Why Did Moldova Oppose Russia at the UN

Vladimir Rotar Moldova did not support the Russian resolution on the fight against Nazism in the UN, but voted in favour of the Ukrainian one on the militarization of Crimea and the Black Sea Early this week, the United Nations General Assembly approved a draft resolution prepared by Ukraine on “the militarization of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine, as well as parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov”. 63 countries voted in favour of the document, and 19 voted against (with 66 abstentions). It is interesting that Moldova unexpectedly was among the states that supported this obviously anti-Russian resolution. And this is not the first time, even in recent years, when Chisinau takes an unfriendly position towards Moscow in the UN. For example, last month the General Assembly adopted a Russian resolution on combatting glorification of Nazism and neo-Nazism. In particular, it encourages States to take appropriate concrete measures in order to prevent revisionism in respect of the Second World War and the denial of the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the Second World War. Only the US and Ukraine have traditionally opposed this document, while 55 States, mostly Euro-Atlantic representatives, abstained. Moldova was one of them, which knows firsthand the horrors of Nazism. Nevertheless, Chisinau again illogically chose to follow lead of Western countries, even though the Russian resolution was clearly depoliticized. It turns out strange: Igor Dodon and the socialists, who actually run the country, talk a lot about the need to restore Russian-Moldovan relations, and even the new Prime Minister Ion Chicu made his first visit to Moscow. Soon the President himself will go to the Russian capital. Nevertheless, the PSRM-type of friendship between Moldova and Russia still resembles the process of giving gifts to one side such as gas discounts and opening of the Russian market for Moldovan goods. Now the head of state is probably going to Russia, first of all, to further discuss the terms of granting Moldova a loan for half a billion dollars. If earlier this state of affairs could still be explained by the lack of real levers of the PSRM and Dodon, today this argument is definitely not valid. It is clear that the United Nations has long been more of a scenic tool, and real policy is made outside its competence. Nevertheless, it is very significant that even in such almost symbolic moments as the vote at the UN General Assembly, the Moldovan leadership either does not want, or is afraid to actually show a changed attitude towards Russia and the cessation of the former anti-Russian rhetoric. As some justification, the new authorities can say that the current representative of Moldova to the UN, Victor Moraru, was appointed during the Democrats’ time. Nevertheless, he must somehow coordinate his activities with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration, and since November this year it has been headed by former presidential adviser Aureliu Ciocoi. Therefore, most likely, Moldova’s actions at the UN should be recognized as elements of the ‘balanced foreign policy’ so many people like to talk about in Chisinau after the anti-oligarchic coup. However, it differs little in practice from the times of the Democrats. The desire to ‘build bridges’ with Russia is good, but so far it is implemented only in words. Thus, Chisinau continues to maneuver between the interests of various geopolitical players, while regularly making curtsies to the US and the EU. It is obvious that the degree of support and financial assistance of the latter to a large extent defines the political future of the socialists who came to power, as well as President Igor Dodon. In this sense, the balancing of the Chicu’s government in the international arena looks justified. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that, to a certain extent, the hypocritical foreign policy of the new Moldovan authorities may pay dividends in the short term, but in the future it will inevitably damage the image of the ruling socialists – and not only in the eyes of the Kremlin.