Chisinau/Brussels, 12 August 2003: Contrary to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) vision of a ‘quick fix’ for the conflict in the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova, a sustainable agreement requires a comprehensive approach that cannot be implemented in just one or two years. The need is to have it in place and working, however, by 2007 when anticipated EU enlargement to Romania will mean Western Europe in effect will share a common border with the region notorious for smuggling and trafficking in arms, women and drugs.
A new report published today by the International Crisis Group, Moldova: No Quick Fix*, says that while the conflict is not as fuelled by ethnic hatred or as entrenched as others in former Soviet republics, continuance of the tainted status quo threatens stability in the wider region and, ultimately, the EU. A simultaneous democratisation process is needed on both sides of the Dniestr River.
ICG analyst Claus Neukirch said: “Joint benchmarks for legislation and its implementation in Moldova and Transdniestria should be worked out and reviewed regularly, with clear rewards for compliance and targeted punitive measures for non-compliance. For Moldova, this initially could mean not getting loans or access to EU markets. For Transdniestria, it would include further visa restrictions, the freezing of individual and enterprise assets and perhaps a ban on trade with companies not registered with the Moldovan authorities”.
The settlement process must simultaneously challenge the regime in Transdniestria, where civil society, free media and party pluralism are hindered, while making Moldova, where democratic standards, human rights and rule of law have deteriorated, more attractive. An important early step would be to encourage Russia to comply with its commitment to withdraw troops and ammunition remaining in Transdniestria since the Soviet Union’s collapse and their replacement by a joint EU/Russian peacekeeping force under an OSCE mandate.
ICG recommends an increase in EU, OSCE and IMF involvement in Moldova along with greater participation from neighbouring states, not least to help craft a unified customs system. Most importantly, however, the report analyses the flaws in the Kiev Document – the framework for a constitutional settlement proposed by the OSCE in 2002 – and the initiative by Moldovan President Voronin earlier in 2003. It demonstrates that the most promising diplomatic avenue is an asymmetric federal solution that gives Transdniestria control over its property and resources while accounting for historical, socio-economic, and demographic differences on the two banks of the Dniestr. However, as ICG Europe Program Director Nicholas Whyte said, “any settlement that merely cemented the Smirnov regime in place in Transdniestria would be unacceptable”.
