Position of parliamentary deputies, who suggested not to hasten with the adoption of Law on Goals and Principles of Negotiation Process with the Republic of Moldova, is not corroborated by distinct arguments. This information was reported by Minister of Foreign Affairs of the PMR Vladimir Yastrebchak and Plenipotentiary of the PMR's President in Supreme Soviet Vitaliy Glebov on the briefing, held today in Pridnestrovien foreign office.
Foreign Minister reminded, that the meeting of the Commission of Supreme Soviet on foreign policy and international relations, where draft of Law on Goals and Principles of Negotiation Process with the Republic of Moldova was considered, took place on October 4. The majority of deputies (members of the Commission) supported meaning of chairman of the Commission Dmitriy Soin. He suggested not to hasten with the adoption in the first reading of the document, which was submitted to the Parliament by the PMR's President in the mode of legislative necessity. Members of the Commission decided to organize Parliamentary hearings on the draft law with involvement of international experts.
Commenting upon this decision on today's briefing, Vladimir Yastrebchak called the position of deputies not exactly clear. He noted that necessity of adoption of such kind of law became ripe long ago. Draft law appeals to concretize goals, which are placed before authorized bodies of state power of Pridnestrovie in the process of negotiation, to explain them to people and to secure firm legal base for negotiation process. “In the process of discussing of draft law from the side of deputies sounded a number of remarks, which however do not have conceptual nature. But we finally did not witness clear position from the side of the majority of members of Parliamentary Commission as to whether there is a need in this law,” Minister noted.
According to the opinion of Plenipotentiary of the PMR's President in Supreme Soviet Vitaliy Glebov, introduced draft law carry one more important function. Its adoption by the Parliament must show unity of executive and legislative branches of government concerning the objectives of negotiation. Therefore, according to Vitaliy Glebov, such cautious attitude of the deputies towards this document seems very strange. “Proceeding from discussion at the committees, I came to conclusion that certain deputies are worried about one thing in this draft law. It is the provision, stating that negotiation process between Moldova and Pridnestrovie must be held on equal basis,” Plenipotentiary of the President said.
(The draft law, in particular, stipulates that one of the principles of the negotiation process is “equality of the sides to the conflict, i.e. they should possess equal rights and obligations proceeding from the fact of international recognition of the Republic of Moldova and the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic as sides to the conflict and compliance with international rules and principles when proclaiming state sovereignty and independence of the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic based on the will of the Pridnestrovien people”). According to Vitaliy Glebov, several parliamentarians expressed their disagreement with such categorical precondition for negotiations to be conducted.
Vitaliy Glebov also thinks that decision to arrange parliament hearings was adopted in violation of current procedural rules. Firstly, Commission on Foreign Policy and International Relations proposed hearings despite the fact that the draft law hadn't passed the required procedure of discussions in all committees. Secondly, this document was introduced by the Head of the State in the regime of legislative necessity, i.e. it is necessary to consider it at the plenary session as a matter of priority in relation to other draft laws, noted Vitaliy Glebov.
According to the participants of the briefing, many questions arise in connection with the intention of the deputies to involve foreign experts into discussions of the document. “Certainly, it is the right of deputies,” told Vladimir Yastrebchak. “But in my opinion, there should be no selectiveness in the case when some laws fall under such scrutiny, others, no less important, - don't.” He cited as an example the situation of September 5, 2001, when Supreme Soviet adopted resolution which recommended the President to suspend negotiation process with Moldova. “I don't remember that this was preceded by parliament proceedings or continuous consultations with involvement of experts, though that decision was momentous for the Republic at that time”, noted head of the Pridnestrovien MFA. According to him, “any intellectual facilitation to legislative process is important and useful”, inter alia with involvement of international experience. But before this, as the Minister noted, it is of principal importance for the deputies to decide, whether they consider this law necessary or not.
In view of Vitaliy Glebov, experts involved from abroad “are unlikely to be objective in this issue since they depend on the opinion of the leadership of their countries”. As he told, the necessity to adopt the Law on the Goals and Principles of Negotiation Process with the Republic of Moldova is indisputable. Vitaliy Glebov considers that the position of parliamentarians against this background looks like an attempt to drag out time to the utmost with rather questionable goals.
Let us recall that draft law submitted by the President stipulates that negotiation process is aimed at final and fair normalization of relations between Moldova and Pridnestrovie, and is conducted on the basis of equality of the sides, mutual respect for sovereignty and independence. Moreover, among goals of negotiations are implementation of the will of the Pridnestrovien people expressed in the course of nation-wide referendums, as well as creation of conditions for final international recognition of state independence of the Pridnestrovien Moldavian Republic.
