| |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
| An historical perspective of marginalization in the romanian context: implications for research ethics | Sana Loue *
* J.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, sana.loue@case.edu
| Ethnicity, Religion, and Marginalization
Roma
The Romani, or Gypsy community, has been called "the most deprived and disempowered Romanian ethnic group" (United Nations Development Programme Romania, 2003). There are at least 40 different groups of Roma in Romania, including ursari (bear trainers), Argintari (jewelers), Rudari (woodworkers), Boldeni (flower sellers), Corturari (tent dwellers), and others (Human Rights Watch, 1991). Representing the second largest ethnic community in Romania, after the Hungarians, the Roma community has been variously estimate to number anywhere from 409,723 according to Romania's 1992 census (United Nations Development Programme Romania, 2003) to 2.5 million, according to the Minority Rights Group (1997) and others (Nicolae, 2002). These figures encompass four categories of Roma: (1) those who possess all traditional ethnic features and self-identify as Roma in official and/or unofficial circumstances; (2) those who possess ethnic features associated with Roma and are identified by others as such, but who do not so self-identify; (3) those who are "modernized" Roma and self-identify as Roma; (4) those who are "modernized" Roma, who may or may not self-identify as Roma, and are not always recognized by others as Roma; and (5) those who have "assimilated" into the general population and renounce their Roma identity (United Nations Development Programme Romania 2003). Recently, Romania' Ministry of Public Information (2001) acknowledged Romania's historical enslavement of and discrimination against its Roma population, the social stigmatization of this ethnic group, and the resulting difficulties now faced by members of this minority group.
Indeed, history chronicles enduring and persistent discrimination against and fear of the Gypsies in Romania, or Roma as they are known. It is unclear when the Roma first entered Romania, although historical evidence indicates that their entry preceded the 14th century. A document issued by Prince Dan I, who ruled from 1385 to 1386, confirms an earlier gift of 40 Roma families from his uncle, Prince Vladislav, to the Monastery of St. Anthony at Vodita. (Crowe, 1994). These families were meant to serve as slaves. Subsequent, similar transfers of Roma families to monasteries as slaves have also been documented. Gypsy slaves, known as robi, were most often captured through war (Helsinki Watch, 1991). Not surprisingly, they remained at the bottom of Romania's social pyramid, which centered around peasants and serfs. Gypsy robi most frequently worked as craftsmen or blacksmiths for princely courts or monasteries, unlike the Tatar slaves, who were assigned to work as farmhands.
By the 15th century, enslavement of the Gypsies in the Romanian provinces was widespread. Vlad Dracul (The Devil), the father of Vlad Tepes, the Impaler, also known as Dracula, brought back to Wallachia between 11,000 and 12,000 Roma slaves from campaigns against the Turks in Bulgaria. It is rumored that Vlad Tepes enjoyed torturing Roma slaves:
He invited them [the Gypsy slaves] to a festival, made them all drunk, and threw them into the fire. Another amusement of his was the construction of an enormous cauldron, into which he thrust his victims. Then, filling it with water, he made it boil, and took pleasure in the anguish of the sufferers. When the people whom he impaled writhed in agony, he had their hands and feet nailed to the posts. Some were compelled to eat [a] man roasted (Quoted in Crowe, 1994: 108).
Later military campaigns by Prince Stephen the Great of Moldavia also resulted in the enslavement of large numbers of Gypsies (Crowe, 1994; Nicolae, 2002).
Later laws served to reinforce the status of the Roma as slaves. By the end of the 15th century, laws provided for the enslavement of any man who impregnated a Roma woman and then married her. Certain of the sclavi domnetti, known as skopici, were forcibly castrated in order to reduce any fear associated with their work as coach drivers for the women of the aristocracy. And, as the value of robi increased, so, too, did the incidence of kidnapping (Crowe, 1994).
By the early 16th century, the Roma in Wallachia and Moldova were classified into two distinct occupational categories. Referred to in early documents as slavi, scindromi, or robie, they were later referred to as house slaves (tsigani de casati) and field slaves (tsigani de ogor). The state's domestic robi were known as sclavi domnesti (noblemen), sclavi curte (court) and sclavi gospody (householders). The field slaves of the nobility were referred to as slavi coevesti, while those belonging to smaller farmers were known as sclavi de mosii. The Crown owned three types of robi: rudari, or goldwashers; ursari, or beartrainers; and lingurari, or carvers of wooden spoons (Crowe, 1994; cf. Fraser, 1992). The laiesi had more freedom of movement than other slaves as a function of their occupations, which included, for instance, lautari (musicians). The Orthodox Church's slaves were referred to as sclavi monastivesti, and included vatrasi (grooms, coaches, cooks, petty merchants, and some laiesi).
The status and living conditions of the Roma continued to worsen. Laws enacted in 1652 by Vasile Lupu (Basil the Wolf) provided for the burning alove of any slave who raped a woman. In 1766, Moldavian hospodar Constantin Moruz outlawed marriages between Gypsies and non-Gypsies and further provided for the removal from the priesthood of any priest who married such couples. The marriages of any such couples would be subject to forced divorce. These laws were reaffirmed in 1785. Laws enacted by Pavel Kiseleff in 1833, one year before Russia ended its occupation of Wallachia and Moldavia, again prohibited marriage between free persons and slaves.
Despite negative public reaction to the treatment of Gypsies, particularly at Gypsy slave auctions, few attempts were made to end the practice. Mihail Kogalniceanu a liberal author who would become one of the architects of Romanian nationhood, had described his experiences watching the sale of Gypsy slaves:
I saw human beings wearing chains on their arms and legs, others with iron clamps around their foreheads, and still others with metal collars about their necks. Cruel beatings, and other punishments such as starvation, being hung over smoking fires, solitary imprisonment and being thrown naked into the snow or frozen rivers, such was the fate of the wretched Gypsy (Quoted in Crowe, 1994: 114).
In 1834, Alexander Ghica, the governor of Wallachia from 1834 through 1842, freed his slaves and conferred status equal to that of the white peasants who worked for him. He also granted his robi permission to speak their own language, Romani, and to practice their customs. It has been estimated that somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 slaves were affected by these changes. Further reform efforts occurred in 1842, when Mihain Sturdza, the hospodar of Moldavia, emancipated state robi, and yet again in 1844, when Sturdza freed Moldavia's church slaves.
Emancipation efforts were renewed in 1855, following the end of the Crimean War. Ghica, Moldavia's hospodar, eventually agreed to the freeing of Moldavia's slaves, following the urging of his advisers and his daughter, who had freed her slaves. In doing so, he remarked that for
many years, slavery has been abolished in all the civilized states of the old world; only the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia retain this humiliating vestige of a barbaric society. It is a social disgrace (Quoted in Crowe, 1994: 119).
Owners of slaves were reimbursed financially for their losses. Stirbei similarly freed the private robi in Wallachia on February 8, 1856.
Nationalists, frustrated in their thwarted attempts to form a united nation, elected Colonel Alexandru Ioan Cuza as their prince. During his regime, Cuza instituted numerous reforms that laid the groundwork for what is now modern-day Romania. These reforms included the complete emancipation of the gypsies.
Despite their emancipation, the status and situation of the gypsies improved little. Although free, the gypsies had no possessions or land and, consequently, frequently re-offered themselves to their previous owners. The accuracy of various accounts of gypsy life following emancipation is open to question, as many of them seem colored by local prejudices and stereotypes, which depicted gypsies as lazy, drunk, easily led, and stupid. What appears to be consistent throughout these reports is that, to a large degree, the gypsies maintained their traditions and continued to suffer from extreme poverty. One writer described the gypsies of the Tirgu-Mures region following their emancipation as particularly wretched. Though cold and frosty, children of ten pr twelve years of age stood outside the huts without a particle of clothing. In that state they will often sit on a piece of ice, and with feet drawn together, slide thus down a frozen slope. Many die, however, from exposure and privation; but the first years once over, their hardened frames bear every clemency (Quoted in Crowe, 1994: 123).
The gypsies continued to be especially vulnerable to economic and social inequalities. It has been estimated that in 1920, 133,000 gypsies comprised 0.8 percent of Romania's total population of 16 million. Romania's first official census, conducted in 1930, indicates that Romania's population of slightly more than 18 million persons included 262,501 gypsies, of whom 38 percent chose Romani as their primary language.
Romania was forced to recognize the rights of its minorities under the Paris Minorities Treaty of December 9, 1919. This Treaty guaranteed minorities protection through the League of Nations and the constitution. Despite such guarantees, traditional prejudices against the gypsies continued.
The later regime of King Carol II, from 1930 to 1940, brought yet more persecution to Romania's gypsy communities. On February 10, 1938, he suspended the constitution and announced his own royal dictatorship. By 1940, he had led Romania into the Nazi camp. As a result of various territorial disputes, King Carol II was forced into exile by an allied force of the Iron Guard and the military. Two months after the installation of the Iron Guard as Romania's only legal party on September 14, 1940, the Guard celebrated its accession by slaughtering scores of political opponents, Jews and others. Hitler responded by permitting General Ion Antonescu to suppress the Iron Guard in January 1941 (Kelso, 1999).
Antonescu's regime implemented increasingly harsh measures against Romania's Jews and other national minorities. In response to concerns voiced by officials of Hitler's regime about gypsy settlement in areas occupied by ethnic Germans, Romanian authorities forced many gypsy families to leave Romania (Fraser, 1992; Kelso, 1999). The Romanian newspaper Erocia (Heroic) characterized "the gypsy question" as important as "the Jewish question" and suggested that, in order to eliminate gypsies "from any part they played in the role of the state," the government should send all nomad gypsies to labor camps (Crowe, 1994; Helsinki Watch, 1991). The Romanian War Crimes Commission concluded in its report following the end of the war that
Tens of thousand of defenseless Gypsies were herded together in Transnistria. Over half of them were struck by the typhus epidemics. The genarmerie practiced unprecedented terror; everybody's life was uncertain; tortures were cruel; the commanders lived in debauchery with beautiful Gypsy women and maintained personal harems. Approximately 36,000 Gypsies fell victim to Antonescu's Fascist regime (Quoted in Crowe, 1994: 135).
According to the Commission, the number of gypsy deaths in Romanian-occupied territory was the highest in any country in Europe (Helsinki Watch, 1991).
The majority of Romania's gypsy population was able to survive such efforts. Following the conclusion of the war, the short-lived Radescu government eliminated Antonescu's anti-Gypsy and anti-Jewish legislation. On February 6, 1945, the Radescu government issued the Statute for National Minorities, which conferred complete equality on all Romanian citizens, regardless of language, nationality, or religion. Eighteen days later, Radescu's government collapsed following a communist-provoked crisis. Many gypsies joined the communist party, believing that it offered them a mechanism for upward mobility.
The immediate post-war period was characterized by rising nationalist sentiment, placing in jeopardy all of the gains that had been made by Romania's minority populations. Communist leaders were troubled, in particular, by nomadic gypsies and attempted to force them to settle in specific areas through forced transfers (Fraser, 1992; United Nations Development Programme Romania, 2003). During this time, gypsies continued to be at a disadvantage economically and socially. The 1956 census indicates that the gypsy population numbered only 104, 216. Of these persons, only 17.3 percent had settled in urban areas. The majority were "workers" or farmers. The census indicated that 37.7 percent of the gypsy population was illiterate, compared to 10.9 percent of Romanians, 3.1 percent of Hungarians, and 3.1 percent of the country's Jews. Little improvement was noted in the 1966 census, although that census indicated a further decrease in the numbers of gypsies (Crowe, 1994).
The assumption of power by Nicolae Ceausescu in 1965, following the death of Gheorghiu-Dej, heralded a new era. Initially, Ceausescu's policy towards the gypsy population seemed to be one of ignoring its existence. However, its increasing size prompted the government to rethink its position. The 1977 census indicated that the gypsy population had grown to 1.05% of the country's population. It was estimated that approximately 72% lived in the countryside and the majority of these lived in the area of Transylvania. Unemployment rates were high, ranging from 32.7% among settled gypsy men to over 84% among more nomadic gypsies (Crowe, 1994). The government decided in 1977 to begin a program to integrate the gypsies into the fabric of Romanian society. Under the "systematization" program, Ceausescu initiated efforts to obliterate gypsy culture (Fraser, 1992; Helsinki Watch, 1991; United Nations Development Programme Romania, 2003).
The status of Romania's Roma or gypsy population has changed little since the fall of the Ceausescu regime. A poll published by the news agency Agence France-Presse in 2000 found that three out of every four Romanians feared gypsies and would not tolerate them as neighbors (Nicolae, 2002). In November of that same year, the European Commission specifically found that the Roma "remain subject to widespread discrimination throughout Romanian society" (Quoted in Nicolae, 2000: 387). The mass media has been particularly culpable in the perpetuation and dissemination of anti-sypsy stereotypes (Human Rights Watch, 1991; Nicolae, 2002). In April 2003, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance expressed concern about persistent ill-treatment of Romania's Roma community (Amnesty International, 2003). Various international organizations have documented the torture of imprisoned and detained Roma and their deaths under suspicious circumstances (Amnesty International, 2003; Helsinki Watch, 1991; cf. Romania Helsinki Committee, 1999).
Hungarians
The history of the Hungarians in Romania is similarly characterized by hostility and suspicion, which appears to derive from the history of the regions populated by large numbers of ethnic Hungarians. The majority of ethnic Hungarians, who make up the largest minority group in Romania, reside in the western third of Romania, in a region known as Transylvania; almost two-fifths of the region's population of seven million is ethnic Hungarian (Schopflin and Poulton, 1990). Romanians comprise a large proportion of the Romanian counties of Covasna and Harghita. Both Romanians and Hungarians view Transylvania as the cradle of their respective civilizations and both Hungarian and Romanian nationalists believe that the geographic area should belong to them.
Humgarians have lived in the area now known as Transylvania since the end of the 9th century, following the conquest of the Carpathian basin. The Hungarian Kingdom established administrative control over the area and encouraged two ethnic groups, Szeklers and Germans, to immigrate east and settle there. The region became a semiautonomous principality ruled by Hungarian princes by 1526; in 1867, the Hungarian princes untied Transylvania with Hungary.
At the end of World War I, however, as a result of the Treaty of Trianon, Transylvania became a part of Romania. The northern part once again shifted to Hungarian control during the years 1940 to 1945, after which time Romanian control was confirmed by the peace treaties that followed World War II.
A single party system of government ? the Communist party ? emerged following a brief post-World War II multiparty system of government (Joo and Ludanyi, 1994). The Communist Party proceeded to liquidate all autonomous organizations that refused to submit to the edicts of the central government; this included the then-existing Hungarian People's Federation. In December 1948, the Party branded Hungarians as "nationalists" and, through a series of legislative maneuvers that began in the late 1940s and continued until the fall of the Ceausescu government in 1989, progressively limited the rights of minority populations in Romania (Joo and Ludanyi, 1994). This process was accelerated during the final decade of Ceausescu's rule (Helsinki Watch, 1989). A report of Helsinki Watch (1989) described the conditions under which Hungarians were forced to live during the Communist era:
The minority groups in Romania live under a double burden of repression: not only do they live in a highly repressive, totalitarian state, but their efforts to retain their ethnic identity are diametrically opposed to the government's campaign of "Romanianization," which might be more aptly described as "homogenization"?the forced assimilation required to build the "new man" of which official propaganda speaks.
It is important to note that both minority cultures and Romanian culture are victimized by this forced assimilation, which severs links to the past and to outside influences...
Due to both its size and its strong ties to Hungarian culture, the Hungarian minority has been a particular victim of "homogenization." It has also been victimized because, unlike the German minority, Hungarians have resisted the "solution" of emigration (Helsinki Watch, 1989: 2-3).
Government efforts at such homogenization or Romanianization included forced transfers of population into and out of Hungarian regions in order to change the areas' ethnic composition, the near-elimination of any education in the Hungarian language, the prohibition against the use of Hungarian in public life, the liquidation of cultural institutions and the harassment of minority churches, and a focused campaign to instill in Hungarians a sense of shame toward their own history and ethnic identity (Helsinki Watch, 1989).
Indeed, scholars have charged that the actions of the Romanian government during the Communist era were designed to effectuate cultural genocide (Joo and Ludanyi, 1994). "Cultural genocide" has been defined as
The extirpation of an ethnic or national community by depriving it of its culture. It has been coined to describe the systematic effort to undermine the cultural identity and cohesion of minorities by majorities (e.g. Romanianization, Russification, etc.). This differs from "genocide" in that the group is not physically exterminated (eliminated), only deprived of cultural allegiance through policies of forced acculturation/assimilation (e.g. monolingual educational, social, political, economic, and cultural policies) which are driven by an intolerance of diversity and the eternal quest for homogeneity. By obstructing or destroying the institutional mechanism for the transmission of symbols, values, language and knowledge, a people subjected to this process disappears, or becomes "de-nationalized," by becoming part of another culture or "national community." One national identity forcibly replaces the previous national identity (Joo and Ludanyi, 1994: 17).
It has been alleged that efforts to eradicate Hungarian identity have not, however, ceased since the fall of Ceausescu's regime, despite Romania's adoption of a multiparty system of government. Since the fall of Ceausescu, human rights organizations have asserted that discrimination continues to exist in the manner in which the Romanian justice system determines who will be prosecuted for alleged criminal violations; the inadequate number of Hungarian classes and Hungarian-speaking teachers, despite constitutional reforms assuring minorities of educational opportunities in their own language; severe restrictions on the public use of the Hungarian language, such as on street signs and advertisements; the censorship of Hungarian-language media broadcasts on television and radio; limitations on the availability of Hungarian-language publications; restrictions on the right to assemble; underrepresentation in local government; restrictions on the right to associate; abusive treatment by law enforcement authorities; the refusal to return to the Hungarian churches the church property that was confiscated by the Communist Party; and the simultaneous rise in Romanian nationalism and anti-Hungarian propaganda (Helsinki Watch, 1993).
The government of Hungary is concerned about the treatment of ethnic minorities within Romania, and especially that of ethnic Hungarians. In 1993, the Hungarian ambassador to Romania identified three dimensions to the Romanian government's continuing portrayal of ethnic Hungarians as enemies of Romania: a belief that Romania's ethnic Hungarians represent a potential internal danger as the "long-arm of Budapest," a belief that Hungary wishes to repossess the region of Transylvania, and a belief that the emigration of ethnic Hungarians from Romania constitutes a threat to the stability of Romania because they will campaign against the country (Helsinki Watch, 1993, quoting Ambassador Erno Rudas).
Jews
Records indicate that Jews were present during the earliest eras of Romanian history, in Roman Dacia (Iancju, 1996). However, little information is available about their presence prior to the late 15th century, when they arrived in Wallachia following their expulsion from Spain. Vlad Tepes, known as Draculea, who was then the Prince of wallachia, treated the Jews harshly. Their treatment improved during the reign of Stephen the Great (1457-1502). In Moldavia, Petre Schiopul (1578-1579 and 1581-1591) ordered the expulsion of the Jews who had arrived from Poland. In November 1593, Mihai Viteazul ordered the massacre of the Jewish merchants of Bucharest, to whom he owed a debt.
The first official anti-Jewish sentiment surfaced in the mid-1600s, with the identification of all non-orthodox Christians as heretics. Christians were expressly prohibited from associating with Jews; violation of this prohibition resulted in excommunication from the church. Jews were prohibited from testifying in court, with the exception of physicians.
A large anti-Jewish literature developed by the early 1800s, accompanied by charges of ritual murder. The Organic Laws, which took effect in Wallachia on July 1, 1831 and in Moldavia on January 1, 1832, imposed severe restrictions on Jews: a prohibition against living less than a specified distance from the borders, the elimination of rabbinical jurisdiction, the transformation of their status from natives to foreigners, and a prohibition against Jewish ownership of land (Iancu, 1996). The Organic Law of Moldavia provided for the expulsion of the "vagabond Jew" as a dangerous element in the country:
It is undeniable that the Jews who have spread into Moldavia and whose numbers are increasing every day are, for the most part, living at the expense of the natives and are exploiting nearly all the resources to the detriment of the industrial progress and public prosperity. To prevent this difficulty as far as possible, the same commission will note in the census report the situation of every Jew, so that those who have no status and who are living without authorization, without engaging in any useful occupation, may be removed and that such persons may no longer enter Moldavia (Organic Law of Moldavia, quoted in Iancu, 1996: 25).
The Moldavia Revolution of 1848 introduced a new liberalism, which benefited the Jewish community there through a relaxation of previously adopted restrictions. This period was short-lived, however; the Treaty of Paris in 1856 granted political rights to Christians only. Following the coup d'etat of 1864, Prince Cuza permitted Jews to naturalize under specified circumstances.
This right, too, was short-lived: the government that was installed in 1866 following the forced abdication of Prince Cuza eliminated the possibility that native-born Jews could naturalize under then-existing civil laws. The adoption of Article 7 of Romania's Constitution effectively precluded the political emancipation of the Jews for the next half-century: "The status of Romanian is acquired, retained and lost according to the rules established by civil law. Only foreigners of Christian religion may become Romanians" (Quoted in Iancu, 1996: 39). The Minister of the Interior, Ion Bratianu, lamented:
The Jews have become a social plague, not because they are more backward than us, for we have a class which is more backward than them, a social stratum lower than the Jews; they are the Tziganes [gypsies], and we have given them rights without hearing anyone object. Nor shall I raise against the Jews the consideration that they are less civilized, but simply that their large number which everyone says is a threat to our nationality, and when the nation is threatened she defends herself and becomes not intolerant but provident. It is only by administrative regulation that we can save ourselves from this disease and prevent the foreign proletariat from invading our country (Iancu, 1996: 39-40).
A violent anti-Jewish riot erupted in Moldavia on January 6, 1868, following the death of a priest who had made virulent statements against the Jews as part of his strategy to gain an adequate number of votes for election to the Chamber of Deputies. On March 28 of the same year, 31 Moldavian deputies filed the "Draft Law to Regularize the Situation of Jews in Romania." The draft legislation prohibited Jews from living outside of urban areas, leasing land, forming partnerships with Christians, engaging in any trade or industry without prior government authorization, and engaging in any business involving foodstuffs for Christians. All Jewish communities and committees were abolished. Without reviewing the details of each specific event, it is significant to note that this era introduced successive episodes of forced expulsions of Jews from the countryside, the looting of synagogues and Jewish homes, the destruction of religious objects, and the rape of women and children (Iancu, 1996). In response to their treatment, nearly one-third of Romania's Jewish communities had emigrated from the country by the early 20th century.
Several factors have been implicated in this rise in anti-Semitic sentiment. Jews were distrusted as the killers of God and for what was alleged to be their practice of ritual murder. A tax was instituted on the purchase of kosher meat; attempts were made to prohibit the ritual slaughtering of animals. The editor of the newspaper Trompeta Carpatilor informed the Chamber of Deputies on December 30, 1869 that
This [Jewish] congregation is so far from wanting to assimilate with the people among whom they live as a real parasite that they imagine they have a separate God and they pray this God be harsh on foreign nations. Some people say that in Romania the Jewish question is a religious question. Others deny it. We must understand each other. When one speaks of Catholics, Protestants or Orthodox, we are speaking of Christian people who have received their teaching from the same source: the Gospel. When one speaks of the Jews it is of people who do not believe in Christ and who, consequently, do not have the same religion as we have. So it is impossible to talk about the Jews without implying their religion, because when you ask them why they do this or that they always answer that their religion requires it. Thus in this sense one cannot say that the Jewish question is not a religious one (Quoted in Iancu, 1996: 69).
Many of Romania's Jews were middle class and, consequently, were viewed as economic competitors. Jews were progressively closed out of participation in industry and business as a means of combating Romania's economic difficulties which they were alleged to have caused as a result of their "tendency to earn without work, the lack of a sense of dignity, and hatred against all nations" (Iancu, 1996: 71). The increasing numbers of foreigners who held positions as managers created a growing sense of alarm in the Romanian populace, particularly in view of the continuously worsening economic status of the Romanian peasants. The Jews were regarded as foreigners. The Deputy I.C. Codrescu charged,
The term "Romanian Jew" is nonsense, because the Jew belongs to one nationality and the Romanian to another, and just as one cannot speak of a Romanian Frenchman, Romanian Englishman, Romanian Turk, one cannot speak of a Romanian Jew. Either one is Romanian or one is a Jew. No one can belong to two nationalities (Iancu, 1996:76).
The advent of socialism in Romania during the mid- to late-1800s and early 1900s did little to improve the prevailing sentiment toward the Jewish populace. Jewish emigration from Romania increased during the early 1900s, spurred on by Zionist sentiment.
Those who remained in Romania, however, continued to support Romanian efforts despite the persecution. Over 25,000 Jews served in the Romanian armed forces during World War I. Following the war, the Romanian government promulgated on August 27, 1918 a new naturalization law, which afforded naturalization to four categories of Jews: those who had served in the army during the war, those born in Romania to parents who were also born in Romania, those who participated in the Bulgarian military campaign of 1913, and the spouses and children of those individuals falling into the preceding three categories. A later naturalization decree of December 20, 1918 essentially restated these criteria with little deviation.
The situation for the Jews went from bad to worse with the advent of World War II. Following the defeat of France in June 1940, Romania lost territory to the Soviet Union (Braham, 1997). In response to this defeat, Romania aligned itself with the German war effort and adopted a Romanian version of anti-Jewish policies. These included the identification of Romanian Jews; the confiscation of property held by Jews; the prohibition of Jewish participation in theater, journalism, commercial advertising, medicine, the arts, and various other occupations; the expulsion of Jews from labor unions; and the cancellation of contracts in a variety of industrial sectors. Additional restrictions were instituted in 1941, including the confinement of Jews to ghettos and the confiscation of all forms of personal property, such as furniture, linens, and clothing (Butnaru, 1992; Volovici, 1997).
In June 1941, a major pogrom was conducted against the Jewish population of Iasi. Thousand of Jews were killed and thousands more were deported in sealed trains. Survivors of the pogrom were confined to cattle cars, where they were held until they died of starvation and dehydration. In all, 13,000 Jews lost their lives during the Iasi pogrom (Braham, 1997). Two-thirds of Romania's 270,000 Jews that dies during World War II were killed by Romanians, not by the Nazis.
The impact of the anti-Semitic policies is reflected in the diminishing numbers of Jews within Romania. In 1899, the Jewish population of Romania numbered 266,652 or 4.5% of the population (Butnaru, 1992). By 1912, their numbers had diminished to 241,588, or 3.3% of the population, due to a massive wave of emigration in response to increasing anti-Semitism. By 1930, the Jewish community had increased to 756,930 (4.2% of the population), constituting the third largest Jewish community in Europe (Braham, 1997). Anti-Semitic action during World War II reduced the Jewish population to 292,149, or a mere 1.7% of the population (Butnaru, 1992). After World War II, approximately 350,000 Jews remained in Romania. Following a series of pogroms and emigration, it is estimated that today only 18,000 remain in the country.
Arrest, Imprisonment and Vulnerability
Significant issues have been noted in the treatment of individuals during the process of arrest and detention, many of which may rise to the level of violations of various provisions of the United Nations' Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners (1990), the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (1988), the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1955), and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984). Generally, these international documents provide for procedural protections for individuals who have been accused of criminal offenses, set forth a minimum standard for the confinement of prisoners, and prohibit the intentional infliction of pain or suffering.
Procedurally, the prosecuting attorney is responsible for the acquisition of evidence in support of both the accused's guilt and his or her innocence, resulting in an inherent conflict of interest and questionable objectivity (Romanian Helsinki Committee, 1999). Investigation of various police stations found that individuals may be detained for hours without charges and without records being kept of their whereabouts, so that the police may later deny their presence; that lawyers were not permitted to speak with their clients in confidence; that food, lighting, and medical assistance were scarce; and that detained individuals rarely have access to adequate toilet or exercise facilities. Individuals seeking assistance from the police were often reprimanded and threatened themselves with confinement and arrest. Physical abuse by police has been found to be widespread (Human Rights Watch, 2001; Romanian Helsinki Committee, 1999; United States Department of State, 1998).
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH
Clearly, Romania, like most, if not all, other countries, has as part of its history the persecution and/or maltreatment of various minority groups. As Romania enters the European Union and assumes a more active role as a collaborator in research activities, it is critical that the Romania and its researchers examine the actual and potential impact of this historical legacy on the recruitment and participation of members of these groups in research activities involving humans.
First, there must be explicit acknowledgement and acceptance of the fact of Romania's history and the underlying motivations for the events that occurred, much as the United States has had to address the racism that was inherent in and that fueled the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study involving African American men. A failure to do so may increase the possibility that such events will occur again, if only in a different form, and may further increase the likelihood that research participants from these groups may not be adequately protected.
Second, efforts must be initiated to identify and rectify prevailing stereotypes that continue to govern interactions and policies and that work to the detriment of not only the stigmatized groups, but also those who would demean and degrade them. A failure to do so could result in the exclusion and self-exclusion of group members from research. This, in turn, leads to reduced generalizability of research findings.
Third, in some cases special protections for research participants from these groups may be required to assure that their interests are adequately addressed. International research guidelines, such as those developed by the Council for Organization of Medical Sciences (2002, 2005), suggest that children, the cognitively impaired, prisoners, and various others be recognized as being especially vulnerable and be provided with additional protections as research participants. Which groups should be deemed vulnerable may well depend on the local context and may vary from one nation to another; for instance, Uganda recognizes immigrants as refugees as an especially vulnerable group in the context of research, while the United States does not.
Finally, a new awareness must be fostered among today's researchers and the next generation of researchers. Educational programs are necessary to provide basic training across disciplines with respect to research ethics. Collaboration and dialogue with researchers outside of Romania, activities which for the most part were foreclosed to researchers during the Ceausescu era, may prove critical in the development and refinement of new perspectives.
References
[1]. Amnesty International. (2003). Report: Romania. Available at http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/ romania. Last accessed August 2, 2004.
[2]. Amnesty International. (2004). Romania: More Ill-Treatment of Children. Available at http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/romania/document. Last accessed May 15, 2005.
[3]. Amnesty International USA (1978). Romania: Forced Labour, Repression of Dissent, Persecution of Religious Believers, Ethnic Discrimination and Persecution, Law and the Suppression of Human Rights in Romania. New York: Author.
[4]. Bloch, S., Reddaway, P. (1977). Russia's Political Hospitals: The Abuse of Psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Southampton, Great Britain: Camelot Press Ltd.
[5]. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. (1988). G.A. Res. 43/173, annex, 43 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 298, U.N. Doc. A/43/49.
[6]. Braham, R.L. (Ed.). (1997). Preface. In The Destruction of Romanian and Ukrainian Jews during the Antonescu Era (pp. v-xi). New York: Columbia University Press.
[7]. Butnaru, I.C. (1992). The Silent Holocaust: Romania and Its Jews. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
[8]. Cafrita, T. (1993). Homosexualii se pot organiza in asociata fara a fi pedepsiti de lege. Evenimentul zilei, April 6.
[9]. Ceausescu, N. (1966). Decret No. 770, September 29.
[10]. Ceausescu, N. (1985). Decret No. 411, December 26.
[11]. Ceausescu, N. (1986). Der Spiegel, October 20: 217-218.
[12]. Codul Penal art. 114, 180, 181, 182.
[13]. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,. (1984). G.A. res. 39/46, [annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51, entered into force June 26, 1987.
[14]. Costache, R. (1993). Coposu combate aberatiile sexuale. Libertatea, May 18-19, D1.
[15] Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. (2002). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
[16]. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. (2005). International Guidelines for Ethical Review of Epidemiological Studies. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
[17]. Crowe, D.M. (1996). A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia. New York: St. Martin's Griffin.
[18]. David, H.P. (1990a). Ceausescu's psychological legacy: A generation of unwanted children. Psychology International 1: 6-7.
[19]. David, H.P. (1990b). Romania ends compulsory childbearing. Entre Nous 14: 9-10.
[20]. David, H.P. (1990c). Romania ends compulsory childbearing. Population Today 18: 4-10.
[21]. David, H.P., Baban, A. (1996). Women's health and reproductive rights: Romanian experience. Patient Education and Counseling 28: 235-245.
[22]. David, H.P., Wright, N.H. (1971). Abortion legislation: The Romanian experience. Studies in Family Planning 2: 205-210.
[23]. Deletant, D. (1995). Ceausescu and the Securitate:Coercion and Dissent in Romania. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
[24]. Florian, R. (1997). The Jassy masscare of June 29-30, 1941: An early act of genocide against the Jews. In R.L. Braham (Ed.), The Destruction of Romanian and Ukrainian Jews during the Antonescu Era (pp. 63-85). New York: Columbia University Press.
[26]. Fraser, A. (1995). The Gypsies. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
[27]. Fonseca, I. (1995). Bury Me Standing: The Gypsies and Their Journey. New York: Vintage Books.
[28]. Gall, C. (2001). It's still no breeze for gays, even diplomatic ones. New York Times, October 6.
[29]. Gilberg, T. (1979). Rural transformation in Romania. In I. Volgyes (Ed.). The Peasantry of Eastern Europe. New York: Pergamon.
[30]. Harsanyi, D.P. (1993). Women in Romania. In N. Funk, M. Mueller (Eds.). Gender, Politics, and Post-Communism (pp. 39-52). New York: Routledge.
[31]. Helsinki Watch. (1989). Destroying Ethnic Identity: The Hungarians of Romania. New York: U.S. Helsinki Watch Committee.
[32]. Helsinki Watch. (1991). Destroying Ethnic Identity: The Persecution of Gypsies in Romania. New York: Human Rights Watch.
[33]. Helsinki Watch. (1993). Struggling for Ethnic Identity: Ethnic Hungarians in Post-Ceausescu Romania. New York: Human Rights Watch.
[34]. Hord, C., David, H.P., Donnay, F., Wolf, M. (1991). Reproductive health in Romania: Reversing the Ceausescu legacy. Studies in Family Planning 22: 231-240.
[35]. Human Rights Watch. (2001). World Report 2001: Romania. Available at http://www.hrw.org/ wr2k1/europe/romania.html. Last accessed August 2, 2004.
[36]. Human Rights Watch, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. (1998). Public Scandals: Sexual Orientation and Criminal Law in Romania. New York: Authors.
[37]. Iancu, C. (1996). Jews in Romania 1866-1919: From Exclusion to Emancipation (Trans. C. de Bussy). New York: Columbia University Press.
[38]. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1966). G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316, 99 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force March 23, 1976.
[39]. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (1966). G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force January 3, 1976.
[40]. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. (1965). Adopted and opened for signature and ratification by G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), December 21, entered into force January 4, 1969.
[41]. Joo, R., Ludanyi, A. (1994). The Hungarian Minority's Situation in Ceausescu's Romania. Highland Lakes, New Jersey: Atlantic Research and Publications, Inc.
[42]. Kelso, M. (1999). Gypsy deportations from Romania to Transnistria 1942-44. In D. Kenrick (Ed.), In the Shadow of the Swastika: The Gypsies During the Second World War (pp. 95-130). Hertfordshire, U.K.: University of Hertfordshire Press.
[43]. Kligman, G. (1992). The politics of reproduction in Ceausescu's Romania: A case study in political culture. East European Political Science 6: 364-419.
[44]. Levine, R.J. (1988). Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
[45]. Loue, S. (2001). Intimate Partner Violence: Societal, Medical, Legal and Individual Responses (pp. 37-60). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
[46]. Ministry of Public Information. (2001). General Considerations of the Strategy of the Government of Romania Improving the Condition of the Roma. Bucharest: Author. Available at http://www.rroma.ro.
[47]. Minority Rights Group. (1997). World Directory of Minorities. London: MRG International.
[48]. Nicolae, V. (2002). Romanian gypsies. Peace Review 14(4): 385-393.
[49]. Papadopol, V., Stoenescu, I., Protopopescu, G.V. (Eds.). (1948). Codul Penal al Republicii Populare Romane Adnotat. Bucharest: Editura de Stat.
[50]. Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. (1991). G.A. Res. 46/119, 46 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 189, U.N. Doc. A/46/49.
[51]. Romanian Helsinki Committee (APADOR-CH).(1999). Human Rights Developments in Romania: The Activities of the Romanian Helsinki Committee. Available at http://www.apador.org/rapoarte/ anuale/1999e.htm. Last accessed May 10, 2004.
[52]. Schopflin, G., Poulton, H. (1990). Romania's Ethnic Hungarians. Cited in Helsinki Watch. (1993). Struggling for Ethnic Identity: Ethnic Hungarians in Post-Ceausescu Romania. New York: Human Rights Watch.
[53]. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. (1955). Adopted August 30 by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, U.N. Doc. A/CONF/611, annex I, E.S.C. res. 663C, 24 U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No. 1) at 11, U.N. Doc. E/3048 (1957), amended E.S.C. res. 2076, 62 U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No. 1) at 35, U.N. Doc. E/5988 (1977).
[54]. Stewart, M. (1997). The Time of the Gypsies. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, Inc.
[55]. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (1994). Concluding Observations on Romania, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add. 16. Fifth session.
[56]. United Nations Development Programme Romania. (2003). Social Assessment of Roma and HIV/ AIDS in Central East Europe. Bucharest: Author.
[57]. United States Agency for International Development. (1999). Violenta Domestica: Legislatie, Interventie, Prevenire: De la Trauma de la Integritate: Femeile din Romania Isi Regasec Identitatea [Domestic Violence: Legislation, Intervention, Prevention: Trauma to Integrity: Women in Romania and Regaining Identity]. Proceedings of Conference in Bucharest, Romania, April 28-30.
[58]. United States Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. (2001). Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Washington, D.C.: Author.
[59]. United States Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. (1998). Romania Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1997. Washington, D.C.: Author.
[60]. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). G.A. Res. 217A(III), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71.
[61]. Volovici, L. (1997). The victim as eyewitness: Jewish intellectual diaries during the Antonescu period. In R.L. Braham (Ed.), The Destruction of Romanian and Ukrainian Jews during the Antonescu Era (pp. 196-213). New York: Columbia University Press.
[62]. Williamson, D. (2002). Child abuse found to be global problem, WHO review reveals. October 3. Available at http://www.eurekalert.org.
Internet Resources
www.bioethics.gov/
www.nuffieldbioethics.org/
www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/8/bowman.htm
www.islamonline.net/English/ Science/2005/04/article01.shtml
www.bioethics.net/journal/
www.masterbioethics.org/
www.bioethics.iastate.edu/
www.americancatholic.org/messenger/Jan2003/feature1.asp
www.med.umich.edu/bioethics/
www.bioethics.jp/waseda2002/
www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bioethics/Academics/Fogarty/
| |
|
|
|
|
|
PREVIOUS EDITIONS
|
| Vol. 2, no. 2 |
 |
| |
| Vol. 1, no. 2 |
 |
| |
| Vol. 1, no. 3
|
 |
| |
| Vol. 1, no. 4 |
 |
| |
|
|
| |
|
news
