IOANA LUPEA: "The accusations of "high treason" that President Traian Basescu brought to the politicians who negotiated the Treaty with Ukraine and the public disagreement he showed toward the document are amazing gestures."

Romania is now backing up Kiev’s ambition to become a member of NATO and Ukraine will most probably be one of the hottest issues during the summit in Bucharest.

In a moment of patriotic enthusiasm, Traian Basescu revived the talks (in a way familiar to the far right Great Romania Party) concerning an issue which is debated even on the former Prime Minister’s blog, Adrian Nastase. Yet, Basescu gave no explaining regarding the purpose of his statements.

Romania wouldn’t have been admitted into NATO without having signed the Treaty with Ukraine. Neither would the president have been the host of the greatest reunion that ever occurred in the history of the North Atlantic Alliance.

Our country would have been just one of the states that are now waiting nervously to enter NATO. The Treaty was signed under the pressure of Romania’s nomination at the Madrid summit, which took place in July 1997, while influenced by the pressure exerted by Ukraine, led at that time by Leonid Kucima.

Back then, as it is now, one of the main admission premise was sorting out any dispute we might have had with our neighboring countries. According to the international law, Romania still had unsolved territorial issues.

Ion Iliescu had acknowledged Moldavia’s independence so we had nothing left to sort out there and we had solved Hungary’s requests regarding minority’s rights.

The widespread idea was that we had an historical chance at Madrid, because of France’s active support. Emil Constantinescu could not afford to refuse the signing of an open treaty.

According to the document, both Romania and Ukraine engaged to establish their maritime and territorial frontiers, meaning anything that could have been attained a month before the NATO reunion.

The sole severe aspect of this matter was placed in the Treaty’s addendum and the former Foreign Affairs Minister, Adrian Severin is the only one who could be incriminated for it. The addendum states that Kiev had promised never to place offensive armament on the Snakes Island, which belongs to Ukraine.

So what are Basescu’s claims toward President Iuscenko if the treaty can no longer be revised and the territorial matters are decided in Hague? Maybe Traian Basescu wished to show Ukraine that the support for NATO admission is not made out of love but out of purely strategic purposes.

Or maybe, Basescu claims a change of attitude coming from Ukraine’s plans with the Serpents Island and the Bastroe Channel, by conditioning Romania’s support, just as Greece currently does with the Republic of Macedonia.

Basescu failed to send a subtle message to President Viktor Iuscenko, if that was his intention. Instead, President Basescu used the war tactics he practices with his political adversaries in Bucharest.

Ukraine is not the former president Emil Constantinescu, nor Russia, nor Prime Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu.