[Info-Prim Neo interview with Kalman Mizsei, former European Union Special Representative to Moldova] [- Your Excellency, this year, 2011, several unusual developments occurred in the Transnistrian conflict settlement. Some experts asked by the agency described them as important for the future fate of the settlement process, while others, on the contrary, described them as having little significance. How would you characterize 2011 in terms of opportunities to overcome the Transnistrian problem, perhaps compared to other years?] - The diplomatic process in a situation like the Transnistrian settlement, where a relative equilibrium among the interested parties keeps the situation relatively unchanged, is necessarily slow and cumulative. Having said that, 2011 brought important changes in the conditions of the process, of which one of the most important is of course the unfinished process of the election of the Transnistrian leader at the end of the year. The financial and economic crisis in Europe also plays some role in the way of changing expectations of the different parties. [- Let us examine two central events that occurred in the discussed area towards the end of the year to see what their real significance is and what benefits, or maybe disadvantages, they can bring. The first of them was the resumption of the formal 5 +2 talks.] - Over the years the European Union and the United States have stressed the importance to renew the negotiations in the official format of 5+2. The reason for this is that this is the only transparent format that brings together all the interests around the conflict in an honest manner. Therefore its renewal is a plus. It will not bring any automatic breakthrough particularly that in one area improvement clearly has slowed. It is the area of confidence building. In 2010 we opened the passenger railway traffic and prepared the ground for the even more important renewal of the commercial railway traffic. In the Autumn of 2010 a Moldovan government decree was adopted to regulate this but unfortunately up to now, in more than one year it did not come into effect and, consequently, this important segment of confidence building that would have contributed to a slow economic rapprochement and integration, has not happened yet. The European Union needs to intensify its effort and influence on this process. Here I see a relative step back, compared to the previous years. I continue to be firmly convinced that confidence building between Chisinau and Tiraspol is an absolute key to resolution of the conflict. [ - What difference does it make for the settlement if leader Igor Smirnov, known for his uncompromising position during more than 20 years of conflict, will be replaced in the separatist regime, following the so-called "presidential elections" in the region?] - The elections in Transnistria, though not internationally recognized, have happened in the first round in a remarkably free atmosphere. A geopolitical event played here a big role, namely that Russia was squeezing Smirnov to abandon his reelection ambitions whereas he did not yield and tried to seek democratic legitimacy by organizing a free election. As a result he lost power and now Shevchuk and Kaminski compete. Independent international – Western – observers described the voting as remarkably free of pressure and only smaller irregularities were observed – the kind of things that happen even in some new EU member states. I did not hear any unofficial observer reporting Smirnov cheating, by the way. I think this is a remarkable moment in the Transnistrian region and people who really care about democracy – and not only use it as a tactical tool – should take positive note. I hope that the second round of the elections will also be freely contested. For me what is important is this and I am saying let the people choose. This is how true democrats should think everywhere. Would this improve the prospects of conflict settlement? A complex question. Behind this question lays an assumption that Smirnov was the only obstacle of the settlement. This assumption is both gross simplification and unjust. I think Smirnov was a very difficult partner to negotiate with but by no means was he the only reason of lack of progress. All partners needed to do more and do differently in order to advance, including us in Europe and also our Moldovan friends. The Russians followed a predictable path of their perceived interests and it was and is up to us and the Moldovans to face this challenge and also to factor in the interests of the Transnistrians. This is a complex diplomatic process, mirroring complex sets of interests in which Smirnov is only one difficult player. [ - Based on the situation up to this point around the conflict, where can you expect that its resolution and decisive impulses; when do you think we can expect tangible results?] - People often say in a simplifying manner that the key is in the Russians’ hands. Again, a stupid simplification. What I am trying to explain is what I tried to explain also while Special Representative of the European Union, responsible for the conflict. If we work with the Transnistrians in a manner that tries to take into account their interests rather than only tries to push them under the water, we can find common ground. That is the most important to the conflict settlement. Respecting them is important and now that they may be able to go through a relatively clean election process, it may become easier. But we – meaning Moldova and Europe – need to continue the tedious effort of confidence building. With the new Transnistrian leader it should accelerate. And if the democratization of Transnistria continues, we should respond even stronger, more positively. There is nothing better for peace than democracy – even if this is not an automatism, needs still hard work. [ - According to experts, economic and social costs, but also political risks of reunifying Moldova are so high that they greatly exceed the country's real capacity to deal with them. And then what do you think is the point of efforts to regulate, see the solutions in this regard?] - Moldova is not alone. In the last few years it has received an increased amount of financial support and an increased degree of moral and technical support from Europe. As you know I always advocated for more and faster support. Now an outstanding Moldovan diplomacy towards Europe has finally resulted in the start of free trade talks that are essential and the negotiations for abandoning visa requirements are progressing. Both processes are very slow primarily because of the Brussels bureaucracy but it is progressing. These are two very strong enhancers also of the reintegration of the country. A third important issue is for Moldova to improve its record of respecting the rights of the minorities that use Russian as their mother tongue. I deliberately use this circumvent language because it is not only the Russian minorities that use Russian as first language. I should say that Moldovans are a remarkably tolerant nation when it comes to languages and the majority of these talented people are remarkably bilingual to the envy of many others. It is the responsibility of the politicians not to lose this asset and use it for the advantage of reunification of the country. Beyond all this, the European Union needs to invest politically more than it does now in order to support Moldova even more. It means a strong attention from the High Representative and it means filling the gap left after the elimination of the position of the Special Representative. The political investment of Europe into the conflict resolution should increase whereas in the last year in this sense it became less intense. The good news is a very professional and politically strong Embassy in Chisinau but it can totally fill the hiatus that was left at the beginning of 2011. What Moldova can do beyond what I already said is that it should reach out to the new leader of Transnistria with open arms after December 25 if those elections will be as free as they were in the first round. It would be a mistake to leave this without notice, of course within the ramifications of the existing international status quo. Nobody can recognize it officially but taking note of a democratic moment if it remains such would be essential. I hope also that others will restrain from strong interference in the process. I maintain personal friendships in Transnistria and perhaps it is easier for me to see real people behind these processes but others need too to see real people there – they are hopeful for democracy and opening now and we need to support them morally. [ - Dear Mr. Ambassador, the election of President in Moldova failed on December 16 again. How do you see Moldova’s democratic development since you left the scene?] - Overall Moldova is the relatively best performing country in the CIS region in terms of political democracy and also in terms of the quality of the economic policy but of course the aspiration should be higher. Moldova is aiming at European integration where the bar is higher. In terms of economic policy, I do remember what were the goals set in October 2009. Relative to those, my evaluation of the macroeconomic discipline is resolutely positive and even more so that it follows a budgetary indiscipline before the 2009 April elections. I find this the most important public delivery of any government and it is particularly important now in the era of global financial crisis. I wish my own country, Hungary, had as responsible attitude to macroeconomic issues as Moldova has. In two other aspects of economic policy my evaluation is more critical: I do not see the aggressive demonopolization that the government rightly announced in October 2009. There are suspicions that the policy is weakened by various individual economic vested interests. This is not good. Look at the aggressive reforms of Georgia – they have results in spite of the war with Russia in 2008. This brave approach should be emulated by Moldova. Also, I find the economic policy towards Transnistria resolutely timid. There needs to be a much more energetic policy towards confidence building and economic integration. Similarly I can not be uncritical when it comes to the political class. And this is a serious issue. Moldovan political development is lost in the labyrinth of things and I must say that we, Europeans, contributed to this when in 2010 yielded to wrong aspirations that did not respect the constitutional rules. As a result, everybody is only thinking about their very short term supposed interests rather than the long term of the country. What would Moldova need? There can be two possible good outcomes. One would be if the country could change the constitution by weakening the position of the president. The examples of the Central European new EU member states show that this is a good thing in the transitional countries; it increases the chances of sustaining the democratic process on the long run. The structural, long term risk in a country of Moldova’s development level is if any person grows too much above the people. There is no bullet-proof guarantee for this but weakening of the President’s role and strengthening checks and balances would be good. If the political class is not able to do that, then what remains is an honest negotiation, preferably with European mediation, of electing a President who is morally respected but not threatening again to grow above the politicians, otherwise they will not elect her or him. This forcing of the coalition parties into a block against their own interests threatens to sink them together as well as to lose the allure of Europe. In opinion polls there has been a dramatic decrease of Europe’s attraction. This is the result, in my view, of three things: The free trade and visa free negotiations are protracted by Brussels; Europe itself is struggling with crisis; and finally that our policies towards the country are not seen principled but biased. We need to be much more principled, support Moldova through those two negotiations, and demand much clearer democratic attitudes and economic policy reforms. Still, the broad picture remains that Moldova’s in the East the most democratic, most tolerant country with strong European vocation. I hope on that basis 2012 will bring some tangible benefits, including to the Transnistrian region that now shows signs of encouraging democratic aspirations of the people. [Valeriu Vasilică, Info-Prim Neo]