Monitoring→Politics→Transnistrian Conflict

Expected resumption of “5+2” negotiations does not come true

Moscow hosted on June 21, 2011 a new round of informal consultations of the permanent meeting for political affairs in the framework of the “5+2” Transnistrian settlement negotiation process. The Moscow meeting was expected to reopen the official “5+2” negotiations after a five-year break, but nothing happened. The Transnistrian diplomacy released a statement on the eve of the meeting to prevent participants not to expect great results. Thus, representatives of Transnistria anticipated the failed meeting, arguing that Chisinau is to blame because it did not take practical measures to consolidate the results of the precedent round of consultations:

• Protracted the resolution of the railway problem;
• Blocked agreements on activity of expert groups;
• Refused to attend the meeting of guarantors in Odessa;
• Was hysterical at the reception organised by the Russian Embassy to Moldova, as the representative of Transnistria was introduced as “diplomacy head”;
• Organised incidents in the Security Zone etc.

In the same framework, representatives of Transnistria argued that the “5+2” format cannot be officialised because Chisinau did not change attitude towards the conflict settlement process, turning down any official initiative by Tiraspol concerning the guarantee systems, and the draft agreement on friendship and cooperation. As well, Tiraspol claims that Chisinau does not warm the approach by Russia and Ukraine, which say that the conflict resolution should be based on an equal footing of the parties involved, and the opinion of the sides should be taken into account, so that the parties should further agree on the settlement format.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated after the failed consultations that Russia considers that the process of political settlement of the Transnistrian conflict must restart. According to Minister Lavrov, both Chisinau and Tiraspol shall drop off extreme positions with the view to resume the official negotiations, so that to find “a special status for Transnistria.” He stressed that “the independence of Transnistria cannot be recognised.” “The truth is somewhere in the middle. One thing is absolutely clear: no international institution backs the idea of independence for Transnistria. There is no support for the idea that Moldova must be a unitary state.” On the other hand, the Reintegration Office of the Moldovan Government reported that the Moscow meeting focussed on perspectives of the negotiation process, with Moldova strongly calling for the unconditional resumption of the official “5+2” negotiations. The Moldovan delegation insisted at the Moscow meeting that “working out a special legal status for the Transnistrian region by respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova within the internationally recognised borders is the key objective of the official negotiation process.” All international partners involved in the settlement process — Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE, the European Union and the United States — back this approach, and they agreed to suspend the Moscow round, in order to hold supplementary consultations with the view to resume the talks in a near future.

Constitutional amendments and re-election of Smirnov

On June 29, 2011 the Supreme Soviet of Transnistria adopted in the final reading the draft law on modification and completion of constitution. Under the amendments, the region will introduce the institution of cabinet of ministers and the function of prime minister. The amendments limit the number of mandates of chief of state to two. A series of amendments on functioning of local public administration and electoral system were cancelled in the final reading, as the Supreme Soviet and Smirnov’s administration failed any compromise. The clause which limits the number of presidential mandates will be enforced in future, with Igor Smirnov being able to run for the 5^th mandate at the December-scheduled elections. Attempts to make Smirnov run for elections did not succeed so far. In these circumstances, the former head of the Supreme Soviet of Transnistria, Yevgeni Shevchyuc criticised what he described as poor activity of president Smirnov. The news agency INFOTAG quoted Shevchyuk as saying in an interview with the Russian newspaper Sobesednik that Smirnov and his team are to blame for the disastrous condition of Transnistria, adding that they should be replaced. He stressed that Transnistria went bankrupt, managing to survive due to the coverage of budgetary deficit from foreign sources. He stressed that more than 90 percent of state estates were privatised under Smirnov’s rule, and only 25–27 percent of privatised businesses are operational but do not use all capacity. Statistics reveal that the industrial production made in Transnistria covered only 71 percent in January-March 2011 of what was manufactured in the similar period of 2010. The most serious decline was recorded in Ribnita (by about 87 percent) as the Metallurgical Plant there which formerly manufactured approximately half of industrial production and covered about 70 percent of exports is not operational. Now half of industrial production of the region is manufactured by electricity, light and food industries.

Archive

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003

 

© 2001–2018 Association for Participatory Democracy “ADEPT”
Phone/Fax: (373 22) 21-29-92, e-mail:
Reproduction of the materials is welcomed provided the source is indicated

Created by NeoNet