ADEPT | Gagauzia 2016 | Presidential 2016 | Elections 2015 | Bashkan 2015 | Gagauzia 2012 | Political Parties
Transnistrian Conflict on September 22 – October 5, 2003
|
|
e-journal #16 |
A chapter of the draft Constitution signed
After two months of negotiations, Chisinau and Tiraspol signed one chapter of the draft Constitution of the future federative state, regulating the citizen’s rights and freedoms. The parties failed to reach a consensus on citizenship, education, healthcare and social security. Therefore, 14 out of the total 51 Articles of the Chapter II are still to be negotiated. As for the basic constitutional principles of the future federation, it would be difficult to reach any consensus as Chisinau insists on an asymmetric federation, whereas Tiraspol on a “contractual federation” similar to Serbia and Montenegro.
As Tiraspol sees it, Republic of Moldova and Transdnistria, “currently independent states” are to establish a federal center endowed with “as much sovereignty” as need to fulfil international obligations, while “federation subjects” are to preserve the prerogatives required for the rest of activities. Prerogatives are to be delegated to the federal center only if the parties fail to fulfil them on their own. The future state is to be called Federation of Moldova and Transdnistria and have other flag, coat of arms, and anthem than those of the Republic of Moldova or Transdnistria. Also Transdnistrian side insists on a bicameral Parliament, the Supreme Chamber is to be formed out of the “Chisinau and Tiraspol legislative bodies”. Its decisions shall have a legal force only if approved by both Parliaments in an “independent and separate” manner. The President of the future state is to be elected in direct elections, whereas the Government is to deal with matters at the federal level. Transdnistrian draft proposal entitles federation subjects to leave the federation wherever one of the subjects decides to join another state; federal state loses its independence; or basic constitutional principles and “sovereign rights of the federation subjects” are violated. Tiraspol insists on the dissolution of the Republic of Moldova and Transdnistrian armies so as to secure a status of demilitarized state. Moreover, the federative state is to be a single economic zone, however with separate financial and fiscal systems, patrimony (including natural resources in the possession of federation subjects). Each of the federation subjects is to have its own budget a part thereof is to be transferred to the federal budget in the amount proportional to the economic potential of the parties and their need in federal services. And finally monetary emissions are to be made by the “National Banks” of the parties, procedure not even provided for in the draft of EU Constitution.
Peacekeepers structure and negotiation format
William Hill, Chief of OSCE Mission to Moldova, refuted the statement attributed to him on replacing the current peacekeeping format with a more international one. Moreover, William Hill indicated that OSCE Mission supports EU forces involvement in the peacekeeping operations, however, the existing format would not be changed without prior consultations with all the parties involved in the negotiation process.
In a related note, the major opposition party Moldova Noastra Alliance has recently issued a statement reading that Moldovan and Transdnistrian armies should be dismissed, Russia should withdraw its military presence from the region, and new peacekeeping forces should be deployed while their structure is to be decided within a “renewed international mechanism”. Once demilitarization is completed, peacekeepers will be replaced by an international police squad to be deployed until a complete settlement of the conflict effects. Moldova Noastra also opts for a change in the current negotiation format, namely three new parties US, EU, and Romania should be involved in the negotiation process along Russia, Ukraine and OSCE. According to Moldova Noastra this “renewed international mechanism” of mediation would be able to boost the negotiations.
Deputy head of the US mission to OSCE also demanded the withdrawal of Russia’s military presence from Transdnistria. Davidson said that Washington is deeply concerned about the lack of progress in the Russian-troop withdrawal and the stalemate in resolving the Transdnistrian conflict. He indicated that unless Russian troops and munitions were not evacuated by the end of the year, Russia alone would be blamed for that.
Yet another option of settling the Transdnistrian conflict was offered by the Party of Reform. The party opposes federalization, instead it proposes transferring Transdnistria for a certain period of time into the sole jurisdiction of EU. This would imply not only deployment of EU peacekeeping forces but also EU direct control over the borders with Ukraine, army, policy, customs and other spheres, which currently “keep the Tiraspol regime alive”.
Archive
2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 |
