<\/p>\n
The trends in international relations after World War II were decidedly oriented towards decolonisation and encouraging former colonies to gain independence. This is how national liberation movements emerged. It was a drive to create a new, better and more just world.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
As such, in the early 1960s Romania’s foreign interest turned to Africa and Asia. The efforts of Romania and other states in the socialist bloc to break away with Soviet tutelage meant more initiative. The Third World was becoming attractive and Romania sent diplomats to promote its interests there.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mircea Nicolaescu was Romania’s ambassador to Egypt starting in 1961. In 1996, he told the Oral History Centre of the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Corporation that Romania encouraged national liberation movements, with the liberation of Palestine on its agenda in the Middle East:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mircea Nicolaescu: \u201cRomania\u2019s stand regarding the Palestinian liberation movement was consistent with the general attitude of our country towards national liberation movements. All such movements in Africa were based in Cairo until 1963, until the countries in question gained their independence. First of all, liberation movements were viewed as grassroots movements and, as such, they had to be structured only within a domestic framework, in line with the interest of the respective peoples, towards whom we had the international duty to coordinate our political support. In other words, regardless of their domestic orientation, their domestic turmoil, which was present in almost all national liberation movements, including the Palestinian one, we did not go beyond this vision either publicly and officially, or in terms of our direct relations with these movements. We applied it to the Palestinian liberation movement as well.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Africa was rather little trodden by Romanians, and it became rich in diplomatic opportunities as the local populations managed to gain their independence:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mircea Nicolaescu. \u201cWhat we did in Cairo with regard to the Congolese movement had to be done very carefully. That particular liberation movement was not cohesive and there were very serious foreign attempts to direct it and subordinate it to the interests of the Great Powers. The Congolese movement was the strongest one and it so happened that one of the branches was under Soviet control, another branch was under US tutelage, and another was under Chinese influence. The world\u2019s great powers were known to be very much involved there, as was the case in Angola, in Mozambique, to a large extent also in Kenya, to a lesser extent in Tanganyika. We gave support to all these movements, to those who requested it, to the extent that we could. But we gave equal support to all movements. At our embassy, \u200b\u200bfor example, we received not only representatives of a single Congolese movement. We were the only ones to whom everyone came.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Romania was very clear about its involvement, arguing that the will of the people should be the one that decided their political future.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mircea Nicolaescu: \u201cWe were the only ones who would tell them that the issue of liberation, of building a state, was in their hands. We told them to do it themselves, and as far as we were concerned, what we could do was to provide political support to their efforts within international organisations. We committed ourselves to work there to provide direct support, including material. That’s what happened in the UN, for example. But other than that, they had no business coming to our country. For us, they were not a communist movement or a capitalist movement or a pro-Chinese movement. For us, they were national liberation movements.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This balanced position benefitted Romania, as Mircea Nicolaescu explained:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mircea Nicolaescu: \u201cIt is no coincidence that we have had good and very good relations in political, ideological and human terms with absolutely all the countries that were liberated during this huge process. In just six years, from three independent states in 1961, when I was appointed as ambassador to Egypt, namely Egypt, Liberia and Ethiopia, Africa got to 60 independent states. It was a movement that, over time, ensured the widest access to independence for nations, and this was also noticed at the UN. We had very good relations with right-leaning Congo, I mean Congo-Zaire, but also with Congo-Brazaville, which was oriented categorically towards the left. We had very good relations with Kenya, with its populist right-wing orientation, but also with Tanganyika and the others. Few countries have been able to keep such a balance. And that has helped us a lot.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Romania’s involvement in supporting national liberation movements in the Third World was one that followed the ideas and trends of the period. Obviously, this involvement also secured certain benefits for the country. (AMP)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The trends in international relations after World War II were decidedly oriented towards decolonisation and encouraging former colonies to gain independence. This is how national liberation movements emerged. It was a drive to create a new, better and more just world. As such, in the early 1960s Romania’s foreign interest turned to Africa […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":127,"featured_media":804262,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[41141],"tags":[34567,42487,162446,29538,184752,34239],"coauthors":[113318],"class_list":["post-978025","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-history-show","tag-africa","tag-annual-diplomacy-meeting","tag-liberation-en","tag-middle-east","tag-movements","tag-wwii"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n