“This also does not seem to be a goal in itself for the organizers. Maybe this anti-U.S. protest was staged by these political players, as in the case of Russia, for the Western headquarters and ideas not to enter too much the core of Moldovan society and this does not build capacities to enter another sphere of influence than the one that imposes “love by force” on it…”
---
The protest mounted under the slogan “Homeland is not for sale!” last weekend by the newly created PSRM-PCRM Political Bloc is symbolical for the state of affairs in the Republic of Moldova and not only because the organziers named the Republican Stadium, which they defended in the protest, “one of the symbols of the city”, “for the residents of Chisinau”. In this regard, the organizers wouldn’t have made a serious mistake if they had named the Republican Stadium, in its current form, a “symbol” of the “Homeland” that “is not for sale”…
What was the protest about
The protesters pleaded categorically “against the intention of the regime of Maia Sandu and PAS to sell the site of the former Republic Stadium for construction of a new U.S. Embassy Compound at a derisory price”. In fact, the organizers didn’t insist too much on the price of the eventual transaction, possibly because not much is known about it at this stage or because they cannot ignore the fact that during the independence period, the U.S. has offered Moldova about US$2 billion in non-reimbursable assistance. It is naïve to presuppose that such a “client” will try “to cheat” the poor state Republic of Moldova in eventual talks so as to get a lower price.
All the protest force was aimed against the intention to sell this “symbol” to foreigners, in this case the U.S., because “Homeland is not for sale!”. It seems that for the organizers of the protest, the fact that the Homeland until now had been “sold” by pieces, by schemes, by sectors and by whole localities, but was “sold” to “our” thieves, is not a problem. It was primarily sold by the scenario of the Republican Stadium: “degrade and sell at a derisory price, but only to nationals”.
Did the protest organizers forget or they hope society forgot due to whom the Republican Stadium found itself in the current state that is more than deplorable? The first demolition decision that launched the degradation (and cheapening) process was taken by the Tarlev Government in 2006. It’s clear that no one in that period, even “a simple Prime Minister” like Tarlev, could take such decisions without consulting Vladimir Voronin or on the instruction of no one else than Vladimir Voronin, who is now seriously concerned about “the Homeland”. Over the almost three years during which the Communist government still ruled, they could have built a beautiful Republican Stadium if they hadn’t had other intentions. The “success” story or rather the full capture of the state during the subsequent governments, when the Stadium was left to go to ruin (to become cheaper) unrestrictedly during the next 12-13 years does not leave too many response variants as to why it happened so: “The Homeland can be sold only cheaply and not to everyone!”. Does anyone remember the speculations saying that Ilan Șor already had plans as to how to use the “symbol-lot” after (or before) the tacit PSRM-Șor government repealed the law on the Stadium in 2020?
Alternative to “public-private partnerships”
How viable the protesters’ solution to build “a social facility” of the size of a quarter, with necessary investments of millions of euros or dollars equal in value to the old “symbol”, on the site of the “symbol” is? Amid the multiple and profound crises that overlap each other, the state will be unable to cope with such a task during many years. Or the current government risks facing the unprecedented criticism of the current opposition that intentionally provokes the social “genocide” and the “energomor” of Moldovan society.
The so-called “public-private partnerships”, in the way they existed until now, are much more noxious than useful to the economy and security of the state and to the morality of Moldovan society. The notorious Chisinau Arena is just one of the last relevant examples. The evident alternative to the continuous degradation of the given lot is to sell it to someone who can develop it during a short period of time and with beneficial effects for the image of the capital city. Why not the U.S. Embassy if the Embassy of the Russian Federation, for example, during about two decades has owned a lot that is almost similar in size and by geographic location from the center of Chisinau?
Why was the protest mounted in fact?
Owing to the aforementioned economic and social crises that catch overall attention and all the resources of society, we can presume that the rather political theme of the protest is not topical and does not bring too many brief political advantages. The protest is a thematic exception even in comparison with the main directions of the party and parliamentary activities of the components of the Bloc of Communists and Socialists. Why did the organizers bother to stage the protest then?
We already spoke about one of the reasons: to shift responsibility for the degradation of the Republican Stadium as a real symbol of the degradation of the country from the previous governments onto the current government, which probably has its own sins already, but does not have this sin (yet).
The protest also seems to have a symbolical geopolitical meaning. Certainly, the Americans will swiftly erect the new Embassy Compound that will definitely be an architectural accent in the center of the capital city. They will also build a resting area, an amusement park that will unquestionably be very visible and attractive, which will be accessible to everyone and could enter the current vocabulary of the citizens of Chisinau: - Where are you going? – For a walk in the American Park or simply “to the Americans”…
It is not so far from symbolical geopolitics to real geopolitics. It is not known exactly if it goes to a concurrence or coincidence, to an internal initiative or an external suggestion, but the “anti-U.S.” protest was mounted on the hottest days of the major political and military tensions between the Western world and the Russian Federation.
Probably in a more veiled way than the official Russian propaganda, but the message of the organizers generates the idea that the U.S., as a notable representative of the democratic world, is not an authentic model of democracy and legality. The confirmation derives from the official press release about the protest: “The participants in the event drew the U.S. partners’ attention to the fact that they always and everywhere declare themselves defenders of democracy, but in this situation are taking part in a collusion with the ruling regime and are accomplices to the violation of the legislation.”
This also does not seem to be a goal in itself for the organizers. Maybe this anti-U.S. protest was staged by these political players, as in the case of Russia, for the Western headquarters and ideas not to enter too much the core of Moldovan society and this does not build capacities to enter another sphere of influence than the one that imposes “love by force” on it.
About real sins of government
As to the real sins of the government, they are related rather to the lack of communication and capacity to prevent easily preventable problems. For example, it is not clear why public discussions on the issue weren’t held or at least announced? Civil society already announced its readiness to take part in them, but the pretext was offered not by the government. It’s true that the mechanism of public debates organized by the government was fully discredited during the “state capture”. Do you remember the consultations on the Chisinau Arena or those on the situation of the press in the Republic of Moldova, or on many other similar themes? In those times, a conditioned reflex appeared in society: if the government stages public consultations, it comes to mishmashes, schemes and very great interests. But this obliges the government to now clean and apply this mechanism of pubic consultations in good faith.
