The commission of inquiry for elucidating the accusations of interference by the Foundation “Otwarty Dialog” made public a part of the questions to which the PAS leader Maia Sandu and PPPDA leader Andrei Năstase were to answer, but these refused to come to discussions. The commission had a meeting in the evening of November 14. After this, commission chairman Igor Vremea enumerated the non-confidential questions to which the two politicians were to provide answers.
Reading the questions that were declassified by Igor Vremea, which the leaders of the opposition were to answer, first of all we can regret that the hearings weren’t public as we missed a really extraordinary show. Secondly, we must admit that the story has also a good part – the commission’s questions! They represent the most truthful image of what the Republic of Moldova is now. The content, formulas, syllogisms, inferences and other elements used all together when formulating the questions are a masterpiece of the commission of inquiry, something unique. The interrogated persons couldn’t have avoided incriminating themselves when answering such questions. It’s true that they had an alternative – to pose as naïve or accomplices to the accusations. But the parliamentary investigators aimed the most serious affront at the European Parliament. They practically stigmatized this as being naïve as it adopted decisions under the influence of agents of the hybrid war. That’s why investigators’ questions should be translated into a language of international circulation and spread wherever there is interest in understanding what is happening in the Republic of Moldova.
The third important thing refers to the initiators of this process and the members of this commission. It is important to recall that the inquiry was initiated by five ex-Communist MPs who were converted into Democrats overnight. From this perspective, it will be very interesting if some of them – the commission’s chairman Igor Vremea and Artur Reshetnikov, who entered Parliament on the ticket of the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM) – answered one of their questions that refers to them directly. For example, when did Mister Igor Vremea and Mister Artur Reshetnikov find out that the intelligence services of Russia conduct a hybrid war on Moldova’s territory? As, in the parliamentary elections of November 30, 2014 they were mandated to immediately open negotiations with Russia and to restore the partnership relations! Moreover, the PCRM, as the Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova (PSRM), promised: to organize a national referendum on integrationist problems in the Republic of Moldova. This is what Vremea and Reshetnikov were mandated to do! Didn’t the investigators know that Russia imposed bans on Moldova in 2013 and on March 17, 2014, after the so-called referendum held in Crimea, both the U.S. and the EU decided to impose sanctions against the Russian Federation? What do Vremea and Reshetnikcov prefer now – to be considered naïve and accomplices to Russia’s hybrid war against Moldova, Ukraine, etc.? The Socialist members of the commission would also have to answered a number of questions. If they ask representatives of the opposition about Russia’s hybrid war in Moldova, do they admit that this exists? If they recognize this war, why do they encourage Moldova’s entry into the Eurasian Union? Aren’t they accomplices of Russia and shouldn’t they be convicted of treason?
If reference is made to media sources, as our investigators make reference to such sources, including Wikipedia, wouldn’t the given investigators confirm or deny the fact that their sudden metamorphosis from Eurasian Communists into pro-European Democrats was rewarded plentifully? They say the move was coordinated in a package on December 21, 2015 and their colleagues in Parliament who didn’t convert made relevant public statements and revealed the offered sums!
Despite the fact that we missed the show, we should anyway welcome the commission of inquiry’s approach. This suggests rereading the two extraordinary volumes of Juan Antonio Llorente “History of Spanish Inquisition” to realize the degradation reached by our investigators compared with their spiritual parents. The inquisitors at least accurately formulated the used notions and the applied procedures and thoroughly worked out the penal procedures. In light of the aforementioned, our parliamentary investigators appear as banal epigones. That’s why it’s a great pity that they didn’t accept the interrogation to be public. Ah!