PER Home Page
About PER
Board and Staff
Council for Ethnic Accord
The Kona Statement
PER in the Balkans
Russia and the Baltics
PER in Hungary
PER in Slovakia
PER in Romania
Central European Series
Euro-Atlantic Series
PER and the Roma
PER and the
Media
PER
Bulletins
Bucharest,
June 17-18, 1991
The symposium, conducted jointly with the Romanian Academy, was the first in a series of efforts under the Project on Ethnic Relations in Eastern Europe sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and organized at the International Research Exchanges Board (IREX). It is part of a long-term effort that will include the founding of an American-East European Council on Ethnic Accord and a regional consortium of policy and research institutes concerned with ethnic issues.
The purpose of the meeting was to encourage open discussion of ethnic issues, not only among scholars, but among individuals from governmental and other institutions. While including a scholarly component, the emphasis of the symposium was practical, its aim being to stimulate new and creative thinking about old issues and problems in order to reduce ethnic conflict.
This report was prepared at the request of the Project on Ethnic Relations
by Larry Watts of UCLA/RAND, the University of Washington, Seattle, and the
IREX Bucharest Office. It has not been reviewed by the Romanian Academy,
which is not responsible for its contents.
INTRODUCTION
After brief opening remarks by Mihai Draganescu, president of the Romanian Academy, Allen H. Kassof, IREX Executive Director, congratulated the Academy on its courage and foresight in holding the first international forum in Romania on the country's ethnic problems. Aside from the universal values involved, Kassof noted, the American interest in East European ethnic problems was based on an understanding that the processes of democracy were complex and could be imperiled by destructive ethnic conflict. At the same time, ethnic accord would benefit Europe, and the United States has an important stake in a peaceful Europe. However, America could only bring to the symposium a friendly, neutral and sympathetic ear, for it had no answers and continues to seek solutions to its own ethnic problems.
Livia B. Plaks, Associate Director of the Project on Ethnic Relations, sketched IREX's cooperative involvement in Romania and stressed that, after the December 1989 revolution, IREX undertook a special commitment to help reintegrate this country back into Europe and the Western world. In connection with the ethnic project, IREX is establishing electronic networks and communications facilities, basic reference libraries on ethnic conflict and its reduction, field research projects, training seminars for specialists, and, from time to time, conferences such as this.
Unlike the December 1990 conference on ethnic conflict and its reduction in Eastern Europe held in New York City, which inaugurated the project, the IREX-Romanian Academy Symposium on Inter-ethnic Relations was country-specific. Whereas the earlier conference was composed of 17 American specialists and specialists representing each of the six East European countries, this one had a smaller contingent of Americans-- nine participants including four presenters--while the Romanian side was composed of 31 participants including 11 main presenters. Of the 31, 12 were of Romanian ethnicity and 19 represented 14 of Romania's other ethnic groups. In addition, there were five observer-participants from Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia (Serbia), and the Republic of Moldavia.
This change in composition significantly altered the agenda as it was
originally conceived by the American side and highlighted many complexities
concerning the problem of ethnic relations which had not been aired at the
New York conference. These complexities had not only to do with differences
in perspective between the majority and minority members, but also
fundamentally different interpretations of the nature of the problem and of
the various measures that should be taken to address it. Agreement on the
nature of the primary problem could not be reached among specialists and
representatives of the assembled ethnic groups. In fact, it turned out that
there were several, often very different, views of what constituted "primary
problems." This realization was at the same time surprising, enlightening,
and troubling for many of the American participants and highlighted the
need, already recognized in New York, to strive towards a common vocabulary
and level of knowledge based on the latest research in the world community,
Among the many things demonstrated by the Bucharest Symposium was that the
lack of common concepts regarding the problem of ethnic tensions constituted
one of the greatest obstacles to their reduction.
MINORITY VS. ETHNIC GROUP
The lack of a common terminology, and the differences in perceptions held by Romanian and American participants, immediately became apparent in discussions of the nature and definition of ethnic relations in Romania. The phraseology used by the American participants was one of ethnic "majorities and minorities." Their approach was pragmatic: the need to prevent social instability and ethnic violence. Priorities were implicitly assigned to the several minorities according to their size; their potential for involvement in serious, especially violent, ethnic conflict; and to their presumed capacity for formulating, articulating, mobilizing in support of, and achieving their demands vis-a-vis the majority-controlled state. From a human rights perspective, all minorities were recognized as equally important. However, from the perspective of contemporary political realities, the problems presented for the state by large minority populations were considered potentially greater and therefore, to require more immediate attention. Following this logic, Istvan Deak proposed that the conference focus on the problems of the Hungarian, Rom (Gypsy), Jewish, and German ethnic minorities.
This point of view was immediately, and rather sharply, rejected by the participants from the Romanian Academy and by many of the ethnic group representatives for two reasons; the first stemming from the nature of their approach, which considered conciliation possible only if based on the equal and similar treatment of all ethnic groups regardless of their size; the second resulting from what appeared to some U.S. participants as to be hyper-sensitivity concerning national identity and ethnic Romanian (majority) rights.
In the first instance, the terminology of "majority-minority" was considered by participants as inherently and unnecessarily political, whereas "ethnic group" desensitized the issue and better allowed for sober discussion and identification of common interests. This point of view was shared by Academy researchers, such as Carmen and Dragos Seuleanu, with researchers of non-Romanian ethnicity, such as the Hungarian sociologist Zoltan Rostas, who noted that political and academic discourse were not compatible.
A second line of criticism leveled against this terminology by the ethnic Hungarian, German, Russian and Albanian participants, as well as by members of the Academy, was that "minority" referred to a quantity rather than a quality. This was interpreted as a reduction in ethnic group status. As Paul Phillipi complained, while the Saxon community had played a very important political and economic role in Romanian state building in the past, because of post-war emigration, the community would now be considered negligible were state-centered American criteria to be applied. Other ethnic group representatives also objected to being characterized as insignificant merely because of small numbers. Efforts by some, such as Dinu Giurescu, to explain that, juridically, all nonethnic Romanians are "minorities", had very little impact on the discussion.
Somewhat paradoxically, the use of "minority" was also criticized by many ethnic group participants for the unwanted quality it conveyed, in their estimation, of marginality and lesser relative merit. Some Romanian participants, for example Dan Berendei and Camil Muresan, further criticized the use of the term as implying the status of victim, while "majority" implied a guilty oppressor. For these reasons both sides argued for the use of "ethnic group" to denote a relationship of equality--the non-Romanian ethnic groups taking this to signify their equal status with Romanians and the Romanians taking it to affirm their shared innocence or guilt in minority oppression.
In the course of the discussion it became apparent that both "majority" and "minority" had much more a pejorative than neutral, descriptive meaning for ethnic Romanians. In the West, there is a generalized understanding of the privileged position of the majority concerning political and economic access relative to the minorities. In the United States, it has even become standard practice to consider discrimination as possible only against minorities by the majority. In consequence, the general proposition that redressing ethnic discrimination policies requires a change or compromise largely on the part of the majority is fairly non-controversial. However, this proved not to be the case among the Romanians, who perceived themselves as one ethnic group in the midst of a struggle for basic rights with other ethnic groups, indicating a level of national insecurity reminiscent of that which existed in 1918.
Three other definitional debates resurfaced throughout the symposium. The first concerned the issue of violence against the Rom or Gypsy population. Romanian government and academic participants consistently characterized this as a social conflict, as did Attila Pok, the participant from Hungary, when discussing the same problem in his country. Rom participants, particularly Nicolae Gheorghe, pointed out that the ethnic nature of the violence alone required that it be treated at least as a problem of both social and ethnic relations.
A second definitional debate was launched when Gail Kligman and Katherine
Verdery referred to the violence against the Rom as pogroms, following
standard Western practice, to describe the driving of a people from a
locale. This drew protests from both Romanian and other ethnic group
participants because of the value-laden nature of the term in Eastern
Europe, where it sparks memories of state-directed liquidation of ethnic
groups during World War II. Finally, Kligman and Verdery also drew criticism
from Romanian participants for advising Romania to acknowledge that it was a
multi-ethnic state. The Romanians took this to imply that they were not,
despite their appreciable majority, entitled to play the leading role in the
state. Berendei said he had the feeling "that Romanians are being forced to
abandon their identity."
Rogers Brubaker pointed out the difference that exists between multi-ethnic
societies and multi-ethnic states, noting that the goal of most central
authorities in supporting ethnic groups is not necessarily a multi-ethnic
state but rather a less ethnic state . Donald Horowitz explained that the
concept of the nation-state is an obsolete one, having lost both of its
original meanings--the melting pot and the ethnic state. Referring to the
work of Walker Connor, Horowitz noted that only one-half of one percent of
the world's population live in nation/ethnic-states. Therefore the choices
available were either consociational states or thousands of separate ethnic
states.
DEMOGRAPHY
Discussion concerning the demographics of Romania and particularly the Romanian census of 1977 pointed out the shortcomings of the analyzing of official census statistics for ethnic questions.
After describing how the Romanian census was based on the free statements of respondents, Vladimir Trebici also noted that there are many reasons for people to falsify their answers. Donald Horowitz pointed out that the politics of census-taking demanded a healthy skepticism regarding their description of ethnic realities. For example, the current percentage of Rom in the population of Romania, according to the 1977 census, is one percent, but the Rom are likely to be underrepresented by as much as a factor of 10, since they received no benefits and were often negatively sanctioned under Ceausescu for claiming other than Romanian ethnic origin. Likewise, Romanians are likely to be overrepresented because of the relative benefits of being considered ethnic Romanian. According to the U.S. pattern, ethnic groups will gain members if membership confers rewards such as access to material resources and political power.
Responding to these and other criticisms, Trebici pointed out that, although
the Romanian census had been overly simplistic, and although the last one in
1977 had been an overtly political operation of Ceausescu, no census can be
better than its methodology. Romania, argued Trebici, employs the standard
United Nations methodology designed to measure a minimum amount of frank
data given freely--it is not allowed to invade privacy by asking too many or
too penetrating questions. While the census is based on a minimum number of
responses freely given, it cannot be a handbook of either anthropology or
demographics since it cannot determine whether or not the responses are
true. Just as the last U.S. census was criticized for underrepresenting
urban minorities, and just as the Netherlands declared its last census
unscientific and renounced the practice of census-taking altogether, so too
will the coming Romanian census in 1992 fall short of criteria which no
census is capable of meeting.
COLLECTIVE RIGHTS vs. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Perhaps the most problematic issue discussed by participants was that of collective or group rights vs. individual rights. A basic division appeared in the debate between the American specialists and Romanian specialists familiar with Western scholarship on ethnic relations on the one side, and other Romanians, including the great majority of non-Romanian ethnic participants, on the other.
It emerged that the standard American approach to the management of ethnic tensions is to sublimate ethnic identity within a larger state identity and to emphasize individual rights rather than group rights. The general approach of the ethnic minority participants at the conference appeared to be just the opposite: to foster/create an ethnic identity where only a weak identity existed before, and to gain a recognition of group rights by the Romanian State.
The goals of the ethnic minority participants ranged from the minimum quest for group protection to a maximum of establishing special community rights. For example, as Nicolae Gheorghe explained, for the Rom minority the primary problem has been managing ethnic conflict so that it does not become violent. Given the increasing incidence of violence against the Rom in Romania, Slovakia, and throughout Eastern Europe, this appeared to be the most urgent regional problem of ethnic relations outside of Yugoslavia. On the other hand, for the Tatar-Turk and Armenian minorities, the crucial problem was one of gaining access to resources enabling them to print journals and books in their native tongues and so aid them in fostering ethnic group identification.
Participants from the German and Hungarian minorities stressed the need for a guarantee of group rights. According to Paul Phillipi, the Germans were originally called by the state to be part of the power structure with specifically defined rights and duties. The model then, the "Universitatus Saxonus," was the prevalent one before the French Revolution. Now, however, group rights have been replaced with public and private rights, leaving the individual to confront the state directly--an uneven match at best.
Geza Domokos also stressed the importance of minority group rights. While noting that the predominant Romanian fear is that minority rights will lead to autonomy and then to territorial loss a la the Vienna Diktat of World War II (in which Romania lost northern Transylvania to Hungary), he nonetheless criticized the government for agreeing only to individual rights and not to group rights. Without group rights, Domokos argued, the majority can dominate the minority in the name of democracy. Attila Pok added that real equality sometimes demands positive discrimination which is only possible if certain collective rights are guaranteed.
According to Kenneth Jowitt, the conflict over collective and individual rights was an artifact of the antagonism existing between the civic, state, and ethnic orientations of the modern nation-state. Ideally, an impersonal secular state provides for the equal treatment of all. However, this conflicts with the gemeinschaft identification of ethnic orientations. Moreover, civic and ethnic antagonisms arise because: 1) The civic orientation is individualistic while its ethnic counterpart emphasizes the importance of the collective or group. 2) The civic orientation is inherently democratic and critical towards authority while the ethnic orientation, by stressing solidarity within the group rather than the rights of the individual, is inherently more authoritarian. 3) The civic orientation is universalistic and inclusive since it implies a relationship between democratic citizens world-wide, while the ethnic orientation is inherently exclusionist and parochial. The point, Jowitt emphasized, is not that ethnic is bad but that civic and ethnic orientations are not only different, but are conflictual as well. At issue, then, is how these orientations are to be weighted and understood. The central dilemma is whether the state in new conditions would continue to be defined in old ways--whether state and ethnic definitions would be dominant or, rather, whether they would remain important but secondary. The desired aim is not the elimination of ethnic identity, but the victory of the civic identity. A citizen-based Romanian state is a primary condition for political and economic democratization.
From a slightly different perspective, Donald Horowitz suggested that the degree to which a supra-ethnic identification has been created is one way of placing Romania on a spectrum from the Third World to the developed West. While Italian-Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc., all consider themselves Americans, and German-Swiss and French-Swiss perceive themselves as Swiss, there are no Burmese or Ghanaians. With the rapidly disappearing "Yugoslav" and "Soviet" peoples along its borders, this was a particularly cogent issue for Romania. Likewise, political parties in the West are not based primarily on ethnicity, but in Africa and Asia ethnic parties are the norm. Ethnically based parties usually impede compromise, Horowitz noted.
The Yugoslav (Serbian) participant, Vojislav Stanovcic, explained that the Yugoslav experience after World War II, when the government dropped the concept of minority rights for individual ones, and added that of self-determination, led to a series of territorial states in which individual rights proved to be insufficient for most ethnic groups who continued to push for group rights for the purposes of education, etc. Several of the minority participants, referring to this perceived need, argued that the goal of the state should be unity in diversity. Jowitt countered that, while the notion of unity and diversity presented a nice ideal, the typical result was a Tower of Babel, where Hungarians are Hungarians, Romanians are Romanians, Rom are Rom, etc. The question arises: what, if anything, will they have in common? The solution, according to Jowitt, is neither to make ethnic identity all-important, nor eliminate ethnic identity. but to relativize it.
Helena Klimova, of Czechoslovakia, gave a psychoanalytical interpretation of
the persistence of this adherence to group rights and the supremacy of
ethnic identification throughout the region. In an area where peoples are
searching for new meanings and inner orientations, destructive inclinations
are not balanced by functioning constructive forces of school, church,
individual ties, family, etc., while the collective self, so long misused by
the former authorities, is now deeply suspect. For better or worse the most
accessible, ready-made framework providing both meaning and orientation is
ethnicity. Regardless of the underlying causes for the difference in the
ethnic and civic orientations, it was clear from the discussion that
majority and minority Romanians still have difficulty in accepting the
legitimacy of each other's orientations.
STEREOTYPES
In his presentation, Nicolae Gheorghe explained that conflicts between political organizations and those between ideological doctrines and policies were no longer violent due to their basis in rational choice. However, the irrational, bioethnic nature of psychological conflict based on stereotypes lent it an inherently more violent character.
On the same theme, both Kligman and Verdery stressed the importance of classification and naming, particularly at such transformational junctures as Romania, and Eastern Europe in general, are presently facing. These junctures present Romania with both an opportunity and a danger: the opportunity is the chance to create new patterns of ethnic relations by taking care in the use of names and labels given to members of various ethnic groups so as not to propagate the existing negative stereotypes and patterns of domination and subordination. The danger, however, is that, with increased competition for ever scarcer economic resources, and the desire of central authorities to deflect popular criticism, there is, as Verdery pointed out, great room for cheap and easy explanations which scapegoat certain minorities. For example, whereas before the revolution Gypsies were classified as "lazy," now, with the scarcity of resources, they are classified as "busy" with black-marketeering, which is mistakenly blamed for the lack of available goods.
Jowitt contested the assertion that naming itself, unconnected with a change in social relations, was that important. He argued that the alternation of "nigger, "colored," "Afro-American," "Black," and now, "African-American" had not changed the fundamental reality of racial discrimination in the United States.
Similarly, Rogers Brubaker took issue with the assertion by several participants (e.g., Chief Rabbi Moses Rosen of the Romanian Jewish minority, and Helena Klimova) that in many cases political elites created and perpetuated such stereotypes for political advantage and that, if left to local populations, the problem would be better managed. While agreeing that local inter-ethnic collaboration was indeed a desired goal, Brubaker questioned whether it was likely that, if the local communities were allowed, they would be able to work out their problems alone.
The Bulgarian participant, Ivan Ilchev, added that, in Bulgaria, the most extreme nationalists are located in the villages and in Turkish settlements especially. Therefore ethnic conflict combines with urban-rural and center-periphery conflicts when the government intervened in efforts to reduce ethnic tensions. Complicating the situation, Ilchev explained, was the unfortunate fact that Bulgarian nationalism was almost entirely based on anti-Turk stereotypes, with all Bulgarian national heroes notable for their anti-Turkish exploits. Ilchev further noted that research on stereotypes in Bulgaria has dwelt exclusively on those of Bulgarians in Bulgaria concerning Turks in Turkey. The Turkish minority in Bulgaria was essentially invisible both in textbooks and in research.
On a brighter note, Aleksandra Jasinska of Poland explained that a few
studies have been made regarding the stereotypes Poles and Russians have of
each other, particularly in opinion polls and literature. Paul Phillipi
noted that several studies on stereotypes in Romania have been undertaken
recently as part of the doctoral research of Romanian students.
HISTORY AND HISTORIANS
Substantial time was spent discussing the past and present role of history and historians in ethnic relations. The participants were divided on whether stereotypes could be eliminated, and whether that could be useful.
Nicolae Gheorghe noted that historians have played a tremendous role in hiding the ethnic issue, consistently using history as a political tool. Dan Berendei agreed with Gheorghe concerning the extreme nationalism of past historians, but also noted that nationalist historians were important in establishing a Romanian national identity. More specifically, Moses Rosen emphatically asserted that Romanians must be more aware of their historic responsibility in the Holocaust so that the reexamination of history currently underway does not propagate past ethnic and racial hatreds. In his view, neither the government nor Romanian historians were taking much action in this direction.
Geza Domokos expanded on Rosen's theme, explaining that it is a problem of undesirable historical self-images--a problem exacerbated by 45 years of Communist rule and ideologically correct history.
Dinu Giurescu provided a detailed outline of how history had been used to perpetuate ethnic and racial stereotypes and hatreds in Romania, concluding with several suggestions aimed at remedying the situation. First, historians on both sides of any ethnically sensitive debate, regardless of their ethnicity, need to abandon the confrontational mode and maintain as their goal a nuanced and critical approach.
Secondly, historians of different ethnicities need to cooperate in writing textbooks to allow for an interplay of viewpoints and the expansion of student perceptions. Third, historians need to change their whole perspective from that of the ethnic community to that of an ethnic partner in building a civic society.
Paul Phillipi agreed with the essence of Giurescu's suggestions but stressed that the important question was whether such new efforts would result in a "History of the Romanians" or a "History of Romania".
Istvan Deak was skeptical that a good history could be written through the joint efforts of two or more naturally divergent points of view. Deak noted the example of the current political correctness movement in the United States, that has produced histories in which the contributions of all groups have been equated resulting in uninformative, flawed, and boring "pap."
The experience of Poland, according to Aleksandra Jasinska, was mixed. While the joint Polish-German commission on World War II was useful, the current Polish-Soviet joint commission has had very minimal results. Berendei noted that there still existed a joint Romanian-Hungarian commission which, since 1983, has been discussing joint history textbooks and has appointed six subcommittees with equal numbers of Hungarian and Romanian historians.
Attila Pok of Hungary explained the old problem as being one in which both
sides took the nation-state as an eternal element in world history instead
of placing it in the real context of chronological development. The move
among some historians in Hungary now is to deal with broader questions of
man in his environment. According to Pok, recent Romanian-Hungarian
discussions on the medieval period, the 1848 Revolutions, and the 1867
Ausgleich, have been helpful and have led to mutual understanding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The symposium produced a number of specific recommendations for ethnic conflict reduction. Katherine Verdery advised that policy-makers abandon the practice of discussing policy options in terms of Romanian character. The "are we suited" approach to policy invariably leads to ethnocentric policy. The better approach is to decide in what kind of society Romanians want to live.
Donald Horowitz suggested that, in redressing ethnic relations imbalances, timing is very important. In general, earlier is better, especially regarding dispensations to disadvantaged groups, since later action will face obstruction from politicians and vested interests. With early action, difficult things are made easier, while later action will make even easy things more difficult. Conversely, earlier action will generally be less efficient than later, but later action usually requires more effort and resources. Finally, devolution of authority, (e.g., federalism, regional autonomy, etc.,) has proven to be a good idea for conflict reduction in other cases. However, echoing Geza Domokos, Horowitz noted that it is often thought by politicians that such devolutions of central authority are the first step to secession and are therefore resisted.
Janina Radu, of the Polish ethnic group in Romania, cited the Polish proverb, "what little Johnny does not learn, the grown up Johnny will not know," to illustrate the need for an educational reform that emphasizes: l ) moral values, 2 ) acceptance of otherness, and 3) a new ethic of work well done. According to Radu, it is up to the educational system to integrate citizens into normal social life but at present, partially for economic reasons, the Romanian educational system is not meeting this need.
Referring specifically to the Hungarian case, Rogers Brubaker inquired whether the Hungarian state could be drawn upon for resources such as textbook and teacher issues.
Aleksandra Jasinska, adopting the world system view of Ken Jowitt and Horowitz, stressed that the entire region has been characterized by vertical relations with each state subordinated to the USSR and an almost total absence of horizontal relations with their East European neighbors. Now there is a danger of repeating this pattern, with the East European countries turning to the superpowers and competing with one another for economic help. To avoid this it was necessary to develop some form of horizontal relations. Jowitt seconded Jasinska, emphasizing that Eastern Europe is in danger of becoming a European ghetto with its outdated industries, highest levels of pollution in the world, massive unemployment, and orientation to Western consumption patterns without the resources to support them. Regional cooperation is therefore not a utopian ideal, but is a necessity because the United States will not replace the USSR as a regional power. Haim Reimer of the ethnic Jewish minority stressed that common action was imperative: "when your neighbor-s house burns you must worry because the flames may reach yours."
Academy President Mihai Draganescu thanked the participants, noting that certain aspects of the problem would be clarified with the new constitution and census and reaffirming Jowitt's point that ethnic identity should be relativized to allow for the construction of a civic identity. Allen Kassof thanked the Academy, explaining that this was a useful beginning to a long and complex process but that solutions would have to emanate from within Romania itself. Ken Jowitt considered it a good omen that Romanians initiated this discussion and undertook it in a sober manner. Moreover, it was valuable to have Romanians and other scholars from Eastern Europe discuss an issue that will directly affect the degree to which there is peace in Europe. In this respect, it was exceedingly important that Eastern Europeans speak to their fellow Eastern Europeans, not only to Western Europeans
June 17 & 18, 1991. Bucharest, Romania
US PARTICIPANTS
Rogers Brubaker, Harvard University
Istvan Deak, Columbia University
Donald Horowitz, Duke University School of Law
Kenneth Jowitt, University of California, Berkeley
Allen H. Kassof, IREX
Gail Klifipnan, University of California, Berkeley
Livia B. Plaks, IREX
Katherine Verdery, Johns Hopkins University
Larry Watts, Rapporteur, IREX Bucharest Office
EAST EUROPEAN OBSERVERS
Ivan Ilchev (Bulgaria), Sofia University
Aleksandra Jasinska (Poland), Warsaw University
Helena Klimova (Czechoslovakia), Psychotherapist - Prague
Attila Pok (Hungary), Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Vodislav Stanovcic (Yugoslavia), Belgrade University
PARTICIPANTS FROM THE ROMANIAN ACADEMY
Mihai Draganescu, President of the Romanian Academy
Nicolae Cajal, Vice-President of the Romanian Academy
Radu Grigorovici, Vice-President of the Romanian Academy
Ion Coteanu
Cornelia Bodea
Dinu Giurescu, University of Bucharest
Camil Muresan, University of Cluj-Napoca
Dan Berindei
Vladimir Trebici
Cornel Popa, University of Bucharest
Carmen Seuleanu
Dragos Seuleanu
OTHER ROMANIAN PARTICIPANTS
Gelcu Maxutovici, National Museum of History
Sergiu Belian, Editor of "Nor Ghiank"
Luca Farncisc Veliciov, Professor
Moses Rosen, Chief Rabbi of Romania
Lia Ciplea, Helsinki Committee
Haim Riemer, Editor in Chief of Cultural Mosaic Review
Kirile Feodor, University of Bucharest
Geza Domokos, President of the Kriterion Foundation
Zoltan Rostas, Editor of "A Het"
Paul Philippi, Institute of Theology
Hans Fink, Editor of "Neuer Weg"
Janina Radu, Editor in Chief of "POLONUS"
Vasile Burtea, Ministry of Labor and Social Aid
Nicolae Gheorghe, Institute of Sociology of the Romanian Academy
Mile Tomici, Institute of Linguistics
Mehmet Ali Ekrem, University of Bucharest
Ivan Covaci, Editor in Chief of "Vilne Slovo"
Andrej Stefanco
Gheorghi Vitanidis
ROMANIAN OBSERVERS
Gabriel Gafita, Department of Socio-Political Studies of Reform for the Romanian Government
Ovidiu Sincai, Department of Socio-Political Studies of Reform for the Romanian Government
Alexandru Radu, Department of Socio-Political Studies of Reform for the Romanian's Meltdown
Gheorghe Duculescu, Romanian Senate
Marius Guran, Counselor to the President of Romania
Iosif Bota, Counselor to the President of Romania