MOLDOVA: Soviet Ways Surface in a Corner

By Zoltán Dujisin Reprint | | Print |

Analysis by Zoltán Dujisin

BUDAPEST, Oct 16 2006 (IPS) - After the breakaway Moldovan region of Transnistria voted for independence in a referendum last month, Russian diplomacy seems to indicate willingness to recognise a de facto state whose legitimacy the international community persistently denies.

One year after its independence in 1991, a brief civil war erupted in Moldova, a former Soviet republic of 4.5 million, after a fringe of land east of the river Dniester proclaimed independence.

Russian peacekeeping forces, siding with the Transnistrians on this stretch apparently to protect its Russian and Ukrainian population, enforced a ceasefire and have since remained in the area, though in decreased numbers.

Seventy-eight percent of the 400,000 voters registered in Transnistria participated in the Sep. 17 referendum, and 97 percent of them backed independence from Moldova and an eventual union with Russia.

Electoral events in Transnistria have always been internationally ignored, but factions in the Russian state Duma (parliament) now hint at diplomatic recognition. A recent Duma statement notes that the international community should “take into consideration” the referendum’s results.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OCSE) mission in Moldova has refused to recognise the vote, claiming it was neither free nor fair. Transnistrian officials accused the OSCE of making unsubstantiated statements, as the organisation did not accept the region’s invitation to monitor the elections.

While there have not been reports of serious violations, Western observers point to the lack of democratic mechanisms ensuring a fair public opinion debate.

Transnistria is generally believed to have an authoritarian and Russian-controlled regime, though the extent of such control is open to debate.

Its capital Tiraspol boasts all the institutions and symbols of a state, including a parliament and a well controlled public discourse and educational system. But the region is often perceived as a centre for illicit activities related to arms, drugs and human trafficking.

A European Union border monitoring mission has concluded that the extent of criminal activities across borders had been puffed up by Moldovan officials.

After the victory, the leader of the breakaway region Igor Smirnov announced plans to bring social, customs, financial and education policies in line with Moscow so as to facilitate a future merger..

Following a visit to Russia by Smirnov, Russian deputy foreign minister Grigoriy Karasin held talks with both Moldovan and Transnistrian authorities, calling for a resumption of negotiations between the two parts..

While talks are likely to continue, the deadlock is based on disagreements over the region’s status. The Transnistrian leadership demands a co-federal state, whereas Moldova has only offered autonomy.

The vote came in the context of an agreement between Moldova and Ukraine stipulating that all Transnistrian goods must receive customs clearance in Moldova.

The move, which Transnistrian authorities called an economic blockade and which Russia opposed, was justified by Moldova as arising from a need to combat widespread smuggling.

Additionally, recent joint military exercises between nominally neutral Moldova and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) forces were described by Transnistrian officials as an act of intimidation.

While pro-European feelings grow in Moldova, “Russia is perceived as the best supporter and friend of the Transnistrian people,” Razvan Dumitru, fellow at University College London told IPS.

“Through combined factors of illegal economic activities, support from Moscow and defiance of international regulations of borders, the region has managed to maintain a higher standard of living for its citizens,” says Dumitru.

The regime enjoys popular support, according to several local reports. Many citizens uphold a more ‘Soviet’ concept of democracy focusing on social justice and benefits, and are unwilling to dismantle their system in favour of liberal-democratic models, these reports suggest.

Pluralism is allowed only to the extent that it will not threaten the regime, as even the opposition is keen on maintaining the benefits resulting from political autonomy.

The main political parties in Transnistria supported the referendum, but some local NGOs have criticised authorities for pressuring its citizens to participate in the referendum. They see it as a political move by Smirnov to enhance his popularity ahead of a Dec. 10 presidential vote.

Opposition papers call the vote a publicity stunt and criticise the president for not holding the referendum in line with Moldovan legislation, which would have facilitated recognition.

An OSCE delegation is planning to visit Transnistria to reassess its capacity to hold democratic elections, and is likely to suggest improvements that could take years to materialise. Only once these standards have been met is the self-proclaimed republic likely to spot any signs of international acceptance.

In the meantime Transnistrian officials keep all options open and accuse the West of double standards, pointing to examples in the former Yugoslav regions of Montenegro and Kosovo.

Moscow is awaiting the results of negotiations on Kosovo’s status to assume a more definite position, but it is aware of the economic burden the absorption of a Transnistrian enclave would carry, while it fears encouraging many of the independent-minded regions within Russia.

The Moldovan government accuses Russia of tampering with its territorial integrity and has called the referendum “a farce”.