This week, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a document by which it introduced the notion “zone of Russian occupation” with regard to the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova into international circuit. This fact divided the political class in Chisinau into at least two distinct camps with diametrically opposed positions. One camp approves of this approach, considering a reality was this way confirmed and this should be taken account of in the Transnistrian settlement process. Another camp challenges it and warns about possible risks and dangers that can be generated by this new approach, especially in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war on the country’s borders. The panel of experts invited to IPN’s public debate centering on the issue spoke about the opportunities and risks that can be generated by the new approach.
Igor Boțan, the standing expert of IPN’s project, spoke about the international organizations founded after World War II, among which the UN is the most important one. He said this was created in 1945 to maintain international peace and security and to develop cooperation between states. The International Court of Justice is one of the UN subdivisions. On March 16, this examined Ukraine’s application and adopted a decision on provisional measures to stop the war in Ukraine. The next most important institution, the Council of Europe, was founded to support the human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Among other influential organizations are also the European Court of Human Rights that defends the human rights through the European Convention on Human Rights, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe whose goal is to solve security issues in the European space, and the European Union that is an economic and political union.
As to the notion of “zone of occupation”, the expert said this was legitimized after World War II to defend the civilians from such zones. It is stipulate in the Geneva Convention of 1949 and has very clear provisions concerning the protection of the rights of these persons. “As wars occur and territories are occupied by belligerent parties, the rights of civilians in these zones should be protected or there will be chaos. We should realize that “zone of occupation” means effective control over an occupied territory by a power that is also responsible for the rights of civilians in this territory – individuals, economic, social and other kinds of rights,” stated Igor Boțan.
Director of the Association “Initiative for Peace”, ex-Deputy Prime Minister for Reintegration Alexandru Flenchea, said PACE adopted the resolution that validates the notion of “zone of occupation” for the Transnistrian region in connection with the war on the European continent that continues for the fourth week. The resolution excludes the Russian Federation from the Council of Europe. Russia, for its part, filed an application to leave the organization almost concomitantly.
“This is a political statement, a powerful political message without legal effects yet. The situation does not change if this is called “zone of occupation” or “illegal foreign presence on the territory of the Republic of Moldova”. We know the situation on the spot. We have foreign troops on our territory and these do not have a legal status. The Russian Federation to which these troops and munitions belong was repeatedly asked to withdraw these and not only by our country, but also by the international community. But all in vain. No effect will be produced now either, regrettably,” stated Alexandru Flenchea, noting this clause can make a legal contribution if this subject is discussed by an international tribunal and reference is made to this PACE resolution among other arguments and conclusions about the state of affairs on Moldova’s territory.
Political analyst Cornel Ciurea said that even if the resolution’s impact will be minimal, it is an important action taken by the Council of Europe in the context of the war in Ukraine. The parties often use the formulation “illegal presence of foreign troops” and do not say “Russian” troops in order to avoid eventual diplomatic conformations with Russia. This replacement is not at all inoffensive and most of the times has political undertones. Unlike Ukraine, Moldova prefers to adopt a softer approach to the Transnistrian issue in its case.
According to Cornel Ciurea, the main distinction is the fact that Chisinau accepted the Transnistrian side as a party to the dialogue. “Ukraine never agreed with Chisinau’s approach as the acceptance of the Transnistrian region as an equal party to the negotiations means legalization of the separatists. Ukraine always criticized us and even during the last days before the war we saw a lot of negative appraisals of Ukraine as to the way in which Chisinau treats this subject,” said the analyst. He noted that “de facto control” is another notion used for the Transnistrian region. De iure, the control is of the Republic of Moldova. De facto, everyone understands that the Russian Federation has political control.
“Surely, the formulation “foreign occupation” is somehow an innovation that was anticipated by the Constitutional Court by its decision of 2017. But the use of this term by the Court was somehow strange as it was never assumed by the political class officially. So, this way the Constitutional Court by this decision went against the way in which the official Chisinau always perceived this conflict and didn’t use the notion of “occupation”. “
The public debate titled “PACE recognized Transnistria as “zone of Russian occupation”. What new opportunities or risks can this generate for the reintegration of the Republic of Moldova?” was the 230th installment of IPN’s project “Developing Political Culture through Public Debates” that is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation.
