Officials, politicians, diplomats, representatives of international organizations and political analysts from different countries participate in the Second Annual International Conference “Achieving Transnistrian settlement in the context of Moldova’s Europeanization,” Info-Prim Neo reports. The reunion is organized by the Foreign Policy Association of Moldova (FPA), with the support of the British Embassy to Moldova. The first day was marked by the absence of top officials from Chisinau and Tiraspol. Both President Vladimir Voronin and Parliament President Marian Lupu missed the conference. Either the main negotiator of the Transnistrian area, Valery Litskay, declined the invitation at the last moment. The organizers believe the Moldovan officials may be pardoned for having the reason of negotiating on the new Cabinet. FPA president Ion Sturza has said any discussions on settling the Transnistrian conflict must be held openly, not behind the doors of some statesmen. Any solution, even the most correct, will not be accepted, unless it is debated on and understood by involved and non-involved political sides, and by the civil society. The key to the conflict is within Moldova and not in European capitals. Only by involving the civil society from both river-banks, with international support, Moldova has chances to solve this conflict. Unless the sides directly involved in the conflict talk, imposing a solution will not be possible. “The unhappy case of Kosovo, an example of imposition and humiliation, will not serve as reference to solve conflicts in the future, but a source of problems for Europe,” Ion Sturza said. Solving the Transnistrian conflict on the basis of European principles could better Moldova’s prospect of prosperity and economic development, said Kalman Mizsei, EU’s special representative for Moldova. Europeanizing Moldova means a consistent realization of the reforms assumed at signing the Moldova-EU Action Plan. The political topnotch must realize that by promoting qualitative reforms, Moldova will become more attractive for Transnistria. Efficient reforms in Moldova actually represent the strongest reintegration policy, the European officials emphasized. Reintegration deputy minister Ion Stavila has given an optimistic speech as to the solution of the Transnistrian conflict. According to him, the real perspectives are linked to different favorable prerequisites as the lack of ethnic or religious antagonisms; the lack of any enmity among ordinary citizens from the two banks; the firm political will of the present leadership. “Since 1992 there has not been a stronger and more visible will on behalf of the Moldovan establishment to peacefully solve the conflict,” Ion Stavila underlined. The official has remarked the President’s initiatives to build up the trust, the quasi-general national consensus on the settlement mirrored in several Parliamentary decisions and the 5+2 negotiating format – a mechanism believed by the deputy minister to be relatively good and that may be considered very efficient. The deputy chairman of the Russian Duma’s CIS Committee, Konstantin Zatulin, has regretted the authorities from Chisinau and Tiraspol thought not to attend the conference. “Probably this is because of the delicate nature of the matters discussed,” Zatulin remarked. The Russian parliamentarian has mentioned that the conference implies free discussions apart from speeches, and not all the politicians are ready to join them. Reiterating the Duma’s position worded in the declaration on Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, Konstantin Zatulin has said those three republics have more arguments to be recognized than the Kosovo province. Andrei Safonov, editor-in-chief of the publication “Novaya Gazeta” from Bender, has said Litskay’s absence can be explained through statements of the Transnistrian parliamentary official, Grigori Maracuta, that the would-be foreign minister from Tiraspol would have committed a series of mistakes lately, including during the recent hearings in the Low Chamber of the Russian Parliament. The journalist declines the idea that the solution of the conflict would much depend on external factors. He believes a possibly larger role is to be played by the relationships between the two river-banks both at the level of officials and of ordinary people.