INTERVIEW

GIVEN BY SIE DIRECTOR GHEORGHE FULGA, Ph.D., TO THE "PREZENT" WEEKLY

ON 02 FEBRUARY 2006

Gheorghe Fulga: I intend not to repeat some mistakes that have been harshly judged by the journalists

What do you think made you remain in this position?
There is a legal framework that regulates the appointment of the Director of the SIE, and I am not exempted from laws. Naturally, besides these objective circumstances, there may also be subjective reasons that, at certain moments, could prevail in making a choice. However, I would like to think that the effectiveness of the Service is the one that recommends maintaining a leadership team.

Do you think that you have reformed the SIE during your tenure? What are you proud of and what do you blame yourself for?
The initiated reform should be regarded as part and parcel of a continuous process of adjusting to a range of challenges. The novelty is the particular attention we pay to people: we aim to create an elite corps. We continued to build a modern Service, able to deal with nowadays’ challenges not only in terms of structure and relations, but also as regards the personnel policy. As for the human resources, I would not use the term failures, but rather un-accomplishments. I would have wanted, inter alia, to perform the demilitarization sooner, a process that entails changes in mentality, a deeper involvement and another way of motivating the staff and the managers.

How do you explain that in the last few years you have tolerated maintaining some controversial people in key-positions and in the SIE staff?
We cannot speak about “tolerance” and “controversial people”. I myself could ask you what you mean when you say “controversial people”. Apart from the fact that I do not see things like this, I would like to assure you that any SIE employee who is in the position of ascending to an important level has, first and foremost, to undergo a validation process, and the reference criteria are extremely strict and, at the same time, compatible with the standards used in the Euro-Atlantic realm.

What were the role and the importance of the SIE in the hostage crisis and why could that crisis not be prevented, at least within the SIE’s scope of responsibility?
I would not want to highlight the role played by the SIE, but rather underscore the cooperation between several institutions. Each and every component of the intelligence community made an important contribution, on different, yet complementary, segments. Basically, the moment elements in our scope of responsibility emerged, the SIE contributed with intelligence information and personnel to the joint effort made to save the hostages. Although the readership expect sensational disclosures, I cannot give you other information.

To what extent did the DIE / CIE networks that used to operate in the Middle East, reactivated few months ago, prove to be useful? Which is the strategy of the SIE on this area in the future?
I can understand the concern of the public with the Middle East, one of the most active hotbeds in the world. But please believe me that providing details on what you were asking would endanger the lives of a spate of officers and destroy the work that some professionals carried out diligently and making efforts that maybe not many would. It would mean giving up the idea of being a secret service and some edges, which may impact our effectiveness.

Would you please brief us on some of the experiences that the SIE has had in cooperation with the Western secret services.
The Euro-Atlantic intelligence community, as well as other similar foreign services, recognizes us as an intelligence structure having a real potential in the anti-terror fight. However, when it comes to releasing some operations that have not been made public, there are certain limitations that I would ask you to understand in their real dimension and meanings.

In the last few years, the name of the SIE has been involved in the Treptow, Watts, Matser-Tender a.s.o. scandals. Was it or not the SIE’s duty to report about the abuses, the influence peddling by some foreigners that came via foreign intelligence circles?
The activity of the SIE is not overt and, for this reason, there is the impression that we did not do anything of what we should have. Rest assured that, every time the Service collected intelligence that had to be known, it conveyed all the data to the relevant authorities.

In 2004, a team of SIE intelligence officers was disclosed during an operation aimed to monitor the controversial businessman Nicu Gheară. How does the SIE explain the incident?
Various failures, including of the like you have mentioned, can appear in the activity of any intelligence service. Everybody is faced with such deficiencies that are used to learn from.

You were accused that, alongside the Director of the SRI, Radu Timofte, you were allegedly one of Sorin Ovidiu Vântu’s cronies…
As you are well aware, on February 27, 2002, the Joint Special Commission on the Oversight of the Activity of the SIE in the Chamber of Deputies and Senate, made an inquiry into the various accusations against myself released in certain mass-media environments. Their conclusion was clear-cut: “the allegations are ungrounded”. However, those allegations reappear regularly in mass-media.

Upon the end of your tenure, what do you intend: come back to politics, resume your business, or, if asked, agree with a position in diplomacy?

Back