«OLVIA–PRESS»

THE US AMBASSADOR IN MOLDOVA MADE A DECLARATION REGARDING POSITION OF THE USA TOWARDS THE PROCESS OF SETTLEMENT OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

MOLDOVA AND Dniestria.

On August 1^st 2002, in the Embassy of the United States of America in Moldova, the US Ambassador Ms Pamela Smith made an official declaration for representatives of mass media from Moldova, Dniestria, Gagauzia, and European countries, regarding the US position towards the draft Agreement, proposed at the Kiev meeting of plenipotentiary representatives of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, OSCE, Republic of Moldova, and Dniestria. We herewith present its full text:

The declaration of the Ambassador of the United States of America in the Republic of Moldova regarding the US position towards the recent events around the Dniestrian settlement.

· The United States consider that the document presented by the mediators from the OSCE, Russia, and Ukraine during the quanta-lateral negotiations in Kiev on 2^nd-3^rd July is an important impact to the process of resolution of the Dniestrian conflict within frames of unite and indivisible Moldova.

· The United States highly appreciate non-relaxing attempts of the mediators and express their admiration to them because of such a balanced and comprehensive document worked out in conformity with principles fixed in the respective documents of the OSCE;

· The United States have thoroughly studied the document and support it; we consider that the given document represents a firm basis for fair resolution of the conflict.

· We hope that both Kishinev and Tiraspol will hence come to an agreement that the given document should serve as a ground for the negotiations regarding resolution of the long0time conflict between them.

· The United States really claim both sides for co-operating with the mediators and for starting the negotiations basing on the given document as soon as possible.

· We also hope that the negotiations will be serious and persistent, in purpose of reaching the final agreement within shortest terms.

· The United States consider that the possibility given by the present document should not be missed.

· Though the United States do not play official role in the negotiations, we are the OSCE member, and are highly interested in regional stability and safe boundaries.

(Back translation from Russian into English)

After having made the Declaration, Ms Pamela Smith held a press conference and answered the questions asked by the journalists. No matter to what domain the question referred, regarding interrelationship of the RM and DMR – either political or economic, or military – the final conclusion was the wording of the federalization concept proposed at the Kiev summit. The desire of journalists to learn details about the very mechanism of realizing that draft was satisfied only partially, because a number of questions somehow laid outside authority and competence of the Embassy itself.

For instance, Ms Smith, answering the following questions: “Does the federalization mean giving a status of autonomy to the territorial units of Moldova?” or “What status will be given to Dniestria?” – delicately said that the very sides would decide it. The main thing – as she persistently repeated – was the principle of federation within frames of the unite integrate Moldova.

Few questions were asked also about reasonability of holding a referendum in Moldova regarding the proposed change of the state structure. In the present time, the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova presumes a unitary state, and only a referendum may change that legislative norm. Ms Smith answered that question saying that it was up to Moldova whether to hold referendums or not. Though she appreciated the very fact of referendums as “really a good method of learning the people’s opinion”, she however added that “the President Voronin intended to create a commission which consider that legal aspect as well”. Here one may pay attention that the US Ambassador in Moldova put referendums in a line with the sociological poll, the results of which has no legal power, whereas the referendum is a legal act, included into the international law.

The topic of referendums also worried Dniestrian journalists. The news agency “Olvia-press” correspondent also asked a question whether results of the independence referendum held in Dniestria (remember that 92% of the population voted for independence) would be recognized. the correspondent of “Olvia-press” asked more precisely if the United States would base on principles, declared by themselves, of enforcing democracy and respecting human rights during the process of their participation in settling the Moldavian-Dniestrian relationship. Moreover that it is the main motive of extending the US influence throughout the world. Ms Smith answered that the USA really asserted and protect democracy everywhere, and as for the Dniestrian referendum, it had been held before her assignment that's why she said: “I will study it and connect with you later on”.

Pure revenge questions were also asked at the press conference. For instance, the permanent ideologist of the “pure nation” and ardent adept of the monoethnic state in all aspects of the living activity Oazu Nantoi, the leader of the Social-democrat party of Moldova, wondered “what fate will wait for those who had committed crimes against the RM in 1992 and who are citizens of foreign states”. The sense of the question is quite clear. The military aggression of 1992 failed, that is, Moldova found itself unable to submit and force (using weapons) the population of Dniestria to discriminative existence as “second-sorted non-indigenous”. But there is still a wish for revenge. Taking into consideration that in Dniestria there is double citizenship, and practically the every second man has two citizenship, the persons having also the Russian citizenship and Ukrainian (there are already about 200 thousand of such people) are obviously those very “citizens of another state”. Besides, nealrly the whole population of the region stood up for defense of their native towns. Having connected those two circumstances, one may conclude that all those citizens become “criminals”, according to logic of the Moldavian politician O. Nantoi. Anyway, the question of O. Nantoi is actually an unconcealed ardency for revenge and reprisal. We may think that the US Ambassador is demanded to give a moral bless of that action.

Ms Smith somewhat evasively answered that question, having said that she did not know which concrete crimes O. Nantoi had mentioned but any crime should be punished. On our behalf, we fully support the US Ambassador position, and consider that it just the time to hold penal responsible all those people had given orders and fulfilled the actions of murdering peaceful people in the towns of Bendery, Dubossary, Slobodzeia in 1992, and of ruining the national economy. The crime is sure to be punished. But it’s a consequence of adventurism allowed by Moldavian politicians, and the crime should be not only punished but also prevented – that is not to let it happen. But judging by essence of the question of Mr. O. Nantoi, it’s quite evident that the experience of 1992 did not sober the national radicals down at all, and by no means made them to look for compromise and pragmatic reality.

One more question – not that revenge-kind but close – was asked about “a very strong military potentialities of Dniestria”. Answering that question Pamela Smith said that the USA as usual consists on fulfillment of the Istanbul Agreement. And here the US position fully coincides with that of the Russian Federation.

The DMR Television correspondent asked a question concerning the price of realizing the project of federalization. In opinion of specialists, its sum will consist at least $ 500 million. Where will this money come from? Pamela Smith said that the USA were the main donor of Moldova. Besides, realizing the project of federalization will assume also attracting large investments that would eventually improve the life in Moldova. Besides, judging by emotional reaction of Ms Pamela Smith, by her joyful and benevolent expression of her face, we may presume that the costs in such sums will not tangibly overburden the American treasury. But the precedent of Yugoslavia, where there was a very similar situation, makes us be on the alert. That time the USA also promised big money for fulfillment of their conditions. And there is no money yet, while Yugoslavia is ruined. Maybe having economized money on the Balkans settlement, the USA are able to spend it for realizing of the Kiev project? Generally, the press-conference was held in friendly atmosphere, laconic and rather vigorous way. The only one that made a bit uncomforted was the awfully stuffy-air and crush of the room.

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