In the aftermath of the publication of the Ukrainian proposals on the settlement of the conflict in Transnistria, Eurojournal.org provides space for debates on recent developments related to the resolution of the conflict. An article signed y Roman Petrenko from Kiev discusses some of the issues Ukraine faces in dealing with the Transnistrian problem.

An earlier version of the article was published in Russian in "Ekonomicheskoe Obozrenie" in Moldova, Chisinau, on 13 May 2005.
http://logos.press.md/Weekly/Main.asp?IssueNum=610&IssueDate=13.05.2005&YearNum=18&Theme=8&Topic=16064


Ukraine, Moldova at Crossroads
Roman Petrenko, expert, Kyiv

Following the peaceful Orange Revolution in Ukraine, Kyiv has undertaken substantial policy initiatives towards the Transnistria region. An important current example is Youschnenko speech at the GUAM summit (a group comprising Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova) in Chisinau on April 22nd. For the first time Ukrainian President put forward a new plan, which outlined the initiation of a democratization process in Transnistria, calling for free and fair elections in the rival region.

Acknowledging Ukrainian strategic interest in this area, Youschnenko notes that border and trade issues between two countries should not replace the key elements in resolving the on-going Transnistria dispute- strengthening the regional security and building democracy in the region.

Ukraine and Moldova being different in many ways have common strategic objective, which is the membership in the EU. One of the stumbling blocks on the Moldovan road to Europe is an ongoing tension between Moldova and unrecognised Republic of Transnistria. Eventually the ongoing crisis will have to be resolved. So far, problems in the relations between Moldova and Transnistria have been a substantial problem for the Ukrainian aspirations to join the EU.

Kyiv has become an active participant of the Transnistria peace process (together with OSCE and Russia) from the very beginning of international efforts to solve the conflict. The dispute was started in early 90s - when the Russian-speaking Transnistria declared independence over fears that Moldova might seek reunification with Romania.

Meanwhile, bilateral relations between Kyiv and Chisinau have been marked by the latter’s inability to proceed to the serious talks with Ukrainian border and customs officials. Despite numerous declarations, Moldova has lacked the clarity of objectives and a serious strategy to resolve the border issue. The challenge now is to translate this political rhetoric into practical regional cooperation, in which Ukraine clearly has an important role to play.

Ukrainian conflict-settlement plan is also expected to include the establishment of legal control (short-term OSCE monitoring missions) along the Transnistria stretch of the Moldovan-Ukrainian border.

In an effort to bring Moldova and Ukraine together to tackle the regional problems, the international monitoring should be carried out in accordance with bilateral agreements between Kyiv and Chisinau.

Another challenge for one of the parties involved is to exclude economic blockade of Tiraspol as the main purpose of the international monitoring. After all, Chisinau should realise that pumping up economic pressure on Transnistria to squeeze out political dividends is unacceptable for a country that declare European integration as the main option.

Furthermore, the dangerous trend combined with Moldova's stealthy policy of entangling Ukraine against Tiraspol can draw Kyiv in a conflict. This will jeopardise Ukrainian national sovereignty and undermine Ukraine’s role as a mediator in a “frozen” conflict.

The proposal on deployment of the BMO has a short history. Many experts thought the idea to be merely an election juggle of Moldova communists. Nevertheless, newly elected Moldovan president Vladimir Voronin has already demonstrated his intentions to continue talks with Ukraine, EU and OSCE on the legal control of the Transnistria stretch of Ukraine-Moldovan border.

Technically speaking, border-monitoring in Transnistria region should be done on behalf of the OSCE Mission in Moldova. This corresponds to the common practice of the Organisation, as the proposal has been put forward by William Hill, Head of the OSCE Mission in Moldova.

According to Chisinau plan, the OSCE border-monitoring mission would be disposed only across southern and northern parts of the Ukraine-Moldova border at Moldova territory. In central part of the border adjoined to Transnistria, the monitoring mission is withdrawn and replaced by the international observers (with Moldova representatives). Note that international observers will stay in Ukraine.

Chisinau explains the incentive for placing the international observers in Ukraine as lack of Moldovan authorities the real control over border with Transnistria. The reality behind the official explanation is that Chisinau is trying to put a hold on the trade flow from Transnistria by placing joint customs checkpoints under Moldovan jurisdiction on Ukrainian territory. While border-monitoring operation of OSCE is merely used by Moldova only as a pretext to achieve total control on the trade flows.

The real problem with Chisinau plan is that it suggests OSCE monitoring mission to operate in two countries (Ukraine and Moldova) simultaneously. The innovation does not correspond to practice of the OSCE missions. The Organisation is always employing its border-monitor missions in one country to oversee the trade and passenger flows in both directions. We should not forget that OSCE monitoring missions are fundamentally different from the border control institutions of any country. The main function of the latter is to protect the sovereignty of its country - no more. “The OSCE approach means firstly the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, along with economic and environmental cooperation, which are considered to be just as important for the maintenance of peace and stability as politico-military issues”, Gottfried Hanne, member of the OSCE mission in Moldova said.

Border monitoring operation would be a useful tool for Ukraine for fending off Moldova’s accusations on smuggling at the border with Transnistria. It would be more logical to place OSCE operation forces in Moldova, which has an armed conflict at its territory, Roman Petrenko, leading analyst of the Kyiv-based think-tank Civil Society Research Center said.

Moreover, according to the OSCE common practice, the OSCE deploys field missions only in countries where Organisation office was assigned. The expansion of its activities on the neighbouring country will lead to the violation of state sovereignty. Besides, OSCE field missions are working in those countries, which have either an on-going territory conflict or have serious problems in the human rights sphere. The following approach doesn’t correspond with the Ukrainian realities.

Curiously enough, the government of Transnistria on April 27 sent an invitation to Ukraine and Russia pledging to organise a special monitoring mission for the Transnistria border and its industrial facilities. Still, Chisinau is pressing international community to organise international observers at the Ukrainian territory.

It seems that Moldova forgot about the main purpose of the international monitor missions - to observe and inform about trade flows of goods and movement of people (either by transport or by foot). International monitoring should not be considered to be _a substitute teacher_ for regular customs and border checkpoints. The main purpose of such mission is border surveillance and exchange of the information with the customs checkpoints to ensure an effective and timely work along the border. In general, the international monitor missions are advised only in case if a country is unable to provide customs control
sufficient enough to fight smuggling of the goods and people.

It would be naive to believe that certain power groups in Moldova, who initiated the idea of international monitoring are not knowing that it is actually impossible to deploy the BMO only in Moldova (especially if international observers in Ukraine are assuming responsibilities of the border and customs services). Guess it's not a secret anymore that BMO is hardly principal question for Moldova. The international monitoring is used to make the first step to install the joint custom checkpoints in Ukrainian territory. The goal is clear - to reach a total control over export-import operations of Transnistria.

P.S. Borders in Order - Matter of Honour Ukrainian recent principled stand to resolve the long-standing conflict and to enhance security at its own borders is especially clear. Kyiv and Chisinau are moving towards European links and institutions – both are interested to solve the _frozen_ conflict as soon as possible. It’s a confident suggestion, that President Youschnenko will take a number of steps aimed at getting Ukrainian borders in order, which will eliminate the need of the international monitoring.