Conflict in Transdniestria: Future Is in Question

RTA expert suggests that Chisinau does not have a common position yet on the future of the unrecognized republic, and negotiations on the settlement of the conflict will continue to be stalled. Dorin Mocanu, RTA: On July 24, in Chisinau, after a long break for elections and for the overthrow of Plahotniuc, the official talks resumed between the political representatives of Chisinau and Tiraspol –  experienced Vasile Sova and the head of the Transdniestrian foreign policy office Vitaly Ignatiev. The last meeting of negotiators in the so-called 1+1 format took place in October 2018, when this post was taken by member of the PDM Cristina Lesnik. After that, the negotiation process stalled for a long time. Only the mediators and observers, who visited Chisinau and Tiraspol on July 12 and found the necessary arguments to bring the parties back to the negotiating table, breathed fresh life into the dialogue of the parties. Following the meeting, both Tiraspol and Chisinau published cold releases: judging by them, the first meeting was a review, even without hints at any specific decisions. Negotiators dumped their wishes on the table and as always agreed to agree. The fact that even for the ritual discussion the parties had to be seated at the table by the international mediators may mean the obvious indifference of the Moldovan officials to activities on the Transdniestrian track. At the same time, we should not confuse directly the negotiators from Chisinau and Moldovan politicians – for example, Igor Dodon, whose adviser until recently was Vasile Sova, does not give up hope to push Transdniestria into Moldova in the coming years. One of the explanations of the Moldovan passivity in solving the issues is the banal lack of personnel in Chisinau authorized to negotiate with Tiraspol. Moldova keeps experiencing the active phase of personnel cleansing in the state machine, which includes former heads of sectoral working groups on negotiations with Transdniestria. However, Chisinau has a more solid reason to slow down practical discussion with Tiraspol: it is much more profitable for the new government to imitate dialogue in the current situation than to achieve results in it. Despite the lack of resources, the socialists through President Igor Dodon and Vasile Sova are trying to save face and keep the subject of the Transnistrian settlement alert and alive, regularly voicing ideas for further dialogue with Tiraspol. Each of them is in one way or another connected with the early launch of negotiations on a final political settlement of the conflict. Meanwhile, as experience shows, absolutely every Moldovan political representative considered it their duty to reassure the public that the negotiations are about to discuss the special status of Transdniestria, but to this day the situation with the political dialogue is closer to neglect than to launch. The main conclusion, which is shared by many experts, is that at the present time there is no real readiness for dialogue on either side, and the meeting was a kind of courtesy gesture of Chisinau and Tiraspol to the international participants. Not coincidentally it seems that international mediators need the conflict settlement more than the parties themselves. The OSCE is even ready to organize another 5+2 meeting in Bratislava without specific prospects, just to maintain contacts between the parties and to preserve at least some point in the negotiations. At the current stage, there seems to be no reason to associate any expectations with formal negotiations on Transdniestria. It is much more ‘profitable’ for Chisinau to offer the most sophisticated initiatives, and at the same time to slow down the negotiations as such since the Transdniestrian issue is one of the most dangerous for the careers of Moldovan politicians, as evidenced the recent mis-speak of the Moldovan Foreign Minister Nicu Popescu about the “civil war”. It is very convenient for the government of Moldova to demonstrate pragmatic restraint in the Transdniestrian problem, which may directly influence the future of the current alliance of socialists and ACUM. In the existing circumstances, the prospects for the discussion on the final settlement, so expected by all international actors, look rather cloudy, primarily due to the fragile internal political balance and personnel mess in Moldova, which has just taken the path of deoligarchization of public institutions. In this environment it is obvious to many that the unprepared and hasty process of negotiations with Transdniestria may result in unpredictable consequences for Moldova, especially since Brussels, Washington and Moscow are clearly slowing down the final consensus on the format of the conflict settlement on the Dniester in anticipation of which way the situation in Moldova will swing under the current government.