This year, negotiations between Pridnestrovie and Moldova, with the filing of Chisinau, had virtually reached a stalemate. The Republic of Moldova not only does not fulfill obligations under the previous agreements, but has also taken new actions to put pressure on the PMR, which the OSCE experts also admitted. Chisinau actually thwarted the negotiations at the Permanent Meeting level in the 5 + 2 format (PMR and RM are the parties; Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE are mediators; the USA and the EU are observers), refusing to sign the final protocol in Bratislava. Despite the efforts of intermediaries, the document has never been signed before the end of the year. At the last moment, the Moldovan political representative, Alexander Flenca, refused to meet with the PMR Foreign Minister Vitaly Ignatiev. Thus, Moldova torpedoed the negotiation process, ignoring humanitarian problems that need to be addressed in the interests of citizens.
In the meantime, Pridnestrovie continues to interact with Russia, the OSCE, the EU and the USA. Particular attention is paid to cooperation with the United Nations. This year, representatives of Pridnestrovie participated in meetings of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva four times, informing the world community about the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the PMR, Vitaly Ignatiev, spoke about what happened in the negotiation process in 2019 and what foreign policy tasks would need to be addressed in the next, 2020th, in an interview with Novosti Pridnestrovya.
Vitaly Viktorovich, is there any hope that the Moldovan side will sign the final protocol of the Bratislava round of negotiations in the 5 + 2 format? Does refusal to sign this document mean an attempt to break the negotiation process?
The refusal of the new representative on political issues from the Republic of Moldova from the initiated by Pridnestrovie meeting on December 23 is a statement of disinterest in the final approval of the document. My previous and current counterparts used any tricks to fail the opportunity to sign the final protocol of the meeting in Bratislava.
As you know, the Pridnestrovian side was ready to sign the numerous revisions of the protocol proposed by the OSCE Chairmanship at various stages of the dialogue. The only fundamental aspect is that the protocol should reflect the real content of the discussions held in Bratislava. Not the ambitions of the Moldovan side, not the RM’s attempts to impose certain politicized themes “retroactively”, but what was really discussed by the parties at the meeting. We also talked about the fact that the protocol should have the so-called “added value”, that is, a document cannot be just a duty, “ritual” repetition of unfulfilled obligations by Chisinau with the designation of regular delays. It is extremely important to update the need to resolve the new problems created by the RM in the dialogue. First of all, import issues after February 1, 2020, driver's licenses, bank accounts.
Pridnestrovie received the support of intermediaries who recognized the acuteness of these topics, but Chisinau defiantly ignored the consolidated opinion of the participants in the 5 + 2 format. This is an alarming symptom, reflecting the intention of the Moldovan side to destroy the format of the Permanent Meeting. The equality of the parties to the negotiations, mutual respect, consideration of earlier agreements and an agreed negotiating space with an emphasis on socio-economic and humanitarian legal issues, have long confused the Moldovan negotiators, fixed by the Principles and procedures for negotiating and the official agenda. But these principles cannot be abandoned without destroying the format.
It is safe to say that the Bratislava Protocol will not be signed, because this week we received the summation of the meeting of the Permanent Meeting in Bratislava, prepared by the OSCE Chairmanship-in-Office. Based on the principles and procedures of the negotiation process, a summation is prepared only if the parties failed to reach an agreement at the meeting. The direction of the summation actually means that the international participants have come to terms with the fact that there won`t be the Bratislava Protocol, apparently, with the explicit consent of the Moldovan side.
As far back as October, Pridnestrovie warned the mediators that Moldova was trivially dragging out time. The Slovak Chairmanship of the OSCE, which made brilliant diplomatic efforts, ultimately incurred costs from Chisinau unwillingness to follow the established rules and solve social and humanitarian problems. In these circumstances, the role of international negotiators is increasing, especially in terms of supporting the 5 + 2 format.
Recently, you have held your first meeting with the new political representative of Moldova. Media reported that he was unfamiliar with the ethics and principles of diplomatic work. In your opinion, will it be possible to find a common language with Alexander Flenchea?
Alexander and I have known each other for a long time and have previously interacted repeatedly, and quite successfully. For now, I will refrain from evaluating what happened at the meeting on December 16 and its results. I am interested in switching to a regime of fruitful work, mutual respect and reasonable compromises. There were problems that arose even before Alexander Flenchea. I would say that throughout the whole of 2019, there was no quality and result-oriented work from the Moldovan side, which is confirmed by the lack of agreement on the negotiation process.
It should be understood that my counterpart is an official of a neighboring state, specifically instructed and carrying out the instructions of his leadership. Obviously, the current approach is dictated by the opinion of the leadership of the Republic of Moldova (President and Prime Minister). On the other hand, we remember that the head of the Moldovan state, Igor Dodon, at the October meeting with the President of Pridnestrovie was quite inclined to dialogue. I hope that next year, perhaps with the international assistance of Chisinau, represented by his representative on political issues, he will review his behavior, take into account the mistakes made and move from self-isolation to full cooperation.
The negotiation process is currently in a stage of stagnation at all its levels, including the work of expert (working) groups. The Government has changed in Moldova, and therefore, the composition of experts will also change. What have already been expert (working) groups formed by the Moldovan side? When is it worth waiting for the start of their work? What are the issues on the agenda?
This year's negotiation dynamics is far from positive. The number of meetings of expert (working) groups is three times lower than last year. There is no need to talk about meetings of representatives on political issues: there are 10 times less of them this year than in 2018.
The sequence of Government changes in the Republic of Moldova, of course, is a factor in reducing the number of meetings. We also observe a decrease in the quality of interaction between subject matter experts. This problem is dictated by the lack of a clear understanding among the representatives of the Republic of Moldova of the boundaries of an acceptable compromise, the so-called mandate to seek technical solutions. If the political representative does not give the experts specific powers, they will say whatever they like so as not to come to a decision. In most cases, this year we witnessed exact same plot.
Even when the experts were able to work successfully and find a common language, slippage arose at a higher level. Now we are talking about a draft Protocol decision to remove technical barriers to trade, initialed on November 1 this year. Both Vasily Shova and Alexander Flenchea refused to sign it. Or about a number of technical problems in the activities of the mobile TV reporting units which were promised to be solved by RM specialists at the beginning of the year, but so far they have not been able to cope with these tasks. Of course, such a neglect of Chisinau by the work of experts does not contribute to the search for non-trivial solutions.
Nevertheless, the dialogue at the expert level should not only continue, but also receive quality content. The priorities are the same - driver’s licenses, mobile TV reporting units, problems of international transportation, telecommunications, economics, primarily imports in the context of STBC, banks, and the termination of criminal cases.
At a recent press conference, Vadim Krasnoselsky spoke about Chisinau attempt to bring the so-called “harmonization” of the tax laws of Moldova and Pridnestrovie, calling it a political provocation. How often does the Moldovan side throw such issue on the negotiating table?
Pridnestrovie does not refuse a dialogue on any important issues, but in discussing such complex topics, the principle of expediency and the context itself are of key importance. The parties once agreed on the level of presidents on the harmonization of tax and customs legislation. That was May 16, 2001. On the same day, RM pledged to recognize Pridnestrovian customs clearance and documents issued to the PMR (including economic documents - registration, licenses, permits). Moldova agreed to contribute to the conclusion of a Protocol decision on cooperation between the National Bank of the Republic of Moldova and the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank, as well as to consider the issue of compensation for damage caused during the 1992 armed aggression. If we act within the framework of the logic of a comprehensive settlement of existing economic contradictions, then in the current conditions this is a difficult but important task. Pridnestrovie has a clear position on this issue and is ready for serious work.
However, when the topic of taxes is artificially dragged into the dialogue without preliminary elaboration and in isolation from other related topics and, moreover, the Republic of Moldova is used to block the signing of the Bratislava Protocol, this is certainly a political provocation.
Are the guarantors, mediators and observers ready to help convince Moldova to fully implement the previously signed agreements?
We are counting on the assistance of international participants in the 5 + 2 format. This year, the OSCE Mission involved independent international experts on the import of medicines, banking interaction and the exchange of information containing personal data of citizens. All these aspects relate to the most pressing issues of the ongoing negotiation process. By getting to know them in detail, the OSCE mediator demonstrates his interest and willingness to assist the parties in reaching a compromise.
I am of the opinion that the principles and negotiation procedures deserve close attention of intermediaries in the coming year. Full execution of this document may return consistency and discipline to the process.
It is also important to ensure that the Moldovan side fulfills obligations under the Berlin, Vienna and Rome Protocols of 2016-2018.
February 1st is scheduled to begin the so-called second phase of the joint Ukrainian-Moldovan border and customs control on the border of Ukraine and Pridnestrovie. What is it fraught with for our republic? What can be done to prevent the negative consequences of tightening the regime?
The consequences can be unpredictable. There are three areas at risk- the import of goods, freedom of movement of the population, security.
There is a certain amount of work being done on imports as part of the negotiation process. International participants realized the scale of the problem, which lies in the fact that the requirements, legislation and rules of Moldova cannot be extended to Pridnestrovian imports without blocking them. For three years, on the initiative of Pridnestrovie, there have been various options discussed that will allow economic agents to continue working, registries are being agreed. Pridnestrovie proposed at least five draft industry agreements - on the import of medicines, plant protection products, veterinary drugs, seeds and planting stock, etc. The import problem after February 1st 2020 is raised in the context of vehicles, import of food, import of products by individuals, primarily by individual entrepreneurs. The specified work is far from complete. Moreover, the prospects in 2018 looked much better than now, since then the meetings were regular and substantive.
The presence of Moldovan border guards in Kuchurgan is fraught with provocations and excesses, which have repeatedly occurred at the airport in Chisinau. Again, in violation of the 2014 Protocol Decision “On Certain Aspects of Freedom of Movement,” they may require Moldovan documents and exert psychological pressure. Even today, border guards of the Republic of Moldova prevent all owners of the Pridnestrovian driver’s license from crossing the Ukrainian and Romanian-Moldavian border. If the same steps are taken in Kuchurgan, letting up to a million vehicles annually, the lion's share of which belongs to the Pridnestrovians, you can imagine the consequences. In this sense, I want to emphasize that the Pridnestrovian side has various instruments for protecting its interests.
In addition, the close proximity of the law enforcement agencies of Pridnestrovie and Moldova outside the Security Zone, where it is strictly regulated, does not bode well.
The problem is in the center of attention of the PMR Foreign Ministry and is being raised in dialogue with both the Republic of Moldova and with Ukraine and the European Union. We will do everything possible to ensure that the Pridnestrovian opinion is taken into account.
What are the prospects for the development of bilateral relations between Pridnestrovie and other countries and international organizations, including participants in the negotiation process on the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian settlement?
The strategic direction for Pridnestrovie remains cooperation with the Russian Federation both within the framework of the negotiation process and on a wide range of bilateral topics. I am confident that in 2020 these ties will grow stronger and will fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of Russian citizens and compatriots living in the PMR. Under the leadership of the head of state, we will deal with the development of economic cooperation, including the access of Pridnestrovian goods to the Russian market and attracting Russian investments, expanding the circle of recipients of Russian citizenship, using maternity capital and medical insurance, and infrastructure projects.
We welcome the appointment of the new Ambassador of Ukraine to Moldova, Mark Shevchenko, an experienced diplomat. Ukraine has a wide range of opportunities in the Pridnestrovian direction, and systemic communication with Kiev and the Embassy is vital for us.
Cooperation with the OSCE, the EU and the United States will continue as usual, and we will work on intensifying direct bilateral contacts.
We pay special attention to cooperation with the UN, which for many years has been developing on a local basis and allows us to solve numerous pressing issues. It was in 2019 at the level of the official representative of Pridnestrovie in Moscow that we four times participated in the meetings of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, informing the world community about the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.
Pridnestrovie is open for cooperation with any interested international partners on the principles of mutual respect and mutual benefit.
In the outgoing year, Pridnestrovie was often visited by foreign delegations. Which of these visits would you call the most fruitful for our country?
I would call the visit of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of Slovakia are landmark. Miroslav Laichak is an outstanding diplomat and statesman who has already achieved significant heights, but clearly does not plan to dwell on them. His arrival was a real incentive for the formation of friendship and trustful relations between representatives of Slovakia and Pridnestrovie. I hope that Bratislava will continue implementing humanitarian projects in the republic even after the completion of its mandate as the Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE. Continuing the theme of the OSCE, one cannot fail to note the visit of Secretary General of the organization Thomas Greminger on September 19, which allowed for an interesting exchange of views on the entire spectrum of problems in the negotiation process.
Two June visits by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak and an August meeting with Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu became core ones from the point of view of strengthening the strategic Russian-Pridnestrovian partnership. Many of the accepted and planned positive decisions were laid precisely during the designated summer visits. I am sure that in this direction in 2020 we will also expect a lot of interesting and useful things.
Before the start of the Slovak chairmanship in the OSCE, there was the “civilized divorce” in the CSFR often mentioned in the media that wrote about Moldovan-Pridnestrovian relations. Next year, Albania will chair the OSCE. The Albanian Foreign Ministry played an important part in the recognition of Kosovo by a number of countries. Do you intend to remind the representatives of Tirana about the Kosovo precedent?
The Pridnestrovian side is looking forward to starting cooperation with representatives of Albania. We predict that some succession will continue along the lines of the OSCE. I will also be glad to continue cooperation with the head of the OSCE Mission to Moldova, Klaus Neukirch.
Of course, in our work it will be impossible to ignore the Kosovo precedent, and we will study all aspects related to it. The experience of resolving industry issues between Kosovo and Serbia, Kosovo and the international community are in interest. In particular, I would like to discuss Kosovo membership in the International Telecommunication Union, FIFA and UEFA, the recognition of Kosovo passports and license plates even in countries that do not officially recognize Kosovo statehood, the functioning of the Adem Jashari passenger airport without Kosovo membership in ICAO. The Kosovo experience can be a serious analytical and precedent contribution to the future settlement of relations between Pridnestrovie and Moldova.
