Deputy Chairperson of the Government of the PMR for International Cooperation, Foreign Minister Nina Shtanski answered the questions of the IA “Novosti Pridnestrovya”
“Novosti Pridnestrovya”: Does the change of the format of the negotiation process facilitate to the solution to the conflict and, if so, how, in your opinion, should a new balance of power look like?
N.V. Shtanski: There were so many talks about the change of the negotiating format, at least over the last 10 years, including in neighbouring Moldova, that it is time to ask a just question who and why so persistently tries to avoid the substantive and responsible work and to replace the interaction on resolving the existing problems with “talks about talks”, the identification of new participants, their status, and so on ... The question is rhetorical and open.
Meanwhile, speaking about the effectiveness of the negotiations it is important to understand what criteria and measures we use to define the effectiveness? What do we mean by the aim of the negotiations? And what prevents this work?
If the main objective of the negotiation process is to find and ensure comprehensive peaceful political solution to the conflict through political and diplomatic means and methods, it is necessary to state the existence of a continuous dialogue between the parties of the conflict at all levels (the experts, political representatives, the leadership of the parties), and certainly the active involvement in this process at all its levels and tracks international actors involved in the format of the “Permanent Conference ...” (5+2), which, I am deeply convinced, is the key to maintaining peace and security, to preventing the “unfreezing” of the conflict, the uncontrolled spread of tensions. In this case, the main criterion is the existence of peace and cooperation between the parties to the conflict.
If, we also mean by the effectiveness of the negotiation process the ability of the participants involved in it to conduct effective and cooperative (but not confrontational as it is, unfortunately, common in the world practice) interaction, then, at least it should be admitted that for three years and a little more after the resumption of the official work of the “5+2” format a lot of quite important practical solutions have been achieved. For instance, no one will dispute the importance of resuming the full-scale freight railway communication through the territory of Pridnestrovie. Without appropriate agreements reached during the negotiations we would fail to carry out the work on removing from the territory of Pridnestrovie dangerous ionizing radiation sources, which we could not in any way utilize by our own forces after the collapse of the Soviet Union (by the way, this process continues to this day). The problem of restrictions on freedom of movement of Pridnestrovians would not be solved, which simply could not use freely Kishinev airport for many years without administrative obstacles, fines and a demand for a residence permit in Moldova. The issue on the seizure University diplomas and diplomas of graduation by Moldovan authorities from those young Pridnestrovians whose documents on education were nostrificated in the neighboring country would not be solved. We would fail to find solutions that would allow to remove the burden of blocking economy measures from some Pridnestrovian enterprises (of course, not many and not all), in particular to abolish fees for customs clearance of Pridnestrovian export and import, environmental fees charged for many years, and introduced but not used due to the timely cancellation of the so-called “import excise tax”.
Of course, the effectiveness of the negotiations and dynamism of interaction could and should be much higher.
Pridnestrovie believes that no matter how complex is the dialogue, it is necessary to conduct it, it is necessary to make initiatives, find solutions which are based on not an ultimatum, but a compromise, and which take into account the mutual interests of the parties. To do this, it is necessary to refuse the language of sanctions, threats, restrictions, criminal repressions, the creation of new problems, and focus on finding solutions to the set of problematic and often very sensitive issues that have already accumulated.
Well, what if someone understands the effectiveness as only dynamics of the meetings, intervals between them, and the amount of official rounds? This question is difficult to answer, because the negotiations “for the sake of ticking off the boxes” or for “passed” in the eyes of the international community, in my opinion, cannot be effective at all, whatever the participants are involved in them. The words of a classic are appropriate for this situation: “However much you change positions, my friends, you'll never make musicians...”
I should emphasize that today all participants involved in the “5+2” format consider it sufficient and complete for the purposes which we intend to achieve within it. Otherwise, neither parties (Pridnestrovie and Moldova) nor the guarantor countries and mediators (Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE) would have signed in 2012 the already mentioned “Principles and procedures ...”, and the observers (the EU and the United States) would have confirmed the acceptability of the format for them by their participation in the negotiating process.
“Novosti Pridnestrovya”: Lately, Ukraine as a guarantor country of the settlement of the Moldo-Pridnestrovian conflict has demonstrated not friendly attitude to Pridnestrovie. One of the latest examples – Poroshenko’s statement about the “unfreezing” of the conflict and about the return of Pridnestrovie to Moldova and also the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers which can be regarded as one of the steps towards the economic blockade against Pridnestrovie.
What is your assessment of such actions and how are diplomatic relations with Ukraine developed today? How do you see the further cooperation?
N.V. Shtanski: A number of actions on the part of Ukraine with regard to Pridnestrovie are of more pronounced unfriendly character. This is the accumulation of the armed forces on the border with us, and restrictions on freedom of movement of Pridnestrovians with a Russian citizenship, new blockade measures which hit in the Pridnestrovian budget and the wallet of each Pridnestrovian, including the closure of a number of customs points for our goods, a ban on the importation of excisable goods in Pridnestrovie and others. Of course, it complicates the relationship between our countries and the interaction at the diplomatic level.
“Fuel to the fire” is also added by the aggressive rhetoric. Moreover, if earlier it was typical for representatives of the media community and it could be explained by a certain “order”, statements which are extremely unfriendly and uncharacteristic of diplomatic communication are made now by the official representatives of this country. It reached the point where Plenipotentiary Representative of Ukraine in the “5+2” negotiation process A. Veselovsky recently urged me not to attach much importance to hysterical statements in the Ukrainian media about Pridnestrovie as a certain threat for Ukraine, and assured us officially in the course of the meetings held in Tiraspol that Kiev does not consider Pridnestrovie as a threat to its security, suddenly in the pages of a Ukrainian informational and analytical publication with clear dislike, not disguised by diplomatic means he concludes not only about the “Pridnestrovian threats”, but also makes a number of charges. We cannot perceive without concern the utterances of the Ukrainian diplomat that Pridnestrovie does not have the right to conduct foreign trade activities! And it's not even the fact that Ukraine is one of the signatories and guarantors (!) of 1997 Moscow Memorandum which set forth the right of Pridnestrovie to independent foreign economic relations, and it’s also not the fact that within the framework of the negotiations the socio-economic issues, including freedom of movement of goods and services, are a priority also supported by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine during the recent chairmanship of this country in the OSCE, and the fact is that thereby Ukraine is moving away more seriously from the status of “a guarantor country” in Moldova-Pridnestrovie settlement, openly supporting one of the parties to the conflict and tightening a blockade stranglehold over the Pridnestrovian economy. I do not think that Ukraine does not realize that they endanger hundreds of thousands of people living in such conditions, among which, by the way, there are almost a hundred thousand of citizens of Ukraine permanently residing in Pridnestrovie and many tens of thousands of ethnic Ukrainians.
Material by the IA “Novosti Pridnestrovya”
