Vitaliy Ignatiev: "Status settlement needs unbiased, impartial mediation"

Vitaliy Ignatiev, spokesman for PMR's Foreign Ministry: "Unbiased, impartial mediation is needed for fruitful status settlement"

TIRASPOL (Tiraspol Times) - The way forward for status negotiations talks between Pridnestrovie and Moldova to bear fruit will - as a minimum - require the presence of truly unbiased, impartial mediators. And in this department, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, leaves a lot to be desired, says an government spokesman for the authorities in Tiraspol.

Foreign Ministry official Vitaliy Ignatiev expresses concern and regrets that the situation has deteriorated markedly with the arrival of newcomer Louis O'Neill as head of OSCE's Moldova mission. Coming from a background in the US State Department, O'Neill, like all of his predecessors in the post, is an American citizen.
With limited prior experience in conflict resolution, he has in his short time in the post made numerous public statements which some observers consider unfit for a mediator.
In this interview, the minority side in the talks, Pridnestrovie, complains that O'Neill is not giving them a fair shake.

Last week, Louis O'Neill submitted a report outlining his vision for the status settlement talks. Your comments?

" - At this point in time, no one has even bothered to show us the contents of the full report. However, some of what was discussed at the meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council can be gleaned from newspaper articles.

First of all, it is a matter of concern to us that certain participants are claiming, wrongfully, that the 'blocking of the negotiations' is caused by what they call 'the obstructionist position of Transnistria'. This is unacceptable and simply not true.

Remember, the last time negotiations took place was on February 28, 2006. On that date, the regularly scheduled meeting came to a halt when the official representative of Moldova abruptly and surprisingly abandoned the ongoing talks. Later that same week, we saw that this disruption in the 5+2 talks were used by Moldova as a pretext for their economic blockade against PMR.

And today, as I think it is clear for everyone to see, there is a consistent, permanent absence of political dialogue by the Republic of Moldova, spurred on by the active support from Mr O'Neill and certain observers to the negotiations. Moldova's position misleads the world community, and international organizations are unceremoniously being used as forums for badmouthing Pridnestrovie and our position in the talks."

How do you react to O'Neill's statement that the current peacekeeping format doesn't work?

" - Obviously, the facts themselves testify unquestionably to the opposite. If you measure a peacekeeping effort by its ability to keep the peace, and I think you should, then the current peacekeeping format works. No evidence of ineffectiveness of the existing peacekeeping operation on the banks of the Dniester river could be found, nor will anyone be able to.

Moreover, this uniquely successful peacekeeping operation could serve as a real example for similar missions in other parts of the world. This is especially useful for those conducting such operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, where terrible losses of dozens of innocent people have become daily occurrences.

We also fully share the position of Ukraine's President Yushchenko and Russia's President Putin, outlined in their Joint Statement of 15 December 2005, where they both ruled out any change in the format of the peacekeeping operation before the determination of a final settlement. We expect the authorized representatives of both these guarantor states to strictly abide by the official position of their countries' highest political leadership.

In this regard, we consider the OSCE official's unfounded rhetoric about "change in the peacekeeping format in accordance with international standards" to be without merit and unsubstantiated. Such a proposal is clearly not motivated by a desire for peace and stability in the region, but is an obvious attempt to sideline Russia's participation in the peace process, and the important contribution of Russia to relations in the region."

What about Moldova's complaint that "uncoordinated visits to Tiraspol" and "unauthorized activity of the consular officials" from Russia undermines its credibility as a mediator?

" - Visits of official Russian representatives to Pridnestrovie, while providing consular services to Russian citizens who live here, is first of all a bilateral matter which concerns Russia and Pridnestrovie. It is also completely natural and justified that Russia shows concern for the more than one hundred thousand Russian citizens who live in Pridnestrovie, who were born here, and grew up here while the country was still part of the Soviet Union.

No one prevents other states from also providing consular services to their citizens residing within our borders.

In our view, what ought to be of greater concern to the Republic of Moldova and its Western partners should be the unprecedented level of consular activity by Romania with respect to citizens of Moldova, which is at a much higher level, by an order of magnitude, than anything comparable to the activities of any other nation. It could easily be considered a threat to the state sovereignty of Moldova, undermining its status as a subject of international law."

According to O'Neill, OSCE considers "demilitarization and democratization" very important.

" - So do we. But first of all, it should be noted that a local head of mission, such as Louis O'Neill, does not formulate the official policy of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, where decisions are reached with the consensus of all participants. Furthermore, let us remember that the main purpose of the meeting of the permanent commission in this matter is to prepare proposals related to the outcome of a final and comprehensive settlement governing relations between Moldova and Pridnestrovie.

It is unacceptable to attempt to depart from the overriding and stated purpose of the settlement process in order to instead sidetrack the process and replace it with secondary issues which can easily be addressed within the framework of other forums.

We also feel obliged to point out that certain participants in the settlement process seem to have lost sight of this goal. For instance, to this date Pridnestrovie has not received the text of the proposals submitted in late 2006 by OSCE's Belgian chairmanship."

Is O'Neill harming the prospects for a settlement with his blunt statements?

" - Unfortunately, Mr O'Neill seems to forget that he must act as the local representative of an influential international organization. In this role, he is not an American diplomat, nor is he a member of Moldova's delegation, although by his words and deeds we could easily be forgiven for mistakenly assuming this to be the case.

Mr O'Neill's openly supportive statements of one of the sides to the conflict, to the detriment of the other, has nothing to do with the mediation or impartiality. Such unbecoming conduct, sadly, affects not only this particular status settlement process but also the credibility of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which over the years has been painstakingly achieved through the efforts of numerous diplomats, among them Mr O'Neill's predecessors in the post."

See also:
» OSCE offers to organize elections in Pridnestrovie
» OSCE cries fraud but did not observe vote