Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T05:59:28.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Transnistrian Republic: A Case of Politicized Regionalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Pål Kolstø  and
Andrei Malgin
Pål Kolstø
Affiliation:
University of Oslo, Norway
Andrei Malgin
Affiliation:
University of Simferopol in Crimea, Ukraine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The collapse of communism in the Soviet Union has opened up a Pandora's box of communal conflicts. In most Western analyses the majority of these conflicts are subsumed under the heading “ethnic.” This is often the case also with the conflict in Moldova between the national regime in Chišinàu and the insurgent regime in Tiraspol that controls the left bank of the Dnestr river. To be sure, there is an ethnic component to this conflict, but ethnicity clearly is not the main driving force behind it. While ethnic Moldovans make up approximately 70% of the inhabitants on the right bank, there is no ethnic majority on the left bank: 40% of the population are Moldovans, 25% Ukrainians, and 23% Russians. In fact, the Chišinàu leadership downplays the ethnic component in its standoff with Tiraspol. The values at stake, they insist, are basically political in nature.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 1998 , pp. 103 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. See for instance Halbach, Uwe, Ethno-territoriale Konflikte in der GUS (Cologne: Berichte des Bundesinstitut für ostwissenschaftliche und internationale Studien, 1992), p. 31; Nowak, Jürgen, Europas Krisenherde—Nationalitätenkonflikte vom Atlantik bis zum Ural—ein Handbuch (Hamburg: Rowolt Verlag, 1994); and Chinn, Jeff and Roper, Steven D., “Ethnic Mobilization and Reactive Nationalism: The Case of Moldova,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1995.Google Scholar

2. Novoe vremia, No. 43, 1992, pp. 8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Kolstoe, Paul, Russians in the Former Soviet Republics (London: C. Hurst, 1995), p. 157.Google Scholar

4. Grazhdanin Moldovy, 3 June 1992, as quoted in “Human Rights in Moldova, the Turbulent Dnester,” Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, March 1993, p. vi. The authors of the Human Rights Watch report think that “it would be incorrect to view the power struggle in eastern Moldova as primarily an inter-ethnic conflict, as some elements of the Russian and western media, among others, have asserted. This interpretation misrepresents the actual mixed ethnic and linguistic composition of the fighting forces, and the generally harmonious ethnic relations within Moldova's heterogeneous society.” Op. cit., p. 3.Google Scholar

5. Kaufman, Stuart, “Russian Policy and Local Elites in Moldova's Civil War,” paper presented at the AAASS, October 1995, p. 11.Google Scholar

6. Ibid., p. 3. The idea that Russophones in the non-Russian Soviet successor states may in time coalesce into separate cultural groups with an identity of their own, is discussed by Pål Kolstø in “The New Russian Diaspora—An Identity of Its Own?” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3, July 1996, pp. 609–639; and affirmed by David Laitin in “Identity in Formation: The Russian-Speaking Nationality in the Post-Soviet Diaspora,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1994.Google Scholar

7. Dnestrovskaia pravda, 28 November 1991, p. 1.Google Scholar

8. Ťara (Russian edition), 25 February 1992, p. 15.Google Scholar

9. See e.g., Bloom, William, Personal Identity, National Identity and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 51; passim. The mutual dependence of élites and masses, we believe, was during perestroika common to the political mobilization on both sides of the Dnester. On this point our interpretation is at variance with Kaufman's distinction between mass-led mobilization on the right bank and élite-led mobilization on the left bank. Also on the right bank the mobilization was led by an intellectual élite, only not the élite in power, but by the counter-élite of the Popular Front.Google Scholar

10. For an analysis of the role of Russia and Romania in the Dnester conflict, highlighting its often deleterious impact, see Stuart Kaufman and Stephen R. Bowers’ contribution to this volume.Google Scholar

11. Interview with Andrei Safonov in Tiraspol, 2 May 1996.Google Scholar

12. Interview with PMR Secretary of state, Valerii Litskai, September 1992.Google Scholar

13. Litskai, Valerii in Dnestrovskaia pravda, 15 April 1993, p. 2.Google Scholar

14. See, e.g., the views expressed by the leader of the Donbas intermovement, Kornilov, Dmitrii, in Donetskii kryazh, No. 23, 25 June–1 July 1993.Google Scholar

15. In the Southern part there were also compact settlements of Bulgarians, Turkic-speaking Orthodox Gagauzi, etc.Google Scholar

16. See Charles King's contribution to this volume.Google Scholar

17. We owe the observation of the Moldovan–German parallel to Wim van Meurs.Google Scholar

18. King, Charles, “Eurasia Letter: Moldova with a Russian Face,” Foreign Policy, No. 97, Winter 1994–1995, pp. 106–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Interview with the chairman of the PMR Supreme Soviet, Maracuťa, Grigore, Dnestrovskaia pravda, 2 November 1991.Google Scholar

20. Kaufman, , op. cit., pp. 26–27; “Human Rights in Moldova,” op. cit., pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

21. Trudovoi Tiraspol', special edition, Daidzhest, Vol. 4, 1992.Google Scholar

22. “Human Rights in Moldova,” op. cit., pp. 17–18. See also Literaturnaia Rossiia, No. 40, 1990.Google Scholar

23. “Dekret o gosudarstvennoi vlasti,” ibid., special issue, Daidzhest, Vol. 2, 1990.Google Scholar

24. Litskai, Valerii, “My khotim zhit’ na svoei zemle,” Literaturnaia gazeta, 8 April 1992; “Doklad predsedatelia OSTK V. Emel'ianov na 5-i konferentsii OSTK, Oktiabr’ 1992,” Trudovoi Tiraspol', 4–11 November 1992.Google Scholar

25. “Dnestria, represented by its Supreme Soviet, does not pose the question of secession from Moldova. We are tied to her in many ways: common territory during 50 years, a single economic space, community of culture, and in many other ways.” Dnestrovskaia pravda, 2 November 1991. See also Igor Smirnov, “Da, nezavisimost', no nikto ne provozglashal vykhoda iz Moldovy,” Dnestrovskaia pravda, 5 November 1992.Google Scholar

26. In the OSTK organ Trudovoi Tiraspol' a pro-putchist appeal was indeed printed, but there is no evidence that any of the Dnester leaders were or had been in contact with the GKChP group in Moscow. See Trudovoi Tiraspol', 31 October–7 November 1991 for admission thereof; and Dnestrovskaia pravda, 6 September 1991, p. 2, for strong criticism of the pro-putchist appeal.Google Scholar

27. According to official PMR figures 78% of the voters participated and 97.7% wanted independence. See Zaria Pridnestrov'e (Dubossary), 5 December 1991; and Dnestrovskaia pravda, 2 September 1992, p. 3. The plebiscite was, however, conducted in a rather primitive fashion. On a visit to Tiraspol in September 1992 one of the present authors was shown lists on which the “yes” and “no” votes were recorded. Hence, the anonymity of the votes was compromised. In certain villages in the Dubossary and Grigoriopol regions opposition toward PMR independence was strong and attempts were made to interrupt the plebiscite. In these villages new elections were held by February 1992. See Dnestrovskaia pravda, 5 December 1991, p. 2.Google Scholar

28. Dnestrovskaia pravda, 29 November 1991, p. 1.Google Scholar

29. Ibid., 2 November 1991, p. 2.Google Scholar

30. Cfr. interview with Igor Smirnov in Den’ shestoi, 9 November 1991, p. 2. Similar views were expressed by Grigore Maracuťa, Dnestrovskaia pravda, 29 November 1991.Google Scholar

31. Dnestrovskaia pravda, 22 November 1991, p. 2.Google Scholar

32. V. F. Grutsenko, ibid., 26 November 1991, p. 1.Google Scholar

33. Zaria Pridnestrov'e (Dubossary), 5 December 1991, p. 1; Dnestrovskaia pravda, 12 November 1991.Google Scholar

34. Dnestrovskaia pravda, 5 December 1991, p. 1. Mircea Snegur indeed conducted a campaign tour on the left bank only a few days before his election. See “Mircha Snegur—v Tiraspole,” Den’ Shestoi, 30 October 1991, p. 3.Google Scholar

35. Zakon, , “O vyborakh Prezidenta Pridnestrovskoi MSSR,” Dnestrovskaia pravda, 12 November 1991, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

36. The third candidate, Blagodarnyi, G. V., running for the newly-created Dnester Democratic Party, finished last with only 1.5%. See Zaria Pridnestrov'ia, 5 December 1991, p. 1. Blagodarnyi's participation was initially banned due to technical irregularities in the nomination process. See Dnestrovskaia pravda, 12 November 1991. His party objected that the election law had been promulgated so late that it was impossible to live up to all of its regulations, and the objection was sustained by the electoral commission. After his defeat Blagodarnyi complained that in certain areas his election campaign had been actively obstructed by local authorities. On the balance, however, he hailed the multi-candidate elections as a victory for PMR democracy. See interview with Blagodarnyi in Dnestrovskaia pravda, 12 December 1991, p. 2.Google Scholar

37. Socor, Vladimir, “Russian Forces in Moldova,” RFE/RL Research Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 34, 1992, pp. 38–43.Google Scholar

38. Trudovoi Tiraspol', 1–8 September 1993.Google Scholar

39. “Ukaz o prekrashchenii deiatel'nosti pravookhranitel'nykh organov Respubliki Moldova na territorii Pridnestrovskoi Moldovskoi Respubliki,” Dnestrovskaia pravda, 5 December 1991, p. 1.Google Scholar

40. Nezavisimaia gazeta, 22 September 1992, p. 4.Google Scholar

41. For details, see the report of the human rights centre Memorial, printed in Nezavisimaia gazeta, 22 September 1992. Reprinted in English translation in “Human rights in Moldova,” op. cit., pp. 53–69.Google Scholar

42. Nezavisimaia gazeta, 20 June 1992.Google Scholar

43. Pål Kolstø and Andrei Edemsky with Natalya Kalashnikova, “The Dniestr Conflict: Between Irrendentism and Separatism,” Europe–Asia Studies, Vol. 45, No. 6, 1993, pp. 973–1000. The official Dnester Memorial Book lists 626 deaths from the entire period of armed confrontations, all fronts. Of these, 457 were armed combatants and 169 civilian victims. Kniga pamiati zashchitnikov Pridnestrov'ia, Tiraspol, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44. “Zakon o grazhdanstve Pridnestrovskoi Moldvaskoi Respubliki,” Vestnik sovetov narodnykh deputatov PMR, vypusk, 29 August 1992, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

45. Trudovoi Tiraspol', 12–19 January 1994, p. 2.Google Scholar

46. Dnestrovskaia pravda, 17 September 1992.Google Scholar

47. Ibid.Google Scholar

48. “Human Rights in Moldova,” op. cit., p. 2.Google Scholar

49. Interview with Galina Andreeva, chairwoman of the women's strike committee in Tiraspol, Iug (Odessa), 12 February 1993.Google Scholar

50. PMR Supreme Soviet resolution, “O perekhode pod iurisdiktsiiu pridnestrovskoi moldavskoi respubliki voinskikh chastei,” Den’ shestoi, 30 November 1991.Google Scholar

51. Ibid., 5 December 1991, p. 2.Google Scholar

52. Nezavisimaia gazeta, 22 September 1992.Google Scholar

53. Russkaia mysl', 25–31 May 1995.Google Scholar

54. “General Lebed’ meniaet neitralitet,” Dnestrovskii meridian, 28 August–3 September 1992, p. 2; ibid., 14–20 August 1992, p. 1.Google Scholar

55. “News Briefs,” RFE/RL Research Report, Vol. 2, No. 6, 25–29 January 1993, p. 19.Google Scholar

56. Interviews with Lebed in Rossiiskaia gazeta, 16 March 1994; Nezavisimost, 22 January 1993.Google Scholar

57. Nezavisimaia gazeta, 14 January 1993.Google Scholar

58. Socor, Vladimir, “Dnester Involvement in the Moscow Rebellion,” RFE/RL Research Report, Vol. 2, No. 46, 19 November 1993. Smirnov did not conceal that residents of PMR had taken part in the defence of the beseiged Russian parliament but categorically denied that they had been sent there with official PMR blessing. See Trudovoi Tiraspol', 13–20 October 1993, p. 1.Google Scholar

59. Trudovoi Tiraspol', 16–23 February 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60. At the time of writing, however, it has not yet been ratified by the Russian Duma.Google Scholar

61. Interview with Lebed in Russkaia mysl', 25–31 May 1995.Google Scholar

62. Ibid.Google Scholar

63. Nezavisimaia gazeta, 24 May 1995. Since the conclusion of the ceasefire in July 1992 the security zone between Tiraspol and Chišinau controlled territories has been patrolled by a joint peace-keeping contingent consisting of three Moldovan, three Dnestr and six Russian battalions. These units have all the time drawn heavily on the infrastructure of the 14th Army.Google Scholar

64. Pridnestrov'e, 2 August 1995, p. 1.Google Scholar

65. For a very bleak report on uniformity and controllability in Dnester media after Lebed's departure, see Dan Ionescu, “Media in the ‘Dniester Moldovan Republic': A Communist-Era Memento,” Transition, Vol. 1, No. 19, 20 October 1995, pp. 16–20. Ionescu acknowledges that the free sale of right bank Moldovan newspapers and the broadcast of Chišinau radio adds a measure of media pluralism. The fact that the Dnester press is not available on the right bank he explains as the result of a de facto ban on export of such publications. This latter assertion can hardly be taken seriously. The PMR leaders of course very much want to propagate their views among the right bank population. See, e.g., G. Maracuťa in Detsentralizatsiia, avtonomiia, federalizm? Printsipy i praktika gosudarstvennoi organizatsii kak osnova natsional'nogo soglasiia i bezopasnosti (Materialy konferentsii) (Kishinev, 1995), p. 85.Google Scholar

66. Personal interview with deputy speaker in the PMR Supreme Soviet, Volkova, Anna, August 1995.Google Scholar

67. Dnestrovskaia pravda, 21 January 1993.Google Scholar

68. Dnestrovskaia pravda, 26 December 1991, p. 1.Google Scholar

69. Russkaia mysl', 27 July–2 August 1995.Google Scholar

70. Konstitutsiia PMR (Tiraspol, 1991), article 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71. Dnestrovskii meridian, 28 August–3 September 1992; Dnestrovskaia pravda, 5 December 1991, p. 1.Google Scholar

72. Trudovoi Tiraspol', 10–17 March 1993.Google Scholar

73. Russkaia mysl', 27 July–2 August 1995, p. 17; Ogonek, No. 22, May 1995, pp. 20–23.Google Scholar

74. See, e.g., Nezavisimaia Moldova, 6 September 1995.Google Scholar

75. “Struktura organov gosudarstvennogo upravleniia PMR,” Pridnestrov'e, 2 August 1995.Google Scholar

76. Konstitutsiia pridnestrovskoi moldavskoi respubliki, Pridnestrov'e, 21 December 1995.Google Scholar

77. Gennadii Blagodarnyi in Dnestrovskaia pravda, 29 December 1994.Google Scholar

78. Trudovoi Tiraspol', 10–17 March 1993, p. 1.Google Scholar

79. “Human rights in Moldova,” op. cit., p. 3, note 4.Google Scholar

80. Country reports on human rights practices for 1994, Department of State (February 1995) electronic edition, chapter on Moldova.Google Scholar

81. “Zakon o iazykakh v Pridnestrovskoi moldavskoi respublike. Proekt,” Vestnik sovetov narodnykh deputatov Prindestrov'ia, No. 27, 14–20 August 1992, article 45. No legal acts regulating criminal prosecution of infringements of the langauge law seem to have been passed.Google Scholar

82. In right-bank Moldova this is a matter of heated controversy. In the constitution the official language is designated “Moldovan,” but after large student demonstrations in down-town Chišinàu in March 1995, president Mircea Snegur suggested that it ought to be renamed as “Romanian.” Most leaders of the ruling Agrarian party, however, stick to “Moldovan.” See Ionescu, Dan, “Back to Romanian?,” Transition, Vol. 1, No. 15, 25 August 1995, pp. 54–61; and “I snova o iazyke,” Nezavisimaia Moldova, 10 August 1995, p. 2.Google Scholar

83. Trudovoi Tiraspol', 2–9 February 1994, p. 2.Google Scholar

84. Ibid., 23–30 March 1994, p. 1.Google Scholar

85. Izvestiia, 11 October 1994.Google Scholar

86. Muravschi, Valeriu, “Pridnestrov'e—platsdarm proimperskikh sil,” Literaturnaia gazeta, 8 April 1992; see also Zaiavlenie Parlamenta Respubliki Moldova o pravovom statuse lits, prinadlezhashchikh k etnicheskim, iazykovym, i regional'nym men'shinstvam, v kontekste vooruzkhennogo konflikta v raionakh levoberezh'ia Dnestra (Kishinev, 26 May 1992).Google Scholar

87. Kaufman, , op. cit., p. 45.Google Scholar

88. Kolstø, Pål, et al., op. cit., p. 994.Google Scholar

89. Nezavisimaia gazeta, 23 July 1992.Google Scholar

90. “Verkhovnyi sovet pri Dnestrovskoi moldavskoi respubliki, Postanovlenie no. 276,” together with “Dogovor o razgranichenii polnomochii mezhdu sub”ektami moldavskoi confederatsii, proekt,” mimeograph.Google Scholar

91. Nezavisimaia Moldova, 16 February 1993.Google Scholar

92. Dnestrovskaia pravda, 15 April 1993, p. 2.Google Scholar

93. “Doklad no. 13, Missii SBSE v Moldove, (13-ogo noiabria 1993-ogo goda),” Dnestrovskaia pravda, 7 December 1993, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

94. Ibid.Google Scholar

95. Nezavisimaia gazeta, 16 July 1994.Google Scholar

96. Detsentralizatsiia, avtonomiia, op. cit., p. 85, note 65.Google Scholar

97. Nezavisimaia gazeta, 6 May 1994.Google Scholar

98. Ibid., 9 June 1994. However, later rounds of negotiations have shown that the Moldovan party is very unhappy about the state terminology of the April 1994 document and wants to have it removed or at least watered down. See Dan Ionescu, “Playing the ‘Dniester Card’ In and After the Russian Election,” Transition, Vol. 2, 23 August 1996.Google Scholar

99. Nezavisimaia gazeta, 28 July 1994.Google Scholar

100. King, Charles, “Gagauz Yeri and the Dilemmas of Self-Determination,” Transition, Vol. 1, No. 19, 20 October 1995, pp. 21–25.Google Scholar

101. Personal interview with Victor Grebenscicov, Presidential advisor on nationality questions, in September 1992 and May 1996.Google Scholar

102. Socor, Vladimir, “Moldova,” RFE/RL Research Report, Vol. 3, No. 16, 22 April 1994, p. 17.Google Scholar

103. King, Charles, “Moldovan Identity and the Politics of Pan-Romanianism,” Slavic Review, Vol. 53, No. 2, 1994, p. 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

104. PMR proposals for mutual pledges of non-use of force had earlier been turned down by the Moldovan party on the grounds that it might look like an implicit recognition of PMR. See, e.g., Nezavisimaia Moldova, 10 April 1993.Google Scholar

105. Nezavisimaia Moldova, 15 September 1995.Google Scholar

106. Eyal, Jonathan and Smith, Graham, “Moldova and the Moldovans,” in Smith, Graham, ed., The Nationalities Question in the Post-Soviet States (London and NY: Longman, 1995), p. 242.Google Scholar

107. See interview with the departing Head of the CSCE Mission to Moldova, Richard Samuel, INFOTAG, 23 November 1995.Google Scholar

108. Interview with Valery Litskai in Tiraspol, 2 May 1996. We forgot to ask Litskai whether he believed that the demilitarized status of Åland also should be copied by PMR.Google Scholar

109. Presidential advisor Nicolae Chirtoace, as quoted by Roper, Chinn and, op. cit., p. 318, note 1.Google Scholar

110. “Ekonomicheskie problemy zastavliaiut Kishinev i Tiraspol’ dogovarivat'sia,” Nezavisimaia gazeta, 9 June 1994.Google Scholar

111. Kolstø, Pål, “Nationbuilding in Eurasia,” Journal of Democracy, No. 7, January 1996.Google Scholar