Oazu NANTOI, program director, Institute for Public Policy, Chisinau:
“It is too early to offer judgment, as it was only the first meeting which allowed Chisinau and Tiraspol to meet face to face and find out about each other’s standing. I will avoid using the word ‘parties,’ since Chisinau does not consider Tiraspol to be one. Proceeding from what one can find in the Internet, there is a certain discord. Chisinau would like to unseal the third ‘basket’ and get over to the political issues of Transnistria’s status as part of the Republic of Moldova. Tiraspol, however, refuses to take this step. Therefore it still remains to see what Kyiv will be able to achieve if it rigorously observes its go-between status, if Transnistria-bound containers are not trapped in the port of Odesa.”
What is there in the first two “baskets”?
“Infrastructure and socioeconomic projects, whereas the third ‘basket’ contains political issues, confidence measures, and so on, and so forth. All sorts of blah blah which everyone is sick and tired of.”
A certain diplomat said, answering The Day’s question about who plays a greater role in impeding Transnistrian settlement, that “both parties are worth each other.” Who, in your opinion, should carry the bigger blame for blocking the settlement of this conflict?
“The thing is that the whole situation with this conflict could be illustrated with an old joke. A gorgeous blonde is sitting in a train compartment. Then an elegant gentleman walks in and takes a seat opposite. The train departs, the man looks at the woman and says, ‘I want you!’ ‘I’m afraid of you,’ replies the blonde. The train moves on, the guy says again, ‘I want you!’ And again the reply is, ‘I’m afraid.’ At last the train stops at a station, the man puts his hat on and makes for the door. The blonde says, ‘Hey, you wanted me as much as I was afraid of you!’”
What can you say about the statement the Ukrainian minister made in Chisinau and Tiraspol about intensifying the negotiations between Chisinau and Tiraspol? And what about some experts’ assumptions that the conflict can have been settled by 2015?
“The thing is that everyone is just perfectly happy with the present status quo. I mean, Chisinau imitates willingness to settle the conflict. Tiraspol pretends it is ready to sit down and start the talks. In reality, no one wants to deal with this problem. So nothing will change.”
But Kyiv is willing. Besides, in February a “five plus two” meeting will be held in Lviv to help deal with the situation.
“Without Kyiv pressurizing Tiraspol, nothing will change.”
Do you think Moscow will agree to Kyiv exercising this pressure?
“It is another issue. The thing is how much Kyiv wants it.”
Last December, at a meeting of OSCE foreign ministers in Dublin, Kyiv and Moscow signed statements on the principles of Transnistrian settlement. Isn’t this a good foundation for the solution of the conflict?
“Of course not. It is just empty talk which has lasted for 22 years and led nowhere.”
So you believe that without Kyiv’s pressurizing there will be no result?
“Not necessarily, but there must be coordinated policies in the triangle Kyiv – Brussels – Chisinau. In this respect, I expect more of the EU-Ukraine summit than from Kyiv’s OSCE presidency. If Ukraine truly wanted to influence the conflict situation, it need not wait for its turn to preside over the OSCE. In 2005, when the action plan EU-Ukraine and EU-Moldova was signed and resulted in the rise of EUBAM, no OSCE presidency was involved. But there was political will.”
