Connect with us

ENGLISH

Op-Ed | Marian Preda, University of Bucharest Rector’: On Managers, Leaders and the role of Universities in the formation of Elites

Published

on

by Prof. Univ. dr. Marian Preda, Rector of the University of Bucharest, on the occasion of receiving the title of Doctor Honoris Causa from the State University of Moldova

  1. On managers, leaders, and their authority

The leaders of peoples, religions, social movements or corporations, the commanders of armies have been throughout history and still are exceptional people on whom the survival, success or failure of peoples, corporations, organizations or armies they lead depend. The exceptional leaders have made the main difference, for better or for worse, in the history of those they led. The others have only contributed.

Where would the Jewish people be today without Moses, the great leader who brought them out of captivity and lead them on one of the most fascinating journeys of people through history? What would we have today instead of the great religions without Jesus, Muhammad, or Buddha? What would peaceful social movements have been without Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, or Nelson Mandela? What would Rome have looked like in Antiquity without Caesar or Octavianus Augustus, and what would human history have looked like without Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin? Would Ford, Apple, or Microsoft have been so notorious without Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates?

What would the last 750 days of our region have looked like if it were not for Putin? But what if it were not for Zelenski?

We will talk about the exceptional people who lead us and who decide on our behalf, because the crisis of the last decades seems to reveal, once again, the importance of leaders and of decision-makers and the global crisis of the political-administrative elites.

And because leaders are, by and large, the product of their teachers, of the schools they attended, and of the cultures in which they are formed, we will speak about universities, the melting pots of political, economic, and social elites.

1.1. Managers or leaders?

Those who lead are frequently called managers or leaders. These terms are often used interchangeably, with the meaning ruler. However, there are clear distinctions between managers and leaders.

Simplifying the theory, the term manager is mainly used to refer to the activity of managing an organization’s resources in order to reach its objectives, in other words, of executive management of an organization, and that of leader in relation to influencing, persuading and leading individuals and crowds to take certain actions. Another distinction, frequently mentioned by the theories of organizations, is the manager’s focus mainly on tasks, respectively the leader’s focus mainly on people. Peter Drucker, also called the “father of management”, said that “managers do things right, and leaders do right things”. There seems to be an association here, that of managers with competence and efficiency, and that of leaders with popularity (or even populism) and with the confidence they inspire in their supporters.

If we look at the type of authority associated with each, according to Bochensky’s typology[1], it would follow that the manager is the one with formal, deontic authority, resulting from the appointment, while the leader has an epistemic, informal authority, acquired through the trust he or she emanates and inspires through what he or she says or does.

Hence the ideal situation is that in which the de jure leader, the one officially appointed or elected to office through which he or she acquires deontic authority, is also competent in what he says and does and inspires confidence, is followed by the others, thus gaining epistemic authority, de facto.

Thus, the ideal leader is the one who holds the authority of the position and that of the expert, of the competent one, of the person who knows what they are doing, being respected and followed by others, both for the administrative power held, and for their competence, thus being manager and leader at the same time.

It is not hard to guess the major contradictions between this situation of the competent-leader, of the manager-leader, and those of the incompetent leader or of the informal leader, one with competence, but with no position. One has the resources, but does not know what to do with them, the other would know what to do with the resources, but does not have access to them, due to not being a formal leader. One will be followed, just because he or she distributes resources, out of interest, out of fear, formally, mimetically, without persuasion, the other will be believed and followed with idealism, with the belief of the correct, yet utopian approach, as much as the actions carried out without resources allow it and, implicitly, without real chances of success.

The incompetent manager is likely to develop authoritarian leadership, based on fear and negative sanctions, in which they impose the authority generated by their position and formal prerogatives. In terms of leadership theories, they will practice a transactional leadership style, motivating subordinates extrinsically, on the basis of material interests: salary increases, bonuses, promotions, or privileges. The big issue, pointed out very clearly by Machiavelli in The Prince, is that the resources with which one wants to purchase the goodwill of others typically run out. Therefore, in the medium- and long-term, incompetent managers will tend to resort to sanctions and fear of punishment in order to impose their authority and keep their position.

The leader without managerial position will try to convince by stating solutions to the problems of their followers, in order to keep the support of others and to gain access to the position of manager and the resources that result from position. The felicitous case is when they also access formal power and thus become a transformational leader, inspiring through their solutions and example. If an administrative position is not obtained, over time, the informal leader will go from popular to populist, and will start to sell illusions to preserve authority.

From the above, it follows that the only approach with chances of success for a managed entity is the one in which its leader holds the formal leadership position, but also the necessary skills to inspire confidence in the project. This was the case for most of the leaders mentioned above, of competent, transformational leaders, who innovated, found creative solutions and led their countries, armies, organizations or teams to success.

1.2. Solidarity or sanctioning group authority?

J.M. Bochenski, the logical philosopher I mentioned earlier, also speaks about two types of authority of a leader over a group: solidarity and sanction. He explains that when the leader has thoroughly explained the purpose of the group and the individual tasks, and everyone knows that the achievement of the desired common goal depends on the fulfilment of the tasks, the members of the group will act to achieve it.

The same could happen with a group of people captured by a terrorist, a group that follows the terrorist’s instructions to save all members of the group, but also with the crew of a ship in a storm, who follow the captain’s instructions to reach shore safely. Both people in command, the terrorist and the shipmaster, have full authority over the group. The difference between the two cases is that the terrorist does not have a common goal with the prisoners, who listen out of fear of punishment, while the ship commander has a common goal with the crew and authority is based on solidarity.

In other words, leaders who want the public good share goals with those they lead. They will thus be followed out of solidarity. Those who have personal, selfish goals, different from those of the group, of the organization, of the country will be listened to out of fear, like terrorists, and not out of solidarity.

Imagine a mayor who wants to achieve some objectives very important for their community, which are brought to the knowledge of the fellow citizens. They will execute the mayor’s directives to achieve those goals because they want the same thing, they have the same goal as their leader. Of course, this all happens on condition that the common goals and purpose are explained to citizens, otherwise they will not support objectives that they do not know and do not understand. This secondary condition is the logical proof of the need for transparency, communication in organizations, a condition without which the manager’s authority before the group will not be total, and the fulfilment of commands will not be certain.

But if the mayor changes the ledges in the community, although the ledges are almost new, and they do this with their son’s company, or buys palm trees from the communal budget, although people lack sewage or running water, surely the projects will not be welcomed by the community, but they may not be publicly challenged and tacitly accepted by the people. But that acceptance will not be out of conviction, but out of fear of the mayor.

Bochenski also talks about blindly accepting authority by virtue of the leader’s charisma or of an ideology that assumes vague goals; he considers that acceptance to be irrational and, as a consequence of its irrationality, considers it immoral: „The acceptance of a deontic authority without any foundation must be rejected for moral reasons” (Bochenski 1992: 90). Extremist ideologies or populist projects propose vague, irrational goals, so the authorities promoting them should be rejected. Did the Germans really have a common goal with Hitler in exterminating Jews, or did ordinary Russians like Putin want to bomb, kill civilians and conquer Ukraine? And yet, the illusions transmitted by Hitler or Putin were and are supported by large masses of citizens through irrational pseudo-solidarity.

And the far-left ideas of the communists began to be based on a deontic authority of ideological solidarity (at least on a declarative level) towards the poor, after which the objectives of the communist bosses and those of the mass (executioners) became different, and the authority became Orwellian, of a sanctioning nature.

The best example of this is the exercise of authority by the communist regime in East Berlin, which evolved precisely from an authority of solidarity in the early years (free passage from East to West, symbolic borders, etc.) to a sanctioning authority (with the closing of the border in 1958 and the building of the wall in 1961). It was a clear image (albeit on a small scale) of what had happened to the authority of communist leaders all over the world: it began with the illusion of ideology and ended with the fear of tyranny.

  1. About the role of elites in a society

Those who have exceptional qualities and who dominate through their influence various social groups at the top of which they place themselves are those who represent the elites of those groups. These could be cultural, scientific, economic, political, administrative elites.

Irrespective of how tempting egalitarian ideas that sell the pleasant illusion of non-difference between individuals may be, the major impact of geniuses, great minds in the progress of science and technology, in knowledge and socio-economic development throughout history is obvious.

Consistent studies have shown that there is a 98.4% similarity between the human and the chimpanzee DNA. The difference of 1.6%, however, is what made humans progress and dominate the earth, while chimpanzees remained in the jungle.

The great inventor Thomas Alva Edison said that “success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration”. It is obvious that all people can sweat, but very few have the inspiration to find new, creative, and effective solutions to big problems. Those who sweat with the brilliance of their inspiration are the ones who constitute the elites.

Western social science theories of economic, political, and military elites often include critical judgment usually focused on concentrating resources and power on too few decision-makers at the expense of the many, and on the fact that not merit but gender, race, or descent underlie elite membership.

Without ignoring these criticisms, with which I largely agree, I will put them aside in this discussion because they are characteristic of Western capitalist systems that have had continuity for centuries and great stability of their economic and political elites. Moreover, in other social spheres such as the arts and sciences, merit plays a much more important role than in politics, for example.

Good or bad, reformed or not, elites of all kinds – economic, scientific, organizational, military – concentrate the bulk of resources (20% of members own 80% of resources) and produce, according to the Pareto Principle, most of the results of a system. The Pareto Principle, which applies to many fields, postulates that 80% of results are produced by the most effective 20% of individuals. In academia, for example, 80% of ideas, publications, or innovations are produced by about 20% of individuals. If we apply this principle within the main elite of 20%, it would follow that the “elite of the elite”, i.e. 4% of the entire population analysed (20% of 20%), will produce 64% of all outcomes (80% of 80%). Irrespective of how approximate are these calculations, it is clear that the importance of the 4% is essential in any system, be it a company, a university or a country.

In the context of former communist countries, such as Romania and Moldova, the problem of political-administrative elites who make decisions at the top is inefficiency resulting from negative selection, rather than their unfair structure.

Communism as a system of government lost the battle with the capitalist system primarily because of its comparative inefficiency. It became ineffective because it destroyed its intellectual and scientific elites, inherited from previous systems, and thus drastically diminished its capacity for analysis and decision-making. It is like having brain reduction surgery and developing your muscles instead. In the human forms of social organization of the past, hunter-gatherers, farmers, ancient or feudal times, or even the industrial society, because the use of physical force was important, you could survive with many muscles, that is, with physical strength, and with lower cognitive capacities. Although great battles were won by ideas and innovations, physical strength mattered quite a lot in the past.

In the present, you can survive without muscles, but the ability to process information and make the right decisions makes all the difference. Stephen Hawking, the great astrophysicist who made a major impact in recent decades speaking from a smart wheelchair, would not have mattered in Antiquity or the Middle Ages. Just as a great warrior of Antiquity would probably have mattered less in our time.

  1. On public management and political-administrative elites

Firstly, I have looked at the features of managers and leaders in general and outlined their types of authority and the contexts in which their authority is born and survives. I have outlined the properties of elites. In the next section, I will move on to the analysis of elites in the public, political-administrative system. In order to understand their nature, it is important to begin with differentiating them from those in the private sector.

3.1. The features of leaders in the public system

Beyond the interests and contexts specific to the Romanian space, there are major universal differences between public and private leaders. In fact, if we analyse the managerial elites in the private sector, we will see that they seem much more efficient and are less contested than those in public organizations. To see what it takes to have competent public elites like those in the private sector, we need to briefly explore the differences between the two.

The first distinction comes from the different purpose of the two types of entities. Private companies are profit-driven, public companies are mostly non-profit. For private managers, performance is easy to measure quantitatively, for public managers, without precise targets referring to efficiency, it is more difficult to measure managerial performance.

Private companies compete with other similar companies and comparative performance analysis is frequent and relevant, while public institutions have no real competition, many having a unique character and holding monopoly, at least locally.

Private leaders are elected, evaluated and validated only professionally, objectively, by the shareholders of organizations, who are interested only in the performance of the organization and of the manager. Public leaders are appointed by political leaders or parties (who behave as if they do not depend on the performance of those they appoint), and are elected or publicly validated by large masses, with non-aggregated, indirect interests and no permanent evaluation mechanisms. Shareholders carefully appoint private managers because they will manage their personal properties, while parties, their leaders or voters appoint managers of everyone’s properties, the impact of those appointed on their individual interests being perceived as insignificant.

Populism, through which they can capture the goodwill of the masses, is the great danger for public leaders, while mercantile cynicism and lack of empathy and humanity in decision making is the danger for private leaders.

The public interest promoted by public managers is predominantly associated with intrinsic motivation, while private interest is associated with extrinsic motivation for private individuals.

Dictators are public leaders who establish themselves as private owners and leaders of public goods, making the transition from the public interest they claimed for power to the private interest (theirs and their camarilla’s), the private interest they promote after ascending to power. This is the major contradiction in the case of dictatorial regimes.

Public leaders are harassed by the opposition, by alternative leaders who want their percentages, being in full conflict with each other, private ones in a business relation (not in conflict) with competition from other organizations on the market.

3.2. Political and administrative leaders in Romania

After the successive crises of the last two decades and the inefficiency of the solutions proposed by decision-makers, dissatisfaction with the political-administrative elites all over the world has grown. In this context, the chances of rise of populist or extremist parties and personalities increase.

In the Romanian space, the dissatisfaction generated by the global context towards the political-administrative class is accentuated by two specific regional factors: 

  1. a) First, the negative selection of political-administrative elites promoted by parties according to the Stalinist, learnèd and culturally inherited model, which implies promotion based on loyalty to the party leader and not on competence. The Stalinist principle of “party discipline” is publicly enunciated by all parties, and the exclusion of “Mensheviks” is frequently applied to any form of internal dissent. Thus, examples of gross incompetence of some public decision-makers who came to power on the basis on nepotism and loyalty have increased contempt and hatred for parties and alienated many genuine specialists from politics.
  2. b) Secondly, the egalitarian ideas of the communist regime survived culturally in large parts of the population. Complemented by flagrant inequities such as special pensions and other privileges secured by the political class, egalitarian ideas accentuated “class hatred” which has become “political-administrative class hatred”.

Thus, the public opinion in our country is much more sceptical than the Western one with respect to the role and importance of elites in general and political-administrative ones in particular, and does not consider merit as the main criterion of success and social ascension.

Paradoxically, amid general dissatisfaction, a kind of fatalistic acceptance of mediocrity has set in, negative selection being no longer conscious, being ignored, tolerated and even practiced by those who make decisions and promote people in politics and administration.

Our decision-makers do not seem to care about appointing or promoting incompetent or mediocre people to office. Here are some questions I would ask them to wake them up to reality: would they pay for a show with mediocre or weak actors or musicians? Would they accept to be operated on by a surgeon chosen on the basis of a party card, and not on professional competence? Would they accept a weak lawyer, who is a friend’s son or mistress, to defend them in a lawsuit?

If the answer to each of the questions were “no”, as is normal, the natural final question would follow: then why do they nonchalantly promote incompetent secretaries of state, advisers or directors through ministries, just because they seem not to see the “performance” because they do not go out much on the public stage and because they do not seem to negatively influence their lives? Health or freedom? They should realize that these incompetent civil servants, even if they are not surgeons, kill slowly, over time, silently through their decisions.

If an actor is weak, if a performance is weak, people leave the room; if a policymaker is weak, if a government is weak, people leave the country.

But we do not see the country deserted simultaneously, live, we only see it depopulated in statistics.

I believe that the best overall indicator of a government’s efficiency or inefficiency is the balance of external migration during its mandate.

The great American sociologist Erving Goffman said that all individuals play social roles on the public stage, according to their statuses, behaving according to the expectations that others have of them, like actors according to the script of a performance.

The biggest problem of political actors playing their public roles on the political stage, in front of us, is that they do not have the necessary training for these roles. They do not have the talent, they do not have the professional training for acting, they have not rehearsed, and they have not memorized the “script”, and most of them do not actually have any script on what to do, meaning they do not have programs, strategies, solutions – so they just improvise.

Managerial performances, as well as acting, are a collective, team effort, an effort that involves dialogue and mutual support; our political actors seem to love only monologue. Even when you put them together, a dialogue of the deaf results.

One of the most eloquent and creative criticisms of the negative selection of our political-administrative elites was put into lyrics in a famous song by the band Sarmalele reci:

 

[The country wants you stupid]

[What’s the use, what if you learn too much in life?

It can blow up your brain…

What’s the use of books

About dead rulers?

All that is required of you today is to be null!

 

What good is learning Romanian language so much?

You’ve been speaking it cursively since you were two years old!

Do not overdo it

Nor with math.

Just know how much not to mess with money.

 

Chorus:

Ah, how beautiful!

Bright future

It shows itself to the idiots!

So, be obedient

versus the highest put.

Don’t forget that the country wants you stupid.

 

Don’t try to realize yourself in life!

No job has a future,

And not daring

try to change something

After 2000 years of light sleep!

 

It’s more honest to find an acquaintance.

Let him serve you, you serve him.

A solid back

will promote you quickly

in the National Army of dry heads.]

 

Țara te vrea prost [The country wants you stupid] has become a well-known and fatalistically accepted expression of the state of facts. No one asked: what country wants us stupid? Without being able to prove that there is a program of other countries to encourage the counterselection of administrative elites, it is obvious that the countries in the area that have economic and political interests in Romania, hostile countries, such as Russia, want poor quality management and stagnation, so they will even want the stupid at the head of Romania. Just as fools are wanted or would have wanted at the head of Ukraine, for example. Of course, their fools, if possible, if not, for them it is preferable to be stupid rather than competent. As for Western partners, however, they need decent partners, at least in certain areas where we do not compete with them, such as defence. It logically follows that they would rather want us mediocre.

If others want us stupid or mediocre, if we want competent elites in the Romanian public space, it is a chore for ourselves – because no one else will form them.

 

  1. About the role of elite universities in society

A great Italian essayist, contemporary of Leonardo da Vinci, wrote that Florence, the symbol city of the Renaissance, possessed in the fifteenth century all 7 essential things to achieve perfection: 1. Absolute freedom; 2. A large population, rich and elegant; 3. A river with clean water within its walls; 4. Properties, castles and on the 5th place – a university. Also added were: 6. Valuable artists, such as Leonardo or Michelangelo, and 7. Banks. As you see, even then, freedom came first, and the university was placed ahead of banks, the power of ideas being considered more important than that of money[2].

But this was claimed by a great intellectual raised in the country where the first university was founded. Ordinary people have always been sceptical about the importance of higher education and the ability of the educated to do practical things.

What remains notorious is the example of the great philosopher and mathematician Thales of Miletus, whom some contemporaries disputed because he was poor, saying that if he could not make wealth, he did not use his wisdom so much.

As a result, by anticipating in advance, on the basis of astronomical signs, that after a bad year for olive production, an excellent year would follow in the region of Miletus, Thales rented all the olive mills in the area for a small amount and paid in advance since winter, when the owners did not anticipate exceptional production. As his foresight was good, and he had created a monopoly in the area, Thales became, overnight, very rich, and thus proved to those who challenged him that intelligence can also bring profit.

It may seem that these are stories from history, that they are rather exceptions, that university studies are no longer very important in the present, when success depends more likely on relationships, perhaps also on entrepreneurial spirit, guts or luck. Perhaps each of these plays a role. But mathematics and other kinds of systematic knowledge also have their importance.

What better proof than the fact that 5 of the top 8 richest people in Romania in the Forbes Top for 2023[3] are graduates of a mathematics faculty and two of the others are university professors of computer science in the US, the only exception in the top being the athlete Ion Țiriac. The two Pavăl brothers, Dragoș and Adrian, owners of Dedeman, Daniel Dineș, from UiPath, and Florin and Măriuca Talpes, owners of BitDefender, graduated from mathematics faculties in Bucharest or Iasi and are top performers in business.

4.1. In fact, why are some people exceptional?

A well-known American author, Malcolm Gladwell, wrote a very interesting book about exceptional performers[4] in various fields.

To sum up the beautiful story, Gladwell demonstrates that three elements are essential to be successful, to become exceptional in a field:

1) To have the necessary qualities, talent, potential.

2) To be placed in an appropriate context in order to capitalize on your talent (appropriate culture, social system, technology, mentors/teachers, training environment in general); these opportunities, which are related to context, are commonly associated by us only with luck, although they can be sought or created.

3) To follow the rule of minimum 10,000 hours of practice, work, exercise, required according to specialists to become an expert in a field.

All three of these conditions must be met simultaneously in order to be successful. Gladwell demonstrates that many people with exceptional potential have wasted it, so talent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success. He offers dozens of interesting examples that show how important context is and how it can be statistically demonstrated that great performers in business, science, sports are concentrated in historical periods and in very small areas, where they had favourable contexts – favourable conditions for cultivating talent. For example, of the 75 richest people in the known history of humanity, 14 (19%) are Americans born 9 years apart between 1831 and 1840, just matched in age around 1860-1870, when the American economy experienced tremendous growth through the development of manufacturing and the Wall Street stock exchange. Another 6 are Americans born between 1953 and 1956 who made their fortunes at the expense of IT companies (Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Balmer, Steve Jobs, Bill Joy, Eric Schmidt). They were old enough to learn to do programming just as the first powerful computers appeared and the IT industry flourished. All 6 were smart, but more importantly, they were in the area of computer centres at universities or other institutions. In addition, they worked tenaciously day after day, night after night, whenever they could practice programming on those supercomputers. That is, they have completed their 10,000 hours of practicing a profession necessary both in sports and in science and in any field to become an expert. If we work 50 weeks/year, 40 hours/week, results in 2000 hours/year, which, multiplied by 5 years, gives exactly 10,000 hours of practice. Five years is precisely the period of a bachelor’s and master’s degree or a serious doctorate.

4.2. Freedom – an essential element for elite formation

An essential context element for the formation of exceptional people is complete freedom. Gladwell mentions exceptional cultural environments such as a local Italian community in the US, Roseto, where human relations were so good that people were happy and did not get sick. Studies by doctors and sociologists who failed to explain the extraordinary longevity and health of the inhabitants of Roseto concluded that the social environment – the community – was the only explanation for them.

By analogy, the open, autonomous, creative academic environment is the best context for training exceptional leaders, strong elites. That is why academic autonomy and freedom are essential.

However, universities cannot operate in a contrasting social, economic and political environment devoid of complete freedom. Open society and full social freedom are essential conditions for a healthy academic environment. 

The importance of freedom for the formation of strong characters was masterfully expressed by Dragu, a character from the novel Huliganii [Hooligans], published by Mircea Eliade in 1935:

„La 18 ani, ești încă liber, în opinii, în acte, liber chiar pe teoria pe care ți-o vei alege în interpretarea vieții. La 25 de ani, după ce ți-ai spus primul cuvânt, – și orice ai face, la acea vârstă, nu e decât un cuvânt – ești deja secat, fixat. Trebuie să rămâi tu însuți, să fii tu însuți, să te realizezi, să creezi… Dacă ai ști cât vă invidiez, pe d-ta, pe Petru, pe toți huliganii… […] Există un singur debut fertil în viață: experiența huliganică. Să nu respecți nimic, să nu crezi decât în tine, în tinerețea ta, în biologia ta, dacă vrei… Cine nu debutează așa, față de el însuși sau față de lume – nu va crea nimic. Să poți uita adevărurile, să ai atâta viață în tine încât adevărurile să nu te poată pătrunde, nici intimida – iată vocația de huligan…”.

[“When you are 18, you are still free, in opinions, in acts, free on the very theory you will choose in interpreting life. At 25, after you have said your first word, and whatever you do, at that age, it is just one word, you are already drained, fixed. You have to stay yourself, be yourself, realize yourself, create… If you knew how much I envy you, Peter, all the hooligans… […] There is only one fertile onset in life: the hooligan experience. To respect nothing, to believe only in yourself, in your youth, in your biology, if you will… Whoever does not start like this, towards himself or towards the world – will not create anything. To be able to forget truths, to have so much life inside you that truths cannot penetrate or intimidate you – this is the vocation of a hooligan…”].

It is precisely this type of context, the fertile ground of freedom, that has been scorched by communist regimes and must be recreated, reconstituted by us, by academics, starting with our institutions, with universities. A space where merit, creativity, genius, and entrepreneurial spirit develop without hindrance, under the “patronage” of fundamental values of humanity such as truth, good and beauty.

Universities are essential because they create the overall social context of a country. Academia fuels culture with inspiring ideas, industry with inventions that streamline, the economy with resources to meet human needs, and the social system with solutions to society’s problems. In addition, universities produce most of the “heroes” of modern society: innovators, reformers, writers, commentators, admired “stars” such as Nobel laureates, great inventors, great authors of literature or art who inspire generations of young people.

Even if the ruling elite may like it or not, universities are alma mater, surrogate and loving mothers for tomorrow’s elites.

  1. Conclusions

To have competent elites we need strong, elite universities.

Sun Tzu, the great philosopher and strategist who lived 2400 years ago in China and wrote The Art of War, said: “war is a matter of vital importance to the state, the realm of life and death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory to study it as thoroughly as possible”.

Sun Tzu, like Machiavelli, is still studied in management courses nowadays. If we replace “prince” or “commander” with “manager” and “war” as a process with “public management”, very topical texts result: 

“Public management is an issue of vital importance to the state, the realm of life and death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory to study it as thoroughly as possible.”

Management based on merit and competence must become a priority and strategic for the public system. Who does not have managers, raise them in elite universities because they are not to be found.

Real leaders know how to promote their individual and small group interest through collective and large group interest. You can be selfish, but intelligent if you understand that by serving the public interest, you better promote your individual or family interest in the long run. Simply put, organizations are more effective than individuals combined.

From this perspective, we must ask ourselves: what is the pyramid of priorities of our leaders? What do they put first? Their individual, family, community, nation, or human interests?

That is why we need to have inspirational leaders of the type “ship commander”, national team captain, not dictatorial-terrorist, “plantation lord”, or old estate types.

All trends seem to show that between the two forms of organizing decision-making entities, the “organized force” of authoritarian regimes, as Einstein called it, and competence or “organized science” (according to rules), in the long run “organized science” represented by teams of experts acting freely in the service of the democratic state or private entities will always prevail. And universities are the main sources of “organized science”.

The battle between the “organized fear” of authoritarian-dictatorial regimes and the love of wisdom, truth and freedom of “organized science” in universities and free scientific communities will continue in the world. Democracy and freedom, being the only conditions that can create a good context for organised science, must be vigorously defended.

Germany in the mid-twentieth century expelled Einstein and kept Hitler. Einstein and Oppenheimer won the war, in a way. Hitler’s scientists, working under terror, did not create the decisive weapons like the atomic bomb, but free scientists in the US, with all their justified moral dilemmas, created it and stopped the war.

Democracies, open societies, prosperous societies, those that promote merit and provide social mobility are conducive to creative elites. Without elite and autonomous universities, economically powerful so that they are technologically well-equipped, we will not have productive, fertile elites.

That is why I finally ask, almost rhetorically: in the Romanian cultural space, do we want to create favourable contexts for the formation of our elites, that is, strong universities? Because, for now, one cannot see that we are doing –either from the budgets that universities receive for research, or from their funding per student for professional training programs.

If we agree with this obvious truth, that the role of top universities is to produce elites, and if the two states with majority Romanian population, Romania and the Republic of Moldova, want competent ruling elites in the future, then the duty of states and those who lead them is to massively support their top universities.

To paraphrase Spiru Haret who said: “How school looks today, this is how the country will look tomorrow”, I will say, distinguished audience, as elite universities in a country are today, this is how the elites of that country will look tomorrow.

Chișinău, 26.04.2024                                                

[1] Bochenski, J. M., Ce este autoritatea?, Bucharest: Humanitas, 1992.

[2] Benedetto, apud Walter Isaacson – Leonardo da Vinci. Bucharest: Publica, 2018, p. 45.

[3] https://www.forbes.ro/exclusiv-top-forbes-500-cine-sunt-cei-mai-bogati-romani-in-2023-fratii-dedeman-daniel-dines-si-ion-tiriac-s-au-luptat-pentru-fruntea-clasamentului-361070

[4] Gladwell, M., Outliers-the story of success, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 2008.

ENGLISH

Corina Crețu: AMEPIP is implementing the OECD priority recommendations and has already made progress on good governance

Published

on

© Corina Crețu - Facebook

Corina Crețu, acting President of the Agency for Monitoring and Evaluation of Public Enterprise Performance (AMEPIP), chaired yesterday a working meeting with OECD representatives to present the progress made by AMEPIP in terms of good governance in the eight months since its establishment, in the context of Romania’s accession to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 

Corina Crețu assured OECD representatives that AMEPIP’s results and progress in good governance are “concrete and visible“. She also provided information on the operationalization of the AMEPIP, which currently has a team of 57 highly trained officials and has its own income that will guarantee uninterrupted activity for the next two years, regardless of any decisions by the Government to cut budget spending.

In a statement to CaleaEuropeana.ro, AMEPIP Interim President Corina Crețu said that “the effective operationalization of AMEPIP is a priority recommendation and is considered an umbrella recommendation in relation to the other four accession requirements.”

According to the former European Commissioner for Regional Policy, AMEPIP is responsible for ensuring transparent and competitive selection procedures for managers of public enterprises: “The total number of selection procedures finalized at central level is 49, which is a first and important concrete result of AMEPIP’s functioning and, implicitly, of the implementation of good governance rules in Romania“, she added.

Last but not least, AMEPIP also monitors financial and non-financial performance, as well as the state of implementation of transparency and reporting requirements: “In this respect, the Dashboard is essential. It allows for accurate and reliable data collection and continuous monitoring of performance indicators”, explains Corina Crețu.

AMEPIP is implementing the OECD’s priority recommendations in full, as set out by the Working Party on State Ownership and Privatization Practices and the Corporate Governance Committee,” concludes AMEPIP Acting President Corina Crețu. 


Romania’s accession to the OECD is a strategic foreign policy objective that has received cross-party support from previous Romanian governments. Our country formally applied for OECD membership in April 2004, and its application was renewed in November 2012 and has been renewed annually since 2016. On January 25, 2022, the OECD Council decided to grant candidate status to Romania.

Romania is currently in the technical phase of the assessment process, which consists of submitting additional information, organizing thematic missions and making presentations to the 26 OECD Sectoral Committees that are essential to the process.

In a statement at the end of last year, Luca Niculescu emphasized that Romania should be a member of the OECD in 2026 if things continue at the current pace, as the process is very dynamic. 

About AMEPIP:

The Agency for the Monitoring and Evaluation of the Performances of Public Enterprises (AMEPIP) is organized and functions as a specialized body of the central public administration, with legal personality, subordinated to the Government and coordinated by the Prime Minister, through the General Secretariat of the Government.

AMEPIP has the role of establishing the corporate governance policy, of coordinating the implementation of the rules in the field at the level of public guardianship authorities, of monitoring and evaluating them, respectively of applying sanctions for identified deviations.

Continue Reading

ENGLISH

INTERVIEW | 62 years after the Élysée Treaty, France and Germany’s ambassadors assure that the Franco-German engine for Europe will not fail and express confidence that Romania will remain a valuable NATO and EU member

Published

on

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

62 years after the Franco-German reconciliation within the European community through the Élysée Treaty, and six years after strengthening this cooperation through the Aachen Treaty, France and Germany—two founding nations and political-economic engines of European construction—share the same set of strategic priorities for the European Union’s future, both domestically and globally. They exhibit a “complete overlap” in their strategy for Europe’s competitiveness, focusing on regulatory simplification, though differences in “political culture” persist between Paris and Berlin, as well as between their leaders. This joint approach was detailed by France’s and Germany’s ambassadors to Romania, Nicolas Warnery and Peer Gebauer, in an interview with CaleaEuropeană.ro marking the anniversary of the Franco-German reconciliation more than six decades ago. The ambassadors expressed confidence that Romania would remain a strong partner and ally of France and Germany within the EU and NATO.

 

Full interview

CaleaEuropeană.ro: Dear Ambassadors, today we are celebrating the 62nd anniversary of the Elysee Treaty, but also the 6th anniversary of the Aachen Treaty, which brought Germany and France together on a path of reconciliation and partnership for Europe. For most of the EU’s history, France and Germany have been perceived as the powerhouse of the European Union, the giants driving the EU forward and forging unity through crises. Now, the EU is confronting both domestic and foreign challenges. We’ve seen these challenges: disinformation, extremism, economic problems, some of them arising from its most important founders. Where does this anniversary moment find the German-French partnership and the European Union as a whole?

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

Nicolas Warnery: Well, by definition, an anniversary comes every year, so we might have the feeling of some kind of routine as this anniversary comes back again each year. But it would be a big mistake to think that, because this very specific relationship is extraordinary. At any level, every day, on any subject, we talk about many things in the capitals, in Brussels, in NATO, and in the European Union, essentially, everywhere in the world. I served in Africa, I served in Asia, and my German colleague was always my closest colleague in these regions and on these topics. So, we must never forget that. And something extraordinary happened – did you realize that a few weeks ago, when there was this terrible hurricane in Mayotte, it was the Bundeskanzler, the Chancellor, who represented France in the European Council? I thought I made a mistake. I read it again, I checked, and it was correct. I didn’t know myself, so you see how extraordinary it is. In this very specific period, we are living through now, with so many challenges, we have much to discuss, many compromises to reach, and many common positions to find. I’m sure about that.

Peer Gebauer: I couldn’t agree more. I think this anniversary is always a good occasion to, first of all, be grateful for what we have achieved. I think the French-German reconciliation is an extraordinary historical achievement that cannot be valued highly enough. After centuries of being opponents, and enemies in bitter wars, we have finally overcome this opposition, joined forces, and achieved so much already. So, it [Elysée-Day] is always a very special day, and it makes me very happy. Thank you, Nicolas, for doing this together with me, for celebrating this day here in Bucharest, and for doing so also within the framework of this interview. As for your question, yes, of course, France, Germany, and Europe as a whole are facing a number of challenges. But I think we are ready to tackle them, we are ready to address them, and we can best do this if we continue this very important French-German cooperation.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: You mentioned Chancellor Scholz representing also France at the last European Council, and I must say that over this history, we had, on the one side, Chancellors Adenauer, Kohl, Merkel, or Scholz, and on the other, Presidents De Gaulle, Mitterrand, Chirac, or Macron working together with a common vision or, despite different views, still managing to collaborate. We see how they have forged compromises for European integration. But that impetus, or maybe just that impression, has faded away over recent years. If we take examples such as tariffs on electric cars, the Draghi report on the future of European competitiveness, nuclear energy, common debt in defense, and others, how do you see French and German leadership? Do you see it as more divided, and how does this affect the European Union? 

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

Peer Gebauer: The impression that we have a greater division now might be somewhat incomplete. There are so many decisions and issues at stake. I would say that 99% of the time, Germany and France are completely in sync when it comes to dealing with developments in the Middle East and Syria, for example. When it comes to supporting Ukraine or EU enlargement, we are very much on the same page. In general, it is a phenomenon that only when there is disagreement or differing views, it makes the news. So, the impression then is that Germany and France are not in agreement anymore. I think we basically are. The fact that we are having discussions on some issues is completely normal. Friendship and cooperation don’t mean that you automatically have the same opinion. It means that you have a process of finding common ground in areas where we are working, as you mentioned in your question. I sense that we are not in a difficult situation regarding the French-German partnership and cooperation, but we are in constant need to see how we can best contribute as two countries, as a German-French engine, to the development of the European Union. And we are doing this. Nicolas has pointed out this agreement of representing one another in the European Council if the other leader is not available. And there are so many other formats where it’s just unique how closely we cooperate that I have no doubt that we are in good shape when it comes to our joint cooperation in the future.

Nicolas Warnery: We are covering so many subjects that it’s pretty normal to have 10% or 20% on which we disagree. But the important thing is not whether we disagree or agree. The important thing is to have a method that has existed for quite some time: to discuss every day, as I mentioned before, at any level, everywhere, on any subject, and to reach compromises. We may not always achieve common positions, but we reach compromises that allow us to share them with other partners, either in the European Union or in the Alliance, and we just manage to find common positions. So far, we have never failed to do so. The method is there. The will is there. Of course, personalities and individuals are very different. How many chancellors have you had since the ’50s, and how many presidents have we had? So many different situations have occurred, but they always managed to work together.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: There was a time when we had just one German chancellor and two French presidents, and now we have the same French president who is perhaps preparing for the third chancellor in his era. And I mentioned that because my next question is about the electoral moments, to put it this way, because we have 2024 coming with significant change for Europe, and it was a year that everyone considered the biggest electoral test. Then we would move forward with policies and projects. Although the pro-European majority was saved in the European Parliament, also thanks to pro-European forces from France and Germany, we now have these new EU institutions’ leadership, with leadership from Germany, from France, and so on. Both the founding countries of the EU, together with the other four, but these two particularly, France and Germany, were hit by the erosion of liberal democracy, to put it this way, and were attacked by extremism, by disinformation campaigns, and so on. We’ve seen that moderate, centrist and liberal establishment has lost traction, while the extreme right has gained political weight both in Germany and in France when we look at the European Elections. Now we have German snap elections, so another electoral event that is very important, and in Paris President Macron is struggling to keep up a powerful government, a pro-European and stable majority in France. These moments of democracy face issues from the pressure of disinformation and extremism in France and Germany. Should we feel worried about them? Will it affect Europe moving forward?

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

Nicolas Warnery: I guess our three countries are facing the same kind of situation. We had elections, or we will have elections, or we might have elections again in our case. We are in a sort of very intense democratic period, which is good, but which is tricky because, you are right, there is this populist wave, these populist speeches, and these hybrid attacks. Now we all know that there was a hybrid attack, at least here in the Romanian election in November, just like there were also attacks in France in 2017 during the first election of President Macron. It was not the same kind of attack, but it was something. Everybody has forgotten that. It’s a bit different, but it’s probably the same actor because, obviously, it was the Russians. They stole, if I can say so, emails from the internal mail system of candidate Macron, who was not President at that time, and they put it on the internet just the day before the election. It was nothing too specific, but it included exchanges between personalities, little conflicts, little things like that, and it served as proof: we entered your house, we did what we wanted, we stole what we wanted, and we put it on the internet. It was a kind of hybrid attack. Also, just like we suffered other attacks, I mention that because it’s important: it’s not only Moldova, Georgia, or Romania—it’s everywhere in Europe. We had David’s stars painted on the walls of Paris, we had small coffins placed at the Eiffel Tower, and we had rumors about things in hotels linked to refugees, etc. So, we suffered, I insist, a few months ago in Paris, from hybrid attacks that we think the Russians originated. We are all facing this kind of thing, and we are all facing, coming back to your precise question, the populist speeches about the weakness of the European Union, NATO, the danger of war, etc. We must stand by our values; we must remember what is at stake: the security of our countries, of our continent. We must stick to our solidarity within the European Union, within the alliance. We must insist with the Americans — there is a new leadership, you know who’s arriving — we must insist on the importance of having the Ukrainians and Europe at the table of negotiations, if there are negotiations this year, which is a possible scenario. And we must never give up our values, our protection, our defense, our will to protect ourselves, because if we lose this will, we will lose everything—our freedom, our sovereignty—and it will be terrible, simply. We are facing difficult times, yes, all our free countries, but we are facing them together.

Peer Gebauer: Absolutely. It would be unwise and false to simply give in and give up, as you’ve outlined. If you look at the European elections you have been referring to, of course, we have also seen a rise in anti-establishment parties. Nevertheless, our institutions — in this case, in Europe, were able to forge a new government, a new leadership, and a new Commission, which is now operational. It faces many challenges and, of course, has to deliver, but it shows that despite this shift or the rise of anti-establishment parties, nationalist, and populist movements, our systems are strong enough to still make room for decision-makers to take responsibility. And again, the most decisive point in this challenging time — and it is a challenging time — is to now make sure that our leaders deliver on the very needs of their populations.

Nicolas Warnery: There is one paradox: when you look at the history of the European Union, it is often during times of terrible challenges and difficulties that we have been able, paradoxically, to make progress. I don’t know exactly how or why, but that is the result of our history. It seems to be part of our tradition.

Peer Gebauer: It is. And another observation I always make is that whenever you look at Europe at any given point in time, you have a feeling as if Europe has never been in a more terrible situation. Throughout my life, whenever I looked at the state of Europe, people would tell me, “Oh, it’s terrible right now; this is a big crisis”. But if you take a bird’s-eye view and look at Europe over the long run, you will see that it has been, over the decades, an extraordinary historical success—bringing peace and stability to Europe. We must not forget that when looking to a specific moment in time, you might see only problems. But looking at a broader period in time, you will see the effects of what we have achieved in Europe and European integration. It is a remarkable achievement, and we must ensure that it remains that way.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: Touching on that, isn’t this also, let’s say, the effect of seriousness of political discourse? Recently, we saw the president of Finland, Mr. Stubb, saying — and he’s probably right — that Europe’s “vacation from history” is over. Europe now needs to answer the call of becoming more sovereign, more strategic, and more economically robust. Of course, the terms may differ: Germany prefers to speak of economic security and France of strategic sovereignty, while others simply refer to security as a whole. But in essence, they mean the same thing. So, when we see political leaders adopting this gravity in their discourses, how can we think differently, that this is not the worst moment in history? And, as you know, there was a joke a few years ago: “Welcome to the European Union, where for every crisis we have a summit”.

Nicolas Warnery: We are facing difficult times, that’s true. But what can we do? Did we choose to have a war of aggression in Ukraine? Did we shape the new conception of American policy? Did we vote in November? No. We are facing the reality in front of us, and we have to react properly. That’s our task; that’s our mission. 

Peer Gebauer: And you are right, of course, Robert, when you say it’s not a time to just ignore the challenges and think, “Well, we’ve always been able to manage it, so we don’t have to do anything”. Yes, we have to do a whole lot to be able to successfully overcome these challenges ahead of us. So, indeed, it is a specific moment in time, and I don’t want to downplay that. But the point is that we often underestimate the EU’s ability to deliver. And that’s something that should give us some confidence. But again, it should not generate a feeling of ‘I don’t have to do anything!’. It should incite us to take bold and decisive action.  The Finnish president, of course, is right when he says, “Now is the time to deliver”.

Nicolas Warnery: And the same applies to climate, to the oceans, to demography, and to any other major issues we are facing, not just security and not just Ukraine.

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

CaleaEuropeană.ro: I’ve identified, let’s say, four layers or topics that are very much discussed these days and that are important when we look both at the European and transatlantic stage. We see some keywords like competitiveness, defence, Donald Trump, Ukraine, the rise of extremist forces, and the power of disinformation. My first question is linked to the Mario Draghi report on the future of European competitiveness, which everyone or some people tend to see as the problem fixer in the European Union. We have the Budapest Declaration on the European Competitiveness Deal that all the leaders of the EU endorsed. But when this report came out, we had President Macron, I believe he was in Berlin, who warned that the EU might die if we do not take this moment and this report very seriously with the issues that it provides, like energy, defence, the chain of supplies, and so on. Meanwhile, some German lawmakers were saying that France is trapped in a Franco-French geopolitical mindset. So, this is another layer where we, as the press, as mass media, as think tankers, see that France and Germany are not on the same page. I want to know from you, where are the pieces where France and Germany align in this drive forward for European competitiveness, and where don’t they? Where do you align when it comes to the EU competitiveness?

Nicolas Warnery:  I think it’s more a difference in terms of political culture. Our president is facing the situation on a daily basis in France. He knows that to stimulate and motivate his people, the French people, he sometimes has to dramatize the situation, because France is facing difficult times. He knows that it’s probably the best way to motivate. So, when he sometimes makes strong statements, it’s probably also for internal reasons. It’s not to provoke anyone, but to stimulate people. And the second factor is that he likes to promote ideas and provoke debates within the Union, NATO, the G7, etc. So, for these two reasons, he provokes certain reactions. I don’t really see, on this topic, differences regarding the real issue itself. I’m not sure there is actually a difference. Of course, probably your chancellor does not have the same kind of behaviour or the same kind of political culture. It’s different. For example: we have a terrible difficulty in France in regaining what we excelled at years ago—the tradition of compromise in internal policy. We are not able to achieve it anymore in the National Assembly, apparently. You still have this tradition. So, it’s normal that the reaction is not the same.

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

Peer Gebauer:  I would agree with you, with what you said. It’s often a matter of style, a question of style. Different politicians have different styles. There are also German politicians who use more outspoken words to maybe wake people up or to make their point more clearly. I wouldn’t put too much importance on differences in communication styles. When it comes to the Draghi report and competitiveness, I think there are several key elements that you’ve also outlined where we are fully in sync. There’s a tremendous need to deregulate and “de-bureaucratize” our systems. We have overdeveloped our regulatory frameworks. Why? Because we have always felt there’s a good reason for adding another element here and there to ensure even more fairness. While it has always been well-intentioned, the result is an overburden of bureaucracy that hinders our competitiveness. There’s an agreement among all of us that we need to cut back and to cut back boldly. The second element is, of course, that we need to strengthen our European industrial base, including our European defence industrial base and our overall European capacity. We have come to realize that relying on supply chains, in particular when you are dependent on countries that are politically at odds with you, might backfire in times of crisis. So, there is obviously a need to not rely on Russian fossil fuels or Chinese technological products, because you never know when there’ll be a cut in the supply chain. This is something we are very decisively working on. It is a topic for Germany, for the whole of Europe. Right now, we see what’s going on in the Republic of Moldova. Dependence on Russian fossil fuels backfires. We had to learn our lesson, and fortunately, it was possible for us to cut back to zero reliance in a rather short period. That’s the reality, and that’s something we all need to do to become less dependent on others. De-risking is a term that is often used for that, and I think this is crucial.

Nicolas Warnery: Our priorities are clear now. Our priorities within Europe are simplification, because we are now in a system of complexity which people reject. Sovereignty, industrial and defence security, energy, and the need to protect our liberty, our freedom, and our democracy.

Peer Gebauer: You can see there is a complete overlap in terms of strategy.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: Maybe when we look at the Draghi report, we have some special keywords. I mean, they are all there: cutting the red tape, reforming, and fresh money. Everyone focused on fresh money because Mario Draghi said that we need an incentive for investments of over 800 billion. Considering that we have a seven-year multi-annual budget of 1,000 billion and need just 800 for one year, that’s quite a lot. So, it’s not just about fresh money, as I get it from you. It’s also about simplification. 

Peer Gebauer: The fresh money, well, it would be very easy if you could just print the money and have it, right? But this is not an economically feasible move. In order to spend money, you need to have an economic base that enables you to do so. This is why it is a bit more complicated to make sure that, at the same time, you are investing in your future, but you are not just printing money while destabilizing your monetary base. So here we are —politics is complicated —but there are smart minds in Europe that will certainly make good decisions and take us forward.

Nicolas Warnery: The goal is to invest, to regain our complete sovereignty in terms of industry, defence, agriculture, and energy. So, yes, fresh money is important, but so is the will to act. We have agreed that in order to generate money, we must first produce. We need to produce to earn, to export, and then to generate revenue. Money does not come from the sky; it comes from our labour, our work.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: The reason why I insisted on money and fresh money is because the discussion about strategic sovereignty when it comes to defence also lies a lot in the public debate on money. And we know that there is a new era, of course. We have the first EU Commission for Defence. We expect more initiatives coming up, like the first white charter on defence that the Commission needs to propose within the first 100 days of the new mandate. We have a lot of leaders that say we need to prepare for a war-footing economy. Even President Macron said that last year. In 2024, the former President of the European Council, Charles Michel, had the same idea. The Polish Presidency of the EU Council, with its motto “Security Europe”, has said that one thing they want to touch upon is the common financing of defence. Also, seeing the second Trump administration with the 5% new guideline, which is a lot, and seeing what NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said a few days ago in the European Parliament — that either we invest more or we need to take Russian classes or go to New Zealand — of course, he was very plastic. But the fact is, these things are sufficient incentives to believe that we will have a super budget on defence or a common financing based on the model that you, France and Germany, created with the recovery from the pandemic?

Nicolas Warnery: We are already shifting to a war economy. We are slowly, perhaps too slowly, but we are shifting from a peace economy to a form of war economy. It’s a transition, and we should go faster, in my opinion. I agree. By war economy, I mean that we are not at war ourselves, but we are helping a friendly, neighbouring country that is at war. Therefore, we have to adapt our industry and our armies to a situation of war in the neighbourhood. This is what I mean by war economy. Russia has already fully adapted and shifted to a war economy. Ukraine, of course, has done so as well. And if we want to continue helping Ukraine, we have to shift ourselves to this kind of war economy or deterrence-oriented economy. That’s for sure. This means we have to sacrifice certain things —holidays, consumption, luxury goods, or other non-essentials. And in every country, we are going to make this shift, I guess.

Peer Gebauer: You’re referring with your question to this issue of how to best finance the expenditures that are needed. I don’t think there is just one perfect solution. We need the money, that’s obvious. As I said before, it doesn’t fall from the sky, as you’ve phrased it. You cannot simply turn on the printing machines, print money, and expect this to buy you something in a sustainable way. Whether each member state individually invests its own money into defence or whether we all pool our resources together, this is a discussion that is ongoing in the European Union. In the end, there might be a mixture — I don’t know. But the point is, we need to have the money first. So, we must ensure that our economic strength is bolstered. This is absolutely crucial, tying back to the issue of competitiveness. And then, of course, just having money — whether it’s individual countries’ funds or joint European funds — is not enough if we cannot buy anything. We need to place significant emphasis on establishing and further developing our European industrial base, particularly our defence industry, which is now a key focus. These are the elements we are concentrating on. The issue of how to spend the money, whether through shared resources or individual expenditures, remains to be seen. I’m sure that the option of increasing debts will also be on the table. This will be all sorted out. But this alone is not enough. I believe the issue of strengthening our industrial base is far more important.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: To link the budget to the industrial base in order to establish, let’s say, a well-rounded circular economy where you not only have the money but also invest in buying European. Buying European with European money.

Peer Gebauer: Absolutely. Having a strong European defence industry, industrial champions – we already have a few, but we need more, and they need to broaden their industrial base – is the way to move forward. By the way, Romania is, of course, a partner for French and German defence industries, because this country has a great tradition in the defence industry and the capacity to produce. So, these are things we are working on. It is very important in this context to make Europe strong.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: And the fact that we have a strong relationship also in terms of military presence, for example, France is conducting and leading the NATO battlegroup, which will soon become a brigade this year, as I understand, and additionally, Germany is also present here.

Nicolas Warnery: There is a link between the military aspect and the armament aspect. It’s all linked, like Peer mentioned a few minutes ago. So, we have to develop common programs, produce equipment locally that was invented elsewhere, repair it there, maintain it there, and progressively develop common equipment, ideally speaking. The goal is to build a European industry of armament.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: For sure, Europe has proven how capable it is, because if we look at the financial support, the same amount or maybe more than the United States, the EU has supported Ukraine. Financially, there are more than 130 billion euros that were poured into Ukraine, and the EU helped Ukraine with that. Also, right now, Europe and the European Union signal that they are ready to cover Ukraine’s needs if somehow the US stumbles following the new Trump administration. At the same time, President Zelenskyy considers that European security guarantees without the US umbrella are not enough. From this point of view, do you think that Europe and the US will be on the same page when it comes to NATO, Ukraine, but also Russia and China, because we also need to deal with these two? Do you think that there is momentum for peace talks this year? You mentioned this earlier in a few answers ago. Is there a moment for these discussions, and how do you see the relationship with the US on that?

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

Peer Gebauer: When it comes to the US, the new US administration, of course, we’ll have to see how this plays out. We will certainly provide ideas from our end and continue to be supportive of Ukraine. You’re mentioning Zelenskyy’s point that when it comes to a security umbrella, it’s a bit of a different angle compared to simply supporting Ukraine. This concerns how to guarantee a potential peace scenario or a ceasefire scenario. Then, of course, the US, given its military might, is a very crucial element from a Ukrainian perspective. Let’s see how things play out. We all know the various perceptions or expressions from the US administration. The incoming one, Trump, had earlier stated he might solve this issue in 24 hours, but I think the new line is a bit broader. The newly designated special envoy for Ukraine, General Kellogg, has spoken about maybe this year, or in a few months. We will see what drive the US administration can develop. I very strongly believe that this new incoming US administration will try to be a bold mover of things. We have seen it recently in the Middle East that already the arrival of a new administration might have been helpful for generating progress in a deal regarding ceasefire and hostage release. So, let’s see how this plays out. I think there’s a window of opportunity for moving ahead. But the conditions for finding a ceasefire solution, of course, will have to be worked out very precisely. Particularly with Ukraine, you cannot decide on Ukraine without Ukraine. I think this would be a big mistake.

Nicolas Warnery: Yes, I think the Trump administration already understood before taking office that a quick deal, or an easy deal, would be a tricky deal. They cannot reach that kind of solution very easily. But if there is a negotiation, it has to be with the Ukrainians, with us Europeans, because we will be part, probably, of the security guarantees offered to Ukraine, and, hopefully, with the Americans themselves. We will all be in the same boat. But there cannot be a deal made like that between two persons somewhere apart from Ukraine or Europe. It is not possible. It is simply not possible. It will not work. It should not work.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: We will all be on the same boat, but how do we work together on the same boat with a partner, I’m speaking about the United States, which, at certain moments, has put us on a reactive or defensive stance. How can we build trust with the United States when someone like Elon Musk wants to play with Europe like his own backyard? We’ve seen how he’s spoken about Germany, about France, of course.

Nicolas Warnery: We have to be strong and united. Mr. Musk has not been elected by anyone. So, he’s just a businessman, and he has to respect our national and European regulations. I think he will. This is part of his communication strategy. I mean, he’s a man of communication. I’m not sure that show-off is the proper term, but it’s some kind of posturing or setting the stage for negotiations before actually entering them. But when we do enter negotiations, I’m sure he will be realistic.

Peer Gebauer: We see a change in communication. Absolutely. It’s as you said: people have different communication styles. So, the incoming administration has a different style of communicating. The key for us is to ensure that our interests are met and respected by being strong. This is very simple and very clear. We are already working on that. We have to do as much as we can. But if we are economically and militarily strong, then we will be a valuable partner. And we will make sure that any administration on the other side of the Atlantic will see the added value in cooperating with Europe.

CaleaEuropeană.ro: Well, I must say that usually, when I did these types of interviews, the last question was usually the cherry on top of the cake. And it was about Romania’s accession into Schengen. But now, since we fulfilled in Schengen, we don’t have that question anymore. And also, thanks to France and Germany, Romania has managed to achieve this success. However, I have to say that we ended 2024 with President Steinmeier’s speech dissolving the parliament and calling for snap elections, he warned about malign and foreign interferences against democracies, citing Romania’s elections and the annulment of the presidential elections. At the Conference of Ambassadors that you mentioned, President Macron once again invoked that Romania’s top court had to take an unprecedented move in annulling the elections because of Russian foreign interference and state-acted foreign interference. As top diplomats of Romania’s most important European partners, how do you assess what’s happening now to and for Romania? Are you worried or do you see Romania capable to wave down anti-NATO and anti-EU shocks?

© CaleaEuropeană.ro/ Diana Zaim

Peer Gebauer: Nobody has a guarantee for anything in terms of the development of an individual country. I wouldn’t, you know, think too much about worst-case scenarios. I think Romania has proven over the years to be an extremely valuable, reliable, and constructive NATO ally, EU partner, and friend — individually for France, for Germany, but of course also in NATO and the EU. And every indication I have tells me that we are on a good track to continue to have Romania as a partner in this sense. This is absolutely important. And Romania has, over the last years, I think, impressively improved its foreign policy standing. We’ve spoken about Schengen. I mean, it’s a great success, well-deserved and should have come earlier. You had to work hard, you did your homework, and you were rewarded. The CVM has been lifted a few years ago. OECD accession is on an excellent track. Visa waiver now, another check in the box. Romania is a sought-after partner when it comes to negotiating and talking about issues like the Black Sea, Moldova, and the developments in Ukraine. So, this contrasts a bit with the fact that there is an anti-governmental sentiment in Romania. It makes one wonder. So, it’s interesting why these developments are nevertheless not fully acknowledged by more people. Why is this the case? I believe one element we’ve touched upon numerous times is malign interference from our enemies — Russia, to name the foremost — which is twisting the truth, fueling discontent here and there. But of course, there’s also an element of politics on the national level, whether Romanian, French, or German, and of course, on the European level as well., We need to address people’s needs more effectively. And I think “simplification” was the term you’ve used for President Macron’s speech. We need to concentrate more on what’s really relevant. Perhaps we have put too much emphasis and focus on side topics. But right now, it is not the time to focus on whatever might be less important. Concentrate on security, on the economy, and on making sure that our democratic systems stay resilient and safe.

Nicolas Warnery: I would say, just in a few words, that I’m confident Romania will not leave the European Union or NATO, especially considering that the only country to have left the European Union a few years ago is regretting it very much.

Continue Reading

ENGLISH

Finance Minister Tánczos Barna attends ECOFIN meeting to get Romania’s Medium-Term Fiscal Plan approved

Published

on

© Tanzcos Barna - Facebook

Finance Minister Tanczos Barna is attending his first ECOFIN Council meeting, which will address a number of key topics for EU economic and financial policy, with a focus on competitiveness, regulation, economic governance and support for economic recovery. Member states are also expected to endorse the Council’s recommendations on Romania’s medium-term budgetary and structural plan.

“It is a huge opportunity for Romania that, as a result of the negotiations, we have a 7-year budget deficit adjustment period instead of 4 years. This smooth reduction of the deficit, at a slow speed that does not produce imbalances, allows the implementation of a massive investment budget. We need to provide predictability in the fiscal system, manage public finances efficiently, keep the running costs of the State and its institutions under control, and have a leaner State that works for the citizens. At the same time, by approving the Fiscal Plan, we eliminate the risk of suspending european funds. Thus, we will continue to invest in highways and roads, hospitals, schools, water and sewage systems and we will be able to maintain an economic growth trajectory“, wrote the Minister of Finance shortly after the ECOFIN meeting.

Medium-term plans are the foundation of the new economic governance framework. Integrating budgetary, reform and investment objectives into a single medium-term plan creates a coherent and streamlined process.

Read also: European Semester: European Commission approves Romania’s medium-term plan. It “sets out a credible budgetary path”

  • Romania’s medium-term plan assessed positively by the European Commission. The European executive considers that Romania’s plan meets the requirements of the new framework, setting a credible budgetary path to ensure that our country’s debt is placed on a sustainable downward trajectory or maintained at prudent levels.
  • The European Commission has assessed that the measures included by our country in the medium-term plan met the criteria to justify an extension of the budget deficit adjustment period from four to seven years.

European Union economy and finance ministers meet in Brussels on Tuesday, January 21, for the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN), under the Polish presidency of the EU Council.

The Council is expected to adopt recommendations regarding medium-term fiscal-structural plans in the context of the implementation of the economic governance framework.

The Council is also expected to adopt recommendations for member states that are currently under an excessive deficit procedure to take effective action to correct their deficit within a given time period.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Concrete & Design Solutions

Concrete-Design-Solutions

INCAS - Institutul Național de Cercetare-Dezvoltare Aerospațială „Elie Carafoli”

Advertisement
INTERNAȚIONAL2 minutes ago

”Securitatea Europei se află la un punct de cotitură”, a declarat președinta CE la începutul Summitului de urgență de la Paris

COMISIA EUROPEANA1 hour ago

Sfatul comisarului european pentru afaceri interne: UE ”trebuie să se concentreze asupra îndeplinirii propriilor sarcini și să nu se îngrijoreze de ceea ce spun americanii în fiecare minut”

NATO2 hours ago

Primele mișcări de politică externă ale lui Bolojan: Președintele interimar participă marți la summitul PPE și se întâlnește cu ambasadorii străini acreditați în România

U.E.2 hours ago

Polonia nu trimite trupe în Ucraina. Tusk avertizează împotriva dezbinării alianței Europa-SUA: Nu poate exista loc pentru ”fie unul, fie celălalt”

PPE2 hours ago

”România e parte a Europei civilizate și a blocului euroatlantic. Este singura cale spre libertate, democrație și prosperitate”, subliniază eurodeputatul Dan Motreanu

U.E.2 hours ago

Von der Leyen și echipa sa vor vizita Ucraina pentru a marca trei ani de la declanșarea războiului de agresiune al Rusiei. UE pregătește intensificarea sprijinului militar pentru Kiev

INTERNAȚIONAL2 hours ago

Zelenski le transmite lui Trump și Putin că Ucraina va considera nul orice acord SUA-Rusia: Ucraina nu va lua parte la negocierile din Arabia Saudită

PARLAMENTUL EUROPEAN3 hours ago

Vicepreședintele PE, Victor Negrescu, propune cinci direcții ”esențiale” pentru politica externă a României: Trebuie să fim un actor influent

U.E.3 hours ago

Germania consideră „premature” discuțiile privind o eventuală trimitere de trupe în Ucraina

ROMÂNIA3 hours ago

Guvernatorul BNR atrage atenția că ”orice război comercial între Statele Unite și UE are impact și asupra României”

ROMÂNIA3 hours ago

Guvernatorul BNR atrage atenția că ”orice război comercial între Statele Unite și UE are impact și asupra României”

ROMÂNIA4 days ago

Ilie Bolojan asigură că România este o “țară puternic ancorată pe drumul său european” în primul mesaj de la Cotroceni: Vom avea alegeri corecte și transparente

EUROPARLAMENTARI ROMÂNI4 days ago

Eurodeputatul Virgil Popescu pledează pentru o piață unică a energiei pentru o Europă competitivă: Este vital să creștem producția de energie la nivelul UE

POLITICĂ5 days ago

Klaus Iohannis și-a încheiat mandatul de președinte: “Să aveți grijă de România. Dumnezeu să binecuvânteze România”

EUROPARLAMENTARI ROMÂNI6 days ago

Înainte de împlinirea a 48 de ani de la cutremurul din 1977, Gabriela Firea solicită fonduri europene suplimentare și prevenție reală pentru a proteja românii de consecințele unui viitor cutremur major

EUROPARLAMENTARI ROMÂNI2 weeks ago

Vicepreședintele PE, Victor Negrescu, pledează pentru ”dialog și soluții pragmatice” care să contribuie la reconstruirea colaborării între UE și Regatul Unit: Putem asigura un viitor comun mai bun

EUROPARLAMENTARI ROMÂNI2 weeks ago

Eurodeputatul Virgil Popescu subliniază importanța de a finaliza interconectarea rețelelor de energie electrică pentru o consolidare uniformă a competitivității în UE

POLITICĂ2 weeks ago

Candidatura lui Crin Antonescu la alegerile prezidențiale, validată de PSD: Avem nevoie să ne apărăm și să ne respectăm condiția de țară a UE, a NATO, a parteneriatului strategic cu Statele Unite

ROMÂNIA2 weeks ago

Guvernul a adoptat Bugetul pentru 2025. Ministrul Tánczos Barna: Prin acest buget, punem bazele unei noi viziuni prin care rezolvăm probleme structurale și consolidăm creșterea economică cu ajutorul fondurilor UE

ROMÂNIA2 weeks ago

Premierul Belgiei, discurs la Universitatea Harvard din SUA: Rusia a intervenit în alegerile din România, denunțăm asta!

Trending