FEW OUTSTANDING ISSUES BLOCK MOLDOVAN-ROMANIAN BORDER AND

C O N F I D E N T I A L CHISINAU 000123

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EUR/UMB, L/T

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/08/2018
TAGS: PREL PBTS MD RO
SUBJECT: FEW OUTSTANDING ISSUES BLOCK MOLDOVAN-ROMANIAN BORDER AND
POLITICAL TREATIES

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


1. (C) Summary: Treaty specialists from the MFA Legal Department and
the Romanian DCM explained Moldovan and Romanian views of the
outstanding issues on the draft border and political treaties
currently under negotiation. Only minor differences in wording
remain. If the political will existed on both sides, these could
easily be resolved. The Moldovan treaty specialists blamed Romania
for blocking a treaty signing. The Romanian DCM said Romania was
ready to sign, but Moldova was stalling. End Summary.

Each Side Blames the Other for Delays
--------------


2. (C) Dumitru Socolan, Head of the Treaty Division of the
International Law Department of the Moldova MFA, and Liljan Moraru,
Head of the Division of European Legislation in the same department,
met January 29 with Pol/Econ chief to discuss the outstanding issues
blocking a final agreement of the Moldovan-Romanian border and
political treaties. In a separate meeting on February 5, Romanian
DCM Monica Sitaru listed the exact same points of disagreement that
had been raised by the Moldovan side.


3. (SBU) Following are the remaining issues that Moldova and Romania
are negotiating in the border and political treaties:

Begin Issues List:

Three Controversial Issues in the Border Treaty:
-------------- --

(1) Name of the Treaty:
Moldova wants the treaty to be called "The Agreement between the
Republic of Moldova and Romania about State Borders, Border Regime,
Cooperation and Mutual Assistance on Border Issues." The Romanians
want only reference to a Border Regime, without the wording "State
Borders."

Moldovan Explanation:
Both sides agree that the border already exists, and recognize that
it was fixed by the 1947 Paris Treaty between Romania and the USSR,
and by the subsequent 1961 agreement on the border. Moldova argues
that these treaties were signed between Romania and the Soviet Union,
which no longer exists. Thus, the 1947 treaty established Romania's
border with the Soviet Union, but not its border with Moldova, so
juridical recognition of the border between Romania and Moldova is
necessary. (Note: Underlying this problem is a Moldovan suspicion
that Romania does not want to recognize the border because its
political elites harbor a desire to incorporate Moldova. End note.)

Romanian Position:
The Romanian side wants the title "Border Regime Treaty" while the
Moldovans want "Border Treaty." The treaty draft does not change the
border and hence is not a border treaty, but rather is only an
agreement that regulates the border regime. The border was
established by the 1947 Paris Treaty and by the 1961 agreement.
Moldova is a legal successor of the USSR, and hence those treaties
are still considered valid. Ukraine signed a similar agreement with
Romania in 2003, and found the approach of signing a "Border Regime
Treaty" to be acceptable.

(2) Reference to the 1947 Paris Treaty in Article 4:
Article 4 of the Border Treaty refers to earlier documents which
establish the border.

Moldovan Explanation:
Moldova argues that the border was fixed in the 1947 Paris treaty,
and hence a reference should be made to that treaty. Socolan claimed
that Romania did not want to include a mention of the 1947 treaty
because that treaty reminded Romania of its humiliating loss of
territory during World War II.

Romanian Position:
The 1947 Paris treaty refers to an alleged treaty in 1940. Romania
claims the 1940 document was not an agreement freely signed by two
nations, but rather was an ultimatum from the USSR. The 1940
document incorporated in the Soviet Union Bessarabia and North
Bukovina, which since World War I had been part of Romania. The
Romanian DCM explained that public opinion in Romania would not
accept an allusion to the 1940 document. If the MFA agreed to a
concrete reference to the 1947 Paris Treaty, which in tern referred
to the 1940 document, the Romanian Parliament may not be able to
ratify the border treaty.

(3) Whether to recognize the political agreement in the preamble to
the border treaty:
The Moldovan side wants the preamble of the border treaty to make
reference to the political treaty, while the Romanian side does not.

Moldovan Explanation:

The Moldovan position is that either both agreements should be signed
at the same time, or the political agreement should be signed first,
as the two states should recognize each other politically before they
go on to specify the borders.

Romanian Position:
The Moldovans say they want to sign both the border and political
treaties at once. Since the two sides are closer to concluding the
border treaty, Romania considers it better to sign this treaty, while
continuing to work on the political treaty. In the case of Romania's
agreement with Ukraine, the political treaty was signed in 1997 and
the border treaty six years later in 2003.

Four Controversial issues in the Political Agreement
-------------- --------------

(1) The level on which to sign the agreement:
The Moldovan side argues that the agreement should be signed on an
inter-state level, but reports that the Romanian side wants to sign
it as an inter-governmental accord.

Moldova's argument is that governments change, but states remain.
Socolan claimed that all other Romanian treaties have been signed on
an inter-state level. Socolan is concerned that this discrepancy was
politically motivated. An inter-governmental accord could be
approved without a parliamentary vote, while an inter-state agreement
needed legislative approval. Socolan is concerned that an
inter-governmental accord pushed through without parliamentary
approval would be crippled from the start, and insisted that an
inter-state accord would be more powerful.

(2) Language in preamble about common culture: Romania reportedly
wants a reference to a common culture; Moldova wants no such mention.

Socolan said that Romania wanted to include a provision in the
preamble called "the special character of relations," which refers to
a shared culture, history and language. Moldova considers itself a
multi-ethnic society which includes many Russians, Ukrainians,
Gagauz, Jews, Bulgarians, etc., many of whom do not speak Romanian,
and do not share that common language. This provision could cause
internal dispute. Moldova would prefer that the agreement focus on
the future, rather than the past. Moldova would prefer a more
general, more European comment on common culture, e.g., a mention of
common European cultural values and history or a common desire for
European integration. According to Socolan, Romania considered the
special character of relations clause to be fundamental and would not
sign without it. Socolan noted that the wording in this clause had
major significance for Moldova in settlement of the Transnistria
conflict.

(3) Reference in preamble to peoples:
Moldova proposed a reference to two peoples, in a phrase saying that
the agreement was between the peoples of the two countries. Socolan
claimed that Romania does not recognize Moldovans as a separate
people, viewing Moldovans as Romanians.

(4) The issue of universities:
According to Socolan, Romania wanted to include the possibility of
each side opening a university branch in each others territory.
Moldova prefers that this be a separate agreement between Ministries
of Education and not included in the political treaty.

End Issues List.

Comment: A Question of Political Will
--------------


3. (C) The outstanding issues in the two treaties are minimal.
Signing the agreements is a question of political will. If the will
existed on both sides, the final divergences on wording in the border
treaty could be resolved. Instead, each side blames the other for
stalling the process.


4. (C) Romanian officials believe that President Voronin does not
want to sign treaties with Romania this year, preferring instead to
include an anti-Romania message in his party's campaign for the 2009
elections. We see no signs that President Voronin is inclined to
tone down the anti-Romanian rhetoric. Many observers in Chisinau
believe that Voronin is letting the Romanian relationship sour in an
effort to win Moscow's favor for a Transnistrian settlement.

KEIDERLING