Giant loss to the Rodna Mountains National Park-Romania

Muntii-Rodnei-1

The Rodna Mountains National Park, the second largest in the country and the largest protected area in the Eastern Carpathians, has lost, after almost four decades, the “crown”, namely the biosphere reservation status attributed to it in 1979, In Paris, by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – the Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB-UNESCO). The news fell like a lightning.

The news that the Rodna Mountains National Park is no longer a biosphere reserve came last month from the MAB-UNESCO representative in Romania. “I regret that we have lost this status that elevates us above all (of all protected areas – n.r.). I suffer for that. I was reserving the new biosphere, Retezat and the Danube Delta. It was a title. What will happen? Do not lose man or park other than a crown. This is my regret. Nothing can be done because since 1995 it has been agreed how to place the biosphere reserves and how it should look. In Romania, the only one that meets all the requirements of the biosphere is the Danube Delta, “she added. The Rodna Mountains National Park was established by Law 5/2000, and the biosphere reserve, which was Pietrosul Mare, originally stretched over 3300 hectares, after which the Ministry of the Environment extended this status to the entire park. A Biosphere Reserve is a protected natural area which is assigned an international rating and whose characteristics are defined by UNESCO, in accordance with the needs for the purpose of protecting and conserving a natural habitat zone and its specific biological diversity, Program “Man and the Biosphere Program”.

The International Coordination Council of the UNESCO Program “Man and Biosphere” (MAB) met for the first time in 1971, and the concept of Biosphere Reservation emerged in 1974. The program to create a world-wide network of biosphere reserves Was launched two years after the concept proposal. In 1995 the Seville Conference defined for the first time a strategy and developed a statutory framework that supports accepted principles by all states. In the same year, the UNESCO General Conference adopted the Seville Strategy and Framework. In 1932, 183 hectares of alpine hole in the Pietrosu Mare Peak area (2,303 meters) were declared scientific reserve, being the first such reservation in Romania. The importance of the area, but also its beauty, made the protected area later extended to 3,300 hectares. At present there are four scientific reserves in the Rodna Mountains National Park (Pietrosu Mare – 3,547.6 hectares, Piatra Rea – 291 hectares, Corongiş – 614.9 hectares and Bila-Lala – 1.318.2 hectares), plus six reserves (100 hectares), Izhaarele Mihăiesei (61 hectares), Valea Cormaia (50 hectares), Saca Massif (7,8 hectares), Cobăşel Cave (one hectare) and Natural Reserve Izvorul Bătrâna (0.5 hectare). . Over 2,300 hectares of the Rodna Mountains National Park are declared a strictly protected area because of protected areas of great scientific importance, including wild areas where human intervention was extremely low. It is forbidden to carry out any human activities, except for research, education and ecotourism, but also any activity of exploiting natural resources.

 

Johannis KNOWS how important is the image of Romania?

Whether accepted or not, Romanian reality has changed dramatically with the announcement of presidential election results from November 16 2014. Johannis unexpectedly gets elected president of Romania.

iohannis

We cross probably one of the most atypical periods of short but cheerful Romanian post-communist democracy a period of electoral turmoil but also a time when due to the success of a president totally different country is under scrutiny various external audiences.

Probably very little today realize the context in which we find ourselves, well we could use it to realize that we as a country and nation to open new opportunities for reconfiguration of identity. With time, why not, this identity can turn into competitive identity, which would not be bad at all.

The purpose of our discussion, however, is not to find in the person of Klaus Johannis Romania hero who need to repair their image abroad and probably others are even more talented in carving statues of the new president-elect, but we have observe that a situation seemingly happy until now we bring forward international perception on a meteoric trajectory normally unrepeatable or that you meet very few times in a century. As shown, the transfer from a peripheral area pereptie in one relatively central cenrala or can only be a result of truly historic event. This compels me to say that you have to take advantage of the opportunity and have to make an effort to profile us as well in the eyes of our foreign partners.

What probably will be doing in the near future is to confirm the precise technical methods recredibilizare the state and country in general, to avoid all the pitfalls of conduct that consistently discredit us and take advantage of the attention that the moment we it provides a platform to build credibility acceptable if not solid a balanced and strong country brand.

Those of political actors that will climb on this train and contribute to this new construction that is not the less doctrinal and policy, meaning rudimentary so far, will have their turn in front of an audience the chance to rehabilitate handled or no, but an audience that is slowly but surely the majority and determined against the system.

From this perspective Johannis begins to establish itself as a trigger of a process that traditionally Romania has the talent to guzzle it. Therefore I think that step unnecessary retalierii and accountability of political opponents of the new president-elect is unnecessary, time consuming and redundant. Therefore, I believe that this step must overcome.

If we remain stuck in a political war direction matrix line should unite Victoria and Cotroceni palace or if we mimic institutional collaboration will happen behind which all sorts of strange things, if we continue to search for some nonexistent guilty by clouds tear gas when we do nothing but bore the umpteenth time an external public Romania which rarely attracts attention.

Also Johannis must realize their role and gave it a favorable conjuncture without his effort is too high and make their lucid inventory of décor elements that surrounded the campaign. Some of these decorative elements” were almost invisible in the campaign (although some of them exactly what they wanted) for full attention focused on the candidate, but today, with the war policy (or alleged closing) is profile of these individuals expected to be stronger a profile but that public opinion, young beautiful, rebellious macovistii other categories might assimilate him something harder.

Political parties, conglomerates and other forms of organization with the stated purpose to gain power will have to understand, at least for a period, the significance of anti-system vote and make a step back and Johannis, to continue to perform as reliably vector will have to protect against capusarii most likely it will put a good picture transfer from him to these groups and never vice versa.

After a long series of occasions on which Romania has missed the existence of the unitary state, today we are even in possession of the list of things you do not need to repeat them, and one of them is even attention that the President have to pay image Romania country and credibility abroad. If Johannis will understand that public diplomacy tools are the only ones who can solve most problems seemingly intractable in our external perception management plan, he will still manage a performance unmatched by his predecessors or politicians who have had or still have aspirations comparable his.

 

by diplomatiepublica.com

In 2014, Another Empty Nobel Peace Prize

thediplomat_2014-10-10_18-36-32-386x383

This year’s Nobel Peace Prize was shared between an Indian and Pakistani, at a time when military tensions on the Indo-Pakistani border in Kashmir have reached their deadliest point in over a decade. This, of course calls into question whether the Nobel Peace Prize has again been awarded to make a political statement, especially since it was given to two individuals who, while working for noble causes, did not work together and whose work was only marginally related to the cause of world peace.

The two winners of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize were Pakistan’s Malala Yousafzai and India’s Kailash Satyarthi. Malala, as she is popularly known, needs no introduction. At 17, she is the youngest recipient of the prize. She is the well-known promoter and symbol of female education in Pakistan who was shot by the Taliban in 2012 for campaigning for the right of girls to attend school. Satyarthi, who is 60, has been a longtime crusader against child slavery. His organization, the Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Save the Child Movement) has been credited with saving thousands of children from forced labor and abuses.

Unfortunately, the Nobel Peace Prize, unlike some of the science-oriented Nobel Prizes, has totally lost sight of its original purpose and has instead become a vehicle for the Nobel committee to make political statements or promote social causes. Nobody can deny that the causes that Satyarthi and Malala stand for are good, important and mostly uncontroversial. Yet, the selection of these individuals, and of many individuals in the recent past, seems to deviate from Alfred Nobel’s wish that the Peace Prize be given to someone who pursued the promotion of peace, which is the lack of war. According to Alfred Nobel, the prize ought to be givento the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

And yet, according to the Nobel committee, this year’s prize was awarded jointly to Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai “for their struggle against the suppression of children and young people and for the right of all children to education.” This was not a joint struggle between the two individuals and was not coordinated, as they worked on different aspect of children’s rights. These two individuals did not work with each other and did not necessarily work towards a common cause. They did nothing in particular to promote peace and “fraternity between nations.”

Leaving that aside, it hardly seems fair to compare their work. Malala, while being an important symbol, has hardly done anything noteworthy in the past few years other than making speeches. It is hard to say she has actually done anything that merits such an award. Unfortunately she seems to be rapidly on her way to becoming another commercialized symbol who makes a lot of speeches from exile and is disassociated with the situation on the ground in her home country. On the other hand, while Satyarthi has been campaigning to end child labor in India for decades, the problem is often exaggerated in order to gain funds from NGOs. Moreover, it is a problem that is extremely complicated, as children must often work to make ends meet for their families and are not always exploited. It is also a problem that is going away on its own gradually through social change and increased schooling and wealth. No matter how one looks at the problem of child labor though, it is obviously not one that fits the requirements of the Nobel Peace Prize. Surely there are many more noteworthy individuals or statesmen in South Asia or the rest of the world that are more deserving of the prize.

On the whole, neither Malala nor Satyarthi have done anything worthy of the prize. On the other hand, neither of them deserve to be condemned and we wish them the best of luck in furthering their causes. However, the rationale for both of these individuals jointly receiving the prize smacks of the committee’s attempt to make a political statement. While Malala was a frontrunner for several years, the committee openly admitted that it chose Satyarthi to try to make a point. The chairman of the committee said: “What we are saying is that we have awarded two people with the same cause, coming from India and Pakistan, a Muslim and a Hindu. It is in itself a strong signal.”

Although Satyarthi and Malala have spoken by phone and agreed to invite the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan to their award ceremony, it is unclear if this possible meeting will do much to further peace between India and Pakistan. Malala will not be able to stop the Taliban or other groups, such as Boko Haram, that suppress the rights of women. And Satyarthi and Malala jointly receiving the Nobel Peace Prize won’t have any impact on the conflict between India and Pakistan because it is driven by underlying strategic, political, and military factors that cannot be solved by a prize.

However, these  strategic problems can eventually be solved by statesmen. This fact itself shows why awarding the prize to symbolic individuals is pointless and counter to the Nobel Peace Prize’s purpose. Ultimately the individuals who actually receive the prize should be those who truly take steps to end conflict.

 

by thediplomat.com

Biden to Bucharest

10313839_10202758703742042_4724193293024928759_n

If you feel in the air the smell of freedom, dignity, optimism, determination, NORMALITY? … Make no mistake … it was Biden to Bucharest. In those times never talked about our favorite topics – I heard and saw something ELSE, and if it would be Biden spoke in front of what is spoken in Romania every day … we had a clear picture of prehistory on a practicing every day on these streets. Slide this air avidly chest will reappear tomorrow morons patented public wonder if maybe the Red American troops angry and Russians … we need new U.S. troops, NATO and Europe … Pull brothers air freedom nostrils will you meet this air over many years, provided you be if …. thank Joe Biden, thank you America!

 

also by Diplomatie Publica

The country where all the inhabitants are millionaires. 10,000 Romanian already living there

stiri_120115_0_okNorway is the most prosperous country in Europe . The discovery of oil and gas in its own waters , in the late 1960s led to a strong development of the Norwegian economy . The rich resources of fossil energy , proceeds on their behalf and the high level of economic development and social stability were counted , moreover, among the reasons for the rejection in referendums in 1972 and 1994, Norway ‘s accession to the European Union . Aware that the resources will end at some point , the country’s rulers in 1990 established a fund to which all citizens are over five million shareholders. In January 2014 , the Fund has exceeded 830 billion.

The abundance of oil in Norway led to lower unemployment and create new jobs. Today , Norway is needed 16,000 engineers , twice more than last year. In particular , there is a shortage in the oil engineers who specialize in the field . In September 2012, the Romanian community in the northern state count less than 10,000 people .

Working in Norway

Norwegian law is the same for both Norwegian workers and for foreign ones.
As an applicant for work in Norway must register with the police ( right of residence ) within 3 months after you start working .
If you sent the country on contract work , you must have the right of residence previously granted .
You must have a written employment contract .
You must be in possession tax card ( taxcard , skattekort ) issued in Norway.
The employer is obliged to draw your occupational accident insurance .
Your employer is required to provide satisfactory accommodation .
As an employee in the construction branch must ensure you minimum wage.
As an employee in the ticket gates construction must always work on site.

What happens if you work “black ” ?

Some employers might you propose to work without a contract . It is a bad idea , at least three reasons:
– Do not get paid leave , not earn seniority for retirement , you will not receive unemployment benefits in case you get fărălucru ;
– If you do not receive the promised payment of employment will be very hard to you obtain that money ;
– You could be asked to pay additional fees.

Sources of job search

Writing a CV and a letter of intent is the first and most important step in finding a job. The letter of intent must be carried out for individual employers . When you apply for some jobs , it is advisable to translate Norwegian resume if you can communicate even among ” newbie ” in this language. However, your resume should include key information from previous jobs , and a brief description personală.Scopul is to convince employers that you are motivated to work for them . It would be a good idea to document prior to sending the letter of intent , the prospect angajatorului.Totodată , you could see the Norwegian NOKUT institution that equals and recognize certain acts of studies and qualifications for foreigners , obtained outside Norway. ( http://www.nokut.no ) . We recommend that you have a LinkedIn account where your resume can be viewed by potential employers. Recruitment agencies in Norway use a lot this platform. Sites like http://www.finn.no or http://www.manpower.no are popular among those looking for work , but also among employers . Experis ( http://www.experis.no ) is the largest recruitment company in the country , specializing in IT , financial consulting and engineering. Agencies Adecco ( http://www.adecco.no ) , tongs ( http://www.capus.no ) and Orion ( http://www.orion – search.no ) are also key players in the labor market in Norway .

THE ROVING EYE : The US-Russia Ukrainian deal

By Pepe Escobar

up-forum-march-april-2013-006-768x1024

By the time you read this Russia will have invaded Ukraine. Well, that’s what the Supreme Allied Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, US Air Force General Philip Breedlove, is spinning. Breedlove Supreme says the Russians are “ready to go” and could easily take over eastern Ukraine. Western corporate media have already dusted off their Kevlar vests.

Now compare Breedlove Supreme with a grown-up diplomat, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who has called on NATO to please de-escalate the “unreasonable” warmongering rhetoric, which also includes officially ending all civilian and military cooperation with Russia and planning more military moves in Eastern Europe.

While NATO – shorthand for the Pentagon’s European division – freaks out, especially via its outgoing secretary-general, Danish patsy Anders Fogh Rasmussen, let’s see where we really stand on the ground, based on leaks from both Lavrov’s and US Secretary of State John Kerry’s camps.

The heart of the matter – obscured by a rainbow bridge of hysteria – is that neither Washington nor Moscow want Ukraine to become a festering wound. Moscow told Washington, officially, it has no intention of “invading” Ukraine. And Washington told Moscow that, for all the demented rhetoric, it does not want to expand NATO to either Ukraine or Georgia.

Whatever Washington’s actions, they won’t convince the Kremlin the putsch in Kiev was not orchestrated in large part by goons allied to Kaghanate of Nulands – aka US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nulands. At the same time, the Kremlin knows time is on its side – so it would be totally counterproductive to even contemplate “invading” eastern Ukraine.

Compound the vicious catfight among dodgy factions in Kiev, from fascists to Saint Yulia “Kill all the Russians” Timoschenko; Gazprom raising the price of natural gas by 80%; and the International Monetary Fund about to unleash some nasty structural adjustment that will make Greece look like Cinderella playing in a rose garden, and all that Moscow needs to do is sit back, relax and watch the (internal) carnage.

The same applies for the Baltics – which, as NATO hysteria would have it, might be invaded next week. As the Baltics are part of NATO, then we would really have the Brussels Robocops going ballistic. Yet only trademark arrogant/ignorant neo-cons believe Moscow will break complex political/trade relationships with Europe – especially Germany – risking a hot war over the Baltics. The Germans don’t want a hot or cold war either. Even in the extremely unlikely event that would happen, what would macho, macho NATO do, under Pentagon’s orders? Invade Russian territory?

That does not even qualify as a lousy joke.

By the way, as bad jokes ago, it’s hard to top Olli Rehn, vice president of the Kafkaesque European Commission, stressing that ” in the interests to maintain peace and stability on our continent” the European Union is part of the 11 billion euro (US$15 billion) IMF/disaster capitalism package to plunder, sorry, “help” Ukraine, and this while EU citizens are unemployed and/or thrown into poverty by the millions.

As for Berlin’s top priority, that is to at least try to steer the EU out of an almighty crash, which implies keeping the equally economically devastated Club Med and Central Europe on board while fighting off the rise and rise of nasty, “normalized” neofascism. “Massive undertaking” does not even begin to describe it. Why add a confrontation with Moscow to this indigestible bouillabaisse?

New axis in the house
Moral high ground epiphanies such as this Guardian editorial (“he gained a peninsula but lost a country”) are pointless. Same for minion Poland freaking out and asking for more “protection” from the Brussels mafia.

Predictably, Western corporate media is spinning Putin “blinked” when he phoned US President Barack Obama to try to set up a solution package – which includes, crucially, a federalization of Ukraine. The Obama administration – even staffed by astounding mediocrities – knows this is the only rational way ahead. And no amount of “pressure” will bend Moscow. Those go-go days of imposing whatever whim over serial drunkard Boris Yeltsin are long gone. At the same time, Moscow is a realist player – fully aware that the only possible solution for Ukraine has to be worked out with Washington.

So Ukraine is essentially a detail – and “Europe” is no more than a helpless bystander. Who are you gonna call in “Europe”? That Magritte-style nonentity European Council President Herman Van Rompuy? Anyone who’s been to Brussels knows that “Europe” remains a glorified collection of principalities bickering in a smatter of languages. Machiavelli would easily recognize it as such.

To top if off, the Obama administration has no clue what it wants in Ukraine. A “constitutional democracy”? Moscow might even agree with that, while knowing, based on rows and rows of historical/cultural reasons, it’s bound to be a failure. The red line though has been spelled out over and over again: no NATO bases in Ukraine.

Rational players in Washington – a certified minority – certainly have noticed that if you don’t play ball with Moscow, Russia will play very hard ball within the framework of the P5+1 (the UN Security Council permanent members plus Germany) negotiations on the Iranian nuclear dossier.

Only the blind won’t see that Moscow and Tehran are evolving towards a closer strategic partnership as much as Moscow and Beijing. There’s a real strategic geopolitical axis in the house – Moscow-Beijing-Tehran – and the whole developing world has already noticed that’s where the real action is. But as far as Ukraine is concerned, the stark fact is this is all about the US and Russia.

Romania: a hybrid between U.S.liberal internationalism and Russian deffensive realism

romania-rusia-SUA-300x227

The most influential foreign policy trends in international affairs are basically liberalism and realism. As theoretical concepts, they oppose one another without any doubts. In practice, the differences can sometimes be blurred because both of them consider the use of military practices as a means to a goal and none of them forget about the preeminence of the national interests, regardless of how it is defined.

In this article, I will not provide an abundance of details and facts about foreign policy of the US, Russia, or Romania. My aim is only to give a clean, clear, and generalized description of each. Hopefully, this will improve our understanding of current events, rather than confuse us with theoretical and conceptual nuances and academic debates.

To start off, I will talk a bit about the US and its liberal internationalist agenda. Stemming from its exceptionalism the US is acting in the world as a leader, a proponent and protector of values and socio-political standards. Whether we consider the progressives or the neoconservatives, both of them use idealistic rhetoric either as instigation against isolationism or as disguise for materialistic purposes. The democrats appeal to ”Western values” to gain support for a greater military involvement in the international arena out of genuine humanitarian concerns. The neocons pack a pragmatic, power-inspired political agenda under a ”national security” and ”good versus evil” painted cover.

The two sides differ under one consideration: their relation to multilateralism and international institutionalism. The first ones intend to receive international political and public approval for any kind of intervention. In the eyes of neocons, this translates into weakness and fear of blockage. The second ones disregard the need of a multilateral basis for US foreign policy. Such a behaviour brings them accusations of imperialism and evangelical militarism.

An interesting question would be: can the US consider a more realist approach to international politics? By this I mean an approach that puts aside ideals, values and other normative considerations. I tend to think that this cannot happen mainly because of one reason: the US was the winner of the Cold War. The conclusion of this almost 50 year old ideological confrontation brought to the US what it took away from present-day Russia: an immense soft power. The power of ideas, the power of international attraction, the power of legitimacy in the eyes of the public opinion. To my mind, any policy-maker in the US cannot but use soft power as an instrument in dealing with any type of interaction with the outside world.

As mentioned above, in Russia’s case defensive realism is the only option left to assert itself as a big power. Communism failed as an ideology, and the other strong ace in the hands of Russian politicians, conservatism, cannot handle the pressure of a fast spreading international liberalism.

The EU’s expansion in Eastern Europe, the latest US military engagements in the Middle East and Northern Africa alongside its pivoting towards Asia-Pacific, NATO’s growing strategic interest in the greater Black Sea region, China’s growth, they all provide a physical threat of encirclement to the Russian Federation.

There are three ways to protect yourself in the international system. One is to utilize all diplomatic and institutional means of engagement, the most important of which is international law. Due to the neocons’ disregard of such ”utopian” elements (Iraq war), and due to the easy manipulation of Security Council resolutions (no fly-zone turned into regime change in Libya), the Russian leaders cannot feel protected by international agreements and treaties, and see the Western request to do so as hypocrisy.

The second way is to make huge use of the public opinion through soft power. As already argued, Russia is not in the best position to present itself as a peaceful, conservative power because of a long imperial and soviet history that comes back to haunt. Finally, the only strategic ally of policy-makers in this case is pragmatic, defensive realpolitik. The use of economic, political and military leverage remains for now the only effective way of pursuing a national interest that is perceived to be endangered.

If the cases presented above are in clear antagonism, Romania’s foreign policy provides an interestig hybrid example of both of them.

As most of the small actors in the international system, Romania must use pragmatic tactics to survive under the pressure of big power competition. This view presents Romania as a realist player. If so, how then do we explain the importance of liberalism in the political and public domestic debate? How can we explain the idealistic aspirations expressed during the process of joining NATO and the EU? If we assume that Romania plays power politics, why don’t policy-makers understand the logic behind Russia’s actions?

To respond to these questions, I would argue that Romania is doing a simple geopolitical act, which is bandwagoning. Romania is not a military, economic or soft power. But the US and the EU are. By having them as allies, it gains two folds. First, it allows a small country to have a seat at the decision-making table through institutional cooperation. It gives a voice that neutrality and isolationism would just cancel. Second, it offers protection against historical enemies both through choosing sides, the US opposing Russia, and through creating ties, as in the case of its relation to Turkey inside NATO or Hungary inside the EU.

In my opinion, Romania is a very strategic, realist international actor that is very capable of understanding the strength of liberalism and international cooperation. If the US is the incarnation of soft power, Russia of hard power, then Romania is the perfect example of ”smart power”, the right combination of the former two, which appears to be the future path in international relations.

 

by geopolitics.ro