Vitalie Andriescu: "Settlement talks should be restarted with a fresh slate"

Moldovan political analyst Vitalie Andriescu: "Moldova has to stop considering Transnistria its enemy"

CHISINAU (Tiraspol Times) - From Chisinau, the Moldovan political analyst Vitalie Andriescu explains in this interview that there is no hope of reaching an understanding between Moldova and Pridnestrovie as long as the two sides maintain their current antagonistic positions.

Personally, Andriescu favors a joint state made up of the two sides within the borders of the former MSSR, internationally (but wrongly, says Tiraspol) recognized as the current borders of the Republic of Moldova. But that won't happen, he says, as long as Moldova considers Pridnestrovie its enemy. There is no hope of reaching a mutually agreeable status settlement solution as long as both sides cling to past arguments. Instead, it is now time to turn a fresh page, look to the future, and kick-start a round of new talks without the baggage of the past.

Why do you say that a whole new premise is needed?

" - At this point in time, a successful outcome to a negotiated solution in the conflict between Moldova and Transnistria requires that everyone starts from scratch.

Why do I believe that the solution to the has to start from scratch? Because past events between the sides up till now has many, many more negative than positive experiences. [What was said and done in the past has bound the hands of everyone], and caused increasing pressure both within Moldova and Transnistria. Therefore, it must be reset: Restart with a fresh slate.

Today, public opinion both Moldova and Transnistria want to move past the current status uncertainty. But, most regrettably, we must point out that today no work has been done either in Moldova or in Transnistria towards unification. It is therefore not surprising that, as shown by published opinion polls, the majority of citizens on both sides of the Dniester river no longer believe that unification of the country is a real or realistic prospect at this point in time. And until there is a change in the collective consciousness within Moldova and within Transnistria, there is little hope that status settlement talks can succeed.

Unless grassroots civic society shows a strong desire to integrate, the political leadership of both Moldova and Transnistria will continue their endless, hopeless practice of mutual accusations and recriminations, instead of seeking rapprochement and constructive solutions."

How are your comments received in Moldova? And in Pridnestrovie (which you call Transnistria)?

" - Very often, I have personally spoken out on this issue in many different venues. Speaking here in Chisinau, where I live, I try to convince the Moldovan authorities that they need to seriously listen to the Transnistrian side as well.

I have also given speeches and interviews in Tiraspol, where I tell officials and residents that if they join with Moldova, they will be better off. For this reason alone, I tell them, they must not end the status settlement negotiations.

But there is a lot of mutual suspicion and bad blood between the two sides. In Chisinau, the radicals label me as an "agent of Tiraspol" and in Tiraspol, I am seen as "the hand of Chisinau". Even so, I am able to find a forum for these views in both places. I live a normal life in Chisinau, and I have been able to visit Tiraspol and give interviews to Transnistria's two leading TV stations.

This leads me to believe that somewhere at a sub-conscious level, there are many in Chisinau and Tiraspol who understand and maybe even accept my views, even if they are not yet ready to say so in public. But they do understand that sooner or later they will have to sit down together at the negotiating table and hammer things out. Somehow, they need to reach an agreement and it can only happen when both sides seek mutual compromises. A one-sided solution is no solution at all. [Tiraspol was willing to accept 2003's Kozak Memorandum for a joint state, but Moldova rejected it].

If the two sides merge, it must be on conditions which are satisfactory to both parties, and to the publics of Moldova and Transnistria. Please understand that on both sides of the river there are a lot of people who are sceptical about the viability of a joint state, but despite this I remain a strong supporter of the concept."

What, in your view, are the major stumbling blocks preventing progress towards unification?

" - First of all, it is clear that the leadership of Moldova and the leadership of Transnistria are not at all ready yet for a frank and open dialogue. This problem has numerous roots, based on both objective and subjective factors. But it remains the most serious obstacle for the resumption of dialogue, let alone finding a comprehensive solution to the final status of Transnistria vis-a-vis Moldova.

Second, a series of laws and decisions made by the parliaments of Moldova and Transnistria are also blocking dialogue. There is no doubt that the extremely "neutered" autonomous status, which the Moldovan Parliament envisioned for Transnistria, can never be accepted by anyone in Transnistria. In a similar vein, the fact that the Parliament of Transnistria recently decided to waive any form of merger with Moldova, including even on a confederal basis, also poses an insurmountable barrier to the negotiation process. Now, if neither sides want to back down from these hardline positions, the debate on a common state simply can not happen. To all of this, you have to also factor in the results of the latest referendum in Transnistria, and it becomes clear that to solve this long-standing problem is quite a Gordian knot. There is no easy fix.

Thirdly, hardly anyone in Moldova or Transnistria are actively preparing public opinion for integration. Transnistria actively indoctrinates against the process, and the Republic of Moldova officially keeps criticizing Transnistria and has said that already-privatized Transnistrian property can be requisitioned after a merger. None of this, of course, contributes to confidence building between Chisinau and Tiraspol."

What can and should be done in the current situation today?

" - Different parties, and even outsiders to the process, can and should take different steps that, jointly, will improve the climate and create the possibility for a viable status settlement solution.

Moldova must stop its excessive, abusive, in many cases, unfair attacks on Transnistria, always seeing it as the enemy. Moldova must appeal to the European Union and to the United States to lift the travel ban on Transnistria's political leaders, imposed at the request of Moldova. Moldova must help develop autonomy within Gagauzia, to show that those who become part of a common state with Moldova are actually gaining, not losing, from the process. At the same time, Moldova needs to show to Transnistria that it is an attractive country to join. How? First of all, improving living standards within Moldova itself, and making an effort to respect human rights. This is a problem in Moldova today, and a huge minus which has weakened Moldova's hand in the negotiating process. Until Moldova gets its act together, it is understandable that Transnistria will view any offer of a joint state with substantial resistance and justified skepticism.

Transnistria also has to change. Transnistria must stop constantly portraying Moldova as the enemy. It should not hamper the expansion of commercial ties with Moldova. Transnistria should foster closer ties between political parties and humanitarian organizations between both sides. Transnistria should participate in the negotiating process with an open mind, assume good faith and not place any riders or preconditions on its participation.

Russia, as the largest country in the region, can take the initiative in developing and implementing a plan of international economic assistance for a united Moldova, similar to what was known in the post-war period as the Marshall Plan. This was proposed by Moldovan MP Dmitry Braghis during his participation in a forum in London in 2006 which dealt with the Transnistria settlement process. [Yevgeny Shevchuk, Transnistrian opposition leader, was invited to the forum but could not participate because of EU travel restrictions]. It would entail an investment of 3 to 4 billion dollars, and frankly, this is not such a huge financial burden if shouldered jointly by the international community. It would, however, create a positive international precedent which can be applied as a solution to other frozen conflicts and divided territories on the post-Soviet space or elsewhere. It will help stabilize the situation, and that alone will be a benefit for Europe, Russia and the United States."