Freedom and democracy: The only choice for Transnistria

After almost two decades of leaving Transnistria out in the cold, some in the international community are now beginning to realize that it makes no sense to keep the people of Transnistria in their constitutional limbo indefinitely.

This leaves two choices: A forced integration with Moldova, which more than 95% of Transnistria's voters are strongly opposed to. Or else the choice of recognizing de jure the existence of an independent state which is already there de facto.

Doing the latter is the only realistic option. Western leaders understandably don't want to ignore Moldova's concerns, but they should also realize that Moldova's dead-end policies toward Transnistria can only prolong regional instability. According to recent polls in Moldova, the so called "re-integration" with Transnistria is not a priority at all. Only 3% consider it important, and almost two-thirds (62% according to the latest survey) are willing to give up the territorial claim in order to speed up Moldova's process of European integration.

Both Transnistria and Moldova will benefit if they choose freedom and democracy instead of imposed solutions that the voters in both areas have already rejected. And this freedom is the only realistic choice that Moldova has left for Transnistria unless it wants to forcefully impose its rule over a people that does not accept being governed by Moldova, and indeed defended itself successfully in a short but brutal war precisely to avoid this outcome.

Sooner or later, Moldova will have to drop its unrealizable claim to Transnistria - just as Romania dropped its claims to parts of Ukraine, even though it had a much stronger legal and historical basis for reclaiming these "lost lands." In the case of Transnistria, it was never a historical or ethnic part of Moldova. In fact, in its own unilateral declaration of independence, Moldova specifically renounced the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which originally had brought the two incompatible areas together for the first time in history. The same declaration also re-established Moldova as an independent state only "within its historical and ethnic area."

Absent any solid legal or historical arguments for laying claim to Transnistria, are there any moral reasons for denying this population the right to have a say in its own future?

Independence for Transnistria will bring the population into the international system and will make the new country a partner and responsible member of the global community of states, in which they will have the same rights and responsibilities - and will have to play by the same rules - as other European nations.

With their status and borders safe, the Transnistrians will be able to pursue a win-win policy with Moldova without any fear of economic warfare or other retaliations, such as the surprise customs move which following Moldova's break-off of talks in early 2006 and which subsequently caused more than $500 million dollars in direct losses according to Transnistrian government estimates.

Resentment of the policies of the neighbor next door will turn to trust and co-operation as the two sides work begin to together to lift the catastrophic poverty levels of the overall region. This will improve the living standards of Moldovans both in their own country and in Transnistria, which itself is home to a sizeable Moldovan minority.

As trust among the citizens of the region is building, so will progress in democracy and demilitarization move forward. This will be a boon to human rights and minority rights on both sides of the Dniester river. The conflict is not ethnically based, and there have been no large scale ethnic mistreatment in Transnistria, so progress in this area will be easy - unlike in Kosovo, where a declaration of independence did nothing to improve relations between the Kosovo Albanians and the area's Serb minority.

The Kosovo Albanians have had a very poor record where treatment of the Kosovo Serb minority is concerned, involving, in the orchestrated riots of March 2004 in particular, pogroms and the burning of Serb homes and churches. No such activities ever took place in Transnistria, where the Moldovan minority is integrated and in fact is overwhelmingly supportive of Transnistria's independence with nearly the same level of pro-independence supporters as the other ethnic minorities.

In both Moldova and Transnistria, more work is still needed in areas such as democratic governance and peace support. With Moldova sharing a common border with the European Union, the active involvement of the EU in the conflict's resolution must center on the need for consensus based on the democratic decisions made by the directly affected populations.

Throughout its history, Europe has embraced the emergence of newly independent states, from Switzerland and the Netherlands in 1648 to Montenegro in 2006. In fact, most states in Europe today originally seceded from a larger entity - as indeed did the United States. The emergence of new states has never meant the collapse of the international order or a free-for-all, but is simply an inevitable, unavoidable and ultimately desirable part of Europe's evolution.

Also by John Moynihan:
» Memo to State: Face up to reality
» The Fourth World: Invisible countries
» Ending the Transdniester frozen conflict
» Double standards over Kosovo
» Why 1924-thinking for Transnistria - Moldova unification won't work
» Transnistria next in line for recognition?
» "Massive" ethnic cleansing in Transnistria
» No one's permission needed for Transnistria independence
» Moldova more afraid of Kosovo independence than Serbia
» Through freedom and democracy, new states are born