Study on the neutrality of Republic of Moldova by Ion Marandici

8/14/2019 Study on the neutrality of Republic of Moldova by Ion Marandici

1/5

In 2003, Ion Marandici graduated the Faculty of Political Science and Public

Administration (English section), University of Bucharest, Romania. In 2005, he earned a

Master of Arts in European Studies at the Bulgarian-Romanian Interuniversity Europe

Center in Rousse, Bulgaria. He spent the winter semester 2004/2005 at the ViadrinaUniversity in Frankfurt/Oder, Germany. The Master program was organized in the

framework of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe. 2005/2006 lecturer at the

Faculty of Political Science and International Relations, Moldova State University. Among

the subjects taught were human rights, international relations theory and cooperation in

South-Eastern Europe. From April 2006 employed with Soros-Moldova Foundation. The

main academic interest include EU affairs, theories of European integration, security issues,

regional cooperation, Moldo-Romanian bilateral relations, Russian foreign policy.

Successful cooperation with the Institute for Public Policy and Association for Foreign

Policy from Moldova.

Moldovas neutrality: what is at stake?

By Ion Marandici

Provisions concerning neutrality

The Constitution of the new state, Republic of Moldova was adopted in 1994. Article 11 of the

Moldovan Constitution proclaimed firstly, the permanent neutrality of Republic of Moldova andsecondly, it stipulated that the Republic of Moldova does not permit the presence of foreign

armed forces on its territory.1 Neutrality was considered an important attribute of the new state,

since along with the stipulations concerning independence, unity and sovereignty, the

constitutional provision regarding permanent neutrality of Republic of Moldova can be modified

only in case the majority of the population should positively decide on that issue in a

referendum.2

Subsequently, in 1995, the National Security Concept and the Military Doctrine of Republic of

Moldova were adopted. Both documents refer to the permanent neutrality as stipulated in the

Constitution and consider it a cornerstone for the security and military policy of Moldova. It is

mentioned in the National Security Concept, an already outdated document, that Moldova ispromoting a policy of permanent neutrality. Permanent neutrality is pointed out also in the

Military Doctrine of Republic of Moldova as a factor determining the exclusively defensive

character of the military doctrine.3 Promotion of permanent neutrality is also one of the foreign

policy principles of Moldova as they were laid down in the Foreign Policy Concept.4 All three

strategic documents date from 1995 and should be adapted to the new realities. It looks like the

process of reforming started and there will be elaborated The National Security Strategy, The

National Strategic Concept, The National Military Strategy and The Strategic Defence Review.

Those documents shall form the basis for the future military and security reforms.

1 Article 11 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, 29 July 1994, p. 6.2 Article 142 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, 29 July 1994, p. 31.3The decision of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova concerning the military doctrine of Republic of

Moldova, No. 482-XIII din 06.06.1995 onwww.army.md accessed on 04.11.2006.4The Foreign Policy Concept of Republic of Moldova approved by the Parliament, No. 368-XIII, 08.02.1995, p. 2.

1
http://www.army.md/http://www.army.md/http://www.army.md/


2/5


3/5

mechanisms through which a partner country interacts with the Alliance, sharpening the focus of

activities to better support their domestic reform efforts.

The NATO-Moldova IPAP has been fully harmonized with the EU-Moldova European

Neighborhood Policy Action Plan to ensure complementarities and avoid overlap. Neutrality is

mentioned twice in the IPAP. First, it is stated clearly in the document that the implementation of

the IPAP does not mean that Moldova aims to join NATO, but only strives to reform the militaryand security sectors.9A special emphasis is put on Moldovas political cooperation with the other

neutral partner states.10 In addition to Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Kazakhstan

also have also signed IPAPs with the Alliance.11

Public opinion and political elites

According to the last Barometer for Public Opinion, 35.1% of the respondents see neutrality as

the best solution to assure the security of the country. 22.9% consider that joining NATO is the

best solution, while 14.6% think it is better to be part of the Collective Security Treaty

Organization.12 Moldovan public opinion is rather divided on the issue of joining NATO or a

Russian military alliance. If European integration is clearly favoured by the majority of the

population, the same thing cannot be said about Euro-Atlantic integration. Discussions about

Euro-Atlantic integration are absent in the Moldovan society. Joining NATO is not a formal

criterion in order to adhere to European Union, but it must be noted that the ten countries that

joined EU in 2004 were already NATO members. The same is valid for Romania and Bulgaria.

Thus, neutrality might be at some point an obstacle, even if not the most important on the road to

EU.

From the current parliamentary parties only the Christian-Democrats came up in March 2006

with the proposal to organize a referendum on the issue of joining EU and NATO. The CentralElectoral Commission rejected the initiative labelling it as anti-constitutional since such an

initiative would not respect the principle of permanent neutrality. Until now the ruling Party of

Communists showed no signs that it is aiming to change the neutrality status of Moldova, partly

because it still has strong ideological ties with the Soviet past. Not so long time ago, NATO was

the main military enemy and such kind of stereotypes are still wide-spread in the Moldovan

society as shows the survey mentioned above. The centrist Alianta Moldova Noastra does not

have a specific and decisive attitude towards the problem of neutrality. Some of its former

members like Vitalia Pavlicenco or Oleg Serebrian speak in favour of a revision of the neutrality

provisions, while the leadership of that political alliance is rather for the preservation of the

status-quo.

There is a consensus among the Communist politicians in power that deepening the relations

with NATO is a desirable thing, but at the same time they are more firm, when it comes to the

discussion of the neutrality issue. The present Communist political elites do not consider that the

revision of permanent neutrality should be on the agenda.

9 Idem, p. 26.10 Idem, p. 28.11 On 29 October 2004, Georgia became the first country to agree an IPAP with NATO. Azerbaijan agreed one on 27

May 2005, Armenia on 16 December 2005, Kazakhstan on 31 January 2006, and Moldova on 19 May 2006. Formore information access http://www.nato.int/issues/pfp/index.html12Barometrul Opiniei Publice: Republica Moldova - martie-aprilie 2006, ordered by the Institute for Public Policy,

April 2006.

3
http://www.nato.int/issues/pfp/index.htmlhttp://www.nato.int/issues/pfp/index.html


4/5

Which is the alternative to neutrality?

European integration is advancing slowly in the military field, but at present EU has already

developed rapid reaction forces. It develops a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and

a European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) as well. Among the old fifteen member states,

there are four neutral countries: Ireland, Sweden, Austria and Finland. They might also revise

their neutrality principles to adapt them to EUs CFSP and ESDP. After a decade, the Union willprobably have a common, consolidated military and security structure. Until now, EU has

delegated some of its military and security tasks to NATO, Western European Union (WEU), and

OSCE or left them in the hands of the member states.

A neutral country takes no side in a war between other parties and in return hopes to avoid being

attacked by either of them. With the notable exception of the Transnistrian conflict, termed as a

frozen one, at present, Moldova is not involved in any other military conflict. Moldovas

permanent neutrality is not recognized by the international community. According to some

researchers, Moldova should reaffirm its permanent neutrality, assuming the obligation not to

take part in any armed conflicts, in any political, military and economic alliances, that aim at

preparing a war; avoid according the right of dislocation on its territory of foreign military; avoid

developing, producing and possessing weapons of mass-destruction.13

Neutrality of Moldova may be considered a strategy for better accomplishing the national

interests, but in Moldovas case national interests are not yet defined. Vladimir Socor speaks

about Moldovas guranteed neutrality which seems more an invention of Russian Federation.

Thus Russia would like to have guarantees that Moldova would not join NATO in the near

future.14 It happens rarely that neutrality is clearly defined. From neutrality to non-alignment is

just a step. Probably the best option for the moment in the case of Moldova is to use the concept

of permanent neutrality in a flexible manner. In the medium term, the second step would be

defining Euro-Atlantic integration as a national interest, so that in the end, permanent neutralityis abolished and Moldova can fully integrate with NATO.

The benefits of permanent neutrality for Moldova are not obvious. Central European states and

some Eastern European states defined Euro-Atlantic integration as their national interest,

because this was responding to their need for more security. Maintaining the permanent

neutrality in the Moldovan context can prove a more expensive option than joining a strong

military alliance, which would surely provide more security for the Moldovan citizens.

From a certain point of view, the situation of Moldova resembles the situation of Austria after

WW II. The Austrian state was recognized by URSS and Soviet troops left the country, only after

Austria guaranteed that it will proclaim its permanent neutrality. We may assume that RussianFederation would withdraw its soldiers and military equipment, only after Moldova will provide

more guarantees that it will maintain for a longer period its permanent neutrality. It is highly

probable that that would not be sufficient for Russia and that it might propose concrete conflict

resolution plans. In that case, Moldova might be forced or lured to accept some institutional

arrangements that will make it more vulnerable to pressure from the Russian side. On the other

hand, Moldova cannot increase its security and military capabilities and at the same time, take

into account a possible NATO membership as long as the Russian military are present in

13 Iurie Pintea,Defence and National Security of Republic of Moldova, Institutul pentru Politici Publice, Chisinau,

2001. See also Catherine Durandin, Interview by Alexei Lungu and Nicolae Federiuc in Flux, nr. 43, November 3,

2006.14 Vladimir Socor, Voronins six points plan to Putin: a calculated risk, Eurasian Daily Monitor, Issue 183, October4, 2006. See the full article:

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=414&issue_id=3876&article_id=2371505

4
http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=414&issue_id=3876&article_id=2371505http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=414&issue_id=3876&article_id=2371505


5/5

Transnistria and as long the conflict remains unsettled.

5

Documents

Study on the neutrality of Republic of Moldova by Ion Marandici