On April 1, 2012 Courses of Journalist's Mastery organized in Yalta for journalists from Pridnestrovie, Moldova and Ukraine by the Institute of the CIS Countries and OOO RosUkrConsulting came to a close.
Leading politicians, journalists and experts: Director of the Institute of the CIS Countries K.F. Zatulin, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the PMR N.V. Shtanski, political scientist, writer of political essays, Advisor to four Ukrainian Presidents D.I. Vydrin, dean of Higher Television School of MSU V.T. Tretiakov, President of editorial staff of Izvestia newspaper V.K. Mamontov, Deputy Director of the Institute of the CIS Countries, member of National Strategy Council V.L. Zharihin, political scientist, Director of the Ukrainian branch office of the Institute of the CIS Countries V.V. Kornilov and others, held lectures before the participants of the Courses.
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the PMR Nina Shtanski held a lecture “Foreign Policy of the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic”. The text of the lecture in corpore:
The researchers quite often call Pridnestrovien foreign policy a phenomenon. Firstly, Pridnestrovie is one of the states that are called the newest states, secondly, the Republic is not recognized; this predetermine the formats of its' interaction with the outside world. Non-recognition of the State and frozen condition of the conflict do not limit the State in its' connections; and Pridnestrovie maintains a large number of contacts. The State develops; people living here implement interaction on different social levels; the State protects their rights, and with this purpose it is involved in different processes. Our connections with the outside world are friendly. In order for those connections not to be chaotic, but classified, as it is in recognized States, we have legal basis which regulates foreign relations.
The foundation of foreign policy of the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic is the Constitution of the State which stipulates, that Pridnestrovie is independent, sovereign State striving for recognition. Our Constitution says, that universally recognized standards and principles of law are priorities for us, that Pridnestrovie interacts with other countries on the basis of standards of international law and international treaties.
Proclamation of one or another basic point, definition of legislative framework of foreign policy is quite the same in all countries. In this connection I would like to draw attention to the essence of the track from this point of legislative definition to actual implementation of foreign policy course. It is natural, that certain difficulties appear on this track.
We understand that not every state which is considered to be democratic one is democratic in point of fact. Some states have their flags standing in splendour near the United Nations building, but they do not correspond to contemporary idea of democratic states governed by the rule of law. Meanwhile, the state must undertake the whole complex of international legal obligations in order to enter the UN. The state must not only confirm its' adherence to basic principles of international law but also protect the rights and perform the obligations in practice, according to the documents to which it expressed adherence. To what extent the certain states are ready to do it – it is a rhetorical question. Not all the states implement on their territory standards of international law to the full extent and carry out their obligations.
When Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic declared its' independence, it confirmed its' adherence to basic principles of international law, including International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economical, Cultural, Social Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, Convention on Prevention of Genocide, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other basic documents of international law. Owing to obvious reasons Pridnestrovie could not become participating member and signatory country for these documents, but after having expressed its' attitude towards them, it began a process of their implementation into its' internal legislation. During subsequent period our law developed in concordance with international law. For example, in 2002 many international normative legal acts which concern the rights of children and women were implemented in Pridnestrovian legislation. During the last decade major part of international legal acts which concerned combating the drugs distribution and propaganda, combating trafficking of people, smuggling, and legalization of illegal profits were implemented in our legislation. The fact, that we are not able to become direct participants of these documents, stimulates us to bring these provisions to our domestic legislation. Here we leave behind contemporary state for which it is enough only to join the Convention; and only later the international community controls its' fulfillment. In our country these supervisory mechanisms are launched from the inside, i.e. we assume thesу obligations and we are responsible for their implementation. This is important disciplinary factor for young State.
I also want to emphasize, that in conditions of lack of recognition and very difficult socio-economic situation existing in Pridnestrovie, the process of execution of such obligations is especially complicated. While carrying out corresponding reforms recognized state uses all the necessary instruments and support of its' international partners. Our possibilities are limited. Nevertheless, constant desire to show to the world that we are inalienable part of international community and the way of our development is understandable for the whole world makes us make necessary efforts.
The bases of foreign policy of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic are defined by special document – Foreign Policy Concept of the PMR. The bases of foreign policy of the majority of countries, in particular on the post-Soviet territory, are defined in analogous way. The basic priorities to be adhered by the State while executing the implementation of foreign policy are expressed in Foreign Policy Concept. By analogy, when we want to understand the way internal policy of money-and-credit system of the country or other spheres of the state vital activity is organized, we turn to documents of such kind. They act as a kind of framework according to which the whole construction of internal legislation is built. Foreign Policy Concept is a framework for Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.
Foreign Policy Concept was adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the PMR in 2005. This fundamental document did not appear in order to please any opportunistic reasons, for example of pre-election nature. It was maximally balanced act for that moment of time. The document was the result of joint activity of foreign office, the President and the Supreme Soviet. I.e., when we take Foreign Policy Concept we understand the guidelines that were established in 2005. At that time the situation around the Republic differed from the situation that established several months ago.
Among the priorities of foreign policy strengthening and protection of independence of our State, openness in development of equal and mutually beneficial relations with other countries and peaceful settlement of relations with the Republic of Moldova can be marked out. In concordance with the priorities the tasks of foreign policy are defined: the provision of atmosphere of security and stability, development of good-neighbourly relations and deepening of integration processes. We have no questions here, but when we pay attention to basic directions of foreign policy, we see, that the development of relations with the Republic of Moldova is on the first place. Today it is not fashionable to talk about this. Today, when the PMR's MFA is trying to demonstrate the form of dialogue with Moldova which is different from that that was several years ago, we are told, that there were changes in Pridnestrovie, and new authorities are trying to position themselves in a new way. It is not the case.
In 2005 I was working in the Supreme Soviet and I remember the way the PMR's Foreign Policy Concept was born. It was collectively defined, that settlement of the relations and the development of relations on good-neighbourly basis was first and basic direction of foreign policy of our State. In particular, the importance of settlement of the question of state legal status of Pridnestrovie was emphasized, and this settlement was tied firstly to the will of people living in Moldova and in Pridnestrovie, secondly – to the system of guarantees. From one hand there must be a decision convenient for everybody, from the other hand there must be guarantees that will provide the execution of the decisions in the way, people agree with it.
According to the Concept, cooperation with the Community of Independent States is the second direction of foreign policy. This is the matter of integration processes that were marked as the tasks of foreign policy. Pridnestrovie strived towards development of relations with the Countries of Community, but basic role was given to the cooperation with Russia and Ukraine, because these countries perform the functions of guarantor states in the process of normalization of Moldova-Pridnestrovie relations. First of all, the viability of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic depends on these countries. Ukraine is a neighbouring state, owing to Russia the bloodshed was stopped and the peace is still preserved in our region.
Next direction is formed by the relations with far abroad countries. Here we also discover many interesting things within the context of the discourse which was created in the sphere of Media three-four month ago. At that time it was fashionable to speak about the changes in Pridnestrovie that may lead to coming to power of certain pro-European powers. (You must have read many interesting passages on the involvement of certain Western spies.) When we turn to the direction of cooperation with far abroad countries, the Concept says the following: “the relations with far abroad countries, especially with European Union have the priority meaning for Pridnestrovie.” At the same time everybody understands that it will be difficult to orient Pridnestrovie on common understanding of world's civilization values without the interaction with the European Union. If we take foreign countries, Pridnestrovie firstly cooperates with the European countries that are the countries of the Slavic world, and these common values often defined one or another decision made on international level in respect of Pridnestrovie. Alas, the understanding of our difficulties by the EU is not sufficient yet. I am not inclined to exaggerate this factor and I am far from the thought that, due to its' orientation of the Slavic world, Pridnestrovie won impressive victories on external arena, but when we talk about good neighbourly relations with Ukraine and Moldova, we understand, that these good neighbourly relations must spread further. This was understood in such way also in 2005.
What is the PMR's foreign policy today? Russia undoubtedly comes to the foreground. In 2006 turnaround in Moldova-Pridnestrovie relations took place: the economical blockade of Pridnestrovie began, Ukraine was involved in the processes of pressure on Pridnestrovie, the structure of our relations with this country was changed, the Referendum in which course Pridnestrovien people defined the foreign policy vector of its development was held. The citizens said their says for independence of our Republic with further free joining the Russian Federation.
Since then the inner political course of Pridnestrovie changed significantly. You probably know about stereotype popular in Western media about the imposed character of pro-Russian course of Pridnestrovian people. But in situation when Pridnestrovie was cut from cooperation with inner world, in situation when the only State supporting Pridnestrovians is Russia, it is just foolish to say that some external Russian forces by some manipulations influence over Pridnestrovie in order to make the majority of its population pro-Russian oriented. Let alone the majority of Pridnestrovian citizens hold also Russian citizenship. Let alone every fifth retiree in Pridnestrovie moved nowhere after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And small Pridnestrovie, which protects this person now, for him is part of Russia. He watches Russian news, he sends his children and grandchildren to participate in elections and to support “his” Russian president. To speak about some manipulations in such conditions is just an insinuation. Those who visited Pridnestrovie know it very well.
Today, while talking about what really happens in Pridnestrovie and about how these events are apprehended outside, we meet with great number of myths. These myths, having appeared in media sphere as clichés, then start to be reproduced in different variations. Changes in discourse happen slowly. Such myth, having once appeared in media, spreads swiftly and it is very difficult to replace it by truthful information. Much more difficult than to create some new interesting message. Myth continues to develop and forms ground for future additions.
Myth about pro-Russian ideas imposed on Pridnestrovie – is myth No.1 – it is still very popular in the West. The second popular myth is about the existence of totalitarian regime in Pridnestrovie. Even one year ago such opinion prevailed. Now, because of our recent changes, this myth looses ground but if you study some foreign media sources and read their opinion on Pridnestrovie, you will certainly read about such changes here that led to change of regime. This word – regime – referring to Pridnestrovie, is one of the most popular myths in my opinion. But is it possible for the republic with totalitarian regime to elect peacefully new young President with more than 70% majority of votes, to replace the person whom Western media called “the leader of the totalitarian regime” in some weeks without meetings, unrests or manifestations, without the collapse of state system? Is it possible in the State in which, as some our colleagues write, totalitarian regime existed? Is it possible during the elections where one of the candidates had serious administrative resource and the other one, due to certain circumstances, enjoyed support from the commercial circles and from the elites of foreign States, is it possible for independent candidate to win in such conditions in a totalitarian state? It is a rhetorical question, but it breaks the myth about the “totalitarian regime” in Pridnestrovie. As you can see, we did not need many arguments to have this myth dispersed like clouds. But there is no one except journalists to occupy themselves with it. I hope you will make margin notes on this issue.
Another myth deals with the so-called “lack of negotiability” by Pridnestrovie. They say that Pridnestrovie is interested in status quo, that Pridnestrovie is contented with the existing state of affairs, that the unrecognized status allows Pridnestrovie to enjoy Russian support and to make profit from these and some other problems and because of that Pridnestrovie is not interested in settlement of conflict. I personally have much to say in respect to this term – “lack of negotiability”. When in 2008 the issue of working out recommendations for the Government of the Russian Federation on recognition of independence of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Pridnestrovie has been discussed on the parliamentary hearings in Russian State Duma, our republic was removed from the list because “the potential of negotiation process was not yet exhausted” and because “Moldova demonstrated certain negotiability”. These were the formulations.
The myth on the “lack of negotiability” of Pridnestrovie was created intentionally. In certain moments such situations were provoked because of which it was impossible to conduct negotiations – we suffered sanctions and pressure. Here is one glaring example. In 2003 Moldova and Pridnestrovie agreed upon formation of Joint Constitutional Commission and on the work on the Constitution of the federal State. This idea was born in the throes, but the Parties managed to delegate representatives in Joint Constitutional Commission, to agree upon the format of its work. The co-chairs were elected by the Parties – professor Creanga from Moldovan side and then head of parliamentary commission on foreign policy deputy speaker of the Supreme Soviet Yevgeny Shevchuk. Joint Constitutional Commission started its work, the meetings were conducted with assistance of the OSCE. Then, in difficult moment, representatives of the Venice Commission were involved into this work as specialists in constitutional law. Regardless of how difficult the work was, it advanced: the heads met, their meetings were logged. But on this relatively optimistic background which lasted for some months several events took place. First of all, the customs blockade was increased. Then the telephone communications were cut off, Pridnestrovian telephone codes were removed from the international databanks and international telephone communications were blocked. We call these events “the telephone war”. Besides, while Joint Constitutional Commission was still working, when both the Moldovan and Pridnestrovian sides demonstrated their strive for compromise, the EU decided to impose visa prohibitions on representatives of Pridnestrovian leadership in order to prevent possibility of their arrival to the EU or to the USA, the so called “visa ban list”. People were prohibited to travel abroad and motivated it as a punishment for “halting the negotiations process”. Just imagine this situation: meetings are going on in turn in Kishinev, Bendery, Tiraspol, the Parties are trying to agree upon the federation but at the same time people who are participating in this dialogue from the Pridnestrovian side are banned from entry to the EU countries. In other words, they can speak on these issues only while in Tiraspol. And we understand that in 2003, no matter what they said, we could read in Media that Pridnestrovie is a “black hole” where illicit arms trade is conducted and other myths and nothing more. Well, that is why they need to talk on the lack of negotiability.
The same things happened in 2001 when custom stamps granted to Tiraspol on the base of existing protocols were withdrawn. On that stage both sides demonstrated serious progress in negotiations. A number of agreements were signed in different spheres: customs, banking, mutual recognition of documents, etc. There was even an agreement on the Moldovan tuberculosis prison in Bendery which dealt with solution of this issue. Many practical issues were solved on paper but at the same time the negotiation process was stopped. Regular provocation led to transition from cooperation to confrontation between the Parties. Negotiations process halts and the sides forget about all their obligations which they undertook and start to accuse each other in lack of negotiability.
In my opinion this was absolutely unproductive approach. Any negotiation is a bilateral process while what we have seen was not a negotiation but quasi negotiation when one side participated in it only to gain time and to remain in center of international attention. But international actors understand the difference between negotiations and quasi negotiations perfectly and that is why it is absurd to speak about lack of negotiability of one of the sides.
Next myth deals with exploiting the factor of Russian military presence on the territory of Pridnestrovie. This myth gained new life in context of tragic events which took place this January on the peacekeeping outpost. Some forces try to revive the idea of transformation of the peacekeeping mission conducted by the Russian Federation. Even prior to Dublin meeting there have been attempts to create certain discourse in order to start discussion of this theme in 5+2 format. Such attempts are not over yet.
It is easy for the journalist to peak some sharp quotation of the politician and then to present things as if there is a tragedy, there is breaking news, new discourse is formed – by itself, of course. You, journalists, are forming integral concept on the problem, but this concept not always corresponds to reality.
In early 1990s Russian representatives offered OSCE to grant the peacekeeping forces in Pridnestrovie a status of OSCE peacekeepers. This issue was examined on the high level in the OSCE but found no support. Consensus is needed to pass such decisions in the OSCE but this initiative was not even supported by Ukraine. Nor was it supported by Western countries. The author of this proposal was Yevgeny Primakov and experts noted that by coming with this initiative Russia wanted both to remove accusations in her address and to decrease sufficient financial losses. But, as I said, such proposal was rejected. On the initial stage of the conflict Pridnestrovie officially addressed the United Nations Organizations with proposition of involvement of UN representatives into the process of settlement. But such idea also found no support. We have an official reply from the UN which states that the United Nations Organization can not be involved into this conflict zone because in the UN opinion it is pure regional conflict and as such lies in competence of the OSCE. Thus, the circle is completed.
Today we meet an opinion that Russia is interested in preservation of status quo, preservation of her position in Pridnestrovie. As for us, we are grateful to Russia for her efforts. The mission which has been conducted by Russia for these 20 years proved its effectiveness. Little do we find peacekeeping operations, both in the post-Soviet space and in the world, which know no episodes leading to bloodshed. Peacekeeping operation is conducted not only by Russian, but also by Moldovan and Pridnestrovian military. This factor also strengthens its functionality. Besides, later on Ukrainian civil observers also joined the operation. Ukraine is a mediator State and it conducts exactly the observation on which Romania and Europe talk so much.
It is a regular myth that the peacekeeping forces on the banks of Dniester River are needed only to give Russia possibility not to meet her obligations specified by the 1999 Istanbul commitments. But Russia has already met her obligations. We should remember that Istanbul commitments dealt only with certain types of weaponry which came under provisions of the CFE (Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe). All these types of weapons were removed from Pridnestrovie and the OSCE inspectors who were main coordinators of this process know perfectly about it. We can find enough information on it in Media sources, as repeatedly noted Russian ambassador in Moldova Valery Kuzmin. But if you try to monitor the issue of peacekeeping in Pridnestrovie you will scarcely find any information on this issue. Because myths are much more “tasty” for Mass Media than truth.
Next myth deals with “interethnic conflict”. It is one of the favorite types of conflicts among conflictology scholars. I lectured on conflictology and I can say that in most textbooks you will find Pridnestrovie as an example in the “Interethnic conflicts” part. Interethnic conflict can be defined as a conflict between ethnic groups. But can we call the Moldo-Pridnestrovian conflict a conflict between ethnic groups? I think not. First of all, there is no ethnic majority in Pridnestrovie. Three major ethnic groups – Russians, Ukrainians and Moldovans – are almost equal in number, besides there are at least 2% more Moldovans in Pridnestrovie now. By the way, for 20 years of existence of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic the percent of Russian and Ukrainian population decreased because many had to leave, using their family ties, to other countries while Moldovans stayed here and now, according to some estimations done by experts, their percentage in total population event increased a bit. So, can we call Moldo-Pridnestrovian conflict interethnic one if there were Moldovans in Pridnestrovian military forces and Russians in the military forces of Moldova?
The theme of interethnic conflict itself may seem interesting for some people, but they forget that there was only one ethnic component in this conflict – the language problem. But it was not the reason for conflict, but rather an instrument which was skillfully used by certain forces in order to unleash conflict and mobilize people swiftly. In Pridnestrovie there was no interethnic conflict and there could be none, otherwise just the same conflict would have occurred inside Pridnestrovie.
When we speak about interethnic conflicts there is always problem of national minority which arises. In Moldova there is indeed such term under which Russians, Ukrainians and other nationalities fall. In Pridnestrovie there are small ethnic groups – Belarusians, Bulgarians, Germans, Jews. But they are not national minorities. National minority – it is a small ethnic group which suffers certain discrimination in its rights as compared to the majority of population. If we take, for example, Pridnestrovian Bulgarians, we shall see that they enjoy the possibility to study in Bulgarian schools, to use textbooks in Bulgarian language, to get press in Bulgarian language. There are Bulgarians in Pridnestrovian Parliament and in the Government. We all understand that neither Russians, nor Ukrainians, nor Moldovans, nor representatives of other nations are discriminated or restrained in Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.
The next myth, with the help of which some European functionaries ground adoption of some sanctions against Pridnestrovie, is a myth on alleged discrimination of rights of those Moldovans who study in Romanian language – the problem of so-called “Romanian schools”. When we read about this problem in press, we imagine some large schools which Pridnestrovian authorities close in order to prevent children from their studies. But what is really going on with these schools? There are eight schools, only six of which are located on the territory of Pridnestrovie. Two of them are situated on the territory where only partial Pridnestrovian jurisdiction exists, but they do not fall under it. Six schools, which have been closed by no one, are operating, there are teachers and pupils. But they operate in a very peculiar manner: they renounce Pridnestrovian registration and by doing this they deprive themselves from possibility to use those conditions which are enjoyed by other Pridnestrovian schools. These mean privileged regime of communal payments, etc. On the other hand, by doing this they got rid of control from Pridnestrovian side: sanitary and epidemiologic control, fire inspection, etc. At the same time, Moldova, – the State under jurisdiction of which they fall, behaves as if it is interested in strengthening of these schools, helping them to operate. But as it became known to us, Moldovan authorities do not fully control these schools either. There is impression that nobody cares for these schools in reality. Maybe that is why we can see permanent decrease of number of pupils of these schools. Formerly in these schools studied almost four times more pupils than they do it now. Many children, who used to study in Romanian language there, now passed to Pridnestrovian schools to study in Moldavian language on Cyrillic base. In Pridnestrovian schools they can study biology, geography, history on much more qualitative level. As for Romanian language, parents of these pupils think they are able to teach their children at home. Of course, study of foreign languages, no matter what languages they are, is not forbidden in Pridnestrovie. So, as you can see, another myth is busted.
There is absolutely no problem with registering “Romanian schools” in Pridnestrovie. They just need to want to do it. With regard to these schools special procedure of simplified registration was worked out. But still these schools don't use it because, maybe, they fear certain losses – decrease of international attention, decrease of grants for these schools, loss of certain instruments of pressure conducted upon Pridnestrovie by Moldova. The decision on the extension of travel ban for next half a year has just been adopted by one of the EU working bodies concerning the Pridnestrovian leadership (many of the people noted in it do not hold any official positions already). One of the arguments in favor of these sanctions is said to be the “lack of progress in resolving the problem of the Romanian schools” and no one is interested in what are the reasons for such lack of progress. I hope joint expert groups on education will help to bust this myth as well.
There are several more myths. I won't event stop on the myth about “Pridnestrovie is native Moldovan territory”: there are historians and lawyers among you and you understand everything yourself. One more notorious myth considers arms trade, arms production and contraband to be conducted on the territory of Pridnestrovie. This myth is busted by itself. When we tried to struggle with the image of Pridnestrovie as a “black hole” we didn't manage to do it. But there is EUBAM Mission (EU Border Assistance Mission) which works on Moldo-Ukrainian border, including Pridnestrovian-Ukrainian border. They publish their reports annually and every next report becomes more and more rich. Here are journalists from Odessa and they know mister Banffy who had to answer difficult questions. He was asked if there was contraband and he had to admit that there is, and he listed number of discovered drugs, cigarettes, etc. Then he was asked how this contraband had been discovered. It was an awkward question because all this contraband was discovered on Moldovan part of the border with Ukraine, not the Pridnestrovian-Ukrainian one. What a bad luck! Myth about the “black hole” began to scramble and something needed to be done in order to save it. Then another theme was created: European officials began to talk about over import of chicken meat in Pridnestrovie. Well, they are importing it legally, but why do they import so much, – they asked. They counted Pridnestrovian population, took some international standards on how much chicken meat a person eats per month and came to conclusion that there is over import. It was then when the argument on the existence of some “grey” schemes of sales of chicken meat was born. Thus they tried to move out of the woods in this complicated situation with issues of contraband and arms sales. But if we put chicken meat on one scale and nuclear warheads which, according to British journalists, could be transported through Pridnestrovian-Ukrainian border in 2005 on the other scale, we'll get another situation and the myth would be busted by itself. It has been long time since I've seen notions about Pridnestrovie as the “black hole” in press and of course it gladdens us.
Next popular myth deals with European preferences which can enjoy Pridnestrovian enterprises if they register on the territory of Moldova. What are these preferences and what are the benefits? Indeed, Pridnestrovian enterprises which registered in Moldova got access to certain European preferences which are applied only on the territory of Moldova. Thus they can be used by Pridnestrovian economic agents. Do they use this possibility? Yes, they do, but not all of them, because there are not so many enterprises on the territory of Pridnestrovie which orientate themselves on the European market. As for those enterprises which indeed worked on European market, they had to change their logistic schemes after 2006. Because railway transportation was blocked enterprises, in order to pass customs registration and export their goods, had to extend their logistic routes up to 500 km. We understand that double registration – in Pridnestrovie and in Moldova – means double taxation which also influences the value of production. Extension of transportation on 500 km also means additional costs which also influence the value of production. Besides, the economic blockade imposed in 2006 led to large shift of working-age population from Pridnestrovie. Today there is severe problem with working cadres and sometimes we have to employ more expensive workforce and it also increases the prime cost of production. As the result, production of Pridnestrovian enterprises, by the moment it gets on the European market, does not need European preferences because it doesn't use the quote provided by the EU, because its production becomes noncompetitive. There is no sense of exporting goods to Europe which are produced in neighboring EU member States and which costs much less. As for the Russian and Ukrainian markets, they are lost for Pridnestrovian enterprises because of the blockade. And when our European colleagues tell us about several tens of millions of dollars saved by our enterprises because of these preferences, they do not count how many tens of millions we lost because Ukrainian and Russian markets on which they could trade without any preferences were closed. It is a separate interesting topic.
And, at last, when we speak about European preferences, we should understand that the new economic regime almost killed the frontier trade cooperation, the small and medium business which operated in this sphere. For example, if some small Pridnestrovian enterprise worked on Pridnestrovian-Ukrainian border making, say, soles for footwear produced in Odessa region, we should understand that now, when we need to transport these soles to Odessa through Rybnitsa and northern Moldova and then back to Odessa, these soles would cost much more than entire shoes. Of course, producer from Odessa won't need such soles made in border region of Pridnestrovie any more. That's why most of such enterprises were closed in 2006 and thousands of people were left without any work. When we are told about European preferences kindly granted by the EU, nobody mentions these enterprises and people who used to work there. Where are they now? What are they doing? What are they producing now? I think here should be the end of our discussion on the myths.
Summing up the results of the topic on the landmarks of our foreign policy we see that there are certain political realities, there is not always unbiased discourse in Media sphere and there are based on documents and carried out in practice by the Foreign Policy Concept of the PMR. Pridnestrovie should develop good neighbor policy with both Moldova and Ukraine and it should enjoy certain support of the Russian Federation – the only State really guaranteeing peace and stability in the region and granting significant help. At the same time Pridnestrovie, because of the legislative issues, should develop active cooperation with far abroad countries. It is impossible to conduct all these measures in complex without proper information support, without informing people who write about us on what is really going on in Pridnestrovie.
In this connection we welcome participation of the journalists in the foreign policy events and we support the idea of press-tours for the foreign journalists. And I wish you to be unbiased and persistent in search for truth.
