I cannot affirm that Foreign Minister Hurezeanu is blameless in the exercise of his function. On the contrary, I would say the opposite. As other voices in the public space also note, a bit more agility, a less reactive and more proactive attitude, less comfort, so to speak, would not hurt at all, especially after the dismal Iohannis period.
If only adjustments are needed or even a replacement, it should be analyzed. However, it is certain, from all the formal and informal discussions we have had in recent days, that the suspension of the Visa Waiver for Romanians is NOT attributable to Mr. Hurezeanu.
In any serious analysis, it is clear that the decision of the Washington administration is yet another hurdle in the broader diplomatic war that Donald Trump has declared on Europe. The Signal scandal is clear evidence that the new team, in my opinion, of upstarts in Washington simply detests Europe, for reasons that can be analyzed and psychoanalyzed.
Therefore, even the famous speech by Vice President Vance in Munich, reposted by the US Embassy in Bucharest just two days before the officialization of the Visa Waiver suspension, although it directly referred to Romania, used us only as an example and pretext to attack the failure of European democracy.
That this criticism comes from an administration that tramples democracy and the rule of law in the US itself in multiple and unprecedented ways, yes, it's a paradox. But one that is part of Trump's principles: attack, deny everything, and always be the winner.
If he shouts the loudest that European democracy has failed, he leaves no room, at least in his belief, for voices that acknowledge the failure to which he has pushed American democracy.
Why only us? Because only in our case was the activation of the program pending. Is it a sanction for the annulment of the elections? It cannot be treated as such as long as it is not acknowledged as such by Washington, explained, as a sanction should be, and as we see happening, for example, in the case of Russia.
To prominently display, with proper documentation, a seal on the door is a sanction. To put excrement on the handle so that it cannot be touched is bullying, Donald Trump's specialty.
If the Trump administration deemed it necessary to sanction Romania for what they perceived as an antidemocratic deviation, they should have announced the measure as such, provided reasoning, and based it on something more than JD Vance's opinion on the extent of the Russian attack on the Romanian elections. And perhaps they would have proven they were right. Otherwise, the suspension is just a hindrance.
The schemer and the statesman
But because the Visa Waiver was Marcel Ciolacu's pearl and because the Prime Minister is not an authentic statesman, he did not have the courage of a clear and dignified position, but felt the need to offer up a scapegoat, meaning he rushed to pass on the bill of disappointment.
The disassociation from Emil Hurezeanu was degrading not so much for the Foreign Minister, although it certainly diminishes him, but for the Prime Minister, for at least two reasons.
On one hand, the tone. What does it mean to be or not to be a "fan" of the Foreign Minister in the cabinet you lead? Either you consider him efficient and suitable, keep him in office, and stand in solidarity with him, or you consider him unsuitable and replace him.
The simple fact that you publicly attack him means you are implicitly attacking your own cabinet and conveying that you have no power over all members of the Government, thus you are, implicitly, a weak Prime Minister.
The lesson given by Ilie Bolojan was exemplary and shows the difference between an authentic statesman, such as Ilie Bolojan, and an unassuming and scheming impostor.
"If you criticize people who are supposed to help you perform, in public, you are only diminishing their ability to perform, not just for them as individuals, but also for the institutions. And generally, if I had such problems, I preferred to analyze them once, twice, three times, and when I was convinced that a change was necessary, I made it. But I did not discuss it publicly because it would not have helped me in any way."
The fact that after President Bolojan's stance, Marcel Ciolacu was forced to back down accentuated his ridicule. Did he have an opinion and then disagree with it and become a fan of Hurezeanu? Or is he stuck with a Foreign Minister he doesn't want?
There is also another moral in this case. This time, the Prime Minister backed down because the President has control over a party in the coalition, the very one that supported Hurezeanu. If the President did not have this leverage, thus the stability of the coalition was not in question, the Prime Minister could have easily proceeded with the revocation of the minister, which, according to the Constitutional Court, the President cannot refuse.
Furthermore, Marcel Ciolacu tried to distance himself from the annulment of the elections, his speech containing a truly memorable statement: "There are several criminal elements and influences. I have seen the CSAT statement. Let's leave it to those authorized to shed light."
So the Prime Minister-Vice President of the CSAT tells us that he read the CSAT statement to find out about the Russian attack.
I understand that he might have been a bit groggy after donating 150,000 votes to lose the entry into the second round by 3,500 votes. Humanly speaking, it's hard not to understand him. But even so, the Vice President of the CSAT does not find out what happened in the CSAT from the press release.
We are the weak link in Europe, heavily exploited by the Trump administration, and due to the lamentable performance of most of our leaders, who are either overly humble in truly important matters or nationalistic on minor issues.
Ilie Bolojan is an exception, so rare that it is shocking, a breath of fresh air in our political mold. Unfortunately, it will end after May 18, and I fear that none of the potential future presidents will not only be at the same level, but none will even be somewhat good, only varying degrees of bad.