In Pridnestrovie attention was drawn to an increasing number of statements on issue of the Moldova-Pridnestrovie settlement made by representatives of different states and international structures, and this concern about the future of the people residing in this region of Europe is appreciated.
At the same time, taking into account that separate phrases from the statements of high-ranking representatives of this or that states are frequently pulled out from the context, thus creating grounds for ambiguous interpretation and excessive expectations from various foreign-policy events, one way or another connected with normalization of relations between the two sovereign states – the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic and the Republic of Moldova, the Pridnestrovien side believes it necessary to clarify the following.
First. The Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic reaffirms its readiness to hold negotiating process based on the principles of equality, establishment of a multi-level system of guarantees and unconditional fulfilment of earlier reached accords.
`
However, the permanent political crisis in the Republic of Moldova, which began in 2009, and absence of legitimately elected President of Moldova don't allow speaking about the possibility for a full-scale resumption of the negotiating process at all levels, primarily at the level of assumption of juridical and political commitments rather than at the level of propaganda and declarations targeted at a foreign consumer.
Second. In Pridnestrovie one highly appreciates efforts of Russian peacekeepers who together with other participants of the peacekeeping operation keep peace and quiet in Pridnestrovie. This operation retains its relevance and is still in demand regardless attempts of Moldovan authorities to discredit the given operation.
As it was fairly marked by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, there is only one possible algorithm of steps in relation to the peacekeeping operation. The first stage consists in determination of the final settlement model, and it is only the next stage where, in case of expediency, a question can be raised about the transformation of the current operation into peace-guaranteeing one that would ensure achieved results of the settlement.
As regards military property of the former Fourteenth Army situated in Pridnestrovie, then, this question is exclusively in the competence of the leadership of the Russian Federation and the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic. Safety of these objects is reliably secured by both Russian military men and Pridnestrovien force structures – the fact that high representatives of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Russia and Ukraine were able to verify a short time ago.
Third. In Pridnestrovie there is understanding of importance of the Permanent Consultations on Political Issues in the Framework of the Pridnestrovien Settlement Negotiation Process (the 5+2 format, where the “five” is made up of the format's founders, i.e. Moldova and Pridnestrovie (the sides); Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE (the mediators), and the “two” are observers from the USA and EU who joined the format in 2005 on a consensus basis of all participants), and willingness together with other participants to apply efforts for its deblocking.
At the same time, it is wrong to expect that deblocking of the official work of the given consultative forum will in a magic way bring about an automatic resolution of all existing problems. The five plus two format is one of the subsidiary formats designed to assist the full-scale negotiations between the two equitable sides to the conflict, rather than a place for imposing this or that solutions.
In this context, the Pridnestrovien side expects that at least four participants of the five plus two format (Moldova, Pridnestrovie, Russia and Ukraine) are as before tied with previously taken obligations (Joint Statements from March 18, 2009 and May 17, 2010) regarding the necessity of creating conditions to enable the resumption of official work in this format. We assume that Russian Federation and Ukraine as guarantor-countries will be able to contribute more actively in the establishment of such conditions, that would allow drawing nearer prospects for the resumption of the “Permanent Consultations…” by making true steps.
Fourth. The Pridnestrovien side reminds that goals and objectives of the “Permanent consultations…”, as well as of the negotiation process in general, are clearly defined by the previously signed documents. Negotiation process is conducted in order to determine “specific parameters of the Final Document on a comprehensive resolution of the Pridnestrovien problem”.
Though nothing new has been voiced in recent statements, we shall stress that none of the documents of the negotiation process mentions settlement in the framework of “a united state in the framework of territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova”. Attempts to predetermine the settlement model prior to decisions of the sides to the conflict themselves fundamentally contradict an indisputable principle in the negotiation process – the principle of equality of the sides.
Any attempts to force a complicated and comprehensive negotiation process into the Procrustean bed of models imposed from outside which ignore established realities and infringe human rights will be rejected by the Pridnestrovien people and put in doubt appropriateness of working in artificially limited framwork in any format.
Fifth. Pridnestrovien people have clearly and on a free-standing basis defined its future. The people of Pridnestrovie have never lived as part of the Republic of Moldova and have never been connected with Moldova's statehood both during the contemporary historical period and at earlier stages, except for the period of co-existence under Soviet Union.
We see our lot exclusively as a sovereign independent state, an equal member of international community. In this connection, of no topicality is for Pridnestrovien side the point of “territorial exchanges”, which are performed or may be performed by third countries, that's why somebody's “refusals” from Pridnestrovie are not a subject for serious comments.
We are also convinced that exactly recognition of Pridnestrovie's independence but not hopes for neutrality of the state fully integrated in numerous NATO programs and developing new programs of military-political cooperation with one of the most active members of the Alliance would become a highly significant contribution to the creation of security architecture on the European continent.
As it has already been emphasized, the only subject authorized to make decisions about its lot is a multinational Pridnestrovien nation, whose will was expressed during nation-wide referenda, including the one in 2006 when more than 97 % of those who took part in voting spoke out in favour of Pridnestrovie's independence.
Tiraspol
March 30, 2011
