• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Refusal To Compromise Dragging Out Transnistria Talks, U.S. Says

02 February 2006

Diplomatic "stalemate" holds back peace, economic growth for Moldova

The United States again was disappointed by lack of progress in the most recent talks aimed at settling the Transnistria conflict in Moldova, a U.S. diplomat told the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) February 2.

Talks on Transnistria January 26-27 “did not result in meaningful progress,” said Kyle Scott, deputy representative of the U.S. Mission to OSCE.  “The real problem lies not with specific issues per se, and not with the readiness of the parties to discuss those issues. Rather, what appears to be lacking is the will to make constructive compromises and take decisions that lead to progress.”

All parties must be willing to “promote and agree upon a political settlement,” he said. “There must be a common understanding that the status quo is not acceptable.”

Scott told the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna, Austria, that the resumption of Russian military withdrawal from Moldova “would also send a very important signal that Russia, a key player in the talks and in the region, does not regard the status quo as permanent or acceptable.”

Transnistria is a narrow strip of Moldovan territory between the Dniester River and Moldova’s eastern border with Ukraine. The Slavic ethnic majority in Transnistria speaks Russian or Ukrainian while the majority of those on the west side of the Dniester River speak Moldovan, a language very similar to Romanian. The western side of the Dniester River was part of Romania until shortly after World War II.

Transnistria declared independence from Moldova in September 1991, a month after Moldova declared independence from the Soviet Union. Fighting soon broke out between Transnistrians and Moldovan government forces. The conflict was halted by Russian troops, leading to an agreement in March 1992 to end the conflict peacefully.

In July 1992, Moldova and Russia created a demilitarized zone along the Dniester River, and Russian troops have remained in the region ever since, despite Russia’s pledge at the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit to withdraw.

The Transnistria talks follow a “5-plus-2” format, referring to the five principal participants involved in the negotiations – Transnistria, the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine, the Russian Federation and the OSCE as mediators – plus the United States and the European Union as observers.

A previous round of negotiations also resulted in “virtually no progress,” a U.S. official said in December 2005. The next round of talks is scheduled for late February. (See related article.)

The U.S. Embassy in Chisinau, Moldova, issued a statement January 25 calling on all parties to reach a peaceful settlement to the long-standing conflict.

“The Transnistria stalemate has lasted nearly a decade and a half,” the U.S. Embassy statement said. The unresolved conflict has “retarded economic development in the region and prevented the people of Moldova – including Transnistria – from enjoying real peace. In such an environment, it is imperative that these negotiations achieve tangible results.”

The United State advocates a peaceful resolution of the separatist conflict and “supports the territorial integrity of Moldova,” according to a State Department fact sheet released in July 2005. (See fact sheet.)

Following is Scott’s statement to the OSCE Permanent Council:

(begin text)

United States Mission to the OSCE
http://osce.usmission.gov/

Statement in Response to Report by Head of Mission to Moldova, William Hill
As delivered by Deputy Representative Kyle Scott
to the Permanent Council, Vienna

February 2, 2006

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The United States extends a warm welcome to Head of Mission Bill Hill here at the Permanent Council, and thanks him for his comprehensive report on the situation in Moldova. Ambassador Hill and his staff have done important work in all three OSCE dimensions under what are often very trying circumstances.  We applaud the Mission’s commitment, hard work, and efforts to further the cause of peace in Moldova.

As we have consistently noted in numerous fora, the United States supports a peaceful resolution to the conflict that fully respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova.

We regret that last week’s five-plus-two negotiations did not result in meaningful progress.  We must sadly reach the same conclusion as Ambassador Hill: The real problem lies not with specific issues per se, and not with the readiness of the parties to discuss those issues.  Rather, what appears to be lacking is the will to make constructive compromises and take decisions that lead to progress.

At base there must be a readiness among all parties in the talks to promote and agree up on a political settlement.  There must be a common understanding that the status quo is not acceptable.  That is the view of the United States, and we hope it is the view of all other governments represented in this room.

Ambassador Hill has outlined a number of areas where discussion has been ongoing for months or years, and yet no concrete results have emerged.  We suggest the mediators and observers devote themselves to achieving results on at least some of these issues at the next session.  Agreement should be reached on the technical aspects of the proposal to monitor enterprises in the military-industrial complex of Transnistria and on specific elements of the Confidence and Security Building Measures package, which would be implemented as a priority, including data exchange.

These would be useful steps, but not enough.  The next round of talks should also address core issues of the settlement process.  It is time for concrete work on these issues.

We believe that an International Assessment Mission to Moldova’s Transnistria region could make a worthwhile contribution to democratization there.  Unfortunately, the lack of consensus continues to block this potentially constructive initiative.

This would be one step in a range of measures that would help unfreeze this intractable conflict.  Full implementation of the customs agreement between Moldova and Ukraine can play an important role in promoting good governance in Moldova’s Transnistria region, and we hope Kiev will reconsider its recent decision to delay putting the customs agreement into effect.

Resumption of Russian military withdrawal from Moldova in accordance with the Istanbul commitments would also send a very important signal that Russia, a key player in the talks and in the region, does not regard the status quo as permanent or acceptable.  It has now been six years since Istanbul, and this commitment remains unfulfilled.

We reject the notion that fulfillment of the withdrawal commitment is dependent upon a political settlement of the Transnistrian conflict.  No such condition was agreed to at Istanbul.  And, as Ambassador Hill notes in his report, less than six months of work remains to complete the withdrawal. The Russian Federation has already accomplished much in this area.  What’s needed is to resume and complete the task.  The OSCE Voluntary Fund has the financial resources.  We therefore again urge Russia to immediately resume withdrawal of its forces.

Mr. Chairman, I would once again like to thank Head of Mission Hill for his thorough and professional assessment of the situation in Moldova, and wish him success in his endeavors.  He and his staff will continue to have our support and gratitude.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)