{"id":443608,"date":"2017-03-14T21:39:41","date_gmt":"2017-03-14T21:39:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.moldova.org\/en\/?p=443608"},"modified":"2017-03-14T21:44:02","modified_gmt":"2017-03-14T21:44:02","slug":"chisinau-tiraspol-talk-latin-script-schools-farmer-lands-transportation-petrol-import-penal-cases-ends-no-results","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.moldova.org\/en\/chisinau-tiraspol-talk-latin-script-schools-farmer-lands-transportation-petrol-import-penal-cases-ends-no-results\/","title":{"rendered":"Chi\u0219in\u0103u-Tiraspol talk on latin script schools, farmer lands, transportation, petrol import, penal cases ends with no results"},"content":{"rendered":"Reading Time: <\/span> 3<\/span> minutes<\/span><\/span>

On March 14th, the political representatives of Moldova’s constitutional authorities and those of the Transnistrian separatist administration (Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic- PMR) had a formal discussion on the bilateral issues at the OSCE Mission Office in Chi\u0219in\u0103u.<\/p>\n

Both negotiators, Tiraspol’s Vitaly Ignatiev and Chi\u0219in\u0103u’s George B\u0103lan, separately\u00a0that the parties achieved little to no agreement in domains like transportation, petrol imports and border control.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the two officials seemed to speak about two different discussions and different topics.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Political representatives of the separatist administration of PMR, second from the right- main negotiator, foreign minister Vitaly Ignatiev, Source: mid.gospmr.com<\/p><\/div>\n

As Tiraspol’s foreign ministry<\/a>\u00a0reports, the discussions were not so successful. According to Transnistria’s negotiator Vitaly Ignatiev, the Moldovan party did not offer a clear response to the issue of the petrol products imports in the north of the region. Ignatiev claimed that the Moldovan negotiator rejected any talks\u00a0about solving the so-called\u00a0politically motivated penal cases,\u00a0<\/em>thus derailing from the Berlin Protocol.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Transnistrian official stressed that PMR is against the opening of the joint Moldo-Ukrainian checkpoint at Cuciurgan-Pervomaiskoe, because it would limit the free movement of Transnistrian people and exports. He even brought up the number of 38 million USD as the preliminary costs of instituting the “three-times” control, to which the Moldovan negotiator allegedly did not even pay attention. Ignatiev added that he hopes to talk about the mentioned issues during the 5+2 negotiations.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Political negotiators from the behalf of the Moldovan constitutional authorities, center- main negotiator, Reintegration Minister George B\u0103lan, Source: mid.gospmr.com<\/p><\/div>\n

In his turn, Moldova’s Reintegration Minister, George B\u0103lan, mentioned some other\u00a0almost totally different subjects\u00a0during his briefing. To his disappointment, issues like the preservation and support of the Latin script schools, the access of farmers to their lands in Dub\u0103sari district, the registration of Transnistrian cars with Moldovan number plates and others were not taken seriously by Tiraspol.<\/p>\n

In regard to\u00a0the problem of petrol imports in Transnistria, B\u0103lan told journalists that the issue, rather technical, is to be discussed between the joint experts groups and not between the political negotiators. Asked about the\u00a0politically motivated cases<\/em>, B\u0103lan declared that there is no such thing in the relations between the two banks of Nistru, stressing out the lack of this kind of terminology in the bilateral agreements and protocols.<\/p>\n

B\u0103lan tried to convince that the Cuciurgan-Pervomaiskoe joint checkpoint will not limit the movement of anyone but criminals, and anything but counterfeit. “The checkpoint is a matter of bilateral relations between the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine and is not directed against anyone”<\/em>, he added.<\/p>\n

\"\"

OSCE observers of 1+1 dialogue, Source: mid.gospmr.com<\/p><\/div>\n

Neither of the officials gave any details about the date and location of future 5+2 negotiations, but reminded about the upcoming meetings of the field-experts. Both of the negotiators refused to make any remark or statement on the future status of Transnistria.<\/p>\n