General development laws will determine a mutually acceptable solution to conflict. Info-Prim Neo interview with Igor Harchenko, Ukraine’s special representative to Transnistrian conflict settlement talks

[ - What is the significance of 2010 in the Transnistrian conflict settlement process in your opinion?] - As I was named Ukraine’s special representative to the Transnistrian conflict settlement talks only last autumn, a part of my appraisals and conclusions may be inexact. I can say with pride that the meetings I had in Chisinau and Tiraspol immediately after my appointment were constructive and productive. I believe that in general the discussions centering on the Transnistrian conflict held at international level in 2010 have intensified significantly. Several very important documents were devoted to the given issue, including the Joint Statement of the Presidents of Ukraine and Russia on the Settlement of the Transnistrian Conflict, the Statement by Catherine Ashton, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Medvedev – Merkel Memorandum. The Transnistrian dispute was one of the topics for discussion in the meeting of the Presidents of Russia, Germany and France held in Deauville. Ukraine’s efforts in the Transnistrian conflict settlement process were actively supported by the European Union. In the Ukraine-EU summit that took place in Brussels, Ukraine and the European Union reasserted their support for Moldova’s territorial integrity and voiced hope that the official talks in the 5+2 format will be resumed soon. The informal consultations in the 5+2 format held in Vienna, Astana, Garmisch-Partenkirchen and Kiev contributed to a rapprochement between the sides. In 2010, Moldova and Ukraine started to demarcate the central (Transnistrian) sector of the Ukrainian-Moldovan state border. Statutory documents were drawn up to create the European region “Nistru”. Owing to the concerted effort of the participants in the 5+2 format meetings, 2010 was marked by important accomplishments in building confidence between Chisinau and Tiraspol. Ukraine and the EU helped restore the Chisinau-Odessa passenger train route that goes through Bender and Tiraspol, after a pause of about four years. The companies Moldtelecom and Interdnestrcom started to negotiate the restoration of the telephone connection between the right and left banks of the Nistru. A very important event last year was the meetings of Moldova’s Prime Minister Vlad Filat and the Transnistrian leader Igor Smirnov, which, in my opinion, contributed to the creation of a favorable climate for establishing relations based on trust and gave a fresh impetus to the Transnistrian conflicts settlement process. These are only some of the events that took place last year. I think that the most important accomplishments of 2010 were the restoration of the dialogue on the Transnistrian settlement at different levels and the achievement of the first results after several years of stagnation. It is important that we develop this trend and obtain success in the political process. I’m sure that there are all the necessary preconditions for this. [ - Can you assess the work of the Alliance for European Integration as a partner in the settlement process?] - The Moldovan authorities, in concert with other foreign partners, in 2010 took an active part in the Transnistrian conflict settlement process. As no official talks in the 5+2 format took place, the main efforts were aimed at solving concrete problems. The joint Moldovan-Transnistrian groups of experts resumed work and achieved results in certain areas, which directly affected people’s lives. Generally, the Alliance for European Integration managed to implement a part of the planned actions due to a rather flexible approach. [ - What role did the direct dialogue between Vlad Filat and Igor Smirnov play in the settlement process?] - The direct dialogue between Vlad Filat and Igor Smirnov indisputably made a positive contribution to the general settlement process. The sides resumed the dialogue on transportation, communications and customs interaction matters. Another important result was, as I said, the restoration of the Chisinau-Odessa passenger train route. Even if the international organizations express increased interest in the Transnistrian dispute, the solution to it is first of all in Chisinau and Tiraspol. The direct contacts between the Transnistrian administration and the Moldovan authorities will help resolve the conflict. [ - Can the Merkel - Medvedev Memorandum help resolve the Transnistrian dispute?] - The appearance of such an initiative like the Merkel-Medvedev Memorandum is a proof that the Transnistrian issue stopped being solely Moldova’s problem long ago. The EU, Ukraine, Russia and the U.S. realize the dangers hiding in the latent Transnistrian conflict. In fact, the related concerns of the international community led to the creation of a new format of the negotiations, known as the 5+2 format. That’s why any initiative aimed at hastening the political settlement of the conflict will be welcome. I would like to say that the mediators put forward sufficient initiatives designed to resolve the dispute, like the OSCE projects of the 1990s, Russia’s Kozak Memorandum, Ukraine’s Yushchenko Plan. However, none of them has been fully implemented as the sides involved in the conflict did not have political will. I think that no recommendations will help if there is no political will. I reiterate that the main key to the conflict is in the hands of Chisinau and Tiraspol. The content of the political solution will depend on their wish to make concessions. [ - Why was the OSCE summit held in Astana unable to adopt clearer documents as regards the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict?] - It was the first summit of heads of state in the last 11 years. The fact that the summit took place was an accomplishment itself. The frozen conflicts in Georgia, Transnistria and the Mountainous Karabakh were indeed a trial as such disputes are a very sensitive issue. Unfortunately, the OSCE region, which is a very large one, is not free from conflicts. In order to resolve them within this organization, all the participants should achieve consensus. Such a consensus was impossible in Astana. I would like to stress that Ukraine has always supported the OSCE’s efforts aimed at solving these disputes. [ - Will the progress in the Transnistrian settlement conflict talks lead to the intensification of interaction between the confidence building working groups?] - I’m sure it will. As the official talks in the 5+2 format have not been yet resumed, the communication between the experts of the working groups and the unofficial consultations in the 5+2 format of the political representatives remain the only mechanisms within which the sides can formulate their positions and, what is very important, can solve the most sensitive problems, first of all for the benefit of the people living on the banks of the Nistru. The efficiency of these working groups is another question. They achieved different results, but they depend on the specifics of the matters that are discussed. I consider the regulations governing the activity of these groups should be finalized so as to give them a new stimulus. [ - How well did the mediators and observers to the settlement process perform in 2010?] - I would show immodesty if I try to assess myself. However, I think that the mediators and observes worked rather well last year. In 2010 the number of meetings that focused on different issues concerning the Transnistrian conflict settlement process had increased. We would like the quality to turn into quality, i.e. the results should lead to the identification of a definite solution. In one of the seminars organized at the suggestion of the OSCE, which was attended by foreign specialists in long-term conflicts, it was stated that the sides negotiate, the observers observe, while the mediators mediate. Nobody except the sides themselves can resolve the conflict. [ - Deputy Prime Minister for Reintegration Victor Osipov said an official meeting in the 5+2 format may take place in several weeks. Can the talks in the given format be resumed soon?] - As a mediator and guarantor in the Transnistrian conflict settlement process, Ukraine is for the resumption of the official talks in the 5+2 format. This position was stated in many official documents proposed by Kiev. We, together with other participants in the negotiations, have taken determined steps in this direction. I think that the formation of the Government of Moldova after the elections will contribute to the resumption of the official meetings in the given format. [ - What is Ukraine’s position on the cases of Ilie Cazac and Ernest Vardanyan and what steps should be taken to ensure the respect for the human rights in Transnistria?] - It’s hard for me to assess these cases. I can form an opinion about the case of Vardanyan only from the press reports and the views expressed by experts and politologists. Judging by the available information, I can say that the punishment inflicted on Vardanyan is too harsh. [ - Polls show a large part of the Transnistrians want the country to be reunified. How would you interpret this?] - It is a natural wish. Life goes on. Economy and trade develop. New foreign economic relations are established. Therefore, it is logical for the Transnistrian businesses to want to enter new markets. If we consider that politics is a continuation of economic changes, we can say that the real necessities of the people from the left and right banks of the Nistru, the general laws for the development of economy and society will determine a mutually acceptable solution to the conflict. [ - How can the Transnistrian dispute be resolved and when in your opinion?] - It would be irrational to set terms during which the conflict can be settled, though we can fix preliminary terms that would make the sides examine and solve certain problems. The international experience shows that any artificial or forced solution to the problem is temporary and leads to failure or needs permanent support from outside. The Transnistrian dispute should be resolved by taking into account the wish and interests of the population and by political methods, in accordance with the norms and principles of the international law. This can be a long process that depends on the politicians, who should find and coordinate the fundamental settlement principles. I believe the legal formulation of these principles and their consistent implementation will provide a solid foundation for the political resolution of the Transnistrian conflict. [Irina Ursu, Info-Prim Neo]