Andrei Popov: Moldova will not have a visa liberalisation regime with the Schengen states in the next three years. Commentary by Info-Prim Neo, Part 2

One can understand the motives why President Voronin speaks of the need to obtain a complete visa liberalisation regime with the EU. Undoubtedly the much desired abolition of the visa requirement for entering the Schengen area – similar to what Romania and Bulgaria got in January 2002 – would be extremely good news for all citizens of Moldova, whose access into the West has become even more complicated after Romania joined the EU. This has contributed to the sharpening of the feelings that Moldova belongs to a different world, that it would not have future and that the county and its leadership are incapable of ensuring the basic needs of its citizens. Exasperated, people are willing to pay thousands of euros to intermediaries that promise to get them into Europe through various illegal schemes. [Reasons can be understood but not justified] The visa facilitation regime that enters into force in January 2008 doesn’t solve this problem. It covers only a limited number of categories of people, probably about 5-7% of those interested. Under these circumstances, the Romanian passport naturally appears for many like the only hope to be able to travel freely and in decent conditions to Europe. This explains the significant increase in the number of persons who have expressed over the last year their wish to regain Romanian citizenship. The leadership of the Republic of Moldova perceives (wrongly) this process as a major threat to the country’s statehood. Moreover, it was exactly the threat of “losing citizens in favour of Romania” that was cited by Chisinau as the main argument when in February it requested from the European Union, in an almost ultimatum like way, to make an exception for Moldova and grant it the visa liberalisation regime. As President Voronin declared at that time “if European Union sees no problem for 4 million Moldovan citizens to receive Romanian passports, then I am sure we will find a solution to allow those 4 million to travel to Europe without visas but with Moldovan passports”. These statements and, in general, Chisinau’s insistence on obtaining a travel regime “identical to that of the new member states” could not represent convincing arguments in favour of obtaining visa liberalisation regime. Instead, they could only demonstrate that Chisinau doesn’t understand the way EU functions and takes decisions. [What official Chisinau does not understand] For example, it doesn’t understand that today the EU is not prepared to give anything more than visa facilitation regime, even to countries of the Western Balkans (except Croatia), although their relations with the European Union are more advanced than of Moldova. It doesn’t understand that from the political point of view, for the EU it is impossible to create now a precedent with Moldova (that would be tomorrow called not only by Western Balkans, but by Ukraine and Russia as well). It doesn’t understand that the EU functions on the basis of some rigid rules (that, in a certain way, define the Union) and therefore it could not make a major exception, particularly for a country that has so many shortcomings in the implementation of its own commitments undertaken in the Action Plan. It doesn’t understand that there could be no comparison with Bulgaria and Romania that prior to getting a liberalised visa regime in 2002, first became candidate countries and then underwent major reforms in justice, police, public administration etc. that made them eligible for lifting visas. For all these motives, Chisinau’s insistence on immediate visa liberalisation is a false road, a dead end and a perilous mirage. We can’t succeed on this road, neither today, nor in the next 2-3 years. The later official Chisinau understands this, the worse it would be for the country, because it would further discredit itself and waste in vain limited resources, instead of concentrating on what can be changed and what depends first and foremost on internal possibilities. [Europe should be built in Moldova for visas too] Bringing closer the day when citizens with blue Moldovan passports could travel freely to Europe is done not by declarations, but by actions and real Europeanisation of the country. In the area of visas, our efforts should be focused on taking maximum possible advantage from provisions of the recently approved Agreement that enters into force in January, in order to create a platform from which to launch our efforts of convincing the EU, may be as early as in 2008-2009, to extend the number of categories of persons covered by the visa facilitated regime. Gradually and in exchange for real progresses achieved by Chisinau on the road of reforms. It was exactly in terms of developing such kind of relationship between Moldova and the European Union, realist and responsible one, that President Voronin spoke with the leaders of the European Union in Brussels and Luxemburg on June 18-19: before advancing any new requests first Moldova should take full advantage of all possibilities offered by existing frameworks and mechanisms of cooperation. What made then Mr. President make these “strange” declarations at his press conference on July 25 claiming that Moldova is very close to obtaining complete liberalisaton of the visa regime with the EU. [To force Europe’s hand?] Maybe Mr. President deliberately distorts the truth, thinking that such promises could lift people’s morale and give them new hopes. This might be so, but only in the short run. But they also increase their expectations. What will happen later, when it would become clear that these were just some unrealistic expectations based on empty promises? Wouldn’t it lead to an even bigger disillusionment? Or, maybe, it is a tactical move, a situation artificially created to attempt to force the hand of the European Union, saying: “Gentlemen, we are sorry, but we have no other option but to find a solution, because we have already promised to the people and we can’t disappoint them”? Or, maybe, Mr. President lost touch with reality and, simply, no longer understands what is going on in this important foreign policy file, while the “professionals” that should have helped him to understand, don’t do it (either out of lack of courage, or because they are themselves prisoners of some illusions in this matter)? In the case of the visa regime with the EU, but also more generally in what relates Moldovan policy towards the Union over the last few years, I think that it is through the prism of this last explanation that President’s declarations about visas could be interpreted. In this respect, it is more than telling the way in which Mr. Voronin spoke about the upcoming conference of all European deputy-ministers of foreign affairs that Chisinau is organising on August 24 and that, according to him, offers a wonderful opportunity to convince the member states to grant Moldova a visa liberalisation regime. However, very much contrary to what President said in very positive terms about this conference, its organisation in the midst of European vacation is, after all, is not such a good idea for the following reasons: • The European Union expects from Chisinau not conferences, but reforms and concrete actions. Therefore, in Brussels and in many European capitals the idea of holding such a conference was a negative surprise and is likely to receive the following reaction: “instead of focusing on reforms, Moldova is wasting time and its limited resources on staging festive actions with no practical meaning”. • Everything that the EU had to say on this subject was already conveyed to Moldova on July 18-19. And it was done not from a deputy minister to a deputy minister, but from the highest level directly to President Voronin. During one month that passed since then, absolutely nothing has changed (political atmosphere has became even worse), in spite of the President’s assurances that reforms would be stepped up immediately upon his return to Moldova. Therefore, it makes no sense to expect from this conference changes in the European Union’s position. • Even if one decides to organise such an event, one must first consult those on whose participation it relies and with whom one thinks to co-organise it (in Brussels, by the way, and not in Chisinau, as the President mistakenly announced). Not only this was not done, but key actors from the Commission and the Council learned about this conference very late, practically simultaneously with Moldovan journalists. What is worse, some important countries and, apparently, even the Portuguese EU presidency, were initially not invited at all, and received letters from Chisinau only several days ago. • Nothing close to “more than half of deputy ministers who had already confirmed attendance”, as Mr. Voronin stated. It is just not true. And it looks very uncertain that the Portuguese presidency or some of the most important European countries would sent their vice-ministers. It is also highly improbable that the most appropriate person for a meeting at such level, a deputy Director-General in the Commission responsible for European Neighborhood Policy and relations with our region, would be able to come. • Events of such importance are not organised in a few weeks and at dates arbitrarily chosen depending on Chisinau’s agenda. There is a need for months of thorough preparations to identify an optimum timing and ensure that those invited have time to pencil it in their busy schedules. Besides, today’s EU agenda is overloaded with a number of pressing subjects – from Kosovo to Darfur or to the Reform Treaty. What has Chisinau done to convince the European vice ministers to push aside, even for a day, these burning files and to fly to Brussels to speak about Moldova? • And, finally, an important detail that seems to have escaped the organisers’ attention: Friday, August 24 is in the midst of the summer vacation and is probably the most unsuitable time, after Christmas and New Year, to organise such an event in Brussels. Are there no competent and honest people around the President who could tell him what is the real state of affairs and who could tell him, at least from time to time, that the “king is naked”? If not for the sake of the country’s interests, at least for that of the President’s own image. [For Info-Prim Neo – Andrei Popov, Executive Director, Foreign Policy Association of Moldova (APE)]