UKRAINE HAS STOPPED BEING THE COUNTRY-GUARANTOR IN TRANSDNESTR SETTLEMENT
Alexei Martynov To Regnum

Regnum, Russia
March 9 2006

Interview of Russian-Transdnestr Analytical Center Head

Head of the Russian-Transdnestr Information Analytical Center Alexei
Martynov has commented to a REGNUM correspondent on the resolution
by the Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers #112-R, according to which on
March 3, 2006, Ukrainian customs stopped letting in the country goods
registered by Transdnestr customs, which led to economic blockade of
the Transdnestr Moldavian Republic.

REGNUM: How would you assess actions of the Ukrainian government
towards Transdnestr?

The Ukrainian authorities have lost their temper in the tense
negotiation process on Transdnestr settlement. The Transdnestr economic
blockade, or as they call it in Ukraine, “the new rules of customs
registration of goods coming through Transdnestr and from Transdnestr,”
are in fact an instrument for strengthening Ukraine’s influence in the
negotiation process and weakening Russia’s role as a country-guarantor.

Before it, Ukraine used to postpone for unidentified term coming
to force of the agreement between Ukraine and Moldavia on customs
registration of Transdnestr goods in Moldavia, using it as a reason
for blackmailing and putting pressure upon Transdnestr. But now,
somebody in the Ukrainian leadership or all of them has lost temper,
as I said, and this happened.

REGNUM: Do you think, there is any connection between the recent
decision not to open polling stations for Ukrainian citizens living
in Transdnestr and the resolution of the Ukrainian government on
toughening the regime of goods transition?

Situationally, it is undoubtedly connected. But I do not think that
these actions were well-considered and planned. Most probably,
it should be regarded as hasty reciprocal steps in response to
Transdnestr’s tough position in the talks on Transdnestr conflict
settlement.

REGNUM: What are the results of Transdnestr blockade for the republic’s
economy?

On the reason that the flow of goods from Transdnestr as well as to
Transdnestr and transit via Transdnestr are ceased, for these days
the Transdnestr budget has lost about $10 million. But I am sure
that Transdnestr residents in this case will resist to the end,
even if they are subjected to siege.

REGNUM: You say, the resolution by the Ukrainian government was aimed
at strengthening Ukraine’s role in the negotiation format, however,
on March 4, Transdnestr’s foreign ministry has put under question
Ukraine’s right to speak as a country-guarantor in the Transdnestr
settlement…

In this situation, actions of the Ukrainian government can be
characterized by the words of the Russia’s Ambassador in Ukraine
Viktor Chernomyrdin: “We wanted to the best way, and it turned out
to be as it always happens.” It was not the first case of dull and
short-sighted policy of the Ukrainian authorities.

This way or another, by these actions Ukraine actually recalled
its signature under the Memorandum of 1997 and stopped being the
country-guarantor in Transdnestr settlement, but became a party
in the conflict. The Memorandum of 1997 guarantees independence to
Transdnestr in its economic activity, and the Moldavian authorities
can speak as much as they want about absence of mechanisms for enacting
the Memorandum’s statements, but it is not Transdnestr’s problem, but
a problem of the countries-guarantors in the Transdnestr settlement
and Ukraine as well.

The recent developments have shown clearly the fact that Ukraine’s
President Viktor Yushchenko has no control over the situation
in the country. In his statements he has repeatedly guaranteed
observance of rights of all Ukrainian citizens, including those
living in Transdnestr, at the same time, the Ukrainian government,
the foreign ministry and the customs by their activity denied the
president’s statements.

Actually, Yushchenko has entered the list of noncontractual leaders
of CIS leaders, I mean Moldavian President Voronin and Georgian
President Saakashvili. Now no one can deal with Yushchenko anyway,
as well as with other above mentioned politicians.

REGNUM: For whose support can Transdnestr reckon in this situation?

I think, in this situation the Transdnestr Moldavian Republic will
be supported by the “CIS-2” countries entering the so-called club of
unrecognized states – Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Karabakh. Undoubtedly,
Russia will render assistance to Transdnestr, taking into
consideration the fact that about 100,000 Russian citizens live in
Transdnestr. Moreover, if the blockade brings about a humanitarian
catastrophe with all the resulting consequences – food deficit,
refugees, Russia as a country-guarantor would render humanitarian
help to the republic.

Major Transdnestr enterprises belong to Russian capital, so the
Russian Industrialists and Entrepreneurs Union and the Russian Trade
and Industrial Chamber will participate in solving this problem.

I am sure, the Russian State Duma that cooperates closely with the
Transdnestr Supreme Council will make a statement on the issue. As
for the exact actions, Russia could apply analogous and even tougher
sanctions towards Ukraine in response to the Transdnestr blockade:
it can impose a ban for Ukrainian goods crossing the Russian border,
although from the point of view that, as I already said, the Russian
capital and Russian citizens do suffer from the actions of the
Ukrainian and Moldavian authorities too.

REGNUM: What do you think the international community will react to
the Transdnestr blockade?

Reaction of the international community has already been given. EU’s
foreign policy chief Xavier Solana announced on March 6, that
he welcomed “the start of realization of the joint statement of
Ukrainian and Moldavian prime ministers of December 2005” and calls
for “Transdnestr self-proclaimed authorities not to put obstacles on
the way of registration.”

Evidently, the reaction of the international community to the
issue should derive from principles of democracy, human rights and
international law regulations protection, but we have to state for
just another time that the so-called international community in the
person of the West pursues double policy standards policy regarding
the Transdnestr problem, and the statement made by Solana is just
another proof of it.