|
Muddled Amity
Improving the Moldovan-Romanian Relationship |
|
INSIDE:
Muddled Amity...
|
Introduction |
It is said that Moldova and Romania are two states divided by a common
language. The divide is seen in the occasional outbursts of unfortunate
rhetoric that erupt on both sides of the Prut River, often when someone
waxes poetic over the unity of all Romanians. Such oratorical outbursts
and the inevitable reaction they generate reveal a mystifying lack of
understanding on both sides that feeds the antagonistic goals of other
parties. Bound together by ethnicity, united by the past, reshaped by
history, but divided by current realities, the two nations ought to be
each others best friends. Actually, they are, but in practice they
sometimes behave in peculiar ways that not even they understand. Take,
for example, the way in which the recent statements of Romanian
President Traian Basescu regarding the future of Romania and Moldova
within the EU were completely twisted around by some in Moldova to
create an impression that Romania had reached an understanding with
Russia to divide Moldova with Romania taking Bessarabia and Russia
taking Transdniestria. Or the lack of sense exhibited by one Romanian
political leader who should know better who proposed a referendum for
Transdniestria after ten years of a projected UN protectorate, giving
the false impression that any referendum in Transdniestria can be
legitimate without Moldova’s sovereign consent – a proposal that is
particularly untimely at a moment when Russia is behind a sham
referendum regarding Transdniestria’s future relationship with Moscow
scheduled for September 17th. Neither the Moldovans nor the Romanians
are to blame for their misunderstandings; yet both are at fault. The
unbridled manner in which some activists make or react to various
pronouncements unwittingly supports Russia's strategy to disembowel
Moldova. Moldova and Romania should instead expend their energies in
tandem to thwart the threatened establishment of a Russian Transnistria. |
[ Up
to Contents ] |
Brief History Lesson |
Moldova consists of Bessarabia on the west bank of the Dniestr River and
Transdniestria on the east bank. Bessarabia was once part of an
independent Moldovan state in the 15th century under Stefan the Great,
but subsequently fell under Ottoman rule in the 16th century. After the
Russo-Turkish War of 1806-12, Bessarabia was ceded to Russia.
Transnistria was part of Russia, but was in the districts of Podolia and
Kherson. Following World War I and in the wake of the Russian
Revolution, Bessarabia, with its overwhelming ethnic Romanian
population, voted in a plebiscite to become part of Romania. In 1940,
the USSR and Germany signed the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which,
among other things, provided for the USSR’s annexation of Bessarabia, by
then a part of Romania for more than twenty years. Stalin merged
Bessarabia with Transdniestria into the Moldavian Soviet Socialist
Republic which became the fifteenth republic within the USSR. On August
27, 1991, the Moldovan parliament declared Moldova an independent
republic. Meanwhile, in Transdniestria, a group of Russian factory
managers, with the support of the Russian 14th Army, declared
Transdniestria to be independent of Moldova, arguing that independence
was necessary to protect the Russian minority in Transdniestria from the
possible reunification of Moldova with Romania. Civil war broke out, and
on July 21, 1992, the fighting ended with Moldova signing a cease-fire
agreement with Russia. The result of the Russian intervention was that
Transdniestria became effectively partitioned from the rest of Moldova
and is today, in the words of The Economist, “a racketeering scheme with
a territorial pendent.” No nation in the world recognizes the
independence of Transdniestria, but the Russians provide it with succor. |
[ Up
to Contents ] |
Moldovan Nationhood |
Although there had been talk of the reestablishment of the union of
Moldova with Romania following Moldova’s declaration of independence, it
quickly became apparent that this was, more or less, a pipe dream.
Although Moldova is two-thirds ethnically Romanian, few people want it
to be a part of Romania – not the EU, not Ukraine, Hungary, Russia or,
for that matter, most Romanians who understand that the economic burden
entailed by Moldova’s absorption would be overwhelming – and
particularly not now when it would disrupt Romania’s imminent entry into
the European Union. Moldovans do not want reunification either. The
pro-Romanian Popular Front was soundly defeated in the February 1994
Moldovan elections and over 90 percent of the population rejected
unification with Romania. Because its people want a national identity of
their own, Moldova has strived to create a sense of nationhood. It
emphasizes its own history – separate from that of Romania – as well as
its modern record of laudable inter-ethnic relations. It must do this if
it is ever to resolve the Transdniestrian conflict, one elemental aspect
of which is the fear of eventual unification with Romania.
Reunification
is so fraught with difficulties for Romania that astute observers
dismiss it. Moldovans might be ethnically Romanian, but most of them
have been raised in the Soviet Union speaking Russian and have
characteristics that are as much Russian as they are Romanian. Of
greater concern is that much of Moldovan industry is now Russian-owned,
which is problematic for Romanians. This is coupled with the economic
difficulties of supporting Moldova, creating little support for
unification in Romania, at least for the foreseeable future.
Nevertheless, some Romanian political leaders simply cannot prevent
themselves from making grand references to their shared history with
Moldova and the unity of all Romanians – even when they know that it’s
pure rhetoric no different than Hungary’s propensity to proclaim its
ties to its Diaspora in neighboring countries (expressions that drive
Romanians to distraction). These comments set off a chain reaction in
Chisinau where pundits and politicians tend to twist Romanian
pronouncements into things that were never meant or even said in order
to demonstrate a disassociation with Romania that is, in reality,
fanciful too. |
[ Up
to Contents ] |
The Basescu Brouhaha |
An excellent example is the rather innocuous remarks on July 1 of
President Basescu regarding Romania’s future relationship with Moldova.
The President was speaking to a group of Moldovan High School students
visiting Bucharest and, quite innocently, commented on the bonds that
unite them. President Basescu said: “I was always one of those
politicians who spoke in favor of the need to maintain a good, open
relationship with the Republic of Moldova that will accelerate the
motion of the Republic of Moldova so that, not in the most distant
future, we could reunite, this time inside the EU. . . . We are
confident that the cultural links between educational systems of both
countries contribute to the preservation of links between Romania and
the Republic of Moldova, which used to be once upon a time a single
country. We are the only country, the only people, which remain still
divided. Germany reunited its nation; Romania remains still divided into
two countries. But, I will repeat, our reunification will occur inside
of the European Union and in no other way.”
President
Basescu thus said the same thing that just about every Romanian
political leader has been saying for fifteen years -- Moldova is a
separate nation whose sovereignty and territorial integrity Romania
fully respects; and the only way that the two peoples will ever be
united again will be under the umbrella of the European Union. However,
almost at once, some Moldovans claimed that President Basescu had urged
the reunification of Moldova and Romania as part of Romania’s accession
process with the European Union. It was asserted that President Basescu
had suggested that Romania and Moldova join the EU together as a unified
nation. It was claimed that because he had also condemned the Molotov-Ribbentrop
Pact, which only dealt with Bessarabia, Basescu meant to restore the
right bank of Dniestr River to Romania leaving the left-bank to the
Russians. How could serious people believe that the President of Romania
would suggest to Brussels on the eve of Romania’s entry into the EU, a
scenario that would clearly jeopardize its accession? The EU negotiated
accession with Romania and not with some hybrid union of Romania and
Moldova. Moldova is far from meeting the criteria and conditions to even
commence the EU accession process and joining it to Romania would delay
Romanian accession for years. Moreover, the EU would never consider
taking half of Moldova and reducing Transnistria to a sort of
"Kaliningrad-on-the-Dniestr", as the noted columnist, Vladimir Socor,
has called Russia’s latest Transnistrian misadventure. |
[ Up
to Contents ] |
The Consequences of Innocent Expressions |
Immediately on the heels of the mischaracterization of President Basescu’s July
1st remarks, a committee was formed in Chisinau to support the "Basescu
initiative" and it called upon citizens of Moldova to "collect signatures to
support the "Basescu declarations". The Committee was created by the leaders of
various pro-Romanian unification groups to support their misguided view of the
declarations of the Romanian President. In response, the Chairman of the
Russian Congress of Communities of Moldova called for a referendum on the
independence of Transdniestria, so that "the people of Transdniestria will have
the full right to self-determination.” The influential Russian newspaper
Nezavisimaya Gazeta, wrote that “in Transdniestria, Basescu’s ‘declaration’
is almost applauded”. Transdniestria’s sinister minister of security, Vladimir
Antiufeev, declared that “as shown in Traian Basescu’s ‘declaration’, the
historic plans of Romania concerning Moldova remain the same. And we will take
that into consideration in our negotiations with Chisinau. Also, we will insist
on increasing the numbers of Russian peacekeepers in the conflict region.”
Nezavisimaya Gazeta said that Basescu’s ‘declaration’ will consolidate
Russia’s position in Transdniestria. |
[ Up
to Contents ] |
The Transnistrian Referendum |
A former Romanian Foreign Minister, whose intellect is widely admired, in an
article published by the Bucharest newspaper "Ziua", wrote that "Moldova
should not be a hostage of the Transdniester crisis; a crisis that prevents
currently both its democratic internal development and European integration. . .
. Transdniester should become a protectorate under the UN or OSCE flag for a
period of five to ten years, a period of time when it would be assisted with the
implementation of a program of democratization, eradication of crime and
demilitarization. Russia could have in this context a leading role, similar to
US’ role in Kosovo. . . . At the end of the protectorate period, and after the
accession of the Dniestr West bank Moldova to the EU, the population from
Transdniestria would be able to decide through a referendum if they want to be
part of Moldova (and thus of the EU) with an extensive autonomy established on
the basis of the Moldovan laws or to become an independent state based on
certain international guarantees".
It was quickly pointed out in Moldova that a similar disintegration plan was
proposed in 2004 by the director of the Moscow-based Institute of National
Strategy, Stanislav Belkovski. According to the "Belkovski Plan", a union
between Bessarabia and Romania and a concomitant recognition of Transdniester's
right to self-determination would satisfy the interests of all the peoples in
the region. The annexation of Bessarabia according to the reunification model of
West and East Germany would give a powerful impetus to the national development
and would practically allow Romania to escape today's state of national
depression," noted Mr. Belkovski.
The suggestion that a referendum on secession is an appropriate way to settle
the Transdniestrian conflict – even one run ten years from now by the UN or the
OSCE – disregards entirely Moldova’s sovereignty. The right of
self-determination does not encompass a general right of secession. While
self-determination is an internationally recognized principle, secession is
considered a domestic issue that each state must assess itself. Respect for the
territorial integrity of existing states is paramount except under limited
circumstances none of which exist in Transdniestria (see the New York City Bar
Association report on the subject at:
http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/NYCity%20BarTransnistriaReport.pdf . There
is no legal basis for a claim of secession under external self-determination for
Transnistria, and referendums that seek to produce such a result violate
international law without the approval Moldova. Nevertheless, the Russians are
advocating Transnistria’s accession to the Russian Federation through a
referendum – one that will be devoid of any indicia of free-will. Their
contrived result will undoubtedly be used by Russia to endow its control over
Transnistria with a feigned “democratic” façade in an attempt to legitimize
permanent Russian control of the region. For a Romanian politician to suggest
that any referendum is an appropriate and legal method to resolve the conflict
is imprudence bordering upon folly.
Fortunately, the United States and the OSCE have both stated that neither will
recognize the results of the planned independence referendum in Transdniestria.
Speaking in Vienna at a meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe's (OSCE) Permanent Council, U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE Julie Finley
said that the referendum could not be seen as a legitimate expression of the
will of the province's people and that no country would recognize Transdniestria
as a state with a lawful government. Finley also called on Russia to demand that
Transdniestrian officials cancel the planned referendum and help find a
negotiated settlement to the conflict. On July 26, U.S. Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State David Kramer said in a meeting with Moldovan President
Vladimir Voronin that the international community will not recognize the
referendum's results. US President George Bush told reporters at the White
House on July 27th that: "We [President Basescu and I] talked
about the neighboring region of Moldova, and I assured the Romanian President
that the position of the US on Moldova is based on the fact that we support its
territorial integrity." President Basescu added that "[President Bush and
I] analyzed the situation in Moldova and the necessity to have its territory
free of any foreign influence."
As Vlad Socor aptly noted: “It is inopportune to emphasize historical and
national identity problems, and to resume discussions that render political the
"Moldovan or Romanian" issue. Moldova has long ago found out the
counterproductive effects of such approaches: social disunion, distracting
attention from real problems, mutual attacks in media, lack of confidence
between the two banks of the Prut, and drawing water to Tiraspol's mill. It is
also inopportune to formulate the problem in territorial terms, being nostalgic
about the "lost territories" - this vision is misplaced nowadays. The consistent
return to the historical problems and the national identity issue does not
represent Romania's political strategy on Moldova. They rather point to a
deficit of strategy. Last year, President Basescu proceeded to repair this
deficit, repeatedly stating that the time is ripe to move from discussions about
history and philology to measures in the gas and electricity sectors. The
Romanian president was right to incriminate Russia's "energy blackmail" and
promised to help Moldova cope with it. A European partnership with Moldova will
bring regional and international credibility and prestige to Romania. On the
contrary, a policy based on historical and identity criteria is no longer
understood in the contemporary Europe, especially if such a policy is officially
presented in this old-fashioned way.”What Moldova needs from Romania are
more voices trumpeting the territorial integrity of the country like those of
Presidents Bush and Basescu (and Romanian Foreign Minister Ungureanu). What
Moldova especially needs from Romania and other nations is concrete assistance
in thwarting Russia’s illegal plans for Transdniestria. This is what Romanians
should be discussing – not fanciful visions of the future based upon imprudent
and irrational notions. |
[ Up
to Contents ] |
The Moldovan Language |
Odd things also originate in Moldova. For example, one of the reasons
that no treaty has been signed between Romania and Moldova has been the
issue of language. As part of the USSR’s Russification program in
Moldova, the Cyrillic script was required for written Romanian and the
Soviets called the Romanian language written in Cyrillic “Moldavian.”
Rather than call the language what it is – Romanian --Moldova’s
constitution makes Russian and “Moldovan” the nation’s official
languages. The Austrians don’t mind using German and the American’s
speak English despite the Revolutionary War. Although this may be akin
to Serbo-Croatian being called Serbian on one side of the border and
Croatian on the other, it is without any ethnic justification. Of
course, the Moldovans can call their language anything they like, but
insisting that the yet-to-be concluded base treaty with Romania be
executed in duplicate in both languages has a sort of an Alice in
Wonderland aspect to it. Would it not be far better if the parties
agreed to sign one document and each call the language whatever it
pleases? Presumably, Ştefan the Great, the fifteenth century ruler of
Moldavia, did not have these issues when he accepted the help of the
Walachian prince Vlad Tepes to secure his throne in 1457 and both of
them spoke in Romanian. Moldova needs to exercise a bit more confidence
in its own identity, and Romania should recognize that despite the fact
that it was the first country in the world to recognize the Moldovan
state, the failure to execute a basic treaty recognizing Moldova’s
territorial integrity is seen by others as an assertion of Romanian
hegemony even though that does not exist. |
[ Up
to Contents ] |
Conclusion |
The
polemics of historical and national identity issues are
counterproductive to the interests of both Romania and Moldova. They
play into the hands of the Russians in Transnistria at the very moment
when Moldova has to face a Russian economic and political siege.
Mistrust and miscommunication between Bucharest and Chisinau favor
Russia's strategy. Both nations should by now know that reopening these
matters always leads to misunderstandings and disunion. Romania should
instead provide Moldova with the assistance that it needs to develop its
state institutions and internationalize the Transdniestrian conflict –
and the Moldovans should be confident enough to warmly accept such
assistance. |
[ Up
to Contents ] |
Editors Note: It is our policy not to mention our clients by name in
The Romanian Digest™ or discuss their business unless it is a matter of
public record and our clients approve. The information herein is correct
to the best of our knowledge and belief at press time. Specific advice
should be sought from us, however, before investment or other decisions
are made.
Copyright 2006 Rubin Meyer Doru & Trandafir, societate civila de avocati.
All rights reserved. No part of The Romanian Digest™ may be reproduced,
reused or redistributed in any form without prior written permission
from the publisher.
|
RUBIN MEYER DORU & TRANDAFIR
societate civila de avocati
Str. Putul cu Plopi, Nr.7, Sector 1
Bucharest, Romania
Tel: (40) (21) 311 14 60
Fax: (40) (21) 311 14 65
E-Mail:
office@hr.ro
VISIT OUR WEB SITE:
http://www.hr.ro
The Romanian Digest Archive
|
AFFILIATED WITH:
Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C.
125 Broad Street
New York, NY, 10004
Tel: (212) 471-8500
Fax: (212) 344-3333
http://www.herzfeld-rubin.com
Herzfeld & Rubin LLP
1925 Century Park East
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel: (310) 553-0451
Fax: (310) 553-0648
Chase, et al.,Herzfeld & Rubin, LLC
5N Regent Street
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
Tel: (973) 535-8840
Fax: (973) 535-8841
Israeli Affiliated Law Firm
Balter Guth Aloni & Co.
96 Yigal Alon Street,
Tel Aviv, 67891, Israel
Tel: +972-3-511-1111
Fax: +972-3-624-6000 |
|
New York — California — New Jersey — Romania |
If you no longer wish to receive emails
from us, please send an e-mail with UNSUBSCRIBE
in the subject line to
Romanian.Digest@hr.ro. |
|