Ioan-Mircea Pașcu: Romania’s accession to the Visa Waiver Program neutralizes criticism that Bucharest only gives without receiving in its relations with the US

Vladimir Mitev

Ioan-Mircea Pașcu (born 17 February 1949) is a Romanian politician and former Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Romania. He was previously Minister of Defence between 2000 and 2004. He is a member of the Social Democratic Party (PDSR/PSD), part of the Party of European Socialists. He was a Member of the European Parliament between 2007 and 2019 and Vice-President of the European Parliament from 2014 to 2019. He is currently a professor in the Department of International Relations and European Integration at SNSPA.

Mr Pașcu, it has been announced that Romania will join the US Visa Waiver Programme. This was the result of a campaign and efforts of the Romanian state. What was the content of this campaign and how was it implemented to achieve this result?

I would like to say two things. The first is that I, not being in the government, do not know what measures were taken in this regard, but I can tell you something else. The American Embassy has been very active in coming and urging those who have American visas that are about to expire to come and renew them.

Because ultimately the second thing I want to say is that these criteria are set by the Americans and they check them. They are checking their own criteria. In other words, if you have a high rejection rate, it is because the Americans reject you and then tell you that you have a high rejection rate.

Do you understand that? And then the problem that arose was that those who had already got a visa and weren’t being refused a lot had to do it again. And about a year ago there was a very strong campaign by the embassy where really everybody, and I count myself among them, everybody who had an expiring US visa went and reapplied and got a visa.

So the number of rejections went down a lot and that’s how we were able to qualify. At the end of the day, as I said, the fact remains that these criteria belong to the Americans and it is they who check whether other countries meet them or not.

But was this not also a joint effort by the American Embassy and the Romanian state?

Of course it was. In the end, all the Romanian institutions went in the same direction, and the American Embassy’s call was supported by the Romanian authorities. But the fact remains that many Romanians who had visas or who had no problems and needed to renew their visas did so, and therefore the refusal rate was probably lower than the one set by the United States.

Since you also renewed your visa, was there no communication from the Romanian state explaining how to do it, or was there no financial support so that people could renew their visas?

No. The Romanian State supported the initiative of the American Embassy because it was a matter of statistics. I repeat, a question of statistics.

If we meet these criteria, the problem is solved. Not to mention that from a political, military, economic and rational point of view, everyone was in favour of revoking the American visa, especially in view of the whole history of bilateral relations. But what stopped us was this statistical issue, the level of refusals.

If you are above that threshold, you do not get access to this visa waiver programme. If you are below that threshold, you can apply and then all the positive factors in the bilateral relationship come into play and the issue is resolved.

What does joining the Visa Waiver Programme mean for Romanian-US relations? What does this change in the relationship?

While we were not in the Visa Waiver Programme and we had the relationship that we had and still have with the United States in the political-military field, our joint participation in multilateral operations, etc., the situation in Ukraine, etc., the fact that we were not in the Visa Waiver Programme stood above the relationship. This was exploited by the other side. It was said that “we are making every effort and the Americans are not paying attention to us and we are doing all this for nothing, so we had better not be with the Americans”.

That was, so to speak, the pro-Moscow narrative that existed here in Romania. That issue is now gone; Romania got what it deserved. The only problem was, as I told you, technically the number of rejections, which had to be below a certain level.

OK, but apart from this image problem, are there no other things that are changing in Romanian-American relations?

But it is not only an image problem, it is also a statistical problem.

It is also about the fact that cooperation in the field of security is probably changing in a certain way. Could you be more specific about what joining the visa-free regime means in terms of security and cooperation in this area?

I would like to tell you that the biggest contribution is that we can no longer be accused, so that Russian propaganda can no longer accuse us that ‘you do so much for the Americans and the Americans don’t even give you a visa waiver’. That’s the most important point, because it’s been taken out of this narrative. Secondly, let us not forget that the Americans entered Romania without a visa, just as almost all the countries of the European Union enter the United States.

On 20 January 2025, Donald Trump will take office in the White House. At the same time, as we know, US-Romanian relations are of great importance for the Romanian state and for Romanians.

Bilateral relations with the US are important for the whole world.

But look, Trump will be in the White House, not Biden. Does this mean that we will see an even greater strengthening of the sovereignists? Maybe there will even be a sovereignist president in Romania?

I cannot say whether things are moving in that direction. Let’s not forget that during President Trump’s first term, Romania had very good relations with the United States. And if you remember, all the measures that Trump took at that time to strengthen the eastern flank and especially relations with Romania were very well received in Romania.

So we do not expect much change from that point of view. On the other hand, we should not forget that these things are not only decided by the White House. They are also decided by the Pentagon and the State Department.

And then, of course, those institutions will have their say. As far as sovereignty is concerned, I don’t think Mr Trump or Elon Musk need a sovereigntist president in Romania, especially when he has proven ties to Russia.

You know better than me that it is a different political time in Romania now that the Constitutional Court has annulled the presidential elections. Can you make a prediction? How is this political crisis going to end?

It is difficult to make a prediction because there is a long time until May (when the presidential elections are expected – ed). That is almost four months. We cannot know what will happen in that time.

In any case, it is to be hoped that a president like Georgescu will not have access to the Romanian presidency. Because Mr Georgescu has questioned the whole course of Romania since the revolution.

He is for NATO, but he is basically against NATO. He is for the European Union, but he is essentially against the European Union. And the great choices that Romania made then and has made now cannot be reversed by one man, no matter how ‘messianic’ he thinks he is.

But how do we explain the fact that when Romania joined Schengen and the visa-free regime, in a sense positively changing the international status of its citizens, this sovereignism appeared at the same time?

Here you are wrong. The order is reversed. Romania got Schengen and the visa-free regime after the Constitutional Court annulled the elections.

This is the exact chronology. Romania joined Schengen on 1 January 2025 and the annulment of the elections was in November or December. Now we are told that we will also join the visa-free regime.

So, in other words, these things should not be seen as obstacles… That is the situation. Wait, there will be elections in other places. There will be elections in Germany, there will be elections in France, there will be elections elsewhere. Let’s see how things develop.

There are people who say that it is a “myth” that Russia interfered in the Romanian elections and so on. I mean, some people are kicking us in the ankles. Voices have been heard and some publications have appeared accusing Romania of not having democracy because we stopped the elections. But let me tell you something. If the elections had gone ahead and Mr Georgescu had come out, we would have been destroyed by the fact that a pro-Russian person would have taken over the leadership of Romania.

And then, of the two evils, the lesser evil is the one we are currently enduring. But I told you that it was not official. Officially, no one has spoken out against the sovereign decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court.

And you can see the proof of this in the fact that Mr Georgescu’s appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal. Mr Georgescu is trying to set the army against the state and so on. Well, with statements like that, what kind of president do you want to be? There is no way you can be president.

Then let me ask you a slightly different question. According to some people or interpretations, Romania is in the best moment of its history. The economy has grown considerably, the international status could change things even more. And at the same time there is this very strong sovereignism and contestation that you talk about. Why is that?

Romania should not be seen in isolation from other countries, as a unique case. You can see that the extreme right, as I call it, is on the rise in the European Parliament, it is on the rise in all the other Western European countries with consolidated democracies. So what has happened is that Romania is also part of this general trend.

Secondly, let us not forget that we have a war in which Russia is fighting by all means, at all levels, against everyone. Including Romania and other NATO and European Union member states. So who is adding fuel to the fire in such a situation?

Of course, from this point of view, things are clear. So we are not an isolated case. Unfortunately, we are part of a whole.

From this point of view, we cannot be described as an aberration, a special case and so on.

So, finally, once again, with this accession to the Visa Waiver Programme, perhaps also to Schengen, what can we expect after these events in terms of Romania’s position or role in the region, on the external scene?

In the region it is good that we are together, for example in Schengen. I am convinced that you in Bulgaria will also make the same efforts with regard to the visa-free regime. And sooner or later you will achieve it.

So there is no significant difference. In the region, you see that Serbia has problems with arms imports from Russia, and they have announced this. There are political and other problems.

So we can continue with what we have been doing. We will continue to do what we have been doing. Of course I cannot say that nothing bad will happen anywhere and so on.

In politics anything can happen at any time.

Photo: Ioan-Mircea Pașcu (source: YouTube)

Subscribe to the channel of the blog “The Bridge of Friendship” in YouTube, where a number of video and audio interviews are published! The blog can also be followed in Facebook and Twitter. Its Telegram channel is here. And here is its Substack account.

About Author