Jennifer Brush: We can't want the settlement of the conflict more than you do

{Info-Prim Neo interview with Ambassador Jennifer Brush, Head of the OSCE Mission to Moldova, Interview 3 of 12 in the “Year 2012 in the life of Moldova and its people” Series, [originally published on December 12]} [– The beginning of 2012 offered an opportunity for much optimism as regards the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict. During the year, after a five-year break, there were held a number of formal rounds of talks in the 5 + 2 format; they had a good pace and were held regularly and there were even a number of documents agreed on. However, towards the end of the year, both experts and negotiations stakeholders have been talking about a certain stagnation in this process. Is that really so? Is there a way to re-galvanize the process?] As you may have seen from some of my other interviews, I want to be as open and transparent about this process as possible so I'm very glad that there is still continued media interest in settling this conflict. But I think you and I need to do a better job about getting the public interest in this conflict. So, although I see many articles in the press, I don't see it demonstrated in terms of public opinion about the importance of settling this conflict: it's still at number nine, I think, in the list of ten priorities. So, if it's not important for the people of Moldova to settle this conflict, why should it be so important for the international community? We can't want the settlement of the conflict more than you do. With that said, it's still as important to settle the conflict for a Europe that is free, whole and at peace. And even though the public here may not see the economic, political and security benefits of settling the conflict, your friends do see those benefits. With that as an introduction, I can say that it's your job to want things to happen more quickly. But I'm actually quite satisfied with the pace and the tempo of the negotiations, given my background in conflict resolution. There've been a number of 5+2 meetings where a number of issues have been discussed and agreed to, including the principles and procedures, the agenda, an agreement on nostrification and, very importantly, an agreement to have two fora established: a forum on civil society and the media, and a forum on human rights. Both sides agreed earlier in the process that freedom of movement and education were two important issues that needed to be discussed. We've had a number of discussions on both issues that have really isolated the remaining issues that need to be resolved, and those issues are difficult. I still believe that opening up the Gura-Bicului – Bicioc bridge should be a priority for the populations on both sides of the river and I still remain disappointed that I see very little public support for this effort. I have a vision for how opening up this bridge will open up the economic potential of the region. And opening up the bridge is not a technical or a financial issue, but it remains an issue for Prime Minister Filat and for the leader of Transnistria, Mr. Shevchuk, to be able to implement. They've already agreed on the political will to open it, they need to agree on the requirements for opening the bridge. And I believe there is a reasonable way forward. Likewise, on education, one of the most divisive issues through the years has been the issue of the Latin-script schools in Transnistria. The OSCE, with the High Commissioner on National Minorities, has just conducted a thorough, exhaustive study of the circumstances of these schools and we've made a number of recommendations. We hope that these recommendations will be accepted and the schools will be able to operate on a secure basis. On the issue of freedom of information, I'm disappointed to hear that the Transnistrian side is planning to close down two Moldovan television stations that are operating there. But I'm equally disappointed that there's been no method found to be able to broadcast a Transnistrian television station here in Moldova. I don't know what people are afraid of. But the free exchange of ideas is essential to settling the conflict. One thing I am encouraged by is that young people, and maybe not just young people, freely exchange information across the river via Facebook, which is free, and so that we can join in that very healthy debate, we've opened up our own Facebook page that I welcome all of your readers to view and friend us. More importantly than that, I welcome your comments, so that you demonstrate to us what your reals needs and concerns are and you can tell us one way or the other whether it really matters to you to settle this conflict. [- But is there stagnation?] The two Chief Negotiators, Eugen Carpov and Nina Shtanski, after the last session of the 5+2 talks agreed to meet on a weekly basis, and although they haven't managed to meet on a weekly basis, they've met more frequently between these two sessions than before any other session. That's not stagnation. The working groups have met three times more frequently this year than they met last year. That's not stagnation. In fact, we are really in the thick of discussing some very difficult problems, which was not happening at the beginning of the year; at the beginning of the year we were talking about principles and procedures and the agenda, we weren't talking about issues. [– The 5+2 talks so far have addressed issues contained in the first two so-called baskets, which include social, economic and legal matters as well as humanitarian and human rights issues. Despite these discussions, there are still obstacles to freedom of movement, human rights violations and other problems. Why?] I think there's a misconception both in Transnistria and in Moldova that Baskets One and Two are somehow not political. They are political. Everything that we do in the context of 5+2 is about finding a special status for Transnistria within the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Moldova. And when we talk about the freedom of movement, it goes both ways. Transnistrians perceive a number of obstacles preventing them from having freedom of movement: everything from their license plates to their status as legal permanent residents of Moldova. And, likewise, Moldovans find their freedom of movement prohibited by checkpoints and peacekeepers. So we need to keep on discussing the obstacles to freedom of movement and trying to find a solution. I think it's core to the negotiations that freedom of movement remain the most important issue. [– Why wasn't it possible in 2012 to start discussing issues related to the political settlement of the conflict? When will it be possible?] As I said, the political issue is a common thread that runs throughout all three baskets. But I've told the Transnistrian side directly: I think it's a mistake that they are reluctant to discuss the security issues that are included in Basket Three, because these are security issues that they themselves raised as a priority. They are making a mistake by not discussing these issues, and this is not helping their people. More than that, over the years they've agreed on a series of steps to improve law-enforcement and disaster preparedness. The Transnistrian side is fond of accusing the Moldovan side of not implementing their previously agreed to agreements, but in this case it's the Transnistrian side that's not willing to implement them. We've done a thorough research of the previously agreed to agreements that have touched on law enforcement cooperation and disaster preparedness and we made a list of recommendations on these agreements that we think the sides should discuss. So I'm disappointed that this discussion has not occurred. In particular, after this summer's drought, it was quite clear that there was a need for cooperation and disaster preparedness. The World Bank has some type of formula for the degree to which preparedness for disaster can mitigate the harm of disasters, and so it's quite clear: moving forward that disaster preparedness reduces the cost of disasters. So why the two sides do not want to cooperate on measures that will help their people? I don't understand that. [– To what extent did the year 2012 prove right or wrong the so-called “small-steps policy” approach adopted in the relations between Chisinau and Tiraspol and supported by some international actors in the negotiations? How many more years, in addition to the already over two decades that have passed, will it take to advance to a real settlement?] First of all, I'm always careful when I use the word 'policy', because I don't know if the small steps have been approved by any particular policy-making organization. But to the extent that the two sides have agreed to call this approach to the negotiations 'small steps', I'm glad they agreed on that. But it's simply not the policy of the OSCE. Our policy is finding a special status for Transnistria while respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Moldova. That's not a small step. Solving the conflict depends on the people of Moldova and the people of Transnistria; it depends on how much they want to solve it. And that's why I keep on returning to this point that when there is no public support or public interest in this conflict resolution process, it makes it even more difficult for people like me. When I talk about the benefits of resolving the conflict, it's very difficult to demonstrate to the Moldovan people how they will live better, because this is a life that in fact they have not lived here in Moldova yet, so it's more an aspiration or a dream about a better, more democratic, more prosperous stable life, and it's very difficult for me to demonstrate to people in what way their lives will improve. But I can demonstrate that the costs of maintaining this conflict, the costs of maintaining these political and economic inefficiencies, is what's keeping Moldovans from prospering. So your prospects remain limited until you resolve this conflict. [– How right are the experts who say that the small-steps policy is leading to the preservation of a status quo, to the detriment of the conflict settlement? When and what should happen so that we are able to discuss the prospects of a 'big-steps policy' approach?] I think people misunderstand the value of confidence-building, and I think people also misunderstand how little confidence there is between the two sides. So I agree that these confidence-building measures need to be reinforced and intensified in order to build confidence between the two sides. I think we're still in that phase where there needs to be confidence-building between the two sides, because the sides don't seem to trust each other, still, at all. So I would like to see more outreach, not just from our Organization, but from grassroots and public organizations about the desire for people to be able to mix more freely, to be able to have more contact with each other on issues of common importance, and those could be issues of anything from health issues to education issues to security and law enforcement issues. There's a number of things the two sides could work on together to be able to get to know each other again and to be able to demonstrate to each other that they do, in fact, want to live together. [– How much did the Moldovan authorities' proposal to replace the current peacekeeping military operations with a civilian mission under international mandate advance in 2012?] That was a proposal that's been discussed in the past, but it wasn't under active discussion in 2012. We did actively discuss the 1999 Istanbul commitments to withdraw the ammunitions from Colbasna. I still consider – think most experts, everybody considers – that the existence of that quantity of ammunitions is a huge public health hazard. And I made repeated requests to our Russian and Transnistrian colleagues to further reduce the quantities of those ammunitions and ultimately get rid of them entirely. In terms of the peacekeepers, I've said a number of times during the year that the peacekeepers need to be made obsolete. And to make them obsolete, you need to solve the conflict. So it's interesting to me that the public here seems to be fixated on the peacekeepers, but not fixated on solving the problem. While I was on a Transnistrian TV morning call-in show two weeks ago, one woman from Transnistria called in and told me she loved the peacekeepers because they prevented the slaughter of innocent people. I told her I didn't think that the people did face a threat. And I also told her that as a mother, I wouldn't want for my child to grow up going through checkpoints manned by armed peacekeepers with tanks on the side of the road. It's not a healthy environment for any child. [– In 2013, Ukraine will hold the rotating OSCE Chairmanship-in-Office. Ukraine's role is huge, considering the twofold status as a mediator in the conflict and a neighboring country. So, if any threats exist, Ukraine will be the first to be affected. Is the Ukrainian Chairmanship-in-Office able to stimulate the negotiating process and the actual identification of a solution?] During my time here dealing with the conflict, the Ukrainians have been extraordinarily constructive and productive. The Ukrainians, I think, kicked off the negotiating process by organizing a meeting in Odessa last year in January, and the Ukrainian representative to the 5+2 talks, by knowing the participants so well, has actually been able to suggest some very good compromises that eventually both sides were able to accept to the benefit of both sides. Sergiy Pyrozhkov, the Ukrainian Ambassador here in Chisinau, is not only the dean of the diplomatic corps, but I think he is also a very talented diplomat who very much cares about the future of this region and has had a positive effect on the course of the negotiations. He has made his Embassy colleagues available for many of the working groups. So I would say the Ukrainian Embassy is probably the best informed about the conflict than any embassy in Chisinau. We're also very encouraged that the Ukrainians have said that resolving the Transnistrian conflict is one of their priorities for their year as OSCE Chairman-in-Office. One of the first demonstrations of this priority is naming Ambassador Andriy Deshchytsia as their special envoy to the talks. I'm very much looking forward to working with Ambassador Deshchytsia through the next year. Certainly, I'm going to appreciate the Ukrainians' very close knowledge of the region and their interest in the region to be prosperous, democratic and stable. So I have high positive expectations of the Ukrainian Chairmanship-in-Office. But I'm also realistic. [Elena Nistor, Info-Prim Neo]