The policy of indifference espoused by the imperialistic Western European governments toward the imperialistic Russia's and later, the Soviet Union's action toward Central and Eastern European "buffer zone" is well documented. The constant result has been international instability, and the sparkle of World Wars I and II in our century. Now, with the emergence of new geopolitical, social and economical conditions after late 1980s events, the Western democratic countries must show determination and resolve toward neocommunist behavior of the present governments and parliaments of the countries chosen or trying to join NATO and EU organizations. The international recognition of the private property rights of individuals against oppressive governments must set the tone for future diplomatic, military and economic relationships.

In my opinion, one of the most important tests that any Central and Eastern European Government, selected or not selected to join NATO, must pass with success is to initiate and enforce legislation on the integral restitution of private properties stolen during the communist dictatorship. The new so called "democratic governments" of these countries think that it is possible to join NATO, and to enjoy American taxpayer support, only with propaganda about the way in which they will act in the future under the NATO umbrella. They are still preserving the state property that was established under communists after WW II by stolen private properties (lands, forests, houses, apartments, etc.) from their citizens, minorities and foreigners. The private owners were abused, deported, imprisoned, killed, or forced to leave those countries. One of the questions that should be asked by the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the Central and Eastern European countries eligible to join NATO is about the integral restitution of the private property toward their own citizens, American citizens and permanent residents living in the United States.

According to the international statistics, published in the UK by CAB Intl. ( A. J. Grayson, 1993 " Private forestry policy in Western Europe"), before WW II privately owned forests represented : 64.3 percent (2.96 million hectares) in Czechoslovakia; 72.9 percent (0.86 million ha) in Hungary; 63.9 percent (5.34million ha) in pre-Poland (1936); 46.3 percent (3.3million ha) in Romania, and 18.2 percent (0.542 million ha) in Bulgaria. A total of about 13 million hectares (or 32 million acres) of forests were stolen from the private owners and used by the communist regimes in these countries for 50 years. In 1990, private forests in Poland represented only 17.5%. In 1992, the Czech Republic Government and other public organizations owned 96 percent of forests, the agricultural cooperatives 4 percent, and private properties only 0.05%. In Hungary and Romania the statistics about private and state owned forests are still unclear, but the integral restitution of private forests to the former owners was not resolved. After the 1989 events, the governmental owned companies and the new class of corrupted individuals, some of them hidden probably under some kind of "immunity", are still exploiting the forests of previous private owners in all of these countries. Only the Bulgarian Parliament passed a low, in November 1997, returning all property confiscated during the communist regime. In the case of Romania, the forests had been historically owned, until 1948, by the free people of the mountains ("mosneni" in the Old Kingdom, or "razesi" in Moldova) having property titles, recognized by the Romanian Kings for centuries. These free people provided the men power and all military supplies to defend Romania for 2000 years against imperialistic powers (Huns, Mongols, Turks, Russians, Germans), and preserved the entity of the Romanian nation. They represented the core of the conservatory people, who were the main opponents of the communists trained in the Soviet Union. The international and Romanian communists came, on the Soviet tanks in 1944, and stolen the private properties. People trained in Moscow, or their sons, are still among the leaders of Romania and maybe of other former communist countries. They are hidden by the names of the Democratic parties established after 1989, but in fact they prolong the suffering of their own citizens (millions of former private owners) by not restoring the integral ownership to their individual property. If we consider a minimal value of $1000/hectare of forest, at an area of 3.3 million ha of private forests, a total of $3.3 billion of real estate is still under the state rule in Romania. And the calculus can be easily made for the other former communist countries. These governments are inviting foreign investors to buy or to exploit the property of individuals still living in their own countries, in the United States, or in other countries.

These are the facts that actual Governments, which have been selected or aspire to be selected to join NATO, do not want to discuss or to make public when they come to Congress to ask for support. Is this the moral spirit that must be introduced in the NATO countries in order to defend the Western democratic type of civilization ?

I am confident that the Senate will defend the rights of the free men living in the United States or of people living in former communist countries to regain their private property stolen by the communists. I do strongly believe that before any taxpayer money will be spend to the NATO enlargement, the governments selected or aspiring to join NATO must prove before Congress and the public that every private property of their own citizens, or of the people living in the US and elsewhere, was fully returned to the legal owners. The moral leadership must be the governing factor deciding the fast track of NATO enlargement that will provide the so much deserved freedom for the oppressed Central and Eastern European peoples.

IOAN C. PALTINEANU
(The writer is former state secretary (1991-1992) of the Land Reclamation Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Romania)

The article was published in the Washington Times, under Commentary, FORUM, section B, page B5, on Sunday, March 1, 1998. The approval to be " reprinted from the Washington Times " was given by Mr. Preston E. Innerst, Sr. Deputy Managing Editor, on March 5, 1998.