[ - What was the significance of 2010 for the Transnistrian conflict settlement process in your opinion? Can you assess the work of the Alliance for European Integration as a partner in the negotiation process compared with the previous, Communist power? ] [Valeri Kuzmin:] Many of the direct participants in the Transnistrian conflict settlement talks summed up the results of their work in 2010 and it would be hard to add something as I'm not Russia's political representative at the negotiations. One thing is yet indisputable – even if there were a number of unfavorable factors, first of all the political instability that is still felt in Moldova, the given process became more dynamic. I mean first of all the activities carried out by the OSCE and the meetings of the confidence-building working groups focusing on different areas. However, there was made no significant progress in resolving the dispute. Taking this account, I think it is not reasonable to analyze in detail the activity of the AEI and of the previous Government of Moldova as they worked in objectively different conditions and had different motivations. But in both of the cases the final result was rather modest. [ - What role did the direct dialogue between Igor Smirnov and Vladimir Filat play in the conflict settlement process?] [Valeri Kuzmin:] The first steps to establish direct dialogue taken by Moldova's Prime Minister Vladimir Filat and the Transnistrian leader Igor Smirnov, within the process of restoring confidence among the sides involved in the Transnistrian dispute, undoubtedly made a contribution to this process. The personal contacts and the ability to understand each other represent obligatory preconditions for achieving results in negotiations. Nevertheless, what happened in 2010 can hardly be named a settlement process. It was rather a new start towards achieving the settlement objective. [ - Can the Merkel-Medvedev Memorandum contribute to the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict?] [Valeri Kuzmin:] The so-called Merkel-Medvedev Memorandum provoked reactions both in Chisinau and Tiraspol. The appearance of such a document showed that the main foreign players started to pay increased attention to the Transnistrian conflict. At the same time, most of the politicians and commentators in Chisinau tended to isolate the given issue from the general context of the high-level meeting held in Mezelberg, where there were examined a number of topical problems for the European continent. There was formulated the initiative concerning the creation of a more efficient mechanism for interaction between Russia and the European Union in the area of foreign policy and security (the so-called Ashton – Lavrov committee), which is still examined by the EU. Other mutual agreements reached within the Russian-German talks start to have a positive influence on the resolving of the problems included in the general European agenda, including on the efforts made to resume the negotiations on the renewal of the mechanism of control over ordinary armament on the continent. [ - Why was the OSCE summit held in Astana unable to adopt clearer documents as regards the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict?] [Valeri Kuzmin:] The OSCE summit in Astana did not manage to adopt a political document on the resolution of protracted regional conflicts (which are also called “frozen”) because some of the states tried to force the approval of such a text that did not correspond to the real situation in the give areas. The Russian delegation did its utmost to pave the way for a compromise, but its efforts failed. [ - Will the progress in the Transnistrian settlement conflict talks lead to the intensification of interaction between the confidence-building working groups?] [Valeri Kuzmin:] The activity of the working groups that aim to build confidence between the banks of the Nistru River form an organic whole. That's why the progress made in a certain field can hardly lead to general success. [ - How well did the mediators and observers to the settlement process perform in 2010?] [Valeri Kuzmin:] The mediators (Russia and Ukraine as guarantor states and the OSCE) and the observers (the European Union and the United States) as well as the Kazakh Chairmanship of the OSCE did everything possible within the Transnistrian conflict settlement process to preserve and develop the dynamic nature of the process in 2010. At the same time, I consider that the determining role in achieving a breakthrough and in adopting decisions on the most important confidence-building measures and subsequently on the statutory matters must be played by the conflicting sides, and this is one of the main aspects of Russia's position. If the sides do not initiate a serious and respectful dialogue, it is impossible to imagine that this long crisis can be resolved by peaceful political methods, which, according to a general belief, are the only methods acceptable in the Transnistrian conflict. [ - Former Deputy Prime Minister for Reintegration Matters Victor Osipov stated on one occasion that hopefully in a couple of weeks a formal 5+2 meeting would take place. Is it possible to resume talks in this format in the foreseeable future?] [Valeri Kuzmin:] The possibility of holding a formal meeting in the 5+2 format has always depended and continues to depend mainly on how and when the order of the day is established, on concrete steps towards coordinating the basic parameters and content of discussions on the key issues of the conflict. The issue here is not about whether a formal status is assigned to a meeting or a session, but about the capacity of the parties to make their positions approach each other's, so that the mediators and the international observers are able to help them accept a definitive consensus, their capacity to prepare measures in support of the adopted decisions and to provide the necessary guarantees in the settlement process. In other words, all in due time. [ - What is the position of the Russian Federation on the case of Ilie Cazac and Ernest Vardanyan and what steps are needed to ensure respect for human rights in the Transnistrian region?] [Valeri Kuzmin:] The position of Russia in the case of the arrest and condemnation of E. Vardanyan is resumed to the fact that the decision in question was pronounced by the supreme court of Transnistria, which acted as an independent body of the judicial branch, albeit of an unrecognized state. It is not within the Embassy's competence to comment anything on this case, but considering the rather young age of the condemned and the fact that this sentence has left behind the man's wife and his two very young children, I will allow myself to express the hope that the Transnistrian authorities could perhaps identify a more humane solution to this issue. In what concerns the case of I. Cazac, the legal proceedings are not yet over and any comment would be inopportune. In this connection, I believe it is not very appropriate to exploit these two cases and other similar episodes as pretexts to accuse one of the parties involved in the conflict of disrespect for human rights. To my profound regret, not just I, but also the public opinion knows many cases of human rights violations and flaws of the judicial system which occur on the entire territory of Moldova, including the Transnistrian region. As for the many hostile information and propaganda campaigns, the international practice has clearly demonstrated that they can only harm any settlement process. [ - Opinion polls and observations have revealed that a considerable part of the population of the Transnistrian region are in favor of the reintegration of the country. Do you think this is true?] [Valeri Kuzmin:] From my own observations I can confirm the results of these opinion polls, which say that a considerable part of the population on both the eastern and western side of the Nistru River are in favor of the reintegration of Moldova. However, this doesn't mean that the people are ready to accept such unification in any conditions. The root causes of the conflict are widely known – they are related to manifestations in the past of disrespect for democratic principles (which are now called European in Chisinau) and for human rights (the right to cultural and ethnic self-identification, the use of the native language, including in education, etc.), and also to attempts to impose concepts which are alien to the population in Transnistria, like a different history, by violent methods. Those factors led to serious bloodshed in the years 1990-92 and this cannot be easily erased from people's consciousness. For the wounds to heal definitively, it is necessary to restore the spirit of confidence. [ - How do you imagine a final settlement of the conflict would be? When and how will it be achieved?] [Valeri Kuzmin:] Like I was trying to demonstrate earlier, a final variant of the settlement process can only result from the advancement of the parties involved in the conflict closer to each other. Russia is not only ready to support the negotiation process, but also to guarantee the coordinated results. In our opinion, a key issue in addition to those mentioned above should be a special and guaranteed status for Transnistria within a territorially integral Moldova. However, as it can be seen in many places around the globe, territorial integrity does not necessarily mean a unitary form of government. Because no one questions the territorial integrity of such federations or confederations like Brazil, Germany, India, Russia, the United States, Switzerland etc. It is also important to understand that in the course of the settlement process the shape of the international mission will also change: the current military peacekeeping mission will be replace by a civilian, peace-guaranteeing mission. However, this would not be a prerequisite for the settlement, but rather a component of the final solution. As for the “bogeyman stories” like “the Russian military presence” could pose a threat, they don't even deserve to comment. I will only say that the peacemakers from Russia are perceived unequivocally in Transnistria as a guarantee of not only peace but also of a fair settlement in general. In any case, the American military bases stationed in Romania, Bulgaria and Kosovo have a greater influence on regional security in the South East Balkans, as they are incomparably larger in size; not to mention the plans to install American missile interceptors in Bulgaria and Romania. The modern world, including in terms of national security, becomes more and more integrated and globalized, which is particularly manifest in Europe. So, the relevant issues of the Transnistrian conflict cannot be examined in a total separation from the general issues of security in Europe. [Irina Ursu, Info-Prim Neo]