Can Memorandum with Eurasian Union diminish Moldova’s European agenda?

Shortly after his first 100 days in office, President Igor Dodon signed a Memorandum of cooperation with the Eurasian Economic Union. Symbolically or not, but the executive office of President Dodon chose to sign the document in Chisinau, in the presence of the Chairman of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission Tigran Sargsyan (Presedinte.md, April 2017). The five-page Memorandum was published on the organization’s official website on April 4 already, one day after its signing in Chisinau.

The content of the Memorandum hasn’t been consulted with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration, while Prime Minister Pavel Filip described it as “inopportune” and as a document that cannot bring “palpable economic and political advantages to the country”. As the representative of the government coordinated by the Democratic Party and its leader Vladimir Plahotniuc, Premier Filip expressed criticism during his visit to Brussels, which was dedicated to the third EU-Moldova Association Council meeting (Euroactiv, March 2017). Besides the Memorandum of cooperation, the Moldovan Premier also condemned President Dodon’s request to grant Moldova the observer status in the Eurasian Union. Contrary to the opinions shared by the government, President Dodon considers the Memorandum does not run counter to the Association Agreement with the EU.

Hidden concerns of EU and adaptability of government

The long chain of shortcomings and the necessity for Chisinau to double efforts were at the core of the messages transmitted by the European Union in the third meeting of the EU – Moldova Association Council held in Brussels (Gov.md, March 31, 2017). Europeans’ emphases were yet offset by the Moldovan authorities that balanced out the constructive, but subtle criticism of the Europeans and the pro-reform commitments and rhetoric.

The pro-governmental press presented the March 31 meeting of the Association Council as a success of the government, which, according to Prime Minister Pavel Filip, stabilized the country in 2016, while in 2017 will focus on the implementation of reforms. The statements made by the European officials and the final document of the Association Council are yet more critical of the government’s performance. In other words, Europeans’ appraisals are rather reserved, but are simultaneously objective and balanced.

Pro-reform approach of EU and pro-Russian plans of President Dodon

The reforms done by the government led by the Democrat Party and, respectively, oligarchic politician Vladimir Plahotniuc, including the incomplete or insufficiently credible ones, cannot be ignored by the Europeans. Many of these reforms were implemented with European assistance, both with EU funds and with national funds of different EU member states. That’s why the appraisals of the done reforms that were subject to impartial assessment can be different from the real attitude to the government.

Consequently, the association implementation report is rather an objective, balanced and concise document (only 13 pages), in which the European Commission and the EU diplomatic service (European External Action Service) sum up the results after almost two years of the start of the implementation of the Association Agenda, stating the political, institutional and sector deficiencies  existing in Moldova. Evidently, some consider the document is insufficiently incisive, but the goal of the report is to assess not the government, but the way in which the reforms assumed by this are implemented. Consequently, the report could have looked more critical only if the assessment criteria agreed in 2014 had been stricter. But these were set by the EU together with the previous authorities that, besides the Democratic Party, included also other parties (PLDM, PL). A more critical report can be produced in the future if the objectives included in the future Association Agenda allow for this. These objectives are yet agreed in a bilateral format. That’s why they cannot be imposed unilaterally by the EU.

Presidential administration vs government: between political coexistence and geopolitical antagonism

Even the most insincere dialogue is better and necessary than the definitive absence of dialogue. At least this was the principle that guided President Igor Dodon, Prime Minister Pavel Filip and Head of Parliament Andrian Candu, when they came together for a discussion in trilateral format (February 21, 2017). The substance and result of the meeting showed that the sides didn’t pursue the goal of coming to terms. They just wanted to state the divergences existing at institutional level. Consequently, the meeting of the three served as another stage for exhibiting the antagonism between the pro-Russian presidential administration and the government associated with the European integration.

In the meeting, each side laid emphasis on the opposition between the viewpoints that define their political essence. So, the attention of President Dodon remains anchored in the plan for coming closer to the Eurasian Union and in the powerful opposition to the pension reform, subsidization of agriculture and conversion of the money stolen from the banking system into a public debt. On the other hand, Premier Filip and Speaker Candu presented the government’s position, focusing on the protection of their standpoints and combating of the criticism leveled by Igor Dodon. There were yet made no personalized accusations and no remark about the coordinator of the government coalition Vladimir Plahotniuc.