Moldova says that the Russian troops in Transdniestria are “illegally deployed” and calls it “a foreign military occupation.”
Andrei Stratan, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Moldova stated in his speech during the 12th OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting in 2004, that
The presence of Russian troops on the territory of the Republic of Moldova is against the political will of Moldovan constitutional authorities and defies the unanimously recognized international norms and principles, being qualified by Moldovan authorities as a foreign military occupation illegally deployed on the territory of the state[…]
I’m sorry, but I am forced to call this bullshit. It is just factually wrong.
First of all, these troops are not in Moldova. They are in Transdniestria. Now, I know that Moldova believes Transdniestria to be part of Moldova (and, following the same logic, Moldova would probably still be part of Russia today).
However, Transdniestria clearly does not agree with this Moldovan point-of-view. And the fact is that the settlement talks are not yet completed, and that an international court of justice has also not yet ruled on the issue. So, at best, the issue is still very much up for grasp and I would urge anyone to not rush to any preliminary conclusions about what the final result could be.
But where the bull-feces really hit the fan is when Moldova claims that the Russian troops are there illegally. To set the record straight, the Russian Embassy in Chisinau, Moldova, took the time to clarify the issue in an official press statement with a section entitled “On international-legal status of a stay of Russian soldiers in Pridnestrovie”.
Legal fact #1: the troops are there legally. Moldova’s President signed onto that:
The Russian contingent in the composition of the joint peacekeeping forces in the Dniester safety zone is there in accordance with that agreement that is in force and which was signed at the presidential level by the Presidents of Russia and Moldva, entitled “About the principles of the peaceful settlement of armed conflict” and dated 21 July 1992.
Legal fact #2: The troops will leave when there’s a deal on Transdniestria’s future. They will not leave before agreement is reached between the two sides:
Change in the size of peacekeeping operation and revision of the status of Russian peacekeepers, as was noted in the December 2005 joint statement of the Presidents of the Guarantor-States, for Russia Vladimir Putin and for Ukraine Victor Yushchenko, will become possible only in the context of reaching the universal political settlement of the Dniester problem, i.e., in no way it can it happen sooner.
Legal fact #3: The troops that guard the Russian WWII ammunition depots will leave when they can, but the conditions are not right for this. It will require a better political climate and an improvements in the conflict situation, which Moldova is currently not facilitating:
Russian servicemen which are not formally part of the peacekeeping contingent (that consists, by the way, not only of the Russians, but also of soldiers from Moldova and Pridnestrovie, and military observers from Ukraine), are occupied with the protection of storages with the ammunition. In accordance with the statement of the conference of the OSCE Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Porto was greeted the obligation of Russia to complete conclusion from Pridnestrovie of these Russian forces “within the shortest possible periods with the presence of the necessary conditions”. When such conditions existed (in 2003), from the left bank several ten echelons of ammunition was exported. Russia does not bear responsibility for the fact that subsequently the situation deteriorated - so that to continue this process it is thus far impossible.
Leave a Reply