ISN, Switzerland
Nov 11 2004
In search of a solution for Moldova
It is in the interests of both Russia and the European Union to solve
a problem knocking at both their doors.
By Nicholas Whyte for IWPR (11/11/04)
Moldova is soon to become one of the European Union’s newest
neighbors. With the expected entry of Romania in 2007, the EU will
share a long frontier with the poorest country in Europe, which
suffers from an uneasy sense of identity and uncertain borders. The
unrecognized separatist region of Transdniester has been out of the
control of Moldova’s capital, Chisinau, since 1992 and is essentially
a mafia-run fiefdom which survives thanks only to criminal profits
and support from certain circles in Russia and Ukraine – and the
security presence of the 14th Russian Army. The region is a prime
location for money laundering and the production and illegal export
of weapons. Firearms produced in and trafficked from Transdniester
are said to lack serial numbers, making them untraceable and
therefore ideal for organized crime. In the current situation, such
activities can be conducted in and from Transdniester very easily and
with impunity, as international law enforcement bodies are not
allowed there, and international governmental and non-governmental
organizations are unable to operate normally within its borders. As a
result, it is difficult to provide training for officials or provide
expertise on legislation, awareness-raising campaigns and witness
protection programs relating to trafficking issues when the
authorities are not recognized internationally and are resistant to
international pressure and intervention. The civil war in Moldova was
relatively mild by post-Soviet standards when you consider the
Georgian civil war, the Armenian-Azeri war over Nagorno Karabakh, or
the decade of implosion in Chechnya. But this does not make a
long-term solution any easier to find.
The Kozak Memorandum
A Russian attempt to break the deadlock, the so-called Kozak
Memorandum of November 2003, foundered on two issues: the
constitutional set-up of a reunited Moldovan state, and Russia’s
continued military presence in Transdniester. Russian officials
admitted afterwards that their negotiator Dmitry Kozak – an adviser
to President Vladimir Putin – failed to get the necessary buy-in to
the plan from Washington and the EU via the existing OSCE negotiating
mechanism. However, the EU’s new European Neighborhood Policy – which
is designed to improve stability and security in areas soon to border
on the EU following its expansion – has raised expectations in
Moldova. The European Commission will shortly be publishing an Action
Plan for the country, which should contain clear benchmarks for the
country for development of democracy, rule of law, and human rights.
After an initial period when Chisinau got a relatively good bill of
health on this score, the 2003 local elections and continuing state
harassment of journalists and media indicate a worrying trend. A
regime of visa sanctions against the Transdniestrian leadership,
imposed in early 2003 in frustration with their failure to move the
peace process forward, was intensified in July 2004 in reaction to
Tiraspol’s harassment of Moldovan-language schools. Tensions also
rose in the divided town of Tighina/Bendery in autumn 2004, when
Transdniestrian militia seized control of a vital railway station.
The festering dispute
The EU has a clear interest in helping to clean up the serious
problems caused by poverty and endemic crime in Moldova, as both
threaten to bring even greater problems with Romania’s succession in
perhaps fewer than three years’ time. And whether or not one believes
Chisinau’s claims that Transdniestrian arms are flowing to Caucasian
rebels, it surely cannot be in Russia’s long-term interests to allow
the dispute to continue to fester. At present, international actors
are unwilling to invest resources in Moldova; the painful memory of
last year’s botched Kozak plan lingers. What is needed is a joint
EU-Russia effort to find a solution, in the context of the European
Neighborhood Policy and also of Russian’s 1999 commitment to withdraw
its troops and equipment from Moldova, and specifically from
Transdniestria. The EU’s designated new external relations
commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, has had some experience of the
issue from her time as Chair-in-office of the OSCE in 2000. Perhaps
Brussels and Moscow will find the necessary time and energy to
resolve this comparatively minor problem soon.
Nicholas Whyte is Europe Programme Director of the International
Crisis Group in Brussels.
This article originally appeared in Balkan Crisis Report, produced by
the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR). Balkan Crisis
Report is supported by the UK Foreign Office and the US State
Department.