Chisinau is inconsistent in settling the Transnistrian dispute - Stefan Uratu

Chisinau lacks consistency in settling the Transnistrian dispute, said Stefan Uratu, the chairman of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Moldova (HCHRM). In an interview given to Info-Prim Neo News Agency, the expert said, referring to the evolution of the Transnistrian dispute’s settlement two years after the parliamentary elections of March 6, 2005, that if there are some efforts made for joining the EU (one step forward and two steps backward), then for settling the Transnistrian issue – which is the most important for Moldova, because the European integration depends on it – efforts are even poorer. Uratu said he personally welcomed the fact that certain political forces and, first of all, the parliamentary factions teamed up for considering at least two strategic problems challenging Moldova: the settlement of the Transnistrian dispute and the European direction. But both cases lack consistency, which denotes that the team is fragmented. Those who created the “coalition” did not assume enough responsibility. It is easy to leave a coalition, but after all it is about leading the coalition toward your ideals. What has happened shows once more that we have no political parties capable to fight for the Power and lead the State, to assume complete responsibility”, Uratu said. When asked about the positive actions undertaken in these regards, Uratu mentioned the beginning of certain activities, though still insufficient, to regulate the regime of the Moldova-Ukraine border along the Transnistrian region; introduction of a new format (5+2) in the negotiations; as well as a series of actions aimed to make the Transnistrian dispute internationally known. As regards the shortcomings in the evolution of the Transnistrian dispute, HCHRM chairman has referred to the lack of a strategy and a well framed plan related to the dispute’s settlement. In this regard, Uratu says, it seems that only the Russian Federation has a consequently implemented plan. Among other drawbacks, the expert mentioned the hazard and disinterest showed by the state structures on which the Transnistrian dispute’s settlement depend directly, as well as the lack of access to justice for the people on the left bank of the Nistru River. At the same time, Chisinau failed to disband the posts of the so-called peacekeepers, as they serve no useful purpose and, moreover, are a threat, Uratu said. Referring to the actions that must be undertaken until the end of the present Legislature’s mandate, Stefan Uratu mentioned the necessity of working out a strategic plan that would involve all the state structures, civil society, and concerned international organisations.