The main purpose of the international assistance is to help society to overcome particular crisis moments, to take an active part in the international, commercial life and to maintain relations, said expert Igor Boțan. In the public debate “Political colors of international assistance in times of pandemic” that was organized by IPN, he said the international assistance most of the times also has the soft power aspect and the aspect of re-balancing of discrepancies in economic development.
“Why are such things being done? Because, after World War II, after we went through two catastrophes in the 20th century, everyone reached the conclusion that we are mankind – all the persons as individuals are more or less equal, with particularities. But the people live in societies and there are great differences between societies. There are very developed societies. There are less developed societies, but the people of these societies have the same potential. As a result, for economic advantages and out of human solidarity, the more developed societies are willing to provide assistance to less developed societies,” stated Igor Boțan, who is the standing expert of IPN’s project.
According to him, the advantage is mutual as the societies and the economies that generate products of a very high quality want to exchange things, while those from less developed societies should be rather well trained and have the resources to buy them.
As regards the reception of foreign assistance intended for Moldova, it seems that the authorities want to somehow polarize the aid that came from the foreign partners. And this has a polarization impact on the assistance received by Moldova. It is regrettable that an exceptional situation was harshly politicized.
The expert noted that those from power imagined that this pandemic will be ultimately contained and they will be in the position of the only ones who can declare the “day of victory over the pandemic”. “For example, President Igor Dodon states that if the Government of Maia Sandu had remained, it would have been a catastrophe. My question is: Mister Dodon, how can you know that it would have been a catastrophe? And my natural question to Mister Dodon and Mister Diacov, who said the same, is: “What did the Chicu Government and you personally do and what measures you took that couldn’t have been taken by the Government of Maia Sandu? I don’t know how they would answer this question,” stated Igor Boțan.
According to him, if the Government of Maia Sandu had continued work, the foreign assistance would have been much more consistent and wouldn’t have been as politicized as now.
Igor Boțan noted the international assistance should be credibly monitored. “A solution is to include representatives of the opposition and civil society in the composition of the crisis managing cell. The pandemic started over two month ago and we should now draw conclusions and make syntheses so that society and the state are ready for an eventual second wave in autumn.”
According to the expert, in the case of the second wave of COVID-19, no matter who is in power, this should be met with the learned lesson. The opposition should be involved in the management of the crisis and its voice is necessary. “If it’s a pandemic and the whole society fights, the “day of victory over the pandemic” should belong not to one party or a leader who takes part in all the formats, even if he does not have constitutional powers to do this.”
The debate “Political colors of international assistance in times of pandemic” was the 133rd edition of the series of debates “Developing political culture through public debates” that are supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation.