Morning in Moldova

The Referendum, Mocanu & the AIE

2010-09-08T13:18:00.000+03:00

The referendum as been and gone. In terms of the result, it actually delivered a resounding "yes' to the idea of direct presidential election. In terms of its effect, the low turnout was a big slap in the face, in particular to the two politicians who saw themsleves as the next President of Moldova, Vlad Filat and Marian Lupu. They will now have to wait and see if their ambitions can be fullfilled.

Voronin and the communists are of course crowing with delight. They have congratulated the Moldovan people on their 'glorious defeat of the ruling regime' and for 'restoring democracy'. For the life of me I don't see how staying at home and changing channels is glorious, nor how non-participation in a referendum is democratic, but then I wasn't brought up in the Soviet Union and indoctrinated in its peculiar brand of, er, 'democracy'.

There is plenty of blame to be shared around. The communists get a good dollop for actively undermining the democratic process. The AIE also has a healthy share due to it lazy and personality-focussed campaigning. And then there's the citizenry, who decided that the fate of their country was less important than the other things on their agenda.

The AIE is rounding on the corruption allegations raised by Sergiu Mocanu and their effect in deingrating the AIE and causing disillusionment among its supporters. The criticism has been extended to the media organisations which have given Mocanu a platform (particularly Jurnal Trust Media). Yesterday Vlad Filat indicated that he was considering legislation to curb the liberty of the media, while today the Minister of Information Technology, Alexandru Oleinic, has taken a number of media institutions to court for defamation.

The reactions of Filat and Oleinic are dangerous. I can understand that the allegations made by Mocanu may have caused significant damage to their reputations (not to mention that of Marian Lupu), however their beef is with Mocanu, not with the organisations who have reported him. Oleinic should withdraw his suit and Filat should apologise to the people of Moldova for seeking to restrict freedom of the press. Both men should realise that a vigourous investigative press (no matter its 'unfairness') is vital to Moldova's transition to democracy.

The fact is that Mocanu has made very serious allegations which have yet to be addressed by the AIE leadership, which leads me to believe that perhaps he is right. There is so much smoke that there must be a reasonable-size fire under there somewhere. Whether Mocanu is being sponsored by someone is now almost irrelevant; the facts need to be recognised and dealt with.

In order to regain credibility with the voters ahead of November's election, the AIE needs to order an independent & transparent inquiry into the allegations (probably under the leadership of a respected international figure). It should suspend any links with Plahotniuc until the inquiry is finalised. Prosecutor General Zubco should also step aside given that his name is connected to a number of the allegations. Once finalised, the inquiry should then hand over the results of the investigation to the (acting) prosecutor general for any necessary criminal proceedings.

The AIE needs to move fast on this, as otherwise the issue may become a terminal cancer which kills them in November, and saddles Moldova with another decade of government by you-know-who.

Improper Nouns

2010-09-02T09:50:00.001+03:00

If you think about it, there is little that is more tightly connected with your identity, your persona than the name you carry. For most of us this is an inheritance from our parents, and we live with their gift, grudgingly or otherwise, throughout our life. Some of the braver of us change our names legally, when we think that another moniker would suit our character better.

In Moldova names are also important. Your first name tells others something about your parents and their preferences, and possibly about conditions prevailing at the time of your birth. Those born in Soviet times were likely to bear slavonic first names such as Svetlana or Veaceslav. Only the brave would call their offspring by traditional Romanian names such as Catalin or Alina. The clever could hedge their bets by using Vlad (Tepes or Lenin?) or Bogdan (a name of Slavonic origin but widely used in Romania as well).

Surnames also have meaning, although this can refer both to recent and more distant ancestry. Those whose names end in “escu” would typically have had an ancestor from the old ‘Tara Romaneasca’ in the south of modern Romania. “Eanu” endings would indicate origins in other part of greater Romania, often being very specific in their description (e.g. “Dobrogeanu” for a native of Dobrogea). Name endings in “iuc” or “enko” reveal some form of Ukrainian ancestry, just as “in(a)”, “ev(a)” and “ov(a)” reveal Russian forebears.

Sometimes names can be very reveling, although sometimes they can be highly misleading. One of the most ardent supporters of the Russian / Soviet cause that I have ever met carries a purely Romanian name. Similarly I have met very pro-western Moldovans whose first and last names could be straight out of Dostoevsky. That is the nature of the Moldovan fault line between the Slavonic and Latin worlds.

One particular issue I want to highlight pertains to the use of names in identity documents. After the Soviet (Re)occupation in 1944, Russian became the official language and cyrillic the official script. The names of the people of Moldova were transliterated into cyrillic for the purpose of issuing Soviet internal passports. Three problems arose:

1. There are several Romanian sounds and letters which cyrillic does not handle well. For example, the latin letter “h” has to become “kh” or “g” in cyrillic. Hitler became Gitler, hamburger became gamburger etc. Also, there is Romania’s “ă” which in English is kind of a grunt while in Russian transliteration becomes a very different sound “eh”.

2. The Russian passport officials were pretty careless. The surname “Ciobanu” (Shepherd) for instance, was variously recorded as “Ceban”, “Cioban” etc, and similar mistakes were made with first names, e.g. the Romanian “Tudor” becoming “Fiodor”, “Feodar” etc. when transported into Cyrillic.

3. There are no second names in Russian. Instead there are patronymics, such that, e.g. Maria Ramona Lungu becomes Maria Octavianevka Lungu.

When Moldova became independent in the early nineties and reinstated the Latin script, a second round of linguistic bloodletting took place as the names were all rewritten back into something possibly resembling their original forms. The end result is that many people have discrepancies in their identity documents. Very frequently birth certificates, identity cards, passports, marriage certificates and death certificates can contain various forms of the same name, written in two different scripts.

This makes life difficult for those who wish to apply for new documents, or who would like to obtain a visa to travel in Europe, as invariably they need to clean up the mess that has been made of their names first. And that is not an easy process. It involves lots of queueing, lots of fees and lots of dealing with disinterested public officials.

Here’s my point: Why can’t parliament make everyone’s life easier by enacting a law which makes the various forms of names legally equivalent, obviating the need to revise identity documents. Then it wouldn’t matter if you had “Dimitrie” on your passport and “Dimitrii” (in Cyrillic) on your birth certificate. Public officials would just look up an annex to the law which lists the equivalent names.

Of course, there would need to be controls to prevent identity thefts and frauds (e.g. use of personal identification numbers to check that the two names belonged to the same person), however I believe that these could be put in place relatively easily.

There are votes in anything that makes it easier for citizens to go about their personal business. AIE, please take note.

Happy Independence Day

2010-08-27T13:13:00.002+03:00

According to reliable sources, the following congratulation messages have been received by interim President Mihai Ghimpu on the occasion of Moldova's independence day:

Vladimir Putin: Please accept the best wishes of the Russian people on this significant day. As you know, Russia has always respected the independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova and I have ordered the 14th Army into Colonita to help you celebrate.

Dmitry Medvedev: I congratulate you on your independence and wish to offer you a gift. As a fellow liberal and a believer in free markets, I have asked Onisenko to let in a couple of barrels of wine and a truckload of your veges.

Victor Ianukovich: Happy independence day. I have a changing shed at Zatoka that I would be willing to swap for the village of Palanca and the northern part of Transnistria. Do we have a deal?

Traian Basescu: I congratulate you and the Moldovan people on achieving independence from the wicked and evil Soviet Union and from Messrs Molotov and Ribbentrop. What say we have lunch at the Golden Blitz and sign a quick act of reunification?

Barack Obama: I wish all the people of Moldova a very happy independence day. If you don't have a budget for fireworks I'll get Traian to fire off some missiles. By the way, could you give me some tips on healthcare and stopping banks from going bust?

David Cameron: The British people are with you on this auspicious day. Please be reassured that we will do everything we can to halt global warming and stop your island nation sinking beneath the waves of the Indian Ocean.

Nicholas Sarkozy: On the occasion of your independence, and as a token of the deep and affectionate relationship between our two Francophone nations, please accept this gift of a planeload of Rroma.

Marcus Stephen (President of Nauru): So it's your independence day, ey? Send us $50m and we'll be glad to recognise you. Credit it to our account at Vneshtorgbank.

Igor Smirnov: Dear Mihai, happy independence day! It would be good to see you at our festivities on the 2nd of September. A group of dignitaries from Russia will be visiting and they would love to meet you.

Kalman Miszei: Really? Moldova independent? Well I never! Has anyone told Vlad and Dimitry? I'm sure they won't be impressed...

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad: Happy whatever-it-is day. Can I have my uranium back please?

Kim Jong Il: Felicitations from the glorious people of the Democratic (giggle) Peoples' Republic of Korea. I'm looking for a suitably demagogic successor and was wondering what Marc Tkaciuc is up to these days?

Mihail Saakasvili: Ain't we walking down the same street together on the same day? Why don't we get together and call ourselves an institute?

Angela Merkel (in my dreams): Ich bin ein Chisinauer.

Join the dots

2010-08-19T13:16:00.001+03:00

Banca de Economii (Moldova's savings bank) has this morning issued a press release in which it requests the Prosecutor General to investigate some loans issued (but not paid back) in the late 1990s, during the time in which the president of the Bank was one Viorel Topa.

At first glance this is kind of odd. Certainly if there is a case to answer it should be investigated. The question is, why now? Hasn't Banca de Economii got better things to do? Wasn't the investigation closed many years ago?

Let me help you join the dots:

1. Banca de Economii's major shareholder is the Economy Ministry
2. The Economy Minister is Valeriu Lazar
3. Valeriu Lazar is a close confidant of Marian Lupu
4. Lupu (by his own admission) is a close friend of Vlad Plahotniuc
5. Viorel Topa has just accused Vlad Plahotniuc of defrauding him (through the extirpation of Victoria Bank shares)

So, we appear to have a case in which a state-owned enterprise is being used to settle personal scores. It is only to be hoped that Marian Lupu and Valeriu Lazar bear some consequences if this abuse of power is proven.

The People's Republic of Moldova

2010-08-19T13:06:00.000+03:00

We're just over two weeks out from the referendum on reintroducing direct voting for the president of the Republic. Large parts of the rusophile left have announced that they will boycott the poll. The official reasons are that (a) they believe the AIE will use the result to avoid calling new parliamentary elections, and (b) a 'parliamentary' system is more democratic than a 'presidential' one. The unofficial reason for the boycott is that, with Voronin out of play, they don't have a candidate capable of winning the vote.

The communist's first claim has some merit. There are parts of the AIE (e.g. Urecheanu's Moldova Noastra) which would like to hold fresh elections so as to have a chance to rebuild their slumping political fortunes first. Other parts, notably the Liberal Democrats, want to have an election as soon as possible to capitalise on a surge in their popularity. In general terms, it would make sense for a pro-western government to wait until spring before holding fresh elections - better to go the people on a sunny April day than to hold an election in the depths of winter a week or so after the Russians have cut off the gas....

The second claim is scandal-mongering. Certainly we do not want a polictical system in which all power is focussed in the hands of the President, but changing the way he/she is elected will not change the his/her constitutional powers and so will have no direct bearing on whether Moldova is a parliamentary or presidential republic. At best it will increase the moral standing of the president who will now enjoy a direct mandate from the people rather than the confidence of just sixty-one deputies.

The Communists claim that, if Moldova directly elects its President, it will be an oddity in a Europe where Presidents are genearally elected by Parliament. There is some truth there, however there are some significant exceptions (e.g. France and (nominally) Russia) where the president is directly elected. What the communists fail to point out, however, is that Presidents elected by Parliaments are usually figureheads and have very little executive power given to them by their constitutions.

Where the president has some substantive executive power (as is the case in Moldova), it stands to reason that he/she requires a direct and substantial mandate direct from the people. It is unreasonable for the commander in chief and defender of the constitution to be appointed by as few as sixty-one people. It is unreasonable for someone who is responsible for national security to enjoy the support of only a small group of politicians rather than the people as a whole.

In reality, what we need to construct in Moldova is neither a presidential republic nor a parliamentary one. What we need, in fact is a 'people's republic' (in the true sense of that phrase rather than the one abused over the years by the Chinese and North Koreans).

The basic idea behind a people's republic is that all institutions of state would in some way be truly accountable to the people of Moldova. A directly elected president. A constiutional court whose judges could be voted down by a super-majority in a referendum. A parliament elected in constituencies as well as in party lists. A constitution which mandates referendums as the means for taking certain important decisions.

There is a view floating around (and very popular among self-perpetuating elites) that ordinary people are too stupid or too ill-informed to be trusted with decision-making. That job should be left to (far wiser) elected representatives.

I don't buy it. Switzerland has been holding referendums for years, and they are a natural and important part of the political system. The Swiss take an interest in these votes and make sure that they are well-informed ahead of participating. There is no good reason why, after a few years of settling in, it shouldn't be the same in Moldova.

Long live the people's republic!

Merkeltov - Ribvedev

2010-07-25T18:03:00.002+03:00

Angela Merkel's grand bargain offered to Russia seemed a little too good to be true when it first came out into the open, and so initially I refrained from commenting on it. It seems to be more than just the figment of a journalist's imagination, however, so merits a closer look.

The deal on the table appears to require Russia to withdraw its forces from Transnistria and work constructively with the EU on settling frozen conflicts (Transnistria being the first which would be addressed.). In return, the EU will allow visa-free access for Russian citizens and will take a serious look at Russia's proposed security apparatus.

Members of the European Commission appear to have been non-plussed by Merkel's idea. Not only did she go over their heads, she also linked two very different policy areas. What have visas to do with the national security of a neighbouring country?

That link is in fact the centrepiece of the deal. By tying visas to Transnistria, Angela Merkel has made Transnistria Putin's problem, not just Moldova's. For the first time in twenty years, the Russian people (and by extension their leadership) have a vested interest in the resolution of the Transnistrian conflict.

I fully expect that, over the coming weeks and months, the Russian people will start asking Putin and Medvedev what is so important about Transnistria that it's getting in the way of their Paris vacation. And Russia's leaders don't have a substantive answer to that question.

Merkel and the EU need to be very careful, however, to ensure full Russian compliance with their side of the bargain. Moldova has been duped many times before in Transnistria. Really, the EU should insist on a full and fair settlement, not just "withdrawal of forces".

All Russian forces should go, whether they be the 14th Army in the guise of guards supervising ammunition dumps or the 14th Army in the guise of peacekeepers. Withdrawal should mean just that; changing their helmets or flags should be off the table. Finally, Russia needs to engage constructivly in the settlement process. That means a cessation of all forms of support to the Smirnov regime.

It's going to be an interesting few months as we see whether Merkel and the EU will keep their nerve, and the extent to which popular pressure will bear on Putin and Medvedev. Whatever, for the first time in 20 years there is a glimmer of hope that the evil regime in Tiraspol may be coming to an end.

The Kosovo Decision

2010-07-22T23:38:00.000+03:00

The International Court of Justice's ruling that the Kosovan declaration of independence was 'not illegal under international law' has surely given a big boost to separatist movements the world over. The decision is likely to accelerate the splintering of countries that began with the fall of the Soviet Union 20 years ago. It will lead to new wars of independence, with the death and suffering that invariably accompanies them.

Russia's puppets will, no doubt, use the ICJ decision to buttress their claims to sovereignty, even as Russia paradoxically condemns the loss of Serbia's territorial integrity. I'm sure that champagne corks are popping tonight in Tiraspol, Sukhumi and Tskhinvali. Who knows, maybe Smirnov, Kokoite and Bagapsh will also now try their luck at the ICJ?

With respect to the legality of the decision, I'm not an expert. It's just possible that the Court is right, and there is no basis in international law to oppose the declaration of independence. If that's the case, however, then international law is broken and needs to be fixed quickly. National borders need to be established by enforceable treaties and be recognised by all states as inviolable. The alternative is a chaos which will be exploited by aggressive states to their own ends (not mentioning any names of course).

Even more important than the legality of the decision is its morality. The ICJ has just told the entire world that it's OK to run away from your problems rather than deal with them. Don't negotiate, just secede. Don't try to live in peace with your neighbour; instead build a high wall around yourself and pretend he's not there. Don't try to understand and engage people of other ethnicities, races and religions; instead, retreat into a community where everyone is like you.

Don't get me wrong. I was shocked by the evil that was committed by Milosevich's Serbia in the 1990s. I applauded the interventions of NATO to end both the Bosnian war and the Kosovan war, sparing thousands of human lives. But punishing a country whose rulers have gone astray is the sort of thinking that led to the Weimar Republic and the rise of Nazi Germany. It's far better to pursue reconciliation and rebuilding, with different cultures living side by side in a common state, mutually respecting each others legitimate rights. Not easy by any means, but far better than living a world made up of tiny little bantustans and wallowing in hatred.

The Moldovans are Coming!

2010-07-21T15:08:00.002+03:00

Over the last week stories have been popping up in several European newspapers regarding Romania's policy of awarding citizenship to those who were stripped of it by occupation in 1940. I have seen stories in the Ukrainian, British, German and Italian press on this subject, and there may be others.

Unfortunately the coverage is highly unfair and has tended to be sensationalist, focussing on the 'peril' of allowing 4m Moldovans into Western Europe's labour markets and claiming that Moldova is adhering to the EU through the back door.

Let me make the following points:

Romania is not issuing citizenship, but restoring it. This is a very different process from what Russia (and to an extent, Ukraine) has been up to in Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
The journalists appear to be unaware of the hypocrisy of their positions. During the 1990s Germany gave citizenship to people whose link with the country was through 800-year old ancestors. In 2003 the United Kingdom created hundreds of thousands of new citizens overnight when those with UK mothers were given citizenship alongside those with UK fathers. Bulgaria sells its citizenships freely.
Moldovans working in Western Europe are generally well behaved, place little strain on host country resources and do many of the dirty or manual jobs that make a modern society work. They are an asset to their host.
Many Moldovans already live and work in Western Europe. Most of those that are left behind lack the language skills, ability or drive to emigrate, so do not pose a major threat.

It smells as if this whole story has been created at the behest of you-know-who in order to blunt Romania's diplomatic initiatives to remove Russian forces from Transnistria. European leaders should recognise the 'Moldovan peril' for the nonsense that it is. European journalists should be more responsible and present the facts.

The Sun Rises in the East

2010-07-20T22:41:00.003+03:00

It's a well-known fact that Moldova is polarised into two camps. One looks west, towards the European Union, while the other looks north-east towards Russia.

These two zones are where almost all of Moldova's attention is focused. This is where Moldovans go to work, and from where new ideas arrive in Chisinau. These are Moldova's major export markets and major aid donors. These are the countries whose languages Moldovans learn in school and whose literature they read as adults.

Which is all well and good, except that Moldova is virtually ignoring the 90% of humanity that doesn't live in Europe. Here's 2010 population estimates from the UN's statistics division:

Asia 4,167m

Africa 1,033m

Europe 733m

Latin America 589m

North America 352m

Oceania 36m

There's a whole world out there that Moldova has barely touched. The country only has a single diplomatic representation in the entire Asia-Pacific region (Beijing). This is a worry, as this of all regions is the one with the greatest capacity to benefit from and absorb Moldova's agricultural and horticultural produce. This is where the teeming hungry millions are. This is where the number of wine drinkers is rising rapidly as economic growth brings prosperity to millions of families.

Moldova needs a more significant presence in Asia (and in Africa and Latin America as well). I'm not talking embassies so much as trade representations, whose purpose is to link Moldovan producers with foreign distributors. Just two or three people working the phones and doing the rounds of trade fairs in their host countries trying to drum up business.

Now I know this will cost money, but perhaps some governments would be prepared to sponsor Moldovan trade offices as a cheap but effective form of foreign aid. Why not talk to the appropriate national governments and see if representations can't be set up in Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney, Toronto, Los Angeles, New York, Sao Paolo, Dubai, Johannesburg and Mumbai?

Moldovans also need to diversify their language and cultural skills in order to address the wider world. English, Chinese and Spanish would be the key languages to learn in order to make the most of the coming century. Once again, a programme of schooling in these laguages would be a worthy recipient of foreign aid, being in reality an investment rather than a handout.

The best thing of all about the markets of Asia, Africa and the Americas is that they have little or no skin in the game with respect to Eastern European geopolitics. They don't care whether Moldova was invaded or liberated. They don't care whether Moldovans speak Russian or Romanian. They won't shut down their markets more quickly than you can say Molotov-Ribbentrop.

And that's got to be a good thing.

Russia unhinged

2010-07-02T13:09:00.000+03:00

Russia seems to have entered a frenzied rage in response to the 'Soviet Occupation' decree of Interim President Mihai Ghimpu.

Lavrov

The first to respond was Foreign Minister Lavrov. He described the decree as 'sacriligious' and accused Ghimpu of 'pseudo-historic interpretations' and of trying to 'rewrite the common history of our two nations'. He believes that Ghimpu is trying to 'break existing stability mechanisms on the Dniester river'

'Sacrilege' is the 'violation of a sacred object'. What is the sacred object that Ghimpu has violated? Is it the belief that Russia liberated Moldova from Romanian fascists? If so, then it needs to be violated because it is not the truth, just as Galileo violated the sacred belief that the sun rotates about the earth.

As for 'rewriting common history', I think that the key word here is 'common'. Moldova was never a party to the 'victor's history' as written by the Soviets. There is no common history to rewrite. There is just the truth that needs to be told.

Regarding the 'stability mechanisms on the Dniester' Lavrov is well aware that the main source of instability in the region is the Russian forces illegally dislocated in the region and the military threat they pose to Moldova. Such 'stability mechanisms' need to be broken.

The State Duma

The Duma also lost the plot and produced an angry, emotional statement. As well as the terminology used above by Lavrov, they managed to produce a few pearls of their own. Moldova, apparently, is a 'source of regional instability which could lead to the abandonment of democratic principles and a return to neo-fascism'. The Duma also suggested that Ghimpu's decree would 'strike a blow at the possibility of settling the Transnistrian conflict'.

I suspect the 'instability' comment is a reflection of Moldova's return to democracy. Russians generally don't get democracy and equate it with weak unstable government. The idea of power changing hands peacefully is incomprehensible to most of them.

The 'neo-fascism' comment is a cheap shot which bears little relationship with reality, but is designed to ring bells in the minds of listeners.

As for endangering the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict, I would suggest the opposite. Moldova's position is now crystal clear and that has to be a good thing.

In conclusion

I note that neither Lavrov's statement nor the Duma's contain any logical arguments against the content of the decree. Indeed it appears that they may not even have fully read the decree nor attempted to understand it. Russia has instead responded on instinct, assuming that Ghimpu is another Saakasvili or Yusenko who is standing in the way of their imperial ambitions and needs to be brought down a peg or two.

The Liberal Party this morning issued a statement condemning the tone of the Duma's declaration. Other Moldovan political parties, even those on the left, together with the EU and the US should support the statement. No matter what they think of the content of the decree, they should rally around and defend the office and the dignity of the President of Moldova. They should support Moldova's sovereignty and territorial integrity and send a clear message to Moscow that it has no business interfering in Moldova's internal affairs.

Hang in there

2010-06-29T06:55:00.000+03:00

Last night I read a blog entry from Oxana Greadcenco, her first for several weeks. Oxana is one of those young Moldovans who, through their protests and hard work during the summer of 2009, brought about the demise of the Communist regime and the installation of the AIE government.

In her blog entry yesterday, Oxana writes about her disappointment and frustration with the politicians she worked so hard to bring to power. She focuses on the way in which the PL and PLDM try to undercut each other at every step, directing their energies at each other, rather than at the communist opposition or into the act of good governance. A particular focus is the dispute between Ghimpu and Filat concerning Mihai Ghimpu's decree.

Sadly, Oxana concludes by saying "I don't know if anyone will now bother coming out into the street if the communists return to power. There is no point supporting one party or another. You compromise yourself."

I completely understand the disappointment of those who have worked hard to achieve a goal and see that goal being frustrated by petty personal squabbles and the over-sized egos of politicians. I disagree, however, with the outcome that Oxana has arrived at. Here's why:

While the AIE's leaders are ultimately responsible for the tensions within the alliance, the communists and other agents of the Russian Federation have also played a major role in exacerbating the tensions (think of the dispute over May 9, for example)
We shouldn't overlook the many successes of AIE rule - the opening of the country to a deeper relationship with the EU, the elimination of some of the monopolies, the strengthening of the media sector, the incipient economic recovery of which many countries are jealous.
It would be a mistake to can the AIE because it is conflicted, mediocre and unsure whose interests it is serving. 'Conflicted' is way better than 'corrupt'. 'Mediocre' is miles ahead of 'incompetent'. 'Unsure' is a massive advance on 'malicious'.

The bottom line is that we don't want the (corrupt, incompetent and malicious) communists back. We really don't. Unfortunately human beings have selective memories which tend to only retain positive impressions about the past, however that is a trap we don't want to fall into given the awful crimes committed by the communists and for which they are still to face justice.

No matter what you think of the AIE parties, they still represent the only real option for those who want a better future for Moldova. Moldova's youth should continue to support them, albeit with eyes wide open and with an agenda to effect change internally within the parties and improve the quality of political discourse.

Oxana Greadcenco is right in saying that, apart from politics, there are other 'important, beautiful and useful things to do'. Balance is good, I completely agree. That said, I still believe that every citizen has a duty to participate actively in their democracy, and I hope to see Oxana back in the trenches of political blogging before too long. She has a very important contribution to make.

Ghimpu's Decree

2010-06-28T10:19:00.001+03:00

Mihai Ghimpu's decree establishing the 28th of June as a day of commemoration of the Soviet Occupation and of the victims of Communist rule has stirred strong emotions both within and outside of Moldova. Before I deal with the reactions, let's have a look at the facts of the case.

Occupation

Under the classic Soviet narrative, the Russian Empire gained possession of Basarabia as the outcome of the 1812 Treaty of Bucharest, and in 1918 Basarabia was occupied by Romanian troops. On 28/6/40, therefore, Soviet troops liberated Basarabia from occupation by Romanian fascists.

The historical facts, however, seem to support a different version of events. In an earlier post I explained how the Treaty of Bucharest was, in fact, ultra vires, as it was entered into by two powers (the Ottoman and Russian Empires) that did not have authority over the territory transferred. Only the Principality of Moldova had the legal power to cede Basarabia. Furthermore, in 1918, the elected representatives of the people of Basarabia, the 'Sfatul Tarii', voted for reunification with Romania, and the inclusion of Basarabia within Romania was recognised by all the major powers except the Soviet Union.

There is no doubt in this blogger's mind that, as at 27 June 1940, Basarabia was Romanian territory and the entry of Soviet troops constituted an invasion and subsequent occupation. Interestingly all of the AIE parties seem to support this - even senior PD figures are on record recognising the occupation

Victims

Also with respect to the victims of the occupation, the Soviet narrative is somewhat economical with the truth. There is a (justified) focus on the atrocities committed by Antonescu's regime during the period 1941-1944, particularly with respect to the Romanian Jewish community and their extermination in Transnistria.

At the same time, however, there is no mention of atrocities committed by the Soviets in 1940-41 and from 1944 onwards. We now know (from KGB archives!) that over 300,000 Moldovans lost their lives due to execution, forced starvation or deprivation in exile. That the Moldovan left can be so angry about the Jewish holocaust whilst overlooking the sins committed against their own people is both astonishing and disappointing.

It is right and proper that there exist a day in Moldova's political calendar when the nation should stop and remember the loss of 15% of its people at Stalin's hands.

Transnistria

The last part of Ghimpu's decree states that

"the Russian Federation as the heir of the Soviet Union must withdraw unconditionally, immediately and transparently troops and weapons from Moldova"

This is a position shared (declaratively at least) by almost all political formations in Moldova, including the communists. What is interesting, however, is that this is, I believe, the first time that an official state document has made the link between the Soviet Union's 1940 occupation of Moldova and the continuing Russian occupation of Transnistria, seeing the latter as a continuation of the former.

Context

In total, therefore, the AIE parties broadly agree on the assertions made in the decree. The country was occupied, there were victims that should be commemorated and Russia should get its troops out of Transnistria.

There is division, however around the following:

Is a day of commemoration required?
Do we have to do this now or could we put it off for later?
Does Ghimpu have the right to make this move unilaterally?
Don't we have more important things to do?

My answer to (1) is yes of course. History (of the open, unbiased variety) needs to return to Moldova. The country's citizens need to understand the facts of what happened in WWII and be allowed to draw their own conclusions. The Soviet narrative clearly requires balancing.

On (2), we've been putting it off for 20 years already. Better to do something now while some of those who lived through the war are still alive and can add their voices.

Regarding (3), I have to ask the question "What would have happened if Ghimpu had sought AIE support?". The answer, I fear, is that we would have ended up with something so watered down as to be of little use to anyone. Ghimpu has been a bit of a rascal going behind the back of his comrades, however ultimately history will record this as a courageous and correct move.

On (4), we need to understand that there is a direct link between history and economics. Only when Moldova has turned its back on its totalitarian past, only when it fully embraces European values (openness, honesty, the rule of law, freedom of expression etc.) will investors begin to have faith in the country's economic future. To pretend that foreign capitalists will be queuing at the door while the majority of the population still thinks that the Soviet Union was some form of utopia is complete folly.

Reactions

There have been some interesting reactions to the decree:

The Russian foreign ministry complains that it could undermine the Moldovan-Russian partnership. Partnership? What partnership? I guess they're referring to the partnership that consists of territorial occupation, meddling in internal politics, trade embargoes and gas switch-offs? If that's the case, then let's undermine the Moldovan-Russian partnership as quickly as we can and replace it with something else.

Dumitru Diacov complains that Ghimpu is chasing the 'ghosts of the past'. He's right, however the problem is that those ghosts have been haunting Moldova for two decades and keep moving the furniture around. They need to be busted and Ghimpu is the guy to do it. Also, Diacov should be more careful in his choice of words - he himself is a 'ghost of the past', having been in politics for many years while doing little that is constructive.

The communists are hurling abuse at 'Ghimpler' spouting off about 'fascism', 'defending statehood' and all of their usual nonsense. Nothing new or interesting here.

Perhaps the most interesting and intelligent comment came from Vladimir Turcan, ex-communist and leader of the pro-Russia United Moldova Party. He claimed that what happened in 1940 was not an occupation because the 1947 Treaty of Paris recognised the change in borders.

Indeed the 1947 treaty did transfer Basarabia into Soviet administration, however please note the following:

The Treaty of Paris was signed seven years after the fact and contained a 'punitive' element relating to Romania's participation in the war alongside Nazi Germany in 1941-1944. In 1940 Romania had not yet entered the war.
The Soviet Union should have been equally punished for entering the Molotov Ribbentrop alliance with Nazi Germany and carving up eastern Europe in 1940. The fact that it wasn't is an outcome of victor's justice.
As of the date of occupation (28/6/1940), Basarabia was clearly Romanian territory under international law and the Soviet incursion constituted an occupation.
The Paris treaty was signed between the Soviet Union and a puppet Romanian government led by Petru Groza which had been installed in fraudulent elections on 9/11/1946. Basically the Soviets signed a treaty with themselves.
Basarabia was too deep within Soviet-occupied territory for the Western powers to intervene in defence of the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination that should have regulated the situation.
The Treaty did not contain any justification for the the new borders (there was none), instead basing its provisions on the 'agreement' of 26/6/1940 between Romania and the Soviet Union which followed the latter's ultimatum to the former that it should withdraw or face invasion.

Conclusion

Ghimpu's decree is spot on in respect of its content. It states the facts of invasion and occupation clearly. It seeks to redress and balance a history that has been roundly abused over many years. It recognises for the first time the sacrifice of those who lost their lives and suffered atrocities at Soviet hands. It implies that the Russian occupation of Transnistria is a continuation of the Soviet occupation of Moldova, which it is.

Where there is (perhaps) room for discussion is the way in which the motion was introduced, but to me that is a relatively minor issue. In any case, the decree should stand and be observed.

Commemorating Occupation

2010-06-25T10:11:00.000+03:00

From www.presedintie.md

President Mihai Ghimpu signed a decree declaring the day of June 28, 1940 as Day of Soviet occupation

Interim President of the Republic Mihai Ghimpu signed today a decree declaring the day of June 28, 1940 as the Day of Soviet occupation.Under the decree, annually, on the 28th June, a Day of Remembrance of the victims of Soviet occupation and the totalitarian communist regime will be observed in the Republic.

Under Presidential Decree this day, in all localities of the republic flags of state will be lowered to half-mast, flowers will be placed on graves, monuments and memorials to victims of the Soviet occupation and the totalitarian communist regime, and at 10.00 there will be a minute of silence.

The decree further provides that on this day, public authorities, businesses and organizations will refrain from carrying out mass entertainment activities, and in all educational institutions, camps and recreation a one-hour rally will be held in memory.

In this context, it is recommended that periodicals, news agencies, radio and television take into account the specifics of the day of June 28th in publications, dissemination of information and training programs held on this day.

The decree further stipulates that Chisinau City build a memorial to victims of Soviet occupation and communist totalitarian regime and to undertake commemoration ceremonies and laying of flowers in the National Square, where the City will install, provisionally, on June 28, 2010, a commemorative stone.

The Presidential decree further stipulates that the Russian Federation as the heir of the Soviet Union must withdraw unconditionally, immediately and transparently troops and weapons from Moldova.

Free and fair, finally

2010-06-20T23:24:00.000+03:00

On Friday, parliament got around to sorting out an electoral system which had been much abused by the Communist regime. Here are the highlights, together with my comments:

The hurdle for parties to get into parliament will be lowered from 6% to 4%. This is obviously more 'democratic' as it means that fewer votes will be wasted and the spectrum of views held by Moldovans will be more adequately represented. The counter-argument (that the resulting parliament will be non-cohesive and factious) is partially rendered null by the fact that under a 6% hurdle we already have a parliament that is non-cohesive and factious.... I have to say that my personal theoretical preference, however, is to have a high threshold and allow preference voting, so that there are only a few parties in parliament but they do broadly represent the electorate.
The hurdle for individuals is lowered from 3% to 2%. It should have been no more than 1%, given that there are 101 seats in the house, and that campaigning is a lot tougher for independents.
Parties can get together and form blocs to boost their chances at the polls. Personally I'm not a fan of this; I would want to know exactly who I am voting for, and I would want some sort of commitment that the block would stay together once in parliament (given that I put them there, and they are sharing my vote).
The method of deciding how votes translate into seat numbers has been adjusted so that it will be fairer, in the sense that the 'cost in votes' of a seat will exhibit less variance, and the largest vote-winner will no longer be unfairly advantaged.
The quorum for a constitutional referendum was lowered from a 60% turnout to a 1/3 turnout. I agree that in this apathetic day and age 60% could prove to be tough to achieve, however 1/3 seems too low and somewhat illegitimate. 50% would have been the best solution.
Referendums motions will be passed by a simple majority of those present. In the extreme, combined with the quorum rule, 16.7% of enrolled voters could decide the fate of the country. This seems like a bad thing, however in this case we should note that the 50% who stayed away from the poll are effectively delegating their votes to the 50% who did bother to show up, and who seemingly are showing greater care for the future of their country.
A parliamentary majority has been redefined as 51 out of the 101 seats, overturning the idiotic ruling of the Constitutional Court which required 52 votes. This is quite important when you remember that the AIE only has 54 votes (with MU defector Guznac included) and the the Communists are still boycotting sittings of Parliament.
It will be possible to open polling stations in foreign countries outside of Moldova's diplomatic representations. This will go a long way in enfranchising the overseas worker community and will probably mean an extra seat for both the PL and the PLDM.

The other point I would have added would be a money-saving move to avoid a second round of presidential elections by asking voters to express their second and third preferences during the first round.

That said, taken as a whole, the moves above will enable the Electoral Commission to more fully comply with the constitutional requirement that every citizen be able to cast a vote which is free, fair and equal.

Wonderland

2010-06-17T09:56:00.000+03:00

Where in the world:

Would the leading religious organisation openly support a particular political movement?
Would a former head of a much-distrusted secret service put himself up for election to parliament?
Would the opposition claim that it is undemocratic for the people to decide how their president is elected?
Would politicians fall over each other trying to establish a strategic partnership with an occupying power?

Welcome to wonderland.

Lavrovian Maths

2010-06-13T16:11:00.007+03:00

A country that has produced many of the World's greatest mathematicians should know better. The numbers three and one aren't equal in any 'normal world'.

And yet, that is what Valery Kuzmin is stating, as his boss Serghei Lavrov already did. "Transnistria and Moldova are equal negotiating partners".

No Mr Kuzmin, they are not;
1. Even you recognise (officially) that Transnistria is a constituent part of Moldova. If A is a subset of B, and there are elements in B which are not also in A, then A
2. Moldova is a member of the UN, and is recognised my just about all the countries of the world. Transnistria is recognised only by fellow Russia-sponsored bantustans like South Ossetia.
3. Right-bank Moldova's territory is many times the size of Transnistria's
4. Moldova has had several democratic changes of government since 1989; Transnistria has had none.

Mr Kuzmin went on to say that the equality of Moldova and Transnistria was a 'matter of principle' for the Russian Federation. I have been trying to locate this principle for several months, but the Russian side hasn't offered it up for public consumption. The closest I have come is a statement from Mr Kuzmin that 'negotiations can only take place between equal parties'. This is of course daft - were Russia and Georgia equal in the ceasefire negotiations of 2008? How about Russia nd Chechnya? Israel and Palestine? The fact is that negotiations usually take place between parties of different status and power.

Russia's real reason for demanding 'equality' is to control the final status. If the parties are equal in negotiations, then any reunified state will be a confederation of two equal parts, each of which will have a veto over major decision-making. Moscow, through its Transnistrian client, will be able to veto Moldovan moves to join NATO and even the EU. The situation becomes even worse if Gagauzia is brought into play as a third constituent of the confederation. This would hand Russia not just a veto, but also control.

Economic Masochism?

2010-06-10T10:39:00.001+03:00

This is the phrase used by Paul Krugman to describe Europe's current wave of government budget cutting and austerity.

In part he is right - some of the measures taken by governments are plain stupid and seem designed to force economies into a more severe contraction.

The Romanian government is a case in point. It needs to cut spending, but the way it is making the cuts is plain dumb. The hundreds of thousands of people fraudulently claiming disability pensions are untouched. The hundreds of thousands of people fraudulently claiming government salaries are untouched. The wasteful and bloated government bureaucracy is untouched. Instead, Premier Emil Boc has come up with the wonderful idea of cutting public service pay across the board by 25%, a measure that will force some into poverty and others into deeper corruption. The smartest folks will leave the public service and seek better paid work in the private sector, leaving the intellectually challenged to run Romania.

While I agree with Mr Krugman that the way some European governments are cutting deficits is masochistic, I disagree with him about the need to cut deficits. With national deficits and debts already extremely high as percentages of GDP and no sign of economic growth, Keynesian pump-priming is now impossible, at least for the southern amd eastern Europeans. With interest rates already low, monetary policy is of no help. The only thing these countries can do is to develop credible plans to restore budget surpluses over the medium term.

That means either reducing spending or increasing taxes, both of which will be contractionary. Of the two, I prefer reducing spending, basically because government's share of the economy in Europe is currently way too high and this cramps the economic liberties of individuals and companies.

Spending should be reduced intelligently, however. Cut down on benefit fraud. Close government agencies that do nothing useful. Merge others. Flatten management structures. Rewrite laws to eliminate unnecessary bureacracy. Privatise non-core services. Introduce user-pays where appropriate. Have the private sector build, own and operate infrastructure. Sell off state assets to fund pensions.

The 2010s are going to be a long, difficult decade as we sort out all of our various issues with the credit overhang, trade imbalances, demographic change, environmental change and the decline of oil. The next couple of years will be particularly hard as government spending falls, and with it demand and economic activity.

There is light at the end of the tunnel, however. With enlightened decision making, European economies could emerge from the recession with slimmed down public bureaucracies, more flexible labour markets, more open and liberal economic structures, greener energy solutions and a class of former public servants who have entered the private sector and established small, productive businesses. These changes will lay a firm foundation for solid, productivity-based economic development in the 2020s.

PS: What Mr Krugman and many economic commentators are failing to point out is that the US is in a very similar boat, running a very high deficit (10.6% of GDP) and a very high national debt ($13 trillion). For the moment, the markets are focussed on Europe and are giving the US a longer leash. Maybe this is because they believe the Obama deficit reduction plan, maybe it's because the US is registering a degree of (stimulus-based) economic growth, maybe it's because the US has a somewhat better demographic outlook? Whatever, it's only a matter of time before the US has to start cutting just as Europe is now. Any schadenfreude will be short-lived.

Gumenita walks

2010-06-09T12:40:00.000+03:00

This morning we have witnessed another failure of Moldovan justice, with the Buiucani district court releasing former deputy police commissioner Iacob Gumenita from home arrest and allowing him to be 'investigated at liberty' with respect to his role in the events of April 7th / 8th 2009.

Remember, this is the guy caught on video kicking protester Damien Hancu several times, as well as participating in the events which led to the death of Valeriu Boboc.

Wikipedia lists the typical reasons for keeping a suspect in remand as

the suspect has been accused of carrying out a particularly serious offence
the suspect having previous convictions for similar offences
reasons to believe the suspect could leave the court's jurisdiction to avoid its trial and possible punishment
reasons to believe the suspect may destroy evidence or interfere with witnesses
the suspect is likely to commit further offences before the trial
the suspect is believed to be in danger from accomplices, victims, or vigilantes

In Gumenita's case, bullet points one and four clearly apply. He is being investigated as an accessory to murder and for grievous bodily harm. He is a man with strong connections in the police force and elsewhere and is likely to use them to try to close down the prosecution's case.

The Buiucani court has mad a grave error in letting Gumenita go free. Note that this is the same court which kept Anatol Matasaru locked up for months last year on the flimsiest of evidence, so there is a clear double standard operating here.

This is Ion Muruianu's justice system, not that of the people of Moldova. It's not the rule of law so much as the rule of lawyers, attacking the weak and protecting the strong. It needs comprehensive reform, and that can only happen when the current structures and leadership of the Superior Magistrates Council and the Constitutional Court are disestablished by referendum.

Caption competition #2

2010-06-07T15:25:00.000+03:00

Here's another photo (from the Xinhua news agency) worth captioning. Let's see what you come up with.

Caption competition

2010-06-02T13:48:00.000+03:00

Communist party lawyer Sergiu Sarbu was photographed on a recent trip to America (photo: Hotnews.md). I thought it might be fun if we have a little competition to add a caption (please use the comments facility).

Condemning communism

2010-06-01T20:41:00.000+03:00

Over the last few days the 'Cojocaru Commission' investigating the activity of the Soviet communist regime in Moldova has presented its report to the interim President, Mihai Ghimpu. The report is a solid academic work based on six months of research by members of the commission, and on an unprecedented level of access to national archives, including those of the former KGB.

As a result of the investigation, we have already discovered new and important facts about the period immediately following the communist takeover in 1944, when 'enemies of the state' were shot, deported or starved to death. In total it appears that around 15% of Moldova's population perished during this time.

Now the commission has presented its proposals to Mr Ghimpu:

The condemnation of the totalitarian communist regime by the Moldovan parliament
The banning of the word 'communist' and its derivatives in the name of political parties and social organisations
The banning of communist and nazi symbols, in accordance with the decision of the Council of Europe
Construction of a memorial complex in the centre of Chisinau
Construction of museums and placement of memorial plaques in every town and village
Establishment of another commission to establish the financial prejudices caused by Communism

Let's look at these in more detail. Nobody should argue with proposal 1. The evidence is overwhelming that Soviet Communism in Moldova was really nasty and deserves condemnation. Furthermore this symbolic move won't cost anything to anybody, with the exception of the PCRM who will (deservedly) suffer by association.

2. and 3. are more problematic. In theory the Council of Europe has paved the way for these moves, but in any case they would be considered undemocratic by a large section of Moldovan (and indeed European) society. Remember that 'communist' parties continue to exist and operate within the democratic system in many parts of Europe. Dumitru Diacov is right in saying that such a move could backfire on the AIE. If a ban is to take effect, it should be legislated now, but take place immediately after the next election

4. and 5. are absolutely right and proper. History needs to return to Moldova and constant, physical reminders of the horrors of Soviet occupation are an appropriate move. I would even go further and have the commission produce a 'pocket' version of their report that would be distributed to every Moldovan household.

6. would be an interesting, but ultimately pointless exercise. While Russia is the legal successor state of the Soviet Union, it would be hard to pin this liability on her, and even more difficult to collect. Remember that Russia too suffered at the hands of Soviet Communism.

I would probably add a seventh proposal, which is a 'lustration' law. The basic idea here is that those who committed crimes as part of the soviet communist nomenclatura, or who willingly collaborated with the KGB, should be banned from holding public office. This is something that should have happened across Eastern Europe, but hasn't, allowing former spooks to transform themselves into semi-respectable 'democratic politicians. In many countries (e.g. Romania) this has hampered the development of an elite free of Soviet mentalities and truly committed to human rights and democratic values.

So there it is. The commission needs to be applauded for its excellent and long-overdue work. Its proposals, however, need to be weighed carefully and applied so as to have the maximum positive effect on Moldovan society.

Almost Friendless

2010-05-31T12:40:00.000+03:00

Well, it's been and gone - the annual dose of silliness known as the Eurovision song contest. Romania did well off the back of Paula Seling's amazing voice and that funny piano of theirs. Denmark did quite well on the back of Abba nostalgia and Turkey (refreshingly & unexpectedly) gave us a dose of hard rock. I won't even mention Armenia's apricots...

In the end, however, it was the cute German girl in the little black dress who stole the big prize. In some ways it was a surprising victory - she had no stage show to speak of and a catchy, but not exceptional tune. On the other hand, she had the cheek to stand up by herself and pull it off with a superb and frisky individual performance (strange cockney accent notwithstanding).

Moldova gave a worthy performance, but finished near the tail of the field. As ever, I'm interested in the geopolitics of the thing. Moldova gave its biggest points to its nearest and theoretically most important partners - Romania, Russia and Ukraine. Out of friendship, Romania gave Moldova 10 points, and I think would have given 12 for a stronger act.

What is really notable is that Russia and Ukraine didn't give Moldova a single point. This should give the Moldovan left pause to think. In reality Russia and Ukraine don't give a toss about Moldova and cannot be considered friends of the country. Their only interest in Moldova is in ripping off chunks of territory and absconding with valuable assets. Beyond that, nothing. This is a message that needs to get to the electorate loud and clear.

Why then, does Moldova faun over its eastern neighbours, trying to obtain "strategic partnerships"? Why do Moldovan politicians make repeated pilgrimages to Moscow and Kiev? Why do Moldovan citizens watch Russian TV channels? And why does Moldova give them the big points at Eurovision? It's actually a big distraction and a huge waste of effort.

Moldova needs to cultivate other friendships. I'm thinking that Boris Focsa could negotiate a Eurovision point-swapping treaty with the poor old Brits, who came an ignominious last in the contest due to their out-of-tune singing. Fellow latin countries such as Italy and France should also be natural supporters, but are conspicuously absent. Relations with other countries who have similar histories, e.g. Georgia, Azerbaidjan and the, er, Home of the Apricots, could also be shored up

So there you go. If Eurovision fails to reorient Moldova's foreign policy from East to West, then I'm out of ideas.

Kyrgyzstan on Prut?

2010-05-24T11:11:00.001+03:00

From Petru Bogatu's blog:

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in a televised interview, compared the state of things in Moldova with that of a country which is on the eve of a popular revolt. "With regard to Moldova, we recognize that the political situation is not yet stable. The situation may not be as acute as in Kyrgyzstan, but it is very similar to this country, " pointed out the head of government in Moscow with a knowing air.

Sounds like a threat

Curious, no? Where did he get that from? What's really in his head?

Moldova is the only ex-Soviet state, (except for the Baltics, of course), where the succession of power occurred over the years by democratic parliamentary elections which were more or less free. Nobody fired on the Parliament building, as in Russia in 1993. There was no orange revolution as in Kiev in 2004. We haven't had any terrorist acts committed in parliament as in Armenia and there hasn't been a civil war as in Tajikistan.

Although defective, Moldova is a European-style democracy, which bears little resemblance to the despotic regimes in many other countries of the former USSR. Viewed from this angle, Putin's words sound strange. I can't escape the thought that at the centre is a threat.

I'm not exaggerating one iota. The Russian Prime Minister alluded to the instability of Kyrgyzstan, which recently underwent a strange revolt. At first peaceful and fragile, it later degenerated into violence. A rebellion, unleashed in the provinces and quickly picked up in the capital Bishkek was, according to international press, conducted in the shadow of Russian agents and led, only two days after its outbreak, to the removal from power of President Bakiev.

Lightning can strike suddenly

This creates the impression that Putin announces a political storm in Moldova. Do not forget, he would say to the Moldovan authorities, that though there is not currently any thunder or lightning, lightning can strike suddenly at any time. Unstable weather can be converted to a real disaster.

Let us not beat around the bush. Anyway you look at it, the Russian leader in threatening a Kyrgyz-style coup in the Republic of Moldova. He is scaring us with a major destabilization, notwithstanding that his statement takes the form of a 'remote and friendly analysis'.

Does this interpretation seem exaggerated? Speaking sincerely, for the moment I have no dark sensations about political events in Chisinau. There are, however signs that give grounds for suspicion.

First of all, there is the Communist Party's obsession with mass protest actions. There is also a bad smell about last Friday's meeting of the PCRM leader Vladimir Voronin with foreign ambassadors accredited in Chisinau. It seems that he is trying to prepare the ambassadors psychologically for a deterioration in the political situation. Also suspicious and strange is the unprecedented mobilization of fundamentalists and religious bigots, affiliated to the Moscow Patriarchate, which manage to gather in the street thousands of people.

A REPLY TO 7 APRIL 2009?

Putin's gesture is creepy and reminds me of other comparisons that Russian officials have made when it came to the Republic of Moldova. They occurred in 1992, amidst the war on the Dniester. Only then it was not Kyrgyzstan but Georgia that was being used as an example. They led former Moldovan president Mircea Snegur to understand that he could end up like Zviad Gamsahurdia, the leader in Tbilisi who, as we now know, was liquidated by a Russian intelligence service operation.

Moreover, the palace coup in Bishkek was preceded by a massive propaganda attack launched by the media in Moscow against the President who would be overthrown. Similarly, the war against Georgia in August 2008 was preceded by a campaign of manipulation of public opinion which attempted, through street movements, to destabilize the political situation in Tbilisi.

Is a tough response to the protests from April 7, 2009 being prepared for us?

Putin's regime has shown repeatedly that is vengeful and never forgets.

Emergency Exit

2010-05-21T10:55:00.000+03:00

A number of experienced Moldovan and international commentators are reading between the tea-leaves of declarations currently being made by senior Russian and Ukrainian politicians and coming to the conclusion that the two eastern powers have cut a secret deal in respect of the Republic of Moldova.

Petru Bogatu, writing in his blog on Voice of Basarabia, maintains that a climate of insecurity is being intentionally created (e.g. through Vardanean's arrest on spying charges) such as to facilitate the recogonition of Transnistria by both Ukraine and Russia. The territory would then be formally incorporated into a Rusofile Ukraine and Russia would be given long-term basing rights.

Where that leaves the rest of Moldova is anybody's guess. It appears that the EU is keen to develop a relationship with Moldova, however there is no possibility of accession any time soon. Moldova is unable to enter NATO because of its constitutional neutrality and because of the unjustified antipathy of its people to that organisation. The only alternative appears to be several more decades of poverty, desperation & human rights abuses as a Russian vassal.

Bogatu sees another option - reunification with Romania. I am not a unionist per se, but I am inclined to agree with him that some form of reunification may be the only way of providing Moldova with safe harbour against the oncoming Russian nationalist storm. To me, the form of reunification is vitally important, as the option needs to enjoy broad public support in order to be viable. Any model must therefore preserve the cultural distinctiveness of Moldova and the role of Chisinau as a meaningful centre of government.

Here's how it could work:

Establish a legal basis for reunification - either a repudiation of the 1812 Treaty of Bucharest or an upholding of the 1918 act of Union would do the trick (and nullify the existing constitution in the process)
Moldova would become a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of Romania (in the same way that Hong Kong is a SAR of China).
Romania would be responsible for Moldova's foreign policy and defence policy (both areas where Moldova's capabilities are in any case very weak). Critically, this means that Moldova enters NATO through the back door and receives a security guarantee.
Moldovans would vote for the President of Romania (who would become the head of state in Moldova as well) , but not for the parliament of Romania.
Moldova would retain its own parliament, government, currency, visa policy, customs policy and internal institutions, i.e. in all respects other that defence and foreign policy it would be self-governing (as is Hong Kong).
As a sweetener to the Rusophile community (who will have to swallow the bitter pill of Romanian domination), the Russian language could be given official status alongside Romanian in regions of Moldova with a significant (say >30%) Russian-speaking minority.
Moldova would not initially be part of the European Union, just as the Channel Islands are under British sovereignty but not part of the European Union. Moldova would only join the EU when it was economically, politically and culturally ready to do so.

This is plan B, not plan A. Under plan A, which must be the desired outcome, Transnistria surrenders, the EU admits Moldova and we all live happily ever after. Plan A's chances of coming about in the current geopolitical context are, however, very slight. Accordingly, all necessary preparations for plan B need to be made now so that they can be put swiftly into place on the day Russia and Ukraine repudiate the 1992 ceasefire agreements and recognise Transnistria.

A Policy for Aging

2010-05-17T23:02:00.001+03:00

A report released last week showed clearly that Moldova's population was aging more rapidly even than its neighbours. A combination of low birth rates, lower mortality and emigration mean that the country's ratio of pensioners to people of working age is high and getting higher. Couple that with the already miserly pensions being received by those of advanced age and you can see we have a recipe for disaster in the years ahead.

The Communists will obviously use this situation to their own ends, stirring up the pensioners against the AIE government. This is unfair, as the demographic situation is, to a degree, of the Communists' making (especially the emigration component, but also the low birth rates).

The AIE needs to turn this situation around with a pro-active policy designed to improve the lot of the elderly. Obviously such a policy cannot involve the addition of a lot of new money (the Government doesn't have any), but in any case here are a few ideas to get the ball rolling:

For current pensioners

Don't force people to retire at a specific age. If they are healthy and want to work longer (even on a part-time basis), then let them. Reward those who defer retirement with (a) lower taxes on their employment income and (b) a higher pension once they do leave the workforce.
Income-generating state-owned assets effectively represent savings that the state has made over the years (partly) on behalf of the current generation of pensioners. Take the income from these assets and use it to subsidise pensions. If an asset isn't earning income, sell it and invest the proceeds so that there will be a positive return.
Go through the pensioner database with a fine tooth comb to uncover abuses, e.g. disabled people who aren't, grandchildren pocketing the pensions of long-dead relatives etc. Use the money freed up to increase pensions for those who are really entitled.
Focus economic policy on growing the economy, so that more tax revenue is raised and this can be used to top up pensions. In my view, this primarily means deregulation and a strong competition policy.

For future pensioners

All of the above, plus 'severe encouragement' of private savings. Build a savings system which includes a combination of automatic enrollment (with an opt-out) ,regular contributions, tax deductions, and some flexibility in the use of funds accumulated (e.g. for health costs as well as retirement income). Also ensure that those working overseas are able to participate.