ADEPT | Gagauzia 2016 | Presidential 2016 | Elections 2015 | Bashkan 2015 | Gagauzia 2012 | Political Parties
The custom’s stamps drama
|
|
It seems that tension in relations between Chisinau and Tiraspol has become stronger once more, and again because of the export — import transactions control. It is understandable, if we take into consideration the extreme dependence of small open economy of Transnistrian the same as Moldova’s one) on external trade. Since the middle of 90-s, as it is well known, the external trade of PMR was realized under the “cover” of customs stamps of the Republic of Moldova, resulted in USD 817.7 million external trade turnover in 2000 or per capita 3 time higher as compared to Moldova.
The Republic of Moldova introduced new customs procedures and revoked stamps after its joining to the WTO (May 2001), consequences of these for Transnistrian economy were extremely unfavorable, including reducing exports by 36% and import by 17% in 2002. The Transnistrian Administration has considered this fact as “an economic blockage” which resulted, according to their own estimations, in USD 170 million losses.
The idea of a federative state proposed by OSCE so unexpectedly at the end of 2002 was backed up by both parties and raised new hopes, including those for economic cooperation as well. The advantages of joint appearance at world markets, investors attracting, and participation in regional projects for South-East Europe were absolutely evident.
Mr. Vladimir Voronin, initiating the elaboration of the new Constitution of the Republic of Moldova (February 2003) pointed out that “the people of Moldovan won’t be able to improve their life drastically only until two armies, two customs and two banking systems exist”.
And now the situation has become aggravated anew. The ground was the Moldovan-Ukrainian Protocol on May 15, 2003 according to which goods can be transported through the customs points on the Ukrainian-Moldovan border including Transnistrian only on the basis of the waybills, commercial and customs documents of the official Chisinau. The last action was followed by invitation to registration of Transnistrian enterprises in State Registration Chamber and receiving certificates of origin in the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Republic of Moldova.
Mr. Igor Smirnov in his Appeal to the people of Transnistria (June 30, 2003) considered these as “new cases of blockage of external economic activities of Transnistrian enterprises”. He also mentioned that “categorical requirement to register our enterprises is related with Moldovan official’s desire to control privatization process. And in the near future they will ask for payments of all taxes to Moldovan budget, in order to bereave the Transnistrian population of its economic basis”.
Leaving policy aside, we will try to clarify these two violently discoursed problems, namely providing Transnistrian goods and cargoes intended for export with Moldovan customs stamps and validity of privatization processes in PMR.
Creation of customs points on Ukrainian-Moldovan border. Both for Moldova and Ukraine as future EU neighbors economical practicability of operational customs border is evident because it leads to cutback of “shadow” export-import flows, suspension of smuggling, illegal migration, etc.
In May 2001 the Protocol on Harmonization of Tax and Customs Legislation was already signed by Moldova and Transnistria, according to which the regulation of export-import transactions is based on “tax and customs legislation considering both requirements of World Trade Organization and World Customs Organization and CIS and European countries legislation” . The joint customs control on Ukrainian-Moldovan border should be established beginning September1, 2001.
Moldovan tax and customs legislation in force, in the whole, corresponds with the international requirements and norms, and this fact is recognized by the Transnistrian Administration. Therefore the use of Moldovan legislation requirements for issuing customs documentation fully satisfies the Protocol’s provisions. The decision of the question was delayed for two years, but even now the Transnistrian authorities consider the joint customs points as “economic blockage” on the side of Moldova. But why only on the side of Moldova, why not on the side of both Moldova and Ukraine?
The negative attitude of the Administration of TMR to the regulation of customs rules for all economic agents could be explained by the lack of credit to the official Chisinau in terms of the letter’s unwillingness to consistently carry out its obligations. We can mention that the Moscow Memorandum on the Basis for Normalization of Relations between the Republic of Moldova and Transnistria states that Transnistria has the right to independently establish and maintain international contacts in the fields of economy, science and technology, and culture, and thus is considered an independent economic agent. The offered temporary registration in Moldova of economic agents from the eastern region and maintenance of their ties with the budget of TMR are far from guaranteeing that this system of relationships with regional budget will be kept after the permanent registration (January 1, 2004).
Constructive solution of inter-budget relations problem by the parties, assumption of the related mutual obligations and, what is the most important, their efficient fulfillment could create a basis for the solution of other important economic problems, such as unification of requirements of enterprises registration, avoidance of double income taxation, and some others. Under such approach the creation and management of the common register of economic agents would turn from the “stumbling block” into the “corner stone” of a single economic system. So far the parties have preferred to use the language of statements.
A few words on the legitimacy of the privatization of enterprises. Transnistria demanded (July 3, 2003) that Moldova recognize privatization in the region legitimate as a condition for its further participation in the joint Constitutional Commission. Therefore an Act on Ownership is to be signed, “which will legally guarantee the absence of pretensions of Chisinau to Transnistrian ownership”.
Let us turn to the existing agreements. The Protocol on Guarantees for Attraction and Protection of Foreign Investments and Cooperation in the Field of Investments Activity says, “the activity of foreign investors and entrepreneurs on the territory of Transnistria is guaranteed by the laws of the Republic of Moldova, Transnistria and international laws”. By this, as we can see, the right of the Transnistrian Administration to carry out privatization basing on their own legislation in force is recognized. It is especially important that the Protocol stipulates the elaboration of the joint project of investment strategy, but actual work on realization of such a vital for both parties decision has not yet been started. What a pity!
Today official Chisinau supports legal (?) privatization, at the same time speaking about probable consequences for the investors who have already privatized some property in Transnistria the Prime-Minister of Moldova doesn’t exclude that some problems may arise if the buyers had not consulted the Moldovan authorities beforehand. What is not quit clear here is what kind of investors may face with the problems: local (from Transnistria) and/ or foreign ones. And what about the guarantees mentioned in the bilateral Protocol?
Duplicity and inconsistency of official Chisinau’s statements on such an important question can do nothing but alarm not only Tiraspol but also potential investors intending to realize their projects on both banks of the Dniester.
It should be mentioned that “TirPa”, the first enterprise with foreign (Italian) capital was registered in Transnistria as far back as 1988. Besides, “Itera International Eenergy Group L.L.G.” registered in the State of New-Jersey (USA) is a co owner of the Moldavian Steel Works in Ribnita (MMZ) the main industrial-financial donor to the region. Moreover, this company is interested in investment projects in Moldova as well. The latest example is the privatization of “Buket Moldavii” winery in Dubosari. On the request of the Ministry of Economy of Transnistria the pre-sale assessment was done by an audit company from Chisinau. The tender was won by “Aroma” Trade House, a Russian investor that already owns some companies in Moldova.
Common sense and economic interest as we see, have already lead to the bilateral agreements mutual realization of which opens the horizons of creative development as opposed to economic confrontation.
The time calls for the negotiation, not for exchange of declarations in “strong language”. No political compromise can be reached without agreement in the field of economy. That is why now, since it hasn’t been done before, specialists in the different fields of law and economy should joint their efforts aiming at approximation of tax, banking and trade legislation, standards, social security system. We have to go this complex way and it will be shorter if we go towards each other.