APPROACHES TO THE CONFLICT SETTLEMENT IN THE TRANSNISTRIAN DISPUTE

ABORDĂRI ALE SOLUȚIONĂRII CONFLICTULUI

ÎN DISPUTA TRANSNISTREANĂ

În articol sunt prezentate cele patru căi posibile ale evoluţiei conflictului nistrean. Sunt analizate planul Ucrainei (Iuşcenko) şi planul Rusiei (Kozak), arătându-se manipulările folosite de autori în aceste documente. În articol se menţionează că în cazul RM nu există nici un temei pentru adoptarea sistemului federal sau confederal de organizare şi construcţie a statului. Din păcate, în loc să propună proiecte de statut a regiunii nistrene în componenţa RM, autorii planurilor analizate propun moduri de organizare (sisteme politice) a RM. 

În opinia autorului, formatul 5+2 al negocierilor este ineficient deoarece Rusia este prezentă în el nu ca parte în conflict (așa cum a fost recunoscută printr-o hotărâre din 2004 a Curții pentru Apărarea Drepturilor Omului de la Strasbourg, în Dosarul Ilașcu), ci ca mediator.

Originea conflictului din 1992 poate fi găsită în trasarea, în 1940, a graniţei ucraineano-moldoveneşti, în urma căreia teritorii care de secole au aparţinut Moldovei au fost trecute de conducerea de la Moscova Ucrainei, iar Moldova în schimb a primit o fâşie de pe malul stâng al Nistrului, care a aparţinut Ucrainei. Întrucât în regiunea nistreană a RM de pe malul stâng al Nistrului există zone populate compact de ucraineni, iar în nordul şi sudul Basarabiei (actualmente în Ucraina) există zone cu localităţi populate de moldoveni, autorul propune, printre alte scenarii, un schimb de teritorii sau o corectare a graniţei între Moldova şi Ucraina, care ar putea să elimine definitiv de pe harta Europei conflictul din estul ţării noastre.

Implicarea armatei regulate ruse şi a unor forţe paramilitare ruseşti în războiul din 1992 din zona estică a Moldovei demonstrează că a fost vorba de un conflict teritorial ruso-moldovenesc. Cauzele izbucnirii conflictului sunt simple: pentru a menţine o parte a RM sub ocupaţia sa, autorităţile de la Moscova au purces la uzurparea puterii în zona nistreană a ţării. Astfel, trupe de kazaci din Rusia au atacat sediile comisariatelor de poliţie din regiune. În acest fel, conflictul a început şi aşa-zisa republică moldovenească nistreană (Nistria) a fost recunoscută ca parte în conflict. Autorul propune ca regiunea în cauză să fie denumită „Nistria” şi nu „Transnistria”, deoarece ea cuprinde cea mai mare parte a teritoriului moldovenesc din stânga Nistrului – aşa-zisa Transnistrie (fără 6 sate) şi câteva localităţi de pe mamul drept al Nistrului – Cisnistria sau Basarabia: oraşul Bender şi 6 sate. 

Cu regret, mass-media naţionale şi internaţionale au prezentat opiniei publice o viziune conform căreia este vorba de un regim separatist în Moldova de est. În opinia autorului, nu este vorba de o mişcare separatistă, ci de un regim de ocupaţie rusească, bazată pe prezenţa Armatei a 14 ruseşti şi a unei administraţii formată din cetăţeni ruşi, originari din Rusia (nici un localnic moldovean nu face parte din aşa-zisul guvern de la Tiraspol). Singurul acord care este respectat de părţile în conflict este cel din iulie 1992, semnat la Moscova de preşedinţii Elţin şi Snegur, care a pus capăt războiului între Rusia şi Moldova, prin înstrăinarea (scoaterea de sub jurisdicţia Chişinăului) părţii estice a ţării şi stabilirea unei graniţe între Moldova rămasă liberă şi zona de ocupaţie rusească. 

ПОДХОДЫ К УРЕГУЛИРОВАНИЮ КОНФЛИКТА

В ПРИДНЕСТРОВСКОМ СПОРЕ

В статье представлены четыре возможных путей развития приднестровского конфликта. Проанализированы план Украины (2005, Ющенко) и план России (2003, Козак). Автор указывает на манипуляции, использованные в этих документах. По мнению автора, в условиях Республики Молдова нет оснований для принятия федеративной или конфедеративной систем государственного устройства и государственного строительства. К сожаленью, вместо того чтобы предлагать проекты статуса приднестровского региона в составе Республики Молдова, авторы этих планов предлагают пути и модели государственного строительства (политической системы) Республики Молдова. 

По мнению автора, формат переговоров 5+2 неэффективен, поскольку Россия в нем присутствует не как сторона в конфликте (каковой она была признана решением Страсбургского Европейского Суда по Защите Прав Человека, 2004-го года, дело Илие Илашку), а как посредник и «гарант». 

Корень приднестровского конфликта, по мнению автора – в установлении в 1940 году молдавско – украинской границы, вследствие чего территории, которые веками были частью Молдавии вошли в состав Украины, а Молдавия взамен получила полосу на левом берегу Днестра, которая принадлежала до тех пор Украине. Поскольку в приднестровском регионе (левобережье) Республики Молдова существуют зоны компактно населѐнные украинцами, которые естественно ориентируется на Украину (русскоязычное населенье также ориентируется больше га Одесскую область), а на севере и юге Бессарабии (сейчас в Украине – Одесская и Черновицкая области) есть зоны компактного проживания молдаван, автор предлагает, среди прочих сценариев, провести обмен территориями между Украиной и Республикой Молдова, что позволит навсегда решить приднестровский конфликт и таким образом с карты Европы исчезнет замороженный конфликт, который является угрозой для всей европейской безопасности.

Вовлечение российской регулярной армии и российских пара-военных сил в войне 1992 года в восточной части Республики Молдова показывает, что речь шла о территориальном российском – молдавском конфликте. Причины возникновения конфликта просты: для того чтобы удержать под оккупацией часть территории Республики Молдова, российские власти приступили к узурпации власти в приднестровском регионе страны. Военные формирования российских казаков атаковали полицейские участки в регионе (как в левобережье – город Дубэсарь, так и на правом берегу – в городе Бендер). Таким образом, конфликт начался, а так называемая приднестровская молдавская республика (Приднестровье) была признана стороной в конфликте и с тех пор по нынешнее время лидеры в Тирасполе добиваются признания образования как «независимое государство», которое, однако, хочет войти в состав Российской Федерации. 

К сожаленью, национальные и международные средства массовой информации представили общественному мнению видение, согласно которому речь идeт о сепаратистском режиме в восточной части Республики Молдова. По мнению автора, там не идeт речь о сепаратистском движении, а о сохранении российского оккупационного режима, основанном на присутствии 14 российской регулярной армии (которой подчиняется армия Приднестровья) и администрации сформированной из российских граждан, приезжих из России (ни один местный молдаванин не является членом, так называемого правительства в Тирасполе). Единственное соглашение, соблюдаемое сторонами в конфликте – соглашение, подписанное в июле 1992 года в Москве президентами Российской Федерации Борисом Николаевичем Ельциным и Республики Молдова Мирчей Ивановичем Снегуром, которое положило конец войне между Россией и Молдовой, путeм отделения (вывода из под юрисдикции властей Кишинeва) восточной части страны и установления границы между оставшейся независимой и свободной частью Республики Молдова (западная ее часть) и российской оккупационной зоной (восточная часть страны). На самом деле, Республика Молдова является сепаратистским образованием, которое, однако, отделилось не со всей своей территорией от Российской Федерации – правопреемницы СССР. 

The frozen conflict in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova (RM) is an impediment to the country's development on all levels. The existence within the formal borders of the Republic of Moldova of a region controlled by authorities not recognized at the international level ⃰ is a cause, along with others (unlike the case of Cyprus) ⃰  ⃰⃰, which makes the European integration of the country to be challenged. Currently we are in an impasse: the authorities from Chisinau want to keep the uncontrolled region, on both banks, within the Moldovan unitary state (by granting a large autonomy), but the regime from Tiraspol want the region to be recognized its independence for eventual unification with Russia. This way Russian citizens, born in Russia and settled in Moldova, want to deprive Moldova, from a part of its territory under the pretext that they formed a Nistrian Moldovan (sic!) republic (NMR, in Moldovan language they call it Republica Moldoveneasca Nistreana), in the eastern part of the RM, where the official language is Russian. They believe they are entitled to that plot of County, keeping the local population, mostly rural, as hostages. In the attempt to justify their actions, the ideologists from Tiraspol have developed a myth that is claimed by the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Moldovan Republic (ASSMR), created in October 12, 1924 in Ukraine, on the left bank of the Dniester River263. Obviously, those who were at the origins of NMR had no connection to ASSMR. In fact, Soviet Socialist Moldovan Republic (SSMR) created in 1940, after Soviet occupation of Bessarabia, and respectively RM, became independent at August 27, 1991, after the collapse of USSR, is the legal successor of the ASSMR, thus if Igor Smirnov (the so called president of NMR, native of Khabarovsk, came in Moldova in 1987) and Vladimir Antiufeev (Security Minister of NMR, native of Novosibirsk, came in Moldova in 1991) have kept in mind the idea of “Moldovan republic”, they would have not fight fiercely against RM. In the spirit of Stalinist approach, they have resorted to manipulation: to conceal the maintenance of Moscow occupational regime in the eastern part of RM, they have declared they constituted a so-called Moldovan republic, a successor of ASSMR, but where the Moldovan language is not used by the administrative authorities and in the public life, and no Moldovan is member of the “state” administration ⃰⃰  ⃰  ⃰ . The present propagandists from Tiraspol are not shy to plead the cases of Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, South Sudan, as a precedent for recognizing the independence of the self-proclaimed NMR. They pretend they do not understand enormous difference between the cases listed and the case of the eastern part of RM. The above-mentioned cases may no way constitute precedents for the leaders from the Tiraspol, as in the eastern part of RM it is a case of the remnant of the Russian occupation. The leaders form the Tiraspol can not be called “separatists” (as was the case in Kosovo, West Timor, and South Sudan) because from the Soviet period and until the present the eastern territory of RM has been and is under Russian occupation (even now having Russian troops in the territory). In fact, the separatists are the locals, for example, the Corjova villagers, district of Dubăsari, on the left bank of the Dniester, who beginning with the local elections of June 3, 2007 and until the present are not allowed to organize voting stations and conduct general local elections and parliamentary elections in their village, they are created impediments in their economic activity (including the farmers form the villages of Doroţcaia, Pârâta, etc.) by the administration of the occupational regime and by the militia which is an instrument of the regime. If the examples of Kosovo and South Sudan can constitute a precedent, then it is for the local natives, who want to be freed from the Russian occupation (the army, militia and Russian occupational administration).

I believe, in International Relations and especially in security and conflict management researches the innovation capacity is indispensable in identifying viable solutions for the existent conflicts. In the situation created in the eastern part of RM there are several mentioned possibilities on conflict evolution:

1. Perpetuating the current situation, when the self-proclaimed NMR is not recognized at the international level by any state, but continues to exist de facto, independent from the Republic of Moldova. 

2. The self-proclaimed NMR could be recognized by some states (see the precedents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, recognized by the Russian Federation and other three states; Turkish Republic in the North Cyprus, recognized by Turkey, and Taiwan, recognized by 23 sovereign states [264]).

3. Federalization of RM, signing an agreement on the stationing of Russian troops in the Nistrian region, as a guarantee required by Russia and Russian citizens in Tiraspol for “observance of the rights” of the Russian speakers form the eastern region of RM.

4. RM accepts the border established in July 1992 by Russia and Moldova presidents B. Eltsin and M. Snegur, join NATO and EU. Republic of Moldova does not recognize NMR. So far, several conflict settlement plans were proposed. In 13 February 2004 OSCE offered some ideas of how to solve the conflict. It was the common proposals of the three mediators: Russia, Ukraine and OSCE. The basis of the proposals was the principle of federalism (several federation Constituent entities), which the government from Chisinau disagree. The mediators also proposed the formation of some structures of a federal state (as for example, the bicameral legislative), symbols of the federal state (agreed by all the Constituent entities of the federation) and other. Ukraine and Russia have developed these ideas and elaborated their own plans of solving the conflict.

Ukraine plan [265]. One of these is the Nistrian conflict settlement plan proposed by the Ukrainian President, Viktor Yushchenko in 2005. It intends “to indentify the main objectives, principles and stages of the Nistrian conflict settlement in order to enforce the rule of law and fundamental freedoms, respecting the territorial integrity within the internationally recognized boundaries and the state sovereignty of RM”. Under the “Objectives”, the plan aims to reintegrate RM based on the territorial and state power integrity, on a democratic political system, preserving the constitutional regime of RM and to determine a special legal status of Nistria as an integral part of RM. The plan provides for “ensuring the right of the population of Nistria to self-determination only if the Republic of Moldova losses its sovereignty and independence”. As the authors of the document do not specify how RM can lose its sovereignty and independence, we may ask how, in case of on aggression from another state aiming to occupy and subjugate Moldova, a part of its population (Russian speakers – immigrants from the eastern region of the country) could evade the occupation and subjugation. We can assume that the Ukrainian authors became the victims of the myth regarding the unification of Moldova and Romania – the scenario undisputed by the Moldovan and Romanian governmental groups – in which case, presumably, Moldova would lose its statehood. But the unification can take place in different ways: it is possible Romania to join Moldova, and this way Romania can lose its statehood. Therefore, the provision of the Ukrainian Plan is meaningless. And if Romania, Ukraine or another state wants to join Moldova, it would be the cap of the globe the Russian citizen Smirnov and others like him to decide if they agree and if not – to use the right of self-determination. It is necessary the Ukrainian authors to understand who, what group of people, has the right to self-determination. If the population of the eastern region of RM (the majority formed of Russian immigrants and Russian speakers) has the right to self-determination, why they do not self-determine now, as soon as possible, without waiting the moment when Moldova will be occupied by another state or anther state will join Moldova. And if the Russian citizens who came from Russia and live in Tiraspol or Ribnitsa have no right to self-determination within the RM (of course they have this right at the place they were born in: Khabarovsk, Novosibirsk, etc.), they will not have this right either in case Moldova joins another state or EU, or another state becomes a component part of Moldova. The formulation of the Ukrainian plan shows the interest of Kiev the state RM to continue to exist, no union with Romania to take place, for if it occurs, the new state could claim for its historical territories – Hertza district, northern Bukovina, northern and southern Bessarabia – which by a criminal decision of the authorities from Moscow in 1940 entered into the borders of the SSR of Ukraine.

Among the principles of the Ukrainian plan we can find: “to establish the status of Nistria exclusively by peaceful means” (as if it is possible in some other way), “under the Constitution of the RM, introducing legislative initiatives by the representative bodies of the Republic of Moldova and the Nistrian region, which will find the support of the whole civil society from Moldova and will observe all the principles of democracy, integrity and security of the common state Republic of Moldova within the boundaries of the SSR of Moldova of January 1, 1990”. The Ukrainian authors mention the principles of: territorial integrity, indestructibility and inviolability of state borders, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the right of people for self-determination (sic?). It is not clear what do they mean by “the right of people for self-determination” in case of the Moldovan people, who already used this right when it seceded from the USSR, created its own state and became the member of UNO, being recognized by all the world states. Among the principles, the Ukrainian authors mention some issues that could rather be part of the actions/stages of regulation: holding of transparent and democratic early elections in the Supreme Soviet of Nistria under the international control, based on the legal conditions of the state Nistria, determined by the Law of the RM, that will constitute a part of its recognition by the RM as a legal representative body of the Nistrian region of the RM; the legal form of Nistria as a region with a special status within the RM is to take shape in three stages, which will constitute a transition period to the final regulation. Drafting of such laws is the first stage performed by the Parliament of the RM, and then by a democratically elected parliamentary commission formed of the plenipotentiary members of the RM Parliament and of Nistria Supreme Soviet. The parties shall refrain from unilateral actions that may create obstacles on the way of peaceful settlement of the Nistrian conflict and shall observe the agreements reached previously, set in the above-mentioned plan.

Exposing the three stages of the plan, the authors show that the first stage is the legal establishment of basic provisions of the Nistrian status within the RM. It is about a law on the status of the Nistrian region that shall establish the statute of the region and confirm the agreements reached previously. Moreover, on July 22, 2005, the Parliament from Chisinau passed the “Law on basic provisions of the legal status of localities from the left bank of the Dniester”, but it has no value for the rulers from Tiraspol. As to Ukrainians, the only subject of international law is the RM. Nistria within the RM shall be a special administrative territorial unity under the form of a “republic” (?). Nistria would pass and use its own supreme law (Constitution), which after passing the RM law on the special status of the Nistrian region, would correspond to the Constitution of the RM. Nistria would have its own symbols (flag, emblem, anthem), used together with the symbols of the RM. The official language of Nistria would be Moldovan, Ukrainian and Russian. All the Nistrian population would be guaranteed the right to use their mother tongue, the creation of conditions for its learning and development. Nistria would take part in the realization of foreign policy of the RM on the issues concerning its interests, in a manner agreed upon by the parties. Nistria would have the right to establish and maintain external economic, technical, scientific, humanitarian relations in a manner determined by the laws of the RM.

A confusing element in the Ukrainian plan is the paragraph from the “Objectives” chapter, which aims, in addition to the definitive elimination of all the consequences of the conflict, the creation of a multi-layered system of international and domestic guarantees, detailed by the authors in the first stage of the plan implementation. The law of the RM on basic provisions of the Nistrian region‟s status provides a system of guarantees to be adopted, which, inter alia, would include the following provisions: 1) Nistria has the right to secede the RM in case of a decision to join another state and (or) in case the RM looses its status of international law subject; 2) the secession of Nistria from the RM is performed under international monitoring based on the decisions adopted at a referendum in Nistria by most of the people 

registered there. The referendum shall be determined in accordance with the legislation in force, only if there is a reason for such secession. As the elections in the Supreme Soviet from Tiraspol, the referendum takes place under the guidance of the EU, OSCE, the Council of Europe, the USA, Russia, Ukraine and other democratic states. 

The second stage shall include the distribution of powers and prerogatives between the central state institutions and governing authorities from Nistria, the passing by the newly elected Supreme Soviet of Nistria of the RM law on the Nistrian region‟s legal status. The Supreme Soviet of Nistria delegates authorized deputies to be part of the RM Parliamentary Commission, which prepares a draft law on the legal status of the region. The document, taking into consideration the stipulations of the law of the RM on basic provisions of Nistria status, contains regulations on distribution of competences among the central governing authorities and Nistria governing authorities. The mediators from Russia, Ukraine and OSCE, the representatives of the USA and EU, Council of Europe shall offer assistance in drafting the law, if the parties call for it. The Parliament of the RM shall pass the respective law. In order to implement the law on the special legal status of Nistria, the Supreme Soviet shall adopt this law.

The third stage provides the total resolution of the Nistrian problem, legal insurance of the special status of Nistria within the RM. The parties elaborate at the same time, together with the future guarantors – Russia, Ukraine, OSCE, with the participation of the USA and EU the “Agreement between the RM, Russia, Ukraine, OSCE on guarantees of compliance with the Law on the Special Legal Status of Nistria”. As if, according to the Ukrainians, only Chisinau, which is aggressive, could cause problems. The authors forget or they do not know that on March 2, 1992 the bloodiest confrontations started in the conflict zone (town of Bender, in Cisnistria or Bessarabia) as a result of the attack of the paramilitary forces of Russian Kazaks and mercenaries on the Police Station of Bender. In any country in the world, when the police station is attacked by a gang, the whole system comes to rescue the colleagues – be it a democratic state, or a totalitarian state as the USSR was. The Ukrainian authors do not write what should happen if a gang attacks again the Police Station of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the RM in Bender (which resisted and is still there, but whose activity is blocked by the occupation regime, that formed its own militia), or in other locality of free Moldova.

After the Parliament of the RM adopted the Agreement, the law on the Special Legal Status of Nistria shall come into force. The Supreme Soviet of Nistria adopts the Constitution. There is created a Conciliation Committee, comprised of two representatives of Moldova and Nistria, one representative of Ukraine, Russia and OSCE, having the task of settling all disputes arising from the implementation and/or interpretation of the provisions of the Law on the Status of Nistria. The USA and EU representatives may take part in the working activity of the Committee. The period of acting of the Committee is determined by a common agreement of the parties. The Ukrainian authors state in the conclusion of the Plan that in case if one of the parties fails to observe the provisions, Ukraine, Russia and OSCE reserves the right, following the rules and principles governing the international law, to take appropriate measures (?). As far as we know, the rules and principles governing the international law regulate the non-interference of a state/s in the affairs of another state. The international community can intervene when there is flagrant violation of human rights, when a state government violates the rights of the population or of a part of the population. As we know, the government from Chisinau has never violated the local people’s rights in the Nistrian region, simply because beginning with 1944 the region has been and is now under Moscow occupation. On the contrary, hundreds of Moldovans take refuges from this region because of repressions and threats of the occupation regime. The Moldovan state institutions – Police, Information and Security Service and others – which had their offices in the eastern part of the RM and which were threatened or – those which did not give up and did not surrender without a fight – were attacked, and their employees, who remained loyal to the government from Chisinau – were expelled from their homes and villages. On the contrary, armed gangs (with the arms of the Russian 14-th Army stationed in the region) of the Tiraspol regime in 1992 attacked the institutions subordinated to Chisinau (for example, police stations in the region), triggering a massacre, and to rescue their colleagues groups of policemen were sent to Bender, they were also virulently attacked. Thus, Tiraspol leaders, appointed by Moscow, have reached their goal: after the outbreak of the conflict, they were recognized as party in conflict and gained the legitimacy. This way, Tiraspol is now party to the 5+2 informal negotiations format. I consider that Ukraine aimed to promote its interests in the region. And these interests do not mean a definitive settlement of the conflict. 

Russia plan [266]. Another plan of “the unification of Moldova and Nistria” was proposed in 2003 by the Russian Federation. It is also called “Kozak plan” because it was developed with the participation of Dmitry Kozak, special representative of the Russian President Vladimir Putin. The plan is contained in a “Memorandum on the basic principles of “the united state‟s political system”, which was initialed by the President of the RM Vladimir Voronin and by the “President of NMR” I. Smirnov. After being initialed, the President Voronin condemned the document, which was not signed, saying that the initialed text differed from that to be signed, to wit, the text was modified without the agreement of the Moldovan party. D. Kozak rejected the accusations. The text prepared by Russia provides that “the parties” – Republic of Moldova and Nistria, understating the responsibility for the unification of the country, insurance of civic peace and plenary democratic development, shall agree that the final settlement of the Nistrian conflict have to be performed by way of “transforming the RM political system” for the purpose of building an independent, democratic, common state, based on federalist principles, determined within the boundaries of the SSR of Moldova in January 1, 1990. Achieving practical mechanisms of conflict settlement is possible on the basis of common development, preliminary discussion by the whole population and adoption of the Constitution of the unified state – the Federal Republic of Moldova (FRM).

The Constitution of the unified state shall contain the following basic principles of the political system: FRM is a democratic state of law, sovereign, federal, based on the principle of territorial unity, on common principles of state power formation, on a common defense space (in the period of transition), customs, currency. The Federation policy is aimed at creating of the conditions that could assure a dignified life and free development. The bearer of sovereignty and the sole source of state power in the Federation are the people. The people exercise their authority directly and through the state bodies and local public administration. The human being, his rights and freedoms constitute the supreme values in the Federation. Recognition, observance and protection of the rights and the freedoms of the human being and of the citizen are the duties of the Federation and its Constituent entity. Each citizen is guaranteed the legal defence of his rights and freedoms. The decision and actions (or inactions) of state and municipal bodies, public associations and officials can be challenged in the courts of justice. Everyone is entitled, in accordance with the international agreements of one of the party representing the Federation, to appeal to international courts for human rights if all the means of domestic law have been exhausted. Throughout the Federation the political diversity and political freedoms shall be assured and guaranteed, including the right to form political parties. All forms of ownership, private, state, etc., are to be recognized and protected in equal measure. 

The document states that the “Federation is a neutral demilitarized state”. The conditions and manner of dissolution of military forces, the social guarantees, etc. of the military men of the RM and Nistria are determined by federal organic law. Until the full demilitarization of the Federation, the armed forces are formed and act upon the territorial principle of military units’ completion and can not be used to ensure the rule of law and societal security within the Federation. The commandment of military forces of the Federation is performed by a federal body authorized by the executive power. The maximum number of law enforcement bodies, of state and societal security is determined by federal organic law. On the territory of the Federation is recognized and guaranteed the freedom of movement of people, goods and capital. The Constitution of the Federation, the ordinary law on the common scope of the Federation and Federation Constituent entity, as well as other acts of the federal bodies of state power, adopted to meet the Constitution and the federal laws, acts directly throughout the Federation and are mandatory for execution by all the public authorities, local public administration bodies, legal entities and individuals. 

Paragraph 3.8 of the Memorandum provides that: “The Nistrian Moldovan Republic is a Constituent entity of Federation, a state unit [!] in the composition of the Federation, forms the state legislative body (Supreme Soviet of NMR), executive body (the President of NMR and the Government of NMR) and other judiciary, has its own Constitution and laws, state property, own budget and tax system, own state symbols and other state attributes of its state [! emphasized by A.L.]”. By this provision, Russia forces Moldova to recognize “NMR” as a state. It is not clear how could the President Voronin sign the document having such provisions. But that’s not all. According to Russian authors, “the autonomous territorial unit “Gagauzia” is also a “Constituent entity of Federation, forms its own bodies of the legislative, executive and judicial powers, has its own Basic Law and legislation, state property, own budget and tax system, own symbols and other attributes of its autonomy”. I do not understand why in a memorandum on resolving the conflict in the Nistrian region of the RM, where the parties are the RM and Nistria, the Russian authors involve the southern part of the country, where the relations between Chisinau and Gagauz minority have been regulated. It is a crass manipulation: the signatory parties are “the RM and Nistria”, however according to the Russian memorandum there is one more Constituent entity of Federation. Although, the Russian representatives write about “the autonomy status”, in fact by this memorandum, the recognition of a Gagauz state would have occurred, the territorial unit in the southern part of the country would have been a “Constituent entity” with rights equal to those of Nistria, which, as seen, would be recognized as a state – Constituent entity of the Federation.

The Russian authors also write that “Outside the territories of the Federation Constituent entities [besides Nistria and Gaugauz autonomy] all the privileges of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of Federation Constituent entity’s competence, are exercised directly by the Federal President, Federal Parliament and Government and by the federal courts, and in the cases determined by law – by local public administration”. We understand by this provision that, in the opinion of the memorandum’s authors, it is about an “asymmetric federation”. To wit, there would be a federal territory and the territories of two Federation Constituent entities: Gagauz autonomous territorial unit and NMR (Nistria). 

“The legal constitutional status and the boundaries of Federation Constituent entity can not be changed without their consent”, reads the memorandum. If the Moldovan police had to withdraw in July 1992 from the village of Corjova, as a result of the Memorandum signed by the Presidents of the two parties in conflict, Yeltsin and Snegur, without taking into account the will of the people, and they wanted and want to be part of the Republic of Moldova and not of NMR, it is not clear why the present situation should become established if in 1992 an injustice (a crime) was committed. The Russian authors mentioned at the beginning of the memorandum that one of the principles the new state FRM is to function is that of democracy. So, people should be guaranteed the right to decide their destiny. 

According to Russian authors, the Federation would be a subject of international law and of regional organizations; the condition to become such member is to be subject of international law. The international obligations of the RM, undertaken before the entry intro force of the Federation Constitution, are recognized and executed by the Federation in full. The Federation established international relations with other states and organizations and concludes international agreements and treaties. The Federation ratified international treaties and agreements and generally accepted principles of international law take precedence over Federation laws. The international treaties under the Federation competence have to be ratified by ordinary federal laws. The international treaties under mutual competence of both the Federation and the Constituent entity of Federation (hereinafter, under mutual competence) have to be ratified by federal organic laws. During the negotiations on concluding an international treaty, which reached the mutual competence, the federal Government conducts preliminary consultations with the public authorities of Federation Constituent entities in order to take account of the opinion of the Federation Constituent entity and ensure the participation in negotiations of the authorized representatives of Federation Constituent entity in accordance with the rules established by a federal organic law. Federation Constituent entity can be members of global international and regional organizations, the membership of which does not request being subject of international law, to maintain international relations, to conclude international treaties which fall within the competence of Federation Constituent entity and to fund representatives in other states, which do not have the status of diplomatic and consular institutions. 

A controversial provision is that according to which: “The Federation Constituent entity have the right to secede the Federation only in case if decisions on joining of the Federation to another state are adopted and (or) in case Federation losses its sovereignty” (emphasized by A.L.). It is not clear in what case the state could loose its sovereignty. Actually, this happened after the occupation of the territory of Moldova by the Tsarist and Communist Russia. It’s worth mentioning that the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not provide about the right of the Constituent entity of federation – autonomous republics to secede from the RF, and the Chechen Republic has paid a high price for such attempt, the national liberation movement being crushed in blood. However, Russian strategists consider that Moldova should be a different case of federal state in which they admit in the future the scenario of disintegration. However, one is the situation of the Chechen people, indigenous in their Republic and who are under Russian military occupation, and other is the situation of ethnic Russians or Russian Speakers from Tiraspol and Ribnitsa who, as immigrants, are not entitled to self-determination. Russian authors, however, make an exception for their compatriots settled in the eastern region of Moldova. They state that “secession of the Constituent entity from the Federation shall be performed upon the decisions rendered in a referendum of the Federation Constituent entity by a majority of votes registered on the territory of Federation Constituent entity”. The referendum shall be established by the legislative body of the Federation Constituent entity state power, if there is a reason for secession. The organizational and “material and technical” support of the referendum is carried out by public authorities and local public administration bodies of Federation Constituent entity.

Federation Constitution establishes the Federation competence, mutual competence, as well as the competence of the Federation Constituent entity. Federation Competence aims: federal state property and its management; foreign exchange regulation, the issue of money; transport by rail, air and river; foreign policy, foreign trade and international treaties of the Federation, issues of war and peace; Federation citizenship, immigration and emigration issues; determining the rules of production (sic? It was mentioned above the State to be a demilitarized one), sale and purchase (?) of weapons and ammunition (presumably, the Russian authors want to legalize the current production of arms in the Nistrian region), production of harmful substances, of drugs and regulation on using them; determining the status and protection of state borders, of the Federation airspace, the regime of border areas; conflict of laws; meteorology, geodesy, cartography, standards, gauges, metric system and time calculation; federal statistic and accounting evidence; federal state decorations and honorary titles.

Mutual competence aims: Regulating human rights and freedoms, rights of national minorities; Customs Regulation, the Federal Central Bank activity; energy systems, transport via pipelines (Russia wants to have, via NMR, levers of control over gas pipelines that pass through the RM towards the Balkans, note A.L.), communications; Judiciary System, organization and activity of law enforcement authorities, criminal and criminal-procedural law, amnesty and reprieve, administrative criminal law; Civil Law, Labour Law, Civil Procedure Law and the Arbitration Procedure Law; the legal regulation of private property, the general principles of organization and activity of notaries; Possession, use and disposal of County, deposits, water resources and other natural resources; Separation of public property into Federal property and Federation Constituent entity property; the Federal budget, federal taxes, collections and other compulsory payments, state regulation of prices for goods and services, antitrust regulation; Environmental protection and ecological security, protection of unique natural areas, historic and cultural monuments of federal significance; Common principles of education and social protection; Issues on fighting catastrophes, natural disasters, epidemics, liquidation of consequences; Common principles of foreign trade activity of the citizens and legal entities; Law on elections.

Federation Constituent entities Competence aims: Regulation of foreign economic activity of public authorities of Federation Constituent entities at the expense of their own, also of foreign economic activity of citizens and organizations within the powers established by federal organic laws; Establishing the system of state power bodies of Federation Constituent entities; Administrative law on regulation of activity of Federation Constituent entities state power bodies, Local self-governance issues, establishment and insuring the right guarantees to local self-governance; Family and housing law; Issues on health; the Bar organization and work; state property of Federation Constituent entities and its management; Adoption and implementation of Federation Constituent entities budgets, control of Federation Constituent entities budget implementation; Culture and art, protection of historical and cultural monuments of a regional importance, physical culture and sport; Issues of urban construction and architecture; State Decorations and Honorary Titles of Federation Constituent entities; Issues concerning additional measures of social protection for citizens residing within the Federation Constituent entities, out of the Federation Constituent entities budgets; Other matters that do not fall within the competence of the Federation and mutual competence. The memorandum also provides vertical and horizontal relations, including the determination of competences on all the levels of public power branches on mentioned matters, subsidies for the Constituent entities and modality (method) of calculation of such subsidies.

Federal legislative body of the public authority is the federal Parliament, which consists of two chambers - the Senate and House of Representatives. The Senate consists of 26 senators, elected for 5 years, 4 of them are elected by the People's Assembly of the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia, 9 – by the Supreme Soviet of NMR, 13 – by the House of Representatives of the Federal Parliament. The House of Representatives consists of 71 deputies, elected for four years in accordance with federal organic law on the basis of universal, equal and direct vote and by secret vote, in a single district pursuant to the proportional electoral system. Federal organic laws are adopted by the House of Representatives by a simple majority, are approved by the Senate by a simple majority and have to be promulgated by the Federal President. In case the organic law is not approved by the federal Senate, the law is considered rejected. Federal ordinary laws are adopted by the House of Representatives by a simple majority, are approved by the Senate by a simple majority and have to be promulgated by the Federal President. The Senate’s veto on federal ordinary laws and the federal President’s veto on federal organic laws are outrun by the House of Representatives via repeated voting of the law by qualified majority (not less than 2/3 of votes). Amendments to the Constitution of the Federation are introduced by federal constitutional laws that are adopted by the House of Representatives by a majority of not less than 2/3 of votes, are approved by the Senate by a majority of not less than 4/5 of votes. In case a federal constitutional law is not approved by the Senate, the law is considered rejected.

The Head of State is the Federal President, elected for five years in accordance with federal organic law. The executive power within the Federation is exercised by the Federal Government. The Head of Federal Government and composition of Federal Government are approved by the Senate at the proposal of the Federal President. The Head of the Federal Government has his deputies, two of whom are appointed by the Federal President at the proposal of the Head of Federal Government and with the consent of the authorized bodies of public authorities of Federation Constituent entities. The offices of the chiefs and deputy chiefs of federal authorities of executive power are filled by proportional representation principle of Federation Constituent entities. The manner of ensuring the representativeness in federal authorities of executive power is determined by ordinary and (or) organic federal laws. The chiefs appointed and dismissed by the federal executive power and other stuff of federal territorial authority of federal executive bodies, that carry out executive and administrative powers in Federation Constituent entities within the competence of the Federation, also of mutual competence, are appointed and dismissed with the consent of the competent public authorities and officers of Federation Constituent entities.

For the realization of civil, administrative and criminal justice in the Federation in accordance with federal organic law, there are formed the Supreme Federal Court, appeals courts and courts of first instance. For the realization of constitutional justice the Constitutional Court is formed. Federal Supreme Court is the higher court of appeal and (or) cassation on civil, administrative and criminal actions. The Supreme Court consists of the Senate. Federal Constitutional Court consists of 11 judges, 6 of which are appointed by the House of Representatives, 1 – by the People's Assembly of the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia, 4 – by the Supreme Soviet of the NMR. The composition of the Constitutional Court is approved by the Senate. The judges of the first instance and of the Court of Appeal of the Federation Constituent entities are appointed in accordance with an order determined by the laws of federation Constituent entities.

According to the Russian authors federal organic laws should be passed by 2015 by the Senate by a majority of ¾ of the votes. “The mandate of the senator in the first two terms is imperative”. This provision is inconsistent with liberal European democracy, which provides for the persons elected a representative mandate.

Regarding the use of languages in the NMR, the memorandum states in paragraph 15: “The status and order of using Moldovan and Russian languages on the territory of the Federation are determined by the Federation Constitution and by a federal organic law. Meanwhile, the Federation Constitution shall contain the following principles: in all public authorities and local public administration the documents shall be drawn up in Moldovan and Russian languages; each is entitled to receive official information from public authorities and local public administration, as well as from the officials, at his free choice, in Moldovan or Russian languages; the constitutions of Federation Constituent entities, along with the Moldovan and Russian languages, can establish other official and (or) state languages of Federation Constituent entities on the territories of the Federation (to note that this principle is respected currently in Gagauz autonomy, where the authorities use Russian language and can use Gagauz language, remark A.L.); Federation guarantees to all the citizens on its territory the right to preserve their mother tongue, creating conditions for its learning and development”.

The enunciation which, as to the Russian authors, should raise awareness and mobilize Chisinau to adopt the memorandum was that according to which: “From the day of approval of this Memorandum are not allowed on the territories of the Parties any restrictions on the activities of political and public associations, release of mass media recorded by the competent authorities of the Parties, circulation of the public authorities representatives and citizens. The agitation on the issue of participation in the referendum, also on issues related to the referendum is carried out without any restrictions under the legislation of the Parties”. The problem of free circulation of the citizens is a stringent one, because the occupation regime has imposed a border within the RM, separating families, whose members when visiting each other, have to pass customs controls and their identity acts have to be checked by office workers and border guards of the Russian occupation regime.

According to paragraph 17 “The parties approached the Russian Federation, Ukraine, OSCE and EU with the proposal on providing political and economic guarantees to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Memorandum of reunification and territorial integrity of the FRM”. For this purpose, observers can be placed within the territory of the Parties. The Parties also approached Russian Federation, Ukraine and the OSCE with the proposal on the granting of such guarantees, that in case of breach of the present Memorandum’s conditions by one of the Parties, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and OSCE shall ensure the fulfilment of its provisions towards the other Party (including towards other international organizations and other foreign countries), and shall take steps to restore the regime of its execution by all the parties to this Memorandum. However, most alarming is the provision of paragraph 18: “The Parties approach the Russian Federation with the proposal to be offered security guarantees, of the conditions for reunification and territorial integrity of the FRM under this Memorandum. To this end, receiving the consent of the Russian Federation, until the appointment of a referendum on adopting the Constitution, the FRM signs and ratifies an Agreement with the Russian Federation on deploying on the territory of the future Federation in the period of transition until the full demilitarization of the state, but no later than 2020, of forces of stabilization and peace of the Russian Federation of not more than 2,000 people without heavy military equipment and heavy weapons (emphasized by A.L.). The agreement shall enter into force simultaneously with the adoption of the Federation Constitution. In the event of default under this paragraph, this Memorandum shall lose its validity”. Paragraph 19 states that “After the entry into force of the Agreement mentioned in paragraph 18 of this Memorandum, it can be joined by EU, OSCE and Ukraine as guarantors, under the conditions agreed by the parties to the Agreement”. Thus, Russia has excluded EU, OSCE and Ukraine from the participation in the most important phase of the conflict settlement process: providing guarantees.

We may conclude that the goal of the entire text of the memorandum was the institutionalization of the presence of Russian military occupation forces in the eastern region of Moldova and recognition by the RM, as states, of the NMR and the Gagauz autonomy. Chisinau has not fallen into this trap, but Russia had a vehement response: raising gas prices, embargo to wine and other Moldovan agricultural products. Unfortunately, instead of proposing a statute of the Nistrian region in the composition of the RM, Russian mediators (as the Ukrainians or the OSCE) propose an organization mode (a political system) of the RM.

Regarding the idea of federalization of the RM, an interesting approach is proposed by the researcher Oleg Serebrian. He believes that “in case if, in the process of negotiation, it is concluded that indeed the only plausible solution to the country reunification is its federalization”, he is in favor of “a federation with more constituent entities which would have as a model the Austria Federation” [267]. Serebrian believes that “the only plausible scheme is to create a federation that would include 11 federal counties and a federal territory (municipality)”, which would mean to return to the country's administrative-territorial division in counties and to increase the authorities of the administrative-territorial units. In other words, a real devolution of local authority, in full compliance with the spirit of building Europe” [268]. Those 11 lands would be the 11 counties that were abolished by the communist government (2001-2009): Upper Bessarabia Land (Edinet), Soroca Land, Balti Land, Orhei Land, Codri Land (Ungheni), Middle Bessarabia Land ( Chisinau county, but without Chisinau municipality), the Dniester Land (Dubasari county - mostly on the left bank, also town of Bender and communes Proteagailovca, Gisca, Chitcani, Cremenciug on the right bank – actually the territory of the NMR), Upper Bugeac Land (Tighina county, without the town of Bender), Lapusna County (Hanceşti) Lower Bugeac Land (Gagauz Yeri and district of Taraclia) and Lower Bessarabia Land (Cahul). Chisinau would not be a federal constituent entity, but a federal territory, having in some of the cases equal rights with federal lands. Every federal land would have its statute, flag, emblem, anthem, official languages, legislative authority (Land Council) and executive authority ruled by the land governor and formed of Land Departments (Health, Culture, Justice, etc.). “If the Nistrian party insists Moldova to become a federal state, and it is constituted as a constituent entity of this federation, I do not see why they would necessarily want the federation to be organized of 3 rather than 11 constituent entities, since nor the borders neither the status of the Nistrian region suffer any change” [269]. A multipolar federation has more chances of success than one with a hegemonic constituent entity (SFR Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary, and the USSR). The success of such federations as the Austrian, Swiss or German was achieved due to the fact that federation entities are compatible as population, area and economic capacity, considers Serebrian. Among his other proposals I would mention the idea of accepting by Chisinau, after the adoption of Nistria special status, of the guarantees required by Tiraspol – “to accept a limited Russian military contingent because they have great confidence in Russia, and on the other hand, so that we could trust the status is to be respected, to accept a NATO contingent. I believe that NATO could send a peacekeeping contingent, to ensure the observance of the statute. NATO and Russian troops are already present in similar missions in Kosovo and Bosnia” [270] (Serebrian O. 1996, 151). Unfortunately, due to lack of Chisinau Government interest in the proposals of the researchers from Moldova (Government never requires the opinion of the International Relations Departments of higher education institutions), these proposals were not subjected to the discussion of the negotiators in 5 +2 format.

In another research, Oleg Serebrian after mentioning that “Chisinau failed to structure a plan of action in this matter” [271] (Serebrian O. 1999, 94), proposed “to establish a border to isolate the separatist area⃰  from the rest of the country, without recognizing its independence”272 (Serebrian O. 1999, 95). The author sees as one of theoretical scenario, “giving up the Nistrian region to Ukraine turning back to the old border on the Dniester” [273] (Serebrian O. 1999, 109)⃰ ⃰. Another scenario, according to Serebrian, would be the “recognition of independence” of the NMR274 (Serebrian O. 1999, 111) scenario that the author rejects, because as a result of granting independence to Tiraspol “only Moscow is to win”.

Former Interior Minister and then Defence Minister of the RM in the early „90s, the General Ion Costas, analyzing the situation related to the conflict, also sees two possible scenarios for resolution. Mentioning that the Government from Chisinau can not propose anything constructive regarding the Nistrian region, as well as regarding the Gagauz autonomy, which manifests separatist tendencies [275] (Costas I. 1999, 546) the General examines, as a first scenario, the amicably exchange of territories between Moldova and Ukraine: “Nistria [in Russian: Pridnestrovie], so desired by Kiev, could pass under its jurisdiction, the borders would be on the Dniester, and the southern Bessarabia and the northern Bukovina could be returned to us in exchange of Nistria”276 (Costas I. 1999, 541). The author does not believe, however, that such an exchange is possible because of the geostrategic importance of the Danube Delta for any state, especially for Ukraine. The second scenario, more real, according to Ion Costas, is “the achievement of a consensus, as a result of joining the efforts of the EU and the U.S., which may influence Kiev and Chisinau in order to ensure order on the border between Moldova and Ukraine. Then Nistria would cease to be a haven for smugglers, a source of illicit income for lobbyists of the self-proclaimed republic” [277] (Costas I. 1999, 542). These are just some examples of how some authors see the resolution of the frozen conflict on the Dniester.

In all these scenarios the deficiency consists in the fact that the authors do not range from the interests of the population of the Nistrian region, but range from the desire to assure a boundary convenient for governments and armies of Moldova and Ukraine. I think the conflict researches, in addition to identifying its causes and essence, in addition to finding some precedents in the international practice; they should use some other optics. An innovation in this context would be the development and study of ethnic map of the region to identify the population’s interests in the area. Ethnic composition shows that in 1940 there were attached to the Moldavian SSR regions from the left bank of the Dniester, where ethnic Ukrainians live in compact settlements. The General Ion Costas reports that on August 25, 1991 in Tiraspol was proclaimed the independence of NMR, and Igor Smirnov went to Kiev, with the approach on requiring NMR to be accepted within the Ukrainian state278 (Costas I. 1999, 266). Of course, the situation has changed greatly since then. Today the Russian citizen Igor Smirnov certainly would prefer the self-proclaimed NMR to belong to Russia and not to Ukraine. However, I think if in the negotiations with the participation of Ukraine, EU, US and Russia is accepted the possibility of repairing the crime committed in the fall of 1940 against Moldovan and Ukrainian people, when by a decision of the Presidium of Supreme Soviet of the USSR on drawing the border between the Ukrainian SSR and Moldavian SSR was not taken into account the ethnic composition of population in the areas that were changed by the occupation regime from Moscow, there could be found a viable solution.

The origin of the conflict (or war, how the General Ion Costas, the former minister of Internal Affairs from that period prefers calling it) from 1990 to 1992 is within the border marked in 1940, as a result of which the southern and northern Bessarabia (also Hertsa district, and North Bukovina Moldovan-Romanian villages from the districts Storojinets and Adâncata/Hliboka - that for centuries belonged to the Principality of Moldova) were granted by the leadership from Moscow to Ukraine, and Moldova in return was given a strip on the left bank of the Dniester. It is true that on the territory, across the Dniester, have been and are more villages inhabited by Moldovans, but after the exchange of territories, in composition of the SSMR entered also localities inhabited by Ukrainian population, as beyond the Moldovan - Ukrainian border, on the left bank of Dniester, remained Moldovan villages: Handrabura, Dolinskoe (Valea Hotsului), Tocileva etc.. A correction of borders at this stage, between Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova, after which most of the localities populated by Moldovans over the Dniester (the so-called NMR) would return under the jurisdiction of Chisinau, and those inhabited by Ukrainians, as well as the localities where ethnic Russians are numerous, but which are oriented (geographically and economically turned) mostly to Odessa (as the town of Tiraspol) would be returned to Ukraine, and in exchange of this territory, Ukraine would return the area with exactly the same size of land with localities inhabited by population identifying themselves as Moldovans (the district Noua Suliţă) or Romanians (districts of Herţa, Adâncata and Storojineţ) would be a sustainable solution. Following the implementation of this idea, there would disappear the state of uncertainty and tension of the Gagauz autonomy, whose leaders have declared repeatedly that they expect the federalization of the RM and acceptance of the autonomous territorial unit as an entity in the new Moldovan state formula.

There are several precedents in the history of international law, which allow us to say that this scenario is feasible. Besides the recent exchange (1999) of territories between the RM and Ukraine (Giurgiulești – Palanca), there are cases known after the World War I, when Romania exchanged territories with Czechoslovakia (in the Maramureș region) and with the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (in the Banat region).

Regarding the establishment of the Romanian-Czechoslovak border, “on April 1, 1920 by approaches sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and to the Ministry of War, Czechoslovakia's representative in Romania renewed on behalf of the government the request for evacuation of Romanian troops from the northern territory of the Tisza, informing at the same time Romania about the availability of the Czechoslovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs to negotiate with the Romanian State the border rectification that would be established by a Czechoslovak-Romanian Joint Committee. Therefore, the Czechoslovak Legation in Romania was informed on April 18, 1920 by the Romanian government's decision to withdraw the troops, the Minister Cernak being asked to communicate the name of the Czechoslovak military delegate responsibility to regulate with the Great Romanian General Headquarters the issues relating to withdrawal of Romanian troops. This way entered into force the provisions of the Peace Treaty with Austria providing that the Ruthenians autonomous territory of Sub Carpathian area to be incorporated into Czechoslovakia, Romania consented to provisions that by signing it. On the other hand, there was emphasize the availability of the Romanian state to start negotiations with the Czechoslovak state aimed at obtaining a better borders for Romania, interested to integrate the territories from the south of the Tisza in the process of unification of the entire national territory, the fact which under the respective geographical conditions required the obtaining of access ways to the territories. By signing the Treaty of Trianon (June 4, 1920) it was reconfirmed on the international level the appurtenance of Maramureş from the north of the Tisza to Czechoslovakia [279]“.

During the World War I, Serbia and Romania (created in 1859 through the unification between Moldova and Wallachia) have agreed to share the historical Banat, in the event of victory over Germany and Austria-Hungary, on the principle of one third for Serbia and two thirds of Romania (with exchange of minorities between the two countries). The border that cut Banat in two parts was drawn at the end of 1918 by an international commission chaired by French geographer Emmanuel de Martonne and confirmed by the Treaty of Trianon in 1920, leaving a small part of Banat to Hungary (near the city of Szeged), one third to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and two thirds to Romania. On November 24, 1923, Romania and Serbia signed at Belgrade a protocol for a rectification of the border. Romania gave to Yugoslavia villages Meda (Međa, Párdány) Modos (Jaša Tomic) Surian (Surján) Captalan (Busenje) Crivobara (Markovićevo) and Gaiu Mare (Veliki Gaj, Nagy Gaj), while the Kingdom of Yugoslavia gave to Romania the villages Beba Veche (Stara Beba, Óbéba) Cherestur (Krstur, Pusztakeresztúr) Ciortea (Csorda) and Iam (Jam) and the city Jimbolia (Žombolj, Zsombolya). The effective rectification took place on April 10, 1924 [280].

It is worth mentioning that now there are more cases of regions populated by ethnic minorities, where the solution of an exchange of territories can not be applied. For example, South Tyrol region, with Austrian-German population, located in Italy, can not be returned to Austria because that country can not offer in exchange a region of the same area, populated by Italians, in Austria. Aland Islands inhabited by Swedes in Finland, can not be exchanged with an area of he same size, populated by Finns, in Sweden.

So in conclusion we can say that:

1. A fair exchange of territories between Ukraine and Moldova – for repair, even partial, of the crime committed by the Moscow occupation in 1940 against Moldovan and Ukrainian people – is in the spirit of European international practice and can lead to the final settlement of the conflict in the Nistrian region of the RM. Also,

2. It is necessary to recognize internationally the status of Russian occupation area of Nistria, as after World War II Germany was divided into four occupation areas recognized internationally: American, British, French and Russian. The four areas were abolished by the withdrawal of administration and military forces of the four victorious states in the World War II. Nistrian region of Moldova is a remnant of the military occupation of Russia, established in 1940, respectively 1944, where Moscow maintains military troops and a regime of occupation (an administration, border control authorities, which has been imposed arbitrarily, with the free part of Moldova. There arrive new and new people from Russia, to work in these institutions, as the local population is unable to cope with a large number of border posts, customs, immigration service employees, militia men, military men, security service employees, etc.). Also, students of Russian schools which train specialists for special services in that country perform their practice in the Russian occupation area from the territory of the RM. 

3. On its European path RM should not depend on the unsolved Nistrian conflict. The Eastern real border should be secured in such way not to challenge the RM adherence to the EU. Whatever we call the regime from Tiraspol – occupation or (neo) colonial – the fact is that Russia should participate in negotiations as a part of the conflict and not as a mediator – as it is today. Because of the confusion regarding the essence and the protagonists of the conflict, it was possible the admission of negotiations format that does not match the reality on the field, and which impedes the conflict resolution. Of course, the negotiations are necessary to find a solution. But the 5+2 format (Moldova and Nistria – parties to the conflict, Russia, Ukraine and OSCE - mediators, EU and U.S. - observers) do not correspond to reality on the field. Since it is part of the conflict, recognized by a decision of European Court for Human Rights Defending, Russia can not be a mediator and the more it can not be a guarantor of the conflict resolution. 

            Bibliography:

1. Lavric A. Conflictul din estul Republicii Moldova: cum s-au produs zurparea şi înstrăinarea. În: Studii Internaţionale. Viziuni din Moldova. VI (1). [The conflict in the eastern part of the Republic of Moldova: how the usurpation and estrangement had occurred. In: International Studies. Views from Moldova. 2008, VI (1). Chisinau, p. 73 - 84. 

2. Serebrian Oleg. Politică şi geopolitică. [Politics and Geopolitics]. Chisinau: Cartier, 2004. 

3. Serebrian Oleg. Despre geopolitică. [On geopolitics]. Chisinau: Cartier, 2009. 

4. Costaş Ion. Dni zatmeniia. Hronika neobiavlennoi voiny [Days of an eclipse. A chronicle of an undeclared war]. Chisinau: Universul, 2010. 

Copyright©Aurelian LAVRIC, 2011

Revista Moldovenească de Drept Internaţional şi Relaţii Internaţionale, Nr. 3, 2011, p. 124-138: http://rmdiri.md/pdf/RMDIRI,%202011,%20Nr.%203%20varianta%20finala%20web.pdf