romanian secret services are concerned, the most favorable conclusion we can reach is that the "protection" has worked like a Chinese wall: invincibly. If this is so, we should complete the answer to the second question Adrian Severin asked in the editorial ZIUA published yesterday. What else do secret services moles in the Romanian press do, apart from protection and journalism? In case he/she does not do journalism, a journalist proceeds to diversion, meaning he/she invents, manipulates or twists information, just as he/she can betray information sources, his/hers or his/her colleagues'. They do it to serve their real master, one or the other secret service. And here we are talking about political police once again. In such case, the secret services work against the free circulation of information and against citizens. Therefore, with all the respect for Dan Pavel's different opinions, I have to conclude that he is standing by one or several Romanian secret services even when political police work is done, even under a democratic regime. And I think it is a mistake, just like the tolerance for press moles. But their time will come too!

Sorin Rosca Stanescu