Resolution of European Parliament could determine further orientation of Moldova

The resolution on the alarming situation in Moldova, adopted by the European Parliament (EP) a month after the violent events of April 7, is regarded by the Chisinau opposition as “a life buoy” for the country, while the representatives of the governance see it as “an offence to the Moldovan citizens” (from the statement of PCRM deputy Grigore Petrenco on May 7 at the sitting of EP). Experts from Chisinau firmly state: it was worded much tougher compared with the ones launched until now in order to draw the attention of the Moldovan authorities upon the shortcomings Moldova faces. In its document, the EP firmly condemns the massive harassing campaign, the serious encroachments on the human rights and all other illegal actions of the Moldovan government in the period after the elections and it urges the authorities to immediately halt any illegal arrests and to lead the country according the international commitments and obligations, as democracy, the state of law and human rights. [First reactions of Moldovan political actors] While the Chisinau opposition parties declare themselves as fully hopeful that the document will be a start of the really European trend of Moldova (and they attribute a large part of the success of its being adopted), the representative of the ruling party – Communist deputy Vladimir Turcan – maintains that the Resolution is one in which “nothing concrete is written.” He doubts the objectivity with which the document was made out and says that it mirrors, to a large extent, Ms. Mikko’s opinion (Marianne Mikko, a European parliamentarian from Estonia, e.n.), who during her visit to Chisinau “showed herself as an non-objective person.” Turcan accuses the European official of “having discussed nothing else but the situation of the police” and that she has not sufficiently boned up on the situation from Moldova. On the other hand, at the end of her visit to Moldova, Marianne Mikko confessed to the media that the Moldovan president in office, Vladimir Voronin, refused to have a meeting with her. The attitude of the Chisinau authorities is described by Eugen Revenco, the program director of the Association for Foreign Policy (APE), as “a disrespectful, lacking political meaning and false.” The expert says that a dialogue with evidence and a more suitable reaction could have been followed by the ruling party, which should have lower its tone. At the same time, Igor Munteanu, the executive director of the Institute for Development and Social Initiatives (IDIS) “Viitorul,” says that the only way the Moldovan authorities must respond is putting up with the insistent recommendations of the EP and restituting, reforming and building the democratic institutions in this country. “Otherwise, all the talks and subjects related to the European integration are fairy-tales to make children sleep,” Munteanu says. [Need for dialogue remains] Those two experts believe that in these circumstances, starting a dialogue between all parties is imminent, as it is also mentioned in the Resolution. “Moldova must initiate a political dialogue with the opposition, offering it the institutional advantages to participate in this dialogue, to liberalize the public space, offering the access to the public media not as a gratitude from the state, but as a constitutional right, exerted in a participative way,” Igor Munteanu believes. But this thing could be endangered, because “the ruling party is not accustomed to holding talks, it is much more used to cynically impose itself,” Eugen Revenco ascertains. [Results of Resolution in time] PLDM deputy Iurie Leanca regards the Resolution as a first serious involvement of an EU institution in the problems Moldova faces and he says that it will be significant both on an immediate term, and on a medium and long term. The idea is supported by political experts. “A possible refusal of the Chisinau Communist governance to fulfill the demands put forward by the international bodies could mean a suicidal gesture for the ruling party, followed by the effects of Moldova’s artificial self-isolation from the international norms and treaties, what can have no other end but getting a disgraceful statute a “rogue state”, next to failed regimes as North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela,” Igor Munteanu says. He added that: “The zealous partisans of the PCRM, who question the objectivity of the EP Resolution, make the worst service to this country, covering a lot of illegalities by a innocent-nun response. Certainly, no party is pleased with such a prospect. The economic and political reasons urge the Moldovan authorities to be calm, and to give up the dangerous myth to rule this country according to Soviet practices.” Eugen Revenco also says that Moldova risks a lot if it refuses to carry out the requests of the EP. The direct language adopted this time by the European officials will determine the development of the relationships between Chisinau and Brussels. Very much depends on how much Chisinau is willing to follow the European path, said Eugen Revenco. But if the things further worsen, there are different possibilities to apply penalties, so that they have a real and direct impact, including by introducing visas for holders of diplomatic passports – for the ones who will further create obstacles in promoting human rights. The expert does not rule our that, much later – if democracy degrades, if the human rights keep on being violated and the bullying goes on – the leaders from Chisinau may be banned to travel within the Schengen space, as is the situation of the Transnistrian leader Igor Smirnov. [EU insists on independent probe] The experts maintain that the EP’s request to set up an independent commission, composed from all the actors and designated to probe the events after the elections, is justified, since the commission designated through the decree of the president in office, Vladimir Voronin, is not so trustworthy. “It’s very hard to imagine that this commission will be dissolved and a new one will be created. That is why we should better recommend to transform the present commission, by proportionally adding representatives of the opposition, of representative media (not partisan as it is now), of NGOs dealing with human rights, media, and it should convene in full transparency, perhaps not attended by governmental officials, because they are politically engaged. This probe and its results should be made public. It is necessary to add representatives of the European organizations, as Vladimir Voronin publicly promised after his meeting with Javier Solana and which would be trusted both by the governance and the opposition,” believes APE’s program director. Igor Munteanu thinks that the thorough investigation of the April 7-16 events should be grounded on facts, not on irresponsible accusations. This commission has a meaning only if it is trusted by the public, and if its members were selected by professionalism, objectivity, and not by ideological obedience. The active involvement of some of the members of this commission in the virulent discourse of the authorities leaves no doubt that their reporting on the violent actions is biased. Now the public has more expectations from the officials that may be designated by the EU, then from the people selected through president Voronin’s decree. Actually he admitted that he hurries up and did not include other people into the commission, people enjoying enough professional and ethical authority, Igor Munteanu explained. He opines that in this process, the role of the international missions delegated by the EU is to ensure not only the legitimacy of the probe, but also the level of professional competence and experience, the Moldovan police and prosecutors lack now. “The testimonies should be professionally analyzed in order to clearly see who acted when it was not necessary, and who didn’t act when it was necessary,” Munteanu said. [Waiting for official responses] Mihai Ghimpu, the Liberal Party’s president, says that the resolution proves once again that the will of the European bodies that Moldova should follow the European path is much bigger than the one of the present governance in Chisinau. Also the deputy president of Our Moldova Alliance, Veaceslav Untila, believes that “the PCRM was not sincere when it stated it wants Moldova to be in the European Union.” In this respect, the opposition believes that the government’s actions after April 7 could mean a signal of possible review of the political orientation. Meanwhile, the PCRM has not issued an official response to the resolution. However, Vladimir Turcan says that such a document cannot be left without any response, that is why the PCRM will respond to the Resolution of the present EP (a new European Parliament will be elected this summer – e.n.,) but only after the issue is discussed within the party.