{Info-Prim Neo analysis, part II “The Eurasian integration: interests, dangers, political stratagems and procedures” } Part I of the given analysis that was published on October 2, 2012 suggested that the idea of a referendum on Moldova’s entry into the Eurasian Economic Community (CEEA) and the Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan Customs Union (UV) that is promoted by the Communist Party of Moldova (PCRM) set off the election campaign for the parliamentary elections of 2014 and shaped two great conceptions around which the political struggle will center – the Eurasian integration and the European integration. Given its political interest of returning to power, the PCRM has the right and is even obliged to show initiative and to identify and promote ideas that will favor it. This tendency of the opposition should be encouraged because it keeps the government’s capacity to work awake. In general, the power alternation is a healthy and useful principle in a democratic society. But the main condition in this competition between the power and the opposition is to prevent the political interest from generating dangers for society and for the existence of the Republic of Moldova. However, the idea of Eurasian integration and, especially, the political behavior of the players that promote it provoke such dangers. [Danger 1] Faithful to its own style, the PCRM regards again the political competition as political antagonism with the full involvement of the masses, initially in the form of a referendum with the division of society into two rival camps, not only figuratively. Throughout the period of Moldova’s independence, the line that delimited the political struggles passed trough the ‘Communist and anti-Communist” terms, but did not cover the entire population because there were categories of people who remained indifferent to each other and to the others. From now on, the camps will be divided according to the ‘pro-European – pro-Eurasian’ principle and will include practically the entire population. This thing in itself is not obligatorily bad. But the aggressive tone set by the main opposition party for the future political struggles poses the danger that the general hostilities will escalate to unpredictable levels. But, in order to develop and integrate into the modern world, either according to the Western model or the Eastern one, Moldovan society needs a civilized and cult atmosphere and internal political dialogue. Consequently, the idea of Eurasian integration that has the right to life as any other idea will inevitably be associated through its promoters with the hysterization of the public life, intransigence and destruction: “this is the final struggle...”. The leader of the PCRM gave us a sample of ‘parliamentary’ threat connected with the referendum on the Customs Union at the very beginning of the current session of the legislature: {“Today we offer you again the most favorable conditions for such a crucial decision. Believe us. The next conditions will be every time tougher because they will be imposed without the intermediation of the parliamentary opposition. And nobody will guarantee that you, the Alliance, have enough time to ponder! Think about it! The time started to tick away!”...}. [Danger 2] The Republic of Moldova and Moldovan society oscillated between different systems of values during these 20 years. For this reason, they did not form as state and society. During the last several years, there appeared the chance to decide at last for ourselves and the world what we want to do. The last several elections inclined the balance in favor of the European option. Practically immediately, Moldova felt the encouraging reaction of the European Union and other Western development partner. Things go very slow in this direction, but they anyway go in one, concrete direction. The authors of the Eurasian integration idea suggest stopping and taking not simply another direction again, but taking the opposite direction. To start again from the very beginning. And who suggests this? The party that ruled this country during almost half of the independence period. It had all the levers needed to set a certain course, and take even the Eurasian direction. But it didn’t do it. The PCRM changed the development course of Moldova in the most spectacular, unexpected and cynic way for several times and every time radically. Which country and which organism in general can resist such capital metamorphoses? According to the laws of physics, the bodies that are subject to freezing and unfreezing for several times erode and become damaged. The process is comparable to the repeated change of the development course to diametrically opposed directions, like the East and the West. It seems that they aim namely to erode this state and this society... We now have a historical chance to take a decision. We may have no other such chance ever. Otherwise, the History will again put us in one of its drawers so as to forget about us for decades or centuries. [Political stratagems and procedures 1] The PCRM bases its Eurasia integration idea on the thesis that the EU is in a deep crisis and it would be a ‘foolishness’ to integrate during a crisis. As an antithesis, the PCRM presents the ex-Soviet Eurasian area as one with prospects to flourish very quickly so that the Moldovans may start to live better ‘even next year’. “We put forward this initiative as an anti-crisis initiative that can improve the socioeconomic situation in the country in the shortest period, even next year,” said the Communist leader. The story about the ‘capitalism in putrefaction’ is not new for the people from the former Soviet Union, including the Moldovans. For different reasons, including that of the irremediable loss of time for achieving the Communist utopia, the countries of the Eurasian area will need decades if not centuries to reach today’s ‘crisis’ level of the EU member states because the EU countries used that time lost by others to modernize the economy and democratize society and put everything at the people’s disposal more than anywhere else. For comparison: Currently, in the Republic of Moldova there are implemented 236 projects to the value of €1.348 billion. The main donors are the EU, the U.S., the EBRD, the World Bank, Romania and the European Investment Bank. Most of the projects represent non-reimbursable assistance or advantageous loans. And the money comes from an area affected by ‘deep crisis’ and ‘putrefaction’. From the other ‘flourishing’ area, only Russia promised to offer half a billion dollars to Moldova during the 20 years of independence. But the promise hasn’t been kept. It’s true that over this period Russia provided at least 3.6 billion dollars to the breakaway republic of Transnistria, which represents the value natural gas supplied to it free of charge. Without this and other support, the separatist regime would have collapsed in 1-2 winters, Moldova would have solved the territorial problem and would have reached the level of the ex-Soviet countries long ago, at least the development level and the living standards of the people. [Political stratagems and procedures 2] Moldova does not have a joint border with the Customs Union. The port in Giurgiulesti to which the promoters of the pro-UV referendum make reference as a solution represents a political stratagem from three viewpoints. a) The transport capacity of the port is minor compared with the necessities of the economy and the people; b) The fact that our Eastern neighbor Ukraine, through which we can expect to open the common, real border with the UV and CEEA, also proclaimed the European integration as strategic orientation is more important. This course was announced by the pro-Western government of Victor Yushchenko and as powerfully confirmed by the government about which they say that is pro-Russian, of Victor Yanukovich. Respectively, in the near future as well as the distant one, we will not have a direct border with the Customs Union and the Eurasian Economic Community. c) It is even more important why the PCRM does not want to ask oneself or does not want the citizens to ask themselves why Ukraine selects firmly the EU, not the CEEA? If so, the PCRM will have to withdraw all its pro-CEEA arguments regarding the unity of history, language, culture, economic relations and interhuman relations of the Moldovans in the post-Soviet area. Only the Ukrainians have such relations thousands of times closer, older and stronger than the Moldovans. However, the Ukrainians choose the EU or, as in the known slogan “the youth choose pepsi”, i.e. a healthy lifestyle, abandoning the political-ideological torments in favor of a clear and safe European prospect. In this context, the title of the Info-Prim Neo interview with the Ukrainian Ambassador to Moldova Serhii Pyrozhkov, which was published on August 20, 2012, is very relevant – “The path to Euro-integration is evident for solving the modernization-related problems”. [Other small political stratagems and procedures] As a rule, the great things concerning the country’s development course are decided at general elections according to the principle: “win the elections, obtain power and change the course”. The PCRM wants to do the opposite: to change the course so as to win power. The possible acceptation of the referendum by parliamentary procedure for the parties that are now in power would mean an event similar to the early legislative elections with an unpredictable result for them. Why would they accept an act of voluntary suicide and pass over the power to the opposition at half term? Actually, in 2001 – 2009, when the PCRM had been in power, there were registered only four initiatives to hold referendums and all they ended in failure. In particular, a referendum on joining the common economic area formed by Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine was initiated in 2004, but the Central Election Commission also refused to register the initiative group. The referendum of September 2010, which was held to find out the opinion of the people in a problem of great importance, was boycotted with the same conviction with which we are urged to hold it. [It did not win, but has what to lose] Taking into account the described facts, we can say that the PCRM embraced an electoral super-idea and will use all its potential to attract supporters from inside and outside Moldova. The PCRM has rather many chances to win because, besides this potential, it is in the opposition. It is known that the parties in opposition often enjoyed more credibility from the voters than the governments. This means that there are enough arguments for the Alliance for European Integration to realize the danger of the country’s development course being removed, including by democratic ways, to take its rival seriously and to make the European option more attractive given that it hasn’t yet ensured the irreversibility of the process of internal modernization and European integration. In fact, we reached a stage when the Republic of Moldova and its people have won almost nothing yet from the European integration, but have a lot to lose if this course is abandoned. The liberalized visa regime is the first thing that comes to mind. A signal of real alarm in this respect comes from Georgia, where the forces from which the pro-European Mikhail Saakashvili draws his support could lose power, while the parties that come instead are yet to show their attitude towards the current development course of the country. [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]