Alexander Yakovenko, the Spokesman of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Answers Media Questions Regarding Situation Around Transnistria

Unofficial translation from Russian

Question: A regular feature of the latest reports from Transnistria is the theme of mounting tension on the Dniester. Concern is being expressed that the Moldovan representatives in the command agencies of the peacekeeping operation are deliberately blocking the entire collective work on ensuring stability in the region.

Answer: Grounds for concern do exist. The work of the Joint Control Commission (JCC), operating in the Security Zone in Transnistria since 1992 as the political and military command agency of the peacekeeping operation involving Russian troops and those of the parties in conflict themselves, Moldova and Transnistria, as well as of the observers from Ukraine and the OSCE, has already since last autumn been encountering serious difficulties. All this occurs in the conditions of Moldova's suspension of its participation in the negotiating process for political settlement and the measures of economic pressure by it against the region, adversely affecting the living standards of the ordinary people on both banks of the Dniester.

Initially Moldovan representatives in the JCC tried to disrupt the well-organized rhythm of the joint meetings that were being held for consideration of current peacekeeping operation issues. Then, this past January, followed the unilateral moves of Chisinau to restrict free entry into the territory of Transnistria for foreign, including Russian, diplomats and representatives, which simply blocked the normal activities of JCC. In so doing the official representatives of Moldova began to issue statements about "dangerous military preparations in Transnistria," creating the impression that the Moldovan public was thus being consciously prepared for a possible action of force.

But those allegations were convincingly refuted by military observers of the OSCE mission in Moldova, who had specially went to the region. In April the Moldovan representatives announced that they might suspend their participation in the work of JCC, although the mediators and Western partners, including at a session of the OSCE Permanent Council, had drawn attention to the erroneousness of such a step.

Still, ignoring the opinion of the international community, Chisinau has currently taken the stance of blocking the activities of JCC and is even refusing to participate in urgent meetings, which under the peacekeeping operation regulations are to be held for considering matters that brook no delay.

Question: What logic do you perceive behind such behavior of the Moldovan side? One might think that as the mediators have resumed efforts to unblock the political negotiations, in particular in the context of Ukraine's Settlement Plan, Chisinau should be interested in preserving stability rather than provoking dangerous tension?

Answer: It is hard to speak with certainty of the motives for such a position of the Moldovan partners, but the impression is that the deliberate exacerbation of the situation is aimed at isolating Tiraspol and removing it from the negotiating process. That is, attempts to reverse the direction of movement in the Transnistrian settlement have affected the attitude of the leadership of Moldova to peacekeeping as well.

The entire complex set of reasons that entailed bloodshed in 1992 and which lie at the core of the lingering unsettledness, is now being presented as the manifestations of the "aggressive separatism" of the Tiraspol administration, while the Moldovan side would appear to bear no responsibility for the situation that has evolved.

From the very start of the Transnistrian conflict Russia tried to provide mediation services to the parties and assumed the responsibility for guaranteeing the outcome of political settlement. We continue to engage constructively with the mediators from Ukraine and the OSCE, consult interested Western partners and build our entire work in the Transnistrian sector with due consideration for the principles and documents previously worked out with participation by the parties, and having regard to the peacekeeping mechanisms that have enabled keeping the situation on the Dniester under control all these years. In so doing we are firmly convinced that no illusions of a force-based solution of the issues can be an alternative to the responsible negotiations of the parties, who only voluntarily and with the support of the entire population of Moldova and Transnistria can agree on a mutually acceptable comprehensive and final settlement model.

June 30, 2005