EU Wants to Increase Its Influence on Frozen Conflicts in Eastern Partnership Countries

Sergiu CEBAN In the near future, Moldova should expect an increased attention towards the Transdniestrian settlement on the part of the European Union, especially since Bucharest is to act as the revision "powerhouse" of the Eastern European security policy Last week, the foreign ministers of the European Union countries held an informal meeting in Lisbon in the so-called Gymnich format. One of its central themes, initiated by Romania, was the problem of resolving protracted conflicts in the Eastern Partnership region. According to the EU High Representative for International Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, ministers moved painstakingly from one conflict to another and analyzed the existing possibilities to reach a peaceful solution, which, in turn, would allow a more effective approach to protecting stability on the European continent. Experts have long been saying that one of the key elements that could help enhance the role of the European Union in the issue of protracted conflicts is strengthening cooperation with the OSCE. The organization bears a significant burden and is best immersed in the complex matters of negotiation mechanisms. In addition, over recent years, the chairmanship in the OSCE has mainly been given to the EU member states. For example, now it is Sweden, and next year will be Poland. Despite the decline in the positive perception of the Eastern Partnership both within the Union and in the recipient countries, Brussels continues viewing it as a key regional project aimed at promoting the EU's “gravity policy”. It is also aimed at supporting the countries’ socio-economic development in the region and a stable situation on the Union’s Eastern borders. However, the high mobility of post-Soviet conflicts observed in the last decade, one way or another, is pushing Brussels to rethink its role in controlling them and providing conditions for a peaceful settlement. The first signs showing that the United States and the EU will change their tactical approaches to zones with unresolved territorial problems in the post-Soviet space appeared in the fall of last year. Then, during his visit to Washington, Romanian Foreign Minister Bogdan Aurescu discussed in detail with his American counterpart the regional situation with special emphasis on Moldova. In particular, they discussed the need to provide support to Chisinau to increase energy independence, as well as in the settlement of the Transdniestrian issue. Afterwards, in November, the Romanian Foreign Minister sent an official appeal to Josep Borrell and proposed finding effective tools that will help to effectively deal with the problem of frozen conflicts; he urged as well to discuss the possibilities of resolving them in the Black Sea region at the next summit. In addition, Aurescu discussed his initiative in a telephone conversation with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Confirmation that the concept of a new view of the situation is not an improvisation of Romania is the fact that the idea of Bucharest was immediately supported by almost all the closest allies of the United States in the EU - Poland, Sweden, Estonia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Latvia and Slovenia. It is also no coincidence that it was Bucharest to became the "powerhouse" of revision of the Eastern European security policy. First of all, it was the persona factor to play its role - as known, Bogdan Aurescu has been long and deeply interested in the topic of frozen conflicts and being for many years the Secretary of State of the Romanian Foreign Ministry, tried to pay special attention to this issue. By the way, on June 2, last year, during the meeting with the German Ambassador Cord Mayer-Klodt (co-author of the "Berlin Protocol" in the Transdniestrian settlement), the head of the Romanian diplomacy discussed the progress of negotiations on reintegrating the region and on Romania and Germany’s actions coordination in the Moldovan direction. The current internal political situation in our country and the deep and multi-level involvement of Washington, Berlin and Bucharest in this suggests that the collective West has been able to very successfully organize and start implementing, relatively speaking, a new Moldovan project. Such an efforts combination did not presumably arise solely to neutralize political forces loyal to Moscow in Moldova, but for much more serious and significant plans. The Lisbon communication’s results and the voiced proposals to strengthen the European Union as a global player, which, according to the logic of bureaucratic procedures, must be approved at the Council of the EU, do give already a rough understanding as to the exact Brussels’ direction and way of acting. In particular, the EU plans to strengthen as its participation in negotiation formats by means of appointing a special representative for all post-Soviet conflicts, as coordination with relevant partners in the region, primarily the OSCE, the UN and the United States. As expected, special emphasis is placed on Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. An intensification of the dialogue between the three states with the European Union in the field of security and on issues related to the resolution of protracted conflicts on their territories is expected, including through the creating a special negotiation format focused on finding optimal ways to resolve them. Despite the fact that the Bucharest’s initiative on the post-Soviet conflicts is aimed at shaping a new EU vision of this problem in its entirety, it is obvious that the main focus of Romanian diplomacy’s efforts will of course be the neighboring Moldova and, consequently, the Transdniestrian settlement. If Romania, positioning itself as Chisinau’s “advocate” in the EU, has not yet managed to systematically move the issue of European integration of our country, then the task of creating the necessary conditions within the framework of the current context in the post-Soviet space is to push the Transdniestrian settlement as one of the most promising for the final resolution stage. Therefore, we can safely assume that the post-election period can turn another page in the history of our republic. Further, we are to face profound internal political and structural transformations and serious changes in the balance of external influence. That will inevitably lead to the status quo destruction and, therefore, to new challenges and opportunities for our country.