2006 News Archive

I would like to thank the Ministries of Foreign Affairs for Moldova and Lithuania for organizing this important event.  There are many areas in which the U.S. and Lithuania cooperate and, I am pleased to say, Moldova is one of them, and for that I’m grateful to Lithuania’s Political Director, Zygimantas Pavilionis, for his great work.  I also want to thank the other co-sponsors: the German Marshall Fund and the Eurasia Foundation.  I would also like to introduce our new U.S. Ambassador to Moldova, Michael Kirby, in his first week on the job.

Let me begin by expressing regret that our colleagues from the Russian Federation are not here and were not invited, given their critical role in solving the Transnistria conflict, a role acknowledged in the description of today’s seminar.  They deserve to have a say and also to listen to what is being said.  The description of the seminar also says the focus of these discussions should be on what Moldova can do to resolve the instability of Transnistria and not on the various initiatives that have been developed elsewhere and submitted on Moldova’s behalf.  That approach is absolutely welcome.  But the presence of several international officials also leaves us to discuss how we on the outside see and can help the situation. 

As President Bush said recently in Washington, during a visit by Romanian President Basescu, the U.S. seeks resolution of the Transnistria conflict that fully and unequivocally respects Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  Transnistria is a part of Moldova, no questions asked.  Fomenting separatism, whether in Transnistria or elsewhere, is simply unacceptable.  As part of the solution, let me also reaffirm our view that Russia needs to fulfill its commitments made in Istanbul in 1999 and remove its forces and munitions from Moldovan territory.

Over the past year or so, I think there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic about the Transnistria situation.  Let me cite the reasons why: 

• The U.S. and EU were invited into the 5+2 negotiations as observers. 
  
• The EU’s Border Assistance Mission, established on December 1 last year, has been vital in changing the arrangement on the border.  The EUBAM is a key way to affect the status quo in a positive sense. 
  
• The March 3 introduction of the Customs Agreement between Ukraine and Moldova was extremely important.  The new rules bring transparency to a previously unregulated international border.  Both countries, as sovereign states, have every right to establish such customs procedures. 
  
• In mid-March, the sides resolved the farmers’ dispute in the Dubossary region.
  
• Virtually all Transnistrian enterprises have registered with Chisinau, in defiance of orders from Mr. Smirnov not to do so.  Any problems that have occurred have been caused by the Transnistrians themselves.  There is no humanitarian emergency.  There is no need for humanitarian convoys.  This is a self-imposed blockade.  Any claims against Ukraine and Moldova are groundless and absurd.
  
• Mr. Smirnov’s mishandling of the NGO funding issue offers further evidence that his hold may be weakening.
  
• The Moldova/Transnistria issue was raised at the G-8 Political Directors and Foreign Ministers’ Meetings – the highest level attention the issue has ever received and a reminder to all that the international community is paying close attention.  Transnistria is on the radar screen like never before.

Last year, the Ukrainian Plan – “the Yushchenko Plan” – became the basis for discussions at the 5+2.  We reiterate our support for the Plan’s general thrust, which is democratization of Transnistria.  The sending of an International Assessment Mission would be a positive step in this direction.  We have also had discussions on the “food for thought” papers presented by previous OSCE Head of Mission Bill Hill, which provide a very useful basis for discussion.  It is very important that we get more serious about replacing the current Russian military presence with a real international peacekeeping operation.  Such an operation could certainly include Russians forces.  We welcome the interest shown by our Belgian colleagues, Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE Foreign Minister De Gucht and Senator Chevalier.  We need to be careful, however, about having too many different papers and efforts at one time – instead, we should focus on what is already on the table, namely, Bill Hill’s OSCE papers and the Yushchenko Plan.

Many countries and organizations can play an important role in solving the conflict: the U.S; the E.U. (with many member states represented here today); the OSCE; the Council of Europe; Romania; Russia; Ukraine plays a major role in tightening its border with the Transnistrian portion of Moldova thereby reducing illicit activities.  In addition, we welcome the very positive contributions of the new Ukrainian representative at the 5+2 talks, Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Veselovsky. 

In terms of the immediate future, I believe we have let the Transnistrian authorities hold the 5+2 meetings hostage long enough.  I propose that we call a meeting, and whoever shows up, shows up.  All should be pushing sides forward on confidence-building measures, urging the Transnistrians to return to 5+2, and cautioning them to refrain from taking provocative actions.  It is always better to talk.  The latest impasse in the negotiations is the fault of the Transnistrian authorities.

The U.S. will not recognize the September 17 referendum, nor should any other country or organization.  We urge the Tiraspol regime to call it off.  It would be good for the Council of Europe as an institution to issue a clear statement rejecting the referendum.  We need clear, strong and unambiguous statements from everyone.  OSCE Chairman (and Belgian FM De Gucht) told Mr. Smirnov point blank that the OSCE would not recognize the referendum.  The EU, Ukraine, and Moldova have similarly stated they will not recognize it.  I have been clear in the past on the U.S. position.  I call on our colleagues in Moscow to take a similarly clear, unambiguous position of non-recognition. 

Moscow’s political, economic, and military support for separatist leaders in both Moldova and Georgia, as well as frequent hosting of meetings of separatist leaders, calls into question Russia’s commitment to its neighbors’ territorial integrity.  When Igor Smirnov visits Moscow, as he regularly does, it is not helpful for Russian officials to welcome him with the title “president.”  It connotes a status that is undeserving.

Moldova has right to choose whether to allow foreign troops on its territory.  The current Russian presence does not have Moldova’s consent and is not promoting settlement of the conflict.  NATO’s firm position is that it will not ratify the Adapted CFE Treaty until Moscow fulfills all of its 1999 Istanbul Summit commitments, including Russia’s pledge to withdraw its forces from Moldova.  There has been no movement on Russian withdrawal since early 2004.  Resumption of Russian withdrawal would demonstrate to Tiraspol that the status quo (of a divided Moldova) is not permanent.

What can Moldova do?  A long-term solution to the conflict will require the Transnistrian people to see benefits of integration with Moldova.  Moldova needs to become an attractive place to join.  It must increase its economic appeal by moving aggressively on economic reform, developing new markets, encouraging foreign investment, increasing exports, strengthening the rule of law, and ensuring respect for minority rights.  It must increase the standard of living and promote respect for human rights – again making Moldova more attractive to the people living in Transnistria.  Moldova should work to support development of democracy and civil society by bringing youth from Moldova and Transnistria together, and improving Moldovan education.  The international community, too, should be doing more to reach out to the people of Transnistria. 

We welcome President Voronin’s many public statements regarding the irreversibility of Moldova’s European orientation.  However, the Government of Moldova now needs to implement reforms called for in the EU-Moldova Action Plan.  And the U.S. is committed to helping Moldova implement the political and economic reforms necessary to become a prosperous European democracy.