When speaking about the Transnistrian conflict, it is easier to say what it is not than what it is, said expert Igor Botan, according to whom this dispute is an emergent one or a consequence of the dismemberment of the Soviet Union, which was an ideological empire. In the public debate “What are the chances of unfreezing the frozen Nistru conflict?” that was staged by IPN News Agency and Radio Moldova de la Nistru?”, the standing expert of the IPN project said the mistakes of the political class fueled this conflict.
“To the largest part of the Transnistrians, the Transnistrian region and what was built there was presented as the last bastion of the Soviet Union, in terms of a formula of resistance to the dismemberment of the Soviet Union. On this side of the Nistru, there was an enthusiastic wave of national renaissance and these two perceptions were used by the politicians from both sides of the Nistru, not necessarily with ill will. There were a lot of phobias that weren’t very well realized and that ultimately led to what we call today a frozen conflict,” stated Igor Botan.
According to the expert, the notion of ‘frozen conflict’ means that until things are clarified, the conflict remains in the same state, while the international partners that take part in the talks guarantee that none of the sides would leave the format of this conflict. “The current format includes the adoption of the law of 2005 that, at legislative level, freezes the conflict and does not leave room for unfreezing it without the participation of Parliament, by three-fifths of the vote and by inspiring hope on both sides,” he stated.
Igor Botan noted that the hopes for Chisinau were related to the association with the European Union and the transformation of the right bank into an attractive model for the Transnistrians. Now that Russia claims to be a pole of the multipolar world, when it defends the really conservative Christian values, hope that this conflict can be solved with the help of Russia from the perspective of the Christian “Russian world” appears on the other side of the Nistru.
The expert also said that owing to the Transnistrian self-segregation, the right bank had the chance to become more attractive for the left bank, but missed this chance. He stated that the solution to establish a border on the Nistru proposed by the leader of “The Right” Ana Gutu is the first step towards separating the Transnistrian region from Moldova and this thing should be said clearly, but such an idea has the right to life.
In this connection, Igor Botan gave as example the region with mainly Gagauz population, where there also was a national renaissance movement, but, owing to its cooperation with the People’s Front of the rest of the country, an armed conflict was avoided. The conflict in Transnistria appeared when a choice was to be made between staying in the Soviet Union and declaring Moldova’s independence.
Replying to the Socialist MP Vlad Batrancea’s assertion that the Party of Socialists is the only one that proposed the federalization idea, the expert said three federalization projects existed earlier. “The first was proposed by the OSCE in 2002 and was rejected by Transnistria. The second was launched in 2003. It was an asymmetric federation project suggested by ex-President of Moldova Vladimir Voronin. Based on this, a Constitution for an asymmetric state was thought up. But things stopped when they reached the rebellion actions in case of poor governance and the Transnistrians opposed and insisted on contractual federation under which the sides after the conflict become independent subjects by delegating the powers to a federal center that takes part in the decision-making process. When they do not like something, they leave. This was the big problem that couldn’t have been overcome,” said Igor Botan, calling on the Socialists to specify their federalization proposal.
The expert also said that the confidence building measures should be improved because no one can ignore the about 300,000 Moldovans from the left side of the Nistru. “It’s good to have more solutions, but we should take into account the fact that the regional safety architecture will one day be transformed by Russia or other powers and, when sitting at the negotiating table, those form the right bank of the Nistru will have to come up with the own project for the Transnistrian region so that the U.S. or Russia eventually provide guarantees, including financial, that the project will be viable because any other federalization and isolation attempts will fail,” he stated.
The public debate “What are the chances of unfreezing the frozen Nistru conflict?” is the 71st installment of the series of debates “Developing political culture by public debates” that are organized with support from the Hanns Seidel Foundation of Germany.
