Opinion leaders do not share president’s optimism on relaunching relations with Russia

The majority of opinion leaders from Chisinau do not share the optimism of the president Vladimir Voronin on unblocking the relations with the Russian Federation. The executive director of the Foreign Politics Association, Andrei Popov, considers that the visit of the head of state to Moscow and his meeting with the Russian president is natural and even opportune. “Indeed, there are a series of problems in the relations with Russia. To a great extent, their settlement depends on the decision of Putin, and Voronin declares already for a long time that the cause of the problems is not the conflict of interests but Kremlin’s misinformation. A two hour dialogue and a lunch offer enough space not only for expressing an objective standpoint but also for understanding whether the fuss is generated by Kremlin’s misinformation or by the irreconcilable conflict of interests,” Popov said. The cited source considers as regrettable the way Voronin’s decision to visit Moscow was made public, only two hours before the visit. “This fact offered enough room for different speculations and scenarios regarding possible giving ups and “capitulations” which the Moldovan leadership is ready to accept, in order to make Russia’s position more favorable. Though, I could say that the delay of Presidency’s press release was due to certain beforehand agreements with Moscow, but also to the previous “postponed” visits experiences announced in time. But it would be unacceptable if the western partners found out about president’s visit to Moscow from the Russian newspaper “Kommersant” and not through diplomatic channels, beforehand”, Alexandru Popov said. According to the analyst, after the sad experience of behind-the-scenes negotiation over the Kozak Memorandum, Chisinau should be very careful, even pedantic and maximally transparent, so no one could claim “overnight” agreements with Russia “for the sake of some possible ephemeral favors”. “I think, that anything of what was publicized regarding the discussions in Moscow, not even the elements of Chisinau’s proposal “Kommersant” wrote about (very plausible as a matter of fact) – confirmation of the neutrality statute, guarantees for the Russian business and Russian language in Moldova, in exchange for the withdrawal of all Russian military forces from Transnistria and resuming economic relations -, is not justifying the conclusion that the president of the Republic of Moldova would consider for a new direction in the foreign affairs policy, to give up to the strategic option of European integration and to negotiate sovereignty or territorial integrity of Moldova. However, the optimistic affirmations that the discussion between Voronin and Putin will lead to unblocking the Moldovan-Russian relations, to a constructive Russian standpoint regarding the Transnistrian issue, are premature”, Andrei Popov declared. The political analyst Igor Botan, the executive director of the Association for participative democracy ADEPT, considers that it is good that the discussion occurred, but this fact is not meaning that, at this stage, the relations with the Russian Federation can be unfrozen. “Russia will truly show its new attitude if it will give up to criticize the Transnistrian plebiscite”, the analyst states. Botan doubts the supposition launched by several members of the opposition that one and the biggest concession Voronin made in front of Russia would be drafting a new settlement plan for the Transnistrian dispute. According to him, the statute of the region is settled by law, and changing it would awaken serious reactions of the public opinion. The expert is also skeptical about the instant success of the Joint intergovernmental Commission. Referring to the wine problem, the analyst considers that the export will be unblocked sooner or later. “Russia will insist upon qualitative wines, and Moldova will speculate this decision and will present it as a great victory”, Botan says. Oazu Nantoi, Public Policies Institute’s expert says that the standpoint of the Russian Federation regarding Moldova is the same. “Discussions are again tackling the special statute of Transnistria. I understand this formula as a statute that can not be changed by the internal mechanisms of Moldova”, the analyst emphasized. According to Nantoi, the neutrality clause of Moldova, upon which Moscow insisted, is stipulated in the Constitutions and it means that Moldova can not join any military blocks. At the same time, Russia challenges the sovereignty of Moldova by maintaining its military forces in the east of the country. “It is a game of Kremlin to ignore the sovereignty of Moldova”. Solicited to comment the leak of information in the Russian press, which anticipated the meeting of the two heads of state, Nantoi states that it is elementary to use media for informing or misinforming. “In this situation, if we link the interview of the president Voronin offered to the “Eho Moskvy” radio station and the article in “Kommersant” newspaper we can draw the conclusion that Chisinau tried to shape a preview to Voronin’s offer to Putin. The fact that the press from Chisinau did not write about this issue shows the attitude of the president’s administration towards Moldova’s public opinion from”, Nantoi said. Alexandru Oprunenco, consultant at the analytical center Expert-Grup states that it is early to talk about concrete results of the president’s visit to Moscow. Resuming the activity of the joint intergovernmental commission doesn’t guarantee that the parts came to an agreement on this key issue, the expert states. According to the cited source, the brief messages of the head of state on his arriving could mean that no concrete result was reached in Moscow, so there is no room for detailed discussions. Or, Voronin accepted some compromises, which he knows the public opinion from Moldova will rejected. “We can only guess and the subjects of the discussion from Moscow”. Oprunenco thinks that at present Moldova can not offer too much, given Moldova’s engagements in front of the foreign partners. The ambassador Fiodor Angheli considers that the reason Voronin left for Moscow is the difficult internal economic state, and the obvious separation of political forces. “It is good that the dialogue with Putin happened, but it is not yet the time to make optimistic declarations. Interests of several countries can be observed in foreign affairs and the situation will not change all of a sudden. We can accept that it is only a step towards peace”. Angheli says that Voronin made a mistake in 2003 when he refused to sign the Kozak settlement plan, while the Russian president was on his way to Chisinau. “Diplomatically, the memorandum is not a final document, and is only a guide for future documents. I consider that Voronin should have accepted it and then introduce supplementary clauses which could be discussed and approved by the Parliament from Chisinau. Fiodor Angheli regrets the situation of the Moldovan head of state. “USA and EU would like to know what happened in fact in Moscow and about the agreements the parts came to. If they will not be able to find out this information from Voronin, they will use the Russian channels and in this case Voronin will have to wait long time before someone will believe his option of European integration.