MFA ASKS AMBASSASDOR NOT TO GO TO

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 CHISINAU 000221 SIPDIS STATE FOR EUR/UMB E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/23/2019 TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM KDEM RO MD SUBJECT: MFA ASKS AMBASSASDOR NOT TO GO TO ROMANIA; DELIVERS POINTS ON 2-PLUS-1 Classified by: Ambassador Asif J. Chaudhry for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) Ref A: Chisinau 216 ¶1. (C) Summary: On March 23 MFA Americas Desk Officer Mariana Roibo called on Pol/Econ Section Chief to deliver points on two issues. The MFA requested that the Ambassador not travel to Iasi, Romania, to attend the Moldova's Black Sea Conference on March 27. Participation on that date (which is the anniversary of the March 27, 1918 unification of Bessarabia with Romania) could be easily misinterpreted as support for unification with Romania which would be destabilizing during the electoral campaign, the MFA rep explained. Additionally the MFA officer raised 2+1, seeking to address the USG's concerns about the Moscow meeting. End Summary. March 27 Conference Attendance Could Be Misinterpreted -------------- ¶2. (C) As a preamble to her demarche on the March 27 conference, MFA Americas Desk Officer Mariana Roibo noted that on Friday, March 20, the MFA had called in Romanian Ambassador Teodorescu and delivered a Diplomatic Note warning about the possible travel of Romanian students to Moldova to participate in pro-unification demonstrations to take place in Chisinau on March 27. The note had informed the Romanian diplomat of GOM concern that participation in such demonstrations during the electoral campaign could have a destabilizing effect. ¶3. (C) Though the Government of Moldova recognized the March 27, 1918, unification as a historical fact, Roibo noted GOM concern about the Moldova Foundation's choice to hold its conference on that date. The GOM had no objection to the conference, or the subject matter to be discussed, only to the fact that it was being held on March 27 and in Romania. The GOM was concerned about the possibility of the Ambassador's participation, as it could too easily be misinterpreted as Embassy sympathy for the pro-unification idea. The Moldovan authorities were concerned about encouraging nationalist extremism, and did not want events politicized for electoral purposes, continued Roibo. She expressed the view that participation of the U.S. Ambassador in this conference would heighten its political aspect. ¶4. (C) Pol/Econ Section Chief responded that Embassy understood the MFA's concerns. She explained that while the Ambassador had originally agreed to speak at the conference, he had already decided not to participate. We understood the significance of the day and how it could be misinterpreted. Concerns about 2-plus-1 -------------- ¶5. (C) Desk Officer Mariana Roibo also raised the issue of the recent 2-plus-1 meeting in Moscow. She said that the MFA had heard from its Embassy in Washington that the State Department had concerns about 2-plus-1. Roibo commented that the Moldovan Embassy would soon receive instructions on points to make in Washington, but she wanted to make several comments now. Roibo said that Moldova's commitment to 5-plus-2 would not change, as it would remain the only forum for negotiations. Additionally, she noted that the 2- plus-1 meetings were only consultative, not a negotiating format. ¶6. (C) Pol/Econ section chief responded that USG concerns were not about Moldova's commitment to 5- plus-2, but regarding the text of the Joint Declaration. Specifically, the USG was concerned about point 4, praising the work of the peacekeeping forces and giving them a mandate to remain until after a Transnistria settlement was concluded. The USG had previously proceeded from the understanding that the GOM had sought the removal of all Russian troops, including both the CHISINAU 00000221 002 OF 002 "limited contingent" and the peacekeeping forces. The text of the Joint Declaration appeared to represent a shift in position. Roibo was unable to give a substantive response, but made note of the point. Comment -------------- ¶7. (C) Following the Ambassador's meeting with President Voronin on March 19 (ref A) in which the Moldovan leader expressed his concerns about the upcoming March 27 demonstrations, accusing NDI of being involved with organizing these events, it was already clear that participation in the Iasi conference would be misinterpreted. Today's demarche was confirmation that at the highest levels the GOM would misperceive the Ambassador's travel to Romania as support for pro-unification elements. Though we value the work of the Moldova Foundation, and find the subject matter of the conference interesting, it would not be appropriate for the Ambassador to attend in that location and on that date. CHAUDHRY