1. Institute for
Development and
Moldova’s Foreign Policy statewatch Social Initiatives
“Viitorul”
Issue 14, December 2010
From a basic treaty
to a treaty regarding
the border’s regime
Ion Tăbîrță and Cornel Ciurea
Next topics
Moldova’s Foreign Policy Statewatch represents a series of brief
analyses, written by local and foreign experts, dedicated to the
to be covered:
most topical subjects related to the foreign policy of Moldova,
major developments in the Black Sea Region, cooperation with opportunities in
international organizations and peace building activities in the region. Moldovan-German
It aims to create a common platform for discussion and to bring relations
together experts, commentators, officials and diplomats who are
concerned with the perspectives of European Integration of Moldova. post-election bid of the
It is also pertaining to offer to Moldova’s diplomats and analysts a geopolitical visits in
valuable tribune for debating the most interesting and controversial
points of view that could help Moldova to find its path to EU.
Moldova
A
long with the two decades, the matter of signing an inter-governmental
agreement between Moldova and Romania provoked many emotional
discussions, in Chisinau, as well as in Bucharest. Lately, this subject was
replaced with another one, regarding the signing of a border agreement. The
protraction of these processes is due to linguistic and historical divergences
that put into the shade the technical aspects of the Moldovan - Romanian
governmental relation, which is highly politicized, in many cases in an
exaggerated and useless way. Even if the pure technical aspects of a Moldovan
– Romanian treaty must not had put major problems, the Romanian side did not
accept the signing of the treaty because of some “details” that it cares about, and Chisinau,
particularly during the communist government, tried to introduce in the document a set of
political provisions with senseless historical connotations, unacceptable for Bucharest.
The last discussions from Chisinau, related to the signing of the agreement regarding
the border system emphasize a new important factor that blocks the ratification process
– the internal rivalries inside The Alliance for European Integration and the alleged non-
constitutional feature of the signing process.

2. 2 Moldova’s Foreign Policy statewatch
Basic political treaty:
general aspects
The problem of the border or basic political treaty appears, usually, between the states with historical
relations full of controversies. Many neighboring states, especially because of the inheritance of historical
controversies do not prefer to sign basic treaties, not to touch many sensitive points from the society. For
example, Germany even today doesn’t have a basic political and classical treaty with Austria. It is also the
case of many countries from Central Europe and South-Eastern Europe that have difficult relations and
plenty of prevarications between them because of the complicated historical past. Many times, concluding a
basic political treaty served as a reconciliation way between two states with a historical conflict relation. The
same Germany (federal), through bilateral political treaties, which were signed at the beginning of the 1970s
of the past century, has reestablished its relations with the Soviet Union, Poland, The Democratic German
Republic and Czechoslovakia.
The history of the Moldovan –
Romanian treaty
The initiative of a Moldovan – Romanian treaty came from Moldovan President Mircea Snegur, but
his Romanian counterpart, Ion Iliescu, launched it after a meeting between them in Bucharest on the 19th of
July 1991. In the 1992, in the context of transnistrian conflict, Chisinau wanted a basic political treaty with
Bucharest for counterbalance the speculation of a possible unification between the Republic of Moldova and
Romania, conveyed by the separatists from Tiraspol and some political circles from Moscow.
Even from the beginning it came out the different approach of the possible treaty between Chisinau
and Bucharest. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs from Bucharest wanted „A fraternity and integration treaty”.
In his turn, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Moldova has proposed that the document
should be entitled: „Fraternity and Cooperation Treaty”. In other words, Romania did not want a standard
international treaty, as a usual one, but with a special juridical connotation that could correspond to the
ideals of the Romanian people from both states. The Republic of Moldova has replied back appreciating
that the approach of Romanian part undermines from the beginning the idea of statehood and Moldovan
independence, the political class from Chisinau pleading for a usual international treaty.
The Romania’s aspirations of joining NATO caused in a direct way, which on the 28th of April 2000,
after seven years of contradictory discussions, Chisinau and Bucharest managed to initialing the Treaty of
Privileged Partnership and Collaboration between Republic of Moldova and Romania.
The lack of political consensus on the treaty provisions of the 28th of April, in Chisinau as well as in
Bucharest, made the signing impossible. The power changes from Romania at the end of 2000 and from
Moldova at the beginning of 2001, has determined the abandonment of this treaty. The social-democratic
government from Romania preferred further a treaty of fraternity between the both states, and the Moldovan
communists from the beginning denied it pretending the “Romanization” of the Republic of Moldova stipulated
in the content of the treaty.
After the “cold war” in the Moldovan-Romanian relations from 2001-2002, at the beginning of 2003,
the Moldovan government insisted permanently on the need of signing the basic political treaty and of the
border agreement on juridical regulation between the two states. On the 8th of October 2003, the president
of the Republic of Moldova, Vladimir Voronin, signed even a decree for initiating the negotiations on the draft
project of the treaty between Romania and Moldova which refers to the regime of state border, collaboration
and mutual assistance concerning the border problems. In reply, Bucharest declared about the uselessness
of signing such a treaty between Romania and Moldova.
In addition, after 2001 the optical approach on the treaty itself has polarized. If Bucharest wanted to
stipulate in the treaty of the phrase „one nation, two states”, then Chisinau was insisting on the „two nations,
two states” approach. Even the imminence of geographical rapprochement of the EU to the Moldova’s
borders did not manage, in the first phase, to change the dates of problem. Chisinau preferred further a
classic interstate political treaty. Bucharest was considering this type of treaty as being obsolete and was
str. iacob hîncu 10/1, chişinău Md-2005 republic of Moldova 373 / 22 221844 phone 373 / 22 245714 fax office@viitorul.org www.viitorul.org

3. Moldova’s Foreign Policy statewatch 3
pleading for signing a European Partnership Agreement.
On the contrary, after Romania joined the EU, the problem of the basic treaty and of the Agreement
regarding the state boarder between Romania and Moldova acquired new valances. Chisinau tried to link
these two documents with the Convention concerning the small traffic at the Moldovan - Romanian border,
insisting on their “package” signing. The “package” approach of this problem generated the refusal of
Bucharest, leading therefore the political dialogue to an impasse, even though in 2008, the treaty regarding
the state border regime between Moldova and Romania had been elaborated in a proportion of 95%.
The agreement’s European context
from the 8th of November 2010
After the 29th July 2009 the Alliance for European Integration took office the relations between
Chisinau and Bucharest have changed. The Government from Chisinau tried to prove its European
intentions by performing concrete actions. In a short time, the Convention concerning the small traffic at the
Moldovan - Romanian border has been uncoupled from the problem of basic treaty and from the agreement
regarding the state border regime, which was signed on the 13th of November 2009. The normalization of
Moldovan – Romanian relation coincided chronologically with the Romania’s efforts to join the Schengen,
which required fulfillment of some preconditions, especially related to border security. Despite the fact that
Romanian president, Traian Basescu, repeatedly declared, that he will not sign a border treaty to approve
the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, European context imposed the Romanian president to partially revise his
position.
On the 8th of November 2010 the Prime-minister Vlad Filat and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Romania, Teodor Baconschi signed an interstate treaty entitled Treaty regarding border regime. It is known
that there were made pressures on the Romanian government in order to sign this agreement. During a visit
in October to Bucharest, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, suggested that signing of the Agreement
regarding the border regime between Moldova and Romania would be a step forward in the context of EU
relation with the eastern neigbourhood. To the Europeans perspective, signing such an agreement would
serve two convergent aims – removing Romania from accusation list, considered by some actors as a
revisionist power and encouraging the democratic processes from Moldova by eliminating from electoral
context the argument of “the Romanian danger”.
Nevertheless, the signing of this agreement (followed by a possible ratification in both state
Parliaments) raises some question marks. Firstly, it is about a linguistic shade. Many European leaders
but also the Moldovan Communist Party leaders insisted on signing a Border Agreement, more significant
from a political point of view than the agreement on border regime, signed on the 8th of November, which
is said to be “eminently, technical”. Secondly, it is noticed a discrepancy on the level of persons who signed
– the Prime-minister from Moldova and the Minister of Foreign Affairs from Romania. Thirdly, the fact that
no one has access to the text of agreement raises suspicions and it is said that the text of the treaty is
going to become public only after ratification. Fourth, the constitutional aspect of this agreement itself was
questioned by the Interim President of the Republic of Moldova Mihai Ghimpu, who declared that Vlad Filat
did not have the required mandate to sign such an interstate agreement. Ghimpu went so far that he also
presented his doubts about the possibility of ratification this agreement in the Parliament of the Republic of
Moldova. That is why we can conclude that the agreements’ question between Moldova and Romania is still
continuing to remain under the insoluble sign – when the political “left” cannot block anymore the solution of
this problem, this blockage is coming from the political “right”.
The problem of the Constitutional
Part of Agreement
The President of Foreign Affairs Committee from the Romanian Parliament Attila Korodi gave
assurances that “the signing of Agreement a week ago by Baconschi and the Prime-minister Vlad Filat does
str. iacob hîncu 10/1, chişinău Md-2005 republic of Moldova 373 / 22 221844 phone 373 / 22 245714 fax office@viitorul.org www.viitorul.org

4. 4 Moldova’s Foreign Policy statewatch
not represent any problem”. This fact is contested by the Interim President Mihai Ghimpu declaring that Vlad
Filat didn’t have the required mandate for signing.
Where does this dispute come from? Probably, it comes from a different interpretation of Moldova’s
laws. The Republic of Moldova’s Constitution stipulates in the article 86 that only the President signs the
international agreements, somehow consecrating the priority in this kind of actions to President. In this
context, it must be pointed out that the Constitution of Romania, from where the Moldova’s Constitution is
inspired, stipulates an express delegation of attributions from the president to the Prime minister regarding
the international agreements. Unfortunately, the constitution of Moldova is silent about this subject, leaving
space for interpretations.
The intervention of the President Mihai Ghimpu regarding the non-constitutionality of the Agreement
on the 8th of November is inspired by the idea of President’s preeminence in foreign policy issues, a fact
confirmed by the Constitution. At the same time, the law about the Government and the law about the
International Agreements are offering to the Prime-minister sufficient prerogatives to avoid the President
(e.g. the article 10 of the Law regarding the International Agreements that allow the Prime-minister the
use of any act referring to the signing of international agreements without the investment of full powers).
Therefore, the denial of accepting the Agreement in its actual form by the President will assume also the
concord with Constitution of a set of laws in which the Prime-minister disposes of the similar prerogatives
as the President.
Conclusions
On the 16th of November, the acting President of the country, Mihai Ghimpu was convinced that the
signing procedure of the agreement was non-constitutional. “International agreements are signed by the
President. The Prime-minister could have signed just the inter-governmental agreements”, the President
declared, accusing the Prime-minister Filat of overtaking the attributions. Thus, the Moldovan – Romanian
agreement regarding the border regime has the same fate as the other tentative of signing some important
agreements, being questioned, even by the fierce defenders of a more cordial relationship with Romania.
At the same time, there are signs that some states from the European Union did not understand exactly
the nature of the signed agreement, suspecting that it is a replacement of a border agreement by a treaty
regarding the border regime. This may explain cold relations between Sarkozy and Basescu, although it is
not the only one by all means.
The President Ghimpu did not attempt any action against the agreement, being involved in the electoral
campaign and supporting the idea that the agreement risks to not to be ratified. Thereby, the Moldovan –
Romanian agreement’s fate regarding the boarder regime is not clear at all. Every change of the power ratio
in Chisinau could mean that this agreement will be blocked either in Parliament, either at the Constitutional
Court. In consequence, signing of the agreement might suggest just a new stage in the long process of
tapping between Chisinau and Bucharest.
This publication was produced by idis “viitorul” with the financial support of soros Foundation
Moldova and the national endowment for democracy. The opinions expressed in this publicati-
on reflect the author’s/authors’ position and don’t necessary represent the views of the donors.
str. iacob hîncu 10/1, chişinău Md-2005 republic of Moldova 373 / 22 221844 phone 373 / 22 245714 fax office@viitorul.org www.viitorul.org
str. iacob hîncu 10/1, chişinău Md-2005 republic of Moldova 373 / 22 221844 phone 373 / 22 245714 fax
office@viitorul.org www.viitorul.org