At the beginning of 1990, a friend
prophetically remarked: “the main problem with Romania is not that it had a
Ceausescu, but that it has 30,000 Ceausescus.” I have had more than one
occasion to recall that statement when witnessing demonstrations of poorly
internalized democratic values among leading figures in the government, in
extra-parliamentary opposition and, most disappointingly, among Romania’s
“civic society.”
The
phenomenon is perhaps the most offensive in the realm of media and free speech,
where the Voltairian pledge – “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it*” – has often been supplanted by claims on
the monopoly of truth. As an American, I was brought up to believe in the ideal
of the “marketplace of ideas” in which conflicting opinions are allowed to be
voiced, to confront one another, and to stand or fall on their own merits. A
marketplace where, to cite Voltaire again, you were expected to “think for
yourself, and to let others enjoy the privilege to do so as well.” (06/02/1770)
Recently, the tenth episode of the
documentary “The Clandestine Legacy” [Mostenirea clandestina at http://www.tvrplus.ro/editie-mostenirea-clandestina-182824]
based on material from my books With
Friends Like These: The Soviet Bloc’s Clandestine War Against Romania
(2010) and Extorting Peace: Romania and
The End of the Cold War (2013), was abruptly interrupted in mid-broadcast and
taken off the air by the director of Romania’s national public television
station, Stelian Tanase, because he considered it “communist propaganda.” Mr. Tanase
did not further elaborate why he thought it “communist propaganda” but it was
probably not for the same reasons that persuaded U.S. and European historians
to favorably review my books (see e.g. Professor Keith Hitchens in Southeastern Europe and Professor Dennis
Deletant in Slavic and East European
Studies) or institutions such as the U.S. National Intelligence University
to use them as reference texts.
Instead of the equidistance
demanded by public broadcasting Mr. Tanase has substituted his personal
political agenda. And he has taken it upon himself to ensure that an alternate opinion
is not heard, despite the high-ratings and several professional awards that the
documentary series has garnered.
Mr. Tanase’s insistence on his
monopoly of the truth echoes former dictatorial efforts to eliminate
inconvenient historical truths and replace them with ones more supportive of
the aims and capricious whims of respective dictators. As Yugoslav political
philosopher Svetozar Stojanovich observed, under Communism “the only absolutely
certain thing is the future, since the past is constantly changing.” (Praxis, 3-4, 1972:375)
The mentality demonstrated by Mr.
Tanase that history is only a function of ideology and interest is not only
unfortunate in its implications for democracy and free speech, it is
fundamentally mistaken in terms of historical methodology. There is, in fact,
an evidentiary basis upon which genuine history is written. And because of that
evidentiary basis the best histories are able to stand the test of time and
regime change.
This is by no means the first time
that Romanian history has come under attack. Indeed, one might argue that it
has been a semi-permanent reality. Between the world wars the USSR maintained
an all-out offensive in its effort to rewrite the past in order to depict the
Romanian Kingdom as a relentlessly “aggressive armed encampment” and as the
“most savage monarchy in Europe,” against which the Soviet Union had to
intervene militarily for humanitarian reasons. In a most eloquent demonstration
of the social pathology known as “blaming the victim,” Soviet forces invaded
and occupied parts of Romanian Moldova and Bucovina (Bessarabia, northern
Bucovina and the Herta) in 1940 while the Moscow propaganda machine labeled
Romania the aggressor.
Communist
authorities ordered massive book burnings according to the indications given in
several editions of the volume Forbidden
Publications [Publicatiile interzise].
Among the categories of books to be destroyed were all school manuals printed
before 1947 and all works by Winston Churchill, Charles De Gaulle, Iuliu Maniu,
Ion Mihalache, Nicolae Iorga and the Romanian royal family. Hundreds of
forbidden works were listed for destruction according to each letter of the
alphabet (e.g. 621 books beginning with the letter “M” and 741 beginning with
“S”). According to Forbidden Publications
(1947, p. 5):
“In their criminal activity of
keeping the people in ignorance and obscurantism at any price, the
reactionaries used all means that could help them achieve that end. They propagated
poisonous imperialist ideology among all strata of society in preparation for
the war of thievery and invasion against the Soviet Union, and the working
masses had to be deliberately misled and the true truth hidden behind a mask of
lies, which the landholder-bourgeoisie desired to be as non-transparent as
possible.”
Romanian historiography, previously
indistinguishable from that of the rest of Europe, was labeled henceforth as “imperialist”
and “bourgeois propaganda.” The Stalinist “classed-based” historiography that replaced
it one-sidedly depicted Romanian leadership before communism as relentlessly
repressive and aggressive, Romanian policy as one of constant expansion into
the territory of others, and every Romanian regime as devoid of any
constructive or positive attributes whatsoever.
This changed in the early 1960s
when Soviet officials began attacking Gheorghiu-Dej’s new document-based
Romanian historiography, which disregarded considerations of “class” and the
precepts of Marxist-Leninism. Accordingly, the Soviet school of historical
thought now held that no Romanian leadership had ever represented anything more
than a blight on the political landscape, a demonstration of failed
civilization. The basic problem, as Moscow
described it, was the “similarity or identity of modern Romanian opinions with
the appreciations of Western bourgeois historiography.” (See documents 1, 11, 14,
17 and 24 at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/romanian-interkit)
The quality of serious Romanian
historiography from the mid-1960s into the 1980s was so impressive to the
global community of professional historians that they elected Romania to hold
the five-year presidency of its most prestigious institution, the International
Committee of Historical Sciences (1980-1985). (Toward a Global Community of Historians (2005): 259-260) It was the
only Soviet bloc member to be so honored during the Cold War. Although Moscow
hosted the Congress in 1970 it had been awarded that honor only because of its
political clout unrelated to the quality of its historiography, which remained tightly
bound to the dogmas of Communist ideology.
Interestingly, just like the
earlier Soviet claims of “falsification” and “imperialist propaganda,” contemporary
reference to these realities – to the respectable professionalism of post-1962 Romanian
historiography and especially to Romania’s constructive role as a state actor
in international politics – continues to be labeled by some as “falsification”
and, ironically, as “communist propaganda”. Given Stelian Tanase’s uninformed
characterization of my work as Securitate/Communist
propaganda, it would appear that his agenda includes rewriting Romanian history
along ideological lines.
Mr. Tanase apparently feels that
best way of dealing with the scandal that his transgressions have brought upon
himself and upon TVR is to mount an ad
hominem attack against Larry Watts (a.k.a. “blaming the victim”). What saddens
me is that he has drawn in someone, Michael Shafir, whom I once thought
dedicated to the ideals of transparency and scholarly debate. And that Mr. Shafir
then chose to employ tactics of shadowy innuendo and ad hominem attack more characteristic of Securitate (and Soviet) disinformation.
According to
Shafir’s “defense” of Tanase’s transgressions:
The affiliation of Larry Watts with
Securitate circles is no secret to
anyone and (besides himself) is not denied by anyone. At least not in any
credible manner. I will not again take up here the numerous indications [of his
Securitate affiliation] based on his
unusual “scientific” travels in Romania. These things are well-known, beginning
with his self-recruitment into the group supporting the rehabilitation of
Marshal Antonescu, alongside Iosif Constantin Dragan, in the 80s …
Thus, Tanase’s transgressions are deemed
unimportant because Larry Watts allegedly has dubious connections to the Securitate. And there is no need to actually
prove the existence of such connections because they are “not a secret for anyone.”
Moreover, Watts should be ignored on the topic of his past because “no one [else]
denies” the alleged ties. That no one else except for the circle of Tanase, Tismaneanu,
Pacepa and Shafir is alleging such affiliations is a minor detail.
Mr. Shafir claims as ‘proof’ for
his allegations the existence of “numerous indications based on [Watts’]
unusual ‘scientific’ travels in Romania.” Apparently, further detail regarding those
“numerous indications” is shared only among the illuminati. Or, following Mr.
Shafir’s logic, they do not have to be made explicit because they are “not a
secret for anyone.” Mere interest in Romania is suspect.
In fact, all of my Romanian visits prior
to 1990 were made on the basis of grants and fellowships funded by the U.S. Government
or Congress (National Resource Fellowship (FLAS), IREX grants and Fulbright
Fellowships). And from 1984 until 1990 I was either working under contract for
the U.S. government, conducting research at the Woodrow Wilson Center or the
University of Denver, working as a consultant at the RAND Corporation – including
a 6-month period during 1988 in the USSR financed by RAND – or teaching as
visiting professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Clearly, all of that must have been
a front. It does it matter that I can document where I was, what I did, and on
whose coin I did it. And the fact that paper trails proving this are relatively
easy to follow in the United States is inconsequential. By all means, one must
avoid such transparency if innuendo and insinuation – disinformation – are to
have their desired effect.
Shafir also claims that I “recruited
myself” to a group “supporting the rehabilitation of Marshal Antonescu,
alongside Iosif Constantin Dragan.” I did no such thing. I have never even met
or communicated with Mr. Dragan, much less collaborated with him. My 1985 Master’s
thesis at the University of Washington dealt with the regime change from King
Carol II to Marshal Antonescu in 1940. The main finding of that thesis, that the
King had invited the German military mission and committed Romania to the
German Axis long before Antonescu came to power, has been fully validated by post-1989
archival revelations.
Interestingly, only one day before the
Tanase/Shafir attack on my person and work, the unreformed Securitate perspective on my “dark purposes” and “dubious ties” was
also presented on-line by ex-Securitate Colonel
Filip Teodorescu, the current head of its veterans’ association:
“Larry Watts was under Romanian
counterintelligence surveillance. … You should not associate with him. I, for
one, will not because I know. I know what he did. I know why he was here. I
know what he is doing now. And I know the purpose of his insistent action here
from 1981 until now. Perhaps on another occasion we can broach the topic [of
Larry Watts] more professionally. First he praises Romanians … but in the end
he tells us what we do not like, he delivers the blow, [which] he has prepared
in advance. That’s who he is, he is an intelligence professional.”
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-KXfxdbgN0,
19/02/2014 at 1:23)
Thus, the self-styled “civic
society” represented by Tanase and Shafir would have me and my work
marginalized because of my alleged ties to the Securitate. And the Securitate
desires the same because of my alleged ties to U.S. intelligence. The
suspense is killing me. I, for one, cannot wait for Mssrs Teodorescu, Shafir or
Tanase to give some credible explanation of what my dark purposes really are; for
whom, in the end, I am actually working; and how my work in resolving ethnic
tensions, establishing democratic control over the armed forces and
intelligence services, and gaining Romania’s admission into NATO have served
the “dark purposes” of my purported masters.
But enough about me.
The actions perpetrated by TVR
Director Stelian Tanase in arbitrarily interrupting episode 10 of “The
Clandestine Legacy” in mid-broadcast because
of his personal opinions are troubling, especially given that he is reputed to
be a leading representative of civic society in Romania. His continued lack of
regret suggests that he remains unaware as to the import and inappropriateness
of his actions. And his preference to avoid responsibility and to throw the
blame anywhere else suggests that this will not be the last such incident while
he heads Romanian public television. Singly and together, these actions betray
a mindset more comfortable with dictatorship than democracy.
On Monday, February 24, Mr. Tanase further
attempted to justify his disregard of the Romanian constitution and of the regulations
of Romania’s public television station by repeating his claim that the censored
program was “a Securitate
provocation” forbidden by law. Mr. Tanase apparently feels that evidence and
opinions with which he does not agree should be repressed.
On the one hand, Mr. Tanase displays
a profound lack of respect for free speech and public debate as well as the
extent and limitations of the authority of his present position. On the other,
he dismisses as “propaganda” assertions and interpretations that are not only
well-documented but whose documentation can be independently checked on-line at
multiple internet archive sites hosted by respected institutions in the United
States and Europe.
For treating Romania’s national public
television station as his personal property and its personnel and procedures as
subject to his whim, and for demonstrating a callous disregard for democratic
principle and historical truth, Mr. Tanase has earned himself a prominent place
among the 30,000.
[*Voltaire’s actual words were “I detest what you write, but
I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” 06/02/1770]
This blog appeared in Romanian translation at Adevarul.ro
This blog appeared in Romanian translation at Adevarul.ro
