This interest is easy to explain. Bilateral political relations have never been as vague as now, and economic ties have reached a point that has been described as a glacier period rather than a chilling off. Many Russian publications are negative about the results of the visit, whereas the Moldovan press is very enthusiastic and optimistic. Who is right?
This year the Moldovan GDP was forecast to grow by seven percent (in 2005 it was about $2.5 billion), but is not likely to reach the target. Almost 80% of Moldova's state budget comes from customs revenues. Even the slightest hitch in exports (55% of which are agricultural produce and liquor) spells dozens of millions of lost dollars. Last year, Moldova's trade deficiency approached $600 million, having registered an annual growth of 50%. Moscow's ban on the imports of Moldovan vegetables and meat for phyto-sanitary reasons played a major role in this decrease. This year wine and brandy followed suit.
Considering that Russia accounts for almost 40% of all Moldovan exports, and 85% of liquor products, winemaking on the Dniester banks is more dead than alive. In the first six months of this year, a mere $82 million worth of wine was produced, or 46% of the relevant figure for the past year. The output of packing cardboard and bottles has dropped as well. In the first half of this year the losses from wine short delivery amounted to $123 million.
Attempts to sell Moldovan wine in the European Union were doomed from the very start. Europe is being flooded with good quality and inexpensive Latin American wines. European fruit and vegetables are sold everywhere at dumping prices.
But it would be wrong to blame Moscow for economic sanctions against Moldova, or to accuse Gazprom of increasing prices on natural gas. Sanitary border barriers for food are not a whim of the "spoilt" Russians - the current toughening of standards corresponds with Russia's course towards WTO entry. The U.S., Brazil, the Netherlands, and many other food suppliers have felt the Kremlin's sanctions.
The situation with natural gas is even simpler: preferential treatment for CIS countries has become a thing of the past. Gas is supplied to Europe at market prices, and will not be cheaper.
As distinct from Georgia, Moldova seems to have understood at long last that its poor quality wine will not do anymore, and that its winemaking industry requires serious modernization. This is why the local press is writing less about Russia's economic pressure or blackmail. Moldovan wine makers are increasingly coming to realize that they should make their produce impeccable, so that no customs or sanitary service could find fault with its quality.
Resolving economic problems is a difficult and time-consuming task, but the two countries can join efforts to tackle it. But politics is different. One gets the impression that the Moldovan leaders see nothing wrong with the situation where they can buy cheap Russian gas, sell to Russia second-rate products, and simultaneously threaten Russian businessmen in Moldova with potential loss of local property, obstruct Russian peacemakers, and continue a tough blockade of the Transdnestr region, a home for hundreds of thousands of Russians (the losses from the blockade have already surpassed $200 million). What is the point of trying to improve relations with Moscow against this backdrop?
At the Moscow talks the two presidents managed to clear up their positions. Russia wants to conduct honest trade and achieve a gradual peaceful settlement of the Transdnestr problem, taking into consideration the opinion of local residents. The Russian army will remain in the region as a stability factor. Moscow needs guarantees that the Moldovan leaders sincerely want to become its strategic partner within the CIS.
The Moldovan position has changed little - both before the talks in the Kremlin and after. Chisinau does not realize that if it tries to sit on two chairs - European and Russian - it will fall to the ground. The results of its policy have been deplorable so far. Moldova is in economic decline, and is likely to plunge into a budgetary crisis. Many analysts in Moscow believe there is little hope for a bright future in Russian-Moldovan interstate relations, if all declarations of the Moldovan leader about his desire to normalize them remain valid only until his next trip to the EU.
Apart from being a meeting after a long interval, the talks in Moscow have produced one more positive result - a mutual agreement on the resumption of the work of the intergovernmental bilateral commission on trade and economic cooperation. Its Russian co-chairman, Minister of Education and Science Andrei Fursenko, maintains that despite all complications, the sides would like to lead bilateral economic relations out of the deadlock of misunderstandings and mutual grievances. Our more than two-centuries-long co-existence in one and the same state should help us achieve this goal.
Fursenko is convinced that invigoration of the commission's work after three years of stagnation gives both sides a reason to hope for bringing their economic relations back to normal, although this task will require a lot of effort. He will meet his Moldovan counterpart on September 5 in Moscow on Moldova's Independence Day.
