European institutions seek to impose “their own man” on the Moldovan society as the new president, while demonstrating their distrust of the current government.
Over the past few days, European institutions have changed their position in the Moldovan elections, from an “observer” to an active “player”. We have witnessed different ways of sending “messages” to the Moldovan society related to the presidential elections.
In particular, the interstate TV channel Euronews presented one of the candidates, Maya Sandu, in the best light. The high-ranking officials addressed a letter to the Government of the Republic of Moldova, in which they clearly say that at present “the trust in Moldova is under threat”. Also, the embassies of 19 European states sent a collective appeal in which they called on the Moldovan authorities to hold “trustworthy” elections. These actions have a clear connotation and it is important for understanding.
“Letter of two”
Although the letter from two senior officials, Christian Danielsson, Director General of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, and Helga Schmid, Secretary General of the European External Action Service, was written a little earlier, it “went off” at the right moment – when the main stage of the election began. In their letter, senior officials expressed deep concern about what is happening in our country’s banking sector and the fate of foreign investors. They demanded “compliance with obligations to international partners and the rule of law”. According to the authors of the document, the latest developments in the sector threaten “the results of reforms and the stability of the banking sector in Moldova”.
Did Plahotniuc put a “pig” on investors?
What was so excited about Brussels officials? The actions of the Prosecutor General’s Office in connection with the investigation of the notorious “theft of the century”. A few months ago, at the request of the Anti-Corruption Prosecution Service, the court seized the property of Victoriabank, including a package of state securities owned by Victoriabank worth 1.85 billion lei. Why? More than five years have passed since Victoriabank borrowed money from Banca de Economii (now liquidated) and issued loans to the right people who bought a block of shares of Victoriabank from its former owners with this money. The loan received from Banca de Economii was not repaid by Victoriabank. But the money was public. And now the state has established that the money taken away by the scammers can be returned by seizing Victoriabank’s assets.
But while the prosecutor’s office was investigating, the bank changed its owners and a problem arose. The financial institution controlled by Plahotniuk, which was involved in the fraud, was sold to foreign investors under agreements with the IMF. Negotiations were conducted in autumn 2017 and the transaction was finalized in January 2018. Banca Transilvania and the EBRD acquired a large stake in Victoriabank and became its majority owners.
All took place in agreement with the IMF
Of course, the question arises: Did foreign investors and the IMF know that assets are not absolutely clean? Absolutely. All this was done within the framework of the programme for the recovery of the country’s banking sector after the theft of the century, and all steps taken by the state and the NBM were coordinated with international partners. The decision on the “recovery” of the sector was taken simultaneously with the repayment scheme of the NBM state guarantees. The essence of this scheme is known to all – the stolen billions are to be returned to the citizens of Moldova. It is an integral part of Moldova’s agreements with the IMF. And the moment when the actions were taken by the government, its head Pavel Filip (representing the then oligarch Vlad Plahotniuc) announced that it was the IMF that conditioned the granting of a new loan by adopting legislative amendments that put the stolen billion on the shoulders of citizens. Moreover, the IMF has specified the form in which everything must take place. The decision should not have been made at a parliamentary meeting. Instead, the government had to take responsibility before parliament for a package of laws stipulating that the stolen billions would be paid by citizens.
“Blind kittens”
What was the procedure to improve the banking system in Moldova? It is very simple: Moldovan banks will be bought by Western investors under certain procedures. Anyone can see that this is indeed the case. The IMF has opened its archives and we can, for example, see the Maya Sandu Government Explanatory Note 2019. In the document, the Moldovan Cabinet of Ministers with undisguised pleasure reports to the international organization that “the transfer of property rights (to foreign investors) in three system banks is almost complete”.
And what about foreign investors themselves? It turns out that they, almost like blind kittens, have not seen anything? Didn’t know they were buying something that was stolen? No, of course, the EBRD, as a shareholder, had complete information about the situation at Victoriabank. And before buying in January 2018, when it became the majority owner, it undoubtedly carried out a detailed and high-quality audit of the financial institution. International structures at this level simply cannot do otherwise.
Political connotation of “two letters”
This whole situation is very entertaining. Today the Prosecutor General’s Office of Moldova calls Plahotniuc the main beneficiary and accused of “stealing the century”, but it was him and his representative, the head of the government Pavel Filip, the IMF and “Western investors” who negotiated the transfer of the largest banks in Moldova to foreigners. These commitments to the IMF were confirmed by the Maya Sandu government. And now a critical situation has arisen: the Prosecutor General’s Office has decided to return the stolen assets of Victoriabank to the state. But this was exactly what caused the concern of European officials (following the IMF and EBRD). And they resorted on the eve of elections to intimidation of Ion Kiku’s government, asserting in their letter that “trust to Moldova is under threat”.
The European officials made it clear to the Moldovan society that if the Chisinau authorities continue in the same spirit, problems may arise in the country’s banking system and, of course, relations with Brussels will be seriously damaged. In response to this letter, Ion Kiku said that the interests of foreign investors will be protected by the Moldovan state, but “the Prosecutor General’s Office is determined to investigate bank fraud, the government supports these efforts and does not allow any interference in this process”.
What conclusion should the Moldovan voter draw from all this history? Brussels does not trust Ion Chique’s government and what the Prosecutor General’s Office is doing is violating past agreements (with Plahotniuc) and this is undermining “trust in Moldova”. The IMF and Brussels need a different partner to follow up on previous commitments. And it is clear that Maya Sandu should be such a partner. In 2019, she confirmed all the commitments of the Plahotniuc-Philippe government to transfer the Moldovan banking system to foreigners. This is the political connotation of a letter from important Brussels dignitaries to the government of Ion Kiku, which seems to be far from the electoral theme.
The “letter 19” appears
Of equal interest is the letter from 19 EU embassies that also appeared on 30 September. It can undoubtedly be seen as a response to an open appeal by the Group of Five, in which presidential candidates warn the international public about “Dodon and SDPP election fraud”.
However, already after the publication of the “letter of five”, one of the politicians, Tudor Delhiu, probably realizing that he was simply being used, stated that he “does not agree with the shouting that the elections have already been rigged”. In his more mature opinion, “some election competitors are doing this deliberately to justify their defeat”.
However, the process went on and we saw an appeal to the Moldovan authorities and citizens of EU diplomatic missions. Earlier, we would like to remind that the US Ambassador to Moldova, Derek Hogan, also called on the Moldovan authorities to hold “fair elections” and explained what he meant.
Feedback from the PDS leader’s complaints
What draws attention in “letter 19”? The diplomats called on the Moldovan authorities “to fully and without further delay implement the recommendations of the Venice Commission and the final reports of the OSCE/ODIHR, inter alia, to guarantee transparency in the financing of parties and campaigns”. Also, the presidential elections should be “free from flagrant practices of the past, such as vote buying, misuse of administrative resources, pressure on local leaders and civil servants. All candidates must have “equal conditions”, “starting with registration, public funding and ending with equal access to the media with fair and unbiased presentation”.
The letter clearly echoes the complaints of one of the candidates, Maya Sandu, to diplomats and EU structures. As we know, the main leitmotif of her many applications are funding problems, fraud, the use of administrative resources and everything else according to the list in “letter 19”.
There are still 1001 reasons
There is no doubt that this letter from diplomats to the authorities in Chisinau is a serious warning in light of the actions taken by the EU countries and Brussels in relation to Belarus. If the West considers that elections in Moldova are unfair, “rigged” (which in the case of Belarus has never been proved), the same fate awaits the “winner”. A government in exile will be formed and sanctions will follow. The President will not be recognised by the EU; he will become an outcast.
Should the authorities in Chisinau take this warning seriously? Absolutely. Moreover, there is a feeling that no matter how hard the pro-Russian candidate (Igor Dodon) tries to satisfy the demands of the West, there will still be 1001 reasons to call the elections “not fair and not meeting the high standards of European democracy”. However, if the same irregularities are found, but the pro-European candidate is the winner, the shortcomings found will be serious, but not capable of affecting the final result.
Cancellation of the election due to the pandemic – “fire case”?
The letter draws attention to another important point. The letter states that “It is particularly important to ensure the safety of voters and observers in connection with the Coronavirus pandemic by taking appropriate measures to mitigate its effects. Moldova is known to be the leader in the number of people infected on the continent. And on September 30 another anti-record was registered – more than 1000 infected people were identified.
It is probably no coincidence that the theme of cancelling elections due to the pandemic is being promoted in public discourse. Earlier, some Moldovan experts spoke about it. On the eve, LDPM candidate Tudor Deliu spoke about the possibility of cancelling the election. “I am not against the postponement of the presidential election. Health should be in the first place. We need to proceed from the real situation. We will remember what happened in Hincesti, when after the elections several villages were quarantined,” said the Liberal Democrat representative.
On the same day, Maya Sandu spoke at a special press conference accusing the authorities of inaction and alarmist spirit. She said that “The Dodon government has been doing nothing to fight the pandemic for a long time. The situation is getting worse and worse …”.
All these speeches and the emphasis in the diplomats’ letter suggest that cancelling the election because of the authorities’ failure to “ensure the safety of voters and observers in the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic” is one of the backup options that can be used if it becomes clear that the pro-European candidate has no chance of winning. In this situation, elections are beneficial to the authorities, but undesirable for the opponents of the candidate. Breaking the plans of the socialists and creating an unpredictable, tense situation in the country on the brink of chaos – all this can also be the plan of certain forces acting behind the back of the West.
The EU is rolling out “heavy guns” to the battleground.
Of course, the most clear message from the EU to the Moldovan public should be considered the propaganda material Euronews, in which Maya Sandu is an absolute favourite of Brussels, a reformer, fighter against corruption and “last hope” of the Moldovans to create a “free and prosperous European country” in the arms of NATO. And her main competitor, Igor Dodon, is “shamelessly pro-Russian and is trying his best to establish relations with Vladimir Putin.
The PDS leader appears as a man who has very good relations with Brussels, and former EU High Representative Donald Tusk directly supports Maya Sandu because she is “the fastest person who can lead Moldova to success”, according to the Euronews TV campaign.
On the other hand, Igor Dodon is represented by “one of the very few leaders who congratulated Alexander Lukashenko on his success in the recent elections, which many believe were rigged”. And that’s why Euronews is warning Maya Sandu that “Belarus should be a warning for Moldova”.
It is not difficult to understand that with the help of campaign material the EU is delivering a clear message to us: there is a right candidate and a wrong one. One welcomes the EU’s expansion to the East, while the other is looking for Russia, the state against which the Eastern Partnership policy is aimed. And with this state there is a hybrid war going on over the territories of countries such as Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus and, of course, Moldova.
Thus, we see that the European Union on the Moldovan front has taken active action. It will not allow the pro-Russian candidate to hold the presidential post for another 4 years, and therefore it is pushing its “heavy guns” to the battlefield.
Sergey Tkach, Mezhdurechye, Moldova