BY
Following
polling on 30th October, the Moldavian presidential elections will go to a
second round – this time a head to head between pro-EU Maya Sandu and Kremlin
friendly Igor Dodon.
Mr Dodon
received 48.7% of the votes in the first round, with Ms Sandu garnering 37.96%
– by far the highest percentage of the pro-EU contenders.
The electoral
questions now presented are whether the pro-EU votes that went to other
candidates will consolidate around Ms Sandu or not, and also the extent of
voter turnout for the second round.
The first
round demographics displayed a notably higher turnout of both grey-haired and
also female voters. Ms Sandu is more likely to benefit from a far higher
turn out of young men than Mr Dodon, if they can be encouraged to vote (either
in Moldova or abroad where so many work).
During his
campaigning Mr Dodon has made comment regarding Crimea – noting that de jure it may be part of Ukraine as far as
international recognition goes, but de
facto it is Russia.
Such
statements calling into question the territorial integrity of another nation,
and a neighbour, may or may not be campaign rhetoric – and a reader may well
ponder the response of Mr Dodon should a campaigning/electioneering Ukrainian
politician state that de
jure Transnistria may be part of Moldova as
far as international recognition is concerned, but de facto it is Russia.
Needless to
say such comment entering the public realm by a presidential candidate of a neighbouring
nation has not gone unnoticed by either the Ukrainian leadership or the
Ukrainian media.
The Ukrainian
Foreign Ministry duly summonsed its Moldavian Ambassador to Kyiv “for
consultations”.
Meanwhile,
Moldavian Deputy Prime Minister Andrei Galbur made a very clear apology “I
would not like to comment on the statements of the participants of the election
campaign. At the same time, referring to this specific case, I would like
to express regret to our partners in Kyiv, our Ukrainian partners, to all
citizens of this country, including those who live in our country, who have
Ukrainian origin. The expressed position does not correspond to the
official position of the Republic of Moldova. We clearly recognize the
territorial integrity and sovereignty of neighboring Ukraine within the borders
recognized at the international level, do not recognize the annexation of all
territories, regardless of whether we are talking about Ukraine or other
countries. Such a situation we have in Georgia. Moreover, we too
are suffering from a serious territorial crisis. I do not know,
therefore, those who made such a declaration, if would be nice to hear from
officials from Ukraine, Transnistria belongs to the Russian Federation? I’m
just sorry.”
So be it.
We currently suffer a public arena in which there is seemingly no limit
to the amount of spurious, or misleading, or absolute bollocks that can be
uttered by the political class in attempts to sway public opinion – public
apologies will probably become more and more necessary, albeit they probably
will not come when owed. Kudos therefore to Andrei Galbur for such a
swift and clear statement on behalf of the Moldavian State.
But what if
Mr Dodon wins and becomes President Dodon – which he very well might?
There are mutterings
within the Ukrainian media that Ivan Hnatsyhyn, the Ukrainian Ambassador to
Moldova should be recalled.
So should he?
Clearly the
recalling of the Ukrainian Ambassador to the Russian Federation in 2014 was
very much in order. That a temporary Charges d’Affairs now heads the
diplomatic missions of Ukraine within Russia is quite right, for it signals a
formal downgrading of diplomatic ties. Nevertheless Ukrainian diplomatic
missions throughout the Russian Federation continue to function – and so they
should for embassies and consulates do not exist simply to hand out consular
assistance to its citizenry, nor for Ambassadors to enjoy erudite chats over
canapes and “drinkies” on an organised and revolving hosting calendar sponsored
by turn-taking national taxpayers.
Even as
President Dodon, and even if he maintains his position publicly regarding his
statements about Crimea, that is still not the official position of Moldova.
Moldova is a parliamentary democracy by constitution. It is
therefore parliament that adopts the official Moldavian position. (That
said, Ukraine is a parliamentary-presidential democracy, though a reader (and a
citizen) could be forgiven if they perceived matters the other way around.)
Having a
controversial and problematic individual as President is survivable – as the
Czech Republic clearly displays.
Therefore if
a Kremlin friendly President Dodon is the fate awaiting Moldova, does it pay to
recall the Ukrainian Ambassador, downgrading the diplomatic mission there to
that of a temporary Charges d’Affairs as occurred with Russia over his personal
comment/position?
Perhaps – but
removing emotion from the equation, with a very Kremlin friendly President
Dodon, does it not pay to have an Ambassador in Moldova to “manage things” as
they inevitably become far more “testy” and ‘prickly” – not to mention probably
witnessing an increase in covert action too?
To be sure
the Romanians and the SIE are hardly likely to lessen their interest in matters
Moldavian under a President Dodon – quite the opposite.
Ergo, with a longer term and less emotional view,
(and the game is indeed long) rather than retreating from Moldova if a
President Dodon does come to pass, no differently than the predictable Romanian
response, is it not wise to retain as much presence and influence “on plot” as
there currently is? (Perhaps even increase it – one way or another).
If a
President Dodon begins to become problematic – which he very well may – there
will be a lot of Moldavian “people” wanting to “talk” privately and discreetly
to neighbours and western “friends”.
“Drinkies”
and canapes, official appointments/visits (and “unofficial” chats) provide for
a top level communication channel directly to the MFA (unlike the spooks
naturally). Recalling the Ukrainian Ambassador and downgrading relations
to that of a temporary Charge d’Affair may well see many of those anticipated
communications and “chats” being held with others instead.
Thus, on
balance, if a President Dodon is soon upon us, then unless the official Moldavian
position shifts significantly and adopts his personal and current
electioneering rhetoric, it is perhaps not only disproportionate, but indeed
foolish to recall the Ukrainian Ambassador. There are other levers to
employ when showing displeasure.
The
inauguration of a President Dodon, it that is what is to be, probably requires
a greater rather than lesser presence.
No comments:
Post a Comment