Bendery, February, 8. /Novosti Pridnestrovya/. On January 24, the Moldovan delegation in the JCC blocked the adoption of the current report on the situation in the Security Zone. The representatives of Chisinau explained that by the fact that in the area with a high security regime (the Pridnestrovian city of Bendery) there appeared additional posts of the PMR power structure, which, in their opinion, “carry out illegal activities”.
It should be noted that the document itself, signed by the senior military commanders of the three parties, does not contain information about any additional posts and armed formations. That is, military observers left, and nothing of the kind was found ...
However, the issue of posts and Pridnestrovian border guards is being raised regularly during meetings of the governing body of the peacekeeping operation. Representatives of the Republic of Moldova, deftly juggling a vague and at the same time multifaceted concept of “freedom of movement”, periodically lead the work of the Joint Control Commission to a dead end. This was the case in 2014, when, after insisting on including the issue of the notorious freedom of movement on the JCC agenda, the Moldovan delegation blocked the opening of meetings, and after putting the issue on the agenda and making any other decisions (except reports and organizational issues). It was possible to reach a compromise only at the beginning of 2017, namely after the meeting of the Presidents of Pridnestrovie and Moldova Vadim Krasnoselski and Igor Dodon.
At present, border posts, which activities are carried out on the basis of Pridnestrovian legislation and in accordance with the requirements of a peacekeeping operation, without any weapons, appeared to be the stumbling block. Although the Moldovan side persistently attributes them to the security forces. Reference is made to the “Provisional Regulations on the Basic Principles of Law Enforcement Agencies in Zones with a High Security Regime”. In Tiraspol, they believe that the Moldovan side interprets the document in its own favor.
“The provision does not define which structures of the parties belong to law enforcement agencies. Articles 1 and 2 of this Regulation disclose the principles and directions of law enforcement activities not only of the Ministry of Internal Affairs structures of the parties, but also of such law enforcement structures as the prosecutor's office, state security bodies, customs authorities, investigative bodies and others acting on the basis of the parties' legislation on their responsibility” - the appeal of the Pridnestrovian delegation to the JCC says.
Representatives of the PMR consider it illogical to attribute the internal forces to the law-enforcement system as represented by special forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Moldova Republic, including Fulger and carabinieri, as well as special units of the Ministry of Justice of the Moldova Republic, including convoy units of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Moldova in OSH 29/8 and OSH 29/12 in Bendery, but at the same time, not to consider the border troops of Pridnestrovie to be law enforcement bodies.
It is stated that the Republic of Moldova has its own border services, which, although they are under the jurisdiction of the Moldovan Ministry of Internal Affairs, but perform the same functions, and no one interferes with their work in the Security Zone.
It is quite obvious that the Moldovan side does not give up attempts to politicize the peacekeeping operation. For this purpose, they have chosen the thesis on the existence and activities of the border structures of Pridnestrovie in the Security Zone and the need to eliminate them.
“The Pridnestrovian delegation in the JCC has repeatedly reminded, and is doing it once again, that constantly demonstrated by the Moldovan side concern about the presence and activity of the border formations of the state security bodies is a matter not related to the activities of the JCC, it is overly politicized” - the document notes.
Post issues were already raised at the political level in 1998. Then, according to the results of the Odessa agreements, a special commission was to be created, but somehow it did not work out. Now, as representatives from Tiraspol note, it is not entirely logical and unpromising to shift responsibility for this to JCC.
“The agreement on confidence-building measures clearly defined the disposition of work with border posts of a completely different commission, which had never begun to function in 1998. And it is a priori wrong to turn this around on JCC” - the co-chairman of JCC from Pridnestrovie, Oleg Belyakov, is sure. So far, no common understanding has been found on the JMC report. It remains to hope that this precedent will not affect the performance of the JCC, and will not lead to its complete blocking, as it happened in 2014 and in earlier periods.
