The issue of the union with the Republic of Moldova (RM) is more hotly debated against the backdrop of the RM elections, EU`s lack of appetite for eastward expansion and, more recently, the statements of the US ambassador to Chisinau. As the US alongside the EU are trying to find a way to renegotiate their common interests with Russia, there is a feeling that the window of opportunity for Romania and RM is about to close. Hence the hurry.

This is, indeed, a very important topic which I have to admit resonates with me more personally. I cannot forget something that happened in the `70s in the Chisinau railway station when as a child heading with my parents to Moscow as tourists I saw an old man with tears in his eyes walking along the platform telling those in the train from Bucharest: “Remember that here too, live Romanians!” That was in the `70s…

But because this is such a significant issue, in terms of meaning and consequences, I think we need to have a clear costs and benefits analysis of the project. And I feel that right now many union advocates base their case on an emotional and historic motivation first and a geopolitical and economic, etc. thinking second. Things should not get mixed up, but addressed separately with a clear head.

Completing such a project based on sentimental and historic reasoning may be justifiable, at the end of the day. The time we had together exceeds by far the time we have been separated, we speak the same language, we share the same culture … Perfectly understandable! We can only proceed down this path if we have a clear understanding of the fact that a decision based solely on historic criteria implies costs which need to be discussed openly, with no idealization.

I do not claim to be an expert in geopolitics, but I cannot help commenting on a few issues. Firstly, the fact that the union proponents` case often overlooks the Trans-Dniester problem. Professor Petrisor Peiu, a unionist through and through is one exception, stating that “the Trans-Dniester economy is of no relevance here since the region will most likely not take part in the unification process in question”. Of course it won`t! Because, as professor Dungaciu also noted, the voters in Trans-Dniester would definitively have the RM face east, geopolitically speaking.

So, if even the unionists are aware that a Union with the RM which includes Trans-Dniester is impossible then the first step towards the union should be in theory to have Trans-Dniester and the RM split up. Do you actually see that happening? I cannot discern the slightest willingness in this respect. Bucharest, Chisinau, Brussels, Berlin, Washington, Moscow, all the relevant states, with no exception, underlined how important it was that the RM kept its territorial integrity. Full stop. Here my post should end, but I will continue my train of thought assuming that a separation would be, however absurd, possible.

From a geopolitical standpoint that leads me to the following question. Who would you like to see on Romania`s eastern border? A country rather in the “grey” area, as the RM will likely remain on the east-west geopolitical line, or a “red” militarized region, such as Trans-Dniester? If you have answered that, we can move on …

Those dressing up their sentimental choice for reunification in a rational and economic thinking often times invoke the German example which, unfortunately has an extremely limited relevance. The key difference that I see when comparing the two is that at the time of the reunification, West Germany was already a powerhouse which they only had to replicate in East Germany. Romania is not a huge economic success yet. And saying that I take Central Europe as a reference. If I am to look at the development of the Moldova region up to the Prut River, then the success story is missing entirely. If we haven`t managed to develop Moldova already within our borders, what qualifies us as successful managers of the land over the Prut River?

A success story provided by Romania may indeed act as a major pull force, as shown by the success story of DNA [Anti-Corruption Agency] which was invited by both union proponents and opponents to the RM. We can only imagine who else would have been invited if the Moldovan counties up to the Prut River have been thriving economically as Cluj, Sibiu or Timis have. Dear unionist, young and old, this is where it all begins.

What would the economic advantages of a union with the RM be? Let us take the variables that could impact Romania`s potential GDP.

Rising demographics? What would its value be as most of the population would be mainly rural, high school or elementary school graduates, old and poor?

The young and the experts who chose to stay in the RM and have not emigrated to the EU? Financial pragmatism suggests that we would be better off drawing them to work in Romania. At the end of the day, West Europeans want our doctors, engineers and bankers, not the inhabitants of “Las Fierbinti”… why wouldn`t we be as pragmatic and selective?

Do RM`s industrial facilities and infrastructure provide any benefits? A lack of investments makes them look more like Romania in the `90s. Its main strength lies rather in wine-growing / agriculture, where Romania has yet to reach its full potential.

The conclusion is that the union will come at a substantial financial cost which will immediately translate into an additional budget burden to bring public pensions and wages to Romania`s level. The unionist camp estimates that Romania ought to spend $90 billion over 20-25 years, or around $4 billion per year (approximately 2% of GDP) to bring the RM as closely to Romania`s development level as possible. Let us assume that we actually get hold of the money by increasing public deficit and funding it on financial markets, and pay, mind you, higher interest rates that reflect the much higher economic and political country risk. Our opportunity cost is that the funds will generate a transfer of growth towards the new territory instead of generating growth in today`s Romania, during which the well-being gap with the rest of the EU is set to rise. It may be an option …. Are we willing to take responsibility for it?

And are we expecting to see the development transfer to turn the significant Russophile portion of the RM population into Romanophile as a token of their appreciation?

There has been and continues to be much ado about Romania needing a new country project. After country projects that resulted in Romania joining NATO and the EU, it is high time for a third project aiming at making the country whole again.  The problem is that for this third project we put the cart before the horses … Because, just as the first two projects were embraced by a Romania eager to enter and belong to a certain geopolitical area, the third one should go by the same logic. So it should not be Romania`s, but RM`s! At the end of the day, the country project belongs to the side wishing to be part of the whole, not to the whole wishing to integrate another fraction. The bad news for the unionists is that at the next RM presidential elections, as far as the surveys point out, none of the top three candidates has this country project on their agenda.

Unfortunately, not only does the RM not have such a project, but it lacks any kind of country project, as professor Dan Dungaciu highlighted. Under these circumstances the last thing on European and American governments` agenda is to have “the old lady forcefully crossed” on the other side of the Prut River, to quote a well-known adage here. Romania rightfully takes pride in being a stability pillar for NATO and the EU in a very precarious area along the east-west axis. That is exactly why any endeavor to dent Romania`s stability is met with some concern in Europe and the US, reason for which we regularly receive signals that decisions must not be rushed into, should not be emotional but taken based on sound arguments that keeps Romania strong. A larger Romania does not necessarily mean a stronger Romania. Just as the financial meltdown widened the existing fault lines within the EU and the eurozone and brought to the surface vulnerabilities that far overlooked, a Romania – RM unification project could expose and amplify Romania`s vulnerabilities that we so far have been able to keep in check.

For this reason, such decisions must be taken with the clearest of heads. Which, again, does not mean that a historic and emotional justification cannot be a justification at all provided three requirements are met, whose order is not random: a) a country project in the RM which includes a solution for the Trans-Dniester region; b) a proper assessment and treatment of potential risk sources for Romania; c) an acceptance by Romanians of the financial costs which will not be offset by benefits and which will slow down Romania`s current development.

The fact that for the time being in both Bucharest and Chisinau the confusingly emotional approach for or against prevails is shown by the sheer paradox that the reunification idea is more popular in Romania than in Moldova. If rational and financial arguments were to carry the day, then things would have been the other way around.

Have a nice weekend!

Subscribe to receive notifications when new articles are published