Romania and the Group of 77
After enduring the trauma of the brutal and far reaching societal transformations imposed by the communist regime installed in 1945 with direct Soviet backing, Romania had to relearn how to pursue an autonomous foreign policy that could serve its own interests.
Steliu Lambru, 11.05.2026, 14:00
From 1945 until well after 1958, the year the Red Army withdrew, Romanian diplomacy, like that of all other socialist states in Central and Eastern Europe, remained firmly aligned with the Soviet Union’s directives. The only figure from democratic Romania’s diplomatic tradition whom the socialist regime allowed to be publicly praised was Nicolae Titulescu. He thus became a model for the new Romanian diplomacy emerging in the early 1960s. A prominent interwar diplomat and defender of the Versailles system after World War I, Titulescu had promoted in the 1930s an anti fascist, anti revisionist foreign policy favorable to the Soviet Union.
The first two postwar decades were shaped by decolonization and a broad rethinking of international relations, a trend often described as the emergence of a “new world order.” The Third World—what we now call the Global South—appeared to offer a new horizon, one ostensibly liberated from capitalist domination and exploitation. It envisioned a “third path” of development, neither capitalist nor socialist, promising economic progress and political stability. Ironically, many decades later, the countries of the Global South still struggle to achieve the goals they articulated more than half a century ago.
Although these states declared themselves economically and ideologically neutral, they were joined primarily by socialist countries seeking solutions to their own systemic crises. Realism in international politics – more than ideological affinity -pushed Romania toward cooperation with the non aligned states and the Group of 77, which it saw as a potential avenue for advancement. Established under UN auspices in 1964 with the aim of combating global economic inequalities, the G77 was closely tied to UN priorities and programs.
Romania did not join the G77 until 1976, and in 1978 it became a full member of the Group’s Bureau within UNESCO, which enabled it to participate in cultural, scientific, and environmental initiatives. Alongside former Yugoslavia, Cyprus, and Malta, Romania was among the few European states genuinely interested in cooperating with the Group.
Mircea Nicolaescu, who served as socialist Romania’s ambassador to several countries, later reflected on the logic behind these diplomatic openings. In a 2001 interview for the Oral History Center of the Romanian Broadcasting Corporation, he emphasized that state interests and socio economic realities dictated foreign policy choices. Mircea Nicolaescu: “What has life shown? In relations between states, interest and the ability to support one’s interest matter. Relations between states are relations of power, and no one gave us anything extra because we were a communist country. But no one penalized us when we did not present ourselves as such. A good product sells if it is good. The same applies to foreign policy: it is accepted only if it aligns with the interests, options, and aspirations of others. Our policy toward the Third World, including our understanding of non alignment as an expression of the newcomers’ desire to remain outside great power rivalries, was a major advantage for us. So was our participation in the Group of 77.”
Egypt stood at the center of this emerging architecture of international relations, positioning itself as a symbol of “neutrality” between the Western and Eastern blocs. Drawing on the symbolic prestige of ancient Egyptian civilization, widespread sympathy for the Egyptian cause, and the rhetoric of national liberation, Nasser’s military leadership skillfully exploited the opportunities of the moment. Like many intellectuals, politicians, and much of international public opinion, Mircea Nicolaescu – who had served as ambassador to Egypt – was deeply impressed by Nasser. In a 1996 interview for the same Oral History Center, he praised Nasser’s role in elevating Egypt within the Third World: “Another element was beginning to be taken very seriously: Nasser’s great prestige. He had earned it through his domestic achievements, as someone who, together with the group of democratic officers around him, aligned the country with the trends of democratization and national liberation. With Nasser’s personal rise and Egypt’s prominence in the non aligned movement and the Group of 77’s efforts toward economic development – whose first president was also an Egyptian – this was high politics.”
Romania’s turn toward the Group of 77 occurred during a difficult period in its contemporary history. It represented an attempt to interpret the world through the lens of the time and to connect with emerging global dynamics. (EE)
