Study of Official Public Statements

Negotiations. Both Transdniestria and foreign actors have made official public statements, mostly within the context of the negotiation process between Moldova and Transdniestria that started in 1992. Over two decades, the process has moved in fits and starts, but has nonetheless included a number of initiatives and key documents that frame the relationship between the sides, reflect its general development, and identify the actors

involved.¹⁵¹ Table 3 lists the main stages of the negotiations between 1992 and 2012 that serve as the background and contextual basis for the research.

TABLE 3. KEY NEGOTIATIONS INITIATIVES

Date Initiative

1992 (July 21) Agreement on the Principles of the Peaceful Settlement of the Armed Conflict in the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova

1993 (November 13) CSCE Report No. 13, which outlines a proposal for a special status for the left-bank Dniester areas within the Republic of Moldova as a basis for talks between both parties to the conflict

1997 (May 8) Memorandum on the Principles of Normalizations of the Relations between the Republic of Moldova and Transdniestria (also called the Moscow or Primakov Memorandum)

1998 (March 20) Agreement on Confidence Measures and the Development of Contacts between the Republic of Moldova and Transdniestria (Odessa Agreement)

1999 (July 16) Joint Statement of the Participants in the Kiev Meeting on Issues of Normalization of Relations between the Republic of Moldova and Transdniestria (Kiev Statement)

2002 (February 20) Initiative “On the Organization of the Negotiation Process Regarding Transdniestrian Conflict Settlement” and the creation of the Permanent Conference on Political Issues in the Framework of the Negotiation Process for the Transdniestrian Settlement (Bratislava format)

2003 (November) Russian Draft Memorandum on the Basic Principles of the State Structure of a United State (Kozak Memorandum)

2004 (February 13) Proposals and Recommendations of the Mediators from the OSCE, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine with regards to the Transdniestrian Settlement

2005 (May 20) Ukrainian Initiative for the Transdniestrian Peaceful Settlement Plan (Yushchenko Plan)

2011 (September 22) Statement of the Participants of the '5+2' Consultations on the Resumption of the Work of the "Permanent Conference on Political Issues in the Framework of the Negotiation Process for the Transdniestrian Settlement"

2012 (July 13) Principles and Procedures of the Conduct of Negotiations within the “Permanent Conference on Political Issues in the Framework of the Negotiation Process for the Transdniestrian Settlement”; Agenda of the Official Negotiation Process (Vienna agreements)

Actors. This research looks at seven key participants in the Transdniestrian negotiations.

As Table 4 illustrates below, since 1992 the format of the negotiations has undergone a number

151 On the negotiation process, see generally: In English: International Crisis Group, “Moldova: No Quick Fix,”

(2003); “Moldova: Regional Tensions over Transdniestria,” (2004); “Moldova’s Uncertain Future,” (2006); Graeme P. Herd, Moldova and the Dniestr Region: Contested Past, Frozen Present, Speculative Futures? (Conflict Studies Research Center, 2005); Denis Matveev et al., eds., Moldova–Transdniestria: Working Together for a Prosperous Future. Negotiation Process. [Also in Romanian and Russian] (Chishinau: 2009).

In Moldovan/Romanian: Igor Boţan, Reglementarea Transnistreană: O Soluţie Europeană (Chisinau: Arc, 2009).

of changes and currently includes representatives of six actors, seen as outside or external actors for Transdniestria.

TABLE 4. LIST OF ACTORS INVOLVED IN THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS

Date of Being directly involved in conflict resolution as parties, mediators, guarantors, or observers, these states or organizations have a more detailed picture of Transdniestrian local developments, are aware of the internal negotiation processes, and, by virtue of their roles, react to any steps on the Transdniestrian side that are related to and/or might affect the negotiations on its status.¹⁵⁷ The good position of these actors for observing and responding to the constitutional development of Transdniestria when compared to other states that are less interested in the Transdniestrian issue explains the focus of this research on the reactions of these six actors external to Transdniestria. Henceforth, this group of six external actors (Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE, the EU, and the US) is referred to as “the external actors.”

152 After the EU and USA joined the negotiation process as observers, the new format for the negotiations became known as the “5+2” format.

153 Moldova and Russia became official actors in the negotiations in 1992, with the signing of the Agreement on Principles of the Peaceful Settlement of the Armed Conflict, see Table 2.

154 The OSCE joined the process after the establishment of the OSCE Mission to Moldova in 1993.

155 Ukraine officially joined the negotiation process in 1996, when it signed the Joint Statement of the Russian Federation, Moldovan and Ukrainian Presidents on Political Settlement of the Transdniestrian Conflict.

156 The EU and the US joined the process according to the Annex “Rights and Obligations of Observers in Negotiation Process” to the Memorandum adopted at a Mediators’ Meeting of Ukraine, Russian Federation and OSCE with Representatives of the Republic of Moldova and Transdniestria. (September 27, 2005).

157 See more on the general description of the negotiation process and its participants in Boţan, The Negotiation Process, 2009.

The present work views the collective membership of the OSCE and the EU¹⁵⁸ as single entities and looks at their responses as single institutions. This does not mean, however, that this research does not take into consideration the heterogeneous and complex nature of these organizations. On the contrary, it acknowledges that the foreign policy position of some members of those organizations regarding Transdniestria might be more influential than the institution’s approach to general foreign policy. As a result, this work pays close attention to the internal dynamics of the foreign policies of the OSCE and EU where appropriate, and looks into the reactions of those international actors who are not directly involved in the negotiation process but who have a particular interest in the Transdniestrian settlement. For example, given its historical and geopolitical ties to Moldova, Romania has taken a keen interest in the early resolution of the Transdniestrian conflict that, in many ways, has contributed to the EU’s approach towards Transdniestria.

Issues. The study of the official public statements, defined below, aims to explore the constitutional provisions and practices of Transdniestria in meeting the traditional and contemporary criteria for recognition, and the influence they have had on the external actors. As Table 5 shows below, the present research focuses only on the specific constitutional steps that Transdniestria has undertaken that enable the researcher to observe and assess the reaction of the external actors, and to draw conclusions on the effects of the constitutional development in an unrecognized state.

158 Fifty-seven states are currently members of the OSCE, compared to 28 in the EU today. See www.osce.org;

www.europa.eu.

TABLE 5. SELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES OF TRANSDNIESTRIA FROM 1990 TO 2013

TMR constitutional developments Analysis of the outside reactions to the events Adoption of acts proclaiming

independence and constitutions

Declarations of the TMR’s Creation, Sovereignty, and Independence: 1990-1991

Adoption of the Constitutions: 1991, 1995

Holding elections and referenda Presidential elections: 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2011 Parliamentary elections: 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 Referenda: 1989, 1990, 1991, 1995, 2003, 2006 Adoption of constitutional amendments Amendments expanding presidential powers: 2000

Amendments balancing executive and legislative powers:

2010

Protecting human rights Setting up the Constitutional Court: 2002; establishing the Ombudsman office: 2006; cooperation with international monitoring missions: 2012

This research explores the relationship between the criteria for recognition and the constitutional provisions or practices in Transdniestria’s official public discourse by addressing the following questions: Do any constitutional provisions contain references to the criteria for recognition? Do public officials mention the adoption of the acts of independence, the constitution, and the provisions of the constitution in relation to the recognition process in their official public statements? Do public officials link other constitutional practices, such as holding elections and referenda, adopting constitutional amendments, and protecting human rights, to the process of recognition in their public discourse?

The present research also analyzes the reactions of the external actors to the existence of specific Transdniestrian constitutional provisions and practices by exploring the following questions: Do the external actors make any references to the Transdniestrian constitution and its provisions in their official public statements or during the negotiations? Do they mention Transdniestrian elections, referenda, constitutional changes, or adherence to human rights documents in their public statements or during the negotiation process? If so, what is the attitude of the external actors toward Transdniestrian developments?

Documents (official public statements/discourse). The review of official public statements includes documents available on official websites, in printed or online media, and issued by key public Transdniestrian and external officials, namely presidents, ministers or heads of foreign affairs, heads or members of the legislative body, as well as the heads or key representatives of the organizations involved in the settlement of the Transdniestrian issue.

Time period. The overall period of the documents reviewed ranged from August 1990 to May 2013. The time period of documents issued by the external actors depends on the time at which the actor joined the negotiation process. For example, the OSCE entered the process in 1993 so its documents are analyzed from that period, whereas the US entered the process in 2005, so its documents are analyzed starting from 2005.