Sunday, May 3, 2009

Moldovan journalists unite against ‘intimidation’ on World Press Freedom Day

[Română]

2009-05-03/15:22 Media organizations gathered on Sunday in Chisinau’s Opera House square to mark the World Press Freedom Day, celebrated annually on May 3. This year the event was marked in an atmosphere of concern and revolt against “the intimidation of journalists and media organizations following the April 5 parliamentary elections”, Info-Prim Neo reports.

The organizers of the event – the Moldovan Journalists Union (UJM), the Independent Press Association (API), the Electronic Press Association (APEL) and the Independent Journalism Center (IJC) – declared that their intention this year was to “draw the attention of the national and international public opinion to the particularly dangerous environment for a Moldovan journalist to work, to the violation of the right to information, violation of the freedom of expression, violence against the journalists and the pressure exerted by the authorities on the media outlets and media nongovernmental organizations that are critical of the government”.

API executive director Petru Macovei expressed his appreciation for the journalists who stood on the “frontline” during the tragic events in the aftermath of the April 5 polls, condemning at the same time “the biased reporting” from “many fellow journalists”. “It is key that we demand journalists to be objective, to show us the reality as it really is and never lie to us”, said Macovei.

Valeriu Saharneanu, UJM president and also the moderator of the meeting, read out the findings of a recent report by the democracy watchdog Freedom House, which showed that there’s no free press in Moldova.

However, speaking about the April events, Val Butnaru, the director of the “Jurnal de Chisinau” daily, challenged the correctness of Freedom House’s findings: “The fact that those generally apathetic and conformist European officials changed their opinion is to some extent the merit of this free press that exists in our country”. Butnaru also disputed the idea that the press was split on ethic criteria in reporting on the events that followed the April 5 polls, according to which the Russian-language papers pursued a pro-Communist policy, whereas the Romanian-language media took the side of the Opposition. “Two Russian papers – “Moldavskie vedomosti” and the Balti-based “SP” – displayed an equidistant conduct and their reporting was in agreement with journalism ethics. This proves that some reporters are what they are meant to be – the fourth branch of government”, said Val Butnaru.

Tudor Iascenco of the Rezina-based “Cuvântul” told Info-Prim Neo that today the Moldovan journalists must unite. “We must demonstrate that we are a power in this country, that we have a say in many things, especially in informing the people correctly. Because, if we fail to do this, someone else will inform them incorrectly. It’s most tragic that many fellow journalists realize that they do something wrong, but they go on doing it”, said Iascenco.

Various attendees at the event, other than journalists, agreed that the freedom of media is key in developing a democratic and European state. Writers and politicians congratulated the journalists on their day, encouraging them to do their job without fear, no matter what. Some politicians used the occasion to promise early elections in order to institute “a democratic government and a free press”.

Sursa: Info-Prim


Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism

[Română]

Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism

June 3rd, 2008, Prague, Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic


Prague Declaration

Bearing in mind the dignified and democratic future of our European home,

  • whereas societies that neglect the past have no future,
  • whereas Europe will not be united unless it is able to reunite its history, recognize Communism and Nazism as a common legacy and bring about an honest and thorough debate on all the totalitarian crimes of the past century,
  • whereas the Communist ideology is directly responsible for crimes against humanity,
  • whereas a bad conscience stemming from the Communist past is a heavy burden for the future of Europe and for our children,
  • whereas different valuations of the Communist past may still split Europe into "West" and "East",
  • whereas European integration was a direct response to wars and violence provoked by totalitarian systems on the continent,
  • whereas consciousness of the crimes against humanity committed by the Communist regimes throughout the continent must inform all European minds to the same extent as the Nazi regimes crimes did,
  • whereas there are substantial similarities between Nazism and Communism in terms of their horrific and appalling character and their crimes against humanity,
  • whereas the crimes of Communism still need to be assessed and judged from the legal, moral and political as well as the historical point of view,
  • whereas the crimes were justified in the name of the class struggle theory and the principle of dictatorship of the "proletariat" using terror as a method to preserve the dictatorship,
  • whereas Communist ideology has been used as a tool in the hands of empire builders in Europe and in Asia to reach their expansionist goals,
  • whereas many of the perpetrators committing crimes in the name of Communism have not yet been brought to justice and their victims have not yet been compensated,
  • whereas providing objective comprehensive information about the Communist totalitarian past leading to a deeper understanding and discussion is a necessary condition for sound future integration of all European nations,
  • whereas the ultimate reconciliation of all European peoples is not possible without a concentrated and in depth effort to establish the truth and to restore the memory,
  • whereas the Communist past of Europe must be dealt with thoroughly both in the academy and among the general public, and future generations should have ready access to information on Communism,
  • whereas in different parts of the globe only a few totalitarian Communist regimes survive but, nevertheless, they control about one fifth of the world's population, and by still clinging to power they commit crimes and impose a high cost to the well-being of their people,
  • whereas in many countries, even though Communist parties are not in power, they have not distanced themselves publicly from the crimes of Communist regimes nor condemned them,
  • whereas Prague is one of the places that lived through the rule of both Nazism and Communism,

believing that millions of victims of Communism and their families are entitled to enjoy justice, sympathy, understanding and recognition for their sufferings in the same way as the victims of Nazism have been morally and politically recognized,

we, participants of the Prague Conference "European Conscience and Communism",

  • having regard to the European Parliament resolution on the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe on 8 May 1945 of May 12th, 2005,
  • having regard to Resolution 1481 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of January 26th, 2006,
  • having regard to the resolutions on Communist crimes adopted by a number of national parliaments,
  • having regard to the experience of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa,
  • having regard to the experience of Institutes of Memory and memorials in Poland, Germany, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, the United States, the Institute for the Investigation of Communist Crimes in Romania, the museums of occupation in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as well as the House of Terror in Hungary,
  • having regard to present and upcoming presidencies in the EU and the Council of Europe
  • having regard to the fact that 2009 is the 20th anniversary of the collapse of Communism in Eastern and Central Europe as well as the mass killings in Romania and the massacre in Tiananmen Square in Beijing,

call for:

  1. reaching an all-European understanding that both the Nazi and Communist totalitarian regimes each to be judged by their own terrible merits to be destructive in their policies of systematically applying extreme forms of terror, suppressing all civic and human liberties, starting aggressive wars and, as an inseparable part of their ideologies, exterminating and deporting whole nations and groups of population; and that as such they should be considered to be the main disasters, which blighted the 20th century,
  2. recognition that many crimes committed in the name of Communism should be assessed as crimes against humanity serving as a warning for future generations, in the same way Nazi crimes were assessed by the Nuremberg Tribunal,
  3. formulation of a common approach regarding crimes of totalitarian regimes, inter alia Communist regimes, and raising a Europe-wide awareness of the Communist crimes in order to clearly define a common attitude towards the crimes of the Communist regimes,
  4. introduction of legislation that would enable courts of law to judge and sentence perpetrators of Communist crimes and to compensate victims of Communism,
  5. ensuring the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination of victims of all the totalitarian regimes,
  6. European and international pressure for effective condemnation of the past Communist crimes and for efficient fight against ongoing Communist crimes,
  7. recognition of Communism as an integral and horrific part of Europe’s common history
  8. acceptance of pan-European responsibility for crimes committed by Communism,
  9. establishment of 23rd August, the day of signing of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as a day of remembrance of the victims of both Nazi and Communist totalitarian regimes, in the same way Europe remembers the victims of the Holocaust on January 27th,
  10. responsible attitudes of National Parliaments as regards acknowledgement of Communist crimes as crimes against humanity, leading to the appropriate legislation, and to the parliamentary monitoring of such legislation,
  11. effective public debate about the commercial and political misuse of Communist symbols,
  12. continuation of the European Commission hearings regarding victims of totalitarian regimes, with a view to the compilation of a Commission communication,
  13. establishment in European states, which had been ruled by totalitarian Communist regimes, of committees composed of independent experts with the task of collecting and assessing information on violations of human rights under totalitarian Communist regime at national level with a view to collaborating closely with a Council of Europe committee of experts;
  14. ensuring a clear international legal framework regarding a free and unrestricted access to the Archives containing the information on the crimes of Communism,
  15. establishment of an Institute of European Memory and Conscience which would be both - A) a European research institute for totalitarianism studies, developing scientific and educational projects and providing support to networking of national research institutes specialising in the subject of totalitarian experience, B) and a pan-European museum/memorial of victims of all totalitarian regimes, with an aim to memorialise victims of these regimes and raise awareness of the crimes committed by them,
  16. organising of an international conference on the crimes committed by totalitarian Communist regimes with the participation of representatives of governments, parliamentarians, academics, experts and NGOs, with the results to be largely publicised world-wide,
  17. adjustment and overhaul of European history textbooks so that children could learn and be warned about Communism and its crimes in the same way as they have been taught to assess the Nazi crimes
  18. the all-European extensive and thorough debate of Communist history and legacy,
  19. joint commemoration of next year’s 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the massacre in Tiananmen Square and the killings in Romania.

We, participants of the Prague Conference "European Conscience and Communism", address all peoples of Europe, all European political institutions including national governments, parliaments, European Parliament, European Commission, Council of Europe and other relevant international bodies, and call on them to embrace the ideas and appeals stipulated in this Prague Declaration and to implement them in practical steps and policies.



Founding Signatories:

Václav Havel, former dissident and President of Czechoslovakia / the Czech Republic, Czech Republic
Joachim Gauck, former Federal Commissioner for the Stasi archives, Germany
Göran Lindblad, Vice-president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Member of Parliament, Sweden
Vytautas Landsbergis, Member of the European Parliament, former dissident and President of Lithuania, Lithuania
Jana Hybášková, Member of the European Parliament, Czech Republic
Christopher Beazley, Member of the European Parliament, United Kingdom
Tunne Kelam, Member of the European Parliament, former dissident, Estonia
Jiří Liška, Senator, Vice-chairman of the Senate, Parliament of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic
Martin Mejstřík, Senator, Parliament of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic
Jaromír Štětina, Senator, Parliament of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic
Emanuelis Zingeris, Member of Parliament, Lithuania, Chairman, International commission for the assessment of crimes of the Nazi and Soviet occupation regimes in Lithuania, Lithuania
Tseten Samdup Chhoekyapa, Representative of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Geneva, Tibet, Switzerland
Ivonka Survilla, Exile President of Belorussia, Canada
Zianon Pazniak, Chairman of the People’s National Front of Belorussia, Chairman of the Belorussian Conservative Christian Party, United States
Růžena Krásná, former political prisoner, politician, Czech Republic
Jiří Stránský, former political prisoner, writer, former PEN club chairman, Czech Republic
Václav Vaško, former political prisoner, diplomat, catholic activist, Czech Republic
Alexandr Podrabinek, former dissident and political prisoner, journalist, Russian Federation
Pavel Žáček, Director, Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, Czech Republic
Miroslav Lehký, Vice-director, Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, Czech Republic
Łukasz Kamiński, Vice-director, Institue of National Remembrance, Poland
Michael Kißener, professor of history, Johann Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
Eduard Stehlík, historian, Vice-director, Institute for Military History, Czech Republic
Karel Straka, historian, Institute for Military History, Czech Republic
Jan Urban, journalist, Czech Republic
Jaroslav Hutka, former dissident, songwriter, Czech Republic
Lukáš Pachta, political scientist and writer, Czech Republic

Source: Prague Declaration

Moldova Revolution. POLICE preparing ROCKS. INSTIGATORS in the CROWD. Police ALLOWING EU FLAG



Monday, April 27, 2009

OSCE + Russia = Love

Facing a terror wave from the communists, the journalists headed for the OSCE building for support and protection. A wrong move, as journalists from Antena 3 tv station would learn, to their bitter surprise. The team consisting of Petru Terguta, Dan Nitescu and Victor Ciprian has been harrassed, watched and threatened until Thursday, the 9th of April. Policemen in civil clothes searched for them at the hotel, and on their phones they kept receiving threatening messages. Antena 3 decided to withdraw them back home and sent them to the OSCE building to ask for protection. Terguta, Moldovan citizen, had been warned that he would be arrested and could not be protected by the Romanian consulate. Aura Titiriga, senior editor at Antena 3, tells how the journalists entered the OSCE building, and then the head of the mission, Philip Remler, agressed them verbally, being more and more violent in persuading them to leave the mission’s headquarters. Remler threatened he would call the police, which was looking for the journalists anyway. Eventually, an OSCE representative accompanied the journalists in town and all the way to the border. The next day, Terguta’s brother, Ion Terguta, was arrested on the street together with TVR tv station correspondent, Doru Dendiu.

On Saturday, after days of more and more obvious abuses on journalists, the Deutsche Welle correspondent, Vitalie Calugareanu, tried to contact the OSCE mission to ask them how they were complying with their mandate of monitoring the freedom of the press. The OSCE mission was empty, only one person was taking calls, and that person was speaking Russian only and said all others were left on Easter holiday.

Instead of condemning abuses, arrogant advice for the journalists

Oficially, the version told by the OSCE is that the mission in Moldova only monitors and reports the abuses cases on journalists and gives them further to the Government from Chisinau. They say they cannot offer consular protection or political asylum. Basically, Moldovan journalists, beaten or arrested on the streets by the police, must go through a whole bureaucratic international system, so that finally the reclaimed abuse would be examined by the same policemen that beat them. This international entity is as useless, as it is costing. The OSCE mandate has four coordinates, one of them being mass-media and human rights. 48 employees, with a yearly budget of two million euros, of which 300 000 only for the mass-media, all these so that OSCE can go on holiday during the most serious abuses during the last 20 years.

The only public statements that the OSCE office made were on the 6th and th of April. On the 6th they hurried to say that the elections had been ok. On the 7th they condemned the violences in Chisinau. No word after that, during the next days when the Moldovan journalists feared to get out of their houses and expected being arrested any moment. Only on the 14th the OSCE “woke up” from their Easter holiday. A press release from the OSCE representative, Miklos Haraszti, condemned the abuses of the authorities from Chisinau. A weird thing: although the OSCE statement was supposed to refer strictly to the serious abuses of the police and special services, Haraszti wanted to preach conduct and ethics lessons to the journalists. Filled with deep Christian feelings inside, after an Easter weekend, Haraszti urged them to keep their mouths shut and not “inflame the situation” or “personally get involved in the events they speak about“. Better said, they were supposed to leave their arrested and beaten bodies and write news from up above, from heaven.

Why we don’t need OSCE anymore

The organisation was founded during the 70’s. One of the defining lines was protecting democratic values and human rights. After 30 years, in September 2008, the Russian ambassador in Wien formally asked OSCE to give up this priority, and focus on economical and security problems. Privately, it was requested the neutralization of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the agency which is in charge of monitoring the elections and which has an unacceptable “insolence” (to be read: “independence”) degree. Russia is one of the main sponsors (approximately 35% of the OSCE budget) and does not understand to be criticized on its own money. The revolt of the political elite of soviet origins toughened after the Chechen crisis, when OSCE released one of its most severe and most criticizing towards Russian government reports. Basically, and especially since 2004, the monitoring elections reports started being politically censored by the diplomats of the organisation. Accounts like “The police surrounded the headquarters of the main opposition party” (Russia, 2003) disappeared from the final OSCE / ODIHR reports; generally, frustration dominates the observers who have been breaking their bones during the monitoring campaigns: the information for which lives are risked are supressed, up to disappearance, by the diplomatic negociation of the political representatives with the local authorities, inside the OSCE.

OSCE - tourism agency for the post-soviet maffia

Currently, Georgia does not event want to hear of the OSCE anymore, as they consider it an organisation which represents the interests of the Kremlin. In Russia, the assistance mission was closed, and since 2007, monitoring elections in that country was given up altogether. In Moldova, the report on the elections was made public on Monday, after just a few hours since the end of the elections. European observers’ remarks were ruled out: baroness Emma Nicholson showed the access blocking of the Moldovan citizens to the voting sections, across the Nistru river. Marian Jean Marinescu showed that 200 000 more people appeared on the voting lists, as compared to the previous elections, and many other problems that were not just “mere incidents“, but affected profoundly the elections process. Such problems that were removed from the report made tens of thousands of Moldovan get out on streets. This way, the OSCE hostility towards journalists is nothing but a symptom of a much more serious illness of this organisation. If the Russian government manages to control through blackmail the activity of a multinational institution, meant to protect human rights in Europe, the purpose of this organisation is compromised. And if we add the fact that the access of the Romanians in the structure of the OSCE mission is basically forbidden, while the Russian becomes a compulsory language to get to top levels inside OSCE, one wonders if there is any use in sponsoring an organisation which appears to have become a tourism agency for the post-soviet maffia.

Bruxelles Puppeteering

Kalman Miszei

Hungarian Kalman Mizsei is the special EU representative in Moldova. Two years ago, he warned Romania to give up their “older brother” attitude towards Moldova. Miszei exceeded his attributions by ordering Romania to sign the base treaty with Moldova and by asking that Romania should give up granting Romanian citizenship to Moldovans, which is a sovereign atribute of Romania. The EU representative ended his speech by praising the “pluralism” and the “civil society” in Transnistria. Kalman Miszei ended up becoming a EU representative in Moldova after he had to quit from the United Nations’ Program for Development, following some serious accusations of corruption regarding financing the rehabilitation of the Moscow Planetarium with European money. Inner Citty Press, a non-profit organisation, which watches the spending of the granted funds for poor communities by UN, the World Bank, PNUD a.s.o, brings serious accusations to Miszei.

Marianne Mikko

The presenter of the elections report was the Estonian Marianne Mikko, who represented the European Parliament at the elections in the Republic of Moldova. Mikko should not have been an observer there, as being biased, as a co-president of the EU-Moldova Committee together with the communist Stepaniuc, and by her numerous statements during time, which proved her anti-Romanian subjectivity.

Mikko, an ex-journalist for a communist newspaper during the USSR, attacked heavily the Romanian president for his intention of granting Romanian citizenship to the Moldovans, which is a sovereign right of Romania. By breaching any protocol, Mikko accused him of “lack of wisdom“, then withdrawing her statement and saying that the press misinterpreted her. The Estonian representative opposes Romania taking part in the negociation format with Transnistria and Moldova joinig the EU at the same time with the West Balkan countries. Mikko stirred a whole scandal in Europe by her initiative of restricting the bloggers’ freedom of expression and the obligativity of identifying them.

David Wilshire

The most active influence Russian agent in the observers delegation at the elections in the Republic of Moldova is the British David Wilshire, a representative of the Council of Europe. Wilshire is a notorious propangandist of Moscow interests. Last year he scandalized the public opinion in the UK, when he accused Georgia of agression against Russia, following him taking part in a delegation in the ex-soviet area.

The British newspaper “The Guardian“, after reviewing all Wilshire’s pro-Russian antecedents, uncovers his slatternly lobby to impose Mihail Margelov, Putin’s man, as president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (APCE), in January 2008. After the Spanish socialist Luis Maria de Puig became president of the APCE, in the detriment of Margelov, Wilshire refused to shake hands with de Puig, saying that he had “prepared his congratulations speech in Russian, not in Spanish“. The Moscow newspaper “Kommersant” considered the event as tragic, because de Puig has just been elected, when he invited Mihail Saakasvili, the Georgian president, to the APCE session, and the APCE delegates criticized the elections for the Parliament in Russia. David Wilshire reacted, saying that the Russian elections had been correct, while the Georgian ones had been frauded.

Source: Free Moldova



Dear Mr President / SOS Moldova!



Sunday, April 26, 2009

Petition to EU, EC and Council of Europe

Sign in the petition and speak up your voice.

This petition targets the European Union, the European Commission and the Council of Europe to intervene and send missions to Moldova.
You can share it with who like by using the social bookmarking website you prefer:
Bookmark and Share

For your information, the petition is hosted here.

Source: Moldova Observer




Is Election Crisis in Moldova Part of a Pattern in Post-Soviet Republics?

By Judith Latham
Washington
24 April 2009

Moldova’s Constitutional Court has upheld the results of a vote recount that confirmed the victory of the ruling Communist Party in the nation’s April 5th parliamentary elections. The recount was initiated by the Communist Party of President Vladimir Voronin.

Leaders of the three main opposition parties called the recount a sham and had asked the court to overturn the election results. The recount confirmed the Communist Party won 60 seats in Parliament – one less than needed to nominate a president, but sufficient to form the government.

A Moldovan Perspective

The opposition refused to participate in the recount of the vote, insisting instead on checking the electoral lists, according to Moldovan political analyst Vlad Lupan, who has a radio show in the capital city, Chisinau. Speaking on VOA’s International Press Club, Lupan told program host Judith Latham, “The electoral lists contained names of people who had died as well as those who voted multiple times.” “The police arrested even those demonstrators who had protested non-violently and some of them were tortured,” he said. Lupan said the youth are now afraid and that he thinks it unlikely they will demonstrate again.

The majority of Moldova’s 3.8 million people are ethnic Romanian, but there are also sizable minorities of Russian and Ukrainian speakers – as well as the Gagauz, a Turkic group that is Orthodox Christian. “About 10 percent of the country identifies itself with Russia,” he said. He compares the political situation in Moldova with that in Georgia’s breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where Moscow issued passports to locals as a pretext for an invasion aimed at “protecting” its own citizens.
“The dispute over Moldova’s integration with Europe has far more to do with Russia’s claim of a sphere of influence in the former Soviet republics than with concern for Moldova’s Russian minority,” said Lupan. “The problem extends," he says, “to Ukraine and the disputed region of Trans-Dniester.” [Also called Transniestria by ethnic Romanians, Trans-Dniester includes that area between the left bank of the river Dniester and the border with Ukraine.] Trans-Dniester was part of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic before the collapse of the Soviet Union, but declared its independence from the rest of Moldova in 1990. De jure part of the modern Republic of Moldova, Trans-Dniester is a de facto independent state whose political status remains unresolved.

Vlad Lupan describes the government of Moldova today as “authoritarian,” not unlike Russia but “not yet on the level of the dictatorship in Belarus.” “Moldova currently faces critical issues of a geo-strategic and economic nature,” he said. Lupan considers it inevitable that the interests of Russia and the European Union will collide in Moldova, Ukraine, and the former Soviet republics in the Caucasus. “Stability in the Black Sea region, a major transit route for oil, is critical to both the European Union and the United States,” he adds.

Lupan says Washington should clearly state its position against violations of human rights in Moldova. “U.S. opinion carries considerable weight,” he said, “because Moldova needs the economic aid that the United States provides.”

Economic Dimension

Also appearing on VOA’s International Press Club, East European analyst Daniel Nelson described President Voronin as “a throwback to the Soviet period during the 1950s.” He called Mr. Voronin “an anti-democrat with no interest in civil society, press freedom, or academic freedom.”

Nelson, a widely respected academic and foreign policy consultant, reminds us that Moldova’s current situation is tied to its post-World War II history. “Moldova was historically part of Romania,” he said, “but because of Romania’s involvement in World War II on the side of Germany, the Soviet Union took Moldova and absorbed it as a Soviet Socialist Republic.” That separation remains today – both physically and politically.
Earlier this month, following the parliamentary elections, President Voronin accused Romania of masterminding anti-communist disturbances and with trying to overthrow his government. In retaliation, he expelled Romania's ambassador and introduced the idea of Moldovan visas for Romanians. Moscow backed his allegation of foreign interference, but Romania, a NATO and EU member, rejected Mr. Voronin's words as a "provocation."

“Neither the European Union nor NATO is making any claim on the territory of Moldova,” Daniel Nelson said. Looking to the future, Nelson said “the best possible outcome – notwithstanding the April 5th elections – would be a stable Moldova that has some elements of prosperity.” Moldova is the poorest country in Europe.

Ethnic Dimension

Joining Lupan and Nelson on the program, Eurasian specialist Paul Goble cited ethnic tensions in post-Soviet Moldova as a reason Moldova has had difficulties in constructing a national identity. The author of many books and articles on the former Soviet Union, Goble suggested the possibility of another round of social uprisings in Moldova, not unlike the upheavals in Georgia and Ukraine in the past few years. “When there have been political problems, brought on by economic or other kinds of crises,” Goble said, “those ethnic divisions resurface.” “What often happens,” he said, “is that the ethnic divisions preclude any effective challenge to the existing political elite.” “Western capitals may think they can ignore what happens in Moldova,” he cautioned, “but in fact the consequences of what happens in Moldova are things that Western capitals cannot ignore.”

Suggested Western Response

Paul Goble suggests the European Union and the United States need to avoid remaining passive. “Make it clear to Moldova’s leaders that electoral violations are unacceptable,” he said. “And tell its neighbors that playing political games [in Moldova and Trans-Dniester] will be dangerous and counterproductive.”

Source: VOA News