CHISINAU, Oct 21 (Reuters) – President Maia Sandu said on Monday Moldovans had won a “first battle in a difficult fight” for their future, a day after a slim majority of 50.46% backed EU accession in a referendum that was clouded by allegations of Russia-backed meddling.
The knife-edge finish was a shock for supporters of Sandu, who had hoped the vote would deliver a firm message of intent to bring the ex-Soviet agricultural economy into the European Union by 2030 and leave Moscow’s orbit for good. “The people of Moldova have spoken: Our EU future will now be anchored in the constitution. We fought fairly in an unfair fight — and we won,” Sandu wrote on X. The result means a clause will be added to the constitution defining EU accession as a goal. Moldova began the long process of formal accession talks in June.
In a presidential election held alongside the referendum, Sandu won 42.45%, short of the 50% needed to win outright and paving the way for a Nov. 3 runoff against former prosecutor-general Alexandr Stoianoglo, who won 25.98%.
Earlier, Sandu, 52, had told Moldovans there was “clear evidence” that criminal groups backed by “foreign forces hostile to our national interests” had aimed to buy off 300,000 votes. “Criminal groups… have attacked our country with tens of millions of euros, lies and propaganda, using the most disgraceful means to keep our citizens and our nation trapped in uncertainty and instability,” she said. In the run-up to the vote, authorities said there had been Moscow-backed meddling attempts spearheaded by fugitive tycoon Ilan Shor, including an effort to bribe 130,000 people to vote “no” and support a specific candidate at the election. Shor denies wrongdoing.
The Kremlin, which denies interfering, denounced the votes in Moldova as “unfree”, casting doubt on what it said was a “hard-to-explain” increase in votes in favour of Sandu and the EU, and challenging her to “present evidence” of meddling. The EU defended Sandu and said Moldova had faced “unprecedented intimidation and foreign interference by Russia and its proxies ahead of this vote”.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, welcomed the outcome of the referendum in a post on X: “In the face of Russia’s hybrid tactics, Moldova shows that it is independent, it is strong and it wants a European future!” The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe said the voting campaigns had been marred by foreign interference and active disinformation efforts.
White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said Russia had been actively working to undermine Moldova’s election and its European integration. “Russia did not succeed, as the results demonstrate. Moldovan democracy is strong,” Kirby said, but added that he expected Moscow to try to influence the runoff election.
‘One More Battle’
The future of the southeast European nation of under 3 million has been in the spotlight since Russia’s invasion of neighbouring Ukraine at a time of mounting confrontation between Moscow and the West. Ties with Moscow have deteriorated as Sandu condemned the invasion and diversified energy supplies away from Russia.
Moldova’s twin votes came ahead of next Saturday’s closely contested parliamentary election in Georgia, another former Soviet republic that aspires to join the EU, but which Russia sees as part of its historical sphere of influence. In a speech on Monday, Sandu said “there is still one more battle to fight”, urging Moldovans to back her in the runoff for the presidency.
Stoianoglo, who is backed by the traditionally pro-Russian Party of Socialists, has said that, if elected, he will build a “balanced” foreign policy involving ties with the EU, the United States, Russia and China. He boycotted Sunday’s referendum, calling it a ruse to boost Sandu’s re-election bid. He challenged Sandu to a televised debate ahead of the runoff.
Comment: The referendum vote was a close run thing. through most of the day, it looked like it was going to be defeated. The last votes counted were the diaspora votes from those who left Moldova for EU countries and Canada. Twenty to twenty five percent of Moldovans currently live outside of Moldova. Those diaspora votes turned the tide and narrowly approved the referendum to join the EU.
There are areas of Moldova that still strongly identify with the Soviet Union and Russia. That won’t change quickly, if at all. A good explanation of the politics of Moldova are in the linked article from the “New Eastern Europe” magazine. The article is from last June, but it’s definitely worth a read.
What I take from all this is that the Kremlin will not be satisfied with taking Ukraine’s western oblasts. That’s just a beginning. They don’t want any more of the old Soviet Union fleeing the Kremlin nest and joining the rest of Europe.
TTG
What you say about the diaspora voting deciding the outcome is interesting. In general, I am hesitant whether diaspora should be allowed to vote and how.
I am not talking of diaspora in the sense of US expats who are relatively few in numbers, and are not the result of mass migration for jobs, but more in the sense of say 3-4 million Turks in EU. These b*st*rds benefit from the EU, vote social democratic in DE, probably socialist or some left leaning party in FR, etc, but massively vote for Erdogan in Turkey. They are flown to Istanbul airport, e.g., by Erdogan’s well organised party to do this. It’s some kind of misplaced nationalistic bravado, since they don’t have to face the consequences of his destroying the economy and adventurisms.
I believe Italy has an “expat senator” for Italian Australians (or maybe all overseas Italians, unsure of the details). The ones here in Australia vote, but it is only to elect a representative within the Italian polity. That’s the way to go.
kodlu,
Being able to vote both in EU countries and Türkiye is pretty messed up. I believe expats should be able to vote in their home country as long as they retain home country citizenship. If they want to vote in an EU country, they should seek EU country citizenship or whatever status it takes to vote. In other words, make up your freakin’ mind.
TTG,
I agree with your sentiments, but perhaps I wasn’t clear. The ones I am referring to are voting as dual citizens of DE and TR, for example. The messed up part is that they have no “skin in the game” in TR, and are isolated from the bad effects their vote for Erdogan has. Given that there are more than 3 million of them, and the final vote count in the 2023 presidential election was about +2.2 million in Erdogan’s favour, they played a decisive role.
Of course the Turkish opposition should have nominated a more electable candidate; one of the Mayors of Istanbul or Ankara would have handily defeated Erdogan, all polls indicated. The party primary system there is completely corrupted with the incumbent party chairman having absolute power. Instead they nominated a 70 year old who had already lost to Erdogan multiple times. There is a Turkish saying “the defeated wrestler never tires of asking for another fight”…
kodlu,
Sounds like Erdogan buys those expats votes with a trip to the homeland.
The same way, France has several seats for “French expats”, which imho is totally stupid. At best, they should vote for people from the area/province they came from. Instead, you basically have one guanrateed seat for French in Israel. Until last elections, that MP was actually a proud IDF goon.
Like you and TTG, I tend to think that voting should be like military service: if you have dual citizenship, you have to pick which one you will use and forfeit the other for your voting rights.
Boy those Russia colluders are busy. First here and now trying to buy 10% of the votes in Moldova, make that only 5%, and for an unnamed candidate too. Thank goodness (and Democracy!) for the expatriates whose ballots all showed up before election day and “swung the tide” tothe right (uhm left?) Side?
I’m sure that here we can look forward to expatriates in (ok overseas) Georgia (state not republic) – a million strong – having their votes counted on election day. Michigan not so much.
Regarding Ursula von der Layen,
this is an informative article:
“From queen to empress:
Inside Ursula von der Leyen’s power grab
After unveiling her new team,
the European Commission president holds more influence than ever.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-europe-commission-brussels-power/
” When Ursula von der Leyen unveiled her team for the next European Commission,
she simultaneously silenced the doubters about
who was really in charge in Brussels.
As she revealed the 26 commissioners and their roles to the public,
one point was immediately clear:
she would have unfettered control over European Union politics.”