Press Release
on the organization of the debate “Consequences of UN vote on withdrawal of foreign army from Moldova’s territory”. Developing Political Culture through Public Debates”. Public debates series held by the news agency IPN in its conference room with the support of the German Foundation “Hanns Seidel”
The 91th installment held on June 25, 2018 involved experts Veaceslav Ionita, Sergiu Ostaf, Elena Pahomova, Alexandr Stahurschi, Rosian Vasiloi and Igor Botan, the project’s standing expert.
Why were this theme and this format chosen? The theme was chosen because it is an unordinary one and occurred very recently, for the first time in the history of the Republic of Moldova, and could have important effects on our state and people from now on. It should be reminded that the United Nations General Assembly on June 22, 2018 adopted a resolution titled “Complete and unconditional withdrawal of the foreign armed forces from the territory of the Republic of Moldova” whose draft was proposed by the Republic of Moldova and that had 11 countries as co-authors.
The format that included several experts was chosen for two reasons: ONE. The theme is very and very complex, with very different, even opposing interpretations, at a number of levels, and the participants in this debate can pronounce on most of them in an expert way. TWO: Last week, our two attempts to bring at the same discussion table, on this issue, representatives of the main state institutions and representatives of the main ruling party and the main parliamentary opposition party failed. However, given that time passes and society needs more information on the topic as swiftly as possible so as to form the own opinion and to deal with eventual consequences more consciously, the experts were asked to somehow aid the authorities, politicians and society in general. Thus,...
Igor Botan, standing expert of IPN’s project, said the resolution of the UN General Assembly is a very important document as this subjects was discussed by the UN General Assembly for the first time in history. In this connection, it is very important to see how the international public opinion crystalizes and what attitude the UN member states will adopt to the presence of the Russian troops and the Transnistrian issue. To understand this problem, they should start from the Convention of July 21, 1992, which forms the basis of important documents that later led to the current situation. The Convention provides that the Russian Federation should withdraw its military presence from the Transnistrian region. This wasn’t done and the military presence in the region is thus considered illegal.
The expert noted that among the most important mandatory documents by which Russia pleaded to withdraw its troops are the resolution of the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit according to which Russia was to fully pull out its troops and munitions from the Transnistrian region by the end of 1999, but this wasn’t done. That’s why at the Porto Summit, Russia managed to introduce a clause saying the withdrawal of its military presence will take place when there are favorable conditions. Since then these favorable conditions haven’t been created. Before the adoption of the UN resolution of June 22, 2018, which is recommendatory in character, Russia adopted a position that was stated in advance, namely that this is a counterproductive measure, while the Transnistrian administration declared that the withdrawal cannot take place without its consent.
Expert Sergiu Ostaf voiced hope that this action by the Government of Moldova, which is an unprecedented one, forms part of an executive’s strategy for putting the mechanism for withdrawing the forces of an army that is not wanted on Moldova’s territory. It should be noted that it is not about the peacekeeping component, but about the Operational Group of Russian Forces stationed on the left side of the Nistru. “We don’t know if a strategy exists and if this resolution forms part of a series of steps or dynamics planned by the Government of the Republic of Moldova and this is a regrettable situation. Unfortunately, it seems that we haven’t had a strategy in this regard since 1992. The current government either does not plan such a strategy,” said the expert.
As to how realistic this resolution is and what effects it will produce, Sergiu Ostaf said there are several dimensions here. The first refers to the formulation of the positon on the regular army of the Russian Federation stationed in the Transnistrian region and the second applies to the relationship wanted by the government in relation to this army. The third aspect refers to the attempt to make a number of states formulate their position on this issue and by the resolution this goal was achieved. It is also about the formulation of an internal policy position and the possibility of drawing conclusions as regards an eventual intention to formulate a strategy for the future in relation to the regular army in the Transnistrian region.
Expert Elena Pahomova said the key question is which of the government’s decisions of the last few years was aimed at ensuring the people’s welfare as she considers there was no such decision. Respectively, this resolution forms part of this logical series. The current government pursues only one logic, related to the personal interest of enriching oneself through schemes involving the supply of gas, electricity, and the retaining of power can be another interest.
“What consequences this UN decision will have – none. Why? Because our people didn’t take and will not take decisions as to the developments in the country. Such a resolution can generate effects only if compromises are reached by the two sides of the Nistru. Did something cardinal happen in these relations? No,” stated the expert, noting those minor protocol agreement signed until now are insignificant. Elena Pahomova said she would like to see the mechanism for implementing this resolution, but it’s clear that this does not exist in Chisinau. Knowing the mentality of the inhabitants of the region, these will not allow the pullout now. What is done now in relation to the Transnistrian region is punitive in character and there is no with to build those bridges of confidence about which they speak.
Expert Rosian Vasiloi said nobody denies the importance of the resolution adopted by the UN, but this is regrettably late. Almost 27 years have passed since those events and nobody set the task of raising the level of discussions on the withdrawal of the occupation troops from Moldova’s territory. Many aspects that weren’t included by the Moldovan negotiators in this resolution and particular concrete time limits should be taken into consideration in the context of the withdrawal. It is also about the recognition of the districts from the left side of the Nistru as part of the occupied Republic of Moldova and the imposition of particular sanctions against Russia for not fulfilling the commitments stipulated in the ceasefire agreement of July 21, 1992. “It is about Article 4, which clearly provides that the withdrawal of the military contingents of the 14th Army will be negotiated between Moldova and Russia, while the 14th Army, as the Russian forces were called then, will have a neural status and will not become involved in actions to destabilize the situation in the Republic of Moldova. But this commitment is not respected. I think the Russian Federation flagrantly violates this provision,” noted Rosian Vasiloi.
The expert said that now the citizens want to know what the Moldovan authorities will do to implement the resolution. He does not think that the authorities are now considering the possibility of settling the conflict, which is impossible. Rosian Vasiloi noted he would like the actions aimed at implementing the resolution to be taken first of all by the Moldovan authorities and the case of the Constitutional Court, which declared that a part of Moldova’s territory is occupied, will not repeat. “I consider we do not have a separate Operational Group of Russian Forces there, we do not have separate peacekeeping forces there. We have occupation troops there and we should say this clearly,” stated the expert.
Expert Veaceslav Ionita said it is hard to obtain too many benefits from the opportunity and political importance of this subject. Studies show the citizens place Russia second among the states that help Moldova the most. “It is hard to say there is consensus as regards the relationship with the Russian Federation, but from the viewpoint of measurements, the relationship with Russia is strong. As regards the economic impact of the resolution, the Russian Federation will take particular measures, but not with the same intensity as earlier. However, there are sensitive elements as Moldova is tied to Russia 90% and more in the case of particular positons of goods. In the case of the export to the EU, which increases, only several exporting companies are involved, while in the case of the export to Russia, it is about hundreds or even thousands of farmers who have a low production volume and these are and can be affected considerably.
According to the expert, the remittances are an impotent element. Many of these come from Russia. In general, there will be short-term economic costs, but they will be incomparably lower than those incurred in 2014 or even 2008. The costs for maintaining the Russian troops on Moldova’s territory are another aspect. A state that does not solve its security problems is very vulnerable from the viewpoint of investments. That’s why the Republic of Moldova sustains huge losses in this regard.
Expert Alexandr Stahurschi said it is about a long-lasting process and it is very important to apply the principle “don’t do harm”. As they say, the resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly, unlike the decisions of the UN Security Council, are not mandatory in character. It is considered that the resolutions of the UN General Assembly have great moral and political importance, being recommendatory in character. When the Russian deputy minister of foreign affairs Grigory Karasin paid a visit to Moldova this March, he described the draft resolution as something counterproductive and provocative, which can affect the Transnistrian settlement process.
According to Alexandr Stahurschi, it is not clear how this resolution can contribute to the solving of such a difficult situation. He wondered when the ministers of defense of Moldova and Russian met last as the ministries of defense are the institutions that should decide the withdraw of these or other troops, by examining the technical aspects of the problem.
The Agency published 7 news stories on the debate (see the English version of www.ipn.md): on 25.06.18, „Consequences of UN vote on withdrawal of foreign army from Moldova’s territory, IPN debate” - http://ipn.md/en/dosar-transnistrean/91983; „Elena Pahomova: UN resolution is not aimed at ensuring people’s welfare” - http://ipn.md/en/special/91987; „Igor Botan: Resolution adopted by UN is very indulgent and apparently favorable to Russia” - http://ipn.md/en/special/91984; on 26.06.18, „Veaceslav Ionita: Russia will respond to resolution with countermeasures, but these will not be as severe as in the past” - http://ipn.md/en/integrare-europeana/92001; „Sergiu Ostaf: I hope resolution forms part of a Government strategy” - http://ipn.md/en/dosar-transnistrean/92002; „Rosian Vasiloi: Resolution adopted at UN is late” - http://ipn.md/en/dosar-transnistrean/91998; „Alexandr Stahurschi: UN General Assembly resolutions have great moral importance, being recommendatory” - http://ipn.md/en/dosar-transnistrean/91997.
IPN promoted the debate before and after the event, in particular the ensuing news stories, using all the available channels, including social networks. Confirmatory materials of deliverables, as well as a media coverage dossier are attached.
Valeriu Vasilica, director of IPN