[ - As a participant of the OSCE Summit, which took place in Astana, Kazakhstan, on 1-2 December, how do you estimate its results? Of course we are especially interested in the issues regarding the conflict in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.] - The Summit was the first after 11 years and as such it is important that it took place. It also produced a final document that emphasizes values that are close to our hearts – the values of human rights and human dignity. I think the European Union is going to be able to use this achievement of an act of consensus to promote a more operational implementation of those values in the practice of OSCE member states. It is very important that we relentlessly advocate for the dignity of all individuals, for democracy, for enforced human rights in all member states. I should say that the last decade, particularly the last few years have not been such a victorious march towards more individual rights than the 1990s. Thus I want to believe that this summit is signalizing new energy and vigour in this process. Where we failed is the operationalization of these principles in the Action Plan. This has not been adopted in spite of the huge efforts that the EU has put into this. We expected more support to this from all sides. But life is not stopping, the Lithuanian Chairmanship with an excellent OSCE staff in Vienna will continue the efforts in this direction. We MUST operationalize those wonderful words so that they do not remain just words. [ - Why was there no possibility for a compromise even in the case of the Transnistrian conflict, despite everybody agreeing that it is easier to solve than other conflicts in the post-Soviet space, because there are no ethnic, religious, or historic components at all, or these are not so strong as the political one?] - Answer: There are many reasons to this. But let me emphasize that the main stumbling block was not this but another conflict, the legacy of the war in Georgia in 2008. Here the gap was too big to bridge it this time between the expectation of the Georgians and the Russians. We did have a chance to put in the text some good, forward looking statements about the Transnistrian conflict. Our position is very clear since we issued an interpretation statement of our own after the Summit. This emphasizes the importance to adhere to Moldova’s full sovereignty and territorial integrity. We also urged military reductions on the basis of agreed commitments of the member states. As you know, exactly at the previous Summit in Istanbul in 1999 there were important commitments made in this regard. We are convinced that a new energy into these commitments could very favourably improve the whole atmosphere so that we can genuinely move towards what the Summit envisaged: a security community in the Eurasian space. The Transnistrian conflict thus remains a great opportunity – solving it would encourage the EU and its member states to deepen its strategic cooperation with the Russian Federation in this regard. An achievable win-win situation. It is also true that a Summit cannot achieve everything. We also asked our Moldovan friends to consider showing flexibility not in their major principles but in what a short Summit communiqué can do among 56 states for one country. It cannot solve all of a sudden all the problems. [ - How argumentative is the position of the Russian Federation, which explained its refusal to sign a document of compromise by using the notion of “ideological approach”? It is a new notion put in circulation, isn't it? Why did Russia behave the way it behaved?] - Answer: Like all of us, Russia is following its perceived national interests. We have many fora for dialogue with the Russians and I am glad that these fora are always and everywhere open, honest – as it is due among strategic partners. I have no right and duty to define Russia’s definition of its interests. But these dialogues will help to understand each other better and perhaps to revisit time to time these approaches. But needless to say that the interpretation of what is going on with Georgia is the main issue. Our position is unshaken: we stand for Georgia’s full sovereignty and territorial integrity. President Saakashvili 10 days ago made a very important gesture: pledged not to use force to regain the territories it lost control over in the 2008 war. We hope this approach will be consequently followed and appropriately answered by the Russian partners. [ - In this context, how do you estimate the situation in which the Transnistrian conflict finds itself at the present stage: at what place it is situated in the settlement process, which is the role of the sides in the conflict, as well as of the other members of 5+2 format?] - Answer: The last year, during the period of the Filat government, very important strategic steps were taken: Mr. Filat opened up for a genuine dialogue with Mr. Smirnov. His government started important confidence building measures. His deputy prime minister, Mr. Osipov did a state-of-the-art job in implementing this policy and got a strong support from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European integration. The reopening of the railways is just but one symbolic and visible side of this whole, serious process. As a result of better atmosphere, we are really very close to the reopening of the formal 5+2 negotiations. This is exactly that President Medvedev pledged in Deauville thus I trust it will indeed happen. Our Transnistrian interlocutors also agree with this. We need there also an Action Plan soon. As to the role of the different participants of the only legitimate 5+2 format, we are all equals but with different, asymmetric roles, interests, etc. We all are important for a lasting, effective peace settlement. Particularly important is to continue the good dialogue and deepen it between Chisinau and Tiraspol. This is not equating their situations: international law is clear about this. But the dialogue will have to continue in the atmosphere of mutual respect and deepening trust. Thus 2011 may be an important year here. [ - During the last year or so, the Transnistrian conflict has appeared and stayed quiet strongly on the agenda of the important international actors, including especially some of the EU member states and the EU as a whole. They treated the Russian Federation's attitude in the case of the Transnistrian conflict as a test in a more important issue such as Pan-European Security. Shall we understand this as a failure of the dialogue in both issues?] - Answer: What would be a failure? We have made a great progress in 2010 and will hopefully continue in 2011. This process is not a prisoner of a much broader issue what a Summit is. The goals and perspectives remain the same – it is just even more in the interest of the participants to achieve real success here. I trust we will. [ - Which is, in the end, the perspective of the conflict settlement in terms of its international component?] - Answer: There remains a strong commonality of interests between the Russian Federation, Ukraine and European Union. A balanced settlement will give a strong status to Transnistria within the Republic of Moldova. It will task, in my view, the actors of the 5+2 to help implement and oversee the agreement because rule-of-law remains project in the making in Moldova – here its European integration is a kind of guarantee. But I am sure we will have to work strongly with our Russian and Ukrainian colleagues as well as with the Americans to comfort the fears of all, including the Transnistrians in the implementation phase. We will also need to be very generous when it comes to finance the reunification that needs to become a big success, elevating the whole country from the current state of poverty. Its a shame in what conditions people have to live – not by chance a third of the Transnistrians have already left the region and the process is ongoing. With the words of a Transnistrian politician, we should not wait until the region becomes a pension house and a bunch of military garrisons. The people there deserve better and the peace settlement should be the road to achieving a striving Transnistrian region. A settlement should also see the current peacekeeping formation replaced by a civilian mission monitoring and helping reintegration on both sides of the Nistru. [ - Along with international efforts, what do you think should be done as a priority at home, in Moldova, to solve the conflict?] - Answer: Two things are needed. Some of the Moldovan politicians say: oh, we have done everything, they on the other side are just not grateful enough. While I think the answer from Tiraspol must become more trustful and robust, I am also convinced that Chisinau can and should do even more. Confidence building next year will have to become systematic and strong. All the confidence building working groups have to work well. This has been a governmental priority and will have to remain one. It has to be thus a priority of all working groups as well. They will have to produce real results to all inhabitants, including on the left bank. The process has only taken a modest start so far. Moldova has to organize itself even better. It was a good step that the negotiator is a deputy Prime Minister but he has to be empowered which was not the case now. He or she will have to have the authority to strongly work with the branch ministries to help to implement governmental policies towards the Transnistrian conflict. This has not been the case now, this role needs to be institutionalized. The opposition criticised that with the creation of the deputy Prime Minister’s job, the Ministry as such was dissolved. I must say I agree with this criticism; the best would be to re-establish it but maintain the deputy Prime Minister title. In the other ministries responsibilities must be created on high enough level to take care of each ministry’s work towards confidence building, reintegration projects, settlement. The EU is sending many high level advisors but the reintegration office does not get any; this is a mistake that needs to be remedied. Both, the political and the project side needs advisors and it also needs strong staff reinforcement. The office works with a miniscule, tiny staff – this needs to change. These are all important issues if we want to have real results in 2011 and thereafter. [ - How do you estimate the results of the early parliamentary elections of 28 November in the Republic of Moldova?] - Answer: I do not have the right to evaluate results of an election except to say that I truly admire the stamina of the population that exercised its civic rights and voted in such high numbers and that the whole process was dignified and overall democratic. As Monica Macovei rightly noted after the elections, this makes Moldova stand out in the Eastern Partnership country community. In the CIS region, I would say, Moldova has become a model for democratic development, even though much is still to be done. [ - Do these results secure a solution out of the political crisis that has gripped Moldova for a long time? Is there any risk of new elections?] - Answer: What can secure stability of Moldova’s democracy is the wisdom of the politicians to successfully negotiate so that the subsequent state structures can be established, of course including the person of the President. This is essential. Besides that we are convinced that the long term interests of the people of Moldova are best served if the country continues its European integration path. This country has a truly European vocation and this has to be reflected in its policies. We do follow the programs and political rhetoric of the parties, politicians attentively. We trust that the path of democratic and economic reforms as well as European integration will prevail simply because that is in the interest of the Moldovan people. [ - Did Moldovan society come out of elections more decisive or less decisive, more divided or less divided regarding its worries, which are characteristic to it: identity, geopolitical orientation, political preferences, interethnic relations especially in linguistic issue etc.?] - Answer: It is my strong impression that the answer is yes. The rhetoric this time seems to be less belligerent, more respectful and cooperative. This finally has to stop. People talk about negotiations and it is good. Moldova is a tolerant country that handles in the everyday life those differences exceptionally well for such a relatively poor country. It is a great value and I hope the political class will gradually follow the people and absorb the spirit of tolerance more and more. This is a core European value. On the other hand there are still rhetorical practices that are about labelling political opponents with rude words, questioning each other’s elementary dignity. Also, on both sides historical mythologies are being created to justify intolerance. A lot of work is still ahead in this complex society to unite people between the linguistic and to a smaller extent ethnic dividing lines. But again, the tolerance and openness of society is a great fundament to build on. [ - What do you think about the way the negotiations on establishment of governing coalition take place in Moldova?] - Answer: As I said we are hopeful that the negotiations will result in stable, reform minded, open government. [ - What would you suggest the new coalition to take over from the experience of the Alliance for European Integration and what would be wrong to take over?] - Answer: The current government has done many things right; the macroeconomic situation has been stabilized, and the government worked energetically with us for a deeper European integration. As to the macroeconomic situation, I would underline the importance to continue giving priority to prudence over populism. I see over and over in the countries that change from socialism to open economies that where populism takes root it can kill the economy. So, my advice is to continue this path. I also commend the way the government has worked on the Transnistrian issue and I genuinely expect this to continue. I also commend the way the government improved the country’s relations with its neighbours, particularly with Romania but there have been promising steps to improve the situation with Ukraine. There the remaining issues of border demarcations should be a very high priority. This on the positive side. Where I think the government needs to improve is its internal economic regulation where the direction has been good but even more demonopolization is needed, regulation should even more support competition and regulatory obstacles to small private business investments should be radically and effectively removed. Also, government bureaucracy needs to be reformed so that they are higher paid but more streamlined and efficient. I need to be honest: we, the EU need, in my view, also to be faster to negotiate the crucially important Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement. On one hand it will improve the business regulatory environment, on the other it will attract more European investment. This is absolutely crucial, the government is doing its utmost to achieve this and I hope we will be fast and forthcoming in this important area. [ - “Moldova's tolerant society and particularly civil society should make the politicians calm down at the end. I should say in this regard that I expect a little bit more from the civil society, which is very vigorous and European”, you declared in an interview fot Info-Prim Neo at the beginning of this year {(see text of the interview here)}. How was civil society's performance in this electoral campaign, according to you which contribution has it made to the registered results and to indication of perspectives of development of the Moldovan society?] - Answer: I do not expect civil society to agitate in favour of any political force. They have played an important role to call for civic activity and have monitored adequately different aspects of the election, this is good and commendable. In a young and vulnerable democracy as Moldova’s is, civil society has a large dose of responsibility to perform various aspects of civic control over the elites. This remains an important challenge since nobody can expect that Moldova will tomorrow miraculously become a perfect democracy. The responsibility of the civil society actors therefore remains huge. The less they follow particular party interests the more they can fulfil their role as institution builders, change agents on behalf of plurality, democracy, human rights and dignity, competitive, strong market economy. Here the responsibility of their donors is also large since they are often foreign donors: they should also remain impartial and care about institutional development here. I trust this evolution will also continue next year. [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]