Pridnestrovian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vitaly Ignatiev gave an interview to the Russian News Agency Baltnews. He told about refusal of Moldova to consider the opinions of Pridnestrovians regarding the European integration, Chisinau’s unwillingness to constructive dialogue, the suitable way of settlement, as well as Moldova’s violation of the agreed trade regime between Pridnestrovie and the EU.
What do people in Tiraspol think about the Moldovan path towards European integration? What are the potential dangers for Pridnestrovie?
If you noticed, we recently expressed our position that the opinion of the Pridnestrovian people is an imperative for us. Obviously, throughout the entire period of state independence the leadership of Pridnestrovie has conducted own policy based primarily on the analysis of our population’s vision. We noted if the Moldovan side had approached us regarding a referendum to ascertain the Pridnestrovian local opinions, we would certainly have sought such an opportunity. But, as we can see, Chisinau did not have any reaction or approach. This is their choice that indicates an attempt to ignore the position of the Pridnestrovian residents.
I want to stress that we mean our entire multinational population. Our residents hold Russian, Moldovan, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Polish nationality, and so on. That is why our vision is as follow: any significant processes should be based on the clear and free people’s will. As for Moldova, the decision is the responsibility of the Moldovan people. The European path, which is often discussed, has a lot of speculation. Our attitude is based on the opinion of the people who have already determined the Pridnestrovian path at the 2006 referendum.
What do you think? Does this direct refusal of a referendum in Pridnestrovie suggest that Chisinau no longer sees the residents of the republic as one people with the Moldova shown on maps today?
Actually, it does. I would like to note that obviously even 30 years ago no one intended to consider the opinions of Pridnestrovians. Unfortunately, we have not seen throughout the conflict any Moldovan steps to genuinely show a willingness to transparent consideration of the Pridnestrovian opinion. Recently, and this has likely become an incentive for our feedback, we have seen a lot of insinuations, fictions, and different speculation regarding the referendum, such as the idea that some Pridnestrovians apparently would vote, and that this would reflect the people’s opinion, etc. We emphasize that public opinion means the most transparent referendum in Pridnestrovie for all nationals of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Most importantly, it is crucial for the international community to recognize and consider this opinion. However, what is happening in Moldova is quite the opposite, that’s why it was necessary to set the record straight. I believe we have coped. Now it is clear to everyone that, essentially, Chisinau is not particularly interested in the opinion of Pridnestrovie.
Do you think Moldova could indeed join the EU even having, as it officially declares, not a hot conflict, but at least a shaky situation with Pridnestrovie?
No, it is a conflict. That is crucial. It is an internationally recognized conflict with the shaped international settlement mechanisms. There are international mediators: Russia and Ukraine, the OSCE, as well as the USA and the EU as the observers. It is in no way a local tension. No, this grave conflict was halted after an offensive of Moldova against Pridnestrovie, it has an international agreement on a peacekeeping operation that, fortunately, is functioning. It is a very efficient trilateral mechanism, including Moldova, the Russian Federation, and Pridnestrovie; it is also quite a unique case. Therefore, it is indeed a conflict, and this is a very important aspect.
As for the possible movement towards the European Union, we hear the contradictory opinions. Frankly speaking, there is a public space where European officials are quite optimistic about it, a bit formal, saying things like, “Everything is possible, we will figure something out”. But in reality, having profound conversations with experts and the EU politicians, everyone understands that complicating the situation in Europe by adding yet another conflict or disputed territory like Moldova is something no one is willing to take responsibility for. Smart experts and European representatives realize that these processes should be collateral and the settlement process must remain in progress. Each side will decide its comfortable ambience and proper direction to move.
Unfortunately, we see a strong focus of the Moldovan leadership on the European track and a complete disregard for direct, constructive, and adequate dialogue with Pridnestrovie at the top level. As you know, the President of Moldova has ignored seven invitations of the Pridnestrovian President. The interaction between the political representatives is very weak: I met with the Moldovan counterpart only two times this year, last year the meetings were not more frequent, but the performance is almost zero, since Moldova has its political agenda. It is not ready to address the issues.
As you know, on May 17 of this year, I shared the Pridnestrovian initiative to sign a Declaration on Peaceful Approaches to Settlement. If we, as political representatives of Pridnestrovie and Moldova, had signed it, it would have been a good response to the existing challenges. It would have greatly calmed the population amid the Moldovan militarization. But Moldova rejected even this very clear and specific unambiguous proposal. They reviewed it 40 days and were not finally willing to take even this diplomatic step, which is beneficial for everyone and is aimed at increasing regional stability.
Therefore, first and foremost, we see that the Moldovan side is currently not ready to settle relationship with Pridnestrovie. I assure you that this is not only a challenge for Pridnestrovie, but I believe it is also a concern for the European Union.
Does Tiraspol have any plan, if Moldova suddenly, by any means, joins the European Union, and perhaps even NATO? Flags shall be raised, officials shall pay visits, and maybe even NATO troops shall be deployed. How will Tiraspol act in such a scenario?
First of all, we have a clear strong stand, the fundamental foundations of our statehood as a basis for laying our plans. Accordingly, when we have a strategic foundation, we align our tactical actions with it. Therefore, the most important thing is our vision: the future of Pridnestrovie must be determined by the Pridnestrovian people. It should be as peaceful, transparent, and non-violent as possible, and the will of the Pridnestrovian people must be taken into account by the international community when agreeing on any path of resolution or modality, and so on. We do not see any other alternatives. Any other options would simply be unviable, abstract, and essentially non-functional.
There are many illusions. We often hear statements of various officials saying, “There is a conflict that needs to be resolved”. Some people mention timelines, claiming, “We will settle it soon”. But everyone struggles to grasp what the conflict really entails, its substance and depth. Each year, the gap between Pridnestrovie and Moldova objectively widens. You see, Moldova has turned away from its language and history. That is also a problem. Moldova is militarizing, and I repeat, it does not want to engage in direct and effective dialogue and negotiations with Pridnestrovie. That is another issue.
Therefore, there are many speculations that clash with reality. The real picture is that the most optimal way of the settlement is to take into account the circumstances that have developed over more than 30 years, as well as the historical and political background, and to consider the public opinion. Only then can we truly say that the conflict can be resolved in an adequate manner. Thus, we certainly have plans, tactics, strategies, and our people.
Does Pridnestrovie see Gagauzia as a partner in somehow talking sense to Chisinau? Perhaps to convey from both sides that the authorities in Chisinau are leading the republic in the wrong direction?
You know, Gagauzia is located in Moldova. It is an autonomy that, as far as I know, has certain restrictions regarding the inclusivity of its rights, which are constitutionally guaranteed by Moldova. This is indeed a significant problem. International organizations that attempt to analyze the human rights situation voice this issue. However, I repeat, our view excludes engaging in elections or any other processes in the neighboring state; we do not participate there. Therefore, our people are free to attend the poles where Moldova is ready to accept their vote. The internal political processes in Moldova are secondary and are not of significant interest for Pridnestrovie, due to objective reasons.
Back to the referendum, the split of the Moldovans raises doubts. If we take diaspora, many Moldovans live abroad, and I understand they can vote in consulates and embassies. But physically they are not in the country. It means they could safely vote for the European integration, since they’ve been living abroad, e.g. in Germany, for years. It turns out that people who do not feel any consequences for the decisions they can vote for will still have suffrage. Do you think this approach is fair in the current difficult situation?
The Moldovan leadership has outlined the scope of this referendum and developed the legal framework, I want to emphasize, without taking Pridnestrovie into account, which is important to note. This is a demand position, and the Moldovan people will give an answer when visiting polls on voting day. We will see then how they vote. As for now, I am not ready to comment or assess, since these are their principles and approaches. I want to reiterate that Pridnestrovie has built its entire modern historical path solely based on the people’s will. We held seven referenda on various crucial issues. We have a strong experience in conducting highly democratic plebiscite, and we take considerable pride in this.
Regarding the referendum and the path of Chisinau to European integration. Does Tiraspol see any potential benefits from Moldova joining the EU within its internationally recognized borders? What benefits could Tiraspol gain and could this make life easier? What do people in the republic generally think about it? Are there any advantages?
You are probably aware that Pridnestrovie has trade and economic relations with the European Union. The basis for this is historically established industrial production, as well as the specific agreement we reached with the European side in late 2015. This agreement has not been canceled; it is still in effect, and we trade freely within its framework. This is a positive example. Pridnestrovie is interested in exporting its products to European markets, since, unfortunately, the eastern markets of the EAEU countries are largely closed to us for obvious reasons, due to sanctions, logistics restrictions, etc.
We are interested in constructive solution of the trade issues and we see adequate approaches. In 2015 the European side developed a special mode for Pridnestrovie. By the way, this is not a novelty: the European Union has many special trade regimes and relationships with other territories. However, Moldova has been grossly violating this mechanism in recent years.
On January 1, Moldova has introduced exactions, collecting export and import customs duties that do not return to our socially oriented budget and do not go towards benefits, pensions, or salaries for our people. Several companies have shut down for weak reasons. These companies traded with EU countries and Turkey, which is not part of the EU. Moldova tires to justify all these violations with new EU regulations and requirements, despite the fact that they outrage free trade.
So, we have positive and negative examples. Unfortunately, recently we have seen more alarming signals, as very inadequate and antihuman actions towards our people are being justified under the European guise. Is blocking of medical equipment supplies a requirement of the European Union? Of course, it is not. Chisinau is prohibiting the supply of a significant volume, about 60%, of pharmaceuticals that we used to import from Russia, Belarus, and other countries, including India. Is this a requirement of the European Union? This factor appears everywhere, acting as if it were an indulgence for pressure on Pridnestrovie. It is very disturbing and unacceptable.
Therefore, we have experience with positive and negative elements of influence. We would certainly like this process to go with some positive effects for our people. But unfortunately, we are still far from that. The major challenges and threats are related to the peculiar situation where the European Peace Facility allocates extensive funding for the purchase of weapons for Moldova. We see militarization in the neighboring republic, which raises questions for us. European countries, particularly Germany, are supplying armored personnel carriers, weapons, special machineries and equipment. This raises concern for us, especially since the conflict in our relations with Moldova remains unsettled. When one side is actively strengthening its armed forces, it sends a troubling sign.
For me as a diplomat, this is a warning sign because if I saw a proactive stance of Chisinau at the negotiating table, I would understand to some extent that there are two parallel paths. However, I see a lack of interest in negotiations and a strong focus of Chisinau on militaristic strengthening. Therefore, there are many risks, challenges and threats, but I will repeat myself, there are both pros and cons. The question is about practical implementation of these approaches.
Mr. Ignatiev, what are the three main achievements of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic over the past 20 years that you can recap?
Firstly, it’s the peace. Secondly, it is the life and development of our state. The third achievement is building a unified social, political and ethnopolitical community based on our state, a multinational Pridnestrovian people. This people has already emerged; it has own world view, mentality, and identity to be certainly taken into account – this is an objective reality.
But most importantly, it is essential to remember that the Pridnestrovian people are our ancestors, who lived in this territory a century ago. These days, we are celebrating the centenary of the first statehood in the Pridnestrovie territory – the MASSR, to which Bessarabia (now part of Moldova) was later annexed. We understand that the descendants and heirs of those Pridnestrovians who lived and worked here had a civilized experience of nation-building, development, production, and culture. The first local higher educational institution was established namely in Pridnestrovie. Therefore, I believe that we continue this mission of development and existence of the Pridnestrovian people in this wonderful land of plenty. The main task is to ensure peace, stability, and security.
