27 May 2004 22:56
Moldovan, Dniester ministers discuss settlement
High-ranking Moldovan and breakaway Dniester region officials have appeared live on the same TV show simultaneously
for the first time since the 1992 armed conflict in the separatist region. The guests of one-hour programme entitled
"Ethnic forum", aired live by the state-owned Moldova One television on 26 May, were Moldovan Reintegration
Minister Vasile Sova, Dniester foreign minister Valeriy Litskay and the head of the OSCE mission in Moldova, William
Hill. Vasile Sova said that Chisinau's refusal to sign the Russian-proposed memorandum on Moldovan federalization
last year was not a step backwards. Valeriy Litskay said that 70 per cent of the Kozak memorandum provisions were put
forward by Moldova. William Hill dismissed the view that the Dniester conflict could be solved by some forces from the
outside. Both Sova and Litskay agreed that the international factor is playing an important role in a settlement of the
conflict. Referring to the possibility of deploying international peacekeeping forces in the security zone between
Moldova and the Dniester region, Valeriy Litskay said the Dniester region opposes the idea, but added that it is now
"being worked on". Valeriy Litskay also said that no significant progress will be achieved in Dniester
settlement talks until after the parliamentary election due in Moldova in early 2005. The following is an excerpt from
the programme broadcast by Moldovan TV on 26 May; subheadings have been inserted editorially:
[Presenter] Good evening, dear TV viewers. This is the Ethnic Forum programme. Ethnic Forum is a programme whose
guests are talking about interethnic harmony and balance of interests between the ethnic groups and territories of the
country. The guests on today's programme are the head of the OSCE mission in Moldova, William Hill, Moldovan
Reintegration Minister Vasile Sova and the special representative of the Dniester region to the Dniester settlement
talks, [Dniester foreign minister] Valeriy Litskay.
We have an audience in our studio today and my colleague the journalist Valeriu Dimidetchi is talking to them.
Valeriu, we have a special audience today.
[Dimidetchi] We have today in our studio journalists, experts and representatives of civil society from both banks of
the Dniester river. They are united by common concern over the fate of the land in which we live. By the way, they see
the future of this land differently.
[Presenter] We will also conduct an interactive telephone survey today. Dear TV viewers, you are asked to answer the
following question - will federalization be capable of unifying our country? Call us, we are interested in your opinion.
Now the first report. We would like to remind you what the principle of federalism is.
[Passage omitted: Video report about federal countries]
Mr Litskay, I have a question for you. We know what the position of the Dniester region at the talks is. But are
there other points of view in the Dniester region? Are there opinions that the Dniester problem can be solved by turning
the region into an autonomous region, by creating a confederation, or maybe somebody proposes to fight until the end and
stop only when the republic is recognized. Are there different opinions?
Various settlement options considered
[Litskay] Of course, like in any developed society, there are different political blueprints and they are present in
the Supreme Soviet [Dniester parliament], in the government and at the negotiations. The problem is that federalization
was a difficult choice for us to make and it was not accidental. It can be said that both Moldova and the Dniester
region have considered this blueprint during the long process of negotiations. It can be said that we all started our
careers in the Soviet Union, which was a strictly unitary state and which used, I would say, very tough measures to
solve conflicts. When the Soviet Union collapsed, it collapsed very quickly and chaotically, different forces and their
political leaders were left without instruments for solving conflicts. Everyone was doing what they were taught in the
Soviet Union - building a unitary state and using force to suppress opponents. When we understood that this would not
bring anything good, but only many victims, we started looking for a model for settlement.
We have started with the autonomy model. In fact, extensive experience has shown that the autonomy model was not
capable of solving any problems in the Dniester region, it does not meet our realities and it is not a guarantee for our
existence. Then we moved on to another model - federalism, different models of federalism. However, the long process of
negotiations has led to disappointment and pessimism. We cannot hide the fact that there are people who support full
independence [of the Dniester region]. They suggest that a referendum be held after which [the Dniester region will]
quit Moldova. So, there is a wide range of opinions. But the state point of view is aimed at creating a federation and
holding talks on this issue.
[Passage omitted: principles of federation]
[Vladimir Soloviev, state-run Moldpres news agency] I have a question for Mr Sova and Mr Litskay. When Russia
proposed the Kozak memorandum last year, both sides apparently agreed with its provisions which provided for the
creation of an asymmetric federation. However, the April round of negotiations in the five-side format [involving
Moldova, the Dniester region, Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE] revealed the sides' different approaches to the
construction of a future federation. I would like to ask what is the cause for such a step backwards?
Dniester wants federation of equal parts, Chisinau insists on different authority
[Litskay] I will answer this question because the position of the sides became clear today. Before the beginning of
the negotiations held by the Kozak commission, the sides already had their own documents and their positions.
The Dniester region insisted on a federation of two equal parts, while Moldova insisted on an asymmetric federation.
[Head of Russian government staff Dmitriy] Kozak came to us - it should be said that he is one of the most well-known
specialists and lawyers who is dealing with the establishment of constitutional relations between the centre and the
provinces in Russia and is vastly experienced - and suggested several options to us which we had not even considered
previously. In particular, he suggested to us the model of an asymmetric federation with a system of checks and balances
and internal guarantees. This is a very complex system, but it was developed and even initialled. If it had not been
initialled, then the sides would have had to step backwards to the positions they occupied before.
Today, the Dniester region presented a project of a federation of two equal parts and Moldova presented a version of
an asymmetric federation without the system of checks and balances. This is the main problem now.
[Sova] I would like to add something, if I may. In my opinion, the conclusion which can be drawn from the documents
which were worked out last year jointly with Mr Kozak is obvious. The variant of settling the Dniester conflict based on
the asymmetric federation is quite realistic. Of course, it is also important that the mediators - representatives of
the OSCE, Russia and Ukraine - put forward some proposals which existed and were developed, let's say, in parallel
to this process. Given the fact that we are working in a five-side format, probably there is a need to include the
proposals which were put forward by other mediators in the final document.
The result of the elaboration of the document which Chisinau submitted at the request of the mediators last February
is the fact that we tried to take into consideration the provisions which were in the Kozak memorandum, as well the
mediators' proposals, so that the balance of interests, a balance which would suit all the participants in this
project, is preserved. Given all this, given these two documents, we worked out the document which we have proposed for
further negotiations.
[Presenter] So can it be said that the work carried out on the Kozak memorandum was not useless and the sides have
found some new approaches? The question was about a step backwards. Can one speak about a step backwards?
[Sova] As concerns Chisinau's position, and, as far as I know, the opinion of mediators on the project that we
put forward, this is not a step backwards.
This is an attempt to improve the document which could be approved by civil society and by participants in the
negotiations. I would like to repeat that the political decision of the country's authorities to examine the idea
on the basis of an asymmetric federation is the maximum compromise that Moldova is ready to offer to the participants in
the negotiations and to the people of our country in order to break the current deadlock in the negotiations and to
reach a final settlement of the Dniester problem and to restore the country's territorial integrity.
[Presenter] Mr Hill, we know the OSCE's position on the Kozak memorandum. It has been expressed and we know that
there was a negative stance towards it. Meanwhile, how do you assess today the position of the sides at the
negotiations? At what stage are they? When was the position more advanced - before the memorandum or now?
[Hill] I would say that the situation is more complicated. The history of the memorandum and after the memorandum
made the relations between the sides more complicated and a short period of time - I hope it is short - was necessary
for rebuilding and resuming the negotiating process. Now both sides support a certain type of federation or federal
state, but there are different positions on some key issues of state-building, delimitation of powers and others. These
differences can be overcome, but they are essential and serious. At the current stage, the sides have started again to
examine these serious issues, therefore I expect some progress if the talks continue. But this will not be a easy thing
to achieve.
[Passage omitted: comments by journalists and deputies]
Russian memorandum based on Moldova's proposals
[Litskay] I liked very much the comment by [Moldovan MP Mihai] Petrache who said that asymmetric federation models do
not exist anywhere else in the world.
At the same time, interviews given by Moldovan leaders make it clear that 70 per cent of the Kozak memorandum
proposals had been put forward by Moldova. In addition, there are no asymmetric federations in the world, but Moldova
defends precisely this model. The world has seen only one federation of this kind, Czechoslovakia, which collapsed as
soon as the first historical opportunity emerged. We did not put forward [the notion of an] asymmetric federation, we
accepted it as a daring and necessary compromise, and if there is a possibility to give it up, then we will do so.
[Passage omitted: Video report about Dniester settlement negotiations over the last 10 years]
[Andrei Safonov] I would like to ask the ministers a question. What do you think should be Chisinau's and
[Dniester capital] Tiraspol's prerogatives? Maybe this will help us understand the positions of the sides as a
whole and the essence of differences. Thank you.
[Litskay] We are working out a legal document and those who read it often do not understand what it means. Probably
it is necessary to meet more often and clarify this. We have a problem with the right of veto. What kind of right is
this and why do we need it? Why are politicians and lawyers spend so much time discussing it? This is a question of
power. Will power in this country belong to Chisinau only or will Tiraspol have a way of blocking decisions? This is
what the right of veto is. Of course, we will defend our right to share power rather than to transmit it all to the
federal centre in Chisinau.
The second question is that of distribution of competence. The most important issue during the distribution of
competence is control over infrastructure. Who will control transport, communications, the financial system, and so on?
Today the form of control number one is the control over infrastructure. If all this control goes to Chisinau, then it
receives excessive economic power. This is the key issue - control over the economy and the legislative and executive
power in the form of veto.
[Sova] Of course, today we are speaking about federalization as a form of settling the issue, but federalization is
just a word. Obviously, the main part of this process is the distribution of powers and mapping out the area [of
influence] of the federal centre and of the parts of the federation. Here we can underline many positive aspects from
different models of federation, in which the functions of the federal centre are very clearly set. The federal centre is
given authority to not only control some economic issues, infrastructure, etc. I think that the most important thing is
to set a legal framework which could be the foundation for creating the legislation of our country, which would clearly
guarantee the functional observance of these legal norms. If we create collisions, and if laws adopted in the centre are
not implemented throughout the country, this model will not work, and there will always be conflicts. To avoid this, we
suggest that a system of balances and checks be specified which were presented previously in the Kozak memorandum, so
that this country is stable and the system of distribution of powers is clear and understandable, and there are no
permanent collisions between the federal centre and parts of the federation.
Foreign factor crucial, but not all-important
[Angela Masiutina, the chairwoman of the Association of Student Journalists of Moldova] I have a question for all the
three quests. Many politicians say that the fate of the Dniester problem if being decided abroad. Is this true?
[Hill] The conflict is not being solved and will not be solved abroad. Someone can assist or hinder [a settlement of]
the issue but it will not be solved without an agreement between the sides. This is at least my personal point of
view.
[Sova] Maybe we will not be rightly understood if we say that such a vector does not exist. Of course, such an
element exists and it exists to a certain extent as concerns some agreements of principle. This is on the one hand. On
the other hand, it is especially present in the area of determination of the system of guarantees. The situation is such
that [chances track] We have seen the situation with the Kozak memorandum - an unbalanced system of guarantees allows us
to speak about a certain unstable process of settlement. Therefore, we say that it is probably necessary to listen to
the point of view according to which a larger international presence and guarantees should allow preserving political
agreements which will be achieved. Here, of course, the international factor is important. There is another very
important aspect of international support - the post-conflict social and economic settlement. Without appropriate
international support and without a programme for the post-conflict settlement, which will tell citizens what they will
see after crossing this threshold [changes track] Every citizen will take notice of these documents then they will
clearly understand in what country they will live and what they will be guaranteed.
[Litskay] Of course, there is a foreign factor, and in our case it is very clearly structured. We have the guarantor
states, Russia and Ukraine, we have an international monitor, the OSCE, and of course there is, albeit vaguely, the
influence of superpowers - the USA and the European Union. Together, they examine and decide the Dniester conflict at
their levels. One of the reasons why the conflict has not been settled over such a long period of time is the fact that
their spheres of influence in the region have not been marked out clearly. They are still holding talks and are trying
to find their balance here.
Second, when we speak about international involvement, we all remember Yugoslavia and such tough forms as military
aggression, occupation and so on and so forth. Of course, we are taking this factor into consideration, and we ask all
partners with which we have to deal - the European Union, Germany, the USA - the following question: will these methods
be used against us or not? Of course, this question concerns not only the minister, but people as well. Fortunately, our
society - Moldova and the Dniester region - are mature enough to stop the conflict at a very early stage. As a result,
over the last five years all official documents have mentioned the Dniester issue or the Dniester problem rather than a
Dniester conflict. Problems are solved using methods which are completely different to a military aggression. Therefore,
we are told that there will be political and diplomatic work, but there will be no form of hard pressure. [We are told,]
You must decide your fate yourself, while we will provide foreign guarantees.
[Vitali Condratchi, the Chisinau bureau of Radio Free Europe] The Kozak memorandum stipulated that Russia will
preserve its military presence in Moldova, while the West and the OSCE started speaking about a multinational military
operation. I would like to ask the Chisinau and Tiraspol representatives to comment on this idea and on the need for a
peacekeeping operation, given the fact that no bullets were shot along the Dniester river after 1992.
[Passage omitted: comments by presenter]
Military action ruled out
[Litskay] We have a very tough attitude towards this issue. In 1992, when shots were fired, no international forces,
nobody was in a hurry to come, although their involvement would have been welcome then. After the Russians have carried
out a good peacekeeping operation, and are still continuing it, other candidates to participate in a safe walk along the
Dniester river appeared. To have a swim, as they say. Nobody was in a hurry to have a dip in the Dniester river in
1992.
Second, there is no war now. The notion of military operation cannot be applied to us any more. We have a completely
different situation now and we need forces which can guarantee stability. They should have a completely different
mandate and functions. It turned out that the international community is not ready to give us an answer about what sort
of forces can guarantee stability. What will be their functions and mandate? This is a new phenomenon to us.
And lastly, the multinational operation has been going on here for many years, only we did not speak about this. At
the first stage, these were only Russian forces, they were later joined by Ukrainian and OSCE observers. There is a
certain kind of cooperation between them and, thank God, we have had no conflicts with the multinational forces. We are
now at the stage of working on this idea. We can neither reject it in principle nor agree to it, because there is
nothing to agree to. But if we are talking about military occupation by NATO, then we are categorically against it.
[Sova] I would not be so categorical. We are not talking about any kind of occupation. I would like to stress the
following. When we are speaking about guarantees, in our opinion this is a whole system of guarantees and maybe the
military part should be present in this system for a certain period of time. During this transition period, of course
such a contingent of forces is needed to provide stability. We believe that an international mandate, in particular an
OSCE mandate, for an operation of this kind will provide guarantees that all society and all citizens of this country
will feel confident that unilateral priorities will become a thing of the past.
[Passage omitted: more in the same vein]
I think that in this situation more attention should probably be paid to the institutions of military and civil
observers which in some countries are playing a more efficient role than the presence of some military forces. Talks are
being held and these elements are being discussed with the mediators and other international institutions. We have
recently held some talks, and I am sure that we will solve the conflict in a way which will suit all the sides and will
provide security and stability in the region.
[Passage omitted: Hill says it is necessary to demilitarize the region]
Independence question to be answered by the people
[Vlaimir Thoric, the Association of Student Journalists of Moldova] I have a question for all the guests. Why
isn't the independence of the Dniester region recognized?
[Sova] I think that before asking such questions, it is necessary to ask people first - are they ready to follow this
path? I think that the overwhelming majority of the people on both banks of the Dniester river know the answer to this
question. Therefore, when we speak about solving the problem and reaching a compromise, our efforts should probably be
directed towards developing a dialogue and consolidating measures of trust. A question like this is inappropriate.
[Litskay] This is one of the most painful issues, and first I should agree with my colleague that this issue must be
decided by the people. Sooner or later, a referendum on this issue will be called, and sooner or later we will find out
the people's clear and firm position, and we will develop our relations based on it.
There can even emerge a paradox like that in Cyprus, when separatists will vote for unity, while the metropolis will
be against it. This can also happen. I regard this as a joke.
The question of independence does not lie in the fact whether we want it or not. We may want it, but as diplomats we
ask the neighbouring countries - will they recognize us or not? We receive one answer - no, you cannot declare
independence, because you will not be recognized. Why not? There are two reasons.
First, the recognition of your independence may upset the existing fragile balance of forces in Southeast Europe. It
will destroy this balance, which now exists in the form of a frozen conflict.
Second, the recognition of your independence will trigger a domino effect - other separatist regimes or unrecognized
countries will immediately start demanding independence and international recognition, too. You will set a bad example.
Independence is not being declared because of these reasons. We have a firm opinion that we will not be recognized, and
we are asked to build up our relations within the frameworks of common borders. This is what we are trying to do, in
particular taking into consideration the opinion of the international community.
[Passage omitted: Hill believes the problem can be solved without proclaiming Dniester region's
independence]
[Litskay] Using the experience that we gained during the elaboration of the Kozak memorandum, I can say that we can
move forward rather quickly and work out a political document. This is an optimistic approach. We can develop a
political document. But, unfortunately, I must say that a political document also needs some mechanism of
implementation, which is impossible to achieve given the electoral campaign in Moldova [parliamentary elections are due
in early 2005]. We must admit that a political document does not stand any chance of being implemented during the
electoral campaign in Moldova, because it requires the constitution and the legislation to be amended, which is
obviously impossible in a year before an election. The memorandum cost us about 18 months in wasted time. I believe that
progress can be achieved. We were two hours away from signing the memorandum. I can say that we can work, but now work
will not progress as quickly [as before the rejection of the memorandum in November 2003].
[Passage omitted: comments by presenters, journalists]
[Moldova One TV] |
RUSSIA IN FACTS
