Synchronization, repositioning and regrouping in 5 + 2 format talks. Info-Prim Neo analysis

The series of statements on the Transnistrian conflict made last week by most of the participants in the negotiation process point to synchronization, repositioning and regrouping in the talks in the 5 + 2 format. In order to anticipate the developments, these changes should be considered. [Synchronization] Statements by Russia-Ukraine, the European Union and Moldova appeared on Monday, May 17, at intervals of several hours. Even if the Moldovan authorities expressed their official position on Tuesday morning, about one hour after the publication of the statement signed by Medvedev and Yanukovych on Monday evening, officials of the Government commented carefully on the document during a televised program. This, almost perfect synchronization reveals several things: 1. Internal and, especially, external preconditions appeared for resuming the official talks in the 5 + 2 format, after an interval of several years. A date when the talks will be resumed might be announced at the unofficial meeting of the participants in the talks that starts today, May 24, in Astana. It is held under the aegis of Kazakhstan's chairmanship of the OSCE. 2. All the players involved in the negotiation process (Chisinau and Tiraspol as conflicting sides, Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE as mediators and guarantors, and the EU and U.S. as observers) either expressed publicly their positions with which they return to the talks or their positions can be easily deduced, as in the case of the U.S. and Tiraspol. In all probability, the OSCE will make public its position in several days or hours. Certain emphases in the given positions are changed. The time will show how beneficial these changes are to the negotiation process. 3. The official Chisinau did an unprecedented thing for the Moldovan diplomacy: it synchronized the time when the main players expressed their positions. We should mention here the visits paid by the Deputy Prime Minister for Reintegration Victor Osipov to Brussels, Moscow, Washington and Kiev. Earlier, Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Popov went on a similar tour to Moscow, Kiev and Bucharest and back. On May 15, Prime Minister Vlad Filat handed over an Aide Memoire on increasing the role of the EU in the Transnistrian conflict settlement process to the European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy Stefan Fule, who paid a visit to Chisinau. This served as an argument and event pretext for the statement issued by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Vice President of the European Commission Catherine Ashton, which appeared in a record time and coincided with the appearance of the Medvedev-Yanukovych statement. It was probably this synchronization that aroused Russia's dissatisfaction or even irritation, which was obvious in the Russian Foreign Ministry's commentary published two days later, on the Moldovan Government's reaction to the Medvedev-Yanukovych statement. [Repositioning] [The European Union's position] means in fact that it is ready to accept the Moldovan authorities' proposal to increase its role in the Transnistrian conflict settlement process. Such a position was expressed for the first time, maybe because it was asked promptly and trenchantly to do so. The EU, winch does not impose preliminary conditions for resuming the official talks in the 5 + 2 format 'without delay' , considered it necessary to confirm the full respect for Moldova's fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. The EU says its actions depend on the solutions proposed by the Government of Moldova, which are good. It seems that the statement issued by Caherine Ashton does not leave room for evasive interpretations, does not hide traps or underwater rocks. Its essence resides in its timely appearance. [Russia and Ukraine,] which showed they will have a common position from now on, also reconfirmed the respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Moldova. They took a step towards transforming the present peacekeeping operation into an international one under the aegis of the OSCE “in the context” not “after” the political settlement of the conflict, as it was mentioned earlier. The two countries also changed their position as regards the creation of a “single” nor “common” legal, economic and defense area with which the settlement process will end. At the same time, the two guarantor countries planted a number of 'mines' in the text of the statement, which were revealed by the Russian Foreign Ministry two days after its publication. In its commentary, the Ministry criticizes the official Chisinau for its wish to come to terms on everything and at once, making it clear that Russia will not accept to pull out its military presence and munitions from Moldova's Transnistrian region in a foreseeable future. Thus, we cannot say that practical steps are being taken to transform the military peacekeeping mission, in which Russia plays the central role, into an international one, in which Russia's role will be much smaller. It seems that some guarantor states and mediators do not consider that 20 years of conflict is a too long period and are ready to mediate and guarantee during a similar period in the future. Another 'mine' is the status of equal partner in the talks that Russia (and Ukraine) seek for the secessionist authorities. Russia says that Chisinau must discuss with Tiraspol from equal positions and not try to exert pressure on the 'opponent'. Such a request is normal for the Transnistrian authorities which consider Transnistria an independent entity, not a constituent part of Moldova. But it is not normal for two countries that are mediators and guarantors and say they observe the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Moldova. As a matter of fact, the Transnistrian regime has violated these fundamental principles for 20 years, mainly using the Russian taxpayers' money. However, the Russian authorities do not spare their own own violators of the sovereignty and integrity, like the Chechen separatists. The Russian policy towards them was formulated by Vladimir Putin during his first term in office as president. It suggests that they should be exterminated, “dissolved in acid and eliminated through the sewerage system”. [The Government of Moldova], through its statement of May 18, showed that it changed its position in relation to the EU following the change in the positions of certain negotiation partners. Thus, the Moldovan authorities approved of the EU's firm support for resolving the Transnistrian dispute, saying they familiarized themselves with the joint statement of the Presidents of Russia and Ukraine, which express the political will to contribute.... The text of the statement contains a major test of the sincerity of the international partners, which will also show their readiness to accept internationally-mandated civil multinational missions and to diminish the military factor in the region, including by fully withdrawing the Russian troops and munitions. In fact, the official Chisinau is checking if the partners are sincere and will indeed observe Moldova's fundamental principles of sovereignty and integrity and the constitutional neutrality, to which the Russian-Ukrainian statement makes reference. The statement implies that Moldova orientates itself towards NATO, ignoring the fact that Russian troops are present on Moldova's territory against its wish and in breach of the principle of constitutional neutrality. Russia treated the Moldovan Government's proposal to open consultations to discuss these issues as soon as possible with jibes and irritation. Is this Ukraine's position too? [Regrouping] By the Medvedev – Yanukovych statement, Ukraine created a joint group with Russia, detaching itself from Moldova's position and national interests. Most probably, these two guarantor countries will guarantee together Tiraspol's status of equal partner in the negotiation process. It is this status that does not allow Russia to withdraw its troops and munitions from Moldova - “the Transnistrian authorities are against, but Transnistria is a partner with equal rights in the talks.” Evidently, the present Ukrainian politicians consider they do it in the name of the national interests and this is their right to think so. Ukraine already obtained a lower purchase price for the Russian gas. Possibly, Russia promised to suppress the centrifugal wishes of certain pro-Russia political forces from Crimea. Russia might want and will be able to keep its word in certain geopolitical circumstances. But, if the Transnistrian model of separatism entered the history books, it could be reanimated anywhere and at any time. However, Ukraine would not like a separatist regime at its borders and a frozen conflict for many years on. Everyone reaps the results of their work and suffers the consequences. Anyway, the 5 + 2 format of the talks will become 4 + 3 or 3 + 1 + 3. Even so, the mathematical rule that changing the grouping of the numbers does not change the result of the operation remains valid. [Prospects] Thus, it seems that the official talks in the 5 + 2 format will be soon resumed, but we cannot expect that the Transnistrian conflict will be settled in a foreseeable future. A part of the international players involved in the process want it to remain frozen. This position might start to change after one or two political cycles in Russia and Ukraine, which is 15-20 years from now. The result obtained by the official Chisinau as a result of its latest efforts is that the situation will not become worse. In a way, the talks in the 5+2 format are likely to change the situation in the Joint Control Commission. The commission is responsibility for the situation in the Security Zone, but its powers are limited to solving incidents and it cannot get involved in overcoming the political crises. Nevertheless, the Moldovan authorities, the present and future ones, will have to take diplomatic and political steps to bring the banks of the Nistru and the people living there closer. This will be the only argument in favor of the country's reunification, which does not fully depend on the geopolitical situation. [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]