Romania Dodged a Bullet, But the West Is Still in Danger | Opinion

Romanians came dangerously close to voting away their post-communist successes. In choosing Nicușor Dan over George Simion in its presidential election, Romania may have decided not to burn down the house, but only barely. That nearly half of Romanians supported a populist demagogue who questions Romania’s commitments to the European Union and NATO is a major crack in Europe’s democratic wall.

The irony is suffocating: While the Romanian people ultimately made the right choice, the leadership of the United States—the very country that built and led the postwar liberal world order—was quietly rooting for the other side. From Hungary’s Viktor Orbán to Vladimir Putin to the autocratic rulers of petrostates in the Gulf, President Donald Trump’s affections clearly lie with strongmen and ideologues, not democrats or transatlantic institutions. It is hard to overstate what a reversal this is for America—the one-time anchor of the free world.

There have been warning signs for years: Orbán’s consolidation of power in Hungary, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s suffocation of Turkish democracy, and the recurring popularity of Putin in Russia. In Western Europe, the far-right continues to surge—from AfD in Germany to the National Rally in France to Reform UK riding the anger left behind by Brexit. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Democrats—despite facing a convicted felon in Trump—just lost both houses of Congress and the presidential popular vote for the first time in two decades. That alone should alarm anyone who cares about truth, norms, or basic democratic values.

The defenders of liberal democracy seem lost. They know that a dark tide is rising, but they rarely ask why. They condemn voters for drifting rightward, but they rarely question how they might have contributed. It is not enough to defeat the Simions of the world at the ballot box. We must understand why they nearly win—and make sure it doesn’t happen again.

For one, liberalism itself has come to be associated with a cultural orthodoxy that many ordinary people no longer recognize as their own. What used to be a politics of tolerance and inclusion is now seen—often rightly—as obsessed with identity, hypersensitive to offense, and incapable of self-criticism. Wokeness has turned into a kind of substitute religion for the progressive elite. And it is driving people away. The constant focus on gender identity, the erasure of distinctions in the name of inclusion, the rigid enforcement of new social codes—all of it has alienated working people and made the term „liberal“ toxic in many parts of the world.

Many who vote for right-wing populists live in real hardship. Which brings us to the second point: corruption. In too many democracies—Romania very much among them—liberalism has been marred by corruption tolerated or even encouraged by those in power. People feel lied to. They were promised Western standards and the rule of law, but instead found elites enriching themselves while pretending to care about values. When citizens are told that liberal democracy prizes fairness but see a judiciary that bends to power and politicians who steal with impunity, why would they defend it?

The economic model that has underpinned the liberal order since the end of the Cold War has also failed too many people. The past 40 years of globalization produced enormous growth—but the gains were unequally distributed. While cities boomed and a class of global professionals emerged, large segments of the population stagnated. Wages didn’t rise. Job security vanished. Inequality exploded. In Eastern Europe, the disparity is even more stark: the promise of catching up with the West came true for some, but many remain in grinding poverty. When liberal democracy appears to mean unchecked capitalism and chronic unfairness, its appeal fades.

This is why economic nationalism is not going away. It’s not a passing phase or a quirk of Trumpism. It’s a cry of protest against jobs being outsourced, industries being hollowed out, and entire communities being sacrificed on the altar of efficiency. People were never really asked whether they agreed to the global bargain of cheaper goods in exchange for deindustrialization, labor market insecurity, and the erosion of local control. Yes, the system produced iPhones and falling prices. But it also brought misery to millions. The political backlash is not irrational.

Immigration, too, plays a role. For years, mainstream liberal parties insisted that all cultures are equal and that identity is fluid. But most people do not believe that. They value their national cultures and want them preserved. They don’t want to be told that preferring one’s own culture is racist. They reject the idea that borders are immoral or that their societies should absorb limitless newcomers with vastly different traditions and values.

These are not fringe concerns. They are a major reason liberal democracy is under siege. If its defenders do not adjust, they will lose, not because the alternatives are better—they are not—but because too many people have concluded that the system isn’t working for them, and that its leaders refuse to listen.

Romania’s narrow escape should be studied and learned from. The country nearly handed itself over to a man who would have endangered everything it built since communism: its integration into Europe, its place in the democratic world, and its fragile political maturity. And Romania not an isolated case. If even the U.S. government is cheering for those who would unmake the liberal order, then that order is in existential danger.

The way forward is not to abandon liberalism, but to save it—from its worst excesses, its blind spots, and its tone-deaf elites. We must separate liberal democracy from the ideological baggage that now surrounds it. We must champion free speech, not cancel culture. We must embrace fair markets, not rigged ones. We must protect borders while treating migrants humanely. We must celebrate national cultures without falling into chauvinism.

Most of all, we must renew faith in the idea that democracy can deliver freedom, fairness, and dignity for ordinary people. That idea is still worth fighting for. But if we continue to ignore what drove people toward Simion and others like him, we may not be so lucky next time.

Mihai Razvan Ungureanu is the former prime minister and foreign minister of Romania, headed the country’s external intelligence service, and is a professor of history at the University of Bucharest.

Dan Perry was the first post-communist AP correspondent in Romania and later led the agency in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean; he is the author of two books and publishes „Ask Questions Later“ at danperry.substack.com.

“A Digital Battlefield”: Sebastian Schäffer and Malwina Talik about Russian disinformation

„A Digital Battlefield: How Russian Disinformation Influences Voter Behaviour in Central and Eastern Europe“, an article by Sebastian Schäffer and Malwina Talik, was published in How to Defend Democracy in the Digital Age, a volume produced through the collaboration of TOPAZ, the Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, and the Campus Tivoli. 

In their analysis, the authors examine Russian disinformation tactics in the electoral context, highlight past instances of confirmed interference, and focus on the cases of Romania, Moldova, and Poland.
 

The publication is available in both English and Czech. Find out more here. 

IDM Director Sebastian Schäffer for Radiotelevisión Española on the Romanian presidential elections

In the article titled „Rumanía repite las elecciones presidenciales entre la fatiga política y el auge ultranacionalista“ (Romania repeats presidential elections amid political fatigue and the rise of ultranationalism), Sebastian Schäffer, director of the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe (IDM), provides insight into the potential outcomes of the Romanian presidential elections for the Spanish public radio and television service RTVE. 

Schäffer notes that if George Simion, the ultranationalist candidate, wins the first round, his success in the second round will largely depend on his opponent. He questions the willingness of other parties to collaborate in opposing Simion, highlighting the uncertainty surrounding potential alliances and their impact on the election’s outcome. 

This commentary reflects the broader concerns about the political landscape in Romania, where the rise of ultranationalist sentiments and the fragmentation of traditional political alliances could significantly influence the direction of the country’s leadership. 

For more detailed information, you can read the full article (in Spanish) here.

Sebastian Schäffer für Der Pragmaticus über Russlands hybride Kriegsführung und Desinformation

In der aktuellen Podcast-Folge von „Der Pragmaticus“ spricht Moderatorin Karin Pollack mit IDM-Direktor Sebastian Schäffer über Russlands Desinformationsstrategien im Rahmen hybrider Kriegsführung. Schäffer erklärt, wie russische Propaganda Wahlen manipuliert, euroskeptische und rechtsextreme Bewegungen fördert und dafür u.a. Social-Media-Taktiken wie Botfarmen und Deepfake-News nutzt. Das Gespräch behandelt außerdem das TikTok-Phänomen bei den rumänischen Wahlen, die Rolle ausländischer Akteure bei der Verbreitung von Desinformation und die geopolitischen Risiken einer fragmentierten Europäischen Union.

Die Folge kann hier angehört sowie auch das Transkript gelesen werden.

 

Wahlen in Rumänien 2024

Lesen Sie hier das Briefing:

Air Schengen – progress or precedent?

Congratulations are in order for Romania and Bulgaria as they join the Schengen area, with the lifting of maritime and air border controls after years in the waiting room. However, there is a catch to this long-awaited moment. In their new entry on the IDM Blog, Sophia Beiter and Sebastian Schäffer explain what is problematic about this solution and why its gravity is not as substantial as announced.

Romania, Bulgaria and Austria have apparently made progress in their negotiations on the accession of the two Black Sea countries to the Schengen area. It has been reported that Austria may agree to the establishment of the so-called “Air Schengen” for Bulgaria and Romania as early as March 2024, which was proposed by the Federal Minister of the Interior Gerhard Karner earlier this month.

What is “Air Schengen”?

Partial Schengen entry by air would mean that passengers from Romania and Bulgaria would no longer have to fly to other Schengen countries via the international terminal. In terms of air (and sea) transport, Bulgaria and Romania would therefore be part of the Schengen area. However, border controls by land would continue.

In principle, opening the borders for air traffic represents progress in the protracted Schengen accession negotiations and is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, “Air Schengen” does not replace full Schengen membership.

Why “Air Schengen” is not enough:

1. The agreement comes rather late, especially in view of the fact that the European Commission declared Bulgaria’s and Romania’s readiness to join the Schengen area back in 2011. A compromise like Schengen entry by air and/or sea could therefore have been struck over a decade ago and especially helped to avoid the diplomatic faux pas from last December, when Austria vetoed the accession. However, there is a strong possibility that the decision was ultimately not taken by Karner, but in the Federal Chancellery. In any case, such a compromise could potentially set a dangerous precedent. If additional barriers are added to the criteria that need to be fulfilled e.g. to join Schengen, this could ultimately be extended to other policy areas or enlargement in general. This compromise therefore not only creates an additional possibility to veto and thus extort countries but also contributes to a multi-layered, potentially two-class EU, which adds unnecessary complexity as well as frustration.

2. Border controls in air traffic affect far fewer people and are far less problematic in terms of waiting times, bureaucracy and CO2 emissions. Business travellers and tourists to and from Bulgaria and Romania may have less waiting time at the airport, but trucks will continue to get stuck at border controls for long periods of time. Even with the (mostly questionable) reintroduced border controls among Schengen members, the average waiting time between Upper Austria and Bavaria, for instance, is 20 minutes, compared to a mean six hours at the border to Romania and/or Bulgaria.

3. Austria has announced a number of conditions for the implementation of Romania’s and Bulgaria’s partial Schengen accession: an increase in the Frontex mission; more money, personnel and material for the protection of external borders; and that Romania and Bulgaria take in more asylum seekers, particularly from Afghanistan and Syria. While stricter border controls could be accepted by Romania and Bulgaria, the last demand is logistically and politically rather unrealistic. In mid-December, Prime Minister Denkov still vehemently rejected this “migrants for Schengen” offer. It also undermines to a certain extent the deal struck just over a week before on 20 December at the European Parliament, which commits the national governments of member states to show more solidarity and share responsibility regarding asylum and migration.

For more on the topic watch the discussion: The Future of the Schengen Area: Exploring its Enlargement.

Read the op-ed (in German) in Die Presse.

Eines der drängendsten Themen unserer Zeit

Warum das österreichische Veto gegen den Schengen-Beitritt von Bulgarien und Rumänien aus vielen Gründen kurzsichtig ist, erklären Sophia Beiter und Sebastian Schäffer im Gastkommentar in DiePresse.

Lesen Sie es hier.

 

Der Gastkommentar wurde in internationalen Medien rezipiert:

Capital

EURACTIV.ro

MASZOL

NewsMoldova

DCNews

G4Media.ro

Special Round Table: Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe (IDM) after 70 years

A special Round Table in the framework of  

The annivaersary event series “70 Years of the IDM – Locating the Future” 

and the Annual Conference of the Romanian Centre for Russian Studies:

“20 Months After the Russian Invasion in Ukraine.  What Has Been Done, What Needs to Be Done. Where Is the End?”

(9-11 November 2023, Bucharest) 

 

Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe  

(Institut für den Donauraum und Mitteleuropa – IDM Vienna)  

after 70 years. 

 

Chair: Sebastian Schäffer  

Discussants: Prof. Dr. Mihai Răzvan Ungureanu, Dr. Anatoliy Kruglashov, Prof. Dr. Aleksander Etkind (online), Dr. Iver B. Neumann, Dr. Armand Goșu, Prof. Dr. Radu Carp. 

Main topics: the EU enlargement and integration, conditions for a good neighbourhood relationship, and the development of democracy and multilateralism, all of them within the broader context of the Russian aggression in Ukraine.  

Further Information:  

Bucharest Conference Program pdf

IDM at the youth event “Young Danube Bridges”

On 19 September, Sophia Beiter attended the event “Young Danube Bridges” at the Collegium Hungaricum in Vienna. Organized by the regional cultural advisor from the Danube Swabian Central Musuem in Ulm, the seminar was part of the project “International Youth Encounters in the Danube Region” and aimed to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and ideas on key issues concerning the area. 

Participants from Germany, Hungary, Croatia, Montenegro, Romania, Bulgaria and Moldova came together to learn about the EU Strategy for the Danube Region. The young people, who are all learning German, presented their countries, brought some typical food from their region and gathered knowledge about the Danube region during creative games and interactive activities. Alongside the IDM, several cultural institutes and embassies of the respective countries were present at the event. 

IDM Short Insights 27: Russian attacks on Ukrainian Danube ports

 

The Danube Region is facing increased Russian missile strikes, posing a threat to the area’s stability, especially near the Romanian border. NATO has been briefed on the situation but found no evidence of deliberate Russian aggression against allied territories. Romania can invoke Article 4 of the NATO Treaty for consultations. Romania’s Ministry of Defense is prepared to respond to an attack on its soil, but invoking Article 5 is not automatic. Rather than blaming Romania for its proximity to targets, the focus should be on condemning Russia’s attacks and understanding their broader implications, including the weaponization of food.


Transcript:

The Danube Region has come under direct attack. Following Moscow’s withdrawal from the Black Sea grain deal, Russian missile strikes targeting Ukrainian ports along the Danube River have significantly increased over the past weeks. The Kremlin is once again threatening the civilian population and risking the region’s safety and stability, as the attacks are happening close to the Romanian border, an EU and NATO member state.   

Dylan White, the acting spokesperson for NATO, disclosed this week that Romania’s ambassador has briefed the alliance about the drone fragments that have been found. He emphasized that there is no evidence suggesting any deliberate aggression by Russia against allied territories. However, Romania retains the option to invoke Article 4 of the NATO Treaty, which calls for collective consultations among member states to safeguard political independence, territorial integrity, and overall security. 

The Ministry of Defense of Romania has asserted that should an attack occur on Romanian soil, the country’s armed forces are fully prepared to respond appropriately. This doesn’t necessarily mean further escalation, as some observers are suggesting. Invoking Article 5, the core of the alliance’s collective defense, is no automatism. Following an attack, the NATO state first has to decide whether or not to ask for support and the response taken is then determined by all members.  

Rather than fearing an Article 5 scenario – so effectively blaming Romania for their border being too close to militarily irrelevant targets – we should ultimately be much more concerned about the Russian Federation’s continued heinous attacks, deliberately causing civilian casualties. We need to understand that Putin is taking all of these factors into account, including the further weaponizing of food against the weakest parts of global society.