Conflict resolution in Moldova

In its current manifestation, the conflict over Transnistria dates back to the end of the Soviet Union and the establishment of an independent Moldovan state. After a brief spell of violence in 1991/2, the de-facto state of Transnistria came into being, and despite numerous settlement proposals from all parties involved in the so-called 5+2 settlement process, the status quo of 1992 has been consolidated and, until recently, no tangible progress was made towards a settlement. Following a German-Russian initiative and as a result of subsequently increasing external pressure for a 'proper' political settlement, the parties agreed in September 2011 to resume official negotiations in the 5+2 framework.

Consequently, the Transnistria conflict and its resolution is now high on the political agenda of all the parties, but, unfortunately, they lack a wider understanding of good practices, or an appreciation that the issues that they are dealing with have been resolved in other countries. Furthermore, some of the mediators lack knowledge of past attempts to resolve the Transnistria issue and are unfamiliar with the complexities of the situation on the ground and how similar negotiation processes have successfully concluded elsewhere. Against this background, the proposed project seeks to follow on from two previous research projects that the PI conducted on the establishment and sustainability of governance arrangements in divided societies, especially the use of autonomy and power-sharing arrangements.

The first target group of the follow-on activities are the international organisations, and some of their relevant member states, that are directly involved in the negotiations process, namely the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the EU and the British and German governments. Here the emphasis will be on developing available options for a conflict settlement and the question of how to facilitate/mediate a conclusive negotiation process and assist in settlement implementation. The second target group will be the immediate conflict parties, namely the government of the Republic of Moldova, especially its Bureau for Reintegration, and the authorities in Transnistria, especially the team of the Chief Negotiator. Here the emphasis of the follow-on activities will be on available options for a conflict settlement.

The PI has been intimately and continuously involved with conflict settlement efforts in Moldova since 2003, and thus has a wide network of relevant contacts among non-academic research users that will facilitate maximum impact of this project. Stakeholders have been extensively consulted in the conception of this project.

Follow-on activities will begin with a stakeholder consultation to ensure the relevance of input into the development of negotiation strategies and positions of the parties and into the ongoing negotiation process more generally. Draft papers on settlement options and mediation will then be presented to stakeholders to ensure their continuing input into the direction and substance of this follow-on project, and final versions of the papers will then be presented to them individually and at a concluding conference co-hosted by the project's core collaborator, the International Peace Institute (Vienna office). This multi-stage engagement with stakeholders will ensure maximisation of impact and, through building, consolidating and enhancing relationships with stakeholders, allow for subsequent meaningful follow-on activities beyond the life cycle of this project.

As part of the project outputs, beyond the two options papers on settlement and mediation, the PI will produce a number of more general briefing papers that can be utilised by stakeholders (and by others through broader dissemination) in their conflict resolution work beyond Moldova, as well as two journal articles aimed at academic research users.

The intended beneficiaries of the proposed follow-on project are: the Government of the Republic of Moldova, especially the Bureau for Reintegration (GoM); the authorities of Transnistria, especially the Chief Negotiator and his team (AoT); the European Union, especially the Moldova desk in the EEAS and the Delegation in Chisinau (EU); the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, especially the Mission to Moldova (OSCE); Her Majesty's Government, especially the British Embassy in Moldova, the Eastern Research Group, and the relevant thematic and country desks (HMG); and the Government of Germany, especially the Foreign Ministry and the Chancellery (GoG). All stakeholders will have opportunities to have direct and continuing input into the direction and substance of the intended outputs, thus ensuring their relevance. This multistage engagement will also enhance the quality of relationships with stakeholders and thus increase the potential of achieving lasting impact.

Through an initial stakeholder consultation on existing settlement preferences, the discussion of draft option papers with stakeholders, and the presentation of the two finalised option papers to stakeholders individually and in groups, the intended beneficiaries will all become aware of the full range of options for a settlement of the Transnistrian conflict and their respective implications.

Related to this, and specifically for the GoM and AoT, it is expected that impact will also include that the sides move away from their currently entrenched focus on 'labels' (e.g., unitary state vs. confederation), obtain better informed negotiation positions/strategies, focus on individual issues that need to be resolved as a way of building towards a comprehensive settlement, and build sustainable institutions and mutual relationships (partially as a result of additional peer-learning opportunities created in the final stage of the project when completed options papers are presented to all stakeholders at the concluding conference in Vienna).

For the EU, OSCE, HMG, and the GoG, an additional expectation of impact is that they become aware of a full set of options for pursuing their efforts to mediate a conflict settlement and to contribute to its implementation and accordingly shape/modify their current strategies to facilitate a negotiated settlement between GoRM and AoT. It is also expected that they will transfer generalizable options and policy recommendations from each paper to other conflict situations that they are currently dealing with or might be dealing with in the future so that the key policy outputs of the proposed project have a legacy effect in terms of adding to institutional knowledge and understanding on third-party conflict management.

Impact generation through transfer of generalizable options and policy recommendations will additionally be facilitated through a wide range of circulated briefing papers (for example on confidence-building measures, settlement options, guarantee mechanisms, reintegration challenges) which will provide non-academic users with readily accessible information in a specialist area of knowledge and further their understanding of the complexities of the conflict settlement process and the contribution they can make to it. Dissemination of these briefing papers will happen through the networks of the PI and his project collaborators, including the Governance and Social Development Resource Centre (based at the University of Birmingham) with its direct links to UK governance advisers and the Stabilisation Unit.