Two pieces of news from Romania are amazing Brussels and other analysts in the West again. They have just finished the report on Romania's approach to Kosovo, grounded on the absolutely clear message expressed by the President of Romania in Brussels: Romania isn't going to admit the independence of Kosovo, whether proclaimed unilaterally or in coordination with other states. It was as clear as crystal. But the pandemonium at home has completely changed what Romania wants to say, given the Romanian government's view, expressed as innocently as always by foreign minister Adrian Cioroianu. This time Romania is out of the blue claiming it isn't opposing the independence of Kosovo. It is not only about severe incoherence in a fundamental matter of foreign affairs and of relations with the strategic games played by the EU and the NATO. To analysts, this is growing dramatic, if they relate it to a question which is now a refrain in the relations with Romania: which of the foreign partners are we supposed to trust? On the one hand, the presidential authority on foreign affairs coordination should be unquestionable. No way, Mr. Cioroianu says, it is us who make the foreign affairs, that is I on behalf of the Romanian government. Upon my request what I say will be repeated by my employees, by my ambassadors. As neutral as all Romanians are, they were all in Brussels applauding Traian Basescu, without showing the slightest sign that the President was going astray and the they had got different directions from the central premises. There was even more: they were crowding to congratulate him. As far as foreign affairs is concerned, the situation in Romania looks like a piece of fake gypsy music grossly played by a group of deaf, dumb and blind people wishing the audiance to listen to them. We are surprised and we lament that no one listens to us and that, when it comes to making major decisions, we are left aside. Well, what if Romania had been invited to join a group of negotiations, which is very unlikely? Which view would it have come up with? Or would it have sent two separate representatives, each one with his boss's opinions, making everyone go mad and causing more chaos in a dramatic situation? What kind of foreign affairs is this? Which country can still afford such dunce tricks? And this is not all. Military analysts were surprised to hear the message expressed by our honorable MPs. Without having tackled it and only by tacit consent, they modified the legal regulation on Romania's security strategy, trying to make it concide with the defense strategy only. In their minds this is a reminiscence of the phrase they were used to in the Communist era, when there was talk about the entire people providing the country's security. This is stupid and it will cost us some more credibility. Anywhere in the world the defense strategy is accompanied by or it is part of the national security strategy. Decades ago the military dimension as such, typical of the Cold War era, was engulfed by a much more complex outlook, now open to all the other types of threats, the non-military ones in particular. If we are talking about a defense strategy exclusively, then we are determined not to consider the pro-active strategy that NATO is going to tackle during the summit due in Bucharest. That kind of strategy that mentions asymmetric risks menacing all the Western democracies, let alone a still unconsolidated economy such as the one in Romania. Romania's message is not in keeping with the standards of the European and Euro-Atlantic strategic approach to security. The defense and security strategies share the same European field, supposed to be approached as such. If we don't want this, it is our business, no doubt. But they will pay attention to Romania only when the country has to understand what is going on.

Cristian UNTEANU