Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic Nina Shtanski answered the questions of writer Andrey Vorontsov.
- Nina Viktorovna, you are one of the youngest Ministers of Foreign Affairs in the world. One can familiarize oneself with your official biography on the site of the PMR's MFA. But could you please, marking its' milestones, tell us about your unofficial biography, in particular, tell about your parents, mentors in your life and about the circumstances, which brought you to big policy? When you found yourself there, did you suppose, that you will become one of the leaders of Pridnestrovie?
- I grew up in the family of talented pedagogue. My mother went a long way from the school teacher to the lecturer of the university and scientist. She has always been an example for me. I am grateful to her for zeal, firmness of purpose and industry brought up by her. She is my main mentor. In 2002 I got a job in the Supreme Soviet of Pridnestrovie. Yevgeny Shevchuk was my chief. At that time he was the Chairman of Economic Committee, and the Head of Commission on External Relations, and Deputy Chairman of the Parliament. Besides, he managed to study (in 2003 he graduated from Kiev Diplomatic Academy). Owing to him, I established myself as state official. His example inspired me to enter postgraduate studies in MGIMO and to start writing a thesis. Could I suppose at that time, that I will become a Minister? I never asked myself such a question. I worked in the team of the leader, who diligently made his was towards realization of positive changes and reforming of system of state administration in Pridnestrovie. And my task is to help him on this way. The post does not matter here. Aims and tasks are important. Today I face the tasks connected with managing of implementation of foreign policy of the State.
- Who do you rely on in your Ministry – on old personnel on or on new, young ones? How do you manage to achieve harmony in work with the veterans of diplomatic service of the PMR?
- Cohesive professional team remained intact in MFA. We established work at the appropriate level very quickly. Diplomatic work is a service. It has its' own specifics; and this in many respects defines inadmissibility and impossibility of failures and fluctuations, connected, for example, with the change of leadership. By the way, this year Pridnestrovian diplomacy celebrates its' 20th Anniversary. It went a complicated way during these 20 years. My predecessor, by the way, was three years younger than me. Today the team of Pridnestrovian MFA consists of energetic, young professionals.
- What do you think, is Pridnestrovie the part of “the Russian world”, as they call it in Russia today? What is Russian language for you – historically developed basic language of communication in the PRM or something more?
- Russian world is a space of Russian language, Russian cultural-civilization matrix; its' boundaries undoubtedly do not limit themselves with the territory of the Russian Federation. Pridnestrovie is not just a part of the Russian world; during 20 years special post-Soviet identity has formed here, overwhelming majority of population consider themselves to be Russian fellow countrymen regardless their ethnical identity. It is confirmed by the outcomes of the Referendum of 2006. Let's remind great history of our land. Tiraspol is the city, founded by great Russian military leader Alexander Suvorov. 200 years ago our lands were called “Ochakov desert”; but after joining with Russia they were populated not only by Russians but by representatives of other nations, convinced in particular historical mission of Russia. That is why Pridnestrovie very quickly became and organic part of the Empire. That positive impact of international consent, based on persuasion that only Russia is capable to implement just world order (and this impact was repeatedly bolstered in the 20th century), still defines firm geopolitical orientation of the nation. I am afraid that Pridnestrovians, who had to struggle for their human rights, are more loyal to contemporary Russian statehood, than Russians, using all the advantages of living in this great country without a second thought.
Russian language is a mean of self-identification for us. A great many of Pridnestrovian people fluently speak for example, Moldavian language; but at the end of 1980s – the beginning of 1990s they did not support the policy of ethnic-linguistic preferences, held by Kishinev. They supported the rights of Russian-speaking citizens. This fact once again is the evidence of geopolitical choice in the favor of Russian. In Pridnestrovie nobody spreads and nobody suppresses the possibility of use of one or another language. One cannot forbid people to communicate on the language they wish to communicate. Look, even in Kishinev, in spite of 22 years of Romanization, Russian language in fact is still the language of international communication.
- Absolute majority of population of Pridnestrovie professes Orthodoxy and belongs to Russian Orthodox Church. Which role, to your opinion, belongs to Russian Orthodoxy in the life of the country?
- The church here is separated from the State. Orthodoxy uses the same rules as the other confessions and, as the other confessions, it is not supported by the State. However, we perfectly realize the role, that Orthodoxy plays not as a church institute but as a mode of world outlook in strengthening of our spiritual, cultural and historical connections with Russia.
At the beginning of 1992, when the war began on our land, Russian Cossacks came from Don and Kuban to protect their fellow countrymen. They came, according to their words, “to die for the Russian land, for the Orthodox faith.” They confirmed their words by their lives, their heroism. Pridnestrovie withstood.
Today Russian Orthodoxy serves our people as a shield against the threat of spiritual expansion which comes, first of all, from the side of Romania. In neighboring Moldova we see tens of Orthodoxy parishes are transferred to subordination to Romanian local church. This is an offensive to the Russian world, creation of conflicts and dissociation between the people, loosening of the basis of statehood. This disturbs us, because parishioners of Romanian churches are brought up in the spirit of hatred towards everything Russian.
- Today western politicians promise to give Pridnestrovie manna from heaven for the withdrawal of Russian Peacekeeping Forces from the territory of the Republic. Does new leadership of the PMR understand, that soon after the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers, new Moldovan aggression not able to be stopped by any other peacekeepers, will begin under any kind of “plausible” pretext?
- The Head of our State and high representatives of the Russian Federation firmly announced the stability of existing peacekeeping format.
For our people Russian soldier is a defender, the symbol of peace and security. Today Peacekeeping operation is the only one guarantee of peace and security. During 20 years of settlement neither guarantor states, nor world community in the whole proposed to the sides of the conflict in the least measure effective guarantee mechanisms, the more so – the system of guarantees. In these conditions presence of Russian peacekeepers in Pridnestrovie fill us with the sense of security; for us they guarantee, that there will be no war tomorrow.
We are very grateful to Russia for its' peacekeeping mission; and we will not permit even the discussion of the questions connected with its' changing. This mechanism has already been working without failures for 20 years; we do not know about more effective peacekeeping operations. It is the most effective operation on post-Soviet territory. Besides, it is unique; because under the aegis of Russia contingents of the sides of the conflict (Pridnestrovie and Molvoa) serve in peacekeeping forces. We consider it inadmissible to interfere the activity of peacekeeping operation. Lives of the people depend from it.
- In 2003 disruption of signing of document of “Kozak Plan” by Moldova ended the talks on the possibility of “asymmetric federation” of Moldova, Pridnestrovie and Gagauzia. Moldovan leadership did not even accept more profitable “Juschenko Plan”. After Pridnestrovian referendum of 2006 foreign policy of the PRM rested upon two whales: principle of total independence from Moldova with further joining Russia and the priority of relations with Russia until this joining is realized. Did this vector of foreign policy of Pridnestrovie remain the same under new leadership of the State? If no, how did it change?
- Pridnestrovian foreign policy preserves its' continuity; it is regulated by the Constitution of the State, be Foreign Policy Concept and by the results of nationwide referendum of September 17, 2006. New leadership does not plan to change the vector of our foreign policy, but we are sure, that it may be implemented more efficiently. Six years have passed from the date of referendum; but we in fact are on the same level of relations with Russia as we were at that time. We understand, that there is a number of objective factors; but the will of our people is an objective factor too; and it must be considered by all the participants of the settlement. We are told, and we see, that “the color of the time” is changing. Integration processes are developing in the Eurasian space, they cannot be stopped. I think today all conditions have established for the will of the Pridnestrovian people to be finally realized. Foreign Ministry has already received instruction of the President to elaborate a new version of the Foreign Policy Concept of the Republic where idea of Eurasian integration will become central foreign political line.
-Almost all experts including Moldovan ones coincide in the opinion that Moldova is not able to cope with the most burning internal and external problems of the country on its own. Hence comes rrepressible temptation to solve all problems at a time: to enter EU and NATO through a “back doorstep”, i.e. through unification of Moldova with Romania, though Romania itself, as it is known, hasn't got particular prosperity from this. Kishinev does not have any other plan of stabilization, even if we search with the strongest optics. Moldovan politicians will tell whatever they want in the negotiations with the PMR, but think only about annexation of Pridnestrovie with subsequent entry into Romania, EU and NATO. If so, what's the use for the PMR to sign long-term documents on settlement and so-called “confidence measures” with the Republic of Moldova and international mediators? Shouldn't they be accompanied with unchanged clause: “automatically loses power in case of unification of Moldova with Romania”?
- All settlement projects which have been drawn up to this point specified that in case Moldova loses its legal personality Pridnestrovie will get the right to become an independent state.
At this moment we don't conduct negotiations with Moldova about the political status, we intend to discuss exclusively socio-economic issues, solution of which can make life of our citizens easier. This Pridnestrovian position seems to have found understanding from Kishinev. We hope we will succeed in alleviating that burden of problems which have accumulated over a decade of confrontation. We have already managed to agree upon withdrawal of ionizing radiation sources for their storage in Moldova. We managed to resume full-scale railway link in Pridnestrovie, and our enterprises are now exporting their products directly via Ukraine. We still have to calculate the positive economic effect from these measures. In the near future we hope to solve a series of problems in the sphere of ecology and communication. One of the tasks of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is to foster implementation of projects which can improve socio-economic situation in the Republic.
- We would like to understand what is attitude of a new PMR's leadership to EU plans on creation of the so called Euroregion Dniester which apart from three Moldovan regions and Vinnitsa oblast of Ukraine suggests inclusion of Kamenka and Rybnitsa regions of Pridnestrovie. Doesn't this project seek to “alienate” PMR from Russia?
- There has been accumulated vast experience in terms of collaboration of near-border regions of different states in the framework of “Euroregions”, inter alia between Ukraine and Russia. This experience is basically positive. Pridnestrovie is not participating in the creation of the Euroregion “Dniester” at this stage, we didn't put our signatures under this agreement but we want to see what benefits and dividends creation of Euroregion will bring to near-border regions of Ukraine and Moldova. If this experience will have positive impact, primarily in economic sphere, I believe it is possible that Kamenka and Rybnitsa regions of the PMR may be involved in some single events of the Euroregion. But any efforts to politicize this format of cooperation may have most negative impact on possibility of Pridnestrovian participation in projects which are carried out by the European Union.
Pridnestrovie is conducting policy of good neighborhood, we are willing to develop cooperation with both Ukraine and Moldova to the benefit of our citizens. Euroregion is only one of the several possible models of interaction.
- Pridnestrovian leadership asked Russia to recognize independence of the country together with independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008. In my opinion it was a big geopolitical mistake that Russia did not do it. Can you please tell more about this episode, as you have been in Moscow as part of Pridnestrovian delegation at that time?
- Perhaps I should begin with mentioning one episode which is rather important in this context. In 2007 Russian MFA published its Survey on the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation. As it was stated in the document itself, it was created in order to reflect wide range of views which exist in the public opinion in Russia. In the part devoted to the post-Soviet space it was stated that Russia is committed to political settlement of Pridnestrovian conflict on the ground of maintaining territorial integrity of Moldavia and that securing constitutional status of Moldavia as a neutral State is considered to be the most important element of long-term settlement for Russia. You can easily imagine what resonance such position, declared by the authors of the Survey as one which reflects Russian public opinion, made in Pridnestrovie! After all, it was a period of time when “spirit of Kosovo independence” was already in the air and Pridnestrovian people heard numerous statements of Russian public officials about the versatility of approaches towards the right of Nations on self-determination. It was then when Pridnestrovian diplomacy, including interparliamentary level, activated its efforts to call Russia to recognize independence of Pridnestrovie.
In March 2008 representatives of Abkhazia, Pridnestrovie and South Ossetia received opportunity to call to the MPs of the Russian Duma. Pridnestrovie was presented by Shevchuk who asked for recognition and appealed to the will of Pridnestrovian people, expressed in 2006 referendum. He pointed out the distress, hostages of which Pridnestrovian citizens became. The part of the meeting during which Russian public officials spoke was closed for representatives of Media. As you know, according to recommendations worked out during the parliamentary hearings the State Duma passed resolution which stated the necessity of correcting political course towards Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Pridnestrovie according to wills of population of these countries after the unilateral declaration of Kosovo's independence. It was also stated in the resolution that Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Pridnestrovie have more grounds to aspire for international recognition then Kosovo. But operative part of the document consisted propositions for President and Government of the Russian Federation to consider possibility of recognition of independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In spite of record of Pridnestrovie in the beginning of the document together with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it was not mentioned in the conclusion of the document. There was not a single word not only about recognition of independence, but also about any other new format of relations. Returning to the topic of those hearings and many of the round tables of that period, we should note that among the arguments of parliamentarians and experts, voiced in the Survey of the Foreign Policy and other documents, question of the neutral status of Moldova was one of the key points. In particular, non-inclusion of Pridnestrovie in one row with Abkhazia and South Ossetia who aspired for recognition of their independence was argued to be due to the statement of the President of Moldova about his intention to officialize obligation of non-participation of Moldova in NATO and about Moldova's withdrawal from GUAM.
But very soon it became obvious that GUAM, which demonstrated indicative distancing from Russia, had little influence on raise of economic development of member-States and did not become instrument of economic cooperation between the member-States. This circumstance leveled possible potential in the name of which Moldovan authorities allegedly were ready to decline strategic cooperation with Russia. As for Moldova's cooperation with NATO, it is obvious even for novice researchers that such cooperation is successfully developing even without the State's joining the alliance. Events of 2008 now seem to be a distant history…
- What you would like to see as Russia's foreign policy. Not only based on Pridnestrovie's interests, but on the region as a whole?
- It is both a difficult and an easy question. It is not convenient for me to answer it as a diplomat.
We were observers of some ingenious approaches which Russian diplomacy utilized on the Pridnestrovian direction. It promoted strengthening of Russia's positions, of her authority in the world. Continuing peacekeeping operation is also an evidence of Russian successes. At the same time we can see how far processes of Romanization have gone in Moldova. We can see how Russian linguistic space is shrinking. To be candid, rights of Russian compatriots and even of Russian citizens residing in Moldova and in Pridnestrovie are systematically violated. And, of course, we wish Russia should have more abilities to defend these rights.
