July 12, 2003

Remarks by Ambassador Guest to
"Casa NATO" Summer School Graduation
Cheia, Romania

Thank you for that introduction, Alex. Whenever I hear my CV, it basically makes me feel very old and when I come hear and see all these young faces, I feel a little bit older. But it's still a delight to come here, to see another part, another corner of Romania. I travel as much as I can. I've seen so many wonderful parts of this country. I appreciate the invitation to see you and I appreciate you allowing me to spend time with you this evening.

As Alex knows, I don't accept many of the speaking engagements I'm offered. I just stay too busy. But you're the future of this country, and I felt it important to make the journey this evening to talk with you, even if it means spending twice as much time on the road as I'll be able to enjoy with you.

I know you've had a full slate of presentations over the past few days about Euro-Atlantic institutions, and about foreign policy issues as viewed through that prism. Though I'm happy to address questions you might have on these issues, I've chosen a somewhat different topic to address tonight. I'd like to talk to you about the values that under-gird the Euro-Atlantic community - values that need to be anchored in Romania and that are, in fact, fundamental to the democracy you want to build. In addressing this, I would like less to give a speech to you than to have a conversation with you - about your country, about its future, and about your role in shaping that future.

Expect More

Most of you probably remember a new cell-phone service that started up in early 2002. The extensive advertising campaign for that service carried the slogan "Expect More." The slogan was intended to emphasize the advantages in clarity and functions of a new, third generation cell-phone service. But frankly, I've often thought that that slogan applies very much to the question of this country's Euro-Atlantic democratic values, and in fact to you.

Expect more. What are your expectations for Romania? Is this the country that you expected it to be, thirteen years after the revolution? Is Romania what you want it to be? And if the answer is no, what can and should you do to change this country for the better?

At a recent conference on sustainable development in Ploiesti, I remarked that America has had more than 200 years of vigorous debate among citizens, and with those who represent us, over the respective roles of central and local authorities. That debate has also embraced the expectations we hold both for those who represent us and, indeed, for our country. Based on that debate and dialogue, let me share with you some of the expectations I believe you need to hold if Romania, your country, is to reach its potential - and, in fact, if you are to have the future that I believe each of you so richly deserves.

…of Government

First, expect more of Government.

I receive a lot of mail, and have had many conversations with a wide swath of what I call "ordinary" Romanian citizens - people like you, from all over the country. From those contacts, it's clear that many, many Romanians are expecting more from some of the many citizens who fill any number of leadership roles in this country.

Romania is, of course, a young democracy, and practices here are still evolving. As they evolve, it's important to recognize that the strength of a democracy isn't measured in voter turnout. A low turnout in an election can signal happiness with the alternatives offered, just as it can mean utter dissatisfaction with the system. High turnout can represent the opposite. Rather, a democracy's real strength is measured by whether it is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" - in other words, in how the government and politicians interact with citizens, and whether the decisions taken represent the people's will and advance their needs fairly. Democratic debate should focus on issues, not on personal attacks. Solutions should advance the interests of the whole, not of the few. And true democracies hold their politicians - whether in government or in the opposition - accountable to the people for their decisions, their policies and their views.

Each of you has an equal interest in what this country - your country - is to become. Before Romania's constitution is revised, and well before next year's elections, measure Romania against the criteria I've described. Are you happy with how politicians consult you? Do their decisions respond to your needs, and to those of the country? Are those who take the decisions that affect your lives, or that fail to affect them, held accountable for their decisions? And have those who criticize the government put forward clear and responsible alternative policies and approaches, or is their "platform" nothing but one of irresponsible attack? You see, Romania's democracy is for you to build. If you're content with what you have, fine. But if you aren't content, it's up to you to demand accountability, and to press for meaningful change.

…of Each Other

Second, expect more of each other. For this country can be built only on unity, not on divisions.

As I've traveled across Romania, I've been impressed with the beauty of the country, but also with the remarkable resilience of Romanian culture and religion, in the face of centuries of challenges from the Habsburg, Ottoman and Slavic empire rule. And I've been equally impressed with how those empires and cultures, and others - from Saxon Germans, to Roma, to Ukrainians and Jews - have somehow contributed to the Romania we know today. This country is all the more remarkable for those contributions, and for the tapestry of national traditions that is woven into the fabric of this country.

Most Romanians I've met share this view. Most, in fact, are remarkably tolerant of the diversity found in their communities. So, as a rule, are Romania's national policies. Where differences exist, I've usually found recognition that exclusion isn't the answer, but dialogue. Strident public discourse on the part of some politicians and some private citizens still aims to fragment this country on national lines. Their sometimes nationalistic vision fails to respect the equality to which all citizens of this country are entitled. Sadly, it also has kept this country from channeling its energies fully into efforts to improve Romania, for the sake of all Romanians.

Many of the Romanians who have discussed this with me know that the country must move beyond the nationalistic rhetoric that has fueled political debate and divided some communities. I believe that they, and you, should expect more than this narrow vision for Romania. The time has come to join hands in seeking a better future for all of Romania. Romania's future is best assured from inclusive steps and policies that will move this country forward as a whole.

…of Yourselves

Finally, expect more of yourselves.

As I mentioned earlier, many Romanians write or talk to me about their wishes for this country. Those wishes often are the same ones that I've discussed with you tonight. But I remain disappointed at how few Romanians really speak out or act upon their concerns - in other words, at how few Romanians really roll up their sleeves to press for the changes that they and their families want.

I have a theory about why this is. In a nutshell, it's that Romania's history of "voivod" rule - where leaders are strong, and are left to take decisions - carries echoes in political life even today. Don't hold me to this theory - I'm not entirely wedded to it, and am still kicking it around in my own mind. But it's nevertheless clear that many of the Romanians who relate their concerns to me are, in fact, doing little to resolve those concerns. Maybe they feel powerless - or maybe they see me as their own "voievod"!

I ask that you not wait for the Government to solve all of your problems. Perhaps it eventually will, but in many cases the Government doesn't have the means or resources or attention to do so; in other cases it may not have the political will. There is much that you can do. You have the energy and the power of youth. The challenge to each of you is to get involved personally, and to commit yourselves to make a difference. Examine what's wrong where you live. Talk to your friends about the problems that need to be dealt with - a stream that's being polluted, a road that needs to be built, a faculty that's not up to expectations, or an employment base that's in decline. Ask local officials what they're doing to deal with the problem. Ask yourself what you and others, working together, can do.

You see, it all comes back to democracy. As I said earlier, hold those that represent you responsible for their actions. But hold yourselves accountable as well - not only for the votes you cast, but for being an agent of change in your sphere of action. The speed with which Romania moves forward as a member of the Euro-Atlantic community depends not only on laws that are passed, or on initiatives taken by the Government. It also depends on what you and your fellow citizens are doing at the local level. It depends on you.

I know that you come from universities across Romania, and I know that you are here tonight because you share a Euro-Atlantic vision for your country. Whatever your field of study, whatever your career choice is, commit yourself to be a force for change. That it the way Romania will move forward. You represent the future of this country. Make it a future in which you can share equally. Make it a future of which you can be proud. Thank you for the opportunity to come here.

[Applause]

[Questions and Answers]

Question: Which are the differences between Romanian and American students?

Answer: I believe a lot of differences come back to education. In America we talk from very early ages in school and in the youth groups that we have … We taught less facts. We taught that in 1492, Columbus discovered America; we taught facts like that, but less than in any European university or school. We focus much more on theory and on practice, on taking a position on an issue which can be argued any number of ways. We decide what is right or wrong: not on the basis of a factual position, but on the basis of a body of facts, of experience, of argumentation. I see that happen more with American students, but also with many other students. I don't know the practices in your universities, I know only what people told me about the Romanian school system, particularly at lower levels. There is also a difference in that American students are taught to be involved in activities, in the community. From the time we are very young, we are encouraged to join a service or organizations, to serving meals on wheels to people who couldn't get out of their house. I don't see so much of that here.

Question: which are the differences between Romanian and American diplomats?

Answer: I don't want to comment on the differences between Romanian and American diplomats. I honestly have found that Romanian diplomats I've worked with are very bright, motivated and eager to do their job for the country. But most of them - usually I talk with Mircea Geoana, rather than talking with people at other levels - as a rule in diplomacy, I found that many American diplomats, myself in particular, have a practice of being more outspoken and direct than diplomats from other countries. This maybe reflects our national experience, as a country, we are used to being fairly direct and working for the most efficient way of getting to the point where we want to be. I think that this is honestly something many disagree with. When I say something, I get some criticism from someone. But I often found that there can be diplomatic conversations that go around and around and never talk about the issue; it is a waste of time. It is much more effective to state very clearly what your policies, your needs and your expectations are and try to meet those expectations.

Question: How would you define civil society in Romania?

Answer: It is important to have a strong, vibrant civil society in this country. I got into a debate with one gentleman about a year and a half ago, after I gave a speech at a university in Iasi. A few days later, a man argued with me that Romania does have a civil society. I said I agreed, all the elements are there, but civil society is not strong enough, in many cases it lacks the means and the support, in many cases NGOs are supported more by outsiders, by foundations or organizations from other countries, than they are by Romanian citizens. That definitely needs to change. In many cases, the Government fails to understand that civil society and NGOs can be effective partners in trying to do the changes I was talking about a few minutes ago. It shouldn't be up just to the Government to solve a problem; citizens should be encouraged to try to help. They should be encouraged by being listened to, by being solicited for their views, which doesn't happen very often in this country. It has begun to happen, but it needs to happen more. In terms of funding, I honestly would like to see a law passed that would allow contributions made by corporations to NGOs. This would help tackle issues that are important for Romanians. This would help strengthen the civil sector in this country. Obviously you have to define the term NGO. Some people still remember that during the '90s, some so-called NGOs were founded simply for purpose of importing cars or to gain some sort of a benefit. They obviously shouldn't benefit from that. Maybe some of the organizations that are clearly for political purposes shouldn't benefit from that. They should be involved in cleaning up the community, seeking greater accountability and transparency, the legislation process. It would be easy for the Government to decide that every time it wants to pass a law, it needs to consult with non-governmental actors, who have often had expertise on that issue.

Question: How has your life changed since you took on this job in Romania?

Answer: I would say that the worst part is that I found that I can't go out the door anymore without someone recognizing me and wanting just 15 minutes of your time. Usually, it's five minutes, but five minutes are not enough, they would need an hour or two hours. I could have been a different kind of ambassador, I could have gotten into the car and went to work and never traveled around the country, never spoke out on issues. But that is not me. Sometimes you realize you can't get any moments of privacy. I think my life has changed importantly in recognizing in a better way how you can use the variety of tools at the disposal of an ambassador or an embassy to shape issues and move a relationship forward. I found it a lot of fun to take on the challenge of raising the political dialogue to higher levels and that certainly has happened in the time that I've been here, to focus on the security partnership and help the Government, as a partner and as a friend, design steps that will ensure that Romania is included in the decisions taken in Prague. When I arrived in Romania, in September 2001, there were no agencies in Washington who thought Romania would be included in Prague. And that has changed, because we worked together to identify weaknesses and problems and talk about what steps need to be taken in order to overcome this problem, to move forward: that was the nature of the NATO Action Plan for this country. So, apart from that and what has been achieved, economic investment, it is a good feeling to wake up in the morning knowing that there is something you can do that will help change lives. When I leave Romania, whenever that may be, I will be able to look back and feel that I used every day to try to advance relations between our countries and our people.

Question: How do you promote Romania's image abroad?

Answer: That is an interesting question, because my job is not actually to be a promoter of Romania's image, but in some respects I've become a promoter of Romania. I am here to promote American policies, American exports and products, and to try to share a better understanding of our policies with persons first and foremost from the Government, but also with leaders, communities and with the Romanian people. But in the course of doing that, I obviously have to be able to interpret what is happening in Romania for America. This comes down to the perception of the country. As I mentioned a minute ago, there were no agencies that favored Romania becoming a NATO member so soon. That is because there was no adequate understanding in Washington of changes that were on the way here, but in another respect changes are not complete. The question is how we are taking steps to move forward. I found it very important to explain Romania, to have a good understanding of what the problems are here. I cannot do this from my office. I can do that by talking to as many people as I can, whether they are students or pensioners. Problems require national policies, which need to be applied by local mayors and local county counselors. I have become an active promoter of Romania, because I do see a lot of future and a lot of potential for the Romanian people, I see it on the faces in this room in particular, because I do have a lot of confidence in young people. Many young people in this country want to go to America and stay forever. I want you to go to America as a student, an exchange student, but then I want you to come back, because I really think that you can make a difference in this country and that you can build a better Romania. My job is to try to explain in Washington or to people across America about restitution problems, problems in the court system and then try to find solutions. We focused our assistance programs on these issues and tried to address them efficiently.

Maybe I can add one thing, since your conclusion is similar to the previous student's conclusion… Oh, I'm going to get in trouble. One of the things that I have trouble explaining is some of the rhetoric and I referred to this in my speech, some of the rhetoric that comes out of this country. Pick up the Romania Mare newspaper, which I generally prefer not to… You find just the most outrageous things there, total lies and total fabrication, and I find it hard to explain how that's allowed to happen in this country. I do believe in freedom of the press, but I also believe in press responsibility and clearly there are some organizations that are not responsible, just as there are some politicians who are not responsible. I have a hard time explaining that and maybe some of you can help me.

Question: How can you explain the fact that no WMDs have been found in Iraq? Were the declarations on the existence of WMDs false?

Answer: I wouldn't jump to the conclusions you have that declarations that Iraq had WMDs are necessarily false. I know there is a lot of controversy over this, but the fact is that we had a lot of intelligence information for a very long time, that we have focused in our discussions at the UN and in the dialogue that the inspectors had with the Iraqi officials. Iraq had the opportunity time and time again to clear up the discrepancies in those declarations and they simply failed to do so. Now, people tell me - am I an expert? of course not - that if you go out to the desert, and bury things a certain distance under the surface, it is impossible to pick up through any satellite images that there are things buried there, because of the ambient temperature of the desert. Am I an expert, again? No, but Iraq is a big country and there clearly has been a long lead up to the war, ample time to move things, to hide things. Will we find something eventually? I tend to think so from the intelligence we have seen. Were there incorrect declarations? Apparently so, or particularly in the case of the alleged purchases from Africa, and I suspect that that is because intelligence information isn't always right, but the overall intelligence information leading to our understanding of the kinds of weapons that had been produced, with no evidence of those weapons that had been destroyed, with no efforts to clear up discrepancies suggest that there probably are weapons that will be found eventually. I'm sure that President Bush - I've not sat down and talked to President Bush about this - but he acted on the information that was made available to him and it's the same information probably that I've seen, although I suspect he has seen a lot more as president, than I've seen as ambassador to Romania.

Question: How do you perceive Romania at present? How should it be and what is being done wrong here?

Answer: How do I perceive Romania now? How Romania is or how it should be? I understand that there are a lot of decisions that need to be taken and I understand that in regard to preparations for the European Union; a lot of these decisions need to be taken rather rapidly. Some of them should have been taken in the early '90s, the mid-'90s, the late '90s and weren't, and so this government is trying to run as fast as it can. Very often it's been notable in this country that decisions are taken by emergency ordinance or they pass through Parliament very quickly under special procedures, without really being debated or thought through. Some of the results speak for themselves, look at the labor law, that is a disincentive to hire people, it's riddled with problems and yet it was passed like this… frankly, there needs to be more discussion, more efforts to reach political, and there needs to be more dialogue with the opposition and vice-versa, as a solution to the problems of this country. So, I would say that the biggest problem is the fact that decisions are taken rapidly, without the transparency that needs to be taken, without efforts to involve experts, NGO's and others, who actually can contribute to the right law, the right solution, and then not have to re-debate it, re-analyze it, re-study it, amend it and usually also in a hurried way and still incompletely.

Question: What could be done in order to solve these problems efficiently?

Answer: I can answer the question in two ways. First, I've actually been to - I think - 40 districts, I've had official meetings… maybe 23-24 and everywhere I go, I see some problems - the lack of infrastructure, roads should be better. In many cities, officials raise with me the questions of hydroelectric power plants, dams or other water-related needs that they have to service their city. Many raise with me the question of energy restructuring - now the heating costs are so high. People can't pay, because you have this outmoded system and 13 years after the Revolution nobody has changed it. Those problems are common, but the biggest problem that I see is that of attitudes. I find that there are many Romanians who don't understand that they have to play an active role regarding solutions to problems. There are many shop-clerks who give the same quality service now that they gave back in 1988, I'm pretty sure. There are many bureaucrats in government and ministries, who are not given an incentive. Part of this is not their problem, but the problem of their managers, their bosses, they need to be measured and held accountable for what they do and for what they don't do. I find that in some ministries there may be a talented minister, or two or three talented secretaries of state, a talented office manager or two below that, but some decisions that should be taken or are taken at the top don't get carried out. Or someone makes the decisions to do something at lower levels that will change the decisions. That is what happened on the statement on the Holocaust. Somebody added a phrase to the statement by the ministry of Public Information, which created a huge international rocus and which never should have happened. Will anybody be held accountable for that? I haven't heard of that yet… I've asked and I've gotten zero response. So, the attitudes and the rigidities in the system really haven't changed enough. They are as damaging to the country, as the lack of resources. I know that money is a problem here, but attitudes in some ways are a bigger problem. That's again why I come back to those of you who aspire to a set of Euro-Atlantic values; you are the ones who will have to push on this. Other will have to push as well. I really think that it would be great if the Government took young graduates, who are exceptionally talented and energetic, put them in positions of responsibility and gave them a mandate: within three months, tell me what's wrong, tell me what to do. Within three months, let's make this a different ministry or office, or whatever… I would like to see that happen, because that's the way to solve some of the attitude problems.

Question: How is America perceived in Romania? Are the movies that we see here reflecting the real America?

Answer: How America is perceived in Romania … it may depend on what movies you watch… There are a lot of these movies that are fantastic in the sense of fantasy and others that are so focused on crime or intrigue that does happen in America, but it doesn't really reflect the community I grew up in and America is a very big country. Different parts of the country have different practices, but frankly, most about America is seen on TV. It doesn't really tell you all about how the society works and how it moves by watching a film. You understand the culture not just watching a film or a TV serial, but also reading news of what happens and if possible talking to American citizens in your universities or communities. Thus you get a better sense of how the country works, because films don't show you that. I think that Romanians sometimes have an idealized vision of America. It's a vision of perfection that I don't share, a vision of stars and stripes, which is on the surface, but not necessarily knowing the problems or the debates that lie behind the stars and stripes, understanding the dynamics of the country. Even today we have debates on affirmative action, 50 years after the decisions were taken. So, sometimes people don't focus on the fundaments of America, but I don't know if I have an answer on how to improve that other than exchanges and travel. I'd love to see Romanians be able to travel to America. I know that's difficult because of visa policy, of money, but actually going to America, you would see much more. You would also see that in a lot of respects America and Romania are the same. There are big differences, certainly the levels of income, expectations are different, but very often people do want the same thing for their family: they want career tracks, a roof over their heads, they want to add a room to their house, they want a baby, good education for their children, a lot of these things are the same from country to country. In terms of the way Romania is seen in America… Before I came to Romania as ambassador, a lot of people hadn't thought about Romania, partly because after 1989 hopes were high and expectations were still low for the country. Decisions were taken and weren't taken in the early '90s, and Americans focused elsewhere. Romania wasn't in the news, other than stray dogs and street children in Bucharest. Basically, that was all Americans knew about the country. They knew about Ceausescu, they knew the name, they watched the flight on TV, they knew about Dracula - of course, a different kind of Dracula. But they didn't really know fundamentally very much about the country. I think that's still the case to some degree, although more and more, certainly in policy circles, Romania has been focused on quite a bit lately. I think that American people as a whole do know a lot about Romania through what Romania has done in Iraq and in Afghanistan, that's been very widely publicized in the US, both by the Administration and Congress on one hand, and by the Romanian Government and the Romanian embassy in America on the other. There is a very strong appreciation, even in small communities, like where my parents come from, there is understanding of how this country is reforming and is standing up to challenges and partnership with America. But there is still not a whole vision of Romania, if you have stray dogs and street children, Ceausescu, Dracula, on one hand, and Iraq and Afghanistan on the other, there is still not enough understanding of the problems of the country and the decisions that need to be taken.

Question: how could people involve themselves more in the community life? Does it have anything to do with your voivod theory?

Answer: Now, there you go… holding me responsible for what I say… I still not have developed this theory on voivods. But what I see in the letters that I get, phone calls, e-mails, conversations that I have on the street… I can see that there are Romanians increasingly dissatisfied with the decisions that are taken or with those that are not taken. What I haven't seen is that Romanians are willing to really involve themselves in finding a solution or taking a decision. Still, that gets down to the issue of democracy. I gave a speech in April that I probably think you heard about, what I said on corruption. After that speech I probably got 1000 or more letters, e-mails and calls about what I said - our web site was jammed… Interestingly, none of them were negative, they were all extremely supportive and in some cases they were from people like you (one of you can be one those who wrote to me) and were saying: I am a young person, I want a future in my country, I want to stay here, thank you for speaking out, for being our ambassador, thank you for representing a change that we want to happen in this country. That's a lot of mail and phone calls and all this tells me that there is a basis for people to help change the country. If you are fed up with things that you see going on, such as corruption, or if you are eager to see more change happen, then that implies that you should have a role in becoming involved and knocking on the mayor's door or the plant manager's door, to say "why are you polluting this stream?", try to involve yourselves personally and push it for a change. I don't know yet what's going to happen in the election in 2004. Responsibility also falls on politicians across the spectrum, who don't necessarily listen to the people or who don't visit the district and advocate further issues that need to be addressed in their own districts. I believe that even beyond the question of how you vote in 2004, I hope you vote on issues, not personalities as much as what are they saying they would do. What have they done in the past, what will they do? But beyond that, I hope you to be involved in changing things by talking with each other, forming groups at universities, forum of debate and discussion of what you want this country to be. If you ultimately do that, there will be a strong democracy in Romania. the makings are there, but the implementation isn't always perfect.

Question: Should change come from the top or do people have to urge it?

Answer: I've got two answers. One is from the standpoint of the Government. I do think that the Government and the people in the political parties, as a rule, should be much more aggressive and challenging towards people who work more in the party structures or in the Government structures, to do more and be responsible for their actions. Now that means a minister or a secretary of state has to say to each manager at a lower level: I want an action plan to solve this problem and I want it in a week and there will not be any delay or excuse acceptable to me. That means that when the manager presents the action plan and it's a piece of junk, the minister should say "This is a piece of junk. Try it again, I'll give you one more week and if you don't produce something acceptable, then you will have five unpaid days off work". There needs to be some way from the top, of empowering people and holding them responsible. I believe that humans, as a rule, like to meet challenges and rise to responsibilities and I've seen it happen again and again. If someone thinks "nothing I do is going to matter", then they do nothing. And if they think "nothing I do is going to get me in trouble either", then that's another disincentive to change. So I think the change has to come from the top. Now from the standpoint of those of you who are studying in the first, second or third year, you're thinking ahead of what you want to be. Think not only just what you want to be, but also think about how you can use that position, what kind of lawyer do you want to be, what kind of a teacher? What kind of values do you want to inculcate in others, what kind of values do you want to represent your own lives? You can say no to a request that will do me that little favor or let me go by. You can be what we call a whistleblower, which in some cultures sounds like an in-house "securitate spy". If someone is not doing their job and when you enter the work force, you become responsible for not taking action on that. Because if it just happens and you go on not saying it, the country never changes in the way it needs to. You can play a role within your own spheres of action, you can help change, but change has to come from the other direction as well.

Question: What should young people do in order to have a successful diplomatic career?

Answer: I'm the worst person to ask this. I entered the Foreign Service, 22 years ago, because it sounded fun: traveling overseas, working overseas, living overseas, and I remember going into my Foreign Service class. It was 51 of us, and I walked in wearing the only suit I had, I found in my class there were successful lawyers who decided they wanted a change of career, successful doctors, city administrators, people with lots of experience, people with expensive suits that looked really great, nicely dressed. I thought "man, I am in the wrong place…!" what am I doing here?" and I remember looking for the last seat in the back. I sat in the back seat, in the corner, and much to my horror, on that first day, we were asked to go around the room in a snake-like formation, stand up and say where we're from, what we been doing, why we entered the Foreign Service and what our aspirations were. Half of that people in that room said "I want to be ambassador!" I thought "I don't want to be an ambassador. I don't even know what an ambassador does." Finally, when they got to me, I stood up and said who I was where I was from and that I entered the Foreign Service because I thought it would be fun. I realized that they were all thinking the same thing, but nobody had said it openly. So, I have never thought I would be an ambassador. I was offered a job, and I thought "Sounds good, can do it!" So, I don't have the right or wrong answer as how to be a good diplomat, but I can say that I've worked very hard, I study a lot whatever the task is, and I try to do everything too the best of my abilities. I accepted the opportunities that sounded interesting, turned down those that didn't sound interesting. Also, I've never taken myself too seriously, because if you take yourself too seriously, such as those people standing up and saying "I want to be ambassador", it may never come your way. But instead of taking yourself too seriously, just be honest, be honest in your relationship with others, and do the job you can do.

Question: There are rumors, according to which the US will establish a military base in Romania. Which are the American plans in regard to this issue? (question by Alina Grigore, Evenimentul Zilei)

Answer: Usually, when people ask me about the next step in a relationship, they say "are we going to get a military base? Honestly, I don't know, I hope so, but I don't want to see a relationship between the US and Romania, that the best that can be said about it is "Romania is getting a military base, Romania's with us in Afghanistan, Romania's with us in Iraq". I want a relationship that is whole, that is rounded, a relationship where educational exchanges are stronger and stronger, more foundations and researchers involved in the lives of each other's countries, businesses are coming in and establishing good economic activity, that will help anchor not just jobs in this country, but also that American management style, where managers do expect their employees to produce, they are held accountable. When they do a good job, they get promoted on the basis of ability, not longevity. I want to see all of these things. I want a dynamic relationship between our countries. We are trying to re-invest in this relationship; I hope that you will see that we are trying not just to focus on the military, on bases. How far we will get on that as an embassy, in the time that I'm here as ambassador I don't know, because I don't know how long I will be in Romania as ambassador, but every day we work, we are trying to have a strong relationship with Romania.

I was talking about transparency and about consulting with citizens, about the government having an open decision-making process… in the American system, on the question of the bases it is just the same: I will say that no decisions have been made at this time, when a consultation fails. The European commander, General Jones, has had a number of people; military officials come to Romania, to locate possible bases here. I know of a number of different other options regarding Romania and regarding other countries; only one consultation has taken place with Secretary Rumsfeld, as far as I know, they had some initial discussions in the inter-agency group, a group of different US agencies looking at this question, but no decision was taken to the president. There are in parallel discussions with the Congress. Our Congress always expects to be involved in the discussions from the start, not at the end. Just as in the case of the NATO enlargement, there were committee hearings on the respective decisions that the administration might take in Prague, long before the administration decided in Prague. There will be more discussions between the military and the administration and the Congress on this issue. Romania is included in most of the expectations, but specific decisions have not been taken at this stage.

Thank you again for your time and for the opportunity of being able to talk with you tonight.

[Applause]