E
ach of my returns to Romania, since the first, in those heady days of December 1989, has been radically different. I have stayed reasonably the same but my compatriots have not, and to the extent that they have changed, they have granted me a new identity each time.
That first time, two days after the Ceau
escus were murdered, I went back as a journalist but also as a pilgrim in search of my lost childhood. I'd left at nineteen, in 1965, and I'd come back a grown man. Upon leaving, my mother and I had been made to sign papers renouncing our Romanian citizenship. In 1989, an American, I interviewed scores of people bursting with euphoria, wallowing in rivers of unbound speech after years of silence, caution, and fear. Thanks to the powerful news organizations I was representing, I had access to all the transitional figures of the new powers, as well as to the dissidents basking in the limelight of victory. It didn't take long, a few days at most, to realize that many of the new figures were not so new, and that the victorious dissidents were as divided from each other and from reality as they had always been. Thus, new became “new,” and the revolution became “the revolution.”
In my birth city of Sibiu, in Transylvania, where buildings were still burning
as we made our way in, I met one of my old high-school friends, Ion V. He was an editor at
Tribuna,
the communist paper, which was then in the process of changing its name, like most institutions in Romania, hoping by this cosmetic maneuver to give an impression of real change. Ion fed me lavishly in his home, and then, at midnight, he drove me through the frozen streets of Sibiu, back to my hotel. On the way, we stopped in front of the building housing
Tribuna.
Ion asked me to wait in the car while he went in to get the next day's edition of the newspaper. I waited alone in his Dacia, hunched low in the front passenger seat, overwhelmed by a not-so-unreasonable fear. My colleagues were all in Bucharest, while the situation in the country was still far from settled. The Ceau
escus were dead but reports of fighting persisted. Authority in Sibiu was uncertain: the army was conducting arrests, looking for “terrorists,” and sporadic shooting was still heard. As I waited for Ion, a man went running as fast as he could past the car, pursued by two civilians with drawn guns. Ion took a very long time. When he returned at last, after more than an hour, he was drawn and tense. He'd had to wait, he said, for the printers to finish the paper. I had the impression, however, that he had been discussing me with his superiors. My paranoid sixth sense told me that I had come very close to being either killed or arrested, and that Ion had been arguing on my behalf. I have never felt more like an exile, an American and a Jew, in my life. Whatever the essence of the argument, I am certain that one side had argued for my extinction on the grounds that the enemy of the moment was the foreigner, in the form of returning émigrés, the CIA, the KGB, and the Western media. Ion, however, was far from sure that he'd “won,” and he advised me to be careful. In the following days, Securitate reorganized along nationalist lines, birthing such entities as “Vatra Romaneasca,” whose stated enemies were, you guessed it, Jews, émigrés, the Western media, foreigners. Ion was clearly a sympathizer, if not a founder, but I was his friend.
I returned in June of 1990, ostensibly for our twenty-fifth high-school “reunion,” an event that had quotation marks around it from the very beginning. A few days before, the so-called miners of the “new” Iliescu regime had beaten and killed students in University Square in Bucharest, where they had been protesting inside a self-declared “neo-communist free zone.” This event, known as the “mineriada,” lost Romania whatever capital of goodwill it had accrued during the December “revolution,” revealing to the world the true nature of this “revolution,” which had been nothing but a Securitate
coup d'état. After the flood of negative publicity, Romania was desperately in need of good press.
My reception, this time, was outlandishly generous. On hand to record our high-school gathering were news teams from NPR and ABC's
Nightline
. (This was, of course, a hook for a story on the situation in Romania, not my personal press corps.) Ion handled the details of the “reunion” like a patriotic event. Unfortunately, the “reunion” was able to draw only four of my former colleagues, and their overly cautious spouses. The rest of our classmates, I was told, had either left the country, were unavailable or sick, or had died. This is not inconceivable, because the black-hole decades of the seventies and the eighties had indeed decimated Romanians in that fashion. But of the four remaining colleagues, I recognized only two. I don't have the greatest memory and I didn't harbor much affection for my high-school days or my classmates.
I will not go as far as to say that the two unknown ones were clones or replicas, but this conclusion would not have been untenable. Our discussions were political, charged, and barely civil. They were all defenders of Iliescu's brutality against the students. I felt on the other side of a huge gap that resembled, to put it charitably, the gap between students and government in 1968 in America. I had been on the side of students then and I was on the side of students now. My own generation, in Romania, had turned into the establishment, while I'd stayed the course. But this is, as I've said, charitable, because there were darker aspects to the whole business. For our party at the Emperor of the Romans Hotel, my friends had hired a folk band. With all their holiday-dressed families present, the occasion began quite festively. Soon, however, the happy drinking songs turned into nationalist anthems. One by one, the Hungarians and Germans in the hotel restaurant got up and left in protest. But some other tables of Romanians joined in the singing. Once more, I was being exempted. I was, true enough, a Jew, a foreigner, a Western newsman, but I was forgiven. In the name of childhood, of youth, of poetry, of fame, and the national self-interest, I was temporarily granted citizenship.
The third time I returned, in the spring of 1996, was to scout locations for a movie based on my mother's life, and to receive the literature prize of the Romanian Cultural Foundation. With me was Ted Thomas, my cowriter and director. We had hoped to make this a low-key visit, but fate intervened once more to make the visit timely. The prize-giving ceremony was in itself
a political event, because the foundation prizes were all given to émigrés who had made names for themselves abroad. President Iliescu was conspicuously absent but former prime minister Petre Roman, now an opposition leader, was just as conspicuously present. Clearly, two competing political realities had begun to coexist. The strongly pro-Western faction led by Roman was making a stand against Iliescu's pro-Russian gorbachovists.
It appeared that I was doomed to return at historical moments. Of course, I'd missed numerous “historical” moments, but this one was, as it turns out, genuine, sans quotes. The most important election since 1989 was in progress. In the Bucharest apartment of my friends Denisa Comanescu and Nae Prelipceanu, I watched as their friend Victor Cioarba won the mayoralty of Bucharest against Iliescu's candidate, the tennis player Ilie Nastase. This was a referendum on Iliescu and it signaled the end of the crypto-communist status quo in Romania. Cioarba subsequently became prime minister in the Constantinescu cabinet, the first noncommunist, freely elected post-December Romanian government.
The day of the evening when we watched the returns on television, Ted and I had gone to polling places to watch the voting. The feeling in the country, even among that class of “average” people I had some contact with, mainly taxi drivers and voters at the polls, was one of cautious optimism. Romanians are effusive people, but even their greatest enthusiasms are tempered by an intrinsic knowledge of history, which has been rarely kind to them. The tension between the hopefulness necessary for going on and the organic knowledge of historical failure resolves itself in black humor and irony. Those qualities are the ingredients of survival, straws to cling to after the inevitable disappointments. Still, I felt a genuine belief that the new pro-Western leaders would alleviate the miserable economy with its insane inflationary spiral. The appropriate joke was that a man waits for his date in a coffee shop. She is late. When she appears, he says: “I've been waiting for you since coffee was two thousand lei.”
My friends in Sibiu were quite crestfallen after the elections. One of them, Titi Ancuta, had actually run for mayor of that city on the neo-communist ticket and had been soundly defeated. The election had also been a rejection of the nationalist ideology that animated Ion V. and his shadow friends. Without Iliescu, the nationalist side was lost. This time, my stay at the Emperor of the Romans was marked mainly by sincere questions from my friends about business opportunities. Titi wondered about the marketing of
a ski resort. My friends' depression about the waning nationalist cause had not lasted long because it'd been mainly political rhetoric, useful for holding on to the power they had accumulated during Ceau
escu's own brand of national-socialism. With renewed energy, Titi and the others were making a quick study of the rhetoric of business before throwing themselves wholeheartedly into the inevitable enterprise that now went by the name of “capitalism.” My friends were, happily for them, a little slower and more wary than some of the hard-core Ceau
escu “formers” who had been weathering the transition in Bucharest by stealing everything that wasn't nailed down and “investing” it in scores of new businesses, including nightclubs, restaurants, strip joints, car dealerships, and property abroad. I didn't quite know the dimensions of this at the time. This discovery was reserved for my fourth visit.