The 1960s and the revival of the Romanian diplomatic service

The beginning of the 1960s saw an important change in the philosophy and practice of foreign diplomacy in Romania.

Steliu Lambru, 19.01.2026, 14:00

After 1945, Romania entered a period of profound political, economic and social turmoil. Defeated in the war and occupied militarily, it was forced to accept territorial losses, pay war reparations and accept Soviet influence. At this point in history, the Romanian diplomatic service went through the same experiences that Romania itself was going through: purge and deprofessionalisation during the Stalinist years and until around 1958-1960, and reconstruction and reprofessionalisation after 1960. In the terrible sixth decade, the Romanian diplomatic service was marked by extremely aggressive ideology and the promotion of people who would defend Romania’s interests based on the so-called “healthy social background”. It was, in fact, a recruitment of diplomats from among poorer social backgrounds on the ideological basis of Marxism-Leninism.

But the beginning of the 1960s saw an important change in the philosophy and practice of foreign diplomacy. The reduction of Soviet influence led to an increase in the initiative of the satellite socialist states to promote their own interests. The Romanian diplomatic service was also moving towards the reprofessionalisation of its staff. It was still loyal to the Marxist-Leninist ideology, but the recruitment criteria changed: diplomats came mainly from the ranks of graduates with very good academic results from the Academy of Economic Studies, the Faculty of Philology and the Law School. Later, they also came from among the ranks of those from the Polytechnic. The military were also recruited on the same criteria.

Mircea Nicolaescu, a career diplomat who served as Romania’s ambassador to Egypt in 1961, told Radio Romania’s Oral History Centre in 1996 how one could become a diplomat in the 1960s:

“You could become a diplomat in those days in two ways. One was the usual channel, through university or postgraduate training or both, in the case of young professionals. There was also a system of providing advanced training for those already in the diplomatic service. There was even an Institute of International Relations, established in 1948 or 1949, following the reform of the education system. It did not last long because it did not have enough properly trained staff meeting the requirements in the field. The teaching staff was mainly made up of foreign ministry employees turned into teachers overnight. Others joined the higher education ranks as a result of a process of theoretical-ideological reorientation, without any specialised training. Few were diplomats with serious practice, who could contribute to the training and education of future diplomats.”

Mircea Nicolaescu talked about his experience as a career diplomat, which meant staying in contact at all times with what was happening in his country.

“Anyone who has worked in diplomacy and lived abroad for more than 3 or 4 years feels an organic need to refresh and reconsolidate their connection with their country. Because, after 4 or 5 years of working abroad, especially in a country that is not frequently connected to your realities, at some point you ask yourself whose ambassador you are: Romania’s ambassador to that country, or the other way round. And it is not an easy matter at all if you do not have the training and the habit of being constantly connected to the latest information in the country and the need to understand it at the highest level. Otherwise, you fall prey to other trends, which you then find difficult to fight.”

What helped Mircea Nicolaescu build a career in diplomacy?

Mircea Nicolaescu: “Some of my interests at that time helped me a lot. The fact that I had the good fortune of a very good general education in high school also helped. I must also say that the very education I received at the Commerce Academy helped me a lot in getting on the path of diplomatic work, without having a specialist education. I studied there and delved into the field of economic geography of the world and of Romania, matters of international law, in addition to civil law, commercial law, with most of the implications on foreign trade. I also took an interest in social policy, the history of doctrines. In particular, the history of Romanian economic philosophy proved not only very attractive, when I managed to get closer to it, but it was in fact the starting point for my interest in the field of diplomatic activity. A big help was also the fact that I worked for years, between 1946 and 1950, in a foreign trade company, first at the Office of Oil Deliveries to the Soviet Union. And that got me directly involved in the most serious problem of our country at that time. For years, all the delivery documents under the Truce and the Peace Treaty passed through my hands, for either a first or a second check.”

Romanian diplomacy was reborn after the 1960s, after more than a decade of deprofessionalisation. However, it did so while staying in line with the practices of a repressive state that would only cease to exist in 1989. (CM, AMP)