In Pridnestrovie attention was drawn to the behaviour of a number of officials of the Republic of Moldova after the reception which was held in the Russian Embassy in the RM on June 10, 2011, and also to their subsequent statements in mass media. In this connection, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PMR finds it necessary to point out a number of principled aspects which call in question readiness of the Moldovan side to the constructive work in the process of normalisation of relations between the Republic of Moldova and Pridnestrovie.
What makes one raise eyebrows is an attempt of the Moldovan side to present what happened at the reception as something “unheard-of and extraordinary”. The opportunity to take the floor provided to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the PMR by the Russian side is a generally accepted practice at events of such kind. Earlier on, when similar cases occurred, the Moldovan side didn't show its reaction anyhow and, the more so, the officials of the RM never did abandon the corresponding events. However, not nearly all officials of the Republic of Moldova left the 10th June reception.
Pursuant to the current international law, Embassy of the Russian Federation is a Russian territory where laws and rules of the RF have effect. In accordance with them V. Yastrebchak was absolutely lawfully presented as the head of the foreign policy institution of Pridnestrovie. It is a conventional title in the Russian diplomatic practice applicable to the head of the Pridnestrovien diplomacy. Moreover, Kishinev should be grateful to the Russian side for the diplomatic restraint demonstrated by Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation in RM at the reception, since in Moscow's official reports it is also accepted to call the head of the Pridnestrovien diplomacy as “the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pridnestrovie”.
Against this background, declarations made by Prime-Minister of Moldova V. Filat seem to be even stranger, since he estimated the event as an “insult of the people of Moldova”. A clear indication to existence of a foreign policy institution in Pridnestrovie – which protects interests of the PMR in the situation when, for instance, the official Kishinev ignores provisions of the earlier signed documents of the negotiation process, in accordance with which the foreign policy of the Republic of Moldova must be built with regard to the interests of Pridnestrovie – cannot serve as an “insult of the people of Moldova”.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs couldn't but notice that such steps on the part of officials of the RM were made in the run-up to the next round of unofficial consultations in the 5+2 format due in Moscow on June 21, with many participants of the given format waiting for this meeting to bring about progress in the question of officializing the negotiations. Apparently, someone needs loud provocations that allow prepare public opinion to the position which the Moldovan side is going to unveil at the Moscow meeting. The algorithm of the Moldova-Pridnestrovie settlement as it is seen in Kishinev was earlier eloquently depicted by the head of the foreign office of Moldova Yu. Leanka who called upon the international partners to involve the whole arsenal of pressure on Pridnestrovie. Attempt of the Moldovan officials to ignore the existence of the foreign office of the PMR and substitute practical work on creating conditions for a constructive dialogue by the next artificial scandal fits well into such way of thinking which seems to challenge the very possibility of equal negotiations with Tiraspol.
