Transnistrian Conflict on August 18 – September 7, 2003

“Happy Anniversary!”

Between 31 August and 2 September the secessionist Transnistrian administration organised a series of events to celebrate the so-called “13th anniversary” of the non-recognised Transnistrian republic. On 2 September 1990, the extraordinary congress of Transnistrian deputies of all levels adopted a declaration of secession of the Transnistrian region from the Republic of Moldova. This historical event has been presented by the Transnistrian leaders as the first step that Transnistria took to assert itself on the international arena.

As usually, the celebrations this year were held with great pomposity, in the best of the Soviet traditions, and included depositions of flowers to the monument to military glory, a military parade and a liturgy by the Archbishop Iustinian of Tiraspol and Dubasari. The events were attended by representatives of other non-recognised state-like enclaves from the ex-Soviet area, but also Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian officials who support the secessionist republic at the eastern borders of Moldova. In premiere, part of the events were broadcast online on the recently opened web site of the Transnistrian leader Igor Smirnov.

Many Moldovan and foreign journalists, who witnessed the celebrations in Tiraspol, have described their contents and format as additional evidence to the fact that at present Transnistria is part of Moldova only in legal terms and that, in fact, Transnistria has not been Moldovan since long as a political system and mentality that are completely different from the ones in the rest of Moldova have taken root there over the past decade.

The tone of the events, however, has been given by the inaugural speech that Igor Smirnov held on 31 August, in which he said that Transnistria has become a full fledged state and “an important factor in the European and world politics”. The only acceptable political solution to the conflict, Smirnov said, is the institution of a “contractual federation between two states” with equal right, differently put, a confederation. This position was announced a bit earlier in a communique of Transnistria’s official press agency Olvia-press, which read that “federalisation should in no way end Transnistria’s statehood, on the contrary, it should conclude with the recognition of the Transnistrian republic as a rightful subject of international law”. At the same time Smirnov declared that even though Transnistria does continue to participate in the negotiations on solving the conflict, it has not given up its efforts at international recognition. Smirnov also referred to the inefficiency of the current negotiation format and of the efforts at drafting a federal constitution and accused the mediators — Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE of siding up with Chisinau. He categorically ruled out any involvement of the European Union in a future peacekeeping mission to Transnistria and said that he had already sent a letter to the Russian President Putin requesting Russia to take over the command of such future mission.

Smirnov’s trenchant statements have prompted a number of reactions both in Moldova and abroad. The Moldovan governmental newspaper Moldova Suverana (The Sovereign Moldova) has accused the official Tiraspol of taking contradictory positions in the negotiation process, which fact seriously endangers “the entire plan of resolving the conflict put forward by President Vladimir Voronin”. Ion Creanga, the Head of the Moldovan delegation to the Joint Constitutional Commission, rejected categorically the idea of a “contractual” federation, which would only result in a de facto recognition of Transnistria and said that there is no alternative to the asymmetric form of federation.

Unlike the negative reactions of the Moldovan side, the reactions coming both from the Russian political circles and the Russian press have been ones of approval and support for Smirnov’s statements. Thus, Serghei Baburin, the leader of “Rosisky Obshchenarodny Soiyuz”, a non-formal union of Russian ultranationalist parties, said in an interview to the Transnistrian official press agency Olvia-press that recognising Transnistria is the best option, if not the only one to solve the issue. At the same time, the prestigious Russian daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta wrote on 3 September that the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Transnistrian region, which is a region of “traditional” Russian influence, is not really timely now, on the eve of parliamentary elections in Russia. Russia should therefore take geopolitical advantages from the time out created by the delay in the withdrawal of its army, including in order to prevent the involvement of the EU in the conflict resolution process in order to secure its influence in the region.

Another round of talks

Meanwhile, a new round of negotiations took place in Chisinau and Tiraspol on 4–5 September with the participation of the mediators and of the representatives of the conflicting parties. The negotiators heard reports by the Joint Constitutional Commission and economic experts, and continued the work on a final political resolution to the conflict. In a press conference held by the OSCE on 5 September, William Hill, the Head of the OSCE Mission to Moldova, expressed his confidence that the divergences between the two parties with regard to the form of the future federation are not irreconcilable and that a compromise solution on this issue is possible to reach. Hill expressed his satisfaction at the “slow but firm” activity of the Constitutional Commission, but at the same time admitted that the Commission will complete its mission, which is to draft the federal constitution, before the main political issues between the two sides are settled. In addition, Hill supported the idea of a future multinational mechanism of military guarantees under the aegis of the OSCE and reiterated his concern with regard to the delays in the process of evacuation of Russian military ammunition from Transnistria.

The process of withdrawal of Russian weaponry was blocked a month ago by the Tiraspol administration which has claimed from Russia compensations in form of cancelling an important part of its debts for the gas imported from Russia. In an interview to Basa-press news agency, William Hill said that Russia can determine the Transnistrians to stop obstructing the process of withdrawal of its ammunitions. Otherwise, the technical conditions needed to complete the process by the end of 2003, as Russia committed to do, are in place.

The civil society takes a stand

29 representatives of Moldovan mass media signed on 26 August a common statement on the resolution of the Transnistrian conflict, in which they reject the proposal to solve the conflict through the federalisation of Moldova believing that it will turn Moldova into a “Russian protectorate”. The journalists deplore the support that this proposal has enjoyed with distinguished foreign diplomats, who are thus giving in to Russia’s neo-colonial claims, and pledge for an EU peacemaking operation to be deployed in Transnistria before a political solution to the conflict is reached. Also, the journalists support the concept of “three Ds” — demilitarisation, decriminalisation and democratisation [of Transnistria], launched recently by a group of 15 Moldovan NGOs for solving the conflict, and call upon the Moldovan authorities to engage in an open and honest dialogue with the Moldovan civil society on the Transnistrian issue.

The statement by the 29 journalists completes the range of similar statements that have been made recently by a group of 15 NGOs, a group of Moldovan art and theatre personalities and a number of pro-European parties. Thus, a “consensus of the civil society” has been taking shape lately with regard to the current efforts at solving the Transnistrian conflict.

The OSCE statement of reply to the 29 journalists may thus be regarded as one prompted by the generally disapproving position of a wide section of the Moldovan civil society with regard to the OSCE’s mediating efforts. OSCE has called the journalists’ accusations as a distortion of the goal and substance of its efforts within the negotiation process, has committed to work further towards a “fair and just” solution to the conflict and has assured that its actions are fully supported by many states and international organisations, such as the US and the European Union.

Joint Constitutional Commission/ Joint Control Commission

Both commissions held meetings on 19 august and both were affected by the tensions that have emerged lately between the two sides.

Thus, at the meeting of the Constitutional Commission on 19 August, the members of the Moldovan delegation condemned the publication by the Transnistrian side of its own draft of the federal constitution, despite the agreement that the two delegations had had to co-ordinate the publication of all statements and documents. The meeting on 19 August was already the third to discuss the chapter on fundamental rights and liberties. Although the principles of the Chapter have been agreed and a part of the articles of the chapter have been drafted, the members of the Commission still have not reached a consensus on the issue of citizenship: the Moldovan side has opted for common citizenship, while the Transnistrians insist on the recognition of the Transnistrian citizenship.

The meeting of the Joint Control Commission was affected, in its turn, by the conflict that appeared after the Transnistrian delegation to the Commission had demanded that the Moldovan police contingent from Bender (Tighina) be moved to Varnita. That demand was rejected categorically by Chisinau and the OSCE mission deplored it as “unilateral and ultimative”. The conflict itself, though, was not discussed during the meeting, which focused on the issue of the transparency of the military equipment deployed in the security zone brought up by the Moldovan side. The meeting has not reached any agreement on the issue as the Transnistrians demanded full transparency of all military and paramilitary forces on the entire territory of Transnistria and Moldova on the right side of Nistru River in exchange for ensuring the transparency of its military equipment in the security zone.

A possible EU involvement in the resolution of the Transnistrian conflict

On 5 September, the EU Political and Security Committee debated the draft of a framework document on political, economic and military relations with Moldova. Although the contents of the discussion has not been made public yet, diplomatic sources have alleged that the EU has not yet reached a consensus on an eventual participation of EU troops in a peacemaking operation in Transnistria.

Earlier, the OSCE Chairman in Office, the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, on a visit to Washington, raised the Transnistrian issue during his meetings with a number of American officials, including congressmen, who he informed about OSCE’s current efforts at reaching a political settlement. De Hoop Scheffer also mentioned his initiative to prepare a peacemaking operation with the participation of the EU, which, following enlargement, will find itself in the near neighbourhood of the conflict zone. Minister de Hoop Scheffer assured the American officials that the US continued support for and participation in these efforts is of crucial importance. As important is that Russia observes the end of 2003 deadline for withdrawing its weaponry from Transnistria. This has been the first time when Minister de Hoop Scheffer discussed at official level his initiative to include the EU in a future peacemaking mission to Transnistria. Notably, the Netherlands will take over from Italy the Chairmanship of the Council of the European Union on 1 January 2004.

e-democracy.md