Anywhere in the world espionage agencies are veiled in a shroud of mystery that the services themselves skilfully keep weaving. The Director of Romania’s Foreign Intelligence Service, Mr. Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu, has agreed to lift part of this veil in an interview to România Liberă on the occasion of the Service’s 20^th anniversary.

Ungureanu believes that the SIE has nothing to do with the former Foreign Intelligence Division of the communist Securitate. The SIE has been entirely deconstructed and reconstructed which would put it on a firm moral ground, its Director states. That is why Ungureanu does not believe that the SIE has the duty to distance itself from the legacy of the old Securitate. As to the corruption cases that several ex-officers of the Romanian espionage were suspected of, the SIE Director argues that these fall under the competence of the Prosecutor’s Office.

The head of the espionage service admits that such an institution “implies crime” by its very nature. Nevertheless, the SIE is an “area of normality”, a role model for other state institutions and one of the best espionage agencies within NATO, a fact fully confirmed by its partner services in the Alliance. Even though Mr. Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu is chary of the secrets that surround him, he admits that the SIE has had its failures as well as heroes that have remained anonymous.

România Liberă: Today, February 8, the Foreign Intelligence Service celebrates 20 years of existence. How has the SIE changed over these 20 years?

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: First of all, an entire institution with its own structure, its people, and its own action philosophy has changed. Moral landmarks have changed; I am saying this to confirm that an organization that is so special because of what it is doing, its competences, actions and risks taken, now rests on a good moral ground that democracy justifies and strengthens. Over these 20 years with problems, with fully or partially fulfilled expectations, with both successful and failed projects, the SIE has managed to come of age, but an age of energy, not of boredom and fatigue.

România Liberă: Because you have mentioned the “good moral ground” that the SIE rests upon, I think that there are several moral ambiguities that surround your institution. One would be the legacy of the Foreign Intelligence Division (DIE) of the former Securitate. The SIE has never firmly distanced itself from the legacy of the former Securitate, especially considering that the activity of the DIE was used to justify repression in the country.

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: These are things that should be placed within a clearly cut frame of the definition of what moral expectation from an institution such as the SIE is. First of all, the post-1989 Foreign Intelligence Service does not place itself as the moral successor of the Securitate. Had it done so, Romania would not have been a democratic state. Secondly, the change in mentality that the SIE has undergone, the fact that today’s Service is made from an overwhelming majority of young people that do not lay claim to the legacy of pre-1989 Romania is a stern guarantee. Mutatis mutandis, the question that I could ask you would be: ‘How much of today’s România Liberă means the pre-1989 România Liberă? Has it distanced itself from the daily financed from abroad in 1945 and that joined Scânteia in becoming the loudspeaker of the communist structures?’ I repeat, mutatis mutandis…

I do not want us to misunderstand the ethics of the totalitarian state that translates into abusive gestures against its own citizens, which are then carried on by repressive bodies like Securitate, for the ethics of the democratic state which places fundamental human rights above all measures, decisions, and options. Since we are talking about history anyway - and I again point out that the SIE does not hail either morally or ethically from the former Securitate, it does not come as a descendant of what the pre-1989 Securitate meant - the fact that the SIE has impartially yielded its archives over to the CNSAS the moment the relevant political decision was made says all that it is to say about what the SIE means today. The SIE has no longer anything to hide from its past. However, what we really should do is authentic historical research. In-depth historical research implies professional skill to access the archives to look for dossiers, to follow the trail of evidence that speaks about the intricate history of the Securitate. I think that a lot of citizens are just like you, equally interested in learning what pre-1989 Romania meant. But this is the historians’ duty.

România Liberă: România Liberă was not a body of the repression; the anti-totalitarian stance was chosen before December 22 and firmly carried on afterwards. Moreover, we had a certain purge…

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Well, this was everywhere…

România Liberă: I do not know whether the SIE has undergone a similar purge; maybe not right after 1989, if we have in mind the first director, the controversial Mr. Caraman or general Pleşiţă who quietly passed away in a clinic of a Romanian intelligence Service.

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: The name Pleşiţă does not belong in any way to the SIE’s recent history or to its moral descent. We often tend to judge things too much in causality. Imagine that there are also institutional projects which start staggering but nevertheless come to a point – in 20 year’s time – when they can justify themselves and prove that areas of normality can exist in Romania too, the country where sometimes we accuse other institutions of disorder or inconsistency.

România Liberă: So is the espionage service an area of normality?

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Oh, yes, and I am glad that this is so. I would be even happier if the managerial experience of the SIE which was dismantled several years ago and reconstructed when it could no longer work with obsolete formulas, so I would be glad if this successful managerial experience were replicated in as many national security institutions as possible.

România Liberă: Referring to the DIE legacy, light has never been shed on the fate of the funds that the DIE managed via the Romanian Foreign Trade Bank, the ICE Dunărea or other companies such as Crescent and which were said to had been the foundation of fabulous wealth after 1989.

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Should have the SIE, an institution established in 1990, shed light on this? I would not think so. An investigative effort of a journalist could do that or, justice-wise, the relevant bodies.

România Liberă: OK, but we are talking about property, buildings, land, bases that belonged to the DIE and were later on “put to good use” by former officers, aren’t we?

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: After all, the SIE is a small-sized institution that has not developed the bureaucratic reflex of other institutions, which expands in times of peace. Furthermore, because it is a small-sized institution, maybe the smallest among other institutions of its kind, has favoured quality, not quantity. Moreover, imagine that our raison d’être, the raison d’être of our colleagues in the SIE lies outside, not inside the country. I would be happy if the SIE had properties abroad.

România Liberă: Another moral ambiguity of the SIE is the fact that it is in its nature of espionage service to cultivate and capitalize on the weaknesses of others, even to corrupt them.

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: An espionage service implies crime. The espionage we conduct is a crime anywhere outside Romania.

România Liberă: The problem emerges in cases when former officers have transferred this know-how into private business. I refer to people that use the inside information they had access to for personal material gain.

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Whoever works within the SIE obeys the discipline regulations that normally come with the territory of such a job. The former employees, so those who retired or had some kind of connection with a special service in general, are free men and women. They answer for their own deeds and the relevant bodies alone and not the SIE can rule in such cases.

România Liberă: The problem is when they put the know-how and information they collected for the good of the country to private use. Let us consider a hypothetical situation. The salary in the SIE is not exorbitant, is it?  

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Let us say it is a university-level salary.

România Liberă: So if I am a young officer and I see that an older one profits by his or her activity in the SIE while I am risking my life for a university-level salary, what keeps me then from doing the same? Does not the problem become thus institutional?

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: No, it does not. This problem does not exist within the institution. People understand that they must be patriots morally, not just rhetorically. What could seem to be some vulnerability for a free person under certain circumstances is not necessarily vulnerability in a system that is extremely cautious about the behaviour of its employees. After all, this is a question that has to do with the ethical meaning of the abstract notion that patriotism is.

România Liberă: How do you evaluate the patriotism of an employee?

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: First of all by the quality of his or her work. And I believe this is a good measure of patriotism anywhere in society. When you do your job well it means that you are a patriot. When a SIE employee honourably discharges his or her professional duties according to orders or competences it means that he or she is a patriot. Patriotism is not measured in rhetoric, big words or emphatic gestures, but rather in what the worker does every day. Moreover, the reward that the intelligence officers expect, especially in this case, is of a far different nature. Because we should not forget that they never enjoy public recognition. They do not exist! Nobody ever takes the hat off to them. They have another identity, another public face, and another social life.

România Liberă: There are famous cases of people whose patriotism had a price they were willing to cash in.

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Indeed, espionage capitalizes on this vulnerability.

România Liberă: Were there vulnerable people in the SIE?

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: They are everywhere. We cannot imagine a perfect organization after all, but a system such as ours has its own antibodies; it quickly and totally eliminates such cases without any effects. Of course they can appear everywhere. The difference is that if a person engaged in particular activities is vulnerable, then that person is far more dangerous, can pose far more risks to state security than the employee of a standard working institution.

România Liberă: We had, last summer, the case of the Romanian consul to Chisinau who was compromised by a video recording. This failure was blamed on the SIE.

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: There are a lot of things that are hastily blamed on the SIE. We often come across legends created by ignorance or lack of knowledge – ignorance being self-assumed lack of knowledge – about the SIE’s presence abroad. I am myself many times surprised to find out that a lot of personal mistakes are supposed to have been caused by the institution or to be representative of the institution without any serious logic or evidence. This is false. This is completely false. The SIE accounts only for 2% of Romania’s total external representation.

România Liberă: What do you mean 2%? So you are actually saying that it’s not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that is an annex to the SIE, but the other way around?

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Both are institutions that have different competences, different activities, different strategic limits of action, but they actually join forces in meeting national interest as it is defined by the National Defence Supreme Council or by any other relevant body.

România Liberă: What is the difference for you who have led both diplomacy and foreign intelligence?

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: The diplomat has a clearly outlined power to represent Romania openly, publicly, which means in gesture, word and action. The diplomat does not do anything illegal. On the contrary, the diplomat is required to serve national interest through an activity which is acknowledged, accepted, transparent, and always in the open. The spy does not do anything in compliance with the laws of other states. He collects intelligence by speculating on situations or characters. He collects information which the diplomat has no access to because it is confidential, restricted and highly important. The spy does not negotiate. The diplomats can be asked to negotiate. The spy does not sign bilateral treaties or multilateral agreements. Nevertheless, he comes with an input of information that helps the decision-maker to better shape the country’s foreign relations.

România Liberă: And does it happen?

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: I hope so. Because the raison d’être of the SIE is not to conduct criminal investigation. The SIE’s raison d’être is to bring information. It is the political decision-maker who has the responsibility to use it accordingly, placing it in the best context for fulfilling the national interest. When, how and how much he uses the suggestions that any piece of information implies rests entirely with the political decision-maker. Sometimes it happens, other times it does not. Nevertheless, the politician gains in terms of foundation, value, and stature when he or she pays due attention to these elements.

România Liberă: You have been criticised because you have not participated in identifying and even capturing internationally wanted people.

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: I doubt that such criticism exists considering that the horizontal cooperation with other institutions from the national defence system is formally regulated and is functional. The truth is that due to the peculiarity of the SIE’s activity, its operational and strategic information input does not bear the signature of the SIE. The SIE’s information input in successfully solving many cases, which the relevant institutions assigned by law have taken credit for, was overwhelming in substance and effect.

The SIE has certain obligations that clearly result from the laws in force. It is not a criminal investigation unit. Secondly, 20 years have passed since 1989; it should be clear to us all what exactly we expect from our intelligence bodies. Should they be descendants of the Securitate, keeping an eye on the citizens, breaching competences and legal provisions? I believe not! So what the law states is what should happen. Abiding by the law is the fundamental guarantee of a functional democracy, of the best functioning of such a service within the democratic architecture of our country. So let us not ask for something else than the law stipulates.

România Liberă: Talking about abiding by the law, you are familiar with the statements about unlawful phone tapping that have cost your predecessor his position.

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Intercepting telephone conversations and anything that has to do with this method of collecting information cannot be otherwise but according to law, and the law is very strict on this issue.

When something like this happens, precisely because phone tapping involves other state institutions as well, from the prosecutor to the relevant court, there is no chance of abuse. That is why we are working so closely with the members of the parliamentary oversight committee: by providing transparent information and answers to all these questions we know very well that the truth can be subsequently upheld by others. There are no unlawful interceptions of phone calls by the Foreign Intelligence Service. Outside the country, however, the situation may change. Because if a phone tapping - inevitably illegal - can help collect a piece of intelligence information, then rest assured that the Service has the duty to perform it, should the mission require it.

România Liberă: Over the years intelligence services, the SIE included, have been accused of political involvement.

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: We cannot speak of a political involvement of the SIE. I can see anywhere in the system an absolute reluctance to anything that could supposedly fuel suspicions of political involvement. The Service’s self-defence reflex does not allow it.

România Liberă: Yes, but there are information which can be used for political purposes.

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: This is strictly the task of the political decision-makers. What happens with the intelligence information, the way it is taken in and integrated into the decision rests with the political decision-maker who, in his turn, must abide by the law. After all, once you consciously trespass the law, nothing can protect you any longer. There is no such thing as a perfect crime. Anyone who breaches the law is caught sooner or later. And then, apart from the legal implications, the public opprobrium can be devastating for a political decision-maker.

România Liberă: Do you cooperate with similar services from allied countries?

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Yes, we do, and this is one of the best ways to see the level of performance that Romanian espionage has reached. Today’s espionage service is rated - according to benchmarks outside Romania - as one of the most successful in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The measure of professional success comes from abroad and the way the service is regarded nowadays, in its partnerships with other strong services or in concrete cooperation with a lot of foreign services worldwide – more than 100 – proves that the SIE has long gone beyond hesitation or professional inconclusiveness. Way long!

On the other hand, I would not like us to take on that urban myth according to which an espionage service conducts foreign policy in its turn. In delicate cases, the espionage service can establish, let us say, special communication channels between political decision-makers. The Services sharpen or flatten the tone wherever necessary, but their work is but one of the premises for the political decision-makers’ reasoning.

România Liberă: How can you comment on the stationing of the American anti-missile defence shield in Romania?

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: I could answer you in my capacity of former minister of foreign affairs. The decision is relevant from at least two viewpoints: the deep, tangible strategically relevant content of the relationship between Romania and the United States of America; the strategic partnership has a very powerful security component. Secondly, it points out that Romania is really counting on the geopolitical side of defending the interests of NATO member states. It is a commendable success, prepared by previous actions of building and subsequently developing the Romanian-American strategic partnership, ranging from the presence of the US military in Romanian bases and going as far as hosting the anti-missile defence system. Let us remember the talks during the NATO Summit in Bucharest about the way in which NATO can provide the anti-missile protection for all its member states. Geographic and logistical reasons have made the result of the debate unsatisfactory for us. The decision of the National Defence Supreme Council adds to the security and is a powerful answer to existing threats.

România Liberă: Are there any threats that can come from Moscow?

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: Threats can come from anywhere. The current dangers are typologically different from the dangers that were threatening Europe back in 1939 when war was waged on traditional formulas. Today the risks that can lead to the dissolution of the democratic essence of a state structure can be posed by transnational organized crime. There are more than a few cases when politics is intertwined with organized crime to such a degree that it is impossible to tell who takes the decision.

We are in a somehow complicated situation partially due to Romania’s geostrategic position. We often forget that we are the eastern border of NATO and the European Union. Drawing an almost physically comparison we can say that all the waves of evil that come from the East – transnational organized crime, for instance – break over the walls of such countries as Poland or Romania. The very security of the country depends on the ability to contain Evil before it reaches your borders, since then the country can timely take the necessary measures. In this matter of prediction we can assess the activity of the Service.

România Liberă: Is the Romanian espionage service present in theatres of operation where Romania has personnel deployed?

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: The Foreign Intelligence Service brings intelligence information – using both partnerships and its own operations – on everything that can help prevent risks against Romanian citizens. They serve under the colours of our country, in uniform or with a civilian mandate. It is perfectly normal for us to do anything in our power to bring the personal, not to mention operational risks as low as possible. So we operate in these areas as well.

România Liberă: As we all know, the CIA Headquarters in Langley has a Memorial Wall displaying little stars that symbolically represent the agents that were killed in action. Did the Foreign Intelligence Service have losses?

Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu: There is no such thing as a risk-free espionage operation; they all involve risks, even physical ones. Such situations are always considered and I am not disclosing any secret if I tell you that we have had our heroes.