The appearance in state media of the Republic of Moldova of some “specifications” of the official position of Moldova, the necessity of which is apparently connected with the active position of Pridnestrovie and principled questions from the side of guarantors, intermediaries and observers in Moldova-Pridnestrovie settlement, in Tiraspol is noted with satisfaction.
Though the centre of attention to problematic of normalization of Moldova-Pridnestrovie relations in Moldova, according to the Kishinev press, is shifting towards other departments, we consider it necessary to explain the number of principled aspects, misrepresented by department of Moldavian political representative.
First of all, the statement of the Moldavian side, concerning the situation, that “at present time all the necessary preconditions for the resumption of negotiation in 5+2 format exist”, is worth mentioning. Apparently, in Kishinev they consider that those “necessary preconditions” are presented by non-election of Moldavian President which actually does not allow leading full-fledged negotiation process, or the preservation of the law, issued in 2005, or the refusal from constructive interdepartmental work. It is unlikely, that such “understanding” will favour the fulfillment of the obligations, undertook by the parties earlier.
We would like to remind, that since the Joint Statement of the Presidents of Russia, Moldova and Pridnestrovie was signed on March 18, 2009, no considerable practical progress has been done at the solving of the whole complex of problems, existing in the relations between Tiraspol and Kishinev. Moreover, during the time passed, there were no practical moves forward, but, on the number of directions, the Moldavian side departed from the agreements and arrangements, reached before, refusing from the constructive everyday work. Consolidated decision of all participants of “Constant meeting…” on the suspension of the work of Moscow round of unofficial consultations, began on June 21, became direct political and democratic confirmation of serious obstacles to the resumption of the official work in 5+2 format.
We consider it necessary to clarify the following statement of the Moldavian side: “the elaboration of special legal status for Pridnestrovien region with the observance of principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova within the limits of internationally recognized borders must be the main purpose of the negotiation process”.
In connection with this, we agree with the opinion of the majority of our international partners about the fact, that the attempts to predetermine the purpose of work of one of multilateral formats unilaterally, contradict on the collective level to the foundations of 5+2 mechanism, including the documents, signed in February 2002, and can not be supported on the international level.
Besides, the urge towards the inclusion of absolutely nonviable provisions in the agenda, which do not correspond to goals and objectives of the process of normalization of relations between the Republic of Moldova and the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic, set by signed multilateral agreements, give evidence of counterproductive character of the political guidelines of the Moldavian side. Given position of official Kishinev has also became one of the elements, which led to expected results of Moscow round of unofficial consultation, that begun. If in Kishinev or somewhere else, they still suppose, that spells on “territorial integrity” and “autonomy” have magical meaning. In this case principled delusion of the nationalists, liberals, communists, and today's “democrats” repeats: Pridnestrovie “is just a territory”. But in reality, these are the people, who made their own choice. There are no “magic wands”, which would make the whole nation refuse from this choice.
We consider it necessary also to clarify the issues, concerning interdepartmental relations between the Republic of Moldova and the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic. We were in perplexity, when we heard the Moldavian representatives saying, that “Tiraspol has shelved the majority of the Moldavian initiatives” on the issue, concerning the railway. We can judge this only as an attempt to put the blame on somebody else, because in Kishinev they must have forgotten the first provision of the Protocol of meeting of Moldavian and Pridnestrovien expert (working) groups on the transport issues, signed on April 22, 2011. According to this document, “The technology of organization of traffic of import-export cargoes in the directions Mateutsy – Slobodka, Slobodka – Mateutsy, Bulboka – Bendery – Kuchurgan and Kuchurgan – Bendery – Bulboka are already confirmed and adopted. If one must “set somebody in motion”, this “one” is not Pridnestrovie, honestly fulfilling its obligations.
Concerning the project of the “Regulations of the activity of expert (working) groups of the sides”, we consider it necessary to mention, that given document has passed laborious elaboration and was finally confirmed in November-December 2010, with the presence of representatives of all intermediaries, guarantors and observers and representatives of Moldova. At the same time, further manoeuvres of new negotiation team from the Republic of Moldova and the attempts to reject legal status of this document, resulted in obvious difficulties and absence of the dynamics in work of sectoral experts. This fact was also marked during the consultations in 5+2 format. That is the reason we are not going to enter any new discussions on the project of given document, but we are expecting from the Moldavian side the official response on our inquiry, sent in June 2011: we solve the question of the order of approval of the document, already confirmed with the guarantors, intermediaries and observers, or the Republic of Moldova presents it's new position in similar international format.
Concerning the expert (working) groups – the Pridnestrovien side is ready to work not so much for the realization of such politically conjunctural notions, like “confidence measures”, as for creation of the working mechanism of bilateral interdepartmental interaction between the Republic of Moldova and the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic on continuing basis. Precisely this practice (until the Moldavian side wrecked the negotiation process in February 2006) proved it's viability after long period of time.
We would like to pay attention to “super positive” and “mellow” assurances of the Moldavian side concerning the regime of Pridnestrovien foreign-economic activity. We can characterize existing situation only as a mockery of the authorities of the Republic of Moldova on common sense and obligations, assumed by them before. Firstly, violating even such inadequate document as the joint statement of Ekhanurov – Tarlev, dated December 30, 2005, the Moldavian side continues practicing full-scale collecting of taxes and charges from the Pridnestrovien enterprises. The return of already paid charges faces the number of obstacles from the side of the Republic of Moldova. Intermediaries and observers were repeatedly informed about this fact.
Secondly, Pridnestrovien enterprises lack the possibility of receiving the licenses and other authorization documents on the basis of so-called “temporary registration”. This excludes the possibility of consideration of Pridnestrovien enterprises as “the rest companies” from any country, except the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic.
Concerning the proposals on the interaction in other spheres of possible intergovernmental cooperation between the Republic of Moldova and the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic, it can be said, that, most likely, in Kishinev they still figure on self-PR, but not on sensible and impartial assessment from the side of Tiraspol, as well as from the side of other international structures. As an example, according to the so-called “proposals” of the Moldavian side, concerning the interaction in the sphere of telecommunications, the Pridnestrovien side must fulfill the demands of the legislation of the Republic of Moldova and do not “create interference” for Moldavian centers of population. Moreover, in the official appeal of the Moldavian side, there is the number of demands, excluding finding the compromise and fix, as it was before, the isolation of Kishinev from technical, legal and economical reality. We are ready to publish the corresponding documents.
Of course, it is gratifying that in Kishinev they are not in full guided by similar early experience and do not mention, that “for those, who surrender in time, badges of rank will be preserved” and “hot meals will be given”. But in Kishinev they scarcely expect another attitude to the promoted ultimatums.
In the context of the process of political normalization of the relations between Moldova and Pridnestrovie, PMR's Ministry of Foreign Affairs with all the responsibility announces, that it makes and will make an efforts to provide and to respect basic rights and freedoms of it's people in accordance to the legislation of the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic and also norms and standards of international law. That is the reason for the issues, connected with the ensuring of human rights, to be discussed by the Republic of Moldova and the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic to the same extent, as the legislation of our states strives to improve the provisions on the human rights and the mechanisms of their ensuring in wide regional context.
In connected with above-stated, we once again emphasize the necessity of adequate, realistic, equal in rights and constructive dialog. But, at the same time, we can not consider acceptable such proceedings, when joint efforts of the sides of the conflict as well as guarantors and intermediaries are revised; cancellation of the liabilities, assumed earlier, happens; the attempt of undisguised substitution of notions is being made, etc. As it has been done earlier, in the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic all the decisions are based on mutual respect and willingness of all our international partners, including the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, the OSCE, to see us as equal in rights, respected partner.
