Andrei Cornea: Like the "impartial Romanian"?

I admit that I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of President Dan, who has to decide these days (I am writing this text on a Saturday morning) whether to accept President Trump's invitation to participate in the much-anticipated Peace Council or to decline the invitation, following the example of most European states.

Of course, it is not at all hard to realize that this Council, if it will offer some funds and support for peace in Gaza, as well as for the reconstruction of the area, its immediate purpose, almost not even disguised, seems to be to implicitly (if not explicitly) short-circuit various UN bodies and, in general, other international instances. But there is also a less obvious, yet still clear intention. That is to undermine the trust of European allies, to create dissent within the EU, preventing a unified response from the Union. Trump continues to fight with his best and oldest allies, as he does not with the sheikhs from the Gulf or with the countries from Central Asia. He criticizes his allies, as he does not with Putin. In fact, there is a feeling that the projected Peace Council will be just another place where President Trump will be adored, flattered, and, possibly, "crowned" as the "emperor of world peace." Considering the project of the great Arc de Triomphe in Washington (much larger than Napoleon's in Paris and than Titus's in Rome), this "crown" would not even be implausible.

And yet, some will say, the fundamental relationships are between states. And we have a strategic partnership with the USA, we have American troops from NATO on our territory, we keep the "shield" from Deveselu. We are exposed to the actions and aggressiveness of Russia, as France, Italy, and Germany are not, which have refused the American invitation. Romania's security depends more on America than on Europe at this moment. And what will happen in a year or five, we will see.

So: do we risk straining relations with our European partners in the EU? Or, on the contrary, do we follow their line, surely angering Trump, who – it is known – is vengeful and resentful?

For now, I have the feeling, from what the president has declared, that Nicușor Dan and those who advise him are desperately looking for an "intermediate" solution: to participate "without being inside" or, conversely, not to participate, "while still being present," or something else containing neither-nor or both-and. In short, something that violates the principle of excluded middle in favor of a "logic" of compromise.

I believe that the worst solution would be to give an ambiguous answer or to avoid giving a firm answer, whatever it may be. The best, in my opinion, would be to say "no, thank you," thinking of the unity of Europe, but also of the fact that Trump will not be eternal at the White House. It would be worse to accept the American invitation, but then I think we should do it at least unequivocally, announcing that we will be willing to even pay the sum of one billion dollars. However, of all, the worst response would be to maintain ambiguity and uncertainty.

In any case, Trump would not forgive us for not accepting his invitation without reservations, with cheers and gratitude, but neither would the Europeans be pleased and would penalize us if we still went to Washington under the ridiculous pretext of being merely "observers." Everyone would criticize us and we would have no allies on either side. Hoping to remain friends with everyone, we would manage the performance of not having any on our side. The image presented would be that of a country and government that lack courage and hide behind vague formulations, being unable to decide who they are "with." The tangled explanations we will give to the parties and the press will convince no one and will only make us ridiculous.

From the perspective of political realism – so prized today – maintaining ambiguity would therefore be by far the worst solution. Even Machiavelli advises the prince to avoid remaining neutral when two powers are in conflict. But there are also good reasons for a polite, but firm and clear refusal. Why would we contribute to weakening the European Union at a difficult moment, when it is being attacked from the East and the West? I believe it would not only be lacking in political realism but also immoral to do so.

And finally, we, who know well what "the cult of personality" means, how would we feel if, to obtain some security assurances (how secure are those?), we had to flatter the President of the USA at the state level? Even as an "unengaged observer" (assuming this subterfuge would work), President Dan would have to bring his share of flattery. In return, he (and through him, all of us) would receive a share of contempt. And from all sides.

P.S. In the meantime, as I expected and feared, after a long meditation, Nicușor Dan has decided: he will go to Donald Trump's Peace Council as an "observer."

https://www.dilema.ro/situatiunea/ca-romanul-impartial