6 Restrictive measures against the leadership
of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova
| (31320)
—
--
| Council Decision extending restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova
|
| Legal base | Article 29 TEU; unanimity
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 15 February 2010
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | 22 February 2010 Foreign Affairs Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
6.1 Following Moldova's independence, a separatist movement in
the Transnistrian region on the eastern bank of the Nistru River
declared itself a Republic. Attempts to find a settlement to this
situation have thus far failed.
6.2 EU concern about the threats to security and
stability in eastern Europe posed by the activities of the illegal
separatist regime go back over six years. The first Common Position
was in the form of an EU-wide ban on travel in the EU against
17 members of the Transnistrian leadership for obstruction of
the negotiating process to resolve the conflict. In August 2004,
the scope of the restrictive measures was expanded to include
ten persons responsible for the intimidation campaign and closure
of Latin-script Moldovan schools.
6.3 Each EU Member State enacts the necessary legislation
to implement the travel ban; but, to be effective at an EU level,
a Council Decision (previously, a Common Position) is necessary
due to the free movement of people across the Schengen area. Each
Common Position has been valid for 12 months.
6.4 A year ago, we considered and cleared the most
recent such Common Position. The
then Minister for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(Caroline Flint) welcomed the renewal, which
she said sent "a strong political signal that the behaviour
of the Transnistrian leadership remains unacceptable to the EU."
The then Minister said that the EU continued to encourage both
parties to return to the negotiating table, to pursue any negotiations
as transparently as possible and conclude a settlement acceptable
to all concerned. She also said that the sanctions regime was
regularly monitored to ensure that the most appropriate measures
are being taken, giving as an example the fact that eight of the
ten individuals who had been designated for forcing the closure
of Latin script schools were delisted in December 2005 when the
majority of the schools were re-opened.
The draft Council Decision
6.5 This draft Council Decision (which was adopted
by the 22 February 2010 Foreign Affairs Council) extends Common
Position 2004/179/CFSP for a further 12 months.
6.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 15 February
2010, the Minister for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Chris Bryant) says that the list of the names on the travel
ban list will be better targeted by the removal of three names
which no longer meet the criteria for listing. He also says that
the measures will also be suspended until 30 September 2010 "in
the hope that this will encourage the Transnistrian leadership
to engage with the Moldovan Government and the EU."
The Government's view
6.7 The Minister for Europe (Chris Bryant) welcomes
the renewal of the travel ban in similar terms to his ante-predecessor
and likewise notes that the sanctions regime is regularly monitored
to ensure that the most appropriate measures are being taken,
and says that for this reason he supports lifting the travel ban
on three individuals whom it is felt no longer meet the criteria
for listing.
6.8 He also explains that, if at the end of the suspension,
consensus within the EU is not reached to renew the suspension,
or lift the sanctions, then the travel ban will be re-imposed
by default, which, he says, "ensures the sanctions measures
do not simply lapse."
The Minister's letter of 12 February 2010
6.9 The Minister writes to express his "regret
that we have not been able to provide you with the Explanatory
Memorandum in sufficient time for it to be considered by your
Committee before the Decision must be adopted in the EU."
6.10 He then continues as follows:
"It is necessary to adopt the measures in
this Council Decision at the FAC on 22 February so they are in
effect before the current measures expire on 27 February. There
is a Justice and Home Affairs Council on 25 February, but this
would not provide sufficient time for both Committees to scrutinise
the proposals. As a result, I will have to agree to the adoption
of this Decision before your Committee has cleared it from scrutiny.
"This failure to allow your Committee to
fully scrutinise the Decision has come about as negotiations on
the rollover of restrictive measures continued until 10 February,
after your last meeting before the FAC.[13]
6.11 The Minister then refers to the commitment made
in February 2009 by his ante- predecessor, "which I too take
seriously," to keep the Committee better informed on issues
concerning sanctions, and says that:
"since then we have written to you on several
occasions to keep you updated. I wrote to you in January forewarning
you of the impending rollover and again in February when I updated
you on the progress of the negotiations."
Conclusion
6.12 The Committee has hitherto judged that neither
the original imposition of these restrictions in 2004 nor the
annual renewals were of sufficient political importance to warrant
a substantive Report to the House. On this occasion, however,
the Council has — after some discussion both with the Moldovan
government and among Member States, in which there were, presumably,
differing views about the right way forward — decided on
a change of tack. As the Minister makes clear, it is now up to
those whom the measures affect to respond appropriately.
6.13 With regard to the scrutiny override, we
find the Minister's explanation disappointing and unconvincing.
The Minister did indeed inform the Committee, in a general letter
of 14 January 2010 about EU targeted measures against Zimbabwe
and other countries, that there were differing views among Member
States about whether or not to maintain at least some measures,
explaining that his view was that it was too early to lift them
completely but that he agreed with the Moldovan authorities that
the list should be reviewed and become more targeted; he also
noted that the present measures would expire on 27 February 2010.
But neither we nor our Lords counterpart (nor the Minister's office)
can locate the second letter to which the Minister refers.
6.14 In any case, since the Minister knew that
we were due to meet on 24 February, we see no reason why he could
not have arranged for the proposal to be submitted to the Justice
and Home Affairs Council on 25 February, since there would then
have been at least the possibility of there being no override.
We ask the Minister to explain how we came not to receive both
the letters that he prays in aid and what he intends to do to
ensure that such a failure does not recur. We also ask him to
assure us that on any such future occasion he will seek to postpone
adoption by the Council until this Committee has had the chance
to scrutinise the document in question before it is adopted.
6.15 We now clear the document. In so doing, however,
we ask the Minister to let us know, in good time ahead of the
Council meeting concerned, what the reaction has been to the suspension,
what his views are on that reaction, and what course of action
he will be seeking to pursue in the Council prior to the September
review.
13 A reference to the Committee's meeting on Tuesday
9 February, on the eve of the February recess. Back
| 
