Brussels Tired of Consumerism of Moldova Authorities

It seems that the European Union has come to a full realization that a return to the former consumer system of relations with Chisinau is impossible. The assessment by the Head of the Delegation of the European Union in Moldova, Peter Michalko, is noteworthy: “Our relationship is not about money and assistance. Our relations should be based on values that are common...” Analyzing the processes around and within Moldova, one can observe a rather rare phenomenon, and therefore extremely interesting for expert analysis. Over the past months, the relations between the “pro-European” authorities of the Republic of Moldova and their external development partners have deteriorated as never before and become scandalous, with a steady tendency towards their further degradation. The situation is that the European Union, the United States and Romania since 2009 have purposefully and systematically invested colossal political, financial and other resources in the ruling Moldovan elites. Such large-scale support provided stability and external conditions for stability of the authorities, which from year to year, from crisis to crisis, quite successfully constructed the parliamentary majority by regularly setting up the puzzle from political coalitions – a series of “alliances for European integration”. And now, almost ten years later, we have seen the specific results of the consolidated efforts of Western players who diligently invested in the development of Moldova, and eventually received a poverty-stricken nation with an angry population, widespread politically customized criminal prosecution, rampant corruption, externally managed legislative, judicial, administrative, tax and other systems of vital activity of the state. The questions remain open:  why in the end it happened so, what were the reasons why the specific aspects of the development of Moldova have been missed or ignored that were contrary to the norms, principles and direct recommendations of European institutions, at what stage the “coordination” was lost and what would eventually such a situation result in. The catalyst for a certain “sobering” of Brussels and Washington was an indicative action on the judicial cancellation of the results of the election of the Chisinau mayor, which the opposition candidate Andrei Nastase won, by the authorities (acting in ward of the coordinator of the ruling coalition Vlad Plahotniuc). Such a nasty, demonstrative blow “below the belt” both for the democratic principles themselves and, according to many experts, for the very concrete plans of the EU regarding the forthcoming elections, could not remain without a response. For the first time in many years at the official level, the European Union and the US voiced sharp criticism, which eventually helped to freeze the provision of 100 million Euros of budget support to Moldova. As it was noted in the statement of the European Commission, the allocation of the first tranche of the EU macro-financial assistance was postponed because of the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice to cancel the election results in Chisinau. The Moldovan government and parliament tried to save the face and withstand the blow, alternating with rather sharp counter-statements, containing insult notes and mentor intonations, but this only increased the irritation of external development partners. The next surge of confrontational rhetoric arose over the introduction of bills of tax reform and capital amnesty “in a hasty and non-transparent manner” adopted by the Moldovan parliament, – according to the head of the EU delegation in Moldova. Washington, in its turn, stated that it is gravely disappointed by passage of legislation that will diminish Moldova’s ability to fight money laundering. The press release of the US Embassy in Moldova says: “The law on voluntary declaration and fiscal stimulation, called also the capital amnesty law, legitimizes theft and corruption, and will damage Moldova’s business climate. The Embassy considers this law runs contrary to commitments the Government of Moldova has made and this belief is shared by Moldova’s international development partners”. It seems that Brussels has come to a full realization that a return to the former consumer system of relations with Chisinau is impossible. In this regard, the assessment by the Head of the Delegation of the European Union in Moldova, Peter Michalko, is noteworthy: “Our relationship is not about money and assistance. Our relations should be based on values that are common, European values that should be respected. This is what we, those from the European Union, want. But the citizens of the Republic of Moldova also want to live in a society where these values are a reality. That’s why the respect for these values should be a priority”. The other day the Speaker of the Parliament and the Prime Minister of Moldova held a meeting with the ambassadors accredited in the republic, demonstrating openness to dialogue and intention to find points for defusing the situation and conflict resolution. Meanwhile, talking about the results of the conversation, some European diplomats marked a clear understanding that “the European choice of Moldova is under threat today”. As we can see, the crisis in the relations between the European Union and Moldova is gaining momentum. In the context of the elections to the legislative body of this parliamentary republic scheduled for February 2019, and taking into account the obvious contradictions between the Moldovan authorities that “play their own game” in their own terms and external development partners, the situation tends to grow into a deep compound conflict. It is hard to predict the whole range of consequences of such a scenario, but there is no doubt that the situation that is imminent today will significantly affect both the internal profile of Moldova after the elections and the regional situation as a whole.