Inglorious July war of 1992 on the Dniester banks is no exception. It broke out as a result of Kishinev's central authorities (manipulated by radical elements) inability to consolidate the society. The Republic of Moldova lost its territorial integrity and civil unity. Broken lives, pain and death of thousands of people were an unacceptable price which had to be paid for political adventurism.
Controversies around the grounds of those events are not over. Partisan opinions are still being made. In spite of a variety of discrepant estimations principal political motives of Pridnestrovian conflict can be seen clearly now, after decades. Reasons which stood behind formation of opposing forces on Dniester are proved by modern realities. Slogans of radical nationalists on the right bank of Dniester, who renounce Moldovan identity and advocate for union with Romania, are sounding like a factor which divides society. For Pridnestrovie strife for self-determination, for security of rights of people residing there – Moldovans, Russians, Ukrainians, representatives of other ethnic groups – does not lose its mobilizing strength.
Shock experienced by Moldovan high authorities due to catastrophic development of events in summer of 1992 predetermined search for swift solution. Signing of Agreement on the Principles of a Peaceful Settlement of the Armed Conflict in Pridnestrovian Region of the Republic of Moldova signed by Presidents of the Russian Federation and of the Republic of Moldova on July 21, 1992 in Moscow became such solution. The Russian Federation was that reliable partner which repeatedly demonstrated and proved on practice in convincing manner its adherence to interests of consolidation of Moldova's stability, support to her aspirations to build democratic State ruled by law, her readiness to increase traditions of ages-long friendship.
The fact of cease of hostilities which threatened with new victims and lasting bloodshed itself, as it seems, should prevent any doubts in historical importance of the agreement with the Russian Federation. However, dubious opponents of the agreement's viability are adducing new arguments. They are pursuing one specific goal: to prove that the document is outdated and that obligations which have effect on its basis need revision.
Arguments in defence of such position have universal character. They are similar to those which deal with other conflicts on the CIS territory. They say Russia assigned itself key role in peacekeeping operations by taking advantage of the weakness of local authorities. They tried to convince us that preservation of status-quo “encourages separatists”. Not to say about traditional attempts to discredit peacekeeping itself by making references on its discrepancy with existing norms of the UN peacekeeping operations.
Here we should advise our opponents to return to the core of the document signed in 1992 between Russia and Moldova. It is undoubtedly of unique nature because it managed to accomplish a number of goals simultaneously.
From the military point of view, regarding military aspects of conflict in Pridnestrovie, the agreement shaped obligation to cease hostilities by the sides of the conflict against each other. Parameters of management of the security zone were defined.
Regarding political settlement the agreement gave start to conflict resolution by peaceful political means with participation of international mediators under which negotiators at that time understood CIS forces and initiative to establish OSCE mediator mission.
Inclusion of developed obligations by sides of conflict in the text of the document reflected firm concern of Russian leadership that escalation of irreconcilability due to situation created after bloodshed in Bendery on June 19-20, 1992 made it impossible to conduct anything regarding Pridnestrovie without participation of Pridnestrovian representatives.
And, at last, agreement touched upon very important aspect of Russia-Moldova relations which dealt with the status of the 14th Army and perspectives of its phase-date withdraw from the territory of the Republic of Moldova.
After Boris Yeltsin and Mircea Snegur validated agreements with their signatures negotiations started the very next month. These negotiations proceeded with clear understanding of the fact that resolution of problem should be accompanied by parallel balanced decisions by the Moldova's leadership aimed to reach final resolution of the conflict.
In fact all the elements of agreement in their interconnection laid down the bases of strategic partnership of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova; this was repeatedly emphasized by the leaders of the two states in exchange of personal messages and in person.
The main thing that defines topicality of acting peacekeeping operation established by the agreement is its' mandate which includes fulfillment of the regime of military administration in security zone, maintenance of stability in the region and creation of conditions for continuation of negotiations on conflict settlement.
In the absence of precise arrangements on elaboration for Pridnestrovie of special, surely guaranteed status, which is the aim of negotiations, talks about the reformatting of operation do not make sense.
From the Moldovan side it would imply today the Law of the Republic of Moldova of 2005 on basic provisions of legal status of the region as a basis for negotiations. As it was defined by Moldovan legislators, the dialogue is possible only with loyal to Kishinev, demilitarized and democratized administration of Pridnestrovie on the basis of constitutional provisions on unitary state.
Regardless of the type of forces which would agree to guarantee the autonomy of “population centers of the left bank of the Dniester”, only compulsion may respond to logic of such settlement. With the account taken of the moods of Pridnestovians who do not accept unilateral decisions imposed from the outside, this would predictably mean return of the conflict to “hot phase.”
Weighed intermediary Russian diplomacy expressed by the spirit and letter of the Agreement on Principles of a Peaceful Settlement of the Armed Conflict in the Pridnestrovian Region of the Republic of Moldova proved to be efficient in order to give the sides the possibility to clarify the intentions and to continue political dialogue.
This impulse afforded after 1992 not only to relieve the tension which periodically appeared in the region, but to form multidimensional structure of bilateral agreements of the sides of the conflict.
The road travelled by them during next ten years was complicated. Internal political loads and influence of unfavorable external economical factors affected. Nevertheless it was marked by the growth of responsibility of Kishinev and Tiraspol for coming to certain arrangements, elaboration of integral concept of onward movement to the compromise.
Dynamics of negotiations and legal registration of “common territories” of political, economical and humanitarian cooperation, the intention to build common state and to become mutual guarantors of comprehensive and unconditional implementation of the arrangements proclaimed in 1997, preparation in 2003 of the Memorandum on basic principles of state structure of united state, impress and holds out a hope of the preservation of potential of political settlement.
It would be incorrect to compare the things achieved at that time with today's circumstances of the negotiation process in linear measurement. But on the background of the complicacies of last ten years, risks of destabilization and undermining of confidence of the sides of the conflict appeared just a little while ago, Agreement on Principles of a Peaceful Settlement of the Armed Conflict in Pridnestrovian Region of the Republic of Moldova, mechanisms of well co-coordinated interaction of Joint peacekeeping forces, Ukrainian observers proved its' viability and demand.
The emphasis of the peacekeeping operation on early prevention of conflict and scheme of its' implementation with the participation of Moldovan and Pridnestrovian contingent of Joint peacekeeping forces provide it with stable safety reserve. Professional experience of the evaluation and running of the situation in the zone of responsibility in contact with local bodies of state power achieved by the peacekeepers, interaction with national intermediaries, the OSCE observers, non-governmental organizations, population have a tremendous significance.
During the days when the 20th Anniversary of peacekeeping operation on the Dniester is celebrated, we can not help saying words of gratitude to Russian military men participating in fulfilling of important mission they are entrusted with, which fully corresponds to the status of Russia as an intermediary and guarantor state in the process of Pridnestrovian settlement. Conditions for diplomatic work on solving of complicated problem created in such a manner are an important impact to fortification of the relations with the people of the Republic of Moldova, provision of regional and European stability.
Source of material: http://rg.ru/2012/07/23/karasin.html
History of civil opposition in number of former soviet republics in 1990s, consequences of nationalists' entry on political arena, tragedies following USSR's collapse are still emotionally conceived by civil society and are analyzed by political scientists and historians.Inglorious July war of 1992 on the Dniester banks is no exception. It broke out as a result of Kishinev's central authorities (manipulated by radical elements) inability to consolidate the society. The Republic of Moldova lost its territorial integrity and civil unity. Broken lives, pain and death of thousands of people were an unacceptable price which had to be paid for political adventurism.Controversies around the grounds of those events are not over. Partisan opinions are still being made. In spite of a variety of discrepant estimations principal political motives of Pridnestrovian conflict can be seen clearly now, after decades. Reasons which stood behind formation of opposing forces on Dniester are proved by modern realities. Slogans of radical nationalists on the right bank of Dniester, who renounce Moldovan identity and advocate for union with Romania, are sounding like a factor which divides society. For Pridnestrovie strife for self-determination, for security of rights of people residing there – Moldovans, Russians, Ukrainians, representatives of other ethnic groups – does not lose its mobilizing strength.Shock experienced by Moldovan high authorities due to catastrophic development of events in summer of 1992 predetermined search for swift solution. Signing of Agreement on the Principles of a Peaceful Settlement of the Armed Conflict in Pridnestrovian Region of the Republic of Moldova signed by Presidents of the Russian Federation and of the Republic of Moldova on July 21, 1992 in Moscow became such solution. The Russian Federation was that reliable partner which repeatedly demonstrated and proved on practice in convincing manner its adherence to interests of consolidation of Moldova's stability, support to her aspirations to build democratic State ruled by law, her readiness to increase traditions of ages-long friendship.The fact of cease of hostilities which threatened with new victims and lasting bloodshed itself, as it seems, should prevent any doubts in historical importance of the agreement with the Russian Federation. However, dubious opponents of the agreement's viability are adducing new arguments. They are pursuing one specific goal: to prove that the document is outdated and that obligations which have effect on its basis need revision. Arguments in defence of such position have universal character. They are similar to those which deal with other conflicts on the CIS territory. They say Russia assigned itself key role in peacekeeping operations by taking advantage of the weakness of local authorities. They tried to convince us that preservation of status-quo “encourages separatists”. Not to say about traditional attempts to discredit peacekeeping itself by making references on its discrepancy with existing norms of the UN peacekeeping operations. Here we should advise our opponents to return to the core of the document signed in 1992 between Russia and Moldova. It is undoubtedly of unique nature because it managed to accomplish a number of goals simultaneously. From the military point of view, regarding military aspects of conflict in Pridnestrovie, the agreement shaped obligation to cease hostilities by the sides of the conflict against each other. Parameters of management of the security zone were defined. Regarding political settlement the agreement gave start to conflict resolution by peaceful political means with participation of international mediators under which negotiators at that time understood CIS forces and initiative to establish OSCE mediator mission.Inclusion of developed obligations by sides of conflict in the text of the document reflected firm concern of Russian leadership that escalation of irreconcilability due to situation created after bloodshed in Bendery on June 19-20, 1992 made it impossible to conduct anything regarding Pridnestrovie without participation of Pridnestrovian representatives.And, at last, agreement touched upon very important aspect of Russia-Moldova relations which dealt with the status of the 14th Army and perspectives of its phase-date withdraw from the territory of the Republic of Moldova.After Boris Yeltsin and Mircea Snegur validated agreements with their signatures negotiations started the very next month. These negotiations proceeded with clear understanding of the fact that resolution of problem should be accompanied by parallel balanced decisions by the Moldova's leadership aimed to reach final resolution of the conflict.In fact all the elements of agreement in their interconnection laid down the bases of strategic partnership of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova; this was repeatedly emphasized by the leaders of the two states in exchange of personal messages and in person.The main thing that defines topicality of acting peacekeeping operation established by the agreement is its' mandate which includes fulfillment of the regime of military administration in security zone, maintenance of stability in the region and creation of conditions for continuation of negotiations on conflict settlement. In the absence of precise arrangements on elaboration for Pridnestrovie of special, surely guaranteed status, which is the aim of negotiations, talks about the reformatting of operation do not make sense. From the Moldovan side it would imply today the Law of the Republic of Moldova of 2005 on basic provisions of legal status of the region as a basis for negotiations. As it was defined by Moldovan legislators, the dialogue is possible only with loyal to Kishinev, demilitarized and democratized administration of Pridnestrovie on the basis of constitutional provisions on unitary state. Regardless of the type of forces which would agree to guarantee the autonomy of “population centers of the left bank of the Dniester”, only compulsion may respond to logic of such settlement. With the account taken of the moods of Pridnestovians who do not accept unilateral decisions imposed from the outside, this would predictably mean return of the conflict to “hot phase.”Weighed intermediary Russian diplomacy expressed by the spirit and letter of the Agreement on Principles of a Peaceful Settlement of the Armed Conflict in the Pridnestrovian Region of the Republic of Moldova proved to be efficient in order to give the sides the possibility to clarify the intentions and to continue political dialogue.This impulse afforded after 1992 not only to relieve the tension which periodically appeared in the region, but to form multidimensional structure of bilateral agreements of the sides of the conflict. The road travelled by them during next ten years was complicated. Internal political loads and influence of unfavorable external economical factors affected. Nevertheless it was marked by the growth of responsibility of Kishinev and Tiraspol for coming to certain arrangements, elaboration of integral concept of onward movement to the compromise. Dynamics of negotiations and legal registration of “common territories” of political, economical and humanitarian cooperation, the intention to build common state and to become mutual guarantors of comprehensive and unconditional implementation of the arrangements proclaimed in 1997, preparation in 2003 of the Memorandum on basic principles of state structure of united state, impress and holds out a hope of the preservation of potential of political settlement. It would be incorrect to compare the things achieved at that time with today's circumstances of the negotiation process in linear measurement. But on the background of the complicacies of last ten years, risks of destabilization and undermining of confidence of the sides of the conflict appeared just a little while ago, Agreement on Principles of a Peaceful Settlement of the Armed Conflict in Pridnestrovian Region of the Republic of Moldova, mechanisms of well co-coordinated interaction of Joint peacekeeping forces, Ukrainian observers proved its' viability and demand.The emphasis of the peacekeeping operation on early prevention of conflict and scheme of its' implementation with the participation of Moldovan and Pridnestrovian contingent of Joint peacekeeping forces provide it with stable safety reserve. Professional experience of the evaluation and running of the situation in the zone of responsibility in contact with local bodies of state power achieved by the peacekeepers, interaction with national intermediaries, the OSCE observers, non-governmental organizations, population have a tremendous significance.During the days when the 20th Anniversary of peacekeeping operation on the Dniester is celebrated, we can not help saying words of gratitude to Russian military men participating in fulfilling of important mission they are entrusted with, which fully corresponds to the status of Russia as an intermediary and guarantor state in the process of Pridnestrovian settlement. Conditions for diplomatic work on solving of complicated problem created in such a manner are an important impact to fortification of the relations with the people of the Republic of Moldova, provision of regional and European stability.
Source of material: http://rg.ru/2012/07/23/karasin.html
