The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Republic, Vitaly Ignatiev, gave an interview to the Russian agency RIA Novosti. He focused on the current state and prospects of the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian settlement, Moldova’s economic pressure on Pridnestrovie, as well as the risks and threats associated with the electoral period in the Republic of Moldova.
The conversation also covered matters related to the medication blockade, Chisinau’s apology for the 1992 conflict, and Russian-Pridnestrovian cooperation.
Recently, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has announced Moscow’s readiness to facilitate dialogue between the parties involved in the Pridnestrovian conflict, both in the “5+2” format and through bilateral channels. However, there seems to be some stagnation in the dialogue between Chisinau and Tiraspol. What could be the reason for that?
This “stagnation,” regrettably, has persisted for many years and is growing chronic. The answer to the question why this is occurring is evident. It is not Pridnestrovie that is obstructing the mechanisms of dialogue, failing to fulfill its commitments, or refusing to engage in meetings at the leadership level. On the contrary, we are as constructive and transparent as possible on our side, committed to communication, and we propose meaningful initiatives aimed at normalizing relations, such as the signing of a Declaration of Commitment to Peaceful Resolution Methods.
However, Moldova, using the pandemic, the conflict issues or electoral processes, has been deviating from interaction with Pridnestrovie, focusing instead on non-dialogue methods of the pressure. In this regard, we welcome the position of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, because both sides need balanced and just international mediation more than ever.
Today we see extensive discussion surrounding Moldovan President Maia Sandu’s statement that she will be able to settle “Pridnestrovian issue” within a year or two. What does this attitude suggest? Is it possible for Chisinau to produce a sustainable model for resolving its relations with Tiraspol?
For the settlement model to be sustainable, it should account for the interests of both parties. Achieving this would require a compromise that can be elaborated only by long tedious work through the negotiating process. However, it seems that Chisinau, with its extensive hybrid pressure on Pridnestrovie, is not genuinely seeking mutual acceptable solutions. Therefore, everyone can understand that the probability of Moldova coming up today with any sustainable settlement model tends to zero.
On the whole, it is rather biased to talk about the resolution of the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian conflict in the near future, when even the simplest everyday and economic issues can stay on the agenda for months or years. The more than 30-year long negotiating process between Pridnestrovie and Moldova has convincingly proved that this is a highly complicated and comprehensive process that does not tolerate frivolous approaches. The scenario of the forced settlement through pressure actions and threat without considering the opinion of Pridnestrovians is a more dangerous misconception that can lead to escalation and unpredictable consequences. Hopefully, such statements are regarded as a campaign rhetoric amid the electoral process in Moldova rather than practical intentions.
Tiraspol has reported an increased pressure of Moldova on Pridnestrovie ahead of the referendum on joining the European Union. Chisinau has been blocking the export and import of certain goods, which significantly exacerbates the economic situation. How is this affecting business and ordinary citizens?
The measures of economic coercion implemented by Moldova against Pridnestrovian industrial sector and foreign trade have nothing in common with international or European standards. These measures represent basic arbitrariness aimed at achieving political goals. Unfortunately, such malicious actions have certain destructive consequences. This week, the Pridnestrovian Moldavizolit plant has halted operations after the Moldovan authorities didn’t issue a single export permit for its finished products over the past two months. Earlier, Electromash faced the same situation, leading to its shutdown. As a result, more than a thousand people have been left unemployed and longstanding labour collectives have been destroyed.
The Moldova Steel Works as one of the Pridnestrovian industrial flagships is also under the threat of shutdown. The Moldovan government’s plans to misappropriate tax monopoly status to its state-owned Metalferos company could have catastrophic consequences for working process of the Moldova Steel Works where more than two thousand are currently employed. These plans violate the international legislation on free trade and competition. The shutdown of this production would have an extremely negative impact on the metallurgical, transport and energy sectors across the entire region, including Moldovan regions, but this fact does not stop Chisinau.
In early September, the problem with the import of dietary supplements into Pridnestrovie emerged. As of today, the import of these supplements into Pridnestrovie from the third countries has been completely prohibited by Moldovan customs authorities. In mid-September, one of the pharmaceutical companies of Pridnestrovie was unable to import even the Bulgarian-made medications, despite appropriate certification in the European Union. This constitutes direct violation of obligations of the Republic of Moldova in the terms of coordinated trade regime between Pridnestrovie and European Union, as well as EU standards themselves. This causes harm not only to ordinary consumers and commercial companies of Pridnestrovie, but also to their European counterparties.
The attempts of Moldovan side to justify the repressive actions against Pridnestrovie by supposedly aligning its legislation with EU requirements do not stand up to criticism, discrediting both Chisinau and Brussels. Such steps, which clearly contradict the Moldovan leadership’s statements about a peaceful attitude towards conflict resolution, are already adversely affecting the climate of the dialogue and the living standards of the Pridnestrovian population.
Several outlets and experts today are predicting an escalation in the Pridnestrovian direction because of the presidential elections and the referendum on Moldova’s EU accession. Are there more risks and threats of provocation actions for Tiraspol during this electoral period?
The position of Pridnestrovie is quite clear – we are not the part of the election campaign in Moldova, we do not intend to be involved in any way, and, correspondingly, we do not wish to be the subject of manipulation on this matter. However, risks are increasing during such period, as individual unscrupulous Moldovan politicians allow themselves to make speculative statements about Pridnestrovie or even stage provocative actions. I believe everyone remembers the episode when one of the Moldovan’s current leaders personally attempted to prevent those citizens of Pridnestrovie who had shown initiative to participate in the voting in a neighboring country. We count on prudence of the Moldovan side and that it will refrain from extending its own electoral context to relations with Pridnestrovie.
Pridnestrovie is changing treatment protocols due to Chisinau’s blockade on the import of medicines. At the same time, the Pridnestrovian Ministry of Health has reported a problem with particular medicines, especially, for cancer patients. Are there currently any efforts to lift the medical blockade?
The situation regarding the supply of traditional medicines to medical facilities and retail pharmacy network in Pridnestrovie is approaching a critical point. Undoubtedly, the healthcare system of Pridnestrovie demonstrates a certain level of adaptability, as patients need treatment regardless of the blocked measures imposed by Moldova. However, there is a shortage of several essential medicines.
Furthermore, due to the forced redirection of procurement from the EU and Moldova markets, the cost of many medicines has increased significantly, in some cases manifold, making them less accessible to the population. The main reason for this situation is that Moldova does not produce medicines and is simply making money on reselling them to Pridnestrovie, with the included VAT, duties and markup. Numerous discussions on this issue at the meeting of field experts and through official correspondence have so far yielded no results due to the inadequate position of Moldova. Nevertheless, the Pridnestrovian side has no intention to divert the issue from the current agenda. We will continue to engage in dialogue with Moldova and our international partners.
Recently, Georgia voiced a proposal that Tbilisi could apologize to the Ossetian people for the August 2008 war. Are there any expectations in Pridnestrovie for an apology from Chisinau for the 1992 aggression?
The armed aggression against peaceful Pridnestrovie was a criminal act by the Moldovan authorities, and, as is well known, every crime requires an admission of guilt. I remind you that, due to Moldovan aggression, more than 800 Pridnestrovians were killed, over 1400 people were injured and tremendous material damage was inflicted. The war left a deep wound in the memory of the Pridnestrovian people. This fact has a significant impact on Moldovan-Pridnestrovian relations.
In international practice, accepting responsibility for acts of violence often helps improve and restore historical justice. A good example is the German’s apology for the monstrous crimes of the Nazi regime. In our case, an official admission of guilt by Chisinau for initiating the conflict would also be a step in the right direction. The Pridnestrovian people, considering the sacrifices and suffering they have endured, have the full right to expect such a gesture from Chisinau. Moreover, I believe this step is essential within the framework of any peaceful process for a final and comprehensive settlement between Pridnestrovie and Moldova.
Today it is evident that Moldovan leadership is not ready for this. Instead of critically reflecting on the events of the early 1990s, they attempt to promote a deeply untruthful and opportunistic government mythology in which Moldova is portrayed as the “victim” of aggression. However, I would like to believe that sooner or later, the Moldovan political class will mature enough to recognize the mistakes made by their predecessors and take concrete actions. This would allow us to turn over this tragic page in our history.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia has stated that “the protection of the interests of the Pridnestrovian citizens is one of the priorities of the Russian Federation”. How do you see Russia’s role on the Dniester during this challenging time of geopolitical confrontation? In your view, what has Moscow done, and what more can it do to maintain peace and stability on the Dniester?
The Russian Federation, as an ally and strategic partner, provides comprehensive support to its citizens and compatriots in Pridnestrovie. The Russian peacekeeping efforts on the Dniester play a key role, including at the level of the mission’s governing bodies. Political, diplomatic and informational support for the peacekeeping mission remains a common priority. Moreover, Russia is a guarantor in the settlement process and a responsible participant in the 5+2 format.
We hope that Russia will use its solid diplomatic capacities and its role in the OSCE executive structures to encourage the resumption of the Permanent Conference meetings. This dialogue tool in the next year of the 50th anniversary of the OSCE Helsinki Final Act under the Finnish Chairmanship could play a stabilizing role in relations between Pridnestrovie and Moldova.
It is equally important to continue working together to realize the potential of bilateral co-operation. As is well known, a solid legal basis has been developed in Russian-Pridnestrovian relations over the past periods – some 80 interdepartmental and inter-sectoral agreements. This is a good basis for further development of co-operation in a wide range of areas. In particular, the simplified accession of Pridnestrovians to Russian citizenship, the use of maternity capital funds on the territory of Pridnestrovie, and assistance to the agricultural and industrial sectors remain topical issues. We are convinced that Russia has sufficient opportunities to deliver targeted support to the people and economy of Pridnestrovie and for stepping up the negotiation process and using international platforms to prevent Moldova from violating the rights of the Pridnestrovian population.
