REVELATIONS BY PROFESSOR IOAN SCURTU "Mihai Răzvan Ungureanu sabotaged the negotiations for the Romanian treasury in Moscow"

During his term as minister of foreign affairs, Mihai Răzvan Ungureanu, who has been recently appointed personal advisor to the new president of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, has sabotaged through official actions the activity of the Commission for the recovery of the Romanian treasury shipped to Moscow.

During that time, he also took every possible action to allow the illegal transfer of the Treasury of the Gojdu Heritage to Hungary.

Moreover, Emil Boc, the prime-minister of the former president Traian Băsescu, completely took out the issue of the Romanian Treasury confiscated by the Russians from his governing platform, after the parliamentary elections of 2008.

This dramatic information is included in the book by Ioan Scurtu, "The Romanian treasury in Moscow", recently published by Romanian publishing house Editura Enciclopedică (Bucharest, 2014).

Since its creation in 2004, and until 2012, when he resigned, professor Ioan Scurtu has served as the co-president of the common Russian-Romanian Commission for the study of the issues arising from the history of the bilateral relations, including the issue of the Treasury deposited in Moscow during WW1, the Treasury Commission in short. Basically, the professor's memoir proves that, beyond the flamboyantly patriotic statements, during the ten-year period that he served as president of Romania, Traian Băsescu's only stance on the Romanian Treasury has consisted of ambiguous statements, a slap on the shoulder and a joke at a reception.

Băsescu's jokes and Ungureanu's obstructions, followed by those of his successors, loyal to the directives of the Cotroceni palace or of CP Tăricanu, Adrian Cioroianu, Lazăr Comănescu (who has also been appointed a presidential advisor), Cristian Diaconescu, Cătălin Predoiu, Teodor Baconschi and then, once again, in the Ungureanu government, Cristian Diaconescu, professor Scurtu has experienced personally. Diplomatically, they have led to a total deadlock. Who caused that deadlock to happen?

If we were to just follow way the usual clues, which apply in this information/political situation, we would easily find the source. People, and especially politicians, and presidents even more so, are judged according to what they do, not what they say. It is tragic to find that in Romania of the last 10 years, in spite of the anti-Russian diversionist provocations, the power has essentially served Russia's interests, at least when it comes to the recouping of a national asset over which Ceauşescu, for instance, did not hesitate to argue with Brezhnev directly. The facts, mentioned with details in the book by professor Scurtu, speak for themselves.

• The NBR portion of the treasury in Moscow alone is worth 5 billion dollars today

The event for the launch of the book, which took place at the National Bank of Romania, on November 11th, last year, even between the two election rounds of the presidential elections (November 2nd and November 16th, 2014), has reflected sine die the fact that this topic, which is so thorny in Romania's relations with its biggest neighbor (so far only through the Black Sea), but also in terms of its importance for the nation's wealth, has been completely absent from the electoral debates.

It is no surprise.

"The treasury that was sent to the Russians for safekeeping in 1916-1917 comprises 93.4 tons of gold, of which 91 tons historic coins and 2.4 tons of bullion. The first shipment, December 12-14 1916, comprised seven train cars, which were carrying 1738 crates, worth 314,580,456.84 lei, and between July 23rd - July 27th, 1917, 24 train cars with goods worth 7.5 billion lei", professor Florin Negoiţă writes in brief on the blog of professor Ioan Scurtu.

This is the biggest disagreement in Romania's history, aside from the one concerning the Romanian alienated provinces, said historian Cristian Păunescu, advisor to the governor of the NBR Mugur Isărescu, in his speech at the scientific debate occasioned by the launch of the book. Historians Mihai Retegan, of the University of Bucharest, Dorin Matei, of the "Magazin Istoric" magazine, and the author also spoke at the launch.

The 93.4 tons of gold, in the treasury are worth 3.5 billion dollars at the current price on the London Exchange, as well as the numismatic value, which adds 40%, which puts the amount that the Russian state should repay us at approximately 5 billion dollars, representing the treasury of the NBR exclusively, said Cristian Păunescu in his speech. As it is known, Romania's treasury that ended up in Russia contains many other goods and valuable items. Unlike Romania, Hungary, with the help of its secret services, that have pored through Russia's library, has already succeeded in recouping its rare books treasury from Russia, which were confiscated by the Red Army in 1956, an act which was signed just a few days prior to Putin's visit in Budapest in 2006.

• Băsescu merely laughed

About the relations with the forces installed in power after December 2004, we find that, on June 9th, 2005, Romanian president Traian Băsescu had not yet met the co-president of the Commission which treated the matter of the treasury, professor Ioan Scurtu. Scurtu took advantage of the tact that the president was present at the reception for the National Day of the Russian Federation and introduced himself to Traian Băsescu while he was talking to Aleksandr Tolkach, Russia's ambassador at the time.

Since a new meeting of the Commission was scheduled to take place in Moscow a few days later, Băsescu, says Scurtu, put his hand on his shoulder and laughing, told him: "Carry on your discussions, carry on!".

In response to Scurtu's reply, Băsescu burst into laughter, and further said: "Yes, yes, continue talking, discuss history...".

"I don't know what ambassador Tolkach reported to Moscow, but he certainly noticed that Romania's president did not show any interest in the recouping of the Treasury, and the Commission was only intended for discussions of a historic nature", Ioan Scurtu writes in his book.

Traian Băsescu wanted to reinforce the message that he was leaving the past behind and that he was looking to the future, a rhetoric which was frequently used by Russian "colleagues", when that administrative situation was being discussed.

• The Commission gets left without the financing of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Constantiniu hands in his resignation

Prior to this new round of discussions in Moscow, a meeting with the members of the Romanian party happened on June 16th, 2005, when the first major breach in the structure of the Commission occurred.

The secretary of the Commission, Victoria Gavrilescu, informed that there is no financing for the activity of the Commission - the notification sent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Ministry of Finance "got lost" - and that each member had to get funding from the institution that employed them.

The Academy, which had several members on the Commission, would not have allocated any money, as its president, Eugen Simion, complained everywhere that the institution was short on cash. Aside from the financial problems, the talks heated up as a result of the realization "since neither president Băsescu, nor foreign affairs minister Ungureanu raised the issue of the Treasury, it was clear that the Romanian officials were not interested in the matter", Scurtu writes, and he said: "As a result, Florin Constantiniu stated that he was going to withdraw from the Commission, because he had no faith in effectiveness. As long as Romania's president claims that the issue of the Treasury was just a historical one, it was impossible to reach a concrete result. Based on what Mrs. Gavrilescu was saying, he deduced that this was a sabotage from the Romanian Government, which did not want to support the activity of the common commission". Professor Scurtu decried the departure of the great historian from the Commission.

• The Gojdu assets returned to Hungary, yes, Romania's treasury from Russia

Since the Ministry of Foreign Affairs led by Ungureanu and the Tăriceanu government had no funding for the Commission, the trip to Moscow went in humiliating conditions, Scurtu writes. Tickets were bought on the cheapest flight, which incidentally was Hungarian, (MALEV), with the departure at 6:15 (and to be present on the airport at 4:15), with a stop in Budapest and then in Moscow, where part of the delegation was going to be hosted at the embassy, to save on expenses.

"The Tăriceanu government was drastically cutting the expenses incurred with this commission, as it was not interested in the recouping of the Romanian treasury in Moscow, but it was magnanimous when it came to the restitution of goods and properties, including to foreigners", Scurtu writes, referring to the Gojdu Inheritance and the alienation of several Romanian properties to many Hungarian "heirs", even though they had been bought back by the Romanian state after 1918.

"The Hungarian state never brought up the issue of the restitution of the goods that the members of the Romanian minority had owned in Hungary, but the Romanian state (through the Tăriceanu government) expressed its willingness to give up the assets of the Gojdu Foundation, created by Emanoil Gojdu to support the Romanian students of orthodox confession. I had found that foreign affairs minister Mihai Răzvan Ungureanu was negotiating with his peer in Budapest the creation of a common, Romanian-Hungarian foundation, which would be financed out of the goods that belonged to the Gojdu foundation", Scurtu writes, to conclude bitterly: "Thus, when it came to recouping the Romanian treasury from the Russians that had been transferred to Moscow in 1916 and 1917, the Tăriceanu government was reluctant, but when there was a matter of < restitutio in integrum >, it was far more generous".

The trip to Moscow was not without its share of misadventures, after part of the delegation was forced to leave the plane by a Hungarian official delegation, which was going to Moscow as well.

• Order from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: stop any involvement in the issue of the Treasury

Former cosmonaut Dumitru Prunariu, Romania's ambassador in Moscow at the time, confirmed to professor Ioan Scurtu, who had arrived in Russia, that he was going to be recalled to Bucharest after having served for about 18 months.

Following a talk at a reception with the president of the Russian part of the Commission, Aleksandr Chubaryan, Prunariu sent a note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, from where he got instead a "letter of admonishment", signed by Ungureanu's former college colleague, Lucian Leuştean, brought in from Iaşi and appointed secretary of state in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by which he was being asked not to broach the issue of the treasury in any way at all while on Russia's territory, Scurtu writes. Scurtu also mentions, that during that same period, the ambassador had been approached by a lobby group that claimed to be working on recouping the treasury. "But < the letter of admonishment > did not refer to the so-called restitution through a private company, but to the issue of the treasury as a whole, including the Common Commission", the Romanian historian concludes.

To top it all off, in an article signed by GDS "22" magazine journalist Rodica Culcer, who was the president's favorite journalist at the Romanian State Television, it was claimed that Prunariu's dismissal from the position of ambassador was that he hadn't done anything to get the treasury back.

Viorica Moisuc resigned from the Commission as a result of the information that foreign affairs minister Mihai Răzvan Ungureanu had instructed the Romanian ambassador in Moscow not to get involved in the issue of the treasury. "The withdrawal of Mrs. Moisuc from the common commission has represented a very serious loss, as she was - together with Cristian Păunescu - one of the biggest experts on the matter of the Romanian treasury sent to Moscow in 1916 and 1917", Scurtu writes.

• Adventures with the MALEV flights of 1 AM

On the next meeting, of April 2006, the misadventures of the travel to Moscow continued, with Ungureanu's ministry raising the same hurdles. "Even though the Tăriceanu government claimed that Romania's economy was < booming >, and it had exceptional results, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told us that it needs to cut back expenses, including those with the treasury Commission. As a result, the number of experts and members that were going to travel to Moscow had to be reduced to the < bare minimum >". "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not have the < resources > (nor the desire to support the Commission's activity)", Scurtu concluded. This time again, the airline tickets were bought from MALEV, with a departure at 6:30 and for the return trip, the takeoff from Moscow was at 1:30 (in the morning obviously). This time, Scurtu turned down "the generous offer" of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, noting that, if the Russians saw the manner the Commission was treated by the Ministry, the Government and the Romanian presidency, they would treat it in a similar manner. A solution was eventually found.

• An ambassador in love with the WCs of the Romanian embassy in Moscow

In the Romanian Embassy in Moscow, to avoid having the fate of his predecessor, the new ambassador, Ioan Donca, appointed by Ungureanu and Băsescu, constantly kept talking to them during the meals together about the sandstone, tiles and the WCs he had had replaced in the Embassy building. Scurtu writes that he later found out that Donca had also received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs an express order, in fact, an renewal of the past order, by which he was imperatively being asked not to get involved in the matter of the treasury. Donca placed an increased emphasis on the whole situation, to make sure that the historians would pass the message along. For the same reason, he gave them the rustiest van that the embassy could muster for their trips.

• The Boc government eliminates the matter of the treasury from the Governing program

The seemingly intentional failure of the Romanian diplomacy - which, in June 2006, organized with much pomp in Bucharest, a "Black Sea Forum" which wasn't attended by any Russian participants, even though president Vladimir Putin himself was invited -, as well as the verbal provocations of the Romanian president, and, subsequently, the subordination of the foreign policy, have led to the complete deadlock of the activity of the Commission, as the Russian party invoked various pretexts to avoid the regular meetings. Meanwhile, back in Romania, an assiduous campaign was being waged in favor of a private company, which would allegedly recoup the Treasury by its own means. In 2008, the issue was "closed", without informing the Romanian co-president of the Common Commission, once the new governing program of Emil Boc, the leader of the PDL, was abandoned, as recorded by Ioan Scurtu.

"I never imagined the Romanian government would go so far as to remove the issue of the Treasury from the list of its political objectives", Scurtu writes, who admits that he only found out that happened in 2012.

• The Romanian and Russian secret services had an equal hand in the sabotage

In the closing words of his book, aside from expressing the hope that, "maybe, one day", Russia will honor its own signature on a valid paper, proving it is a civilized state, historian Ioan Scurtu doesn't forget to mention the role of the special services in the undermining of the activity of the Commission.

Professor Scurtu does not doubt the involvement of the Russian secret services in the deadlocking of the Commission, but he sees, with much disappointment, that the Romanian ones have sadly acted upon the suggestion of political leaders, to sabotage the Commission and maintain this major item of contention between Russia and Romania. The only diplomatic achievement in this period is the moment when the Romanian treasury was included in a parliamentary resolution of the Council of Europe, which recommended the continuation of the negotiations (2012).

• A plea for a national state of spirit

In the presentation of his book, at the NBR, Ioan Scurtu pleaded for the awareness of the Romanian nation on the issue of recouping the Romanian treasury, the nation's valuables, the lost assets, for creating a "state of spirit" in that regard.

"The presidency, the government, the political parties, the civil society, have to set it as their fundamental goal to get the Treasury back", Scurtu says.

Not only the NBR should get involved in the issue of the Treasury, Scurtu considers, but also the Romanian Academy, which continues to shy away from this issue, CEC, which has hugely valuable assets in Moscow, various private banks, the Romanian Orthodox Church, the National Archives, the Royal Family, the historian further says, who mentions that former Queen Mary even took off her earrings to place them in the royal cases, which went on their path of no return to Russia.

"Why aren't the members of the Royal Family asking for Queen Mary's jewels in Moscow, aside from Romania's forests?", Ioan Scurtu asks publicly. "This fortune belongs to the Romanian people. It can't just be abandoned!", the historian concluded.

• Members of the Russian side, either sick, or too old

This book is unique, said Dorin Matei; it represents the whole dossier of the works of the Romanian Russian Commission, together with the story of the Treasury and a complex press dossier on these issues. The director of prestigious Romanian magazine "Magazin Istoric" (Historical Magazine) then presented a lucid review of the Romanian-Russian analyses, starting with the signing of the Base Treaty and the provocation of the so-called "Belkovski plan" for the "retrocession of Bessarabia" and up until the end of the works of this common Commission, led by Ioan Scurtu, on the Romanian side.

Mihai Retegan noted that professor Ioan Scurtu, even though he was harassed over the course of those eight years, has succeeded in providing an objective approach of the subject, thanks to his professionalism, as well as of the gift of permanently recording absolutely everything he does, according to one of his youth habits. Out of the avatars of the co-president of the Commission, Cristian Păunescu reminded that even setting the date of a new meeting with the Russian party, whose members were getting increasingly older, was an effort that required much energy, patience, tact and diplomacy. "Postponements were constant, and the reasons were varied: a member of the Commission got sick; the Commission had a very busy agenda; the agenda of the president of the Commission was very busy, etc. And the current excuse of the Russian party is that they no longer have specialists on the subject of bilateral relations. But they've pumped out specialists by the ton... This excuse doesn't hold any water", Păunescu says.

• Looking for an ally

Soon we will be commemorating 100 years since the Treasury was handed over, Cristian Păunescu, the moderator of the debate said in closing, who wished good luck to the new executives of the Commission which is currently led by academician Ioan Aurel Pop, according to the suggestion of professor Ioan Scurtu. We should not forget, however, about other similar litigious issues: the Gojdu Foundation - the inheritance in the banks and the real estate properties in the center of Budapest, the treasury of Sânnicolau Mare, currently in Vienna, the Treasury of Feldioara, of which a part is found in Egypt, the swords of Stefan the Great found in Turkey, the fact that the Romanian Prodromu monastery isn't just a monastery, even though Romanian rulers were the greatest donors to the Holy Athos mountain, and other similar issues that should be resolved. It takes a major EU power as an ally, that would support us in this action, of recouping the Romanian treasury in Moscow. If such an allied power exists and if it wanted to raise this issue with Russia, Cristian Păunescu concluded.