Romanian reactions to Transdniester’s claims

On the one hand, these reactions show a refusal to accept the idea of Transdniester’s joining the Russian Federation, after the Crimean model, and on the other hand, they point to international concern over a possible Russian plan of extending the federation towards the West.

Valentin Țigău, 17.04.2014, 14:38

On the one hand, these reactions show a refusal to accept the idea of Transdniester’s joining the Russian Federation, after the Crimean model, and on the other hand, they point to international concern over a possible Russian plan of extending the federation towards the West.

The request of the Tiraspol MPs to have Transdniester join the Russian Federation is nothing new. After 1990, when the region broke away from the Republic of Moldova, such requests have been constantly forwarded to the Russian Duma, which in a 1999 resolution referred to Transdniester as “an area of strategic interest” for Moscow.

A 2006 referendum clearly showed the desire of the Russian-speaking population in Transdniester to become part of the Russian Federation. Despite being forced by international laws, Moscow hasn’t changed its official position, standing for negotiations in the five-plus-two format, which should grant a special status to the region of Transdniester, in the Republic of Moldova.

Against the backdrop of the latest developments, namely Ukraine’s destabilization following the annexation of Crimea by Russia and the emergence of federalist tendencies at the Russian Federation’s eastern borders and in the Odessa – Black Sea area, Transdniester’s request seems just another piece in a dangerous puzzle.

In a first reaction, the Moldovan government has criticized the vote in Tiraspol, which it described as defying the process of settling the conflict in Transdniester and the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova. According to Radio Romania’s correspondent in Chisinau, the Moldovan Prime Minister Iurie Leanca has described the vote as a unilateral and counterproductive move.

Iurie Leanca: “The only way of identifying a final and viable solution to the conflict in Transdniester is the continuation of political dialogue, without preconditions within the existing negotiation mechanisms.”

If most of the politicians in Chisinau, including the communists, believe that Moscow will not take into consideration Transdniester’s request, in Bucharest such a scenario has sparked off a lot of concern, as Romania is the Republic of Moldova’s staunchest supporter in the latter’s efforts to join the European Union. We recall that Moldova’s EU integration was conditioned on the settling of the Transdnistrean issue.

Here is Romanian president Traian Basescu: “We have made all diplomatic moves, so that this EU-Moldova Association Agreement, due to be voted by the European Parliament, should also include prospects of Moldova’s European integration. You can negotiate, you can do anything, but you cannot join the EU with a frozen conflict on your own territory.”

According to Romanian Foreign Minister Titus Corlatean, a situation like this calls for the rapid involvement of the OSCE presidency, because initiatives, such as those taken by the legislature in Tiraspol can run counter to the fundamental principle of settling a conflict through political channels.