Romanian Foreign Policy in the 1980s: Domestic—foreign Policy Linkages

  • Ronald H. Linden


Students of Eastern Europe have always been students of linkage politics. How could they be otherwise? If one accepts James Rosenau’s original definition of linkage as “any recurrent sequence of behavior that originates in one system and is reacted to in another,” we have a concise description of the Soviet—East European interstate system of relations.1 Studies of these states have, for the most part, not elaborated theoretical formulations of this relationship, especially as it relates to foreign policies; but they have been highly sensitive nevertheless to the permeability of East European borders.2 This has typically taken the form of assessments of the impact of one or another externally-based phenomenon on the East European states. The “other system” in which these phenomena originate has usually been the Soviet Union.3 More recently, studies of the region have begun to assess the impact of various international milieux and changes therein on the East European states.4


Foreign Policy Foreign Minister International Economic Order German Minority Warsaw Pact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    James N. Rosenau, “Toward the Study of National—International Linkages,” in Rosenau (ed.), Linkage Politics ( New York: Free Press, 1969 ) p. 45.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    See, for example, Egon Neuberger and Laura D’Andrea Tyson (eds), The Impact of International Economic Disturbances on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe ( New York: Pergamon Press, 1980 );Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Sarah M. Terry, “The Implications of Interdependence for Soviet East European Relations: A Preliminary Analysis of the Polish Case,” in Linden, Foreign Policies of East Europe, pp. 186–266; Andrzej Korbonski, “Detente, East,–West Trade, and the Future of Economic Integration in Eastern Europe,” World Politics, xxviii, 4 (July 1976), pp. 568–89.Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    See inter alia James N. Rosenau, “Foreign Policy as Adaptive Behavior,” Comparative Politics, 2, 3 (April 1970) pp. 365–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 7.
    James N. Rosenau, “Adaptive Strategies for Research and Practice in Foreign Policy,” in Fred W. Riggs (ed.), International Studies: Present Status and Future Prospects (Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 1971) esp. pp. 231–2;Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    James N. Rosenau, “Theorizing Across Systems: Linkage Politics Revisited,” in Jonathan Wilkenfeld (ed.), Conflict Behavior and Linkage Politics ( New York: David McKay, 1973 ) pp. 25–56.Google Scholar
  7. 11.
    See Graham T. Allison, Essence of Decision (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971 ).Google Scholar
  8. 12.
    See Richard Cottam, Foreign Policy Motivation (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1977).Google Scholar
  9. 14.
    On bureaucratic politics, see Robert J. Art, “Bureaucratic Politics and American Foreign Policy: A Critique,” Policy Science, IV, 4 (December 1973) pp. 467–90.Google Scholar
  10. 14.
    On national attributes, see Andrew Mack, “Numbers Are Not Enough,” Comparative Politics, VII 4 (July 1975) pp. 597–618;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 14.
    John Vasquez, “Statistical Findings in International Politics,” International Studies Quarterly, 20, 2 (June 1976) pp. 171–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 14.
    See also the discussion in James G. Kean and Patrick J. McGowan, “National Attributes and Foreign Policy Participation: A Path Analysis,” in Patrick J. McGowan (ed.), Sage International Yearbook of Foreign Policy Studies, vol. 1 ( Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1973 ) pp. 219–51.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    See Zvi Gitelman, “Toward a Comparative Foreign Policy of Eastern Europe,” in Peter J. Potichnyj and Jane P. Shapiro (eds), From the Cold War to Detente ( New York: Praeger, 1976 ) pp. 144–165;Google Scholar
  14. 16.
    Ronald H. Linden, Bear and Foxes: The International Relations of the East European States, 1965–1969 ( Boulder: East European Quarterly and Columbia University Press, 1979 ); William C Potter, “External Demands and East Europe’s Westpolitik,” in Linden, The Foreign Policies, pp. 96-134. See also the discussion in Linden, “Foreign Policy Studies.”Google Scholar
  15. 17.
    These terms are employed, respectively, in David Floyd, Rumania: Russia’s Dissident Ally ( New York: Praeger, 1965 );Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Robert L. Farlow, “Romanian Foreign Policy: A Case of Partial Alignment,” Problems of Communism (November–December 1971) pp. 54–63;Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. K. Dziewanowski, “The Pattern of Rumanian Independence,” East Europe, XVIII, 6 (June 1969) pp. 8–12;Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    R. V. Burks, “The Rumanian National Deviation: An Accounting,” in Kurt London (ed.), Eastern Europe in Transition ( Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966 ) pp. 93113.Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    Ronald H. Linden, “Romanian Foreign Policy in the 1980’s,” in Daniel L. Nelson (ed.), Romania in the 1980’s ( Boulder: Westview Press, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    See the discussion in Nicolai Ecobescu and Sergiu Celac, Politica extern a României Socialiste ( Bucharest: Editura Politica, 1975 ).Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    See Ceauşescu’s Report to the Eleventh Congress of the RCP in Congresul al XI-lea al Partidului Comunist Român (Bucharest: Editura Politică, 1975) pp. 41-2. Cf. Romulus Caplescu, “An Important Contribution to the Assertion of the New Principles of Relations in the International Communist Movement, to Strengthening Solidarity in the Struggle for Security, Peace, and Social Progress,” Lumea, no. 20, 14–20 July 1978, pp. 25–6;Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    Constantin Florea, “RCP’s Stand on New Phenomena and Trends in the Communist and Workers’ Movement,” Era Socialistâ, no. 19 (1978) pp. 30–4.Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    “Statement on the Stand of the Rumanian Workers’ Party Concerning the Problems of the International Communist and Working Class Movement,” in William E. Griffith (ed.), Sino-Soviet Relations: 1964–1965 (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1967) p. 284. Cf. Alexandru Puiu, Comerlul Exterior §i Rolul Lui in Realizarea Programului de Dezvoltare Economicä a României ( Bucharest: Editura Politica, 1974 ).Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    See, for example, N. Ecobescu, “A Ban on Nuclear Weapons—the Imperative Demand of the Peoples,” Lumea, no. 1, 3 March 1978, pp. 10–12;Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    For Ceauşescu’s designation of Romania as a developing country, see his speech to a 1972 National Conference of the RCP in Romania, vol. 7, pp. 519–20. For a discussion of Romania’s policies in this regard, see Ion Barac, “Romania and the Developing Countries,” Revue roumaine d’études internationales, XI, 1 (35), 1977, pp. 55–72.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    Barac, “Romania and the Developing Countries,” p. 72. Cf. Ion Mielcioiu, “The Colombo Conference of the heads of state or government of the non-aligned countries, Romania’s participation,” Revue roumaine d’études internationales, XI, 1 (35), 1977, pp. 73–88.Google Scholar
  27. 30.
    See John M. Montias, “Romania’s Foreign Trade: An Overview,” in Joint Economic Committee, US Congress, East European Economies Post-Helsinki: A Compendium of Papers ( Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1977 ) pp. 865–85;Google Scholar
  28. 30.
    Cal Clark and Robert Farlow, Comparative Patterns of Foreign Policy and Trade: The Communist Balkans in International Politics (Bloomington, Indiana: International Development Research Center, Indiana University, 1976), and Linden, Bear and Foxes, esp. Chapter 5, for discussions of this process.Google Scholar
  29. 32.
    By the end of 1979 Romania had been extended $905 million in officially-backed credits from Western sources. See National Foreign Assessment Center, Soviet and East European Hard Currency Debt ( Washington: Central Intelligence Agency, 1980 ). See also Thad P. Alton, “Comparative Structure and Growth of Economic Activity in Eastern Europe,” in East European Economies, pp. 199–266.Google Scholar
  30. 43.
    See Montias, “Romania’s Foreign Trade.” See also The Wall Street Journal, 28 July 1982, pp. 1, 14.Google Scholar
  31. 54.
    See a discussion in Kenneth Jowitt, “Political Innovation in Romania,” Survey, XX, 4 (Autumn 1974) pp. 132–151Google Scholar
  32. 54.
    Trond Gilberg, “Romania: Problems of the Multilaterally Developed Society,” in Charles Gati (ed.), The Politics of Modernization in Eastern Europe ( New York: Praeger, 1974 ) p. 148. One extraordinary event which may reflect the existence of an opposition of uncertain size was the speech at the Twelfth Congress of Constantin Privulescu, a veteran party stalwart of 84, who rose to accuse Ceausescu of placing his own interests above those of the country, and who declared — while others were exulting in the General Secretary’s leadership — that he would not vote for his reelection. See RFER, 28 November 1979. For Bucharest—s scant reportage, see Agerpress, 23 November 1979. See also RFER on the disappearance of Stefan Voitec, a member of the RCP Political Executive Committee, 20 January 1981.Google Scholar
  33. 56.
    See the discussion in Jowitt, “Political Innovation in Romania,” and Mary Ellen Fischer, “Participatory Reforms and Political Development in Romania,” in Jan F. Triska and Paul M. Cocks (eds), Political Development in Eastern Europe ( New York: Praeger, 1977 ) pp. 217–37.Google Scholar
  34. 59.
    See Daniel Nelson, “Sub-National Political Elites in a Communist System: Contrasts and Conflicts in Romania,” East European Quarterly, X, 4 (Winter 1976) pp. 459–94.Google Scholar
  35. 64.
    See the discussion in George Schöpflin, “Rumanian Nationalism,” Survey, XX, 2/3 (Spring/Summer 1974) pp. 77–104; cf. Linden, Bear and Foxes, pp. 193–6.Google Scholar
  36. 67.
    See the letter to the Central Committee by Karoly Kiraly, former alternate member of the RCP Presidium and member of the Central Committee, in The New York Times, 1 February 1978, p. 23; cf. Manuel Lucbert, “La minorité hongroise de Transylvanie est mécontente de son sort,” Le Monde, 5 May 1978, p. 4.Google Scholar
  37. 67.
    At the Twelfth Congress Mihai Gere, candidate member of the Political Executive Committee, harshly rejected “false aggressive and ill-intentioned voices which resort to fabrications in order to distort our realities and try to set the Romanian, Hungarian, German, and other working people at loggerheads.” See Scînteia, 22 November 1979, p. 5. For a review of government policies toward the Hungarians, see Mary Ellen Fischer, “Nation and Nationality in Romania,” in George W. Simmonds (ed.), Nationalism in the USSR and Eastern Europe in the Era of Brezhnev and Kosygin (University of Detroit Press, 1977 ) pp. 504–21.Google Scholar
  38. 69.
    See Jacques Levesque, Le Conflict sino-sovietique et l’Europe de l’Est (Les Presses de l’université de Montréal, 1970) pp. 97–281;Google Scholar
  39. 69.
    Robert R. King, “Rumania and the Sino-Soviet Conflict,” Studies in Comparative Communsim, IV, 4 (Winter 1972 ) pp. 373–412.Google Scholar
  40. 70.
    See Eugeniu Obrea, “Vigorous Assertion of National Independence Policies in the Service of Socialism and Peace,” Lumea 28 (15–21 September 1978) pp. 2–4.Google Scholar
  41. 75.
    Bucharest recently refloated the idea of creating a “zone of peace” in this region. See Agerpress, 13 March 1979. See also I. Madosa, “The Balkans — a Laboratory of European Security,” Lumea 48 (28 November–4 December 1980) pp. 22–3.Google Scholar
  42. 78.
    For a discussion of “Active Romanian military defenses of foreign policy autonomy,” see Aurel Braun, Romanian Foreign Policy since 1965 (New York: Praeger, 1978) pp. 144–89.Google Scholar
  43. 79.
    See the discussion in Peter Bender, East Europe in Search of Security ( Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972 ) p. 112.Google Scholar
  44. 81.
    For a discussion of the significance of the Ukraine in Soviet views of Czechoslovakia in 1968, see Grey Hodnett and Peter J. Potichnyj, The Ukraine and the Czechoslovak Crisis ( Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1970 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Michael J. Sodaro and Sharon L. Wolchik 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald H. Linden

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations