Romania-Italy – a long lasting partnership - ImperialTransilvania
International Relations. HUMAN TRAFFICKING ROMANIA – ITALY. Alexandru GUȘETOIU1. ABSTRACT: ORGANISED CRIME IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST. Romania-Italy – a long lasting partnership there is no denying that Romania and Italy enjoy a constantly good relationship both in politically. World War I afforded the first opportunity for modern Romania to participate in a Austria-Hungary and Russia, later also Italy and Romania) under which the .. Russia's close relationship with Bulgaria enhanced after
As soon as the campaign against Romania had finished, the involved powers withdrew their troops because they were increasingly needed on other fronts. Thus, the number of occupants decreased gradually until when there was only a fraction of the original numbers.
Those formations which stayed in the occupied part of Romania had various tasks: To ensure the own military and political position within the occupation area; to provide for their own troops and civilians throughout the country; to influence the economic production within the country; to ensure the supply of the Romanian civilian population and to export as many resources as possible; to rebuild a Romanian state administration which should increasingly be able to assume responsibilities to relieve the occupation regime.
The occupation regime appointed a centrally organised military administration to secure its own military and political position and it obtained both executive and legislative responsibility. It was situated in Bucharest and had military offices in all districts at its disposal; the latter were operatively and administratively under the control of headquarters, and had to report news about the situation within the country.
In Valachia problems with coordination in respect of competence arose occasionally between German and Austro-Hungarian commands.
Intelligence services played an important role in sounding out the Romanian civilian population and in reconnoitring the situation in the free part of Romania. Since the supply situation in countries of the Central Powers was already rather bad inthe occupation regime assumed that the supply of troops and accompanying civilians administration, medical services, technical advisors etc.
As there was no longer any combat in Romania and the supply situation was relatively better than in other countries, the foreign soldiers were keen to be stationed in Romania for as long as possible. The major economic headquarters of the military administration periodically had to survey the supply of goods and to arrange the required redistribution: In order to facilitate transport a network of light railways was established to take goods to Bucharest or the Danubian ports.
From there products went across either on the main railway transport line via the Carpathian Mountains to Austro-Hungary and Germany or upstream via the Danube. Furthermore, the professionals, together with the economic headquarters and in cooperation with the Romanian rump government, had the task of restructuring the finance system, which led to a number of sanctions. Coincidentally with the occupation of Valachia the existing Romanian government fled in to Jassy Moldavia ; therefore initially no national authorities existed.
After the conclusion of the peace treaty in Bucharest on 7 May  which was not ratified by the Romanian parliament in the occupied partthe government in Bucharest was responsible for most of the administration, even though the occupying power stayed in the country for only a few months. The scope of this administration was kept under control of the occupation regime.
Austria-Hungary in particular, which held a strong diplomatic as well as economic position in Bucharest beforetried to reclaim an influential role. The installation of a consular representative alongside the Austro-Hungarian delegate at the German military administration in Romania was a success.
As deputy of the imperial-royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs he had far more influence than officially admitted. Initially the Germans were held in high esteem which decreased however more and more with their harsh attitudes scattered executions in In contrast the "little brother" Austria-Hungary appeared as the enemy in the country with whom it seemed to be easier to get along.
At first Romanian politicians in the occupied part of Romania were forced to act carefully to ensure their influence on the circumstances. Gradually two sides emerged: Only in rare cases did the Romanian population openly resist; usually passive resistance was sufficient to signal their disagreement with the occupation regime. There were no major problems with Romanian prisoners of war until the end ofbut more and more people fled, trying to reach the unoccupied part, where the Romanian army consolidated.
Discipline among the occupation troops decreased noticeably in because the unauthorised removal from the troops increased and goods found their way to private use. The surrounding regions were on the one hand the occupied part of Romania Valachia, Dobrujaand on the other hand provinces which were parts of either Austro-Hungary Transylvania, Bukovina, Banat or Russia Bessarabia.
The relationship between the free and occupied parts of Romania was special, because Moldavia was an integral component of the Romanian national state until the occupation and because unrestricted contact with the occupied part was not possible since the German military administration tried to block the relationships between the two parts of the country as far as possible. Freedom to travel was severely limited, and there was also no official economic substitute.
A fortiori contacts to the underground played a role. Thus, intelligence services were highly active on both sides.
There was also no official contact between foreign countries and the Romanian population during war because these countries were either situated on enemy ground or — in the case of Bessarabia — the czarist authority had no interest in an intensification of relationships in spite of the cooperation between Russia and Romania within the Entente. Notably, Russia had annexed the eastern part of Moldavia Bessarabia in and had made it a Russian province. This problem changed after the central order collapsed and Russia began the February Revolution.
In Bessarabia an initiative was established, ongoing in Marchwhich aimed to create a small independent state from the land between Prut and Dniester in spite of the fact the majority of the population was Romanian. The attacks by the Red Army in the first months of were aimed at an integration of Bessarabia into the new Soviet Russia: The consequence of this military intervention was the reincorporation of Bessarabia into Romania in April The relationship of occupied Romania with the allies of the Entente was ambivalent.
Cooperation with France across the Macedonian Front flourished: The relationship of occupied Romania with the Central Powers was naturally tense.
The Central Powers tried to appoint a government capable of acting in the occupied part of Romania and to negotiate a ceasefire and peace treaty with them, but the Romanian parliament and royal court fled to Jassy and tried to prevent such a compromise in order to keep influence in further developments. Due to German and Austro-Hungarian pressure and after months of negotiations, the Treaty of Buftea, near Bucharest was signed on 5 Marchand on 7 May the Treaty of Bucharest was concluded; in this process the Romanian forces in exile did not play a major role.
Although the Crown Council on 2 December had decided to continue with the resistance, in opposition to what the Powers of the Entente believed and contrary to internal resistance, Prime Minister Ion I.
This was an infringement of the 17 August agreement signed with the Entente Allies. The ensuing peace treaty was signed in Bucharest with the countries of the Triple Alliance. The provisions were disastrous for Romania — the country had no other option but to concede the Carpathian passes a strip of two to ten kilometers with 23, inhabitantsand the entire economy became subordinated to the German-Austrian one, while Dobruja was occupied by Bulgaria.
In exchange, Romania was able to keep Bessarabia, which had been annexed in April of the same year. King Ferdinand did not sign the Bucharest Peace Treaty. The decision to sign the peace with the Triple Alliance countries spared the Romanian army, which had been left without Russian support and numerically and technically inferior to the military power of Germany and Austria-Hungary.
This fact also gave Romania later the possibility of acting in favour of the Entente and contributing to the safeguarding of Europe against the Bolshevik advancement on the continent Throughout Romania was able to annex the provinces promised in the agreement: The Romanians represented the majority of the population in these territories, with the exception of Bukovina where they were only slightly outnumbered by the Ukrainians, who settled there in large numbers during the previous years.
Romania-Italy – a long lasting partnership - ImperialTransilvania
The unification with Romania, decided by means of national assemblies, congresses or parliamentary decrees, was preceded in all three cases by Romanian troops entering Transylvania, Bukovina and Bessarabia.
These were meant to secure order in the face of Ukrainian or Hungarian anarchic attempts and marked these provinces as belonging to the Romanian Kingdom. Only in the case of Banat, which was claimed by Hungary, Serbia and Romania alike, did the Romanian troops enter as late as the summer ofafter the Serbian troops left the territory they had occupied since the autumn of Once the unification was completed de facto, it needed to be recognised at international level.
Through the agreement of August Romania was promised all the territory of Banat, parts of Bukovina, and Transylvania.
The participation in the war, the great material losses and human sacrifice, and the will of the native Romanian population backed the historical and legal arguments that Romania brought forward during the Paris Peace Conference. The Allies and Hungary signed the peace treaty in Trianon on 4 June For the Romanian side, the agreement was signed by Ion Cantacuzino and Nicolae Titulescu For Romania, this was the climax of its entire history, while for Hungary it was a tragedy which would be repeatedly reflected in the historiography of both countries throughout the 20th and 21st centuries and would lead to numerous tensions between then.
In reality, things were far more nuanced.
And this is only the tip of an iceberg. They are ashamed for what they have done. I have seen Romanian women abandoning their children at the local hospitals because they knew they could lose their jobs or did not have money to feed them. Pregnant women come to me asking for help, and I can tell you they were not impregnated by the Holy Spirit.
I hope both the authorities, the Italian and the Romanian ones, are going to do something. We need a taskforce of inspectors in the field if we want to solve the problem. We need to convince them to speak out and report the owners to the police. We really hope the Italian authorities are going to stop [abuse] as soon as possible. A distinctive feature of Romanian immigration in Italy has been the constant presence of irregulars. Exception made for amnesties, flows decrees, and the resulting regularisation procedures, until Romania's official entry into the EU a Romanian citizen had no chance of legally entering Italy for work reasons.
Only since Januarywithin Romania's EU accession negotiations and with the abolition of the entry visa requirement in the Schengen area, did Romanian citizens get the opportunity to stay in a member country for a period of time not exceeding three months.
Following this new possibility, many irregular Romanian migrants in Italy were now people who had entered the country regularly, but remained beyond the time prescribed by law. Unlike their compatriots who had obtained regularisation, these were considered irregular migrants.
The difference between being regular and irregular concretely defines every aspect of the migrant's daily life, from freedom of movement, linked to the constant risk of being traced and expelled in case of control by the police, to employment and housing options.
Irregular Romanian immigrants lived, at least from the second half of the nineties up to the first months ofin a constant condition of "deportability". This constant sense of vulnerability was enhanced by the abuse and intimidation by all those subjects who, for speculation purposes, had an interest in maintaining a constant quota of irregular migrant workers within the Romanian migrant community.
These unscrupulous subjects, on the occasion of the amnesty related to Law n.
Italy–Romania relations - Wikipedia
According to the law, every employer had the chance to regularise an immigrant worker previously hired informally, as long as he or she had been in the country since June and had been employed for at least three months. In fact, many employers denied the possibility of regularisation or forced the workers to bear the costs themselves, while others, for payment, offered regularisations that would never be realised. Romania's entry into the EU has certainly changed for the better the position and living conditions of Romanian migrants, but certainly cannot erase the indelible traces that over twenty years of migration experience left in the lives of thousands of men and women.
What is the prevailing narrative of migrants themselves on their migratory path and how has it changed in the last decade?Are Romanians the Last Real Descendants of the Roman Empire in the Balkans?
Although the migration of the Romanian community is a relatively recent phenomenon compared to that of other national groups, there is a considerable differentiation between migratory projects and the organisation of mobility of the first migrants and those who have migrated over the last decade, for which the circularity and the "installation in mobility", as Dana Diminescu highlighted, have consolidated as everyday organising strategies.
This is because, compared to the first migrants whose stay abroad led inexorably to clandestinity or repatriation, today we are faced with a continuum of possibilities including permanent emigration without return or with sporadic returns for the holidays; long-term migration, alternating stays with short returns to Romania; and seasonal migration that alternates within a year brief or longer stays abroad with brief or longer stays in Romania.
For those who experienced the first development stages of this system of practices, the migratory choice was narratively presented as a true family project, triggered by a difficult process of political and economic transition after the end of the regime. In many cases, the only goal for these first migrants was the accumulation of a small capital that would allow them to support those who remained.
Clearly there were substantial differences between married and unmarried men, but the narratives of these early migrants typically show the migration project as deeply anchored at the level of the local community.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
With the development of a second, larger migration flow during the first decade of the new century, there was a progressive change in the narrative, no longer pervaded by that sense of urgency. Today, young migrants are substantially more attentive to the quality of employment, housing, and potential social inclusion, which are starting to become criteria for choosing the hypothetical destination.
This new attitude, substantially a product of free movement, marks a profound change in perspective on the constraints of the farming occupational niche, with its uninviting workload and social integration prospects. Today, this can only be a temporary employment condition, or a temporary alternative to keep alive one's migration project in a phase of forced unemployment. How does this migration project fit into the strategies to cope with the imbalances of transition in Romania?
While at first the strategies of domestic units coincide with those of the migrants, in the long run we are witnessing what can be read as a dissociation and individualisation of migrant projects of younger migrants, constantly looking for an opportunity to improve one's own standard of living and personal status. As a consequence, economic attitudes expressed by social relations also change. Initially, when migrants left, they had no doubts about their bonds of economic solidarity with the members of the domestic group of origin.
But later, with the emergence of new needs regarding personal accommodation and the gradual insertion and participation in the social life of the settlement context, young migrants increasingly feel economic solidarity as a burden.