CountryWatch - Interesting Facts Of The World

Trans-Dniester (Moldova)

Summary

Trans-Dniestr is a disputed territory with separatist ambitions in Moldova, but is not recognized as a sovereign country by the international community. Shortly after Moldova declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Trans-Dniestr declared its independence from Moldova, sparking an armed conflict between Moldovan and Trans-Dniestrian forces. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has remained involved in negotiations over Trans-Dniestr’s status since the conflict began, though a long series of negotiations have thus far failed to produce a final status agreement. Moldova has tried to accommodate its ethnic Russian minority by offering broad cultural and political autonomy. After a fifteen-month hiatus, talks resumed in October 2005 in a “five-plus-two” format with the participation of Moldova, Trans-Dniestr, Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE, the European Union, and the United States. The talks, however, collapsed in April 2006 and were postponed indefinitely.

In March 2006, the matter of Trans-Dniestr came to the fore again when the leadership of the region decried the establishment of new regulations that would require goods entering Ukraine from Trans-Dniestr to have Moldovan customs stamp. The Moldovan government said that the new regulations were intended to stop smuggling but the leadership of Trans-Dniestr viewed it as means to counteract their sense of autonomy. But Russia strongly condemned the measure as economic blackmail. Regardless, the regulations were suported by countries such as the United States as well as regional blocs including the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation of Europe (OSCE).

Also in the spring of 2006, the government of Moldova had to deal with regulations of a similar sort levied by Russia. In that case, Russia decided to suspend imports of Moldovan wine on the basis of health considerations. Moldova protested the move saying that it was motivated by politics -- likely associated with Trans-Dniestr.

By mid-2006, the region of Trans-Dniestr was returned to center stage when a minibus exploded in the region, leaving several people dead and still more injured.

In mid-September 2006, the breakaway region of Trans-Dniestr held a referendum on independence from Moldova. The referendum posed the question of whether the half a million people of the separatist state wanted to be reunited with Moldova, join Russia of work toward independence. With a population that is mostly Russian-speaking, and given the penchant of the inhabitants for self-determination, a strong "yes" vote on independence and on integration with Russia was expected.

In December 2006, the presidential election in the breakaway region of Trans-Dniester was viewed as illegal by Moldova. Indeed, Moldova called on the international community to reject the outcome of the election. Nevertheless, incumbent Igor Smirnov was expected to be re-elected to another five years in power. Turnout was reported to be high and an exit poll suggested that Smirnov would garner more than 60 percent of the vote share -- an absolute majority, thus avoiding a second round.

Background/Context

After World War II, the Soviet Union created the Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) from the Russian-speaking Dniester region, formerly an autonomous part of Ukraine, and the neighboring region of Bessarabia, which had been part of Romania from 1918-1940. During the Soviet era, Trans-Dniestr became the industrial heartland and economic center of the Moldovan SSR. Most of the political elite in the Moldovan SSR came from Trans-Dniestr. Though Moldovan and Romanian were virtually the same language, Soviet linguists and historians argued that they were separate languages and even went so far as to change the Molodvan script from Latin, which Romanians use, to Cyrillic. Russian became the official state language and Moldovan was relegated to a vernacular status.

During the 1980s, Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika and glasnost policies opened the way for pro-Romanian intellectuals to voice opposition to Russian domination. In 1989, the Popular Front of Moldova became a mass movement that demanded, among other items, that the Moldovan language once again be written in Latin script. In the final years of the Soviet Union, Trans-Dniester grew increasingly concerned with rising Moldovan nationalism and the prospect of Moldova reunifying with Romania. A language law passed in 1989 that made Moldovan the official language added to the tensions, angering ethnic Russians and Ukrainians who felt that ethnic Moldovans were trying to grab power. The first-ever competitive elections in the Moldovan SSR swept ethnic Moldovans into power in 1990.

Moldova declared its independence from the Soviet Union in August 1991, shortly after the failed Moscow putsch, and subsequently joined the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In September 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Trans-Dniestr adopted its own constitution and began to build its own armed forces. In December 1991, Trans-Dniestr held both a presidential election and a referendum on independence, which passed. Trans-Dniestrian paramilitary forces and militias soon after began a “creeping putsch” in which they attacked several Moldovan police stations in Trans-Dniestr and tried to overthrow local authorities in the mainly ethnic-Moldovan rural areas, whose loyalty belonged to the Moldovan government. The Soviet 14th Army, already stationed in Trans-Dniestr and composed of mainly ethnic Russian natives from the region, played a critical role in supporting Trans-Dniestrn forces during the “creping putsch.”

In spring 1992, the situation descended into war between Moldovan and Trans-Dniestrn forces. The Moldovan military attacked Trans-Dniestrn forces in Bender in June 1992. Fighting culminated in a battle that killed over 700 people. The (now Russian) 14th Army intervened on the side of Trans-Dniestr, establishing the conditions for a ceasefire. The ceasefire, signed in July 1992, established a 10km demilitarized zone with Russian, Moldovan, and Trans-Dniestrn peacekeepers.

In December 1992, the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (later the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE) called on Moldova and Russia to reach a bilateral agreement on the eventual withdrawal of Russian troops from Trans-Dniestr, whose presence was subject to the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (the CFE Treaty). In 1994, Moldova passed a new constitution that granted a special autonomous status to Trans-Dniestr. In 1997, negotiations between Moldova and Trans-Dniestr resumed. The talks yielded an agreement granting Trans-Dniestr more autonomy and calling for more talks in the future.

In February 1996, Moldova and Trans-Dniestrn authorities agreed to allow Trans-Dniestr to export goods legally without paying taxes to the to the Moldovan government. Trans-Dniestr was granted the right to use the customs seal of the Republic of Moldova on its goods. Moldova also agreed not to collect taxes on goods entering Trans-Dniestr. In return, Trans-Dniestr agreed to establish joint Moldovan-Trans-Dniestrian customs centers on the border with Ukraine. Though the deal lasted until 2001, Trans-Dniestrn authorities did not honor the agreement and Moldovan officials are still not allowed to enter Trans-Dniestrn territory.

In June 1996, a Memorandum on the Principles of Settlement of Relations was negotiated under OSCE auspices, but Russia backed out of the agreement. Moldova and the OSCE also withdrew support because the memorandum did not guarantee the preservation of Moldovan territorial integrity. In April 1997, Russia broke the deadlock by adding a new paragraph to the memorandum that said that Moldova and Trans-Dniestr would negotiate in the framework of a “common state” based on the 1990 borders of the Moldovan SSR. In May 1997, the revised memorandum was signed in Moscow along with a supplementary agreement by Russia and Ukraine that pledged not undermine the “common state” principle with contrary interpretations of the phrase. OSCE mediators then prepared a draft final status agreement, but both sides rejected it. From 1998 to 2000, Russian foreign minister Yevgency Priamov attempted, without success, to propose an agreement acceptable to both parties, but the Trans-Dniestrians wanted nothing short of full independence and the Moldovans resisted any attempt to federalize the country.

In 1999, an OSCE summit in Istanbul called for withdrawal of all Russian weapons and ammunition in Trans-Dniestr in violation of the CFE Treaty by the end of 2001 and the withdrawal of all Russian troops by the end of 2002. Trans-Dniestrn authorities, under diplomatic pressure, accepted the destruction of CFE-prohibited weapons, but resisted the removal of other weapons and ammunition. In May 2001, the OSCE and Russia reached an agreement on OSCE monitoring and assistance for the withdrawal of troops and the destruction of arms. A pullout began later that year, but was halted when Trans-Dniestr blocked the withdrawal of Russian arms.

After a failed series of talks in Prague, Bratislava, and Warsaw, a new round of negotiations began in Kiev in July 2002. OSCE mediators helped draft the Kiev Document, which proposed a set of principles that would establish a unified, federal Moldova with a republican form of government after a transition period. Subsequent negotiations, however, failed to produce an agreement on the precise wording on Trans-Dniestr’s political status within the federal system.

In February 2003, Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin invited Trans-Dniestr to participate in the drafting of a new Moldovan constitution. The Voronin Plan called for the reintegration of Moldova and Trans-Dniestr by February 2003 and for the creation of a joint constitutional committee composed of Molodvan, Trans-Dniestrn, Russian, Ukrainian, and OSCE experts. The draft constitution would then be publicly discussed and subject to a referendum. Though Trans-Dniestr has some reservations, it nonetheless embraced the general principles of the Voronin Plan.

In March 2003, a month after the United States (U.S.) and the European Union (E.U.) imposed a travel ban on several Trans-Dniestrian leaders, the Trans-Dniestrian Supreme Soviet passed a decree calling on the government to facilitate the removal of all Russian troops and ammunition. In return, Gazprom, a Russian natural gas company, agreed to write off $100 million in debt accumulated by the government. Although some of the weapons were slowly removed, in June 2005, Trans-Dniestr blocked the removal of more weapons because it ostensibly claimed that Gazprom had not yet written off its debt.

A key issue in the conflict concerns language rights. After the Soviet era, Moldova changed its script back to the Latin alphabet. In July 2004, Trans-Dniestr authorities, who insist on retaining the Cyrillic alphabet, closed schools that continue to use the Latin alphabet. In response, Moldova imposed economic sanctions on Trans-Dniestr and pulled out of talks on the region’s status. This in part prompted Moldova to withdraw from ongoing diplomatic discussions on the issue after rejecting a Russian proposal that many Moldovans felt gave too much leverage to Russia.

Current Situation

In June 2005, the Moldovan parliament backed a Ukrainian-proposed plan for Trans-Dniestr’s autonomy within Moldova and called on Russia to finish its withdrawal by the end of the year.

After a fifteen-month hiatus, talks resumed in October 2005 in a “five-plus-two” format with the participation of Moldova, Trans-Dniestr, Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE, the European Union, and the United States. However, negotiations broke down in April 2005 and were postponed indefinitely.

Trans-Dniestr held unrecognized parliamentary elections in December 2005 that defied the OSCE and Moldovan authorities, who maintained that fair elections would only be possible after the region has been “demilitarized, decriminalized, and democratized.”

In March 2006, the matter of Trans-Dniestr came to the fore again when the leadership of the region decried the establishment of new regulations that would require goods entering Ukraine from Trans-Dniestr to have Moldovan customs stamp. The Moldovan government said that the new regulations were intended to stop smuggling but the leadership of Trans-Dniestr viewed it as means to counteract their sense of autonomy. But Russia strongly condemned the measure as economic blackmail. Regardless, the regulations were suported by countries such as the United States as well as regional blocs including the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation of Europe (OSCE).

Also in the spring of 2006, the government of Moldova had to deal with regulations of a similar sort levied by Russia. In that case, Russia decided to suspend imports of Moldovan wine on the basis of health considerations. Moldova protested the move saying that it was motivated by politics -- likely associated with Trans-Dniestr.

By mid-2006, the region of Trans-Dniestr was returned to center stage when a minibus exploded in the region, leaving several people dead and still more injured.

In mid-September 2006, the breakaway region of Trans-Dniestr held a referendum on independence from Moldova. The referendum posed the question of whether the half a million people of the separatist state wanted to be reunited with Moldova, join Russia of work toward independence. With a population that is mostly Russian-speaking, and given the penchant of the inhabitants for self-determination, a strong "yes" vote on independence and on integration with Russia was expected.

Moldova

Moldova considers itself the legitimate successor state to the Moldovan SSR. Moldova believes that Trans-Dniestr cannot legally secede from Moldova without the consent of the Moldovan government and that the region is neither politically nor economically viable on its own. Moldova has repeatedly expressed a willingness to grant Trans-Dniestr and cultural political autonomy. The issue has complicated Moldovan-Russian relations, though Moldova maintains an important economic relationship with Russia. Most of Moldova’s exports go to Russia, while the country depends on Russia for 90% of its energy needs. Moldovan officials allege that Trans-Dniestr illegally produces and exports Grad Hail Missile systems and Kalashnikov machine guns. It is also alleged that Trans-Dniestr sold arms to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in violation of United Nations sanctions with the blessing of the Kremlin.

Trans-Dniestr

Trans-Dniestr is not internationally recognized as a sovereign country. Since it declared independence from Moldova, the Trans-Dniestrn government has established its own state-like governmental structure. It has an elected president and parliament, a Trans-Dniestrian currency, a national bank, a judicial system, an elaborate military and security apparatus, a customs service, a constitution, a national anthem, and a flag. Trans-Dniestr has developed an extensive manufacturing sector that is run by corrupt officials and members of the Russian and Ukrainian business elite. Its exports include metallurgical products, electronics, textiles, wines, and spirits. The government of Trans-Dniestr has resisted efforts to withdraw Russian troops from Moldova. It claims that it inherited the military equipment and munitions from the Soviet Union and must therefore be financially compensated for the withdrawal. Trans-Dniestr maintains most of Moldova’s industrial infrastructure, though its economic potential is severely limited by its international isolation. Slav-oriented ethnic Russians and Ukrainians in Trans-Dniestr favor independence because they do not want to be part of a country dominated European-oriented ethnic Moldovans.

Russia

Russia uses Trans-Dniestr as leverage against the Moldovan government. Thus, Russia does not necessary favor the disputed territory’s independence, but rather favors a special status within Moldova that serves Russian geopolitical and economic interests. Russian officials have sought to condition the withdrawal of Russian troops on the resolution of Trans-Dniestr’s status. Moldova accuses Russia of blackmail. Both Russia and Moldova agree that Russian weapons and ammunitions must be removed prior the withdrawal of Russian troops to prevent them from falling into the hands of criminals and terrorists. However, Russia claims that it cannot withdraw the weapons and ammunitions without the prior consent of Trans-Dniestr’s government, which considers them its property. Russia has strongly condemned the Ukrainian ban on Trans-Dniestrian exports.

Ukraine

In May 2005, Ukraine proposed a peace plan for Moldova that called for internationally monitored elections in Trans-Dniestr, which would officially become an autonomous part of Moldova. For a long time, Ukrainian businessmen and politicians provided some support to Trans-Dniestr by tolerating illegal trade across the border, which by some accounts amounted to $250 million a year. Ukrainian policy toward Trans-Dniestr, however, has become more Western-oriented since Viktor Yushchenko took office, especially considering the recent Ukrainian ban imposed on Trans-Dniestrian exports lacking Moldovan certification.

European Union

The European Union (E.U.) supports a negotiated settlement that maintains Moldovan territorial integrity. In February 2003, the E.U. imposed a travel ban on several Trans-Dniestrian leaders who it felt were obstructing a final status agreement. As part of an initiative known as the Neighborhood Policy, the E.U. sent 65 people to help monitor Moldovan and Ukrainian border guards at 38 crossing points in an effort to bring order to the region before Romania was set to become a member in 2007, which will extend the E.U.’s borders to Moldova.

United States

The United States (U.S) supports the withdrawal of Russian troops from Moldova and a negotiated settlement of the issue that maintains Molodvan territorial integrity. The U.S. has put pressure on Trans-Dniestr to end its “obstructionist tactics” to delay the withdrawal of Russian troops. In February 2003, the U.S., along with the European Union, announced a visa ban against several Trans-Dniestrn leaders. The U.S. is concerned that Trans-Dniestr has become a center for the trafficking of small arms to world trouble spots in Africa, the former Soviet Union, and the Middle East.

Romania

Romania supports Moldova’s position on the issue.

Written by Ryan Holliway, Researcher and Writer, CountryWatch Inc. and Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, CountryWatch Inc.

Sources: BBC, Congressional Research Service, International Crisis Group, OSCE Mission in Moldova, UPI, New York Times