«OLVIA-PRESS»

OVER THE BATTLE

A comment of the press agency “Olvia-press”

Yesterday in Kishinev, the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of the United States of America Pamela Hyde Smith made a declaration “regarding the US position towards the recent events around the Dniestrian settlement”. Having supported the draft Agreement between the Republic of Moldova and Dniestria, supposing the founding of “a democratic federate law-based state”, and having claimed both sides for “starting negotiations basing on the given document as soon as possible”, Ms Smith expressed her hope that the re-starting dialogue between Kishinev and Tiraspol would “be serious”.

The brief and diplomatically reserved text of the declaration (and nothing else could have been expected from the American side, that started working “in the Dniestrian direction”) however makes us reflect about the way the negotiation procedures would develop furthermore. Though, one should pay attention at a detail of the Ambassador’s declaration. And it’s interesting. Having approved the Declaration, the Ambassador, meanwhile remarked that it “was an important impact to the process of settling the Dniestrian conflict within frames of unite and indivisible Moldova”. Either Ms. Smith appears to be unaware of history and specific of the conflict or already initially, as if occasionally, she had started mixing up principally important things. In early 1990s, militant nationalists of Moldova namely under the motto “For Unite And Indivisible Moldova” attacked Dniestria, being armed, and the perspective of a possible federalization of the country made them totally furious.

We may suppose that the statement of the American diplomat would not remain unnoticed here in Tiraspol, and on the background of the fact that Ms. Smith, when declaring, did not mention even once the world “federation”, on the certain stage it may become a disturbing factor. By the way, the president of Moldova Vladimir Voronin does not use this word, too, and prefers saying about the ‘saint duty of uniting the country’ in his official speeches and declarations regarding the Agreement.

But let’s come back to the declaration of the American diplomat. It represents a bright devotion to documents, worked out by the Administration of George W. Bush. Remember the “Joint Declaration of the President Vladimir V. Putin and the President George W. Bush on new strategic relationship between the Russian Federation and the United States of America”, where beside all is marked that “Russia and the USA will co-operate in resolution of regional conflicts as well as of the Dniestrian issue in Moldavia”. In other words, America started seriously fulfilling its (after agreement with Russia) “Dniestrian program”. And now any personal factors, any personal positions and points of view of its official representatives in the RM would not play any decisive role. It’s obvious that one should expect changes of that kind from Russia, too, - the RF Ambassador in Moldova Mr. Petrovski would either have to make cardinal review of his moods towards, or to pick up his valises. Nothing else is possible.

Political observers had marked the US active position towards the Dniestria long before the Kiev meeting, where the draft Agreement was issued. That very circumstance давало gave them grounds to think that the American side stood before the decision of issue on reasonability of their immediate participation in the dialogue together with Russia and the Ukraine as the third mediating country. Those presumptions were particularly fixed after publishing of results of the Russian-American (on May 24^th-26^th 2002, in Moscow and St-Petersburg). In her declaration, Pamela Smith explicitly showed the position of her country regarding that issues: “Though the United States do not play official role at the negotiations, we are the OSCE member and are highly interested in regional stability and safe boundaries”.

It is obvious to mean just one thing yet: the official Washington does not want to violate the exsiting balance of forces, traditions, and rules, established in the group of mediators and guarantees, and chose a rather comfortable place for it: over the battle. What advantages does it give? The recent meeting in Kiev, where there took part Pamela Smith and Rudolph Perina, on one hand, and Igor Smirnov and Valery Litskai. “Far away from the conflict” and in maximally short circle of persons, it’s easier to understand each other and work out further tactics. It’s interesting that at the conference Ms. Smith herself avoided answering the question about details of the meeting. But I. Smirnov seems to have made the Dniestria public understand what the conversation in Vien was about. At the meeting, devoted to the Memory Day, he once again declared about intention of the official Tiraspol to build a common state with Moldova on the equal subject base.

By the way, Moscow and Kiev were the ones that for many times have implemented the tactics of bilateral meetings with the main participants of the dialogue “in the neutral territory”. They of course had results but invariably caused negative reaction of either Tiraspol or Kishinev and broke the rhythm of already hard going negotiations. Time will show whether those ‘educative-consulting’ functions will be given to the USA. But for today it’s clear yet: all parties that without exclusion are involved in the negotiations in this or that way, agree with one thing: there will be a long and hard work, first of all, within frames of experts’ groups, each of which would fulfill the will of their authority, situated in Kishinev and Tiraspol. And this will is known. Kishinev votes for “unification of the country”; officially, no one pronounces here the word ‘federation’. Tiraspol votes for the “common state”; with equal subjects.

August 2^nd 2002. Translated by Ernest A. Vardanean