Ghimpu decree: unformulated national cause. Info-Prim Neo analysis, part III

The first part of the analysis “Ghimpu decree: unformulated national cause” that was published on July 5 focused on the parallels between the de-Sovietization process in the ex-Soviet Baltic countries and the attempt to reanimate the given process in Moldova. In this connection, we can presume the Ghimpu decree that declared June 28 as the Soviet Occupation Day commemorating the victims of the Communist regime could form part of a national idea similar to that of the Baltic states. The first part centered on the successes and failures of such an approach (see “Ghimpu decree: unformulated national cause. Part I” here). The second part published on July 6 analyzes the historical value of the document, its subtexts and political manipulations. (see “Ghimpu decree: unformulated national cause. Part II” here). The last part of the analysis “Ghimpu decree: unformulated national cause” focuses on the decree's effects on the international relations. [“The Council of Europe does not recommend, but can accept...”] The European Union, the Council of Europe and the U.S. did not officially pronounce on the Ghimpu decree and will probably never pronounce on it. The only related statement was made by Marian Lupu in a TV debate that brought together all the leaders of the AEI. “You should remember that the Secretary General of the Council of Europe recommended not to raise such sensitive issues as the symbols and name of the Communists Party, etc.,” Lupu told Ghimpu, reproaching him for his insistence to involve the coalition partners in delicate issues that are not of major importance, according to the leader of the PD. At first sight, the European official's suggestion is strange if we take into account the existence of two resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which contain recommendations concerning the elimination of the inheritance of the former totalitarian Communist systems and the condemnation of the crimes committed by the totalitarian Communist regimes. But the Western partners repeatedly showed they are ready to treat Moldova like an agitated child who is sometimes capricious, other times uneducated or dangerous, but who will ultimately do his homework. The Western partners care about the peace and stability in Moldova and are ready to concede a lot in this respect. Usually, they approve those decisions of the Moldovan politicians that are supported by more political forces and and show at least a clear political will. The change of the Europeans' attitude towards the referendum on the election of the head of state is a conclusive proof. The Western partners would approve of a national idea that enjoys broad social and political support, including the Ghimpu decree, if it fully meet the criteria of a national idea. We must return once again to the Western partners' interest in de-Sovietizing Moldova. Why do they want it? The answer is: for their own peace, stability and security. Firstly, Moldova is situated at the eastern border of the EU. Secondly, the Western partners know Moldova's intention, at least at declarative level, to join the EU. Moldova and the Moldovan society will not be accepted until they do away with the Soviet past. The Europeans (and Americans) will make sure that the Moldovans enter the EU, but leave outside, in the past, systems, institutions and people who generate dangers similar to the Soviet ones – atrocities, intolerance, exterminations, mass deportations, etc. Therefore, the Western partners will encourage the de-Sovietization of the Moldovan society by all means possible. The Western partners do not hurry to attract the Moldovans. It is rather the Moldovans who are in a hurry. That's why, the Western partners have time and do not force things, do not react to all the moves of the Moldovan politicians, as they did not react and will not openly react to the Ghimpu decree. Once again: its is the Moldovan politicians, society and every citizen apart that hurry up. Thus, the “Council of Europe” does not recommend, but if we prove we can formulate and carry out a national idea it can change its opinion. [“Russia gets angry... ”] The Russian Federation's anger was foreseeable. The Moldovan-Russian relations are periodically marked by such troubles. Usually, they are accompanied by the toughening up of the conditions of selling Moldovan products on the Russian market and Russian energy resources to Moldova. In fact, the consequences of such troubles are suffered by the ordinary people, even if sometimes it seems that the national budget is affected. If the decree had met the criteria of a national idea, the ordinary people or a large part of them would have accepted to bear the costs of the Russian anger. But the people should have been asked, convinced, stimulated to take part in fulfilling such a national cause. They must know what they do it for. A possible strategy for involving the society could have been based on the following theses. Moldova haven't made progress during 20 years. The people go abroad to look for a job and the families break up. The nation that is in the process of formation is being disintegrated. The frozen Transnistrian conflict is one of the main reasons of this stagnation. The main reason why the conflict hasn't been solved is the presence of the Russian army in Moldova's Transnistrian region without the country's consent. Thus, until the Russian troops are not pulled out, we will not be able to develop. If we demand again that Russia withdraw its troops, it will get angry. Are you ready to deal with this anger? The Baltic countries handled it and now live as they live. Are we ready to take steps to reduce the blows within a particular period of time? In reality, the decree was preceded neither by preparations in the society nor by diplomatic preparations. The government coalition partners found out about it post-factum. Some of the representatives of the central authorities found themselves in stupid situations in the international relations. In such conditions, the temperature of the frozen conflict went down and the Transnistrian authorities strengthened their position. [Russia did not have new reasons to get angry] On the other hand, Russia did not have new reasons to get angry because the Ghimpu decree did not say new things. The occupation of Moldova by the Soviet Union was certified in the Declaration of Independence 20 years ago. Russia recognized Moldova's independence and repeatedly confirmed its respect for it. At the same time, all the Governments of Moldova demanded that the Russian troops be pulled out of Transnistria, as the most important international organizations and world powers did. Russia recognized the necessity of withdrawing its troops several years ago and pledged to pull them out before the international community. But, it cannot do it because the Transnistrian authorities do not 'allow' it to. We thus have to look for the real cause of Russia's anger so as to know how to act and what is expecting us. It seems that the target is, as other times, the Transnistrian conflict settlement process. Russia is not ready to resume the official talks in the “5+2” format, which, after resumed, will have to produce real solutions acceptable to all the players involved. The official Chisinau offered Russia a pretext for being anger, if the analysts who say Moscow planned it in advance are not right. This way, the “Transnistrian noose” will be tied tightly around Moldova's neck for a period in the future. They say Russia behaves like this because it wants to keep Moldova within its sphere of influence with the help of the Transnistrian regime. However, it had chances to achieve this goal much quicker and at lower costs, but it did not do it. Russia did not want or was unable to attract the entire Moldova on its side, not only for fear. Before proclaiming its independence, Moldova was one of the most Sovietized union republics, with a population that knew the Russian language and culture, with a long period of coexistence, with the same church, etc. After 20 years of Transnistrian harassment, there appeared a generation that does not know Russian so well or does not know it at all. This and the older generations feel offended and have the right to be offended when Russia militarily and financially supports a separatist regime on Moldova's territory. Russia loosed the ”Transnistrian noose” neither when the PCRM and Vladimir Voronin were really ready to take Moldova into the Russia-Belarus Union and had the legal power to do it. It loosed the noose neither during the most Moscow-leaning and longest Communist government in Moldova that lasted for eight years. What aims does Russia pursue in Moldova then? Maybe Russia also needs de-Sovietization as national idea? Maybe those who say Russia will return to its normal, national course only after Vladimir Lenin is reburied? [A nice dream...] It would be better if Russia was angry with Moldova because it hindered its negotiations with the West on the new agreements concerning the conventional weapons or construction of gas pipelines in Northern Europe, as some analysts say. This would give us weight or at least we will feel more important. But it seems this is only a nice dream, also because the national ideas usually must be conceived and carried out by the nation itself. [Info-Prim Neo note:] The term ‘national’ in this analysis is used in the meaning of ‘all the people of a country’, with rights, obligations and responsibilities for the country and their own fate, not as ‘ethnic group’. Thus, ‘national cause’ embraces all the citizens. [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]