Transnistria, also known as the Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika (PMR),  is a breakaway republic in Moldova recognized only by fellow breakaway states South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Lying on a narrow swath of land along the left bank of the Dniester river, the territory’s leaders call it a republic. Transnistria has declared independence from Moldova since 1990, and the two nations have been locked in frozen conflict since.

History: Transnistria asserts that history is on its side in that neither Moldova nor Transnistria were ever states of their own. The territory Transnistria sits upon today was once inhabited in 600 BC by Greek Miletians, who founded the city of Tiraspol upon the Dniester river. Between the time of the Greeks and the arrival of the South Slavs in the mid-600s, AD, Transnistria was inhabited by Romans, with some Germanic and Mongolic tribes present. Before becoming part of the Russian Empire in 1792, the region changed hands from Kievan Rus, to the Crimean Khanate, to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, to the Kingdom of Poland. The area was largely Romanian and Ukrainian, but was soon heavily colonized by Russians. After the October Revolution, Transnistria was incorporated into the Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic as the Moldavian Autonomous Socialist Republic.

Moldova, whose territory was previously known as Bessarabia, also experienced a tumultuous history. From the time of Rus until the Revolution, it was passed back and forth between Romania and Russia time and time again. Finally, in 1918, the inhabitants of Bessarabia chose to become part of Romania. Transnistria did not choose to follow, and as mentioned, became the Moldavian ASSR from 1924 to 1940. After the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact of 1940, the Soviet Union forced Romania out of Bessarabia once more in order to merge it with Transnistria into the Moldovan SSR. The Soviet authorities worked to instill a sense of ethnic separatism in Moldovans, to make them feel divided from Romanians so that they would not want to return. Regardless of the Soviet effort to unite the peoples under a Moldovan flag, Transnistria, with the backing of Mikhail Gorbachev, declared independence from Moldova in September 1990, becoming an SSR sovereign within in the Soviet Union. However, four months later, Gorbachev decided to retract Transnistria's independence to make it once more a part of the Moldovan SSR. Given the impending collapse of the Soviet Union distracting the Soviet authorities, little was done to stop Transnistria from continuing to establish itself as an independent entity.

Conflict: The War of Transnistria took place from March 2nd, 1992 until July 21st, 1992. Ethnic violence had been building in the region since 1990, but did not erupt until the fall of the Soviet Union, with an Moldova asserting its sovereignty over Transnistria. Approximately 25,000-30,000 troops were sent by Moldova to quell the conflict, obtaining arms from Romania; the nascent nation previously did not have an army. The Transnistrian army, as in the case of other violent breakaway conflicts, was backed by Russia and Ukraine, giving it far more support than Moldova.

After the ceasefire in July 1992, an agreement was signed by Russian president Boris Yeltsin and Moldovan president Mircea Snegur. The pact established the prescence of peacekeeping forces in the area composed of Russian, Moldovan, and PMR battalions. Nearly 1,000 were killed in the four month battle, with 3,000 wounded. The conflict also resulted in over 100,000 left as refugees. The violence did nothing about the bigger debate, and the issue of independence versus reunification remains in frozen conflict.

Arguments: From a purely physical perspective, there is no reason why Transnistria could not be an independent state. Its area of 4,163 square kilometers puts it between Trinidad and Tobago (5,130 sq km2) and Cape Verde (4,033 sq km2), or 172nd out of 232 on the 2007 list of countries and outlying territories by area from the United Nations. Population-wise, the 2005 estimate of 555,000 inhabitants puts Transnistria between Montenegro (620,145) and Cape Verde (507,000) once again according to the UN. Geographically, Transnistria is a narrow valley interrupting Moldova’s hills. The location gives Transnistria excellent “wine-country” capabilities, as well as agricultural opportunities with its the temperate continental climate by the Black Sea. The nation is landlocked, but the PMR government sends out exports along the Dniester to Odessa, Ukraine.

According to the 2004 census in Transnistria, 64.2% of the population belongs to some ethnic Slav group (Russians, Ukrainians, Poles) and 31.9% of the population is ethnically Moldovan. Language statistics can not be found on the exact number of speakers of various languages within Transnistria; however, the majority of Transnistrians speak Russian, whereas the majority of Moldovans speak Romanian.

The conflict also has deep roots within Romanian-Russian relations and Western versus Eastern interests. In 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moldova and Transnistria battled – with the Russian army’s assistance of Transnistrian forces – from March to July. The conflict left over 1,000 dead, and an estimated 100,000 refugees. Most importantly, the violence did nothing about the bigger debate, and the issue of independence versus reunification remains in frozen conflict. Though Russia removed some of its arms in 2001, munitions and soldiers remain in Transnistria, angering Moldova. In 2004, Moldova’s Minister of Foreign Affairs stated “the presence of Russian troops on the territory of the Republic of Moldova is against the political will of Moldovan constitutional authorities and defies the unanimously recognized international norms and principles, being qualified by Moldovan authorities as a foreign military occupation illegally deployed on the territory of the state.”

The Russian side has taken a double-sided approach to the conflict. Diplomatically, Russia has not recognized Transnistria as a nation, and scholars have speculated that this is because Russia does not want to be seen as hypocritical with regard to Chechnya. However, as has been the case with other post-Soviet breakaway states, Russia has however offered Transnistria direct military support. In terms of indirect support of both Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, Russia banned the importing of Moldovan wine in 2006.  The Chief sanitary inspector of Russia Gennady Onischchenko claimed that heavy metals and pesticides had been found in Georgian and Moldovan wines and that they were "falsified alcoholic products" labeled as wines. Moldovan relations with Russia severely worsened after the ban from the Duma’s claim of the nation’s enemy status and “anti-Russian policies”. The ban was retracted in 2007, which is quite fortunate for Moldova seeing as wine makes up 15% of its GNP.

Transnistria paints a picture of itself in English-language publications such as the Tiraspol Times as a freer, more moral country than its neighboring Moldova. Given Transparency International’s 2005 ranking of Moldova within as the 13th most corrupt country out of 61 strata, looking better than Moldova isn’t very difficult. The Tiraspol Times describes the well-known Moldovan sex slavery trade in graphic detail, but declares itself as a safe-haven against the evil, and notes that The International Organization for Migration has set up a trafficking prevention program in Tiraspol. The site literally states that there are no human-rights violations to be found within Transnistria. In their advantage, most human rights organizations are not concerned with the Transnistrian conflict, and see Moldova as a whole for statistics’ sake. The British Helsinki Human Rights Council states that “over 60% of the tens of thousands of girls now believed to be in sexual slavery come from Moldova” and that “there are 253 brothels in Chisinau alone”. Additionally, the BHHRG says that the next largest nationality involved with the human sex trade is Ukrainian. Transnistrian news broadcasting aimed at the West must be eyed cautiously, for while it is freeing for an independent state to have a voice to the world, it isn’t very believable that the narrow swath of land stands clear of the human rights abuses surrounding it on either side.

In fact, Transnistria seems to be aiming for an appeal to young Western hipsters through stylized English-language blogs and travel websites with unknown origins. Who really writes for the Tiraspol Times? The origins of the website and paper cannot be determined, and most quotes used in its articles cannot be cited. A Google search for the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty, the institution that supposedly runs pridnestrovie.net, turns up angry opinion sites mentioning how both the icdiss.org and pridnestrovie.net sites share the same IP address. In fact, someone attempted to make the ICDISS a Wikipedia page, but Wikipedia revoked the page for its false pretenses. VisitPMR.com skillfully hides all hammer-and-sickle logos, and its sleek design shows the presumably Western viewer photos of stunning beautiful Transnistrian blondes and “tourist accounts” of the region as “like the French Rivera”. With the US and EU warning citizens gravely to not travel to the area, one should be quite skeptical and doubt how Rivera-like the area truly is.

It may be that the only major reason why Moldova is anxious to keep Transnistria is for its economic value. There may be diplomatic principle within, but Moldova’s economy is fragile, and its leaders are fighting to keep what little income it can coming in through Transnistria’s economy. Transnistria possesses the bulk of Moldova’s heavy industry, electrical production plants, and textile plants. The industrialization of Transnistria is such that in 1990, it was responsible for 40% of Moldova’s GDP yet 90% of its electrical usage, though it only had 17% of Moldova’s population. According to the IMF, both Moldova’s and Transnistria’s GDP per capita is in the abysmal range -- $957, and $1076, respectively. To compare internationally using the IMF’s statistics, Moldova is at #128, yet war and genocide torn Sudan is higher at #126 ($1,037). If Transnistria were listed, it would be #125 on the list. Finally, in comparison to the two regions’ neighbors, Ukraine is at #105 ($2,274), Romania is at #66 ($5,633) – and Russia itself is at #58 ($6,856). Transnistria also boasts the Kvint cognac factory, and reunification could have money flowing in through alcohol sales, especially if Russia dropped its ban. When one’s nation is below Sudan in GDP, there is a major problem; and unfortunately for Moldova, Russia will do all that it can through economic pressure to squeeze out independence for Transnistria. But just what will happen if Transnistria is allowed independence?

According to Achilles Skordas, secession of Transnistria would cause Moldova to cease to function as a viable state. Additionally, Moldova would seek reunification with Romania – an act which may have been feasible before Romania’s joining of the European Union, but unrealistic presently. In order to join the EU, a nation must meet the Copenhagen Criteria established by the EU in 1993, which include the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy and human rights, as well as the existence of a functioning market economy. Moldova may not exactly meet EU requirements when it comes to human rights, even though the EU does eye small states as easier to develop. Skordas suggests that the “three D” concept for settling the matter (demilitarization, democratization, and de-criminalization of Transnistria) and is convinced that the EU should extend a hand to Moldovan membership within a decade. Arguing that the farmers, academics, and unemployed youth of the region would benefit most, the state could reunite for the greater economic good by working hard to meet the Copenhagen Criteria.

Additionally, Transnistria could remain a separate political entity within a united Moldova. Vladimir Kossolov wrote that since 1993, public opinion polls in Transnistria have shown that only 26-27% want to join Russia, 16% want to join Ukraine, and the majority, 56-58%, would prefer a confederation with Moldova. The EU could possibly undo its ban on Transnistrian leaders from traveling within the union in order for official talks to begin – beginning true communication between Tiraspol and Chisinau without Moscow’s interference. Unfortunately, many journals from both sides of the conflict see the Transnistrian debate as a battle of Western and Russian interests.

However, there can not be yet another proxy battle for a cold war which ended nearly two decades ago, especially after the recent conflicts with South Ossetia. Russia needs to accept that it can only keep Transnistria as its last Eastern outpost for so long, and the West needs to accept that it must extend a true helping hand to Moldova – both sides must do this before Moldova and Transnistria fall low enough economically where they have no choice but to join together or fight. At that point, it could be “too late”, Skordas says, for either to be anything but a failed state. Then, drug trafficking and sex slavery would be even worse than today, and perhaps irreversible.

In conclusion, the only solution for the debate is that true diplomatic action either for the independence of Transnistria or for its reunification with Moldova must start immediately, because a frozen conflict will only mean the demise of both states into further poverty and underground crime.        

Image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons.