 |
|
| Anatol Țăranu | |
Historians trace the origins of the neutrality status as a concept and political fact in the ancient epoch. In time, the concept and the political practices regarding the neutrality of the sate suffered multiple changes and adjustments. Today the simplest definition of neutrality is non-participation in a war in times of war and refusal to take part in military blocs in times of peace. From historical viewpoint, the neutral states do not offer the own armed forces to belligerent states and their territory for use for military purposes.
It is known that the main distinction in the behavior of the neutral states is determined not by the international norms or treaties, but rather by the geographical position of the state, the capacity to “impose” the national interests and also to efficiently ensure the security of borders. The chosen status makes the neutral status to especially prolifically use the diplomatic capacities with reference to the influential foreign policy players, to maintain a balanced internal policy of broad consensus in society, to “inject” impressive financial resources into military purchased so as to ensure the defense capacity and in serious propaganda activities so as to popularize the neutrality inside the country and outside it. In other words, the burden of the status of neutrality in most of the cases is very heavy and costly and not any state by far is able to bear it for the own benefit.
Success model of Switzerland
When reference is made to successful examples of the neutrality policy, it is primarily noted the experience of Switzerland, which became the first country that chose the status of permanent neutrality and confirmed it by the documents of the Vienna Congress of 1815. This way, the permanent neutrality of Switzerland was from the start assured by the great powers of the time whose interests at that moment coincided and that, in virtue of the political conjuncture, committed themselves to obey the neutrality and not to wage wars on it. For its part, Switzerland undertook to be fully neutral and not to take part in the wars between other states.
In time Switzerland miraculously avoided becoming involved in a number of wars that regularly occurred around it, inclining the two World Wars. But neutrality also protected the multinational Switzerland from internal division, fulfilling the task of uniting the population of the country that consisted of regions where French, German and Italian were spoken and that each had their own history and origins. Neutrality in time became part of the understanding of what being Swiss and being part of the national identity means and imprinted consistency to the Swiss nation.
What does difference between Switzerland and Moldova reside in?
The successful development model of Switzerland fascinated and inflamed the imagination of politicians in a number of countries. The political class in the young state Republic of Moldova could not avoid paying tribute to this imagination. Many of the Moldovan politicians regularly invoked the model of Switzerland as an element that is worth being followed on the development path of the Moldovan state. It was normal for the status of neutrality for the Republic of Moldova be supported by invoking strong arguments in favor of the Swiss development model. But not many politicians attentively analyzed the historical and geopolitical circumstances that make the difference between the Swiss Confederation and the space of the Republic of Moldova in the geopolitical conjuncture of current Europe. The political call to mechanically copy a successful development model can generate momentary electoral advantages, but cannot produce long-term practical beneficial effects.
History of problem of neutrality
The necessity of adopting the status of neutrality of the Republic of Modal generated heated discussions in the Independence Parliament of the start of the 1990s. The main argument in favor of neutrality was the presumption that other states will respect the status of neutrality, including the CIS states, and that this status will represent solid assistance in solving the Transnistrian conflict and obtaining the withdrawal of three Russian troops from Moldova’s territory. Among the arguments in favor of neutrality was the reference to the necessity of strengthening the position of Chisinau for thwarting Moscow’s attempts to engage the Republic of Moldova in the military body of the CIS.
But the democratic and national component of the first Parliament didn’t accept even the entry into the economic dimension of the CIS and blocked the ratification by the legislature of the Alma-Ata Protocol signed by President M. Snegur on December 21, 1991, on the Republic of Moldova’s entry into this international organism. The Parliament in Chisinau ratified this protocol only on April 26, 1994, after the elections of February 1994, which were won by the Agrarian Democratic Party – a pro-Russian party of the former Soviet nomenclature. The same Parliament adopted the text of the new Constitution whose Article 11 stipulated the status of permanent neutrality of the Republic of Moldova, while Article 142 said that the neutrality status can be modified only by referendum.
International guarantees that Moldova does not enjoy are needed
From the angle of international law, permanent neutrality declared by constitutional act becomes sustainable if is recognized and guaranteed by international partners and organizations. The neutrality status of the Republic of Moldova has never been recognized by any international law subject. It should be noted that the neutrality of each state is unique and is influenced by the national color and therefore manifests itself differently in each state. For example, Switzerland on July 23, 1951 agreed to sign the so-called Hotz-Linder Agreement by which it pledged to the U.S. not to supply countries of the Eastern Bloc with military equipment and dual-use items, turning this way into “Western neutral state”. The same national color became specific for the status of neutral state adopted by Sweden, Finland and Austria, which have broad multilateral cooperation programs with NATO.
So, it is not enough for a state to assume neutrality. International guarantees are needed as regards the observance of neutrality by other states. This principle wasn’t respected when the Republic of Moldova declared its neutrality. Moreover, on its territory there are foreign military troops (Russian) that flagrantly weaken the status of neutrality of the Moldovan state. This way, the neutrality of the Republic of Moldova turned into an undeclared obligation not to sign political-military agreements with other states or organizations, such as NATO or the EU, which are not supported by Russia. This was seen primarily when Chisinau was preparing to sign the Association Agreement with the EU. Then Moscow insistently started to make reference to the status of neutrality of the Republic of Moldova, noting that the association with the EU runs counter to this status. Also, Moscow neglects Moldova’s neutrality when attempting to involve the country into the Eurasian Economic Union that pretends to be similar to European one. Russia profits from Moldova’s neutrality so as to use it as a “buffer zone”. The Republic of Moldova’s neutrality has fulfilled a geostrategic duty for Russia, preventing Chisinau from benefitting from security from other states or players that are security providers.
“Neutral pro-Moscow”, against will of Chisinau
Today the Republic of Moldova is not exactly a neutral state as its neutrality is violated by the Russian Federation that illegally keeps its military forces in the eastern districts of Moldova and does not intend to withdraw them. Neutrality is rather formal for Moldova and is used by Russia as an instrument so that Chisinau does not obtain security guarantees from other states or international bodies. The war in Ukraine showed: Russia’s behavior is aggressive and is not within the limits of international law. Regardless of the signed Moldovan-Russian agreements, these will not be obeyed by Moscow as Russia is at war with Ukraine and will not limit its actions by obeying international norms, including Moldova’s neutrality.
In the context of the Russo-Ukrainian war, Russia is advantaged by Moldova’s neutrality that enables it to profit from this status by conserving its military presence in Moldova, with Moscow this way being favored in the conflict with Ukraine too. Moldova’s neutrality should not be associated and compared with the neutrality of other states, such as Finland, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland etc., as they are different in terms of geographical location and geopolitical position. The geopolitical stance of Moldova will maintain its neutrality vulnerable, conserving this way the position of “neutral pro-Moscow” even against the will of Chisinau.
Not at all accidently, the pro-Russian forces in the current Parliament in Chisinau initiated the adoption of a law on the permanent neutrality of the Republic of Moldova, which actually allows for the permanentization of the Russian military presence by removing the current Russian military contingent in Transnistria from the umbrella of the status of neutrality. This is an example of unlimited obedience to the Russian interests that confirms once again that Moldova’s neutrality is valid only with regard to the partners from the West, not yet to Russia. Moldova’s neutrality status contributes to the division of society according to the geopolitical criteria, distances us from NATO member Romania, extending the identity cleavage inside the majority population of Moldova society by imbedding the Moldovan dichotomy – Romanian – in the collective mentality. All these motives lead to the necessity of initiating in our society a responsible debate on the reasons for keeping the status of neutrality for the Republic of Moldova, identifying much more efficient solutions for strengthening the resilience of the state by using international collective security mechanisms.
IPN publishes in the Op-Ed rubric opinion pieces submitted by authors not affiliated with our editorial board. The opinions expressed in these articles do not necessarily coincide with the opinions of our editorial board.