“Begging” Diplomacy, or How Tofan Set Out to Conquer New York

Sergiu CEBAN

The Prime Minister’s ‘brilliant’ speech at the UN portrayed Moldova as a troubled state struggling not only with domestic governance but also with articulating its position on the international stage

At the weekend, Vasile Tofan addressed the 81st session of the UN General Assembly, stating, in particular, that Moldova had made an independent choice and had the capacity to become a ‘great country’. On the same day, a 60-day state of emergency came into force in the country’s energy and water sectors. Many observers noted in this self-presentation a strange combination of ambitions not backed up by domestic capabilities. The first thing that catches the eye is the nature of the Prime Minister’s speech. Instead of presenting creative initiatives to foreign leaders and key global players, he spoke about the hardships of the coming winter and heating season. It was as though he had mistaken his audience: this world-renowned diplomatic platform was, in essence, being used to address his own people, thousands of kilometers away from where he was speaking. Was it really worth travelling across the ocean just to address his fellow citizens from there and with such an alarming message at that? It is clear that the Prime Minister’s speech is yet another worrying sign of the ruling regime’s precarious state. A speech to the General Assembly is prepared well in advance; it sets out the state’s foreign policy priorities and, in a sense, the vision of the future – or the contribution to it – that a particular country proposes. If domestic issues dominate the text, it means that the current government simply has no idea what Moldova should say to the world. Tofan’s key announcement was the official nomination of our republic to preside over the 82nd session of the UN General Assembly. His accompanying remark that ‘Moldova may never become a great power, but it can become a great country’ is, in itself, justified from the perspective of the diplomatic positioning of small states. The problem, however, is that a state that does not control part of its own territory and cannot guarantee the integrity of its borders without external assistance can hardly lay claim to presiding over the principal body of the international system. It goes without saying that such an ambitious move is driven by pragmatic political calculation, given that the President of the General Assembly enjoys a full year of heightened visibility, formal meetings with the leaders of all UN member states, and a unique opportunity to gain first-hand experience of working within the UN system. For Moldova, which is seeking to establish itself within Western institutions and the broader sphere of Western geopolitical influence, this is a perfectly rational objective. However, such a strategy requires thorough preparation, a stable domestic situation, and the diplomatic and financial resources needed to take on the presidency, none of which, unfortunately, we possess. Consequently, the bid itself appears to be a desperate attempt to compensate for the fragility of the domestic situation with prestigious international standing. Another noteworthy part of the speech concerned an initiative to launch pilot schemes in Moldova for testing artificial intelligence and new technologies, as well as a proposal to position the country as a testing ground for major IT companies. The idea itself is not without merit. However, given the sector’s high energy consumption, it is worth recalling Mr. Tofan’s recent statement that more than 90% of the gas needed for the winter has already been contracted, while the cost of a significant share of these volumes is tied to market prices. There is also the issue of the electricity shortage expected this winter. According to Tofan himself, during periods of peak demand, the country will need to import 400-450 megawatts of electricity, while the guaranteed transmission capacity of the interconnector with Romania is around 360 megawatts. Our Prime Minister’s investment programme was the most ambitious in terms of formal indicators, featuring meetings with representatives of more than ten major American companies. The Prime Minister’s key slogan – ‘more capital, more technology and more major companies in Moldova’ – was accompanied by the ambition to make us ‘the most business-friendly country in Europe’. And this is where the gap between rhetoric and reality becomes most apparent. Moldova, as is well known, is among the countries with the highest prices for energy resources, directly affecting the production costs of businesses. Let’s be perfectly honest: our government is currently unable to guarantee businesses either geographical, energy or legal security. One need only to recall the Fly One case, in which, according to reports, a presidential emissary acted as the main organiser of an alleged hostile takeover. As someone with a background in the business world, Tofan cannot fail to realise that such rhetoric does not resonate with his target audience, as large companies conduct their own research, examine case law and assess the actual state of entrepreneurs’ rights in the country. Even the most experienced investors take into account the lack of safeguards against businesses being seized by individuals close to the highest echelons of power, as well as the possibility that law enforcement agencies may be used to persecute entrepreneurs for political gain. Until these risks are eliminated, any statements made from the highest international platforms will appear utterly absurd. This looks even more awkward given that, judging even by official government statements, a significant proportion of Tofan’s meetings in New York were devoted to requests for continued external support. He called on the Norwegian Prime Minister to maintain aid for energy compensation payments, told UNDP officials that support for vulnerable households would need to continue through the 2026-2027 heating season, and informed the UN Secretary-General that Chisinau was counting on the organisation’s assistance in advancing reforms and strengthening the country’s resilience. Viewed in this light, the trip increasingly resembles a form of ‘begging’ diplomacy. On the one hand, the government presents Moldova as a country with grand international ambitions; on the other, it is going cap in hand to external donors to get through the coming winter. The main conclusion is not about individual episodes, but about the very nature of the Prime Minister’s visit to New York. Foreign policy suggests clearly defined objectives, such as promoting initiatives, reaching agreements, changing partners’ positions and, ultimately, enhancing the country’s international standing. None of these objectives is apparent in Tofan’s programme or speech. Judging by the outcome, preparations for the visit were reduced to logistics and protocol, while the current Foreign Ministry team and the Prime Minister’s permanent advisers appear simply incapable of setting meaningful objectives. The result is a series of strange and chaotic gestures, contradictory positions and vacillation born of utter hopelessness. Instead of easing social tensions and stabilising the domestic situation, Moldova, through its Prime Minister, has for some reason chosen to present itself to Western audiences as a ‘velvet anti-Russian showcase’, including the absurd portrayal of Tofan as ‘Putin’s greatest enemy’. A man whose main problems have already led to a state of emergency is, for no apparent reason, declaring himself one of the foremost opponents of a nuclear power, likely provoking nothing but sceptical smirks and ironic remarks. Until quite recently, Moldova, along with Ukraine, was regarded in international circles as being at the forefront of resistance to Russian aggression. However, the visit to the 81st session appears to have marked a shift in trajectory and perspective, with our country now seen primarily as a troubled state struggling not only with domestic governance but also with articulating its position on the international stage. Moldova may never become a great power – and in this respect the Prime Minister is indeed right – but neither should we set ourselves unrealistic goals. I think we would all be satisfied with a relatively long period of stability built on simple things: affordable heating in our homes, running water, a functioning economy, the safety of our citizens, and competent government officials capable of clearly explaining where they are taking the country. If Moldova gets to preside over the 82nd session, the world will undoubtedly survive the venture. The question is whether Moldova will survive the coming winter.