MOLDOVANS, RUSSIANS AGREE TO NEUTRALITY LANGUAGE AS BASIS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 CHISINAU 000107

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EUR/UMB, L/T, EUR DAS - DKRAMER

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/04/2018
TAGS: PREL PBTS MARR MD RU
SUBJECT: MOLDOVANS, RUSSIANS AGREE TO NEUTRALITY LANGUAGE AS BASIS
FOR TRANSNISTRIA SETTLEMENT


Classified By: Charge Kelly Keiderling for reasons 1.4(b) and (d)


1. (U) This is an action message. See para. 8.


2. (C) Summary: In a state of "cautious optimism" about his
consultations in Moscow, Presidential Advisor Marc Tkaciuk described
the outlines of a three-paragraph agreement on neutrality that
Moldovan officials reached with their Russian counterparts and that
could serve as the basis for a settlement to the Transnistrian
conflict. Tkaciuk requested a USG reaction to the document as
quickly as possible. Should draft language in this document be
acceptable to the U.S. (and presumably the EU and Ukraine),Tkaciuk
said the following step would be to incorporate the language into a
general document to which the 5+2 could agree. End Summary

Agreement on Neutrality, Little Discussion of Russian Forces
-------------- --------------


3. (SBU) On February 4 Presidential Advisor Marc Tkaciuk met with
Charge d'Affaires and Pol/Econ Chief to inform the USG about his
January 31-February 1 consultations in Moscow, which followed
discussions by Presidents Voronin and Putin the previous week.
According to press reports, in addition to Tkaciuk, the Moldovan
delegation included Minister for Reintegration Vasile Sova and the
head of the MFA Treaty Department, Dumitru Socolan. Media report
that Tkaciuk and Sova's Russian interlocutors were Yuriy Zubakov,
Valeriy Kenyakin, Valeriy Nesteruskin and Nikolay Fomin.


4. (C) Tkaciuk described the two rounds of discussions as difficult,
especially the debate about Moldova's neutrality. The Russians
wanted international guarantees of Moldova's neutrality, arguing that
Moldova's constitutional guarantees were insufficient. The Moldovan
officials argued that the international community would not guarantee
a sovereign state's neutrality; little precedent existed for such
guarantees. Responding to the Russians' concerns about Moldovan
union with Romania, Tkaciuk pointed out that the autonomous Moldovan
region of Gagauzia already has guarantees that it can secede from
Moldova, if Moldova becomes part of another state. After much
negotiation, the two sides agreed to the formulation in para. 13.


5. (C) Tkaciuk said that the two sides had not discussed at length
the issue of Russian forces and ammunition stockpiles in
Transnistria. He said his Russian interlocutors promised the Russian
peacekeeping troops and ammunition would be removed "immediately
after the settlement." Tkaciuk noted that such language was vague
and told us he asked the Russians for a more precise definition of
"immediately." The Russians responded inconclusively that they
didn't want their forces to remain in Transnistria. Tkaciuk stressed
that a final resolution to withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers and
ammunition would have to be addressed in a holistic fashion as part
of an overall settlement.

Next Steps, Request for U.S. Support
--------------


6. (C) If the U.S. (and presumably the EU and Ukraine) agreed to the
language about neutrality, Tkaciuk said the next step would be to
incorporate that language into a general document the 5+2 could
accept. The Russians asked that a general 5+2 agreement be based on
the unsigned 2004 Pact (later changed to Declaration) on Stability
and Security for Moldova. Tkaciuk noted that back in 2004, when the
U.S., EU, Ukraine and even Romania had agreed to this declaration,
the Russian Federation had rejected it. The Moldovan side told the
Russians that they would consider the idea and would need to consult
with partners (the U.S., EU, Ukraine) about developments to date.


7. (C) Tkaciuk said that Moldova wanted U.S. support for the language
on neutrality that the Moldovans and Russians had worked out (para.
13). Additionally, he asked for U.S. reaction to the idea of using
the 2004 declaration as the basis for discussion for a general 5+2
agreement. The declaration would have to be updated, Tkaciuk noted.
For example, the language on neutrality would be incorporated into a
declaration-like document and wording about Moldovan federation would
have to be removed.


8. (C) Action request: Post requests Washington's reaction to the
language on neutrality in para. 13 and thoughts about using the 2004
declaration as the basis for a 5+2 general agreement.

Comment
--------------


9. (C) Tkaciuk's optimism was tempered by caution. As he noted, the
Moldovans have been riding the ups and downs of the Transnistria
conflict for many years. Still, we share his measured optimism and
believe that the Moldovan-Russian willingness to agree to neutrality
language represents a modest advance.


10. (C) We note problematic language in the neutrality document. The
agreed-to language avoids the word "guarantee" but burdens states

CHISINAU 00000107 002 OF 002


with assuming the responsibility to respect Moldova's permanent
neutrality and not to allow the use of weapons, threat of force and
pressures against Moldova's sovereignty and neutral status. Instead,
the U.S. could pledge to support, in so far as we are able, a future
Moldovan request for assistance in the event of the threat of force
or economic or other pressures against Moldovan sovereignty and
neutrality. The final sentence in the Moldovan-Russian neutrality
document about the UN Security Council may provide us a way around
this language; we could ask the Moldovans and Russians to accept
language that would have the international community in general and
the UN in particular address any threats to Moldovan neutrality and
sovereignty.


11. (C) The use of the word "permanent" to describe Moldova's
neutrality is also problematic. It may be possible to qualify such
language by noting that the U.S. will support/respect any Moldovan
decision about its neutrality.


12. (C) A positive element in the neutrality document is the use of
the word "recognize" in paragraph two, instead of having the U.S.
guarantee Moldova's neutrality. End Comment.

Neutrality Document Agreed to by Moldova and Russia
-------------- --------------


13. Post's informal translation follows. Perhaps the Department's
professional translators can improve our quick translation.

(Begin text) Consistent with its constitutional status of permanent
neutrality, the Republic of Moldova will not permit the stationing of
armed forces and military installations of other states on its
territory, and consistent with supporting its non-aligned status,
will not apply to join any military or military-political
international or regional organization and will appeal to the UN
Security Council for corresponding support in the international
recognition of said status.

The Russian Federation, U.S., Ukraine, European Union and OSCE
recognize such a realization of constitutional status on permanent
neutrality of the Republic of Moldova as a reliable condition for
peaceful settlement of the Transnistria conflict, the
re-establishment of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
Republic of Moldova within internationally recognized borders, and
the basis for further enhancing the stability and security of a
unified Moldovan state.

With this the Russian Federation, U.S., Ukraine and the states of the
European Union commit themselves to respecting the permanent
neutrality of the Republic of Moldova, and not to permit use of armed
force against it, threats of force, economic and other pressures that
would diminish its sovereignty, territorial integrity and neutral
status. In the event such measures of pressure, aggression or
threats of aggression should take place in connection with the
Republic of Moldova, Moldova will appeal to the UN Security Council
to provide its security. (End text)
KEIDERLING