Moldova-2019: Consensus on Transdniestria postponed?

RTA expert Dorin Mocanu notes that the Transdniestrian issue has no place in the priorities of the new government of Moldova. The author suggests that the Transdniestrian issue is still considered the most thankless thing for Moldovan politicians and therefore again taken off the table. The end of the domestic political crisis in Moldova and a new configuration of power in the country have promised changes in various spheres. Some issues of the Moldovan political reality need to be revised and addressed differently by the official Chisinau in accordance with the principles professed by the ruling ACUM-PSRM coalition in the Parliament. One of these issues is the reintegration of the country that is managed by an experienced and familiar with the problem Vasile Sova appointed by Igor Dodon. On the one hand, Transdniestria is always demonstratively moving away from the complex tectonic processes taking place in the bowels of Moldovan politics. On the other hand, the Transdniestrian issue remains rather ‘heated’, apparently since the culmination of the struggle for power in Moldova involved compromising materials and a local scandal due to the federalization of the country allegedly proposed by Dodon, but in fact by Plahotniuc. Judging by the overreaction in Chisinau and repeated denials from Sandu and Dodon, the federalization topic kept Transdniestria on the agenda of the new government for some time. It is clear that the position on the Transdniestrian settlement varies widely in the camp of the right-socialist coalition primarily between the moderately pro-Russian PSRM and the sterile-pro-European government of Maia Sandu. Is it worth remembering that in 2013 Dodon’s socialists really developed the project of Moldova’s federalization and even published it? However, now it is not so important: the program of the Sandu’s government allows re-imagining the contours of how Chisinau will continue the dialogue with Tiraspol. The ACUM-PSRM government offers the following, in fact, not new ideas:

• Facilitating dialogue with the population from localities on the left bank of the Dniester river to promote the idea of conflict resolution.
• Monitoring the human rights situation in localities on the left bank of the Dniester river and promoting appropriate measures to ensure their observance.
• Seeking to ensure the free and unconditional movement of citizens throughout the territory of the Republic of Moldova.
• Eliminating domestic factors that fuel the conflict, including from the right bank of the Dniester, through a thorough analysis of illegal economic activity schemes. Applying strict sanctions to officials from the Republic of Moldova in accordance with the current legislation, who create, promote or participate in illegal trade schemes at the regional or cross-border level.
• Promoting the idea of creating a fund to ensure the reunification process, with the international participation and monitoring of activities.
• Deepening partnership with Ukraine, focusing on a sustainable political settlement of the Transdniestrian conflict, strengthening regional security, deepening trade and economic relations, managing waters of the Dniester river, taking into account the national interests of both parties.
• Signing a contract with Ukraine for the supply of electricity and termination of the contract for the supply of electricity from Transdniestria.

From a formal and bureaucratic point of view, we can talk about a rather low interest on the part of the current pro-Western wing of Moldovan politicians in the Transdniestrian issue and an open desire to distance themselves from it in every possible way. In a sense, Igor Dodon deserves credit for this, who made a rather toxic case out of the Transdniestrian issue, especially for the new generation of Moldovan politicians. Key international players are also expecting that Chisinau will have a clear position on Transdniestria. For example, many people noticed that unlike the program of the previous Moldovan governments, the program document of Maia Sandu suddenly did not contain such fundamental aspects as territorial integrity and the search for a political settlement exclusively within the framework of the international 5+2 format. Against the background of strong denial of rumors about possible federalization, this circumstance looked all the more discouraging. In this regard, on the eve of their first foreign visits, the leaders of the new coalition almost simultaneously outlined their position on the Transdniestrian issue by the end of last week. Maia Sandu, in particular, said that a solution to the conflict can only happen if there is a suitable geopolitical context, which, apparently, is missing at the current stage. Igor Dodon in his statement on one of the Moldovan TV channels ‘postponed’ the political settlement for a year and a half, referring to the lack of both internal and external consensus – although in the days of Dmitry Kozak’s visit he was determined to “deal” with the left bank. Apparently, the subject of the Transdniestrian settlement, and in particular its political part gradually – as many times before – falls out of the current agenda of the current Moldovan authorities. Chisinau once again chooses the best way of idle waiting: though in the end it is unclear who will benefit or suffer from the lost time, the important thing is not to do anything stupid ‘at the moment’.