NATO Treaty, the first obstacle in Călin Georgescu's foreign policy regarding Ukraine

The NATO Treaty is the first obstacle in Călin Georgescu's foreign policy regarding Ukraine, which claims that, in the event of a peace imposed by Trump in the neighboring country, Romania could take advantage and request the return of former Romanian territories. Călin Georgescu's statements regarding the return of territories by the neighboring state can be viewed in Ion Cristoiu's podcast, which started with a discussion about the presidential candidate's political experience and the definition of foreign policy.

Călin Georgescu said: "My greatest expertise is (ed. - sic!) foreign policy and democracy. Everything is played on one's own security - at least from what I have seen in the last 10-15 years -, everything. If you are not very strong, you are out of the stadium. Everything is played on resources - who has it, how it has it, if it has it and in the long term. (...) Food security is equal to national security. Whoever understands this will win the future. (...) Foreign policy means setting priorities. You don't set your priorities, you don't have them in your mind, you don't have them in your soul, you don't live with this feeling that there is your country, there is your country's identity, from there you can take the country into orbit - as Brâncuşi did -, you can't move forward. (...) The theme of survival is essential in foreign policy".

The author of the statement regarding the survival of the state (or the nation) did not specify whether survival is done at the expense of another country/nation or not. Corroborating this statement regarding survival with others from the same discussion that Călin Georgescu had with Ion Cristoiu, it can be said that the presidential candidate is thinking about survival at the expense of another.

Where does this come from?

Asked by Ion Cristoiu if he believes that, in the process of pacifying Ukraine, there will be a division of the neighboring state's territories, Călin Georgescu said bluntly: "There will be a meeting between Putin and Trump, where things will be decided. And, of course, with a wider table, including Ukraine and, I would like, Romania as well. Here we could play a colossal role, and the meeting should take place in Bucharest. We need to see what the new formula launched by Trump is. (...). The world is changing, the borders are changing. Where are we? We have Northern Bukovina - interest, Bugeac, Northern Maramures from the former Transcarpathia - something will also remain with the Hungarians, Lvov, which remains with the Poles, (...). 100% this will be the case. The road is inevitable towards something like this. Ukraine is an invented state. There are no landmarks there. (...) The war is lost, there is no other formula. They (ed. - the Americans) know this and want to emerge from this situation with dignity. That is why it is a very smart move by Trump - to go ahead, to come out clean and very elegant. Think about what happened with Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq. (...) America will no longer negotiate through Brussels. It is a chance for us to leave aside the Byzantine policy that we have pursued so far and to negotiate directly. We will negotiate directly with the most important partner ever: America. Everything is done through America. (...) We will see how the relations between America and Russia will change. Romania is from the Dniester to the Tisa, we will see how it will be in the future, how the relations between the US and Russia will evolve and we will benefit, reaching, as Eminescu said, from the Dniester to the Tisa. All these new borders that are opening up to us are to our advantage, including for NATO. First of all, they are ours, it is undeniable, historical. I did not say that we are asking for them, but take advantage of the opportunity, see what happens."

• The border treaty signed in 1997 with Ukraine, a condition for joining NATO

What Călin Georgescu says would make sense in a world that completely renounces the principles of international law, the international treaties signed, and in which the UN and NATO are abolished. But that world does not exist.

Romania cannot take advantage of a peace in Ukraine to sign a new treaty with this country through which the current borders would be reconsidered and the former Romanian territories that were part of the neighboring state would be received, because on June 2, 1997, in Constanţa, the two countries signed a border treaty - a treaty that entered into force on November 22, 1997 following ratification by the two parliaments -, a document through which the authorities in Bucharest and Kiev recognize as definitive the borders existing at that time. We note that the negotiation and conclusion of this treaty was one of the conditions that we had to fulfill in order to be accepted into NATO. This condition stipulates that any state wishing to join the North Atlantic Alliance must have concluded treaties with all its neighbors regarding the recognition of borders.

The condition arises from Article 1 of the NATO Treaty which stipulates: "The Parties undertake, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to settle by peaceful means any international dispute in which they may be involved, in such a way as not to prejudice international peace and security, as well as justice, and to refrain in international relations from resorting to the threat or use of force in any manner incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations".

Therefore, previously, on September 16, 1996, Romania and Hungary signed and ratified the Timişoara Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness, which resolved some disputes and laid the foundations for cooperative relations to the advantage of both countries.

Now, to come now in the possible context of concluding a peace in Ukraine and to open an international dispute with the neighboring country regarding the return of some territories - as is evident from the statements of Călin Georgescu - practically means to violate Article 1 of the NATO Treaty or, better said, to exclude yourself from the respective military alliance.

• The difference between cancellation and suspension

Regarding Ukraine, also in Ion Cristoiu's podcast, Călin Georgescu said: "On January 27 (ed. - Georgescu said "February 27", but was corrected by Cristoiu, although at first he seemed not to understand what he did wrong), Trump signed the decree canceling all aid to Ukraine. He gave them 90 days. It is a clear message to Zelensky to make lasting peace. For us, this is crucial. You look around and see that they are discussing new borders. Well, this is where we have to be!".

False! First of all, the executive order in question was signed by Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, that is, on the first day of his term. On January 27, Donald Trump signed five executive orders, three of which relate to organizational matters regarding the US armed forces, one to the US Iron Dome shield, and one to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi camp at Auschwitz.

Second, the US President did not order the cancellation, but the suspension, for 90 days, of all financial aid granted globally, not just to Ukraine.

Section 3 of the order states:

"(a) A 90-day suspension in the provision of foreign development assistance by the United States to assess the programmatic effectiveness and coherence of any support provided with the foreign policy of the United States. All heads of departments and agencies with responsibility for United States foreign development assistance programs shall immediately suspend the execution of obligations and payments of development assistance funds to foreign countries and implementing nongovernmental organizations, international organizations, and contractors, pending a review of such programs for effectiveness and programmatic coherence with United States foreign policy, for a period of 90 days from the date of this order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall enforce this suspension.

(b) Reviews of each foreign assistance program shall be ordered by the heads of departments and agencies responsible, in accordance with guidelines provided by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of OMB.

(c) The heads of departments and agencies responsible, in consultation with the Director of OMB, shall make decisions within 90 days from the date of this order regarding the continuation, modification, or termination of each foreign assistance program based on the recommendations of the review, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.

(d) Obligations and payments from assistance funds may be resumed for a program before the end of the 90-day period if a review is conducted and the Secretary of State or his/her designee, in consultation with the Director of OMB, decides to continue the program in the same or modified form. In addition, any new foreign assistance programs and obligations must be approved by the Secretary of State or his/her designee, in consultation with the Director of OMB.

(e) The Secretary of State may waive the suspension provided for in paragraph (a) for certain programs.

Regarding Zelensky's commitment to peace, Georgescu's statement is also false, because, according to the American press, Trump's advisers claim that a comprehensive analysis is needed and that peace will be concluded at the earliest by the end of the first 100 days of the new American president's term.

We also mention that, at the end of the discussion with Ion Cristoiu, Călin Georgescu also said regarding the foreign policy of our country: "We must get closer with everyone. We must get along with everyone. We want peace with everyone, but we must score economically where the Romanian interest requires it. So therefore, everything that is good for your people you must bring home".

However, he did not specify who determines what is good for the people. Or how some decisions are classified as good for the people.