Former Ambassador Pamela Hyde Smith Speeches

 Ambassador Pamela Hyde Smith discusses the December 2002 Visit of President Vladimir Voronin to the United States with mass media representatives

24 January 2003

Ambassador Pamela Hyde Smith discusses the December 2002 Visit of President Vladimir Voronin to the United States with mass media representatives

Ambassador Smith: Va multumesc foarte mult ca ati venit.

I will speak in English and it will be translated in Romanian, and if anyone wants to use Russian …

I returned to Moldova just last week and I thought it would be interesting to talk a little bit about President Voronin’s trip to Washington, since I am fresh back. I attended a conference in Washington just two weeks ago and I got some feedback there about the trip. And, as you probably know, I also met with President Voronin a couple of days ago and talked about the trip.

I noticed when I came back that there was a lot of news about the trip during the trip, thanks to all of you, but then there was a long, quiet period during the holidays. So, I did not want to lose the chance to talk to you and answer any questions that you might have about what was, really, an extremely successful visit and experience for all of us who participated.

I have no prepared statement; I just want to answer any questions you have. And the people who were on the trip are free to jump in with their impressions, as well.

Question: Thank you first of all for the possibility to participate in the videoconference organized during the President’s visit, it was something wonderful, a first for us. My question is the following: before the President’s visit, the U.S. was concerned about the business climate in Moldova. Did the visit change, in any way, the attitude of the Washington officials regarding what happens in Moldova in the economic and business area?

Ambassador Smith:I think that much more information was given to officials at all levels in Washington and that was a very useful thing. The visit caused a decision on Washington’s part regarding assistance in debt relief. That is, if, and when, Moldova fulfills the conditions of the international financial institutions, we will support Moldova going to the Paris Club. I would like to say that it is very important for Moldova to conclude the fulfillment of those conditions.

As far as the business climate is concerned, I don’t think our attitude changed, but we certainly expressed our opinion. Our position is that it would be very important and helpful for Moldova to improve the business climate here. That means effective contracts, reliable court procedures, legislation that favors and supports business, and a climate of fair play. When these important elements are in place, we believe there will be not only strengthening of local business, but an attraction of foreign investment. That combination will be important for dramatically increasing Moldova’s prosperity, and will be more important than any amount of foreign loans or foreign assistance, important as those are. Thank you for the question.

Question:Seven or eight months have passed already since the Kiev document was published, but there is no evidence that it could be signed any time soon. My question is: what do you think about the prospects for signing this agreement and about this issue in general?

Ambassador Smith:One of the important achievements of the visit was for our two countries to have a dialog at the highest level about ways that we can work together to move the process forward more quickly. At the White House and at the State Department, we talked about targeted measures that we and our European partners can work on together. We talked about ways that we can work with Russia and Ukraine. We talked about new approaches to the situation of the unguarded border between Transnistria and Ukraine. We talked about the question of the Soviet-era munitions still in Transnistria and how to speed the process of their removal. And, of course, we talked about the Kiev document you mentioned and how to move forward on that, as well. We will be working, we are now working very actively, very energetically at all levels of the government, with our partners, with the OSCE, with the new Dutch Chairman-in-Office, and we have every intention to bring this situation to a rapid conclusion. I wish I could give you a date, but I can’t.

Question:As we know, during the first days of this year, the process of withdrawal of Russian munitions was accelerated, and then a new chief of the OSCE mission in Moldova was appointed, a well-known person who knows the reality of Moldova. Could we qualify these events as the first steps of the U.S. policy on the Transnistrian issue and other issues related to this conflict?

Ambassador Smith:Actually, let me make a comment on the change of the head of mission, because I have heard questions from other sources about this. Ambassador Swartz made a very significant contribution during his time here, and we were sorry that it did not work out for him to continue. But, we are very lucky that Ambassador Hill, who, as you say, knows the situation very well, is back. This does not, actually, represent a change of policy on our part. Ambassador Hill will continue to work with Ambassador Swartz, and will probably stay in touch with him, as I am.

Question:But what will be the next steps?

Ambassador Smith:We are in the process of working actively, as I said, but I am not going to specify exact steps when we are in the middle of making them. But, I assure you that we are working hard on this issue. The change of leadership of the OSCE mission here, though, was not a result of President Voronin’s visit; it was a separate, but simultaneous thing that happened.

Question:To remain on the Transnistrian issue that we are discussing, I would like to know if the U.S. administration has a position on the declarations made at the beginning of this year by officials of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which referred to the presence of Russian troops in Transnsitria? The Russian MFA announced that the troops will remain even after the weapons will be withdrawn from Transnsitria. Also, a little later, the Russian chief of staff suspended his own decision on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria. Does the U.S. administration have a position on that, and if so, what is this position?

Ambassador Smith:These pronouncements were made while I was out of the country, so forgive me for not being completely up-to-speed with them. While I have certainly heard of them, I have not heard of a formal position taken by the United States or by the OSCE on these declarations. I do know, as we all do, that the decision of the OSCE ministerial in Porto in early December was to allow the continuation of the Istanbul process through December 31, 2003. The United States certainly is prepared to be very helpful to the Russians in getting their munitions out; we have dedicated very large amounts of money to assist in this process. As to what happens to the troops after the munitions are withdrawn, this will be a decision that the OSCE will take, and we will be an active part of this decision.

Question:My question refers to the declaration made by the President Voronin during his visit, even during that videoconference. He said the following: first a political solution to the Transnistrian conflict has to be found, and then the troops and munitions have to be withdrawn from Transnistria. How would you comment on this declaration? And, do you think we can expect a political solution to be found before the end of the year, or in the nearest future to meet the deadline set at Porto?

Ambassador Smith:Well, our position is that the Istanbul accords must be respected. At the same time, we see a political settlement as a very important way not only to deal with the munitions problem, but also with all the other problems that the division of your country faces. I keep talking about it: I am completely convinced that a large part of the problems with poverty and corruption here result from the division of the country and the existence of this unrecognized regime on the Eastern border. The United States is very concerned about the welfare of people on both banks of the Nistru who are suffering from the consequences of this division. So, we will be pushing for a political settlement with the same energy as we will be pushing for the withdrawal of the munitions.

Question:You said you participated in a conference of Ambassadors in Washington, where you heard feedback about the trip of President Voronin to Wahington. What was the echo of this visit in the United States?

Ambassador Smith:The conference I went to was for all the U.S. Ambassadors in Europe and Eurasia. So, in the context of this conference, I came into contact with all the people we had been working with and meeting with during the visit of President Voronin – at the NSC, the White House, the State Department, and so forth. From them, I heard that the visit was considered to have been very successful, and that President Voronin made a persuasive case for Moldova in Washington. So, I think from that, I feel that the profile of Moldova has been raised in our country.

A number of people from throughout our government, and also the academic community, commented to me on how impressed they were with the speech that President Voronin made at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). You probably saw the speech and the questions and answers. I think they were printed in some of the newspapers here. If not, it’s on the website, which is www.csis.org. However, it’s in English on the CSIS website, the English is not perfect, it’s probably much better in Romanian or Russian as the Moldovan newspapers ran it.

Question:As you know the opposition blames the Government, or the ruling party at least, for double standards. They say that all directions that were written out in the joint declaration cannot be fulfilled, or the Communist party cannot go in these directions because it goes against the platform of the party. Are there any doubts on behalf on the United States that what is written out in the joint declaration will be implemented or fulfilled?

Ambassador Smith:It is always easier for any country to write and to speak than to do, for us as well. We are certainly hopeful, though, that the road to democratic and economic reform, which was discussed in depth in Washington, will be sustained and is sustained by the Government. And these are issues that we will continue to discuss with the Government of Moldova, because our assistance hinges on the continuation of democracy and the further development of a true market economy. And I think the situation was completely clear and very well understood in our discussions in Washington, as here.

Question:Madam Ambassador, thank you very much for the assistance and support that you provided to the press during the visit. I have a question that actually is related to the topic of our conference, although indirectly. How would you comment on the situation that we have today in Moldova; that is the opposition’s demands to hold a referendum regarding accession to NATO and the EU?

Ambassador Smith:First of all I would like to say that we were very pleased, indeed, with the clear declaration by the Government of Moldova about its intent to move forward toward European integration, and especially toward the EU. The United States very firmly supports Moldova’s wish to integrate with Europe, and its intent to integrate with Europe. I recognize that Moldova is a neutral country and the decision about what to do regarding NATO is one that is more complicated than the decision regarding the EU.

As far as whether and when a referendum should take place, as far as that is concerned, I would draw your attention to the fact that many, if not all, of the EU candidate countries are considering whether to have referendums, and they are doing it actually after the invitation and the date to join. So, for Moldova, I guess the questions regarding whether and when to have a referedum, those are questions that should be debated within your government and civic society. All voices need to be heard and taken into account, and I am very hopeful that that is what will happen.

Question:What is the American share in the total Moldovan foreign debt and what will be the U.S. steps to help Moldova?

Ambassador Smith:I need to have a Finance Ministry person here with me, and I don’t! The United States holds a significant portion, but not the largest portion, of Moldova’s sovereign debt. Other significant holders of Moldova’s debt, some, have indicated willingness to support a Paris Club rescheduling, if the IMF conditions are met. So, in expressing our willingness to be supportive, we are actually joining a couple of other countries that have expressed the same intent. When a rescheduling occurs, it will mean that all debts held by Moldova will be rescheduled on the same basis, with no preferential treatment for any one country or debt holder. To end my response to this question, I would like to stress again the absolutely essential nature of the fulfillment of the IMF conditionality before any debt rescheduling can occur.

Question:What are the advantages that Moldova will benefit from as a result of this visit? What is your opinion?

Ambassador Smith:Our decision to support debt rescheduling was really one result of the visit. I would like to assure you that, if that occurs, it will lift a burden off of Moldova’s shoulders, financially. And, certainly, as I said, Moldova is more “on the screen,” as it is said, in the United States.

Additionally, though, I would hope that some aspects of the United States would be more “on the screen” for Moldova now. When we were in North Carolina – and the gentlemen who were there with us know – we had a very wonderful presentation by people in North Carolina about all the assistance of various kinds that they are providing to Moldova. We also saw some Moldovan children who have been adopted by American families, and are happy and healthy and adorable. We saw a choir of orphan girls, who were visiting and studying in the United States, and who will be back in Moldova. They were wonderful as well, and being generously supported. So, I guess I hope that some of the generosity that is coming from ordinary people, without any government funding, just sort of normal folks, I hope that that aspect of America is known more in Moldova now than perhaps it was known in the past. And I think you can confirm that we all had this feeling in North Carolina.

Question:Indeed this is the way it was. Madam Ambassador Pamela Hyde Smith everywhere before her co-nationals, regardless of whether they were officials or ordinary citizens, has appreciated this visit of President Voronin as a historic event, not only for the Republic of Moldova. It would be interesting to know whether before Ambassadors in Washington this visit was also called a historic one.

The friendship and sympathy shown for the Republic of Moldova through the official delegation at various levels by the U.S. was one of a rare sincerity. It was obvious that the United States is sincere with the Republic of Moldova. Ideological issues were not the subjects of discussions, but rather issues related to the territorial integrity of our country and continuation on the path of economic reforms was raised. No special conditions were set for our country. An offer for support on the path of democracy and market economy was made, under the condition that the Republic of Moldova will cooperate in this sense.

Ambassador Smith:Thank you for saying that, I felt the same thing.

Question:Until Moldova finds a solution to the Transnistrian conflict there is no opportunity to control its eastern border and that is the Transnistrian section of the border with Ukraine. If there are joint Moldovan-Ukrainian customs posts installed on the Ukrainian territory, do you think that that could represent the partial or total solution of the issue of smuggling? Was the issue of the customs post discussed during the President Voronin’s visit to Washington?

Ambassador Smith:Yes, we certainly discussed the joint customs posts and the whole question of the protection of the border. That is something of a great interest to us, and to your Government. Our Government believes it would be very useful to install joint customs posts along the entire length of the border – and we have been ready for some time to provide equipment and training to such posts. We can do it from here, and we can do it through our Embassy in Kiev as well. After the visit we certainly will be talking with new energy about how to bring this good idea about.

Question:My question is not directly linked to the topic of our conference, but at the conference that you attended, was there a discussion about the rate of the U.S. dollar to the euro?

Ambassador Smith:It had not started falling quite so badly yet! But one has to be hopeful. Sometimes when the currency goes down it makes the exports a little more attractive; so it is not all bad. Are there any other questions? Thank you very much for coming. Multumesc foarte mult.

Ambassador Smith later added, in response to the question concerning feedback on the visit: In addition to the things I mentioned previously, I wanted to note that during the visit Moldova offered to send a team of deminers to Afghanistan. The U.S. is very grateful for this offer and we are working together to realize this. Moldova joins the over sixty countries that are helping to rebuild Afghanistan. The United States sincerely appreciates Moldova’s support in this effort.