[0]

Valeri Litskai, Pridnestrovie's Minister of Foreign Affairs (Photo: Kommersant)

TIRASPOL (Tiraspol Times) - Being the foreign minister of an unrecognized country may seem like the last job that someone would want to take. But for Valeri Litskai, the top man in Pridnestrovie's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it is a challenge. As the new and emerging country is moving towards international recognition, it hopes to find its proper place as a responsible neighbor and partner in the community of nations.

Oleg Elkov, the editor-in-chief of Pridnestrovie's Olvia Press, interviewed Pridnestrovie's Minister of Foreign Affairs PMR, Valeri Litskai. Here are his answers, reprinted and translated by Tiraspol Times with permission.

Two years ago, many in Pridnestrovie wanted to hold a referendum. But the Foreign Ministry said that it was not the right time for that. What has changed since then?

" - Worldwide, the holding of a referendum has become the chief method for democratic conflict resolution. In Europe, we have seen it several times in the Balkans, and referenda have also been used in Cyprus and in East Timor. Now, one is planned for Southern Sudan. As a whole, in international law it is now a fact that only a referendum is the legal and normal method of solving a conflict situation."

In the past, Pridnestrovie have held other referenda. When the republic was founded, in 1990, the people already made their choice: They voted in favor of independent, sovereign statehood. In what way is this referendum different?

" - The referendas in 1990 and 1991 concerned the formation of our state, an internal matter on how we should organize our own government. Now the state has matured, it is developed, and we meet the requirements for statehood. This means that it is time for us to decide the foreign policy of our young state. And we would want this to be based on the will of the people, just as we turned to them in the early 1990s for the answers to these vitally important questions."

How do you explain the questions of the 17 September referendum?

" - There is no question of independence. We are already independent, but the question now stands: in what direction should we develop our future relations on the basis of our independence? Certainly, with respect to Russia it would be easy to just ask "are you ready to become part of the Russian Federation?" but we can't ask that, because the entry of Pridnestrovie into the Russian Federation is impossible. At the same time, we can of course choose to develop closer connections and cooperation with Russia, step by step in economic, cultural, informational, judicial and other fields. This is what we mean by 'free association'. It is now necessary to make the fundamental decision: Do we want to seek closer cooperation in this way or not; on the basis of our curent independence?"

And the second question, about relations with Moldova?

" - First of all, let me say for the record that among all the unrecognized countries who have territorial disputes with their metropolitan states, no one else has spent as much time and effort as we have in the past to negotiate and try to seek some sort of mutual understanding and aggreement with our neighbor. We, more than anyone else, have sought to construct a workable and mutually agreeable format for a common state and different models have been proposed at various times in the past - federation, confederation, and several other options. But over time, life has shown us that our attempts in good faith to find a workable compromise is perceived by the other side as a sign of weakness. Every time we suggest a compromise, they simply harden their positions even more. Last year, for instance, Moldova passed a law which established the status of Pridnestrovie - which they call their "left bank" - all by themselves, without any sort of consultations with us. Chisinau unilaterally decided our status and our form of government. Now they say: "We will negotiate only on this basis, and there are simply no other questions to discuss." This is why the referendum is so important. Someone needs to consult the opinion of the people who actually live here, and by doing so, it gives us a solid and clear mandate from which to negotiate our relations with the Republic of Moldova, based on the will of the people."

Western politicians declare that they will not recognize Tiraspol's referendum. What is your comment?

" - According to international law, no foreign politician or country can take it upon itself to legislate on whether Pridnestrovie is "allowed" or not to hold a referendum. It is strictly an internal affair. It is not up to external forces whether they want to recognize or not recognize it, they simply don't have that faculty. International recognition of referenda have legal merit only when they are held in colonial states or under the aegis of the United Nations in areas under its control (such as Kosovo, ed)."

Along with not recognizing the referendum, some countries also won't be sending election observers.

" - That is a hypocritical position and it speaks badly of these countries' supposed commitment to democracy. But something else to keep in mind is that most Western states themselves, starting with the United States, do not allow international observers to oversee their elections. They base this on the legal principle that the will of the people is supreme and that it does not need observers in order to be validated. The sovereign will of the people, the argument goes, is enough. But when it comes to foreign policy then these same countries are quick to change their tune and pass judgment on others - yes or no, good or bad."

Why the double standards from people who ought to be staunch defenders of democracy?

" - They don't like that the people of Pridnestrovie, by themselves, have taken the freedom to organize a referendum without their permission. But this permission is not theirs to give. Some of the politicians in the West, all by itself, have given themselves the role of democracy experts and arbiters. They, or so they would like to think, hold the key to all decisions on democracy and democratic procedures. Their position is that if it is not sanctioned by them, then it can not be democratic. Their thinking is along the lines of: "We prescribe the medicine you must take, to one country, we give a referendum, and to another, we don't and you must make do without one". And then, when the people of Pridnestrovie all by itself decides to organize a referendum, these outside "democracy experts" don't like it: "No, you can't take the method out of our hands. The method, the refendum, is good, but we must have a monopoly on organizing it. And if we didn't give you permission to hold a referendum, then it is no good and we won't recognize it." In my opinion, these are hollow words. There can be no monopoly on the right to grant or hold a referendum. Policians can talk themselves blue in the face if they want, but this does not change the basic fact that the method of holding a referendum is based on the will of the people and their democratic right to choose their own future. It is not based on the opinions of external supporters or opponents."