Politics
From “peacekeeping” to peacekeeping? the EU looks at Moldova
Reading Time: 5 minutes Both officially and unofficially, Moldova will again top the European security agenda at next month’s OSCE year-end ministerial conference. This will again be an exercise in futility, unless the Europ
Both officially and unofficially, Moldova will again top the European security agenda at next month’s OSCE year-end ministerial conference. This will again be an exercise in futility, unless the European Union and the United States decide to act on their own, outside the OSCE’s framework though not without its cooperation, and outside the Moscow-beloved "existing format of negotiations" though engaging Moscow directly.
New ideas and new channels are obviously necessary. The resumption of negotiations on Transnistria with the 5 + 2 format — now adding the United States and the EU to the previous "five-sided" format of Russia, Ukraine, OSCE, Chisinau, and Tiraspol (see EDM, November 1) — demonstrated that this format is incapable of even tackling, let alone solving, the most pressing issues, foremost among which is withdrawal of Russian forces from Moldova’s territory.
While that negotiating round was in progress in Chisinau and Tiraspol, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov declared that Russia cannot evacuate its military arsenals from Transnistria in the absence of a political settlement of the conflict. In keeping with Moscow’s policy, Ivanov mentioned only the eventuality of removing arsenals, not troops. Russian troops would stay on to guard the arsenals and "keep the peace" until a political settlement is in place, he said. Then, "Whatever version of a settlement is adopted, there will still be a need for military guarantees; everyone acknowledges and understands this … We need a political resolution [of the conflict] first, and then military guarantees." At the same time, Russia "does not insist on having a monopoly on the peacekeeping operation," Ivanov said; "dozens of countries" may be eligible to participate in the operation (Interfax, October 28).
Ivanov’s statement reaffirms a Russian policy that dates to 2001 on the informal level and became official policy in 2003. It maintains that: 1) Moscow can not override Tiraspol authorities’ objections to removal or scrapping of the arsenals, as long as Transnistria’s political status has not been determined; 2) Russia’s troops must therefore protect those arsenals for the [indefinite] duration, and the "peacekeeping" component of those troops will stay on, pending a political settlement of the conflict; 3) Once a settlement is attained, Russian troops will stay on, turning from "peacekeepers" into "military guarantors" of security in Moldova.
This logic has become the standard one in Moscow’s statements and in its conflict-settlement proposals, including that presented by Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs last month to the participants in the negotiations.
Interviewed in Chisinau by a large group of Russian journalists, Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin dismissed Moscow’s excuses for refusing to withdraw its forces: "Russia’s troops actually provide a political cover to protect Tiraspol’s authorities … When Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov and anyone else in Russia tells us that they cannot withdraw their arsenals because of a certain [Tiraspol leader Igor] Smirnov, I say: Smirnov is a citizen of Russia, and most of the ‘ministers’ in Transnistria’s ‘government’ are from Russia’s Federal Security Service`" (Moldova Suverana, November 1). Until now, the OSCE Mission has regularly claimed — by way of excusing Moscow — that Tiraspol "does not allow" the Russian troops to be withdrawn and has also linked troop withdrawal to political settlement (de facto "synchronization"). On these key points, the American-led Mission’s position differs from the State Department’s official position.
Within the OSCE in Vienna, the United States takes every opportunity to call for the complete and unconditional (i.e., no "synchronization") withdrawal of Russian troops from Moldova, in accordance with the OSCE’s 1999 Istanbul summit decisions. By the same token, Washington as well as NATO in its collective capacity would only meet Russia’s desire to ratify the 1999-adapted Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe after Russian troops withdraw from Georgia and Moldova. However, it has become clear since Istanbul 1999 that the OSCE is unable to enforce its own documents because of Russia’s veto power; and that the promise of CFE Treaty ratification is not a sufficient incentive for Russia to withdraw the troops from Moldova. This issue can only be pursued effectively by the United States and the EU directly with Russia at high levels.
Thus far, Washington seems reluctant to do so. The White House declined proposals to include this issue on the agenda of President George W. Bush’s recent summit meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. At their latest summit in September, the agenda was said to be too small to accommodate anything other than U.S. top-priority issues. Meanwhile in Brussels, some officials seem inclined to fall back on an earlier idea: a limited internationalization and some civilianization of Russia’s "peacekeeping" operation in Moldova.
The idea that is now being tested out envisages a "peace-stabilization force" in which Russia would provide 50% of the troops (this is phrased as: "no country could provide more than 50%"); some measure of Ukrainian participation is also taken for granted; the command would be an (unspecified) international one, not Russian; and the multinational contingent would include police elements, alongside the military. This solution is described as a transitional one; but there seems to be no clear idea yet about its duration, or what would follow after the transitional period.
This concept is reminiscent of, and possibly inspired in part by, ideas that were under discussion between the OSCE’s Chisinau Mission and Russian officials in 2000-2001 on modifying the Russian operation’s format. It was then envisaged that Russia should provide 50% of the troops; any Ukrainian troops would be counted as part of Russia’s 50%; but there was no agreement on command arrangements or the composition of the remaining 50% of the contingent. Moscow was amenable to a token Finnish participation; but it ruled out any Swedish contribution; and it also ruled out participation by any NATO member country.
Notably, some EU officials propose that deployment of a peace-stabilization force must precede a political settlement in Transnistria, rather than awaiting a settlement. The EU’s Netherlands presidency had proposed in 2003 an international "peace-consolidation" mission as a post-settlement operation. That was clearly the wrong sequencing, and it must be righted this time around. On the positive side, the 2003 proposal underscored the need to civilianize — in fact, largely demilitarize — the peacekeeping contingent. Any new EU proposal can do no less than the former one in this respect.
If the EU’s proposals (when they materialize) concede more than 50% participation to non-EU countries (Russia, Ukraine, possibly some others) from the outset, then the EU would have to accept a Russian-dominated command. Moscow could settle for some form of "joint" (as distinct from international) command, which is presumably unacceptable to the EU, but could tempt the OSCE.
Entrusting the OSCE to mandate and — albeit nominally — to run this operation would be the worst possible mistake. The OSCE is not an independent security actor. Its supine acceptance of Russia’s killing the OSCE’s own Georgia Border Monitoring Operation must discourage any idea of placing the OSCE, if only nominally, in the driver’s seat in Moldova. However, the OSCE can play a useful auxiliary role, for example in terms of verification of Transnistria’s armaments and troops, along the lines of its erstwhile Kosovo verification mission. In Kosovo, however, the United States and NATO did all the heavy lifting, with the EU taking charge of reconstruction.
The most convincing idea remains that of Moldova’s presidency and government, supported by the community of civil-society experts: withdrawal of Russian troops and deployment of an international mission of observers, military and civilian, including Russian ones, under international leadership immune to Russian dictation. // Vladimir Socor
A new football club has earned a leading place in the UEFA Champions League groups and starred in the headlines of worldwide football news yesterday. The Football Club Sheriff Tiraspol claimed a win with the score 2-1 against Real Madrid on the Santiago Bernabeu Stadium in Madrid. That made Sheriff Tiraspol the leader in Group D of the Champions League, including the football club in the groups of the most important European interclub competition for the first time ever.
International media outlets called it a miracle, a shock and a historic event, while strongly emphasizing the origin of the team and the existing political conflict between the two banks of the Dniester. “Football club from a pro-Russian separatist enclave in Moldova pulls off one of the greatest upsets in Champions League history,” claimed the news portals. “Sheriff crushed Real!” they said.
Moldovans made a big fuss out of it on social media, splitting into two groups: those who praised the team and the Republic of Moldova for making history and those who declared that the football club and their merits belong to Transnistria – a problematic breakaway region that claims to be a separate country.
Both groups are right and not right at the same time, as there is a bunch of ethical, political, social and practical matters that need to be considered.
Is it Moldova?
First of all, every Moldovan either from the right or left bank of Dniester (Transnistria) is free to identify himself with this achievement or not to do so, said Vitalie Spranceana, a sociologist, blogger, journalist and urban activist. According to him, boycotting the football club for being a separatist team is wrong.
At the same time, “it’s an illusion to think that territory matters when it comes to football clubs,” Spranceana claimed. “Big teams, the ones included in the Champions League, have long lost their connection both with the countries in which they operate, and with the cities in which they appeared and to which they linked their history. […] In the age of globalized commercial football, teams, including the so-called local ones, are nothing more than global traveling commercial circuses, incidentally linked to cities, but more closely linked to all sorts of dirty, semi-dirty and cleaner cash flows.”
What is more important in this case is the consistency, not so much of citizens, as of politicians from the government who have “no right to celebrate the success of separatism,” as they represent “the national interests, not the personal or collective pleasures of certain segments of the population,” believes the political expert Dionis Cenusa. The victory of FC Sheriff encourages Transnistrian separatism, which receives validation now, he also stated.
“I don’t know how it happens that the “proud Moldovans who chose democracy”, in their enthusiasm for Sheriff Tiraspol’s victory over Real Madrid, forget the need for total and unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria!” declared the journalist Vitalie Ciobanu.
Nowadays, FC Sheriff Tiraspol has no other choice than to represent Moldova internationally. For many years, the team used the Moldovan Football Federation in order to be able to participate in championships, including international ones. That is because the region remains unrecognised by the international community. However, the club’s victory is presented as that of Transnistria within the region, without any reference to the Republic of Moldova, its separatist character being applied in this case especially.
Is it a victory?
In fact, FC Sheriff Tiraspol joining the Champions League is a huge image breakthrough for the Transnistrian region, as the journalist Madalin Necsutu claimed. It is the success of the Tiraspol Club oligarchic patrons. From the practical point of view, FC Sheriff Tiraspol is a sports entity that serves its own interests and the interests of its owners, being dependent on the money invested by Tiraspol (but not only) oligarchs.
Here comes the real dilemma: the Transnistrian team, which is generously funded by money received from corruption schemes and money laundering, is waging an unequal fight with the rest of the Moldovan football clubs, the journalist also declared. The Tiraspol team is about to raise 15.6 million euro for reaching the Champions League groups and the amounts increase depending on their future performance. According to Necsutu, these money will go directly on the account of the club, not to the Moldovan Football Federation, creating an even bigger gab between FC Sheriff and other football clubs from Moldova who have much more modest financial possibilities.
“I do not see anything useful for Moldovan football, not a single Moldovan player is part of FC Sheriff Tiraspol. I do not see anything beneficial for the Moldovan Football Federation or any national team.”
Is it only about football?
FC Sheriff Tiraspol, with a total estimated value of 12.8 million euros, is controlled by Victor Gusan and Ilya Kazmala, being part of Sheriff Holding – a company that controls the trade of wholesale, retail food, fuels and medicine by having monopolies on these markets in Transnistria. The holding carries out car trading activities, but also operates in the field of construction and real estate. Gusan’s people also hold all of the main leadership offices in the breakaway region, from Parliament to the Prime Minister’s seat or the Presidency.
The football club is supported by a holding alleged of smuggling, corruption, money laundering and organised crime. Moldovan media outlets published investigations about the signals regarding the Sheriff’s holding involvement in the vote mobilization and remuneration of citizens on the left bank of the Dniester who participated in the snap parliamentary elections this summer and who were eager to vote for the pro-Russian socialist-communist bloc.
Considering the above, there is a great probability that the Republic of Moldova will still be represented by a football club that is not identified as being Moldovan, being funded from obscure money, growing in power and promoting the Transnistrian conflict in the future as well.
Photo: unknown
Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova, Natalia Gavrilita, together with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicu Popescu, pay an official visit to Brussels, between September 27-28, being invited by High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles.
Today, Prime Minister had a meeting with Charles Michel, President of the European Council. The Moldovan PM thanked the senior European official for the support of the institution in strengthening democratic processes, reforming the judiciary and state institutions, economic recovery and job creation, as well as increasing citizens’ welfare. Natalia Gavrilita expressed her confidence that the current visit laid the foundations for boosting relations between the Republic of Moldova and the European Union, so that, in the next period, it would be possible to advance high-level dialogues on security, justice and energy. Officials also exchanged views on priorities for the Eastern Partnership Summit, to be held in December.
“The EU is open to continue to support the Republic of Moldova and the ambitious reform agenda it proposes. Moldova is an important and priority partner for us,” said Charles Michel.
Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita also met with Paolo Gentiloni, European Commissioner for Economy, expressing her gratitude for the support received through the OMNIBUS macro-financial assistance program. The two officials discussed the need to advance the recovery of money from bank fraud, to strengthen sustainable mechanisms for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises in Moldova, and to standardize the customs and taxes as one of the main conditions for deepening cooperation with the EU in this field.
Additionally, Prime Minister spoke about the importance of the Eastern Partnership and the Deep Free Trade Agreement, noting that the Government’s policies are aimed at developing an economic model aligned with the European economic model, focused on digitalization, energy efficiency and the green economy.
A common press release of the Moldovan Prime Minister with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, Josep Borrell Fontelles, took place today, where the agenda of Moldova’s reforms and the main priorities to focus on in the coming months were presented: judiciary reform; fighting COVID-19 pandemic; promoting economic recovery and conditions for growth and job creation; strengthening state institutions and resilience of the country.
“I am here to relaunch the dialogue between my country and the European Union. Our partnership is strong, but I believe there is room for even deeper cooperation and stronger political, economic and sectoral ties. I am convinced that this partnership is the key to the prosperity of our country and I hope that we will continue to strengthen cooperation.”
The Moldovan delegation met Didier Reynders, European Commissioner for Justice. Tomorrow, there are scheduled common meetings with Oliver Varhelyi, European Commissioner for Neighborhood and Enlargement, Adina Valean, European Commissioner for Transport and Kadri Simson, European Commissioner for Energy.
Prime Minister will also attend a public event, along with Katarina Mathernova, Deputy Director-General for Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations.
Photo: gov.md
Politics
Promo-LEX about Maia Sandu’s UN speech: The president must insist on appointing a rapporteur to monitor the situation of human rights in Transnistria
The President of the Republic of Moldova, Maia Sandu, pays an official visit to New York, USA, between September 21-22. There, she participates in the work of the United Nations General Assembly. According to a press release of the President’s Office, the official will deliver a speech at the tribune of the United Nations.
In this context, the Promo-LEX Association suggested the president to request the appointment of a special rapporteur in order to monitor the situation of human rights in the Transnistrian region. According to Promo-LEX, the responsibility for human rights violations in the Transnistrian region arises as a result of the Russian Federation’s military, economic and political control over the Tiraspol regime.
“We consider it imperative to insist on the observance of the international commitments assumed by the Russian Federation regarding the withdrawal of the armed forces and ammunition from the territory of the country,” the representatives of Promo-LEX stated. They consider the speech before the UN an opportunity “to demand the observance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the Russian Federation with reference to this territory which is in its full control.”
“It is important to remember about the numerous cases of murder, torture, ill-treatment, forced enlistment in illegal military structures, the application of pseudo-justice in the Transnistrian region, all carried out under the tacit agreement of the Russian Federation. These findings stem from dozens of rulings and decisions issued by the European Court of Human Rights, which found that Russia is responsible for human rights violations in the region.”
The association representatives expressed their hope that the president of the country would give priority to issues related to the human rights situation in the Transnistrian region and would call on relevant international actors to contribute to guaranteeing fundamental human rights and freedoms throughout Moldova.
They asked Maia Sandu to insist on the observance of the obligation to evacuate the ammunition and the military units of the Russian Federation from the territory of the Republic of Moldova, to publicly support the need for the Russian Federation to implement the ECtHR rulings on human rights violations in the Transnistrian region, and to request the appointment of an UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur to monitor the human rights situation in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.
**
The Promo-LEX Association concluded that 14 out of 25 actions planned within the National Action Plan for the years 2018–2022 concerning respecting human rights in Transnistria were not carried out by the responsible authorities.
The association expressed its concern and mentioned that there are a large number of delays in the planned results. “There is a lack of communication and coordination between the designated institutions, which do not yet have a common vision of interaction for the implementation of the plan.”
Promo-LEX requested the Government of the Republic of Moldova to re-assess the reported activities and to take urgent measures, “which would exclude superficial implementation of future activities and increase the level of accountability of the authorities.”
Photo: peacekeeping.un.org
“They are not needy, but they need help”. How Moldovan volunteers try to create a safe environment for the Ukrainian refugees
Reading Time: 3 minutes At the Government’s ground floor, the phones ring constantly, the laptop screens never reach standby. In...
#WorldForUkraine – a map that shows the magnitude of the world’s actions against Russian aggression
Reading Time: 2 minutes The international community and volunteers from all over te world have launched #WorldForUkraine as a platform...
How is Moldova managing the big influx of Ukrainian refugees? The authorities’ plan, explained
Reading Time: 3 minutes From 24th to 28th of February, 71 359 Ukrainian citizens entered the territory of Republic of...
Russia And Ukraine At The Beginning of 2022
Reading Time: 4 minutes This opinion piece was written by Dr. Nicholas Dima. Dr. Dima was formerly a Professor of Geography...
The man raising children on Nistru river
Reading Time: 7 minutes On the Nistru, near the village of Varnița, a few colored pens with blue dots in...
The village of the first astronomer in the Republic of Moldova
Reading Time: 5 minutes From eight in the morning till noon, every Thursday and Sunday, people lay their merchandise on...
The prodigal son returns and turns his grandparents’ home in a tourist attraction on Nistru river
Reading Time: 7 minutes On the road towards the school, a well-maintained rural house catches your eye, yellow stags painted...
FC Sheriff Tiraspol victory: can national pride go hand in hand with political separatism?
Reading Time: 4 minutes A new football club has earned a leading place in the UEFA Champions League groups and...
Study// What is the reaction of authorities to journalistic investigations?
Reading Time: 3 minutes “People expect logical consequences when they see cases of undeclared assets, conflicts of interest, protectionism or...
Secretary General of CoE called on Moldova’s state institutions to avoid constitutional crisis. Politicians took it the way they wanted.
Reading Time: 3 minutes At the beginning of this month, Speaker of Parliament, Zinaida Greceanii, sent a letter to Secretary...