During the briefing held for the Mass Media on April 26, 2012 official representative of the Russian MFA A.K. Lukashevich touched upon the results of the Vienna round of Moldo-Pridnestrovian settlement negotiations. We present the full comment of the Russian diplomat:
Some time ago we commented briefly on the results of the regular round of the negotiations on the Pridnestrovian settlement in 5+2 format. After that there were several statements made by our Moldovan colleagues who gave their own characteristics of the decisions agreed upon during that meeting. In accordance with this I would like to note the following.
I have to remind that on April 17-18 regular official meeting of the Permanent Conference on political issues within the framework of the negotiation process on Pridnestrovian settlement took place. Only two issues were subject of the discussion – formation of agenda of official negotiations and completion of work over settling text of the document Principles and Procedures for the Conduct of Negotiations in Framework of Permanent Conference.
The process of working out agenda of negotiations has fundamental importance especially now, on the stage of resumption of negotiation process after almost six-year-long break. The issue of the equality of the Sides of the conflict in negotiation process is a fundamental point. After long and difficult debates in Vilnius, Dublin and Vienna, by means of coordination with the documents, earlier accepted during the negotiation process, the compromise was reached which suited both Kishinev and Tiraspol.
In this context the attempts of the Moldovan negotiators to interpret this compromise not only in extremely broad way but also unilaterally, exclusively in their favor, thus destroying the integrity of the already reached agreements, cause perplexity and concern. Such approach can considerably damage the further progress in promoting confidence-building measures in the region.
As a guarantor of Pridnestrovian settlement and as a mediator in negotiation process, Russian side proceeds from the necessity of strictly adhering both to the letter and to the sense of the documents worked out.
