Deputy Chairperson of the Government of the PMR for International cooperation, Foreign Minister Nina Shtanski noted that the principal feature of the Moldo-Pridnestrovian conflict is that “that the inter-ethnic or inter-religious incompatibility only cannot be defined as the basic prerequisites, which led to the armed confrontation”.
“In the early 1990s during the formation of the Republic of Moldova as a nation state a doctrine of Romanization was being actively developing. In an effort to resist the absorption by the Romanian culture, which is alien to the majority of the inhabitants of Pridnestrovie, the multiethnic population of Pridnestrovie united on the basis of the Soviet identity. Later, in parallel with the formation of the Pridnestrovian statehood – the Pridnestrovian identity began to emerge. The conflict multilayer structure caused by the multiple population identity complicates the process of its settlement,” – emphasized the Head of the Foreign Ministry.
According to Nina Shtanski, the settlement process of the Moldo-Pridnestrovian conflict is burdened also with a number of other factors: “As part of the negotiation process in Pridnestrovie the interests of states clash, whose relations with each other are burdened with real and potential differences, in view of emerging changes in the Romanian- Ukrainian, Ukrainian- Moldovan and particularly Russian-Ukrainian relations. At that, the set of bilateral agreements reached with the participation of the guarantor countries, mediators and observers is not only systematized and is not a single negotiating framework, but also, being unsupported by the effective safeguards system, is already de facto broken unilaterally by Moldova concerning the overwhelming number of provisions. This fact significantly reduces the trust of the participants in the negotiating format to each other and does not enhance the effectiveness of the negotiation process”.
The Head of the Foreign Ministry also notes that the one of the most acute problematic aspects which constrains to more effective negotiations related to the different interpretation by the parties of the essence of possible compromises. “The Moldovan side adheres to a rigid position on the absolute majority of issues, aimed at trying to integrate Pridnestrovie in the existing Moldovan legislative field and enforcing to fulfill international obligations of Moldova, including those to the European Union. This tactic reduces the possibilities for achieving compromises and does not in the spirit of classic international negotiations, always related to the search for mutually acceptable solutions. The Pridnestrovian side believes that the dialogue in the “5 + 2” format refers to the coordination by the parties of their own contractual and legal bases for cooperation, to the development of mutually beneficial solutions and making the commitments to their guaranteed fulfillment,” – the author writes.
The most destructive impact on the negotiation process, according to Nina Shtanski, has a policy of pressure on one side of the conflict, applied to Pridnestrovie throughout the whole settlement.
“Unilateral insulation measures, policy of coercion and pressure (expressed in an economic blockade, “telephone war”, visa restrictions) and sanctions do not solve the problems of a political settlement, but lead to a reduction in the negotiability capacity of the parties to the conflict and countries isolation from the outside world. Sanctions always strengthen internal consolidation and unity, lead to the escalation of the conflict through the understanding of the underlying conflict of interest. They lead to the negative impact on the development of economic processes, and that is often underestimated, to the social strains: change in the structure of the population demographic movements, increased migration from the conflict zone (especially able-bodied layers), lower standards of living in the conflict zone, failure to perform the state social guarantees. All this stimulates radical sentiments as within the political elite as well as among the various segments of the population and in general has a negative impact on the course of the negotiation process and the degree of public confidence in the intermediary institutions,” - stressed the Minister.
In conclusion, Nina Shtanski notes that the study of the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian contradictions, characterized by interweaving political and interethnic components, is important and productive for the development of effective approaches to resolving the “identity conflicts”, unattainable by classical means. “Successful resolution of Moldova- Pridnestrovie conflict which in addition to the internal negative dynamics increases tension between Russia, Ukraine, Romania and the EU, it can be a major factor for building a typical model for the settlement which could be the basis of a universal approach to “identity conflicts”, including internationalized and “frozen” ones”,” – concluded the author.
