The investigation requested by the PDM against Ukraine’s Ludmila Kozlovska, the founder of the Open Dialog Foundation, contains an electoral struggle aimed against the PPPDA and PAS. The authors of a new article of the Sic! project said in this case the scale includes the activist’s actions (especially the promotion of the Magnitsky Law) and the support from prominent figures, and also a report that was challenged by a credible source, a classified decision and the irritation of a Polish government that was admonished by the EU for its democratic departures, IPN reports.
The authors of the article remind that recently, the PDM asked to initiate a parliamentary inquiry into the alleged illegal financing of the opposition parties, primarily the PAS and PPPDA, by the Open Dialog Foundation as this “constantly damaged our country’s image and attacked the political class in Chisinau before the development partners, also illegally interfering in Moldovan politics”.
According to the authors, Ludmila Kozlovska is one of the leaders of the campaign centering on the withdrawal of the Russian Black Sea fleet from Sevastopol of 2005-2006 and also one of the main promoters of the implementation of the Magnitsky Law that makes any politician to blame for the violation of human rights or acts of corruption bear personal responsibility.
Kozlovska and the Foundation have been constantly in the focus of the Polish press of the right. The findings of the report were also disseminated by Ukrainian publications that present Kozlovska as the holder of a Russian passport that was obtained immediately after the annexation of Crimea. This way, the founder of Open Dialog is accused of cooperating with the Kremlin and her image of human rights defender is treated as a fake.
The accusations against Kozlovska made by the Polish press affiliated to the power reached the Moldovan press too, more exactly the media outlets of the pro-governmental holding where emphasis is placed on her links with politicians from the opposition, such as Maia Sandu and Andrei Năstase. The narrative line was that the two also form part of the plan if the Ukrainian activist was an agent of the Kremlin.
The authors of the article note that if a commission of inquiry is constituted, it will be dominated by the PDM and its allies. Even if any inquiry should take into account the presumption of innocence, the Democrats in the very title of the initiative wrote “illegal interference” and “illegal financing” without ‘alleged’ or other adjectives that would point to the existence of doubts.
Who will the commission of inquiry question? The Security and Intelligence Service of Vasile Botnari? The National Anticorruption Center of Bogdan Zumbreanu? The Prosecutor General’s Office of Eduard Harunjen? Which of the Moldovan authorities that cannot be suspected of answering exactly as the PDM would want? The point is that the foreign financing, especially if it is “illegal”, can lead to the exclusion of the competitors from the electoral race, as it happened to Renato Usatyis’ “Patria” Party in 2014 or to Regina Apostolova of the Shor Party in 2018.
It is hard to say if the PPPDA and PAS will face the same fate following the potential inquiry. At least the activity of the commission of inquiry is designed to create a media context where the portraits of Maia Sandu and Andrei Năstase would most often appear alongside the “agent of the Kremlin” or “the hand of Moscow”, reads the article.
The full article in the Romanian can be read here.
