“The PSRM’s bill on the status of permanent neutrality of the Republic of Moldova is aimed at annihilating the powers of a subject of international law that would ensure its security, turning it into a planktonic organism from a suspension without form and content, accessible to any predator…”
---

Method of justifying foreign financing

After a period of paralysis caused by the uncertainty deriving from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the opposition of the Republic of Moldova started to slowly wake up. It does not go to the clarification of its attitude to the special operation or to the condemnation of aggression. On the contrary, the opposition of the Bloc of Communists and Socialists (BCS) started either to justify the Russian aggression or to align itself with the main messages of the Russian propaganda.

In connection with the aforementioned, the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM) decided to popularize the Russian aggression among the Moldovans, spreading propagandistic messages about Russia’s detachment from the influence of Europe and the U.S., which is about the building of the multipolar world. For its part, the PCRM’s coalition partner, the Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova (PSRM), launched a campaign to promote the necessity of strengthening the status of neutrality. This approach is nothing else but a pretext to reproach Ukraine for renouncing its neutrality after the annexation of Crimea and the occupation of a part of the Donbas region by Russia. The given examples come to confirm the Communist-Socialist bloc’s camouflaged support for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and its justification.  

The speculation about the neutrality of the Republic of Moldova is presented to the general public as a rescue guarantee for an eventual foreign aggression. But the Socialists’ excess of zeal rather generates confusion than understanding. The point is the PSRM’s coalition partner had ruled for eight years and in the period had a constitutional majority and could have solved all the country’s security problems. However, instead of developing the legal framework concerning the neutrality of the Republic of Moldova, which is enshrined in the Constitution, the PCRM essentially contributed to developing the framework of cooperation with NATO, in particular, working out and adopting the Moldova-NATO Individual Partnership Action Plan.

Generally, it is not quite fair to strictly delimit the attitude of the PSRM and PCRM from the Russian aggression against Ukraine and the problem of neutrality of the Republic of Moldova. As a matter of fact, the leaders of the PSRM Igor Dodon and Zinaida Grechanyi earlier formed part of the PCRM. The IPAP with NATO was adopted in 2006, being supported also by the current leaders of the PSRM as members of the PCRM government. The question is, why do the Communists and Socialists now have a different position from the previous one? The answer resides in the scandals about the illegal financing for the PSRM coming from Russia - ether it goes to the BAHAMAS scandal or to the financing through GAZPROM. This way, the wise saying he who pays the piper calls the tune is once again confirmed.  

Transformation of the Republic of Moldova into plankton...

After the unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, the states neighboring Russia - either neutral or members of collective security blocs - started to look for solid security guarantees. Any nation that respects itself no longer sticks to ephemeral statements and statuses that do not oblige anyone to something. Russia’s neighbors Finland and Sweden are the most relevant examples. In these states, public opinion and the political class radically changed their attitude to the status of neutrality. Paradoxically, the Socialist opposition in the Republic of Moldova acts inversely. After disseminating propaganda in favor of neutrality, the PSRM published the bill on the permanent status of neutrality. The document ignores the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 2017, which very clearly defines the used notions and sets the permitted and non-permitted limits in the process of ensuring the security of the Republic of Moldova, which voluntarily assumed the constitutional status of permanent neutrality. 

The PSRM’s bill, when it is read, leaves the impression that its purpose is not to ensure security, but, on the contrary, is an invitation to any potential aggressor to conquer the Republic of Moldova as a trophy, without any special effort or risk of riposte on the part of a fully or partially demilitarized state. The gathering of general sentences, without indicating the most elementary measures aimed at ensuring security, can serve, without exaggeration, as a sample of irresponsibility if there had been no reason for suspecting the authors of malicious intention. The language used by the sponsors of the PSRM’s bill is beyond any criticism. The following potential legal norm “Despite the status of permanent neutrality, the protection of the territory is one of the basic obligations of the state” is a pertinent example.

In fact, the PSRM’s bill cannot be regarded at least as a gathering of general sentences because it is published in a particular context. This context is defined by a concrete aggressor – Russia, which ignored all the international law norms and the UN resolutions. Nevertheless, the PSRM’s bill contains a lot of taboos that the Republic of Moldova tries to impose on itself for avoiding any potential dissatisfaction of Russia. It is curious that the bill clearly provides that the self-limitations imposed by the Republic of Moldova do not refer somehow to the separatist regime in Transnistria, which can unrestrictedly continue its cooperation in all the spheres, including in the military one, with Russia.

Conclusions

The PSRM’s bill on the status of permanent neutrality of the Republic of Moldova is aimed at annihilating the powers of a subject of international law that would ensure its security, turning it into a planktonic organism from a suspension without form and content, accessible to any predator. 

The party’s bill is rather a manifestation of some renegades who justify themselves before the backer for the previous impertinence to cooperate with NATO within the Individual Partnership Action Plan and a series of joint military exercises.