ADEPT | Gagauzia 2016 | Presidential 2016 | Elections 2015 | Bashkan 2015 | Gagauzia 2012 | Political Parties
Transnistrian Conflict on June 6–19, 2005
|
|
e-journal #53 |
The three documents have been adopted unanimously within a special parliamentary session dedicated to Ukraine’s proposals and reflect the position of parliamentary factions towards them. Thus, although in general all parliamentary factions approved of the proposals and welcomed them, especially due to the approach to solve the crisis through the democratisation of the region, Moldovan deputies mentioned a lot of gaps and shortages in the proposals, most of which have been earlier invoked by Moldovan analysts and pundits (for a full independent analysis of the plan see the Statement of the Association for Foreign Policy on EuroJournal.org). Thus, the purpose of the adopted documents was not only to express the position of the Moldovan Parliament on Ukraine’s plan, but also to cover the major gaps in the plan and to propose a series of measures to complete and improve it, such as, for example, the appeal to Ukraine’s authorities to take the necessary measures to securitise the Moldovan-Transnistrian border.
Moldovan officials and media affiliated with the Government and with the parties represented in the Parliament hailed the 10 June vote as a “historic” one, which reflects an unprecedented internal political consensus on the Transnistrian issue. On the other hand, independent observers have taken a less optimistic view on the voted documents and questioned the realism and feasibility of some of the measures included in them, such as the demand that Russia withdraws its troops and weapons from Transnistria by the end of 2005 or the proposal to organize democratic elections in the Supreme Soviet from Tiraspol in the autumn of 2005.
A statement by the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Alexandr Iakovlenko, published on 11 June, refers to the documents voted in Chisinau as an attempt to “impose forcefully the inhabitants of Transnistria to adhere to Moldova’s constitutional framework, which causes great disappointment”. Practice has shown that real problems may not be solved with the help of “emotionally charged” statements, and the “inclination of Moldovan deputies towards measures of constraint without taking into account the view of Transnistrians and outside of the civilised dialogue, causes serious concerns,” the MID statement mentions. Later, within a press conference, the Speaker of the Moldovan Parliament, Marian Lupu, rejected the affirmations that Chisinau promotes an anti-Russian course, and said that the fact that Moldova and Russia disagree on the Transnistrian issue may not be interpreted as anti-Russian course.
Lastly, on 15 June 2005, the official Transnistrian news-agency Olvia-press published the official position of the Transnistrian authorities towards Ukraine’s proposals and the prospects of Transnistrian settlement. The Transnistrian authorities appreciate President Yushcenko’s initiative as an attempt by Ukraine to make its serious contribution to obtaining a “viable, just and politically balanced” settlement. At the same time, Tiraspol expresses hope that as a result of the implementation of the proposed plan, a package of documents will be adopted that would settle the “Moldovan-Transnistrian relations”, would draw on the commitments and decisions taken to date and as such would reiterate Transnistria’s right to establish independently external relations in the economic, cultural, social etc. spheres, and to participate in the foreign policy of the Republic of Moldova. The Transnistrian authorities welcome the proposals regarding the international monitoring of elections to the Supreme Soviet this autumn, which would ensure greater transparency of the electoral process, but also contribute towards the “international legitimation of Transnistria’s status and its state bodies”. Settlement is possible only on the basis of the principle of equality of parties, and the policy of “dictates and ultimatums” is not acceptable. In conclusion, the document of the foreign affairs department from Tiraspol mentions that should any of the parties involved in the settlement process revert to pressure, Transnistria reserves the right to organise “a popular referendum on the prospective relations with Moldova”.
The official position of the Transnistrian authoriteis, as well as Russia’s irritated reaction to the Moldovan Parliament vote show the long and difficult road that lies in-between the adoption of the 10 June documents and the actual resolution of the Transnistrian issue. The resumption of Moldovan-Transnistrian consultations, in one format or another, and the securisation of the Mo0ldovan-Ukrainina border including the installation of joint Moldovan-Ukrainian customs check points along the Transnistrian segment are two key measures that need to be taken as priority. Both tasks are going to be serious challenges to the Moldovan authorities, who will have to demonstrate a lot of political skill and will to actually put into practice the three “historic” documents adopted by the Moldovan Parliament on 10 June.
Archive
2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 |
