European Solidarity or Economic Pragmatism: What Should Be Moldova’s Reaction to Events in Belarus

Anton SHVETS The civilian plane’s interception and Roman Protasevich opposition leader’s arrest provoked an extremely painful reaction from the Western community towards Belarus. Ukraine opposed as well the official Minsk. Moldova is showing the utmost caution so far Despite last year's events and despite the ostracism that official Minsk suffered in the Western world, relations between Belarus and Moldova remained stable, and the popularity of its leader in our republic continued being quite high. Therefore, it is not surprising that back in early May, the chairman of the Socialists Party,Igor Dodon visited Alexander Lukashenko in the capital of Belarus, including for clearly electoral purposes. However, the incident with the forced landing of a plane en route from Athens to Vilnius threatens to undermine the Moldovan-Belarusian cooperation that keeps remaining pragmatic and fueled by a solid economic basis. Throughout post-Soviet history, Chisinau and Minsk have remained good friends and reliable trading partners. Belarus has never provided political support to Pridnestrovie, despite a huge number of similarities within economic and the economy organization, within social order and even within symbolism. The ambassador of Belarus in Chisinau is perhaps the only European ambassador who has never been to Tiraspol (he was also the ambassador of Georgia, but here restrictions are inevitable, given the close ties of Pridnestrovie with Abkhazia and South Ossetia). Now the situation may change. The European Union even if not quite synchronously, but extremely sharply reacted to Minsk’s special operation. Lithuania has already banned Belavia aircraft from flying through its airspace, as well as flights to Belarus for its airlines. Air carriers from a number of EU countries and the UK, including such large ones as Lufthansa, refused to fly either to Belarus itself or transit trough. At the EU level, all airlines are advised to do the same thing. There’s also talk in Brussels about personal sanctions against officials, their accounts and property in the EU and about possible restrictions on the Belarusian industry. It is obvious that Brussels will make the most balanced decisions so as not to provoke an irrevocable Minsk’s drift towards Moscow. Ukraine has fully expressed solidarity with the EU and banned flights, including transit to Belarus since May 26. Moreover, Kiev refused supplying electricity from Russia and Belarus, at least until October 1. Ukrainian-Belarusian relations have long been declining, especially after the August protests in Minsk which ended with a harsh Alexander Lukashenko’s reaction. Now, Kiev does even more actively, than most European capitals, “fit in” with the fate of Roman Protasevich, who is a participant to the 2014, Maidan events. At the same time, Chisinau’s reaction turned out to be rather restrained and highly technical. On May 25, the local civil aviation authority held a meeting with airlines on flights over Belarusian territory. They were recommended to carry out a risk analysis in connection with flights continuation in the Belarusian airspace. There was also a briefing on the actions of personnel in a crisis situation. At the same time, not a single influential politician in Chisinau has yet expressed support for or against Alexander Lukashenko, although such a resonant occasion could further stimulate and polarize the electorate. The official Chisinau avoiding it is understandable. The quarrel with Minsk is fraught with serious consequences for mutual trade and industrial cooperation established over the years. Its consequences will be visualized even in the capital, whose trolleybus and bus fleet are completely dependent on Belarusian technology. The same applies to agricultural machinery and equipment, as well as fertilizers, cooperation in the production of wine exported to Belarus. Along with, Chisinau is not interested in Minsk's position getting radicalized in the Pridnestrovian direction, since many years of humanitarian and economic cooperation (Belarus supplies fuel, chemical products, equipment to the Pridnestrovian region, as well as has repeatedly provided humanitarian and technical assistance; Tiraspol and Minsk are twin cities) might quickly sprout within political dimension. However, situation’s acuteness around Belarus hints that this time Chisinau will not be able to " tightly sit " and ignore the current regional processes. First, because of the vanguard role of Ukraine, which is a key partner for Moldova in terms of pressure on the Tiraspol administration. Opening borders, including within the Pridnestrovian section, does already indicate that Kiev is not completely satisfied with the relationship with the Republic of Moldova in their current phase. Secondly, because of the pre-election period in Moldova itself, which aggravates any political contradictions, especially in situations that acquire a wide international resonance. Secondly, as soon as politicians from the right or left flank, even those with the most dubious electoral potential, speak seriously about the regime of Alexander Lukashenko and current events, Maia Sandu and other key political players will have to comment on the situation right there. It is difficult to predict whether the commentary will be based on ideological values or on economic pragmatism, but the fact that the Moldovan-Belarusian relations are going through an extremely serious test is indisputable. One way or another, Moldovan European partners and its neighbors will expect a solidarity reaction that should be in line with its Euro-Atlantic aspirations. A broad cooperation with the “dictatorial and the pro-Russian” Lukashenko’s regime in this sense will certainly be regarded as hardly possible. The Belarusian example is another one in a series of those that clearly show how extremely difficult it is for the small Moldova to maneuver between the interests of large regional and world players. Both, Maia Sandu and her opponents in their policy statements, in fact, agree on their intentions to turn the republic into a neutral oasis of regional stability. However, as we can see, implementing such an absolutely brilliant idea is becoming a non-trivial task in the context of modern international politics where everything is clearly divided into black and white.