Ukraine – Moldova: would they have to climb through a paling?

A lot of attention was involved by a situation round Zmeiny Island, the right on which Ukraine and Romania challenged. And somehow one more territorial problem of Ukraine was kept in the background until recently, namely the district near the frontier Moldavian village Palanca.

But first of all, we will address, so to speak, to the historical background. On August 18, 1999, Ukraine and Moldova signed the contract on national boundary. Also there was an additional protocol according to which the parties actually exchanged the territories. So Moldova received the lot of Danube coast – about 400 meters and 7 km 800 meters of the highway near Moldavian village Palanca should go to Ukraine. Each party had the interest there.

Moldova, having received the lot near the village Giurgiulesti, received the access to the sea. This fact has not only geopolitical, but also very important economic value for it – the oil terminal is already constructed here, which, by the way, became the competitor of the Ukrainian terminal being in Reni port.

In turn the Ukrainian party received the road which directly connected Odessa and Reni port. But the reason is that the Moldavian party declared that it transferred only the road and here the territory remained Moldavian and won't be transferred to Ukraine.

Once the signature under the document were affixed by the presidents Leonid Kuchma and Peter Luchinsky, now the presidency is occupied absolutely by other people in the republics, but the problem is remained. The disputes arose repeatedly. From time to time the Moldavian party recognized that should carry out its obligations, but then changed the position. And the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Peter Poroshenko at last declared that the problem will be closed soon, as Moldova will transfer the land lot under a highway to Ukraine within a month. One year has passed, but the status of the territory didn't change.

And already other head of the foreign policy department of Ukraine acts all in the same occasion:

“I think that right after the elections in Moldova we need to carry out very profound dialogue and discussion at intergovernmental level, for example at level of foreign affairs with Moldova to define all complex of our relationship and, it is quite clear that the question concerning a lot on the road Odessa-Reni-Palanca also will be put in a context of our future relations.

… We actually recognize that it is simply natural first step to that we can pass together to discussion of those possibilities which really exist both in the trade and economic sphere and in many other, that the Moldavian party is interested.

… This is the obligation of the Moldavian party which they should execute still many years ago, 10 or 12 years. And any delay, any arguments aren't perceived the Ukrainian party today. We recognize that right after the carrying out of local elections in Moldova we should carry out, I think, very profound discussion at intergovernmental level, let’s say, at the level of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, for definition of all complex of our relationship”.

The inhabitants of the village Palanca already were tired to watch the diplomatic maneuvers. They have the everyday problems. The matter is that the highway Odessa – Reni passes so that it cuts off the village from those lots where the peasants graze the cows and goats. It turns out that if the strict rules of border crossing will be established, so it should be necessary to cross the border properly both there and back to descend for the goat … Experts interpret this situation into their language: more than 9000 hectares of agricultural grounds become an enclave. The locals don't want to understand all these artful designs and declare that they are ready to block the highway …

But the matter is not only in goats and cows – they didn't manage without big-time politics too.

As soon as the prime minister of Moldova Vlad Filat publicly declared: “We are in a situation when the Ukrainians executed the obligations, but the Republic of Moldova didn't finish the implementation of provisions of the contract” as the criticism billow fell upon him from communistic opposition that he speaks “from positions of Ukraine”.

He was accused of treachery of the national interests at once. Various political parties use a situation with Palanca's status. As a result the prime minister had to reverse and explain that everything goes as well as agreed and the Republic of Moldova shouldn't transfer anything to somebody.

Such rhetoric is quite clear in the pre-election plan. But the clearly thinking politicians understand that if Ukraine (it was already sounded) decides to fight against the illegal migration and will pass the citizens of Moldova through the territory only at obligatory declaring of 50 dollars, so the consequences will be very notable. Taking into consideration that many Moldavians are compelled to work outside of the republic, it actually a time bomb under ruling coalition.

What is it necessary to think out in such situation to politicians who removed the communists from the power and start to lose the common language? There is a proven option: to address to the West that the world community explained Ukraine that the democratic Moldova is right and it is not necessary to press it. All will fit: it is possible to argue that Kiev threatens the regional cooperation as passed to “orbit of Moscow” and about “interest of destructive forces in saving of the status quo in Dnestr settlement” … Moldova used such receptions often, but, it is necessary to understand that there is article 73 of the Constitution of Ukraine according to which the decisions concerning the change of the territory of the country should be accepted on a national referendum. And if it will be necessary, they quickly remember it.

But Ukraine has many arguments in dispute. First of all, Vlad Filat after all recognized: “We are in a situation when the Ukrainians executed the obligations, but the Republic of Moldova didn't finish the implementation of provisions of the contract”. Secondly, Ukraine can just use a factor of Transdniestria: if it changes, for example, the customs rules, there will be a lot of problems. And thirdly, as the political scientist Artem Filipenko notes: “Kiev can resort to such exotic method of pressure as protection of the rights of the Ukrainians of Moldova”. He draws a conclusion that “the policy of Ukraine can become more rigid, more pragmatic, without a raid of “allied” romanticism in relation to Moldova”.

By the way, about the rigidity. It is quite good to Moldova to remember the events of 2006. Ukraine many times warned Moldova that the railway bridge in the area of Mohyliv - Podolskyi is in emergency condition and it would be necessary to repair it. The matter is that this bridge is very important for export from Moldova by rail. And one day the bridge was closed for basic repair … Then all disputed issues were solved in the shortest terms. It is obvious that Ukraine will demand the implementation of the contract, though the politicians of Moldova still declare that aren't going to give the territory to somebody.

The fact that Ukraine has no property right to the territory on which the highway passes, deprives it the possibility to develop this route which now is in not the best condition. That is Ukraine has economic problems while Moldova, having constructed not only bulk and dry-cargo, but also passenger terminals near Giurgiulesti and also having carried out the railway to Cahul, but on the contrary receives a new impulse to the development of the economy. It is obvious that soon Ukraine will demand the fastest solution.

And as the director of the Ukrainian Center of researches of civil society problems Vitaly Kulik notes: “The Europeans who forcedly have become quite good experts in questions of the Ukrainian-Moldavian relations in the last some years, even more often started to say aloud to the representatives of Moldova that the European integration assumes the ability independently to resolve the problems with neighbors, instead of constant appeal to Brussels as to the Supreme arbitrator”.

Palanca means strengthening with a paling in a translation from the Ukrainian language. The near future will show whether the paling on border would be between two neighboring states.