LEAHU: ”Moldova’s independence from Moscow increased Kremlin support for Tiraspol regime”
Interview with Ion Leahu, former member of the Unified Control Commission
Why the Kiev acts of 1999 and the OSCE summit in Istanbul of 1999 remained unrealized?
Russia has permanently promoted a duplicity policy regarding the Republic of Moldova, plus – the factor of personalities. The years in question have been marked in the Russian Federation by the intentions of becoming a democratic, European formation. On March 20, 1998, in Odessa, the agreement was signed, which provided for the liquidation of the posts of the Transnistrian region’s forces, peacekeeping forces. From Russia, the then Prime Minister Victor Cernomârdin signed. But nothing was done. Russia entered the period of consolidation of the idea of restoring the quality of superpower, which no longer allowed the provisions of these agreements. So the agreements were signed, but they were not fulfilled.
Why wasn’t apply the law 173 (Voronin law adopted in 2005) on the basic provisions of the special legal status of Transnistria?
Much has been said about the application of this law. I personally qualify it as “Memories about the future”. The law was adopted in 2005, after the unrealized exercise of the Moldovan-Transnistrian Constitutional Joint Commission and after the uninspired Transnistrian dispute settlement act, known as the “Kozak Memorandum”. Obviously, under such conditions any attempt to solve the problem was doomed to failure. Regarding the whole complex of activities, considered “Transnistrian settlement”, the Russians have a formula, which they apply consecutively: the decisions belong to Chisinau and Tiraspol, Moscow only contributing to their application and elaboration.
Starting from this false, but promoted, wish, Tiraspol could not in 2005 accept the special status, which proposed its component part within the unitary state of the Republic of Moldova. The interests of Moscow did not allow the acceptance of a Supreme Law, the content of which would not contravene the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova.
“The more obvious it became that the Republic of Moldova, with the influence of the Western partners, became freer than the influence of Moscow, the more Moscow declared its support for the Tiraspol regime.”
And the most effective step Moscow could take was to stop the evacuation and destruction of weapons and armament from the warehouses located in Transnistria. Namely deposits, because it is not just the one from Cobasna. Russia demonstratively gave up the OSCE program on weapons evacuation. As a result, the fund organized by OSCE was liquidated, the defamation room “Donovan” was sent to the owner. Weapons and armament are widely used by Russian Federation troops in the territory and by the militarized structures of the regime. Due to these reserves, the structures indicated regularly carry out target shootings of all types of weapons, including those mounted on tanks, a luxury that the National Army of the Republic of Moldova cannot afford.
What happens now? Russia has declared its readiness to destroy the weapons stored at Cobasna …
We are currently witnessing another attempt by Moscow to achieve its intentions with the help of the top leadership of Moldova. The plan to give the region “strong autonomy”. Russia repeats the act, but in a much harsher formula. Under the guise of destroying a quantity of outdated ammunition, the Kremlin will numerically strengthen the military (deforestation specialists) and expand their presence. Moreover, relations between Chisinau and Tiraspol will be proposed in such a way that Transnistria dictates the foreign policy of the Republic of Moldova.
As for the ideas of some experts, according to which Moscow could accept the settlement of the Transnistrian dispute in exchange for easing the tension of economic sanctions and, possibly, restoring it to the G-8, it is not very real. The Kremlin, led by Putin, aspires to unlimited domination, while European states respect modern law and human rights.
