Who is the guarantor and who is the destabilizer?

Having taken over the baton as chairman of the OSCE, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Leonid Kozhara has said that a priority for Kiev in this international office will be a solution to "frozen conflicts", including a settlement in the Trans-Dniestr region. The Ukrainian foreign minister's words could be interpreted as a routine statement by the next chairman of the OSCE but for Ukraine's vested interest in a solution to the Trans-Dniestr conflict, on which Kozhara laid special emphasis.

Why does Ukraine need this?

There are a number of reasons for Kiev's interest in a settlement to the Trans-Dniestr conflict. First of all, Ukraine, along with Russia, is the main guarantor and broker in a settlement to this conflict. The results of the last census carried out in 2004 showed that of the 555,000 population in the Trans-Dniestr region, Russians comprise 30.3% (168,000) and Ukrainians 28.8% (160,000). Over 160,000 people in the region have Russian and about 100,000 have Ukrainian citizenship. Furthermore, of the 816 km of border line in the Trans-Dniestr region 405 km comprise the border with Ukraine. All these factors point to a natural desire on Kiev's part to achieve progress in the process of a settlement to the Trans-Dniestr conflict - a powder keg right on Ukraine's borders impeding full-scale political-economic cooperation with Moldova and its Trans-Dniestr region. However, Kozhara's first visit to the Trans-Dniestr region as chairman of the OSCE led to unexpected results which exacerbated Russian-Ukrainian relations somewhat.

Having discussed the details of a settlement process with Trans-Dniestr leader Yevgeniy Shevchuk, Kozhara made a sensational statement before leaving Chisinau. "I believe that Mr Shevchuk and I have found a mutual understanding: he has reaffirmed that Trans-Dniestr is prepared to discuss the political status of this region as part of the Republic of Moldova," the Ukrainian foreign minister said, thus causing a negative reaction in both Moscow and Trans-Dniestr itself. Shevchuk straightaway rejected the Ukrainian foreign minister's remarks, and the deputies of the "parliament" of the separatist region demanded that the head of the Trans-Dnietsr "foreign ministry", Nina Shtanski, give an account of the talks and an explanation of Kozhara's statement. It is significant that the remarks of the Ukrainian foreign minister did not evoke a negative reaction from all the Trans-Dniestr politicians. Among others, the head of the Commission for Foreign Policy and International Relations of the Trans-Dniestr "parliament", Dmitry Soin, gave his own assessment of these events. "Only short-sighted people would exacerbate relations with Ukraine over the Trans-Dniestr region. The controversy which arose over the interpretation of Yevgeniy Shevchuk's remarks regarding the status of the TMR (Trans-Dniestr Moldovan Republic - R+) and the subsequent comments by Kozhara at Chisinau airport, should still not have taken on such a vitriolic, offensive and outrageous form. In diplomacy there are such terms as expressing amazement, disbelief and other watered-down expressions for such a situation." He called for sobriety in such circumstances. Soin suggests one should not forget that Ukraine is a guarantor-country and the only country that ensures transit for the Trans-Dniestr region eastwards towards Russia.

At the same time, even those who favour a moderate tone in Tiraspol lay all responsibility for a political settlement to the conflict on Chisinau. Chisinau itself believes that a settlement to the conflict depends, first and foremost, on a definition of the status of the Trans-Dniestr region, which Moscow is blocking. "Political questions must be discussed side-by-side with others. At the talks in Dublin last year all the participants, including Russia, reaffirmed that the preservation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova lies at the basis of a settlement. The negotiation process must be held in place on this principle. Here the positions of Chisinau and Kiev coincide, jus as they do with regard to the need to begin discussions on the political status of the Trans-Dniestr region," said Yevgeniy Karpov, the Moldovan Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Reintegration. 

Interestingly, at a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov just before his visit to Tiraspol, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Leonid Kozhara said that his country had a vested interest in a speedy settlement to the conflict situations between Moldova and the Trans-Dniestr region, and by the end of this year plans to reach a settlement to the Moldova-Trans-Dniestr problem taking Moldova's territorial integrity into account. In reply Lavrov advised him to "hold your horses", and before discussing the political status of the Trans-Dniestr region to solve economic and transport problems. This advice by Lavrov once again demonstrates that Moscow is trying to stave off a political solution to the conflict, i.e. the definition of the status of the Trans-Dniestr region, although without this a solution to all the other problems looks very unlikely.

Chisinau's refusal to Moscow's request to open a Russian consulate in Tiraspol has made the situation even worse. Moldova's Foreign Minister Iurie Leanca said that the subject of the opening of a Russian consulate in Tiraspol had run its course, because the necessary conditions were not in place at this moment in time to open a consulate. Earlier Moldova's President Nicolae Timofti spoke against this, saying that Chisinau was unable to guarantee the security of consulate staff. A positive solution to this question could only be found, he said, after the withdrawal of Russian troops and peacekeepers from the Trans-Dniestr region. Against this backdrop Moscow and Kiev have been exchanging mutual accusations against one another.

Sergey Gubarev, ambassador-at-large of the Russian Foreign Ministry, who has arrived in Tiraspol to discuss the preparation of questions for the latest round of talks on a Moldova-Trans-Dniestr settlement in the "5+2" format, said that it was necessary to concentrate on socio-economic and humanitarian questions. A solution to political and high-profile questions is pointless while the Moldovan law of 22 July 2005 "On the basic points of the special legal status of residential areas on the left bank of the Dniestr (Trans-Dniestr region)", which established the status of the Trans-Dniestr region as a "special autonomous-territorial formation which is an integral component of the Republic of Moldova", is still in force.

Russia is also unhappy because Kiev clearly does not wish to coordinate its steps on this question with Moscow. Both Kiev and Chisinau are confident that Kozhara's statement represents the facts. In the opinion of Vitali Kulik, deputy head of the Main department on constitutional and legal modernization of the Ukrainian president's administration, Shevchuk first agreed with Kozhara, but following elucidations from Moscow, took two steps back.

Russia - the third party in the conflict?

The problem of the Trans-Dniestr region is inscribed in the context of Russian-Ukrainian relations, which cannot be said to have been beyond reproach of late. For the first time in the process of a settlement to the Trans-Dniestr conflict, the guarantor countries found themselves on different sides of the barricades. Romania is also on the side of Kiev and Chisinau in this stand-off. Prior to Romanian President Traian Besescu's visit to Moldova at the beginning of February, his advisor on international security and strategy, Julian Kifu, described Russia as the third party in the conflict. "Bucharest supports Moldova in its efforts aimed at the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Trans-Dniestr region in accordance with the commitments undertaken by Russia based on the final declaration of the OSCE summit in Istanbul in 1999. Romania also supports a change in the format of the so-called peacekeeping operation in the security zone from a military format to a civilian multi-national mission. Recently Russia has been more obviously showing itself to be not a peacekeeper but the third party in the conflict, even if in a certain sense there is not a second party as such," the Romanian president's official representative said.

The reaction of the Russian foreign ministry was not long in coming. It expressed its bewilderment at Kifu's accusations, noting that the attempts to cast doubts on Russia's role and efforts as a guarantor and a mediator in the process of a settlement in the Trans-Dniestr region, in which Romania is not a participant, are groundless.

In this context, Russian experts are also drawing attention to the fact that the European Union is linking the prospects of Ukraine's European integration with the fact that Kiev is using its chairmanship of the OSCE to settle the Moldova-Trans-Dniestr conflict. As Romanian Foreign Minister Titus Corlatean said in an interview for the Romanian state news agency Agerpres, this was discussed at a meeting between EU foreign ministers and the Ukrainian Foreign Minister Leonid Kozhara, which took place in Brussels.

"I was not the only minister at this meeting who asked the Ukrainian side to support a political dialogue and cooperation and, if possible, coordination with the EU, which is part of the '5+2' formula, as an observer, in order to take specific steps forwards, in particular, on the transition to more sensitive subjects in the third 'basket' of the negotiations process agenda," Corlatean said, as quoted by the Regnum agency.

"The Ukrainian side has high expectations with regard to Europe, and we hope that for Ukraine this is a possibility, but also a very great responsibility to achieve steps forward and specific results," the Romanian foreign minister summed up. 

It should be noted that Bucharest has long since been making attempts to alter the "5+2" format, which has been a lame duck in the settlement process for many years now. Romania's displeasure has also been caused by the fact that it has not participated in any of the formats of the Moldova-Trans-Dniestr settlement. Bucharest's pro-Moldovan position has been given as the reason for its non-involvement.

Such a flawed practice may be seen in all the formats for a settlement to conflicts since the fall of the Soviet Union. Some states are not being allowed to these processes under the pretext that they proceed from the interests of countries that have encountered separatism, and at times even open aggression from their neighbours. At the same time, for some reason the fact that states which overtly or covertly support separatist formations and aggressors often act as the main brokers in negotiations processes is not taken into account. Chisinau believes that the main obstacle in the way of a settlement to the Trans-Dniestr conflict and a factor which endangers Moldova's security and territorial integrity is the Russian military peacekeeping contingent, based in Tiraspol, which Romania, the US and the EU agree with. Moscow, for its part, believes it is its presence today that guarantees security in the region. The leader of the separatist regime, Yevgeni Shevchuk, is a proponent not only of Russian troops staying in the Trans-Dniestr region until its independence is recognized, but he also calls for a broadening of Russia's military presence, as well as the updating and re-equipping of the Russian peacekeeping contingent.

Chisinau holds a completely opposite position. Moldova's Defence Minister, Vitalie Marinuta, believes that the tension in the conflict zone is being maintained by the Trans-Dniestr leaders, and the Russian peacekeepers are becoming the guarantors of the separatist regime. Moldova's attempts to transform the peacekeeping mission to a multi-national civilian one by an international mandate are dictated precisely by this. To achieve this there has first to be a solution to the political aspect of the conflict. As likely as not, that is precisely why Moscow is trying to drag out a solution to this question, because after this a demand for the introduction of an international military peacekeeping mission into the region may come on to the agenda.

It is perfectly obvious that Ukraine's success in the process of a settlement to the Trans-Dniestr conflict would considerably elevate Kiev's prestige and lift Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych's own political rating. Moreover, this would give greater clarity to the prospects for Ukraine's European integration. But, by all accounts, Moscow has no intention of complying with this. What's more, Russia, which believes the CIS is its own exclusive zone of geopolitical space, has no wish to give up its role as the main moderator in a settlement to the conflict situations on the territories of the former Soviet countries.