I saw on Sunday, at that time I was in Chisinau, the interview of the U.S. Ambassador in Chisinau, James Pettit, given to the public TV channel Moldova 1, which provoked so many disputes and hurt the sentiments of so many Romanians in the Republic of Moldova and Romania also. I admit that I felt a concern, discomfort and I approached this subject with an extreme restraint, feeling very unpleasant to comment these affirmations. I approached in the first phase the strategy of not submitting these opinions which I am sure the Ambassador regrets profoundly today. However, the subject inflamed the public opinion from both shores of Prut, I think it is normal to analyze calmly and cold-blooded and have prompt clarifications all of us.

I saw on Sunday, at that time I was in Chisinau, the interview of the U.S. Ambassador in Chisinau, James Pettit, given to the public TV channel Moldova 1, which provoked so many disputes and hurt the sentiments of so many Romanians in the Republic of Moldova and Romania also. I admit that I felt a concern, discomfort and I approached this subject with an extreme restraint, feeling very unpleasant to comment these affirmations. I approached in the first phase the strategy of not submitting these opinions which I am sure the Ambassador regrets profoundly today. However, the subject inflamed the public opinion from both shores of Prut, I think it is normal to analyze calmly and cold-blooded and have prompt clarifications all of us.

Firstly, principled, I have a principled retain to discuss and dispute publicly the subjects when are making fundamental mistakes the allies and partners. I leave apart the opinions, which are free ones, but otherwise, the strategic American partner (of Romania), the allies from NATO and the EU partners are in a relation where exist ways and means, adequate stuff who can be approached, as their diplomats. I do not think that the most appropriate attitude is to criticize openly and out loud in the public space. The clarifications could be made behind closed doors.

On the other hand, I should recognize that in this situation, we have to deal with a set of affirmations with an impact in the public space that could be interpreted differently, each of them being unfavorable to the Ambassador. Not knowing he history of the place where you are accredited, after a year and a half since being named, is already an evaluation criteria. However, not taking into account the sensibility and the disputes that create major divergences in the society, which make you the mean of internal politics' disputes on the eve of elections in the host country, is more questionable.

His Excellency Pettit felt into a trap. I do not know who pushed him here and what major influence of the diplomatic space, environment or his friends from post-Soviet space where he was on duty, determined him to have these principles and, especially, to express them publicly and so definitely, but this idea was very inadequate. If the Republic of Moldova is already in a storm for 25 years since the Independence from USSR, if it is the center of a geopolitic turmoil between East and West, if it is the subject of local disputes of the pro and against Plahotniuc, respectively on the subject of control or a "captive state", Mr. Pettit succeeded to bring forefront a new dispute that divides the society, the identity one, therefore creating a major space of confusion in the pre-election period that fades away the most important current problems: the Russian military threat, infringement of the international rights in the Eastern Europe, change of frontiers in Europe by the armed forces, the revizionism, Transnitrian split, robbing the country of its resources through smuggling and hidden thefts in the Transnistrian region. Instead his statements throw a smokescreen that covers the realities and the options for which are called to decide the citizens of the Republic of Moldova on October 30.

I don't want to talk about the position of the Ambassador Pettit at the Department of State and his marks or how is he viewed. The elements were, unfortunately, transparent for those who wanted to see them. I want to point out only one thing until the formal comfirmation of the Departament of State: the interview presents the opinion of the Ambassador, while the point of view of USA is reflected by the statement of the President Obama which was ignored by certain people who are greedy to generalise individual opinions. Deschide.md presented other American diplomatic opinions expressed in Bucharest imediately after the outbreak of the dispute that became scandal.

President Barack Obama said: "For the past quarter-century, the United States has stood squarely behind your pursuit of democratic reform and EU integration, your efforts to strengthen the rule of law and fight corruption, and your desire to ensure greater prosperity and security for every citizen. Today and in the years to come, we will continue to support the best interests and aspirations of the Moldovan people, as well as your work towards a resolution of the Transnistrian settlement process that preserves the sovereignty and territorial integrity of your country within its internationally recognized borders. "

That is all. Identity references do not appear, nor the historical one, nor other controversial subjects. That is why I would call this episode an accident, an unhappy moment to which the Ambassador was exposed on the recommendation of friends with a mission, most likely. I am not talking about the mandate, the recommendations he got when he was certified as the representative to the Republic of Moldova, it is the duty of  the Department of State and the host country to evaluate the diplomat and his representation in Chisinau. However, the elements of identity, the controversial elements that create disputes and emphasize splits as those in conflict at the political level are never approached by a diplomatic representative. Moreover, for an ambassador with experience, in the international environment where not following the international law is a threat to national security, such an point of view open to interpretation should be avoided.

Indeed, according to the UN Charter, to deny the sovereignty of states, free will of their citizens is impunity. Or give judgments on the will and whether a possible decision "to join Romania", how says Mr. Ambassador, sovereign actors Romania and Moldova, may be a wrong opinion, but can be interpreted as meaning to revision rules of international law. The prospect of the two countries is established by their citizens, now or in the future and is not subject to any speculations or desires of a diplomat or another. And when the inspiratory spirit of the approach has an agenda, managing to determine such public statements from an US Ambassador, the consequences are as they are and are beared by everyone in relation to their responsibility.

And thus, on the eve of the holiday of August 31, the holiday of Our Romanian Language in Chisinau, instead give space and attention to this festive forgotten event, too discreetly celebrated, we are talking on a topic that was not supposed to exist. I proposed an editorial on this holiday, I had a comment on the very good speech of the President Nicolae Timofti for the Independence Day, both in PMAN and the reception dedicated to this day, however, with all the start to overlook a mistake, launched by the Ambassador Pettit, divided public opinion in two states, one where he is on duty and the neighbor one, and needs urgent clarifications. Therefore, I invite the Ambassador Pettit to participate in the festivities on the Language holiday in Chisinau for a quick reconciliation with an overwhelming part of the state's citizens.