Translated material
Leave gracefully
The mediators will discuss Transnistria after the elections in Moldova
As Vremya Novostei learned, on March 25 there will be another meeting between the presidents of Moldova and the self-proclaimed Transnistrian Moldavian Republic in 1990, Vladimir Voronin and Igor Smirnov. They will continue to discuss the prospects for the Transnistrian settlement in the development of the agreements reached on March 18 in Moscow at a trilateral summit organized on the initiative of President Dmitry Medvedev. A source in Tiraspol told our newspaper about this. The meeting place, he said, is being determined.In Moscow, in the final statement, the summit participants spoke in favor of creating conditions for the early (if possible in the first half of 2009) resumption of negotiations in the traditional “five plus two” format (Moldova, Transnistria, Russia, Ukraine, OSCE plus observers from the United States and the European Union) . This process was interrupted due to the economic blockade of Transnistria introduced by Chisinau with the support of Kyiv, Brussels and Washington in the spring of 2006.
In addition, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov explained, the parties “noted the stabilizing role of the current peacekeeping operation in Transnistria.” Russian peacekeepers have been successfully operating there since 1992. Now everyone has agreed that if the settlement is successful, this mission will be transformed into a new guarantee operation under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
“For the first time in eight years, the leaders of Moldova and Transnistria put their signatures on a joint document, which in itself seems to be a positive result,” this is how Valery Nesterushkin, Ambassador at Large of the Russian Foreign Ministry, who represents Russia in the negotiations on the Transnistrian conflict, commented to VN on the results of the Moscow meeting. settlement. He informed the head of the OSCE mission in the Republic of Moldova, Philip Remper, about these results, and this week he will do the same in relation to another colleague, the special representative of Ukraine Viktor Kryzhanovsky. A meeting of mediators in the “five plus two” format is scheduled for April 8 in Vienna.
Taking into account the stated readiness of the parties, today the opportunity has indeed emerged to quickly restore the traditional format of negotiations. However, the development of events will also depend on the outcome of the upcoming parliamentary elections in Moldova on April 5. Moldovan and Transnistrian experts unanimously emphasize the pre-election “color” of the Moscow reception. According to the director of the European Institute for Policy Studies in Chisinau, Viorel Cibotaru, the summit provided Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin with “the opportunity to leave gracefully.” After all, according to the constitution, he cannot run for a third presidential term.
But observers also evaluate the event itself positively. As Chibotaru explained to VN, consultations between representatives of the parties to the conflict “are always better than their absence.” And independent expert from Transnistria Alexander Porozhan saw “another small victory of Russian diplomacy in the trilateral summit held in the current difficult conditions.”
Both interlocutors of VN consider the resumption of negotiations in the “five plus two” format to be very real. According to Chibotaru, against the backdrop of prospects for building new relations between Russia and the United States and NATO in general, such a turn of events “looks logical.” And even in the context of the global economic crisis, world players are able to take new approaches in the Transnistrian settlement.
By the way, the other day the Moldovan Social Democratic Party proposed to transfer Transnistria to Russia as a concession for a period of 30 years. This extravagant initiative, with all its undoubted pre-election character, speaks of the apparent readiness of some Moldovan politicians to deviate from the previously mandatory requirement to grant Transnistria only autonomous status, which is obviously unacceptable for Tiraspol. For the Pridnestrovian side, according to Alexander Porozhan, the maximum compromise is the confederation option.
As for the question that has excited political scientists about a possible change in the format of the peacekeeping operation, Porozhan called it “obvious.” He noted to VN that “if the parties are able to agree on a resolution to the conflict, then the mission of the Russian peacekeepers will be completed, and they could well be replaced by, say, observers from the OSCE.” This scenario, however, does not exclude the continued military presence of Russia on the territory of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic - Pridnestrovians have repeatedly voted for its preservation in referendums. After all, thanks to the intervention of Russian peacekeepers in the summer of 1992, it was possible to stop the armed conflict on the Dniester. But since Western states have so far had a negative attitude towards such prospects, then, as our interlocutor suggests, “the fuss around this issue may drag on.”