The Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic carefully reviewed assessment of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova relating to foreign economic activity of Pridnestrovie and particular economic agents of the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic.
Apparently, in Kishinev one tends to symbolism, therefore exactly July 22 has been chosen for publishing a relevant commentary of the MFAEI – a day which is the 6th anniversary of adoption of a “status” law of the RM predefining the status of the “Pridnestrovien region” and thus blocking, in fact, any equitable Moldova-Pridnestrovie settlement negotiations.
Moldova's ruling Alliance is probably very eager to display continuity of policy of the Republic of Moldova in relation to the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic irrespective of the fact who is in power – whether it be nationalists, or communists, or “democrats”. Notably, “AEI-2” is assiduously combating the “communist heritage” in the sphere of internal policy, at the same time, however, with perseverance, worthy of better application, is striving to maintain quite the same principles and approaches towards normalization of relations with Pridnestrovie, as its “Communist predecessors”.
We are forced to draw attention to a number of fundamental points which appear in the comments by RM's MFAEI and which are aimed exclusively at misleading the international community.
Firstly, legitimate foreign economic activity on the border of Ukraine and the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic began not in 2006 but with disintegration of the Soviet Union and the change of borders' status. From 1991 onwards, the movement of cargoes through the state border between Ukraine and Pridnestrovie had conformed to both the norms of international trade law and domestic legislation of the neighboring states. It is natural that in view of unsettled state of relations between the Republic of Moldova and the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic disputable issues emerged which were solved through the signing of relevant interstate agreements, including the 1997 Moscow Memorandum, agreements in customs sphere and other documents.
However, it is quite logical that in Kishinev one prefers not to recall either the Memorandum, or any other documents, since in such case one would have to answer awkward questions regarding the fact how the Moldovan side is fulfilling them, what would in its turn place in doubt validity of the membership of the Republic of Moldova in different organizations, first of all, in the WTO where it is accepted to fulfill one's commitments.
The Moldovan side tries to present the situation in such a way, as if legitimate trade of Pridnestrovie with the outside world began in 2006, though, in essence, since 2006 the full-scale foreign economic activity of Pridnestrovie, which was previously specified by international agreements, has been stopped.
Secondly, representatives of the MFAEI are insomuch unable to make head or tail of their own “arguments” that contradict themselves. Thus, one of the passages declares that customs regime introduced in 2006 provisioned “compensation mechanism for collected taxes”; another, however, reads that “economic agents of the Pridnestrovien region are not a subject to any payments to the national budget of Moldova”. We call upon the colleagues from Moldova's MFA to finally find their position and comprehend the situation at least for themselves. For the Pridnestrovien enterprises the situation is to the utmost simple and clear: they are forced to pay not only for customs clearance but also bear considerable indirect expenses connected with illegitimate demands of the Moldovan side as regards the terms of cargo transportation, as well as to pay fees and other mandatory payments to RM's budget, with the mass of obstacles being subsequently created for their “compensation” – the fact which our mediators and guarantors were notified more than once.
For reference, we will remind RM's MFAEI of the content of the Joint Statement by Yekhanurov and Tarlev dated by December 30, 2005, according to which the Moldovan side undertook not to levy at all any taxes and other mandatory payments from the Pridnestrovien enterprises. Though, at that stage Kishinev's “consistency” revealed itself with quickness common for the Moldovan side: over the period from December 30, 2005 till March 3, 2006, the Moldovan authorities managed to change one of their internal documents (which was referred to in the Statement by Premiers of Ukraine and Moldova) to such extent that if the then Ukrainian authorities had been more attentive to their national interests and less sensitive to the outside instructions, this customs regime would have hardly been implemented.
Thirdly, substitution of such notions as “international rules” and “national legislation” by the Moldavian side has already become habitual. It does not admit any doubt, that it is the attempts to impose it's own jurisdiction, to compel to work according to it's unilateral rules, but not striving towards the searching of compromise, that became departing point for blockade measures, imposed on Pridnestrovie by Moldova in 2006. Unilateral pseudo-legal decisions have always been the constituent part of the politics of the Republic of Moldova in respect of the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic in all spheres, law of 2005 of the RM, mentioned above, can be considered as an example of this fact.
In the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic one is capable to work according to international rules and standards and is ready to confirm this. But not in situation where biased, preconceived side of the conflict, but not really competent parties, able to make real assessment of the situation and the extent of conformity of Pridnestrovien economic agents to European requirements, is acting as a “judge”.
Fourthly, balancing on the verge of cynicism and hypocrisy, the Moldavian side is trying to give examples of the actions, that “simplify the life” of Pridnestrovien enterprises. The “argument” on “simplifying of procedure of registration of enterprises” is especially “convincing”. For one's reference: Pridnestrovien enterprises, like any other legal entities, are considered created from the moment of registration in corresponding authorities of the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic. According to the Protocol on Mutual Recognition of Validity on the Territory of Pridnestrovie and the Republic of Moldova of the Documents Issued by Competent Bodies of the Parties, signed on May 16, 2001, registration certificates are mutually recognized by the sides. However, instead of this, in Kishinev they introduce double procedure of registration and consider it to be significant step forward.
At the same time, MFAEI forget about the “nuance”: so-called “simplified registration” does not give the possibility to gain licenses in the RM, does not give the possibility for enterprises to receive effective protection (including juridical assistance) of their rights and so on.
Fifthly, the remarks of Moldavian authorities on the necessity of usage of a certain “generally accepted terminology in respect of representatives of the authorities of Pridnestrovien region” arouses perplexity. In MFAEI of the RM they do not explain the essence of this “terminology”. It is most likely that Kishinev is trying again to present it's own approaches as “generally accepted” and international.
We offer the representatives of the Republic of Moldova to follow the principles of political realism and to admit, that each state has it's own “generally accepted” approaches. For example: Pridnestrovien expert and social groups have historically and politically justified approach to naming contemporary Moldova within it's actual borders as “central Bessarabian region”, but nobody tries to impose this terminology on international partners.
Besides, we emphasize once again, that at the best “Pridnestrovien region”, “Pridnestrovien region of the Republic of Moldova” is situated in Soroki, Rezina and other districts of the Republic of Moldova, existing under the jurisdiction of this state. If official Kishinev is holding special negotiations with this district, it is it's sovereign right, applied according to the legislation of the RM. At the worst it is dangerous illusion, attempts to implement it were repelled by Pridnestrovien people in 1992 at great sacrifice of life.
We have to pay attention to the fact, that certain assessments, indicating that the regime of 2006 will improve with the course of time, do not correspond to real situation. On the contrary, sanctions against Pridnestrovie became stronger during the last period of time, supported or received tacit consent from the side of our international partners, therefore given subject area can not and will not be turned into “confidence measures”.
The established situation, including regimes of foreign economic activity causing harm to the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic, is a direct violation of the previously signed agreements, inter alia, the 1997 Moscow Memorandum, and in this connection it requires immediate and active involvement of all the signers of these documents into normalization of the current situation, in first turn of the Russian Federation and Ukraine as guarantor countries.
We are convinced that disregard of a real situation around foreign economic activity of the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic may affect the prospects for achieving goals and objectives which all the participants of the suspended Moscow round of the 5+2 informal consultations face.
