Remarks by H.E. Ceslav Ciobanu,
Ambassador, Republic of Moldova

GUUAM Conference
The Black Sea Regional Security Program
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
May 31, 2001

I would like to open my remarks by thanking the organizers of the Black Sea Security program for inviting me, as well as my fellow ambassadors to come here and to make our contribution to this common reflection on matters so important for all the countries in our region.

First of all, I would like to welcome the very open and comprehensive character of this forum, which shows once again that strengthening security and cooperation in the vast Black Sea area is an issue of strategic importance. This event reflects the genuine interest that the United States have in achieving stability, progress and democracy in the countries of Black Sea region, and I believe we should all welcome this attitude. The countries represented here are very diverse; they have different security commitments, different goals and priorities that reflect the diversity of their national interests. But this is the beauty and utility of this gathering of high level experts from the participant states: to try to “model” with common efforts such a blending of national interests and international principles of coexistence and cooperation that would be somehow representative for the “future security architecture” of the region. I sincerely hope that the exchanges between the participants, as well as the valuable input from American high-level governmental and academic experts, have made this goal nearer.

The organizers have invited us, Ambassadors of five countries that form a consultative group known as GUUAM, to participate in an open discussion about the cooperative economic and security arrangements in the region, using the GUUAM as focal point. I would like to welcome such an approach, stressing once again that the GUUAM initiative is part of the geopolitical reassessment process in a bigger region that brings together Europe and Asia, former Soviet Union and EU and NATO members and aspirants. This approach underscores also a fundamental characteristic of GUUAM – its openness, its positive orientation. This idea was stressed many times by the Presidents of our five nations: GUUAM is not oriented against anyone and is not meant to draw any dividing lines in a region in transition. The recent initiative of Mr. Vladimir Voronin, the President of Moldova, to invite to the upcoming GUUAM Summit in Yalta Russian Federation as observer specifically illustrates this thesis. I know that many countries in the region have expressed as well their interest to join the consultations process undertaken first in the GUUAM formula. In our opinion, it is a positive trend and should eliminate any kind of speculations around the very idea of GUUAM.

Compared to my other fellow ambassadors, I am in a special situation right now. You know that Moldova comes out of a period of political changes. The new leadership of our country is reassessing its priorities and orientations. There is an ongoing reflection in my country, based on the thorough analysis of past experience, national interest, geopolitical reality, and strategic goals, about the meaning and depth of Moldova’s involvement in many regional and sub-regional structures, organizations and initiatives, including GUUAM. You probably know that President Voronin has made several statements concerning Moldova’s prospective on GUUAM during his visits in Russia and Ukraine; many of you probably have read press-releases about a special sitting of Moldovan Foreign ministry’s Collegium, which discussed inter alia cooperation within GUUAM.

These are only very general approaches; Moldova’s position will be revealed in more details probably during the Yalta GUUAM Summit, when concrete subjects will be put in discussion. The very fact that Moldovan President will attend the Summit speaks clearly about new leadership’s intention to continue our country’s cooperation within the GUUAM framework.

One of the topics that have been brought up regularly during the last year is the idea of institutionalizing GUUAM, by creating some kind of executive structures. Moldova’s position in this respect is likely to remain unchanged: probably we would plead for keeping the actual format of a consultative Group, with regular meetings at the highest level, at the ministerial level and at the working level of National coordinators. Our National coordinator has attended the last meeting in Kiev and it seems that, for the time being, it is the most appropriate framework for the not very extensive agenda of GUUAM. This provides a good level of political dialogue and coordination.

Both President Voronin and the MFA have emphasized that Moldova is interested primarily in the economic dimension of cooperation with the GUUAM countries. It is very much in line with the position that Moldova used to express from the beginning of the Group. Being a neutral state by its constitution, non committed to the security and military structures within the CIS, it is rather obvious that Moldova prefers to assess its security interests and needs in the existing framework of OSCE, as well as partner country within the PfP and active member of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership. It is very likely therefore, that Moldova will avoid any commitments – bounding or “loose” – in any other format. But, at the same time, it does not exclude the coordination, within the OSCE and other international organization, of common approaches and policies with the GUUAM countries that face similar security needs.

I would stress in this context the very strong commitment of my country to continue the military cooperation with the United States that proved to be over the years very successful for Moldovan Arm Forces, making an important contribution to the military reform. I think that many countries of the region have the same problems as Moldovan military: under-funding, lack of infrastructure, but cooperation within PfP and bilaterally with the United States provides a substantial help in the area of training and interoperability. We have a bilateral Working Group on military cooperation with US, headed from American side by Dr Starr; we expect to have in the fall the next group meeting and hopefully to go on with the many projects we undertook.

It is symptomatic that the GUUAM issue is being examined in Moldova in connection with the platform for economic cooperation within the CIS. It reflects the desire of new Moldovan leadership to find the ways of using all the possibilities to increase trade relations with traditional partners, to “put flesh” on the various mechanisms of cooperation that didn’t appear to be efficient so far, at the expense of our struggling economy. CIS inefficiency in the economic and trade area has been asserted repeatedly. But new Moldovan government, rather than give up on the very formula of CIS economic cooperation, intends to strongly emphasize the economic agenda during the CIS summit in Minsk.

It doesn’t mean that Moldova is less interested to discuss other mechanisms of cooperation. But it explains that the pragmatic approach, based on the realistic assessment of our needs, will apply to our attitude towards GUUAM. The Minister of foreign affairs N. Cernomaz has stressed that Moldova is interested first of all in GUUAM member states commonly working out efficient economic projects that could be beneficial for all of them, as well as for other countries of the region. This will be, probably, the core of Moldovan position in Yalta. And this stance coincides with the advice given to CUUAM countries many times in the United States: we should concentrate on very concrete projects, stemming of the advantages that our geographic position, our economic specifics offer for new transnational ideas.

United States is viewed as a “strategic partner” by each of our countries and we should spare no efforts to expand cooperation among ourselves and with the United States. I would like to reiterate the proposal I had already made at our meeting in Stanford: to call on our American partners to examine the possibility to organize with the assistance and funding from the Department of Commerce a conference on investment opportunities in the GUUAM countries.

I would also like to recall the idea of launching joint American-GUUAM’ working groups, funded either by major universities and think tanks and U.S. Administration, toward preparing some studies on potential joint projects. Moldova could be very interested in developing many of such projects:

- the establishment of a tourist route through the five countries of the GUUAM group, and, why not, other countries of the region – following the ancient “Silk Road”. To this end, once again, we might think of organizing a conference in the United States by major tourist companies of our countries, with the financial assistance by the US;

- Moldova and Azerbaijan are exploring the possibilities of joining Science and Technology Center in Ukraine. Three other GUUAM countries – Ukraine, Georgia and Uzbekistan – are already members of STCU. Once our two countries become members, this center may become de facto a GUUAM science club and we will think about joint science projects;

- the “Silk Sat” is another very attractive project. We already had productive discussions about it, and last fall in New York all our leaders voiced their countries support for this project. It is important to ensure a continuous back up of this idea by Senator Sam Brownback and the American Congress.

It is very important that there is a strong political will to foster economic and trade relations within GUUAM. One of the main ideas in this respect remain to establish a free trade zone and to harmonize our tariffs. I cannot envisage what will be the outcome of the Yalta Summit on this issue. But there are several factors that ere to be taken seriously in consideration. First, this free trade zone could be built only according to the WTO standards and criteria. Recently Moldova has signed the documents of accession to WTO and after our Parliament will ratify them, our country will become a full-fledged member of this body, as is another GUUAM country, Georgia. Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan are in the process of bilateral access negotiations. Only based on conditions negotiated with the WTO we could create a preferential trade regime between GUUAM countries. But, once again, this legal framework should not be a goal ‘per se’; it should rather be meant to facilitate concrete projects or accommodate a real flow of merchandises between our countries, which is not yet the case.

Secondly, for Moldova GUUAM or other sub-regional structures is not the final destination, but rather a mean of jointly addressing our problems and advancing toward our strategic goal of integration into the European Union. Economic factor is most important in these efforts, and that is why we are deeply interested in developing economic cooperation between GUUAM members. Our close cooperation within GUUAM group represents a token of Moldova’s openness to regional cooperation that is strengthening our European bid.

Unfortunately, very little was done until now about exploiting one the most productive cooperation ideas that bring together not only the GUUAM countries, but also other states of the region: the establishment of a viable Trans-Caucasus transportation corridor to deliver oil and gas of the Caspian Sea region to the Western Europe. In particular, we are interested in ensuring that this corridor will transit Moldovan territory or at least take into consideration our needs. To this end Moldovan experts are examining the proposal to ship oil from Supsa to the Romanian port of Constanta and then to the Onesti refinery in Romania. Ukrainian port of Ilitchevsk offers good possibilities for Moldova as well. Another option might be the Giurgiulesti oil terminal that we are currently building on the Moldovan portion of the Danube River. It is a vital subject to Moldova that is totally dependent on energy imports. This is why we are so interested in assuring that we will benefit directly from developing the Caspian oil reserves. Creation of the Eurasian Transportation Corridor is not only a mean of extending economic cooperation, but also an important factor of strengthening economic and political sovereignty of our states.

Another very important issue for the GUUAM countries is strengthening the border control, in order to fight such problems as illegal migration, trafficking, smuggling and organized crime. It is encouraging that the US Congress has passed last year an important bill authorizing allocation of significant funds to this end. It should be our joint goal for the next year to make sure this recommendation reflected in the appropriations bill. We hope that this issue will be carefully examined at the Yalta Summit, because properly securing the borders is one of the main attributes of our statehood and independence.

I would like to close my remarks by saying this: all of us, countries members of GUUAM are very encouraged by the interest the United States have in supporting our group, in orienting it to concrete goals serving the development of democracy and free market in our countries. We are pleased that the United States will send its representative to the Yalta Summit. This support, stressed by last year meeting of the Secretary of State with GUUAM foreign ministers, regular consultations held by the leadership of the Department of State with GUUAM ambassadors, make us believe that the group has a future full of promises and achievements.