Soliloquies

U.S. Ambassador to Romania Michael Guest speaks of corruption in Romania quite frequently and, of course, he never does it by chance. The question that comes to mind when listening to him speak of corruption in Romania is: whom is he speaking to? To whom does he address his acid remarks on this subject?

The simplest answer would be that the ambassador is speaking to the Romanian authorities. Why to them? Well, because it is their job to initiate and enforce legal and administrative measures of the nature to prevent further development of corruption, which has gained porportions that single out Romania. Another good answer would be that in the American ambassador's opinion - an opinion generally shared by organizations whose job is to study and fight this plague - corruption is a parasite that corrupts and perverts public institutions and public figures alike. In business, one can be honest or not, can observe contracts or not, can obey the law or not, can be loyal to a company or not, but corruption remains specific to the public institutions, from the highest offices in the State administration down to the least important clerk paid with public money to do some job for the public.

Nevertheless, the Romanian authorities do not share Ambassador Guest's views. They continue to believe - or pretend to believe - that public institutions are only vaguely, remotely related to the subject of corruption. Naturally, this reaction is easy to understand, considering that, should they accept the views of their trouble-making interlocutor, The Government would have to do something to fight corruption among its own colleagues, clerks, party members, tycoons, sponsors and "local lords,' who are now feasting on the fruits of power without caring whether what they are doing is called corruption or not. And, when someone dares bother them, they react immediately, each in their own ways. A mayor, who shall remain unnamed, usually reacts to such questions with showers of semi-articulate words broadcast on all television channels, swearing that he is not doing anything wrong, although he has been long proven to stick his hands into the cookie jar every now and again. His party condones him and keeps supporting him because, as we well know, party solidarity is sacred! In the same style, if the one accused of corruption - and caught red handed, by the way - happens to be a high-ranking Government official, like a "minister secretary general of The Government,' for instance, then the first reaction is for the party to make a number of other dignitaries come up with make-believe indignation and outrage intended to convince commoners that Earth will sink before such a dignitary would stain his good name and reputation with acts of corruption. Should the media, foreign authorities and institutions genuinely concerned with Romania's fate bring further and further evidence that the respective dignitary is a rotten apple, then the party does a government reshuffle and moves the accused to another position of at least equal importance. Today, the high-ranking dignitary I am referring to is an advisor to the very same Government and is of course remunerated with a salary befitting his expertise and "the social importance of his work." Amen!

Another way in which The Government chooses to react to the annoying and insistent remarks on corruption made by our partners from across the Ocean is as simple: diversion. Out of the blue, anti-corruption campaigns are commenced, some dirty cop is caught red handed or some unimportant judge becomes the target of all the mighty fighters of corruption employed by Romania's many institutions set up to fight corruption. This is also a good opportunity to get some good publicity and to show their masters that they are actually doing something to earn their wages. In the meantime, television stations have been invaded by all sorts of "special teams' of hosts and producers doing the same kind of show, in which the untouchable Romanian police catches every villain, including the villains in its ranks, on prime time. Such campaigns last for a day or two, then everything goes back to the usual state until the next excuse for televised fuss comes along. Amusingly, not even the small fish caught red-handed by mighty anti-corruption crusaders are convinced that efforts to hamper corruption are genuine.

Another reaction pattern in The Government's repertory is the one to Ambassador Guest's open letters. This reaction is of obvious, unequivocal irritation. The prime minister himself reproached the ambassador and not in the most diplomatic terms I might add: that he does not know what he is talking about, that his superiors have not authorized him to say that kind of things, that it is not in his best interest to keep repeating such remarks, that he had better keep quiet because, after all, he is only an ambassador and, finally, "If you're accusing me of something, say it out loud if you've got the guts!"

The last and most significant "defensive' reaction that The Government has to corruption accusations sounds something like "Is our corruption worse than others' corruption??" And, to prove that it is not, the prime minister praises the Berlusconi governing model or points at any other example that might serve his case - like the recent Juppe case in France. The line is almost convincing: "if greater and more reputable nations have their rotten apples, why shouldn't we?"

If the American's ambassador's talks with Romanian dignitaries remain an ever-failing attempt to communicate, then we should reiterate the question "whom is Ambassador Guest talking to?" because it does not look like the conversation with The Government is leading anywhere. My hunch is that Ambassador Guest is still hoping to make Romanians, the people, not the rulers, react in some way instead of just complaining about corruption in every poll without ever making their leaders account for their deeds.

For the time being, however, his dialogues with us are actually simple and sad soliloquies!