Alegerile parlamentare din 2021 în Republica Moldova - alegeri.md
 Monitoring→Politics→Transnistrian Conflict

Transnistrian Conflict on December 1–14, 2003

|print version|mail| e-journal #21 |

The OSCE Ministerial Council in Maastricht

On 1–2 December in Maastricht was held the 11th Ministerial Council of the OSCE. Among the major issues expected to feature on the summit agenda were the Transnistrian conflict and the situation that had created around it after the failure by the Moldovan authorities to sign the Russian proposed draft Memorandum on the principles of federalisation of Moldova, as well as the withdrawal of the Russian weaponry from the region. These issues were raised in statements by such top officials as the US State Secretary Colin Powell, the OSCE Chairman in Office Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and the Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, as well as in a final statement by the EU delegation. The sides, save for the Russian Federation, showed a consensus with regard to the Transnistrian issue. Thus, the US, the EU and the OSCE urged for a sustainable political resolution of the conflict and securing it with multinational peacekeeping forces under the OSCE aegis. Notably, this position was supported by the Moldovan Foreign Minister Nicolae Dudau. Despite the general consensus, the Summit failed to adopt either a final decision or a regional statement on Moldova, as it planned. The reason for this has been the opposition of Russia to the provisions on Moldova and Georgia included in the draft of the final statement, as well as Russia’s refusal to agree to the conditioning of the ratification of the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty by the withdrawal of its armies from Moldova and Georgia.

The Transnistrian issue was resumed at the NATO Ministerial Council meeting in Brussels on 4 December. Thus, in the Final Communique of the meeting the NATO Member States reiterated that the fulfilment by Russia of its Istanbul commitments regarding Moldova and Georgia are the preconditions for the ratification of the CFE Treaty and expressed their regret at the failure by the Russian Federation to observe the end of 2003 deadline for the complete withdrawal of its weaponry from Transnistria.

Reactions

The reactions towards the fact that the OSCE Ministerial Council did not adopt a final paper on Moldova, which, among other things, would have also included a new deadline for the withdrawal of Russian weaponry from Transnistria, have varied. Many western analysts have spoken of a failure and a sign of weakness of the OSCE, which is an intergovernmental organisation that takes all decision by unanimity, a failure equally regretted by the Moldovan President. On the other hand, most of the Moldovan opposition parties have hailed the unanimity of positions expressed by the western states and institutions present at the Summit with regard to the principles of solving the Transnistrian conflict. They have called a big success for Moldova the fact that the Summit did not determine a new deadline for the withdrawal of Russian military patrimony, which would have given Russia a free hand not to observe the current deadline.

At the same time, the Head of the OSCE Mission in Chisinau William Hill, on his return from Maastricht expressed uncertainty with regard to the ways of functioning of the five-sided negotiation mechanism from now on given the failure of the OSCE to adopt a decision by consensus. Hill said several more months would be necessary for Russia to complete the process of withdrawal of its weapons from Transnistria, provided there are no political obstacles to the process.

In this context, the Transnistrian Charge D’Affaires to Ukraine Boris Akulov, declared last week that Tiraspol is going to change its position regarding the evacuation of the Russian military patrimony from the region, which the Transnistrian side sees closely linked with the signature of the Russian draft memorandum. Akulov also said that from now on Tiraspol is going to “toughen” its stand within the negotiation process and will demand more powers and certain, both internal and external guarantees. “After everything that has happened, we cannot take the statements of Vladimir Voronin seriously any more, because we do not regard him as a serious negotiating partner”, stated Akulov as quoted by Basa-press, and stressed that by refusing to sign the Russian proposed memorandum, President Voronin missed a unique chance to create a “real Moldovan statehood”.

Russian Military Patrimony

Three more trainloads of Russian weaponry estimated at about 950 tons were transported from Transnistria on 1, 5 and 14 December. According to Russian military experts, if the current pace is kept, Russia will need another six to seven months to evacuate all its weaponry from Transnistria.

In the meantime, on 7 December, “The Washington Post” reported that 38 rocket launchers Alazan, “dirty bomb” warheads or conventional rockets modified to carry radioactive material that could contaminate a territory of up to 12 km, had vanished from the military deposits in Transnistria and could have ended in the hands of international terrorists, including Al- Quaeda.

The newspaper noted that Transnistria is currently one of the largest illegal markets of weapons in the Former Soviet Union, the main source of smuggled weapons being the military deposits left behind by the Soviet army and which are now poorly guarded.

Public Views on Federalisation

An opinion poll conducted by the Institute for Public Policies in November 2003 on a representative sample revealed that 37.8% respondents do not support federalisation, 21.2% consider it acceptable as an idea, 13.1% said the subject does not concern them, 25.5% did not know what to say and 2.4% refused to respond.

November 17–30, 2003 December 15, 2003 – January 11, 2004