[ - At a recent conference, Moldova's first President Mircea Snegur said that the official Bucharest had supported the Moldovan authorities in the Nistru war. It is for the first time that the Romanian authorities' involvement in the events that followed Moldova's declaration of independence was officially recognized. Why now?] - It would be right to ask Mr. Snegur why he decided to make this statement now. However, I can confirm that Romania supported us in that period indeed, starting with the fact that it was the first county to recognize Moldova's independence. The idea of 'union' with Romania was then disseminated and continues to be disseminated, but this was then done by forces that intended to manipulate the electorate with the aim of winning the elections, first of all by the Communists Party. Romania backed the first Government of Moldova by sending groups of experts. It supported us in devising and issuing the national currency. As our market was fully unbalanced, the shops were empty, there were no consumer goods, Romania offered us a technical credit that enabled us to import goods that weren't produced in Moldova and take steps to balance the money supply with the supply of goods. Over the period that followed the proclamation of independence, we began building the armed forces of the new state, starting with the Ministry of Defense, which did not exist de facto. In fact, there was nothing. There were only military units on Moldova's territory, controlled by Moscow. Until we really took over, a large part of the armament that was on the territory of the given units was transported abroad. Certainly, in such a situation, when we started to create the armed forces, or, more precisely, the National Army, as we cannot say that 'armed forces' exist in Moldova, we were backed by Romania, which provided armament and military equipment to us. [ - In the same conference, the then Prime Minister of Romania Petre Roman refereed to the meetings in Hushi, where there were taken important and risky decisions. What was decided there, in Hushi?] - Everything I can say is that after declaring the independence, we faced a lot of problems. The creation of the state with all its institutions, administration, borders, customs, border guards, army, internal affairs, the financial-banking system and all the other elements needed by a state was the major problem. We did not have the necessary experience and thus we agreed with the Government of Romania, which was then headed by Petre Roman, to meet in Hushi. This settlement was chosen only because it was convenient for both of the sides. The meetings centered on the encountered problems and we looked for solutions. Three of four meetings were held in Hushi. They helped us create the state institutions and start administering the affairs in the state. Of course, the foreign policy was also a topic for discussion. We did not have experience and did not have diplomats then. We had to look for specialists for Air Moldova Company, which appeared then. We made an appeal to all the Moldovans doing their military service in military units in the former Soviet Union. About ten young men returned to Chisinau and received training, including as pilots of civil aircraft, and got practical experience in Bucharest, as we agreed with the Government of Romania. [ - How did the war on the Nistru start?] - The basis of the war were laid by the Soviet Government in 1924, when the Moldovan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was founded on the left bank of the Nistru, as part of the union republic Ukraine. That move by Moscow was aimed at re-annexing Bessarabia. Many things done under the Stalinist rule were designed to keep the territories within the Soviet Union, including by modifying the administrative borders and integrating the territories of some of the union republics into other union republics. The same happened in the case of Transnistria. A part of the northern territory and a part of southern Moldova were made part of Ukraine. The same method was used in Ukraine by annexing Crimea, in Georgia, in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Thus, they planned future conflicts that would allow Moscow maintain its influence over the given republics. In Transnistria, it wasn't an interethnic war as some say. The war in Transnistria was a consequence of the conflict programmed during Stalin's rule. When the national revival process started and most of the union republics declared their independence, the Communist ideology on the left bank of the Nistru had deep roots. There were many persons in favor of preserving the Soviet Union. Besides, the people there were manipulated with the 'union' with Romania. On the part of Chisinau, the war was fought by the forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and volunteers, while on the part of Tiraspol – by the 14th Army, Kazakh mercenaries and even criminals released from prisons, as well as volunteers. [ - What role did the Transnistrian politicians play?] - We cannot speak about the role played by separate persons because anyone of them could be replaced. If there wasn't Smirnov, there could be Antiufeev or someone else as Moscow's interest in this territory was enormous, Moldova being a bridge head for exit to the Balkans. Things developed from here, not from the appearance of Smirnov. There was a dominant interest that arouse during the Stalinist rule. Its repercussions continue to be felt. Russia's geopolitical interests remained the same. [ - At the same conference, you said the MPs elected on July 29 are luckier than the first authorities of the independent Moldova, at least because the leader of the Christian Democratic People's Party Iurie Rosca is not among them. What did you mean?] - Many people in Moldova, including me, especially while the Communists governed according to their methods, had expected changes. At the start of the 1990s, I was among those who laid the foundation of this state, with all the mistakes, shortcomings and delays, but it was a start. We all waited for a change to come after July 29. I have children, grandchildren and want them to live in a state with a clear polity, where the rights and interests of the people are observed. The election outcome was a great joy for me. Of course, there is room for skepticism given our political past. I mean the year 1998, when the Alliance for Democracy and Reform was founded. I always expected changes then, after the Agrarians had dominated the political life in the country for about six years. But we have the experience of 1998-2000. At the beginning, we were all waiting. Everything went well until splits appeared. It is well know that the PPCD and Rosca personally played an important role in dismembering the Alliance for Democracy and Reform.. [ - Did he pursue personal interests or he played somebody else' game?] - I think there were some foreign interests, besides the personal one. When the Sturza Government was installed, it announced Moldova's internal and foreign policy priorities, including the European integration objective. The PPCD left the Alliance immediately. It made the fragile Alliance to split. There were other political leaders who contributed to its dismemberment, but I do not want to talk about them. The PPCD voted in favor of the dismissal of the Sturza Government together with the Communists. They held 40 seats in the Parliament and wanted only splitting, destruction. Only that way they could come to power, using the nostalgia of a large part of the population and the existing chaos. That's why I said that I'm glad that Rosca is not among the four parties that formed the Alliance for European Integration. I hope there will be no person among them who will act as Rosca, who continues to be an enigma for me. I cannot understand how he managed to manipulate so many people, including me. I cannot explain how he could shout “Better Dead than Communist” in the central square in 2002 and then voted for them in three years. Many inexplicable things happen in Bessarbia. [ - How was the Moldova-Russian agreement of 1992 signed? Was the dismissal of the Muravski Government one of the conditions for signing it?] - I cannot say so. There were a number of causes for the dismissal, including the conflict between the Government and the Parliament. The Government put forward a privatization plan that was rejected. The Parliament preferred a plan proposed by a still unidentified group of persons, who were then supported by the Social Democratic Party and presented a social-populist project. They suggested distributing the property among the people on the basis of coupons. Surely, it was an illusion. The relations between the Government and the Parliament worsened and we did not have the necessary support. The initiated reforms were suspended. There appeared the Transnistrian dispute. There were a lot of problems on the left bank of the Nistru. The police commissariats in Dubasari, Grigoriopol and Tighina were permanently subjected to attacks by the Transnistrian forces. The Government was looking for solutions. One of the proposals that we tabled to the Parliament was to decentralize the power and give more authority to the local administrations. We suggested accepting Transnistria's status of free economic zone. We tried not to worsen the conflict and keep Transnistria within Moldova's borders. We thought in the future we could promote reforms, implement Western standards and improve the living conditions. It is said that the Muravschi Government was dismissed. In reality, in the then context, together with the other members of the Government, we decided to tender our resignation. It happened when the crisis in Transnistria deepened and the armed conflict in Tighina started. I, as a pacifist, could not accept such developments. President Mircea Snegur was looking for solutions to stop the war and signed the agreement with Yeltsin as it was clear from the start that Moldova could not defeat the 14th Army. It certain conditions were then imposed, I think they demanded that Moldova's foreign policy remained close to Moscow's interests. I have a good attitude towards the Russian people, but Russia as an empire has its own views and interests at the foreign level. At that stage, Russia pursued the geopolitical interests of the the former Soviet Union, as its successor. [ - Looking back in time, about 20 years later, do you see any other possibilities of managing the events in a different way?] - After the Government resigned, I think Snegur made everything possible to stop the war and thus signed the agreement with Yeltsin. It was a right decision. It is hard to say if there could have been used some other possibilities. The conflict smouldered on for years. There was a difference between the two banks of the Nistru even during the times of the Soviet Union. The major economic and industrial potential was concentrated on the left bank of the Nistru. The dispatching of the 14th Army there and the favoring of the Russian citizens, including military men who wanted to move and live in Transnistria, made the Communist ideology take root there. Possibly, the governors dis not make full use of the possibilities of informing the population. But the adversaries made use of this and manipulated the people in Transnistria, using such words as 'Romanian language', 'union' 'NATO'. That was the main failure of our policy on Transnistria. However, this is only a hypothesis. The interests invested in Transnistria dominated and dictated the developments. I think the local public administration reforms had to be hastened by extending the local autonomy and offering more economic rights, creating free economic zones. This could have prevented the worsening of the conflict, but the problem would have remained. [ - What solutions to the Transnistrian conflict can be identified today?] - Frankly speaking, I thought about this many times and found no solution. Russia's assertion that the resolution of the conflict depends on Chisinau and Tiraspol can be true only if it refers to the political will of the leaders form the two banks of the Nistru. But we should not forget that the Kremlin's interests stay behind Tiraspol's will. On the other hand, the solving of the conflicts in Moldova and the whole world depends on the great powers, the U.S. and Russia. The most painful thing is that besides the greatest problems that we faced during over 20 years and the incapacity to govern this small country, Transnistria consumed a lot of our political efforts and hindered our development and the implementation of Western standards. A solution can be identified with the help of Moscow and Washington. It seems that the relations between the two powers started to improve, especially after the U.S. abandoned the intention to place military bases in the Czech Republic and Poland. If no solutions are identified with the help of Moscow and Washington, Moldova could accept the Cypriot model of solving the conflict. Let Transnistria exist. It is not recognized. We, those living on the right bank of the Nistru, can come closer to the Western standards, improve the living conditions and achieve things that could change the view and attitude of the Transnistrian population. However, I think that the chances that Russia could change its attitude towards the Transnistrian dispute and support its resolution in a clear way are greater than 15 – 18 years ago. The status of the Balkans' is now different as Russia's attention is not focused on them anymore. On the other hand, I hope the Russian authorities of the younger generation will realize that the mankind and the planet now face more serious challenges that can be dealt with only by concerted effort. They could then understand that it is not worth losing effort in a Transnistria or South Ossetia. This is my ground for optimism.