Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08STATE57869
2008-05-30 13:33:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Secretary of State
Cable title:  

USG COMMENTS ON VORONIN DRAFT SETTLEMENT PACKAGE

Tags:  KCFE MD PBTS PGOV PREL 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0021
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #7869 1511342
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 301333Z MAY 08
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO AMEMBASSY CHISINAU PRIORITY 0000
C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 057869 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/27/2018
TAGS: KCFE MD PBTS PGOV PREL
SUBJECT: USG COMMENTS ON VORONIN DRAFT SETTLEMENT PACKAGE

REF: CHISINAU 417

Classified By: DAS David A. Merkel for reasons 1.4(b) and (d)

C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 057869

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/27/2018
TAGS: KCFE MD PBTS PGOV PREL
SUBJECT: USG COMMENTS ON VORONIN DRAFT SETTLEMENT PACKAGE

REF: CHISINAU 417

Classified By: DAS David A. Merkel for reasons 1.4(b) and (d)


1. (C) SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUEST: In an April 14 meeting,
President Voronin asked DAS Merkel to review a package of
Moldovan proposals meant to serve as the basis for a
political settlement with Transnistria. He further requested
that the U.S. present this package to the 5 2. DAS Merkel
agreed to study the documents and provide Chisinau with the
USG,s thoughts on the texts. We have reviewed both the
Declaration on the Principles and Guarantees of Transnistrian
Settlement and the Law on the Special Legal Status of
Transnistria. In providing comments, we do not want to
appear either to dictate the terms of Moldova,s national
proposals, or to endorse them as a whole. We do want to note
our general concerns, express our support for Moldova,s
constructive approach in developing this package, and
strongly encourage Chisinau to table its proposals for
discussion in the 5 2. We also want to provide Moldovan
authorities our general assessment of the state of play in
the 5 2 talks, and urge them to focus on using the Finnish
chairmanship to make as much progress on the ground as
possible, while also highlighting publicly Moldova,s
constructive approach to achieving a settlement. Chisinau
cannot compel either Tiraspol or Moscow to be constructive;
but through its own actions, it can draw international
attention to its own positive efforts and the other parties,
unhelpful policies. Post should draw on para 2 in passing
these thoughts to Moldovan officials. END SUMMARY AND ACTION
REQUEST.


2. (U) BEGIN TALKING POINTS:

-- Following up on David Merkel,s visit, we wanted to
provide you with Washington,s thoughts on the settlement
proposals Moldova has developed and the challenge of making
progress in the 5 2 context.

-- First, regarding the status of the 5 2 talks. We are
concerned about the lack of progress of the working groups
that met in Bender on April 18. These working groups focused
on issues that should be of broad concern on both sides of
the river, so it is hard to understand Transnistria,s
reluctance to engage. Is there anything the U.S. or EU can

do to help these ideas gain traction?

-- We are open to a formal 5 2 discussion as soon as such a
meeting would be productive. Looking at the reluctance of
the Transnistrian side to engage in working groups, we
question if now is such a moment. We would want to see a
greater commitment from Russia or Transnistria for concrete
results and believe first agreeing on a common basis for
discussion is important to ensure an extended 5 2 meeting
would be constructive.

-- This brings us to the broader question: how can Moldova
best use the Finnish chairmanship of OSCE to promote a
settlement? The Finns are supportive and energetic. We
believe they would be willing to engage on any initiative
likely to promote change. Thus, we think it would be to
Moldova,s advantage to consider what specific proposals and
steps could be advanced or implemented in the next months
that might have an impact on the situation on the ground. We
think it is a mistake to focus in this regard exclusively on
CSBMs unrelated to political-military issues. The current
CFE impasse has focused international attention on Moldova;
constructive proposals from Moldova to resolve the conflict
or make incremental progress would be welcomed by the
international community.

-- Regarding Moldova,s draft settlement proposals, our
reaction is positive. These proposals address core issues in
a thoughtful and balanced way, taking on difficult questions
like Transnistria,s future status. In particular, the
"demilitarization and security" aspects of the Declaration of
Principles and Guarantees of a Transnistrian Settlement seem
clear and thoughtful.

-- The package could only be viewed as a serious effort to
make progress. They are, however, Moldova,s proposals, and
should be presented by your government, not the U.S. We
believe that if Moldova advanced these proposals -- in the
right context and at the right moment -- this step would be
widely welcomed by the international community. This would
serve to demonstrate Moldovan leadership and responsibility.

-- Frankly, we think it will not help to achieve a positive
outcome for the U.S. to endorse specific measures beyond our
discussions with you before negotiations have begun.

-- We would certainly be willing to issue a statement of
support for your constructive approach if you chose to table
this package. We suspect that the EU would be prepared to
welcome these proposals as a serious effort to end the
current stalemate. We recommend that you share your ideas
with the EU, if you have not done so already.

-- Having a thoughtful proposal like this on the table would
facilitate a return to serious discussions on core settlement
issues in the 5 2.

-- On the specifics, we have only a few questions and
concerns about your proposals, and are ready to discuss these
issues in greater detail as necessary. In general:

(1) Moldova,s proposals for assistance make sense. However,
the United States is not in a position to commit now to
future direct involvement in establishing, for example, an
international fund for the post-conflict development of
Moldova, or to provide U.S. personnel for a new peacekeeping
presence. We encourage you to request such assistance,
should it be needed. But we cannot make any commitment
before the details have been worked out.

(2) We are also curious about the clause granting
Transnistria the right to secede from Moldova if Moldova
voluntary renounces its sovereignty and "international legal
status." While we expect the phrase "international legal
status" is not intended to refer to neutrality, we are
concerned that it might be interpreted as such, which would
imply a limit on your future options in this matter. What
was your intention in using this language?

(3) The Demilitarization and Security section of the
Declaration sends a useful and clear message. We agree that
transformation of the existing PKF and withdrawal of Russian
forces are key aspects of a political settlement. We
noticed, however, that the withdrawal of foreign forces from
Moldova does not appear in the "general provisions" section
of the Declaration -- something we think is important -- and
were interested in your thinking on this. Additionally,
while we understand completely Moldova,s desire to agree on
specific timelines for withdrawal of Russian forces, it is
important to ensure that any proposed timeline is clear and
achievable. As you know, the U.S. supports the idea of
transforming the armed peacekeeping force into a civilian
monitoring mission, as demilitarization steps are agreed by
the parties.

(4) In our view, demilitarization is an issue where a
well-considered implementation plan will be key to reaching
agreement, or to making that agreement meaningful. We would
be interested in whether you plan to treat those details in a
separate roadmap document. Specific steps, or benchmarks,
could also be included in appropriate provisions of the
Declaration.

END TALKING POINTS
RICE