Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pridnestrovie Nina Shtanski commented on the situation around “Romanian schools” and decision of Strasbourg Court.
Vzglyad: After European Court for Human Rights had delivered its verdict regarding “Romanian schools”, Deputy Prime-Minister of Moldova Yevgeny Karpov declared that official Kishinev had already elaborated protocol “on ensuring adequate functioning of these schools”. Was this document submitted to Tiraspol? If yes, what “adequate”, from Moldovan viewpoint, conditions are meant?
Nina Shtanski: I cannot say, because for six months already since my appointment as the Minister I have been trying to find out the meaning of categories of “adequacy and inadequacy” and the way they are measured. Speaking seriously, there have been plenty of proposals in terms of “Romanian schools” and the first one (on simplifying the order of their licensing) was forwarded by the Pridnestrovian side. Moreover, Pridnestrovie created all conditions for the work of specially established monitoring group composed of professionals invited by the OSCE: they got the opportunity to visit “Romanian schools”, talk with their management, teachers, children, parents, representatives of relevant authorities of Pridnestrovie. Their conclusions and proposals, I guess, formed the basis of draft solution of the “school problem” suggested by the OSCE Mission at the negotiation table in September, according to which joint mechanism of monitoring of these schools should be elaborated by both sides.
After returning to Tiraspol, we finalized this draft with regard to the OSCE proposals and handed it over to the Moldovan side. However, as lately as ten days ago I received counterproposals from Kishinev which give us back to the nine months-old position – that is the Moldovan side refused from the proposed mechanism.
In this situation it's a pity that the pupils of “Romanian schools” are used as an instrument in political games. From our side we have made everything for educational process at schools to run without disruptions: as it should be, on the first of September children started their lessons, schools were supplied with teaching and methodological materials, equipment and furniture. Moreover, rent payment for these schools in a number of regions was lowered because we understand that Pridnestrovian children who have chosen Moldovan language education based on Latin script go to these schools and nobody obstructs and is going to obstruct them in this.
Vzglyad: ECtHR in its decision confirms that Russia was involved in school conflict as a mediator. Did the court have any reasons for such statement? What actions of Russia were considered by ECtHR as mediating ones?
Nina Shtanski: It is difficult to comment things that cannot be legally rationalized. For me, as a diplomat and a lawyer, much is unclear in the decision delivered by the European Court: it looks more like a declaration in which somebody points someone at its place in the system of international relations. Anyway, I got the impression that quite authoritative European institution of justice turns into instrument of political struggle.
Vzglyad: Can decision by the European Court be regarded as recognition of Pridnestrovie as a de-facto part of Russia?
Nina Shtanski: Whether it is recognition or nonrecognition – I shall refrain from evaluations. To my mind, this paper is biased and far from the image of international law and human rights at all. Such decisions tend to reduce the level of people's trust in the court. One more thing – it was alarming for me, having grown up in the Moldovan family and considering myself part of the Moldovan nation to find the phrase in this court decision stating that the Moldovan language represents a language combination which is used nowhere and is recognized by no one. Saying that no one speaks the Moldovan language means that I don't exist as well as other 200 thousand of Moldovan people living in Pridnestrovie and speaking Moldovan language. Who took the liberty to erase all these people from life? It is cynical, rude and doesn't correlate with the jurisdiction of the European Court for Human Rights.
Vzglyad: How is the history of events after 1991 taught at these schools? Aren't Pridnestrovian authorities fear that these schools' administration can plant ideas into pupils' heads which are far from “love for their neighbors”?
Nina Shtanski: Certainly, we are concerned about the point what and how is taught in the “Romanian schools” as far as during negotiations we didn't receive an answer to the question about educational standard used in these schools. We don't argue that it is good or bad – we simply don't know what it is like. Therefore Pridnestrovie proposed simplified order of licensing for these schools which is obligatory for all countries.
Agree that the state should possess information about what our children are taught in these schools. At the expert group meeting which took place at the beginning of September in Bendery, Minister of Education of Pridnestrovie Svetlana Fadeeva defined our position pointing out to Moldovan colleagues that Moldovan authorities would hardly allow any educational institution to provide their services without consent of relevant structures and without a license. Authorities of any state – and here I mean not only Pridnestrovie and Moldova – are not interested in their children to be taught some courses which may be the source of ideas of conflicting character and extremism calling for national hatred.
In order to exclude insinuations on the point that children in Pridnestrovie are prohibited to learn Romanian I will tell the following: Moldovan language based on Latin script can be learnt not only in these “Romanian” but also in other Pridnestrovian schools as an optional course, upon parents' application. Appropriate conditions have been ensured. Moreover, Romanian as a foreign language can be learnt at special educational courses on quite legal grounds. For example, I received such educational services and have the corresponding certificate.
Vzglyad: How do You evaluate the state of schools with Latin script Moldovan language? To what extent is it worse than that of ordinary Pridnestrovian schools?
Nina Shtanski: It is possible that there are certain people in Moldova who are interested in the state of these schools to be really worse than in the Pridnestrovian schools. Otherwise it will be difficult to maintain the degree of international attention to this problem.To my mind, should the Moldovan side have shown more political will, the problem would be solved long ago, because already today one can hardly call it a problem – I will repeat: schools are operating, children are getting their education. There are no problems in the field of their right for education – there are problems in political sphere.
Vzglyad: How many children do go to “Romanian schools”?
Nina Shtanski: Several thousand and their number have been noticeably reduced in recent times. Political uncertainty, lack of cadres tells upon, and the quality of education cannot compete with the quality of teaching in Pridnestrovian schools.
Vzglyad: Dissenting opinion of Judge Anatoly Kovlera in annex to the decision of ECtHR indicates that approach to analysis of the conflict was based on the conflict of the so-called “Cyprus type”. Is it appropriate to compare Pridnestrovie with Northern Cyprus in this context?
Nina Shtanski: When European Union representatives tell that they cannot establish a particular type of relations with us separately from Moldova, I always ask the question about Cyprus: why the European Parliament, the European Commission can consider separate normative-legal acts relating to Northern Cyprus but they cannot consider similar separate normative-legal acts relating to Pridnestrovie? The answer to this question is indistinct but conclusions are evident: this is nothing but double standards.
Originally taken from: http://www.vz.ru/politics/2012/10/25/604174.html
