12.07.2015 Views

Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

“The California of the <strong>Romanian</strong>s”a stipulation of the Treaty of Berlin, which conditioned the recognition ofRomania’s independence on granting access to citizenship to non-Christianinhabitants, in 1879, Article 7 of the Constitution was revised as follows:“In Romania, the difference of religious belief <strong>and</strong> confession canprevent neither the accession to civil <strong>and</strong> political rights, nor the exerciseof these rights.” 23 But the acquisition of Dobrogea created an unprecedentedcategory of non-Christian citizens in Romania, by annexation.Although the emerging international law did not provide clear codes ofconduct in such a situation, the <strong>Romanian</strong> state was expected to assure therepresentation of the Dobrogeans in the political institutions of the country,protecting <strong>and</strong> providing them with favorable conditions for practicingtheir religion.The decisive political confrontation between “pro” <strong>and</strong> “anti-Dobrogea”politicians occurred during an extraordinary session of the <strong>Romanian</strong>Parliament convoked between 28-30 September 1878 in order to decideupon Romania’s official position with regard to the decision of the BerlinCongress. Mihail Kogãlniceanu <strong>and</strong> Ion C. Brãtianu used all their rhetoricalskills in order to convince the <strong>Romanian</strong> Parliament to accept the annexationof Dobrogea. In two memorable speeches, Kogãlniceanu highlightedthe economic <strong>and</strong> geo-political advantages posed by a l<strong>and</strong> with “animmense seacoast <strong>and</strong> three harbors,” <strong>and</strong> recommended that Romaniainvested in “exp<strong>and</strong>ing the harbors for developing the wealth of Dobrogea.”24 Most importantly, as a trained historian, 25 Kogãlniceanu crystallizedthe <strong>Romanian</strong> nationalist discourse about Dobrogea, by stressing Romania’shistorical rights to the province, by setting the nationalist priorities ofthe <strong>Romanian</strong> administration – ”the only works that we will do in Dobrogeawill be schools <strong>and</strong> roads” – <strong>and</strong> by downplaying the danger of Bulgarianresentment. 26 In sharp contrast to his early position on the issue, PrimeMinister Brãtianu associated himself with Kogãlniceanu’s pro-annexationcampaign. In an eloquent speech, Brãtianu underlined the geo-political <strong>and</strong>economic advantages offered by possession over Dobrogea, rejectedunequivocally Bulgaria’s historical rights to the province, <strong>and</strong> urged parliamentariansto overcome their fears <strong>and</strong> to trust Romania’s ability to assimilateDobrogea:You fear that we will not be able to <strong>Romanian</strong>ize a province that was previouslyin our possession? You want to reject a l<strong>and</strong> between the sea <strong>and</strong>the greatest river in Europe? But other nations would look at it as a hungryman looks at fresh caviar. Every people tends naturally to possess asmuch sea as it can, <strong>and</strong> you are refusing it? ... Do you want us today ... tosuffocate our breath, <strong>and</strong> to lose the sea <strong>and</strong> the mouth of the Danube? 27127

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!