Open Letter to Daniel Buda, Member of the European Parliament

Dear Mr. Buda,

In your speech of 10 July in Strasbourg, you expressed views regarding the principles of cohesion policy, the protection of minorities, and the citizens’ initiative concerning national regions. You addressed an important subject, as cohesion and the management of diversity are among the key issues for Europe’s future.

Allow me, through this letter, to clarify some of your statements and to supplement them with certain factual data.

The building blocks of cohesion policy are the NUTS regions. Regulation (EC) No. 1059/2003 clearly provides that, when establishing these regions, cultural and historical circumstances must also be taken into account. However, Romania did not apply this principle when designating the NUTS regions, a fact that has adversely affected Szeklerland. The counties of Mureș, Harghita, and Covasna were merged with three other counties with a Romanian majority into an artificially created NUTS II region – called the “Centre Region.”

This amalgamation constantly diminishes the perception and recognition of Szeklerland’s historical and cultural specificity, and the Szekler community has become a minority in the regional decision-making process. It is remarkable that South Tyrol, with a smaller population than Szeklerland, was able to become a distinct NUTS II region – because the Italian legislature understood that, in the spirit of the cited regulation, cultural and historical specificities cannot be marginalised.

Consequently, the EU’s cohesion policy has not been able to fulfil in Romania the role assigned to it in the EU treaties. After Romania’s accession to the European Union, the gross national product per capita increased steadily in the Romanian-majority counties of the Centre Region, while the Szekler counties largely stagnated. The development gap began to widen after EU accession, clearly indicating that cohesion policy in the Centre Region has had an effect contrary to its stated objectives. The artificial impoverishment of Szeklerland has also led to a dramatic population decline.

In your speech, you stated: “Minorities must, of course, be protected.” I fully agree. However, in practice, Romania has repeatedly taken steps that contradict this principle. You described Romania’s minority policy as exemplary, mentioning, among other things, the existence of education in the Hungarian language.

If you were to study the history of Hungarian-language education in Romania over the past century, you would know that after the First World War, when Transylvania became part of Romania, a well-organised Hungarian school network came under the authority of the Romanian state. Although Romania had undertaken, in the peace treaty, to guarantee the rights of Hungarians who became a minority, it began dismantling this school network. This practice continued after the communist regime came to power, and today there are only as many Hungarian schools in Romania as could be preserved through international pressure and political involvement.

Dear Mr. Buda,

Returning to the question of national regions, it must be emphasised that this does not run counter to European unity; on the contrary – it serves to achieve it in a deeper and fairer way. Taking cultural and historical factors into account is not a privilege, but a consistent application of European Union legislation.

I hope that in the future a genuine dialogue can develop on this subject – not only within the European Parliament but also before European public opinion – and that Romania will no longer oppose a united European position on this matter.

Târgu Mureș, 4 August 2025

Yours sincerely,
Izsák Balázs
President of the Szekler National Council