MOLDOVA: Peace Plan Fails to Fit Russian Agenda

By Claudia Ciobanu Reprint | | Print |

Claudia Ciobanu

BUCHAREST, Nov 12 2007 (IPS) - Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin has been promoting what he calls a new plan for the resolution of the status of Transdniester. But the separatist government in Tiraspol and its strong ally, Moscow, are not willing to discuss it for the moment.

Transdniester, a self-proclaimed republic in the southeast of Moldova, inhabited by 700,000 people, has been trying to assert its independence since the fall of the Soviet Union. Moldova, a small nation of 4.3 million people between Ukraine and Romania, has never been willing to offer more than extended autonomy. A brief civil war between the two sides took place in 1992, and since then, Russian “peacekeeping troops” have been present in the region.

According to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a 55-member organisation of countries mostly but not only from Europe, Russia maintains 1,200 troops and 20,000 tonnes of former Soviet artillery in Transdniester. Until this year, Moscow has been offering direct financial aid to the separatist government in Tiraspol (the Transdniester capital).

The presence of Russian troops in Transdniester has long been an issue of contention between Moscow and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Moscow’s refusal to withdraw its troops and military equipment from territories in Moldova and Georgia is one of the main reasons why NATO has refused to ratify the version of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) proposed by Russia. The other important issue has been Russian President Vladimir Putin’s vehement opposition to the deployment of a U.S. missile defence shield in Central Europe.

The CFE Treaty, which came into force in 1992 after roughly ten years of negotiations between NATO and the former Warsaw Pact countries (the former European allies of the Soviet Union), sought to set limits on the deployment of conventional heavy weaponry (tanks, artillery, aircraft) between the Atlantic Ocean and the Urals, and called for regular mutual inspections. The Urals extend from Kazakhstan up to the Arctic through much of western Russia.

For Russia, however, this treaty represented an attempt to limit its capacity to exercise influence in the former Soviet space. For this reason, Moscow has signalled its intention to withdraw from the treaty and, instead, has been promoting a revised version of it, CFE II.

Voronin was re-elected in 2005 on a platform of making his country more self-reliant. Removing Russian military from Transdniester was central to his programme.

Voronin’s new peace initiative for Transdniester is centred on the following three provisions: humanitarian assistance from Moldova to Transdniester, complete demilitarisation of Moldova, including withdrawal of Russian troops, and recognition by Moldova of Russian property in the separatist region.

“The second proviso is clearly not acceptable for Moscow and Tiraspol, but Voronin left it there in order to force Putin to explain why he does not withdraw the Russian troops,” says Igor Botan, political analyst with the Association for Participative Democracy (ADEPT) in Moldovan capital Chisinau. On the other hand, Botan told IPS, the third condition is important because it forces a linkage between the Russians’ legalising their control over big business in Transdniester, which they already control de facto, and Moscow’s acceptance of mere increased autonomy, instead of independence, for Transdniester.

“Although lately we have been witnessing an intensification of meetings and initiatives regarding the resolution of the Transdniester conflict, it is unlikely we will see any real conclusions before the spring of 2008, when the waters are settled after the presidential elections in Russia,” says Andrei Popov, executive director of the Foreign Policy Association of Moldova (APE).

Igor Botan says that Russia and the Western powers, both of which are essential to any agreement on Transdniester, are first waiting to see how other issues are worked out – the OSCE summit in Madrid in December, a clarification of the status of Kosovo expected around Dec.11, and the progress of discussions over Iraq, Iran and conventional arms.

“Neither Russia, nor the United States and the other Western actors involved are concentrating on Transdniester at the moment,” Popov told IPS. “At most, the recent proposals made by Voronin could prepare the ground for an agreement to be reached next year, after the elections in Russia and before the 2009 parliamentary elections in Moldova.” Voronin’s recent rhetoric is largely meant to convince the Moldovan electorate that he is capable of fulfilling his promise.

Tiraspol’s reactions to the peace plan confirm analysts’ view that an agreement is improbable this year. Grigore Maracutsa, special representative of the Supreme Soviet (legislative of Transdniester) for interparliamentary relations, declared that he welcomed Voronin’s plan, but stressed that it would not be accepted unless Russia’s influence is spread from Transdniester to the whole of Moldova.

This line was confirmed a few days later by an official action of the Tiraspol government. Leaders of Transdniester met with their counterparts from Georgian separatist regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Abkhaz capital Suhumi Nov. 3-5. The leaders issued a common statement calling for international recognition of their independence, following the model of Kosovo.