Donations
Veridica.md
For over a hundred years, Romanians have tested various approaches in an attempt to settle the dispute regarding the treasure in Moscow*. Their efforts produced no results. The restitutions of 1935 (the archives) and 1956 (the artistic heritage items) were ascribed to Moscow's “benevolence” and “magnanimity”, not Bucharest's requests, politicians said at the time. Romanian authorities tried to give the dispute an international context on several occasions, succeeding only once, at the Genoa Conference of 1922, to little effect. The resolution of the European Parliament of March 14, 2024 is the second international document adopted since 1917 that compels Russia to return the appropriated treasure to Romania.
So, when will you give us back our treasure? The Russians treat the matter as a joke
"So, when will you give us back our treasure?", I teased my Russian interlocutor. “When you will be ready!”, his answer followed in jest. Our conversation had highlighted all the nostalgia, the adversity, the ups and downs shared by our two peoples, before reaching this stalemate: a 100-year-old dispute, with no compromise in sight. “это шутка” - it's just a joke, he concluded, patting me on the shoulder and spreading out his arms as wide as all of Russia.
You should try telling the history of the Romanian treasure to a down-to-earth Russian, without getting all riled up. That discussion is bound to leave you at wit’s end, as you move from the simple story of an outstanding debt, passed down from generation to generation, to Bessarabia, the war on the Eastern Front, the installation of communism in Romania or the Deveselu anti-ballistic shield.
To us, the truth of the matter is simple: we entrusted all our wealth to the Russians for safekeeping, along with all the proper documentation. And we have been trying to reclaim it for the last 100 years.
To them, however, the problem is just as simple: if you keep digging up the past, they'll say, you might learn that, in fact, you owe us for all the assets abandoned in Romania during the First World War, for the destruction caused by the Romanian army in the Soviet Union during the Second World War, for the failure to pay war reparations, for the occupation of Bessarabia and so and so forth. Even for the intervention of the Romanian army in Hungary in 1919, fighting Hungarian Bolsheviks.
So where do we go from here? The Soviets, then the Russians, suggested the establishment of a commission of specialists to tackle this problem. Apart from the bilateral treaty signed in 2003, the two countries also signed a Joint Declaration of the Foreign Ministers, whereby a commission of historians was established to shed light on this winding litigation spanning a century.
But why would there be a need for a commission of historians if Romanians have protocols in place as legally binding as an intergovernmental treaty, in addition to minutes and receipts? How is examining the historical past any relevant when the issue at hand is so trivial, both legally and ethically? Is Romania’s national treasure a historical, political, ethical question? Does it fall within the remit of international law? Should it be settled at political level or in an international court of law?
The Romanian side has exhausted (nearly) all the options, with nothing to show for it.
Gold – just part of the treasure appropriated by the Russians. The oldest litigation in Romania, an unprecedented case at global level
Most Romanians associate the treasure with the gold reserves of the National Bank of Romania (over 90 tons). And yet, gold itself accounts for less than a tenth of the value of the assets evacuated to Russia in 1916 and 1917. Back then, Romania shipped out the treasures of the National Bank and the House of Deposits and Consignments, the assets of private banks and public institutions, the crown jewels, the most valuable art objects from museums and private collections, monastery valuables, numismatic collections, state archives, diplomatic archives, manuscripts, rare books – in a nutshell, everything that built into the heritage and identity of the Romanian nation going as far back as the 14th century.
In 1935 and 1956, contrary to all expectations, a part of this treasure was returned, generating sumptuous speeches in Bucharest about Moscow's “magnanimity” and “goodwill”. Not a word, however, about Romania's legitimate right to reclaim what was rightfully hers.
For the Romanian side, solving the treasure dispute would help improve the bilateral relationship. For the Russian side, improving bilateral relations would help solve the treasure dispute. Hence this gridlock with no way of moving forward.
Russian officials believe that bilateral relations are frozen at a “zero point”. Moscow thinks that solving the treasure issue will do little to help settle the other disagreements between the two countries, which makes a gesture of goodwill pointless. Moreover, for the Kremlin, the treasure is but a small part of a “bundle of problems” – pull one string and all the other disputes, misunderstandings and litigations will unravel.
As for the gold of the National Bank itself, although the Bank's documents are indisputable, the Russian side claims that it could not find the Russian version of the documents in the archives, that the gold had been stolen by the White Guards, or that it had been used to bankroll communist movements, including the one in Romania. Embarking on the path of making conflicting claims, the Russians say, would lead to the conclusion that Romania is in fact indebted to Russia.
There is no other similar dispute in the world. Litigations regarding spoils of war cannot be invoked here, because the gold, the art objects and the archives were not seized by force, but were willingly handed over to the Russian government, with proper documents, for safeguarding. The gold deposit established at the Imperial State Bank must be returned like any other bank deposit set up with the consent of both parties and guaranteed by the state. Although the Romanian National Bank file, handed down from one governor to the next since 1922, would have been admitted in any international court of law as an indisputable and definitive document, for the last 100 years the Russians have preferred to talk less about Romanian gold, and more about the history of Romanian gold.
This is the oldest litigation in Romania. In the 100 years that have passed, Romania has been through two world wars, revolutions, coups, waves of famine and deportations. The world too has undergone huge transformations, but the unresolved treasure dispute has remained the underlying element impacting the dynamic of Romanian-Russian bilateral relations. Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Medvedev and Putin were all aware of the Romanian treasure query. Neither of them wanted to definitively put an end to this litigation. In addition to Bessarabia, the unreturned treasure is the bitter foundation on which discord between Romanians and Russians built up in the last 100 years. “Only dead fish swim in a pond of lies”, a Russian proverb suggestively states.
Political negotiations and missed opportunities, from the League of Nations to the Council of Europe
The Romanians launched bilateral negotiations with the Bolsheviks for the recovery of the treasure shortly after the end of the First World War. In 1920, Romania was offered the treasure and recognition of the Union with Bessarabia, in exchange for peace. In 1921, Romania was asked to declare its neutrality and renounce the treasure, in exchange for Bessarabia. However, Romania strongly refused to ever question the legality or the definitive character of the union of Bessarabia with Romania.
The first time this dispute was debated in an international context was at the Genoa Conference of 1922. The Romanian delegation presented a memorandum regarding the treasure transferred to Moscow, which stated the following:
The deposit made by Romania in Moscow, known as the “Treasure of Romania in Moscow”, consists of:
- the total gold cache (in coins) of the National Bank of Romania (private bank with state capital);
- the jewels of the Queen of Romania;
- deposits of the House of Deposits and Consignments belonging to individuals and consisting of shares, bonds, jewelry, documents, wills, paintings;
- assets and archives belonging to financial institutions and private bankers (the archives of the Rural Land Credit, including ownership documents of a very large number of major landowners);
- documents, rare books, archives and paintings belonging to the Romanian Academy and other art galleries, etc.
We believe this treasure is no longer in its original state and has been evacuated or dispersed.
The report stated that the treasure, totaling over 7.5 billion lei in gold, is private and that Russia had provided guarantees regarding its preservation, security and restitution to Romania.
The conference adopted a Memorandum which, under Article 13, stipulated that “the Russian government must return to the Romanian government the assets deposited in Moscow by the said Romanian government”.
On May 11, 1922, the Russian government issued the following statement: “Another political issue, artificially introduced in the Memorandum, is that under Article 13. Since it is part of an entire set of political, territorial and other issues currently disputed by Russia and Romania, it cannot be examined separately”.
On September 15, 1934, thanks to the efforts of Nicolae Titulescu, the Soviet Union was admitted to the League of Nations. In its newfound capacity, the USSR pledged to observe the territorial integrity of all member states of the League, thus including Romania, which was a founding member. Titulescu did not consider the time was right to give an international scope to the treasure dispute, this time in League of Nations. Everyone knew where the Soviets stood on this matter, as had been clearly expressed by the Russian Foreign Minister, Maxim Litvinov: “For the Soviets, it is a matter of principle to refuse binding international arbitration, according to the Soviet doctrine”. A doctrine that remains in effect to this day.
Romania then missed other opportunities: prior to 1992, when Russia was negotiating its accession to the IMF, Romania missed “a good opportunity to open up debates on the national treasure” through an “unfortunate political decision”, says former Foreign Minister, Cristian Diaconescu.
In 1995, in the context of Russia's application to become a full member of the Council of Europe, Adrian Severin, a member of the Romanian delegation, submitted a motion showing that the treasure had been “unlawfully appropriated” and only “a small part” had been returned, despite “repeated requests from the Romanian government”. The document drew “special attention to the return of the treasure”, and under paragraph 4, it recommended “the Committee of Ministers take appropriate measures to determine the Russian government to return the treasure to Romania, as evidence of the genuine process of democratization in the Russian Federation and as a contribution to the effort of discarding tensions that still exist between European states”.
In Opinion 193 of January 25, 1996, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) issued a recommendation to the Committee of Ministers to invite the Russian Federation to become a member of the Council of Europe, Russia being expected to fulfill a number of obligations, including the following:
Art. 10.12: to negotiate claims for the return of cultural property to other European countries on an ad hoc basis that differentiates between types of property (archives, works of art, buildings, etc.) and of ownership (public, private or institutional);
Art. 10.14: to settle rapidly all issues related to the return of property claimed by Council of Europe member states, in particular the archives transferred to Moscow in 1945;
Failure to honor these commitments and the refusal to cooperate with a view to implementing the PACE recommendations could have determined the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to withdraw any country’s membership, as per the provisions of Article 8 in the Statute of the Council of Europe.
It is unclear how the Russian-Romanian talks unfolded ahead of Russia's accession to the Council of Europe. It seems that the parties had agreed on a “reasonable solution” following talks between Ioan Talpeș, the head of the Romanian Foreign Intelligence Service, and Russian officials. In February 1998, Russia became a full member of the Council of Europe, committed to observing the obligations stipulated in Opinion 193 (1996) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
New attempt at internationalization: 2012, the Council of Europe
The monitoring report on Russia's fulfillment of the commitments assumed at the time of joining the Council of Europe was one of the most important topics of the PACE session of October 1–5, 2012. As a rule, this type of report is drawn up every two years. In the case of Russia, however, the latest monitoring report had been drawn up seven years before. The atmosphere created around the Report showed no signs of being calm for the Russians. The President of the State Duma, Sergey Naryshkin, actually cancelled his participation in the plenary session.
On October 1, 2012, 24 amendments were submitted, of which 5 on the topic of the Romanian Treasury. Amendments 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were initiated by Romanian parliamentarian Viorel Badea (EPP) and signed by Valeriu Ghilețchi (Republic of Moldova, EPP), Ana Guțu (Republic of Moldova, A.L.D.E.), Ferenc Kalmár (Hungary, EPP), Stella Kyriakides (Cyprus, EPP), Liliana Palihovici (Republic of Moldova, EPP), Tudor Pantîru (Romania, PES), Cezar Preda (Romania, EPP), Egidijus Vareikis (Lithuania, EPP). In order to have a better chance of success, Badea submitted a specific amendment regarding the Treasury (10) and more general ones, referring to the Treasury issue.
Amendment 8 provided for the insertion of the following paragraph:
"However, the Russian Federation has so far not fulfilled all the obligations and commitments required by the PACE under Opinion 193 (1996), in particular those regarding the return of all properties and goods requested by the member states of the Council of Europe, as well as the cultural and religious goods mentioned in paragraph 10., 10.xii, 10.xiii and xiv of Said opinion."
The document also reads that:
"The amendment stresses that not all commitments contained in Opinion 193 (1996) are fulfilled and some of them, due to sensitivity, require increased attention from the Assembly, until full implementation. In 1996 all these commitments were accepted by the Russian delegation".
The amendment was rejected, with 16 votes in favor, 148 against and 5 abstentions.
Amendment 10 provided for the insertion of the following paragraph:
"The return of the Romanian Treasury, temporarily evacuated to Moscow during the First World War, based on a bilateral agreement between the Romanian and Russian authorities, when the two states were allies, by which the Russian government guaranteed the safety of transport, storage and return to Romania of that Treasury. The return could start with the gold reserve of the National Bank of Romania, consisting of 91.5 tons in coins and bullions, for which Romania once again transmitted to the Russian Federation, in 2004, precise inventories and documentation."
The document also reads that:
"Bilateral negotiations over the Romanian Treasury, deposited in Moscow, have been blocked by the Russian side for the last 6 years. Consequently, we consider it necessary to draw attention to this issue, the solution of which could unlock the dialogue and resolve an almost 100-year-old dispute".
The amendment was rejected with 23 votes in favor, 161 against and 4 abstentions.
Amendment 11 provided for the insertion of the following paragraph:
"and will return as quickly as possible all cultural values and goods claimed by other member states of the Council of Europe."
The document also reads that:
"This aims to introduce among the future priorities the issue of resolving the claims of other states regarding the return of cultural values and goods to their rightful owners, given that the process is facing major difficulties".
The Amendment was rejected with 20 votes in favor, 170 against and 8 abstentions.
The resolution was voted without the above amendments with 161 votes in favor (including all parliamentarians from Romania and the Republic of Moldova - except Gr. Petrenco), 41 against (including all Russian parliamentarians) and 7 abstentions.
The resolution proposes the continuation of the monitoring of the Russian Federation until there is "tangible evidence of the substantial progress made by the Russian authorities, in full accordance with the commitments assumed by the Russian Federation under Opinion no. 193/1996 regarding Russia's request to join the Council of Europe, as well as through the relevant resolutions, recommendations and reports adopted over time on this subject".
Russia’s reaction was immediate, via the spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, A.K. Lukashevich:
"It is not the first time that the Romanian Parliament tries to internationalize the topic of the Romanian Treasury, which lost its relevance a long time ago."
"Regarding the subject of Romanian gold, there is no such issue on the current agenda of the political dialogue with Bucharest. This must be left to the historians, along with the other complex topics arising from the history of bilateral relations."
"We believe that trying to dig up the past under the current circumstances is counterproductive and can only arouse unnecessary emotions and divert attention from solving the current issues of bilateral cooperation, which, as you know, are numerous."
What bothered Moscow even more was the vote of the Moldovan parliamentarians in favor of the amendments. The head of the Center for the History of Wars and Geopolitics within the Institute of General History in Moscow, Mikhail Myagkov, was puzzled that the Moldovan deputies suddenly became Romania's "volunteer lawyers": "Moldovan parliamentarians are playing with fire. If claims are made against Romania, which in the years '41-'44 was on the side of the fascists, the reparations will reach astronomical figures."
PACE was the only international body able to settle the dispute. Romania could not appeal to the international courts, as the consent of both parties was needed, and the Russian side was not even asked, as the answer was already known. "I can tell you, as a personal feeling, that they will not accept", Cristian Diaconescu would explain.
The European Parliament, 2024: a historic resolution calls for the return of the Treasure
After this historical course unique in the world, the only solution seems to be the internationalization of the dispute, even if Russia refuses to take part in the debate. The Resolution adopted on March 14, 2024 by the European Parliament is the first act of an international body, after 1922, on the issue of the Treasure. It is therefore the second time that Romania succeeds in determining an internationalization of this litigation.
The resolution establishes, among other things, that "there are legislative grounds for the return of cultural goods and national treasures that have been removed from the territory of an EU Member State unlawfully” and "Romania has a fully valid legal claim on its gold deposits evacuated to Moscow during 1916 - 1917" and draws attention that "the restitution of cultural heritage illegally confiscated from its country of origin is essential to protect the universal value of cultural heritage".
The document "urges the Russian Federation to fully return to Romania the rest of Romania's national treasure that was sent to Russia in 1916 and 1917 for safekeeping.
- Recalls that the illicit appropriation of Romania’s national treasure by Russia is a unique international case in which a state’s monetary gold reserves, together with cultural, religious and archival objects that are part of its national heritage, were entrusted for safekeeping to another state, under an agreement set out in legally valid documents giving legal guarantees of their return, but that these obligations were ultimately disregarded, in breach of international law and customs;
- Recognizes that the national treasure deposited for safekeeping in Moscow in 1916 and 1917 during the difficult times of the First World War with the Government of Imperial Russia’s guarantee regarding the safety of transport, the safety of deposit and safety of return to Romania is an unparalleled international case of illegal appropriation of gold reserves and heritage objects and a matter of perpetual concern to Romanian society;
[...]
- Calls on the Commission and on the European External Action Service to envisage including the return of the Romanian national treasure on the future bilateral agenda for discussions with Russia once the end of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine makes it possible to resume discussions on such requests between the parties;
What is new? The initiator of the motion, MEP Eugen Tomac, says that "this resolution will lay the basis for the legal procedures that the European Union will be able to use in the future in the relationship with Russia in this case", and that we need "new tools" in the negotiations with Moscow.
Moscow’s response: “Romanians are not a nation” and “Bucharest owes Moscow, not the other way around”
Russia reacted quickly, through the pro-Kremlin press and several officials, to the approach in the European Parliament. Moscow resumed a series of false narratives, including the one according to which Romania would be the one that owes Russia war reparations (although these were also regulated through the so-called Sovroms, by means of which Moscow exploited the Romanian economy for years).
RIA Novosti wrote on March 15:
"The EU continues to openly try to steal Russian funds. This time they remembered the events of more than a century ago. Namely the transfer of Romanian gold. Now, it is assumed that Moscow must return it to Bucharest. In Moscow, however, they reacted clearly and harshly to this. Romania, based on historical data, has no right to demand anything from our country. On the contrary.[...]
The official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Maria Zakharova, appealed to other facts. "In 1935, the Soviet government, as a sign of goodwill, sent to Bucharest 1,436 tons of valuable goods left over from the time of tsarism. Not even six years later, Romania attacked the USSR together with the Third Reich," she recalled. By the way, the EP recognizes the transfer that occurred in 1935. But they insist that there was almost nothing there from more than 90 tons of gold.
"Since 1949, Moscow has forgiven Bucharest almost all of Romania's debt to the Soviet Union for the troubles and destruction caused to our people and country during the Great Patriotic War. That is, no less than 300 million dollars in reparations [for war, o.n.], that is, about four billion dollars in today's money», Zakharova stressed.
So, if we go back in history, the EP resolution does a disservice to Romania, which is already poor. Rather, Bucharest owes Moscow and not the other way around. At the same time, the decision of the MEPs convincingly demonstrates that the EU has almost exhausted the tools of financial pressure on Russia, since they are already resorting to old and at least controversial stories."
And Dmitry Medvedeev, deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, wrote on March 15 on his Vkontakte page, taken over by TASS:
"Romanians, as you know, are not a nation, but a way of life.
It would seem that nothing can surprise us anymore. European leaders are idiots, weak, unwise. […] They want the gold to be returned to Romania. The one that was nationalized by the Soviet government in 1918 for bad behavior [Romania’s, o.n.]. […] Now the various idiots in the European Parliament have worked up an appetite again.
Well, I don't even know how to respond to such insolence. The EU stole $300 billion worth of assets from Russia and demands the return of Romania's gold. There's nothing to say in Russian, one can just send them to hell'”.
Epilogue?
What's next? Remains to be seen. What is certain is that the treasure issue has been one of the very few in the last century in relation to which Romanians have always been solidary and tenacious, regardless of who’s been at the head of the state. Actually, maybe the only one. (Which the Russians also know).
* The text contains fragments from Marian Voicu - Tezaurul României de la Moscova: Inventarul unei istorii de o sută de ani (The Treasure of Romania in Moscow: The Inventory of a Hundred Years History), Humanitas Publishing House, 2016.
