Moldova's independence is a dream never become true. Info-Prim Neo's interview with Ilya Trombitsky, the president of the NGO “Eco-tiras”

[ - Could you provide a definition for the Moldovan state at its 17th anniversary of the Independence? Could you please elaborate on the most important successes and failures?] - To define the independence in relation to Moldova is difficult in a single word. It's probably a dream never become true. As achievements I would say it enjoys more freedom of speech than other CIS states, a quite development civil society, inter-ethnic tolerance. As failures: it's incapacity to form a responsible state class of bureaucrats and the consequences of this incapacity: inefficiency in leading the country, the instability of the reached democratic values, the lack of a priority which would get together the citizens and their different self-identification. However, presenting my blue passport at the border with other countries, I smile and I am not ashamed, as some fellow citizens say. Moldova has many merits and I love and cherish my small motherland that I perceive through the people surrounding me. [ - To what extent is Moldova independent now? From whom?] - The problem of Moldova's independence is difficult. It was elaborated confusingly by MPs in the text of the Independence Declaration. They confusingly characterized the country as being unilaterally independent, but this means nothing. This confusion is permanently felt in the international relationships and it is confirmed not only by people from abroad, but also by our civil servants. Let us remember when the former representative to the UN, Alexei Tulbure, proposed to write “Moldova” and not “Republic of Moldova” on the UN's documents and plates. He wanted the Moldovan delegations to stay in the conference halls under the letter M, not under R, what, undoubtedly, would have been beneficial for Moldova's image as an independent state, not as a fragment from Romania. But namely because of this reason Mr. Tulbure was urgently dismissed by the partisans of that bureaucracy in the Government, which keep the country suspended not only in the imagination of its citizens, but on the world arena. And this happened recently, not in the 90s. Today, I think the value of the term “independence” is much exaggerated and fetishized, what would have been right for the beginning of the 20th century, not for the 21st century. For example the EU countries yield much of their independence instead of higher values. Certainly the final value of a country should be the citizens' development level, welfare and self-evaluation. For Moldova, the independence should be viewed as a condition through which it could accomplish the interests of its citzens. To a large extent, this possibility has not been capitalized, and that is why it is dependent first on its irresponsible national bureaucracy, often not so smart, and on those artificial values a not so developed country forms for itself. Being a small state, certainly it is dependent on the large and powerful states. But those advantages implied by the mobility of managing a small country are not capitalized and, consequently, it becomes even more dependent on strong states. Up to now, every party coming to power has not strengthened, but has weakened the country's independence on the account of inefficient economic policies and rising corruption. Both the unionists and the partisans of Moldavianism were mistaken to do so. That is why I am pessimistic as to the possibility of a political party to change the situation for better. I don't think the very close relationship between the economic development and the independence is not understood by the Moldovan elite, but this does not prevent it from enriching itself on the state's account. [ - You were one of the leaders of the Movement for Equality and Rights „Unitate-Edinstvo”. To what extend to you think the actions your team undertook then contributing for the betterment of the state and its people?] - The statement that I was one of the leaders of Unitate-Edinstvo is a wide-spread error. I was never a member of this political organization. I was put up to run for parliament by the team of scientists. Only sometimes my opinions in the parliament coincided with the ones of the leaders of Unitate on some key issues. I considered to separate the society according to ethnic and language criteria was dangerous and that proved then to be true as the country separated. I thought that the dismantlement of the USSR would bring a lot of misfortunes to people and I was right. It could have been worse. Nobody knew then how to peacefully separate from an inefficient regime. It's absurd not make part of a team in a parliament. I was then a member of the group of MPs “Soviet Moldova”, as „Unitate-Edinstvo” did. The ideological values of the Socialist economy were not close to me, nor to other MPs from that group, I'm rather liberal in this respect. That is why the faction dismantled in the next parliament. Despite the epithets the press attached to “Unitate” as to an extremist political party, I do not agree with them. The slogans promoted by us proved later to be true and were included in the legislation in accordance with the international commitments. We were a minority and that is why our achievements were rather modest, obviously. However, the so-called zero-variant for the citizenship law was adopted, and that was the key positive moment. Although I don't know what played a deciding role in that issue – our position, or the position of the new Moldovan bureaucrats, as most of them were married to Russian wives. We did not vote for any decision admitting the possibility to use the force “to re-establish the constitutional order” in Transnistria. I remember how in the spring of 1992 I insisted to introduce, into an ordinary decision on Transnistria, the wording “exclusively in a peaceful way”, but the poet leading the session asked: “How can we solve it in peaceful way?” When after the bloody events the Agrarian MPs figured it out, we proposed to dissolve the parliament earlier. Till then they were a tacit voting machine. [ - Which of the values promoted then you have remained devoted to?] - To the ones now called European. They are the minorities' rights, and the secondary importance of ethnicity in the relationships among people, and the need to take into account the interrelation among the economic development, the social needs and the environment conditions. And also the importance of the belief in the initiative of ordinary people. [- Which are the origins of the Transnistrian conflict that erupted during that period? It takes so long to see it solved and what may the solution be?] - I go on thinking that, although the ethno-linguistic bases were partially laid during the Soviet era, the blame for the dismantlement of the country and the bloodsheds fully lies on the politicians coming to power in Moldova in 1990. Then, when the nationalistic ambitions grew in Russia, Transnistria became one of the cards and the factors of Russia's policy in the close neighborhood countries. But, at the initial stage Russia's role is exaggerated by the Moldovan politicians. Then, a part of the Moldovan topnotch decided that, in the conditions of a chaos within the area, the moment came for the Basarabian part of Moldova to join Romania, and for that we needed to get rid of Transnistria and to involve Romania into the conflict. But the public and most of the MPs were not ready for that. That is why the scenario was a success only partially. I am confident the solution lies in federalizing the country, offering Transnistria wide autonomy, without joggling words and trying to deceive or to calm someone. There is no other way – in the area there formed a distinct bureaucratic class, satisfied with keeping on the present situation. The same can be said about the Moldovan bureaucracy. However it is not enough to reintegrate the country politically. It's important to obtain the trust of the people on the Nistru's left bank. For that, every decision taken by the right bank should be considered in terms of its being received on the left bank. Now they do not do it like that. The Moldovan functionaries rarely go to the left bank and practically do not know the situation and the life there. In the conscience of many of them, Moldova as a state ends on the Nistru's bank. In our NGO, we do much to strengthen the trust of the people from both banks, and the state has a lot of unachieved possibilities in this respect.