OK, so Romania now deserves the top spot. But a man? Well, here the discussion is more complicated and gives birth to different opinions, some radical. Of course, some people are lucky in life and find themselves in the right place at the right time. This “geopolitical justification” would have been valid for any Romanian president we had now, after 10 years in office and after our correct positioning. 2014, when President Basescu ended his mandate, cannot be compared to 2024, the context in favor of a regional candidacy is much clearer now than it was then.

Short:

1. 1. It happens that in the super-election year 2024, not only parliamentary or presidential elections will be held in many states, but also two fundamental organizations of the Western political order, NATO and the EU, overlap their negotiations on the appointment of a new leadership.
2. 2. Since we are talking about a democratic world, and not about the opacity of the Chinese Communist Party or the pretend pluralism of Putin’s Russian dictatorship, it is natural that obtaining new leadership mandates for the crucial period of 2024-2029 should indeed allow an expression of multiple options and even genuine internal competitionwith all the arguments and counterarguments on the table.
3. 3. The moment is all the more difficult because the revisionism that threatens the West, respectively from the outside and from the inside external and internal pressure for change the world as a whole and democratic societies, intervenes today in a context with enormous transformative potential. It is necessary to take into account both one and the otherin a careful and intelligent politico-diplomatic balancing act aimed at preserving both the unity of the Western bloc and the conviction of societies (otherwise quite diverse) that their countries and interests are properly represented in the new formulas that emerge.
4. 4. It is obvious that the leaders’ informal discussions regarding the distribution of the package of functions in NATO and the EU began a long time ago, but the fact that now the public is beginning to see the first signs of the usually low-key negotiations this is a sign that the temperature of internal discussions is starting to rise and that unanimity will not be formed easily. There is no smoke without fire.
5. 5. Basically, there are three types of political actors involved in these negotiations – states, leaders as individuals and (European) parties of which I am a part. Although they appear to be similar in their decision-making mechanism, the two determination processes are distinct from each other, but at the same time they overlap and can be combined. In NATO, the interests of allied states and leaders (candidates) matter from an individual point of view, while in the EU the countries, and the proposed leaders/candidates, as well as the European parties to which they belong, also matter, plus in the second case the designation will take into account the results of the elections to the European Parliament on June 6-9, so there will be its own algorithm.
6. 6. President Yohannis, with his unique gesture, opens an unusual political game with an unpredictable result. A public announcement on live television of a candidate for the post of NATO Secretary General is not a common gesture in the practice of the Alliance. since the last decades. Dutch Prime Minister Rutte, although he is already supported by major powers (we’ll see if it’s final or not), hasn’t even officially/publicly announced his candidacy. What role could the ostentatious information of the domestic, and even more so the international public, take into account this the Allied Powers were notified a few weeks ago by Romania through diplomatic channels about the desire of Klaus Iohannis to be considered for this position? Of course, it is about transfer of the discussion from the offices of Western leaders to the public space and compulsion to publicly disclose the reasons for the appointment someone in this position. Evidence that this was done is in an article the next day in Politico[1], that is, publicizing the candidate’s vision and program. Is there an alternative program we can read? No, not yet, this is the only one. Who is Klaus Johannis’s article intended for? Who is it aimed at, if not public opinion? But it can be denied that it is not public opinion that appoints the Secretary General of NATO. And yet, how about bringing the public into the equation so that leaders can no longer decide anyway and nothing? Why Holland fourth, why Mark Rutte and not Romania/Iohannis? Why a country that did not meet NATO’s defense funding criteria and in whose ports numerous cases of violations of sanctions against Russia were reported[2] and not someone from the eastern flank? The subject is now out in the open and can no longer be avoided by careful arrangements or a quick declaration of consensus around a name. It is necessary to explain why, and it will not be easy.
7. 7. It can be assumed that President Yohannis consulted with Western leaders before speaking publicly (we don’t know whether with all or just some) and there were probably voices encouraging him to do so, precisely to enable them to say that in a new context “support for Mark Rutte must be reconsidered” or, if it’s too late, at least “It is also necessary to find a solution for Klaus Iohannis”. One of two.
8. 8. The gesture of President Iohannis to address the Euro-Atlantic public, to take the discussion out of the offices and to prevent a convenient solution between old friends from the West is an obvious attempt to reach a political compromise with NATO and EU countries, by which, in the end, the consensus is to recognize that a president from the eastern flank, who has been part of the decision-making process and played the right game in foreign policy for 10 years, as well as in NATO and the European Council, “Gotta give him something.” Especially now, when “NATO is about the East” and about the threat of Russia on the eastern flank. But is such a game moral, is it worthy of a president to look for work in this way, so persistently, is it inspired, is it effective? We will see in a few months and draw many interesting conclusions from this negotiation game with audience participation for the first time and from the results of such, at first glance, a risky maneuver.

*

It has begun. The political-diplomatic sheet for negotiations and distribution of the package of functions that will make up the new leadership of NATO and the EU is in full swing, in an extremely difficult year at the international and domestic levels for the democracies of the Western space.

Achieving unanimity in both organizations will not be easy and this became clear after President Iohannis made the unusual gesture of publicly stating that it seemed natural to him that the eastern flank should be represented at the top. Can anyone say that he is the only officially and publicly announced candidate so far? Of course not that no leader will be able to publicly challenge the principles announced by the President of Romaniaat least they were muttering behind their backs about Klaus Johannis’ gesture.

This was done by President Iohannis a spontaneous gesture without discussing or consulting with anyone? No, it seems impossible to me. Knowing not only the external prudence of Klaus Iohannis over the past 10 years, but also his good integration into the fabric of personal relations with NATO and the EU (however, there is 10 years of experience, hundreds of hours of discussions with these leaders), we can assume that this gesture is a consequence some of the earlier discussions he held aimed at giving a new direction to the negotiations. So he talked to somebody and usually if President Iohannis didn’t necessarily want to make fun of himself from the outside (since he has already discredited himself internally, in the eyes of the electorate, which opposes the PSD, which twice made him president), now it would be necessary for at least one strong voice in NATO (US, UK, France, Germany or Poland) to say, also publicly, that they support it. If this does not happen in the next period, what he has done becomes pathetic.

Would he make such a gesture if he knew that without it he would get a high position in NATO or the EU? Again no, obviously not. The public appearance a few days ago appears to be the last opportunity to sway the negotiations in his favor. This means that everything was not going very well for him and this idea arose and was discussed with someone.

We will have to try to look with all the clarity and objectivity we are capable of justification this candidacy with all the controversy it generates. Do the Eastern flank and Romania, in particular, have reasons to ask for and expect to receive a higher position in NATO and the EU for the mandates of 2024-2029? Sure. The time for this recognition has come, the conditions are ripe.

We have been in NATO for 20 years and NATO is now dealing specifically with the eastern flank and security problems in the Eastern European region, the Russian threat, which does not directly affect the Netherlands or Portugal, but rather the region where we are.

We have been in the EU for 17 years, we have already presided over the Council by rotation, we are the sixth largest country in the EU, and all five before us (and many smaller ones) have long held not one, but several leadership positions over time. Can Romania be blamed for its loyalty and contribution to NATO or the EU? No

OK, so Romania now deserves the top spot. But a man? Well, here the discussion is more complicated and gives birth to different opinions, some radical. Of course, some people are lucky in life and find themselves in the right place at the right time. This “geopolitical justification” would have been valid for any Romanian president we had now, after 10 years in office and after our correct positioning. 2014, when President Basescu ended his mandate, cannot be compared to 2024, the context in favor of a regional candidacy is much clearer now than it was then.

Our sadness (some would say rebellion) is that the chance is being given to a politician who has been terribly disappointing domestically, who betrayed his electorate who queued for hours to vote for him in 2014 and 2019, and this betrayal (no quotes ) marks) and complicity in PSD is associated with not achieving all the internal goals of his presidency – politics has not been reformed and we don’t have “different politics” (as he promised), education is a disaster and his Romania Educată program turned out to be a useless pile of papers, the judicial system looks worse than 10 years ago, the public administration and the current state model are not have any “German” touch, which we imagined would print, etc. In general, a failed presidency, an internal failure on all fronts, including the destruction of hopes for an alternative political project. I mean, worse than before, when I at least had hope.

But effectiveness or lack of effectiveness in domestic politics does not seem to be a criterion in NATO-EU negotiations. This is the situation, this is what we can offer now. Nor did it matter to Ursula von der Leyen, who was a weak German defense ministerwas subject to internal criticism, but later turned out to be a good president of the European Commission, while Belgian Charles Michel, who was a good prime minister of his country, “didn’t break the bank” as president of the European Council.

The last question, perhaps the most important of all – does NATO or the EU necessarily have something to gain (or lose) if President Iohannis gets the top job? From the point of view of, say, the Americans, the Belgians, or the Poles, not ours or the Dutch (who have candidates in that context), I think that’s all that matters.

as we know The activities of NATO and the EU largely depend on the political will of the member states…Read the rest article and commentary on Contributors.ro