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 Russia’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 Chisinau’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 O’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 Moldova’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.

-- If you do not want to receive any more messages via NATODATA, please click here to leave this list.