A recent exchange of statements between the United States and Romania and an upcoming visit highlight the complex and multidimensional relationship between the world's pre-eminent geopolitical power and a small but strategic ally. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland will arrive in Bucharest on Friday as part of a larger European tour, where she will meet with senior Romanian officials to discuss various political and security issues. One matter placed on the agenda by the United States is Romania's effort to strengthen the rule of law, a topic selection that has angered some in the Romanian government.

The controversy arose in the wake of the recent imprisonment of former Romanian Prime Minister Adrian Nastase on bribery charges stemming from allegedly corrupt conduct while in office. The issue has been the subject of intense dispute between Romanian President Traian Basescu and the current prime minister, Victor Ponta, who says Nastase is a "political convict" and a target of Basescu. Combined with attempted changes to the criminal code by the Romanian parliament in the past month, the contentious imprisonment has sparked international criticism from Washington and elsewhere.

Romania's adviser to the premier on international relations and minorities, Gyorgy Frunda, lashed out against the U.S. criticism ahead of Nuland's visit. He said, "Romania is not a colony" of the United States, adding that he detects a "bit of superiority in the air, similar to the situations where the teacher is talking to his pupils."

Such harsh rhetoric might appear to be a symptom of weakening ties between the United States and Romania, but this is not the case. U.S. criticism of democratic practices and human rights in various countries — even among its allies — is nothing new. One of the foundations of U.S. strategy and influence in the world is its championing of democracy and political transparency, even if such support and advocacy conflicts with certain strategic interests. The United States behaves this way not only because of idealism but also because it would prefer to prevent democratic states from centralizing power to an extent that they could upset a regional status quo, either through their own actions or by inciting negative responses from fearful neighbors. Preserving the regional status quo can be messy, as in Egypt, where the United States had a strategic interest in propping up the U.S.-aligned Mubarak regime but was forced — albeit belatedly — to acknowledge the will of the masses. 

Romania fits squarely within the strategic interests of the United States. As member of both the European Union and as a NATO member, Romania is firmly within the Western alliance system. The country's strategic location in the southeastern corner of Europe on Russia's periphery makes it a significant security partner for the United States, as highlighted by its role in NATO's ballistic missile defense plans known as the European Phased Adaptive Approach. Romania has also been chosen as the new site for the United States and other allies to transit troops and supplies out of Afghanistan after the upcoming closure of the Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan.

But while maintaining a strong security relationship with Romania is important to Washington, it is exponentially more so for Bucharest. Though Romania shifted its orientation to the West following the Cold War, the government has remained skeptical over the commitment of NATO and its European members to Romanian security. The country's proximity to Russia and historical disputes with Moscow over various issues such as Moldova and Transdniestria forces Romania to seek a strong security backer willing to make concrete commitments and provide a military presence. This explains Romania's eagerness for the Western, especially the American, military presence and ballistic missile defense system that hosting a NATO transit base entails. This is also why Romania has been such an enthusiastic partner in NATO missions such as the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Ultimately, the United States is the only credible security guarantor for Romania in the face of a resurgent Russia. 

However, this dependence does not mean that Romania's commitment to the United States and the West at large is absolute and unconditional. The European economic crisis and weakening support for integration in areas such as migration has caused Romania to consider other options, including Russia, for trade and investment. Still, U.S. criticism of Romanian internal affairs is not a new phenomenon (nor is it exclusive to Romania; Nuland was the leading U.S. official to support protests against the government in Ukraine). Indeed, Nuland also voiced concerns when protests in Romania turned violent in January 2012.

Naturally, Bucharest does not receive such criticism warmly, especially when it is used by one camp or another to serve its political interests. But such issues pale in comparison to the broader, strategic interests Romania takes into account in its alignment with the United States. Despite their vexation, Romanian officials are keenly aware of the significance of the United States to Romania on larger issues like security, and they will make their policy decisions accordingly.