Grains of truth

Voices are starting to be raised against the emplacement of a US missile defence system in Romania.  The most prominent voice being heard in Moldova on this issue is that of Vladimir Voronin.  The basic gist of his comments is that the missile system could transform Moldova into a front line of a new cold war between Russia and the West.  Also, he implies that tacit acceptance of the system by the AIE government undermines Moldova's neutrality and could lead Russia to take unilateral steps in Transnistria.

The first thing that needs to be stated about the missile system is that perceived Russian concerns are massively overblown.  First of all this is a defensive system - it has no ability to attack, only to knock out incoming missiles from Iran, Al Qaeda or wherever.  It is no direct threat to Russia.

The Russians counter that the system upsets the strategic balance between herself and NATO; NATO countries would be free to attack Russia with long-range nuclear weapons because they would be safe from Russian retaliation.  This too is nonsense; the system in its Polish incarnation would have been able to knock out only around ten missiles or so (c.f. a Russian nuclear arsenal of around 10,000).

Furthermore, due to its geography and design, the Romanian system is evidently designed to counter short-medium range missiles originating in the Middle East.  It is incapable of intercepting Russian missiles aimed at the US and flying over the polar region.

Simply put, Russian claims that the system is directed against them or somehow alters the balance of power in Europe hold very little water.

What is interesting about Voronin's comments however, is that he doesn't mention what the system can or can't do.  He doesn't discuss the military implications as I have just done above.  He simply makes an assumption that the system will annoy Russia and then extrapolates to some not unreasonable conclusions, all of which strengthen his position with his Rusophone / Communist electorate.

It is very possible that Russia will pretend that the new system somehow compromises its security and kick up a big song and dance about it.  It is very possible that the silence of Moldova's AIE government will be viewed negatively in Moscow.  It is very possible that the US weapons-defence system could be used by Russia as an excuse to strengthen its military position in Transnistria.

Voronin's motivation for his commentary is deplorable as usual.  His continuing demonisation of Romania, his distaste for all things western (including democracy and human rights) and his need to consolidate the rusophone vote are the drivers for his remarks.

The subject matter of his commentary has a lot more substance, however.  Should Russia choose to use the missile shield as an excuse for ramping up regional tensions, Voronin's prophesies may (unfortunately) come to pass.

Solidarity v Charity

You don't have to spend long in Europe before even supposedly right-wing politicians begin espousing 'solidarity' as the basis for the policies they propose.  Solidarity is a concept grounded in socialist philosophy, and as far as I can see boils down to two components, one social and one economic.

Social solidarity is relatively benign, and stems from the recognition that we all share a common society.  We all have certain responsibilities with respect to our neighbours and our living environment (which is a common good).   To me this is about being courteous with other drivers, chipping in to help after a natural disaster, packing up rubbish when you go to the park etc.  All good stuff.

It's economic solidarity that bugs me.  Here the idea is to break down class structures by taking wealth from the rich and successful (in the form of taxes and levies) and redistributing it (in the form of welfare benefits).  The purpose is apparently to break down existing power structures and produce a more 'just' society.

There are a number of problems with this idea:

1. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with the existing power structure, and accordingly it may not need to be broken down.  People can be rich and successful due to hard work, innovation and efficient use of resources; if this is the case then it probably makes sense that they continue controlling the resources.
2. There isn't really any purpose to the redistribution - the recipients of the benefits may or may not have need of them.
3. The redistribution process is often heartless, machinistic and bureaucratic.
4. The society that results isn't a just one - justice would see labour and initiative rewarded, not punished

You could even view economic solidarity as a form of legalised theft, in which a larger group (left-wing voters) steals from a smaller one (right wing voters).  The fact that it happens within the bounds of law and a democratic system doesn't make it right.

An alternative to solidarity is charity.  Charity is people with resources having compassion for those without, and willingly deciding to share.  Because it is grounded in compassion, I see charity as superior to solidarity (which is grounded in envy).  Of course it does have some downsides:

1. It can be a bit haphazard, e.g. when giving to highly televised causes prevails over giving to the most worthy ones.  This can of course be mitigated by coordination between charitable organisations.
2. Socialists complain that charity is patronising, the undeserving rich condescending to the noble poor.  I would counter that receiving a universal benefit I don't need and haven't asked for is just as patronising.

You could argue that welfare capitalism is based on charity.  Here, the right-wing voters that I referred to above agree to pay taxes to fund benefits to the truly needy.  They do this out of a number of motivations - compassion, social-cohesion, PR etc - but at the end of the day their contribution is willing, not forced.

*****

The bottom line is that neither charity or solidarity is an end in itself.  Both paradigms are just means to a particular end.  And that is why solidarity in particular is so insidious.  European politicians believe it to be axiomatic truth that solidarity is something to be sought after.  It's not even questionable or debateable in polite society.

The fact is, however, that anyone proposing solidarity as an argument for a new scheme to lighten your pockets probably doesn't have any underlying arguments.  They may not even have got as far as thinking what they're going to do with the money they have collected, or in particular why a universal benefit would be superior to a targeted one in the given case.

And that's why I have little time for the 'social' policies of the Communist Party, United Moldova and the Democratic Party, which rely on the idea of solidarity.  I'm convinced that any future left-wing government in Moldova would over-tax the economy and then fritter away the funds in various peculiar ways.

I'm far more comfortable with the targeted charity of Dorin Chirtoaca (e.g. his focussing of limited municipal subsidies on the sectors of Chisinau society that need them most).  Moldova can't afford gold-plated universal benefits (either financially or morally).  Whilst looking after the weakest, the country needs to develop an enterprise mentality in which individuals take responsibility for themselves first and others second.

Romania Mare?

A couple of months ago it was a basket case. A presidential election between two less-than-impressive candidates left a smell of vote rigging heavy in the air. The country had no prime minister and no budget, the IMF having thrown up their hands in horror and walked off. Economic activity was in strong decline and unemployment was marching steadliy upwards.

Two months on and one or two of the issues above have been partially resolved. Traian Basescu has been accepted as President by all major parties, a PM has been sworn in and a budget is in place.

But it gets better - Romania is in the curious position of watching from the sidelines as supposedly advanced euro-zone economies such as Greece, Portugal and Spain go down the gurgler due to uncontrolled government spending, debt build-ups and inflexible labour markets.

Thanks to Ceausescu, Romania's government debt levels are moderate. Thanks to Constantinescu and Tariceanu, its labour markets are fairly flexible by continental European standards. Thanks to the IMF, the budget isn't too far out of whack.

And so, we have the news this week that Fitch has upgraded its credit outlook from 'negative' to 'stable' and sees Romanian government debt being upgraded to investment grade during the next two years. After being marked down heavily at the height of the financial crisis, the Romanian leu is now recovering ground against the Euro.

Fitch's upgrade pales, however, against the news that the United States plans to base its missile shield in the country, having earlier pulled out of a similar venture in Poland and the Czech Republic. Taken together with the existing American bases in the country, Romania becomes a very important military ally to the US, probably on equal footing with Turkey and the UK. If the US is the world's policeman, then Romania has just become (to use a term coined by former Australian PM John Howard) a 'deputy sheriff'.

Taken all together, Romania appears to be transitioning from a post-communist failed state to being a mid-ranking European power with an important voice. Notwithstanding the linguistic, cultural and familial ties, Moldova's bid to rapidly improve relations with its neighbour to the south-west makes a lot of sense.

France undercuts democracy in Eastern Europe

I have on a number of occasions written about the need for a quality independent Russian-language television channel which would be capable of balancing the propaganda transmitted by Russian channels into other former Soviet states.

This need is made obvious by, for example, the popular belief in Moldova that Georgia was largely responsible for the August 2008 war and the Russia responded as a humanitarian peacekeeper.  The facts of the case are rather different, as any well-read independent observer would acknowledge.  The gap is due to the fact that most Moldovans receive their international news either from Russian-government controlled TV or from Teleradio Moldova, which was under the thumb of the Russia-friendly communists.

Not surprisingly, it was the Georgian government that stepped up to the challenge, launching a Russian-language satellite channel called "First Caucasian".  Now that channel has been pulled off the air by French company Eutelstat under pressure from Russia.  (article here)

Come on France, you need to grow a spine once and for all.  It might be expedient in the short term to sell the Russians your Mistral warships and help them undercut freedom of expression in the former Soviet space, however in the long term this will cost you.  Do you not already see how your former protege, Romania, no longer looks to you for security and leadership, but to the US and the UK?  Do you really want Russia's sphere of instability and autocracy expanding deep into central Europe once again?  Do you really want Russia and Iran sitting on top of all the oil and gas transport routes from the Caspian?  Are you really prepared, as one of the world's leading democracies, to see millions of people in Eastern Europe fall under a totalitarian jackboot yet again?  Or do the principles of liberte, fraternite & egalite stop at your borders?

Wide open spaces

With all the political migrations over the last few months, I thought it was time to update my political map.  Here's what I've done:

1. I've positioned all of the parties with representation in Parliament.  As previously positions are mapped as to where they sit on a traditional left-right economic / social policy axis, as well as where they sit on identity issues (which I show as a vertical Russia / Romania axis)
2. The first new entrant is Vladimir Turcan's United Moldova Party.  Based on their statements this group is a bunch of diehard socialists who left the communist party because it had moved too far to the right.  The party is mainly ethnic Moldovan, but strongly supports the 'moldovenism' promoted by the Soviet Union and latterly by the PCRM.
3. The PCRM minus Turcan and effectively led by Tkaciuk appears now to be more or less a party for Rusophiles.
4. The other new entrant is the European Action Movement of Petrencu and Untila, which holds positions very close to those of the Liberal Party.

As an exercise this time around, I've tried to estimate what proportion of the voting population fills each cell.  I've assumed that a voter's socio-economic preferences should be independent of his/her ethnic identification.

The results are quite startling.  If we assume that 55% of voters are to the left of centre and that at total of 50% would be in the "Romanian" part of the ethnic scale, the result is that the top-left of the map houses 27.5% of the voting population, but doesn't have a single party to serve it.  Who speaks for left wingers that identify with Romania in some measure?

Similarly in the bottom right, there is a population of 22.5% which consists of people who look to the Soviet Union and the Russian empire for their identity but are economic liberals.  Who speaks for them?  No-one.

Why is it that the PD, MU and Ciornii are all madly rushing towards the bottom left corner?  I guess they figure that's where the carcass of the PCRM is, and they can feed on it to some extent.  The two big opportunities, however, are among Russian-speaking liberals and Romanian-speaking social democrats.  If I were the PD I would look to exploit the former, while the latter could be rich pickings for an AMN that desperately needs a new idea.

I have a feeling that a political scene in which all four quadrants are represented in parliament would be quite a lot more moderate and balanced.  The "us and them" problem currently plaguing Moldovan politics would be mitigated as common cause could be found on either economic or ethnic issues (although not on both at once).

Let's see if anyone reads this, takes note and acts.

Lupu's Friday

Lupu on Moldovenism
Yesterday Democratic Party leader Marian Lupu attacked Romanian foreign affairs minister Teodor Baconschii, who had earlier made a statement that "Romania rejects any action which gives credit to the idea of a Moldovan nation and language separate to the Romanian (nation and language), on the basis of clear, scientific arguments"
Lupu's response was that "Such statements from the officials in Bucharest - statements offensive to most of our population - disturb our relations".  The key phrases here are "offensive" and "most of our population".What in Baconschii's statement does Lupu find offensive? I think Lupu himself is on record as saying that Romanians and Moldovans are one people, sharing a common language, so that's not the problem. Maybe Lupu feels that Baconschii was attacking the right of self-identification (ie. if someone wants to identify themself as a Moldovan, they should be allowed to). The truth, however, is that Baconschii was addressing the aggressive ideological 'Moldovenism' which for over 80 years has distorted Moldova's history for Russian and Communist ends.  I think Lupu understands this, and as a result owes an apology to the Romanian foreign minister for his opprtunistic and politically motivated remarks.
As for the 'vast majority' being offended by Baconschii's statement, how does Lupu justify this? Was there a referendum that I blinked and missed? Was there an opinion poll that somehow escaped the rest of us? How does Lupu account for the PL, PLDM and AMN voters who would have no problem at all with Baconschii's position? The truth is there may not even be a simple majority, let alone a vast one. Lupu should be more careful when claiming to speak in the name of the Moldovan people.

Lupu on the 7 April Monument
Marian Lupu made another statement yesterday in which he criticised the decision of the Filat government to install a monument to those who died, were beaten or had their rights abused on 7/4/09. Lupu's view, which has some merit, is that we should wait for the parliamentary commission to complete its work so that all the facts are known before any monuments are built.
On balance, however, I'm with Filat. The monument needs to be built before 7/4/10, the first anniversary of the revolt. It needs to be there to remind the Moldovan people of this seminal event in the Republic's short history. It needs to be there so that the communists who ordered the abuses have to walk past it every day. it needs to be there so that the victims of the security services know that their state has recognised their suffering and sacrifice.
Of course, the best monument that could be built would be a prison for Voronin and Papuc.

Moscow calls
Next we find that Lupu is to follow his former mentor Voronin to Moscow in order to seek the blessing of Patriarch Cyril and congratulate him on his enthronement. Given the Russian church's continuing and massive intrusion into Moldova's political life (e.g. their explicit support for the communists in the 2009 elections, their willingness to reimforce the 'statalist' message), it would be wise for democratic politicians to give the Patriarch a wide steer until the Church changes its ways and refocuses on its spiritual mission.
Unfortunately, Lupu's visit to Moscow further demonstrates the extent to which he is under Moscow's thumb. Interestingly neither of Moldova's key office-holders - the President and the PM; both members of the church - have been invited to Moscow, indicating that the Russian church is playing favourites and that it is trying to send a message to the Moldovan people.

Of the People?
Marian Lupu also commented that anticipated elections may not be held this year and that the constitution might be modified in Parliament rather than by referendum.  I'm not so bothered by the elections - the people had two chances in 2009 to cast their votes - but the thought that a group of politicians would take it upon themselves to modify the supreme law without consulting the people is troubling.
Government in a republic is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people, and yet the Moldovan people have never been given the opportunity to debate and vote on their own constitution.  It would be a travesty if the historic opportunity now presenting itself is missed for the sake of saving a few bucks.
What is really curious, however, is the underlying reason that Lupu is flying these two kites.  Does he think that enough communist deputies would migrate towards the PD and MU such that a left of center majority could be formed under his leadership which does not formally include the communists, but which leaves out the Liberals and the Liberal Democrats?  Is he scared that a constitution put to a popular vote may be different in its content from one negotiated among political parties.

Summary
Taken all together, yesterday probably signals a turning point for the relationship between Lupu and his AIE partners. In the next parliament Ghimpu & Filat will need to achieve a liberal majority without relying on the Democrats. Otherwise Moldova's aspirations to strenghthen it's democracy and join the EU are likely to once again fall prey to the forces that seek to harm the country.

A historic wrong righted

The visit of Presidents Ghimpu and Basescu at the Romanian war cemetery in the village of Tiganca is a turning point in Moldova's history.

They say that history is written by the victors, and nowhere is that more true than in Moldova, where from 1944 on, the brave young men who fought in the second world war on the Romanian side have been vilified as fascists, their names associated with war crimes and atrocities.

Only tiny amounts have been spent maintaining their graves or furnishing monuments to their memory.  Their resting places have not been graced by office holders in the land, while on each May 9th, their deeds, their valour and their sacrifice have been swept to one side.  The tanks emplaced as memorials point their gun barrels at the homeland of these brave souls.

Whatever you believe about the war - which side was the occupier and which the liberator - there is simply no excuse for failing to honour the fallen, those who died fighting for their country, be that country the Soviet Union or the Republic of Romania.

Today was a big first step towards righting the wrong that has been visited on Romania's war dead for over sixty years.  More needs to be done.  May 9th must cease to be a triumphalist celebration of the victory of one side over another, and instead become a day of thanksgiving for the end of war, and a day of memory for those, both Romanian and Soviet, whom age never wearied.  Only then can healing and reconciliation between Moldova's cultural tribes truly begin.