For immediate release
24
October 2006
PRESS COMMUNIQUE - COMMUNIQUE PRESSE
- THE INTERNAL SITUATION, AS MUCH AS TRANSDNISTRIA,
- SLOWS MOLDOVAÂ’S EURO-ATLANTIC INTEGRATION
Political divisions and socio-economic problems as much as the
dispute with the breakaway region of Transdnistria are factors hampering
MoldovaÂ’s path towards further integration into Euro-Atlantic
institutions. This was the general conclusion of the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly Rose-Roth seminar held in Chisinau from 19-21 October, in
cooperation with the parliament of Moldova. Some 50 participants -
including legislators from NATO and partner countries, Moldovan cabinet
members, and representatives from NATO, EU, OSCE and local NGOs -
gathered to discuss the countryÂ’s uncertain future on the eve of
RomaniaÂ’s EU accession, which will bring Moldova to the UnionÂ’s border on
January 1st, 2007.
Although declaring that its European aspirations are “irreversible”, the
Moldovan political class remains undecided and divided between making a
clear commitment to Euro-Atlantic integration and maintaining its
traditional ties with Moscow. This is a consequence of the history of the
Moldovan people, as Catherine Durandin of the Paris Institut des
Relations Internationales et Stratégiques explained in her keynote
speech, divided for two centuries between Romanian and Russian
identities. But today, she stressed, “they have the right to be
Moldovans” and benefit from the “plurality” of their society.
Unfortunately, the current regional situation is perpetuating Moldovan
ambiguity. As RussiaÂ’s ban of imports of agricultural productswine in
particularhas put severe pressure on the Moldovan economy, politicians
are worried about further problems with Moscow; problems which could also
be derived from ChisinauÂ’s energy dependence. In other words, as one
participant put it, Moldovan leaders have chosen to integrate into the EU
“by default” rather than following a clear conviction.
With regard to Transdnistria, Moldovan officials insisted that the
settlement of the separatist dispute should be based on the
“democratization, de-militarization, and de-criminalisation” of the
region, and run parallel to a negotiated process that would ultimately
grant it a significant degree of autonomy within Moldova. Many
participants emphasized the danger of a “criminal economy” in
Transdnistria based on all sorts of illegal trafficking. The EU
Border Assistance Mission (EUBAM) ,launched in 2005, has helped curb
smuggling but additional efforts are required from the EU, as well as
from Moldova and Ukraine. The need to strengthen and extend EUBAM has
also been advocated by many.
Louis OÂ’Neill, Head of the OSCE Mission to Moldova, and Adriaan
Jacobovits De Szeged, EU Special Representative to Moldova, agreed that
the existence of a “non-democratic entity” in Europe was “not
acceptable”, but were confident that negotiations in the 5+2 formula
(Moldova, Transdnistria, Russia, Ukraine, OSCE, joined by the EU and the
United States as observers) offered the best chance for a solution.
However, they insisted that the main objective of the international
community was to facilitate the contacts between Chisinau and Tiraspol
through confidence building measures. International officials also
encouraged Moldova to find more opportunities to engage with
Transdnistria, which does not represent a “unified block”: strengthening
economic links and involving civil society, in this sense, could play a
fundamental role in bringing the two sides closer together.
The role of Russia, which maintains “peacekeeping” troops in
Transdnistria, in propping up the separatist entity was frequently evoked
during the debates. International community representatives indicated
that substituting Russian troops with a “multinational stabilization
mission” could improve the situation, but no specific plans exist to this
end. In addition, the recent dispute between Russia and Georgia has done
nothing to ease the negotiations over Transdnistria. Some participants,
however, warned against over-emphasizing parallels with other separatist
conflicts, such as Abkhazia or South Ossetia. In fact, a clear and
positive difference remains in the case of Transdnistria: all
international actors agree that the final goal of the 5+2 negotiations is
to preserve the territorial integrity of Moldova. This was confirmed
during the talks held in Odessa in the run up to the seminar.
Nevertheless, participants were reminded that the Russian Duma
approved a statement which backed the result of the separatist referendum
held in Transdnistria in September 2006 but which had not been
recognised by any other government or international body.
Many participants agreed that the Transdnistrian question was intimately
related to MoldovaÂ’s internal political and economic problems. Some
insisted, however, that Chisinau could also take initiatives to
"de-link" its internal development from that of Transdnistria.
The government could make the country “more attractive” to businesses and
young people on the eastern side of the Dniestr river, as well as to the
EU and international investors. This would require additional efforts in
implementing the reforms encouraged by the EU-Moldova Action Plan. In
particular, Moldovan society remains plagued by corruption, a fragile
economy and a mainstream media all too deferential to the leading
Communist party. In addition, although granted an Individual Partnership
Plan (IPAP) by NATO, Chisinau seems to be implementing certain
fundamental reforms in the defence sector at a rather slow pace. As a
further demonstration of the political ambiguity within the country,
politicians also remain divided about the neutrality clause currently
enshrined in the Moldovan constitution.
Finally, the elusivenenature of the role of the international community,
and particularly the EU, was emphasised. Nicholas Whyte of the
International Crisis Group highlighted the UnionÂ’s lack of strategic
vision regarding its relations with neighbouring countries. Although this
may be explained by the current EU “enlargement fatigue”, it is
unacceptable in the medium-to-long term and any offer made to new
countries must be rather clearer than the ambiguous “make them Europeans,
but not yet”. With regard to Moldova, despite the success of EUBAM and an
increased attention to the challenges faced by the country, Whyte called
for “more realism” on both sides in implementing the European
Neighbourhood Policy, notably in the issues relating to the visa
regime, to trade and education. .
For further information, please
contact
e-mail:
Press@nato-pa.int
NATO Parliamentary Assembly
Place du Petit Sablon 3, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
Tél: (32) 2 513 28 65 | Fax: (32) 2 514 18 47 |
website: http://
www.nato-pa.int
|
Background
The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, founded in 1955 with a
Brussels-based secretariat,
brings together 248national parliamentarians from the 26 NATO countries.
In addition, 13 associate delegations from Central and Eastern Europe,
Ukraine and Russia;
4Mediterranean Associate delegations: Morocco, algeria, Jordan,
Israel
and 8 Parliamentary Observer delegations participate in Assembly
activities and meetings.