4. RESTRICTIVE MEASURES AGAINST THE MOLDOVAN SEPARATIST
REGIME OF TRANSNISTRIA
(24271)
—
|
Common Position concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the separatist regime in Transnistria.
|
| Legal base: | Article 15 EU; unanimity
|
| |
| Department: | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration: | Minister's letter of 14 February and EMs of 14 and 20 February 2002
|
| Previous Committee Report: | None, but see paragraph 4.1 below
|
| To be discussed in Council: | 24-25 February General Affairs and External Relations Council
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | Not cleared
|
Background
4.1 On 14 November 2002, the Minister for Europe, Mr
Denis MacShane, wrote to inform us that there was a possibility
that the EU would take action to address the failure of the authorities
of Transnistria, the so-called "Nistrian Moldovan Republic",
to respond constructively to attempts to negotiate a political
settlement between the Moldova Government and the illegal separatist
regime in this Moldovan region. He pointed out that, following
enlargement, Moldova would become one of the EU's neighbours and
outlined attempts that had been made, with the OSCE, Russia and
Ukraine mediating, to negotiate a settlement.
4.2 The Minister now says, in his letter of 14 February
2003, that no progress has been made and the EU has issued two
declarations since early December indicating its readiness to
examine measures aimed at helping to promote a political settlement
and bring to an end the illegal activities associated with the
regime. He also says that the EU has held off work on a Common
Position to impose a travel ban on the Transnistrian leadership,
pending resolution of the Zimbabwe Common Position.[2]
However, the Netherlands OSCE Chair in Office was keen to get
the travel ban agreed at the 24-25 February General Affairs and
External Relations Council.
The document
4.3 The Minister provides an Explanatory Memorandum and
a Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum (SEM) on the draft Common
Position, which would impose a travel ban on designated members
of the Transnistrian leadership. The annex listing those political
figures who will be subject to the ban has not yet been finalised,
but the Government expects it to include the President, Ministers
and other members of the authorities. The SEM notes two substantive
changes to the draft since the Explanatory Memorandum was written.
Article 4 provides for it to apply for a renewable twelve month,
instead of six month, period after adoption and paragraph three
of the preamble states that the EU reserves the right to consider
additional targeted restrictive measures at a later date.
4.4 In his letter the Minister comments:
"By adopting this Common Position the EU hopes to induce
a more constructive attitude from Tiraspol and demonstrate to
Russia and Ukraine the EU's willingness to take action to help
find a solution to the issue. Without this, the EU is unlikely
to persuade Ukraine and Russia to play their vital part in contributing
to efforts to reach a settlement. Other measures, which could
be employed at a later stage, are still under discussion, namely
assets freeze and trade measures. Given the need to deliver this
message to the Transnistrian leadership as swiftly as possible,
and that the Commons European Scrutiny Committee will not be meeting
next week, I hope the Committee will understand that there will
not be time to deposit the draft Common Position for formal scrutiny
clearance before adoption at the GAERC on 24-25 February."
The Government's view
4.5 In addition to the comments recorded above, the Minister
commented as follows in his Explanatory Memorandum:
"Although members of the authorities do travel to the EU,
the travel ban should be viewed principally as a political signal
which could help to induce a more constructive attitude from Tiraspol[3]
and which would demonstrate to Russia and Ukraine the EU's willingness
to take action to help find a solution to the Moldova issue".
Conclusion
4.6 We note that Article 1 of the draft Common Position
replicates the amended Article 3 of the Common Position on restrictive
measures against Zimbabwe on which we comment elsewhere in this
Report.[4]
4.7 The Minister had warned us that action against
Transnistria was being contemplated and has now provided us with
an unofficial text dated 7 February. We consider that he should
have been able to provide us with an Explanatory Memorandum on
it in time for our 12 February meeting and ask the Minister to
ensure that speedier action is taken in future on texts requiring
scrutiny.
4.8 We find his comment that the travel ban is to
be regarded principally as a political signal somewhat confusing,
given that in the same paragraph he tells us that members of the
Transnistrian authorities do travel to the EU. We ask him whether
he is implying that he expects them to continue to travel there
once this ban is in force, and, if so, under what circumstances.
4.9 Meanwhile, we shall not clear the document.
2 See
paragraph 5 of this Report. Back
3 Transnistria. Back
4 Paragraph
5 below. Back
| 
