<< back
CONFLICT
On
27, August 2004 Volodymyr Voronin,
a
president of Moldova,
appeared on national TV and announced about suspension of negotiations between
Kyshenev and Tyraspol. He said in particular: “No talks with Tyraspol any more.
We would continue the conversation with those to whom Tyraspol is submitting
directly”.
Voronin
hinted clearly at Russia
naming it together with Ukraine
“advocates of illegal regime”.
Moscow
reacted immediately upon lunge of the senior Moldavian communist. Russian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that:
“Russia see
no alternative to direct negotiations concerning Prydnistrovian problem”.
Ukraine
traditionally
kept
mum.
“It’s
not
our business”…
Meanwhile
escalation of Prydnistrovian-Moldavian relations is still growing. The head
questions are how far the opponents are ready to go in their confrontation and
what do they expect to get as main prize.
Background
of the conflict
Everybody
understands that Kyshenev plays a role of initiator of the conflict consciously.
Since Voronin and his crew have come to power they have been preparing for war.
They also are setting World’s and Moldavian public opinion for war. Communists
who are competent in propaganda manage to use a Prydnistrovian factor to
consolidate Moldavian society. Three groups that have been traditionally at
enmity with each other, reach a consensus in that question. It is necessary to
recognize that despite ignorance in political and economical questions,
Communists are running very efficient media policy.
At the same time propaganda of
Prydnistrovia is retarding. In last years defeatist statements of “reaching the
agreement with fraternal people’s of Moldova” have been
implanted in public opinion of Republic. And what is more, such feelings have
been tied with hopes of “recreation of
USSR” and “unification
of the whole country”. You can hear everywhere demagogical declarations like “we
should negotiate and unite”. The main reason of such situation is that a big
part of population of Prydnistrovian republic is still living mentally in
USSR. No national
propaganda is carrying on. Under such conditions a border with
Moldova looks like
anachronism. Recently “Prydnistrovian nation” construction is using by mass
media, but… No comments. Ukrainians are passive. Moldavians are waiting. As a
fact, a “locomotive” of Republic is Russian-speaking part of population with it
nostalgia for USSR.
But not everything
is so bad. Solidity and public activity of Prydnistrovian society is amazing.
Especially of those who are coming from
Ukraine. The people and
authority are united. According to this index Prydnistrovian society leaves
Moldova behind, where
distrust toward authorities is extremely high. But it’s dangerous to be consoled
by it.
Federation?
In my opinion, this
choice is impossible despite all curtseys toward various federative projects.
Any legitimization of Prydnistrovian
Republic would inevitably
cause a social outburst in Moldova. Prydnistrovians
are paralyzed of any possibility to become someday citizens of
Romania…even in borders of
united European community.
Besides that the
establishing of federation demands a loyalty to the power of law, democratic
traditions, and, at last, traditions of tolerant coexistence of citizens of
different nationalities. No need to say about
Moldova. It is enough to
recall a practice of solution of Ukrainian question in
Romania… Therefore
federalism in Moldova is nonsense. We
just can look at destruction of Gagauz
national autonomy.
As a fact, both
sides of the negotiations are using word “federation” to run next
scenarios:
– Confederation, when a border between
unfriendly states remains and armed forces of each member are able to defend
“federation’s” neighbour;
– Seizure of
Prydnistrovian
Republic, liquidation of
its all state structures and unification.
The first variant
is absolutely unacceptable for Voronin who deal with “federation” as a
commercial project aimed to redistribute Prydnistrovian ownership. In Soviet
period the part of Prydnistrovian industry was 40% of all-Moldavian economy. But
after “perestroika”, when Moldavian enterprises has bankrupted and
Prydnistrovian have been still working, it reached 80%.
The second variant
is inappropriate for Prydnistrovians. In ten years of negotiations a group of
people appeared who make their living by this process and want it to last as
long as possible. Factually, these are a kind of Comsomol (Communist Youth
organization) workers that survived and still parasitizing on both banks of
Dnister river. But the time of truth is coming.
I would present positions of
national groups of the conflict below. There also another views upon the
problem. But opinions given in this article are the most distinctive and
“correct” for each side. They could be divided into “Ukrainian”, “Romanian”,
“Russian”, “Prydnistrovian”, and “Moldavian”.
It seems to me that
“Ukrainian” and “Prydnistrovian” positions are converging in one way. “Russian”
view is similar to “Romanian” understanding of “federative process” development.
Only Moldavian Communist stand is different, although it represents clans’
interests rather than national one. The last phenomenon is well-known from
Ukrainian reality…
The main
thing is that our state is
recognized
by our people
This
phrase of Igor Smirnov, a president of Prydnistrovian
Republic,
is a definition term for understanding the situation in the region (I have seen
this support by my own. Under such conditions a retreat from fundamental
positions gained in a hard struggle would be equal to betrayal of these
people).
President
considers that despite nowadays Tyraspol has practically no relations with
Kyshenev, the negotiations for its normalization should be going on. There is no
alternative to conversation. At the same time, Republic authorities asked
governments of Russia
and Ukraine
as its guarantors to strengths (Russia)
and manifest (Ukraine) a
peacemaker presence on Dnister river banks.
It means that Prydnistrovian leaders want to enlarge physically a contingent of
peacemakers and provide them with military armament.
Prydnistrovians
think that Moldova
has already calculated for how many percents she could improve her business by
seizing Prydnistrovian ownership. Thus Tyraspol plans to negotiate only about
normalization of relations with Republic
of Moldova.
“Voronin
(president of Moldova)
has the only aim – to capture the ownership of Prydnistrovia. That is the only
way for him to “fulfil” his old elections promises before new elections of March
2005, because in previous years Moldavian Communists didn’t manage to conduct
any positive changes in the country”.
Concerning
international recognition… nowadays Prydnistrovia is successfully exporting its production to 176
countries of the world, regardless of economical blockade of
Moldova.
Prydnistrovian leaders think that the best way of conflict’s solution is an
experience of Cyprus –
to call a referendum about creation of commonwealth with
Moldova.
As it well known, such a plebiscite was held separately in Turkish and Greek
parts of Cyprus
Island.
Prydnistrovians have a possibility to
realize their right for self-determination according to all international
standards.
Is
Moldova
aiming
at EU?
It
is considered to be that Moldova
(to put it more precisely, its authorities) wants to integrate with
Europe.
But this is a very moot point. On the one hand, inhabitants of
Moldova
who are forced to make their living outside the country are really anxious for
EU, especially Schengen space. On the other hand, aims of nowadays Kyshenev
regime are totally opposite. For Volodymyr Voronin and his surrounding joining
EU or partly integration to it in limits of any “neighbouring” programme means a
political death. EU would never endure the Communist who set a totalitarian
regime in Moldova.
Also, citizens of Moldova
who has already taste a European lifestyle would never believe in cheap
propaganda of “Communist” newspaper. Voronin understands it clearly and
therefore, despite his all “European” declarations, he doesn’t want to open the
door to Europe
for population of Moldova.
Voronin
wants to anchor Moldova
between West and East using Prydnistrovia as an anchor. A result of efforts of
“Moldavian Mao” should be a personal Principality, absolutely closed from
outside where Voronin father and son could rule limitlessly.
Moldavian
powers are making concrete steps to reach this aim.
Myron
Gagauz, a director of “Moldova Railways” state enterprise, announced a decision
of official Kyshenev to prohibit traffic of all passenger and transport trains
through Prydnistrovia since 1, September 2004. Corresponding telegrams were sent
to all transport governing offices of CIS… These arrangements were the answer to
Russia
and Ukraine
that didn’t support economical blockade of
Prydnistrovian
Republic,
which has been initiated by Moldova.
Ukrainian
position concerning this question was determined in a reply of minister of
transport to Moldavian side.
“Mr
Gagauz! We had seen your dispatcher and telegraph messages. I recommend you to
learn elementary rules of traffic law, not pointing on rules of ethic, and stop
misinforming transport system of CIS trying to incline Ukrainian railways to
participate in blockade of loads from Prydnistrovia”.
Ukrainian
vector
Inexpressiveness
of Russian political line in Prydnistrovian region that has been observed during
the whole history of Prydnistrovian
Republic’s
existence would bring Tyraspol to refuse from pro-Russian orientation. Actually
it happened before, but it was unknown what vector of further development would
be chosen by Prydnistrovian leaders as result of disillusionment of
Russia.
Nowadays we could see how this vector is clarifying. Elite of Prydnistrovia
don’t want to capitulate before Kyshenev, but they are instantly pushed by
Moscow
“under the roof of Moldavian-Prydnistrovian federal house”. Therefore
Prydnistrovians tie less their future with
Russia
but hope more for Ukraine.
The
problem of Prydnistrovia could be solved by entering
Prydnistrovian
Republic
as autonomic member into Ukraine.
Such
project has a serious legal and historical background. If
Moldova,
Russia,
Ukraine
and Prydnistrovia acknowledge illegal a controversial decision of USSR
Parliament about creation of Moldavian SSR from 2, August 1940, a way to solve
the problem would be opened.
Moldavian
Autonomic SSR with administrative centre in Balta town was created on 12,
October 1924 from territory of nowadays Prydnistrovia and some regions of
Ukraine.
In 1929 a status of administrative centre was moved to Tyraspol. The creation of
this Soviet republic was caused only by political goals.
Moscow
government planed to take back Bessarabia,
which was lost in 1918, and “unite” it with Moldavian autonomy. Later it was
done with success. But at the moment of creation of Moldavian Autonomic SSR
Moldavians didn’t prevail among republic’s inhabitants: 48, 5% were Ukrainians,
30% – Moldavians, 9% – Russians.
In
June 1940 Bessarabia
was taken by USSR
and on 2, August 1940 Moldavian SSR was created on its territory. Only 6 regions
of Moldavian Autonomic SSR joined the new republic. Other 17 regions were
divided between Odessa
and Vinnitsa
regions of Ukraine,
because their historical mission in the project of “reunification” of
Moldavia
was over. A former administrative centre of Moldavian autonomy, Balta town, was
given back to Ukraine. Legally a procedure of creation of
Moldavian SSR can be revised because parliaments of Moldavian Autonomic SSR and
Ukrainian SSR did not ratify corresponding documents as it was provided for by
their constitutions. Instead of them the decision of creation a new republic was
adopted by USSR
parliament.
Thus
a final solution of Prydnistrovian problem should be made by acknowledging
illegal the decision of USSR Parliament from 2, August 1940 about creation of
Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic by unification a part of Moldavian Autonomic
SSR (nowadays Prydnistrovian Moldavian Republic) with
Bessarabia.
To
this historical and juridical arguments concerning entering Prydnistrovia to
Ukraine
another fact should be added. 300 thousands of Ukrainians are living in
Prydnistrovia. That is more then one third of republic’s population. About 50
thousands of them have Ukrainian citizenship.
The
proposed settlement of Prydnistrovian problem could be appropriate for Kyshenev
too. Elite of Moldova
understand that “returning” of Prydnistrovia is impossible in nearest
perspective. The fact that the conflict is not resolved restrains initiatives of
Kyshenev and Bucharest
to create united Romanian state. In this context,
Moldova
may decide to realize Ukrainian scenario aiming to:
– solve finally Prydnistrovian conflict
that would open perspectives of more close integration with
Romania
and Europe;
–
liquidate a zone of Russian influence in Prydnistrovian region, giving a rebel
territory to Ukraine,
a future partner in NATO and EU.
Prydnistrovian
anchor
In
August 2004 Adrian Severyn, an ex-minister of foreign affairs of
Romania,
presented again his view of Prydnistrovian problem in the article
“Prydnistrovian
anchor: interests and solution”.
In
Severyn’s
opinion,
Prydnistrovia according to a plan of its creators was aimed to keep
Moldova
in a sphere of Russian influence. He points that Bessarabia
but not Moldova
were important to Russia
because it provides for access to Danube
river, playing a role of spring-board for
Russia
towards Balkans and Central
Europe.
After capturing Bessarabia
by USSR,
Stalin “anchored” it. He gave northern and southern lands of
Bessarabia
to Ukraine,
and united a territory of nowadays Prydnistrovia to Moldavian SSR. Al these
measures had one purpose – to secure Bessarabia
for USSR.
Severyn
considers that Prydnistrovia is the “anchor” not only for
Moldova
and Romania
but Russia
and Ukraine.
Assuming
this statement as a basis, Romanian diplomat is looking for perspectives of
solution the conflict: “A possible alternative lies not in whether
Romania
should refuse from Prydnistrovia or not. It is in another. The problem is that
Republic
of Moldova
should already decide between union with Prydnistrovia or European Union. If for
Moldova European integration is really an absolute priority, she should clearly
and distinctly answer the question in what case she has more chances to get EU
membership: in case of Prydnistrovia incorporation or its
separation?”
In
Severyn’s mind Ukraine
also is facing the problem of choice:
“Ukraine
has to decide in what surrounding her independence would look more real: as
Russia’s
partner or candidate for eurointegration?” Romanian ex-minister is sure that
Prydnistrovian troubles would estrange Ukraine from Europe, because a question
of would NATO and EU ready to repeat Lithuanian scenario and agree with
existence Kaliningrad-like Prydnistrovian enclave is still
open.
Where
is a way-out from this labyrinth? Romanian diplomat thinks that the best
decision is a compromise status of Prydnistrovia reached as a result of mutual
efforts Ukraine
and Russia
with western allies. In Severyn’s opinion, Prydnistrovia could become
“East-European Monaco on a space of international law, economically sponsored by
Kyiv and military protected by Moscow.
Thus EU would be able to set its eastern border and realize political and
economical programmes, which would guarantee an integration of up-Dnister
Moldova.
USA
doesn’t need an unstable Moldavian-Prydnistrovian federation. Agreement
concerning Moldavian neutrality and acceptance of limited military presence of
Russia
in Prydnistrovia could give Washington
positive solution of some conflicts in Caucasus”.
As
for Romania,
Severyn thinks that her only interest in Prydnistrovia is a turning the fire of
tension into “international law-tolerate community”. Romanian the most active
interests in the region are summarized by him to:
-
integration
of up-Dnister Moldova
to EU;
-
preservation
of Ukrainian independence and stability;
-
creation
of a security zone including control system and collective guarantees at the
border between Western and Russia-Asian space.
As
a fact Severyn acknowledges that:
-
the
best guarantors and the most
interested in stability in Prydnistrovia are
Ukraine
and Russia;
-
Romania
has no vital interests in Prydnistrovia;
-
Prydnistrovian
state is strong in that territory and West is enable to advance more, if, of
course, not to take into account a variant of usage of military power (but being
a clever politician Severyn exclude it).
So,
as some analytics has been forecasting an idea of recognition of Prydnistrovia
by changing a state status of Moldova Republic, which was proposed by Russian
political scientist Stanislav Belkovski, is successfully developing and get
enough supporters among Bucharest politicians despite “official” scepsis that
took place on Bucharest conference at the beginning of June and
anti-Prydnistrovian feelings in Romania that were caused by situation around
Romanian language schools in Prydnistrovian Republic.
No
alternative to state independence of Prydnistrovia
thinks
Stanislav
Belkovskiy, a president of Institute
of Russian
national strategy. Don’t be afraid of such huge name of this institution. In
recent years in Russia
such names usually point modest public organizations. The president is sure that
“decision of Moldavian authorities to run an open confrontation with
Prydnistrovian
Republic
has buried any possibility of creation of
commonwealth”.
Position
of Stanislav Belkovski, a main Russian expert of this question, get an
international status and is corresponding with if not Russian official line but
political science’s one. “Things that are happening nowadays on Dnister river
banks have to put an end to many-year talks about federation and fantastic
projects of creation of commonwealth with centre in Kyshenev. Discrepancy
between those plans and reality became clear practically and theoretically. Official Tyraspol must set a course toward
total independence but not integration to other state – even if it be
Russia
or Ukraine”.
According
to Belkovski
Russia
has to be a guarantor of Prydnistrovian independence and Russian governing
groups has to clarify their position in this question. Otherwise they are risking to lose a role of
“post-Soviet space moderators”.
The
president of Institute
of Russian
national strategy considers that main thing is to concentrate efforts on
creation a “new image of Prydnistrovian
Republic
in West and, at first, in EU”.
On
the other hand Igor Savolskiy, a representative of official Moscow who visited
Dnister banks from 25 till 31, August, exhaustively explained Russian attitude
to recent events in the region – no changes in five-side format negotiations
(Ukraine, Russia, OBSE, Moldova and Prydnistrovia) and format of peacemaking
operation. Russia
would not follow Moldova
demands. Moscow
is ready to do everything in its power to avoid the escalation of conflict. But
it is clear that just conservation and preservation of uncertain situation as it
was in the past is not enough. (As we can see here positions of official
and unofficial Moscow
are “fitting” closely each other…).
http://unaunso.org
http://una-unso.info
http://vinnica.una-unso.info
http://kharkov.una-unso.info
