Negotiations must reflect an objective reality, says Henry Kissinger

Dr. Henry Kissinger (shown here in a file photo) says negotiations will only succeed if they reflect the objective reality

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Tiraspol Times) - In an interview with German news magazine Der Spiegel, Dr. Henry Kissinger says that it is not enough for two sides to just sit down and talk. The former U.S. Secretary of State explains that talks will only reach a successful outcome if they are both willing to face the facts on the ground.

" - Some believe that the mere act of conversation will alter the tension. I believe that negotiations succeed only if they reflect an objective reality," said Henry Kissinger in a February 2008 interview with Europe's biggest and most influential weekly magazine.

Kissinger was the dominant voice of United States foreign policy between 1969 and 1977 and is remembered for his breakthrough in bringing Chairman Mao's Communist China closer to United States during the Cold War. At age 84, he is still active in politics as a frequent speaker, commentator, international adviser and occasional lobbyist. Today, Kissinger meets regularly with U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

A proponent of Realpolitik, Henry Kissinger continually urges policy makers to face up to the world as it is, rather than as they want it to be. This means dealing with actual facts "as we find them," he says. In the case of 'de facto' independent but unrecognized states, they must be dealt with on the basis of the factual situation on the ground. Policy, he says, can not be based on wishful thinking.

Objective reality check is "a must"

This year, the first step towards a successfully negotiated status on the situation between Moldova and Transdniestria (official name: Pridnestrovie) took place on 11 April 2008 when Presidents Voronin and Smirnov sat down for their first face to face meeting in nearly seven years.

But Henry Kissinger, who throughout his entire career has always been on the side of the free world, does not believe that the mere act of conversation will alter the tension. Instead, he says that negotiations must actually reflect the objective reality in order to succeed.

This requirement is clear to the Transdniestrian negotiating team. During their very first meeting, President Smirnov handed his Moldovan counterpart the text of a proposed Friendship and Co-operation Treaty between the Republic of Moldova and the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic which in its opening paragraph states that a final and fair settlement of Moldovan-Pridnestrovian relations must, inter alia, be based on "the prevailing political and economic realities" (direct quote).

So what are these current realities? For starters, the first thing that Moldova has to come to grips with is that at least nine out of ten residents in Transdniestria don't want to be part of Moldova. Perhaps surprisingly, repeated surveys show that this position is even held among most members of the ethnic Moldovan minority who make up a little less than a third of Transdniestria's population.

Seeking freedom and independence, Transdniestria has a majority Slavic population of mostly Russians and Ukrainians, unlike Moldova where the majority are Moldovans. Linguistically, Russian-speaking Transdniestria is also different from Moldova, where the most widely spoken language is Romanian.

To reach a successful settlement, Moldova most first answer the question that almost all Transdniestrians want to know: Why was self-determination OK for Moldova in 1991 when it wanted to break free from the Soviet Union, but not OK for Transdniestria a year earlier?

Self-determination is the concept that, in the words of United States president Woodrow Wilson, "No people must be forced under a sovereignty under which it does not wish to live." Transdniestria argues that since the majority of today's countries were founded on the principle of self-determination, they too have this moral right.

To reach a successfully negotiated outcome, the reality that must be faced is that there is no reason to put up false barriers, for instance by insisting that Moldova's so-called "territorial integrity" should somehow prevent Transdniestria from existing.
Territorial integrity and self-determination are not polar concepts. Most modern states exist because of self-determination.

Reality-check: Check your history

Another reality-check is found in the history books. Transdniestria has no historical ties with Moldova and it was never at any time in history part of an independent Moldovan state. Traditionally, the Dniester river formed an international border between the two. Transdniestria therefore argues that Moldova's claim to Transdniestria is not supported by history.

It would be more appropriate for Moldova to lodge a territorial claim against Ukraine, since parts of southern Ukraine used to belong to Moldova in the past. They were lobbed off by Stalin in an act which Moldova has since denounced as illegal. But Moldova never extended east of the Dniester river and never included the territory which is today the bulk of Transdniestria.

Nor does Moldova have a whole lot in common with pro-independence Transdniestria. The majority (64.2%) in Transdniestria are Slavs who speak Russian in contrast to Moldova where most of the population are ethnic Moldovans and speak Moldovan. The two also differ in alphabets, religions, economies, etc.

These are among the facts on the ground that must be dealt with objectively. There are many more reasons for Moldova to unite with Romania, for instance, than for Moldova to unite with Transdniestria. And if Transdniestria ever has to give up its hard-won 'de facto' independence, it would be much more logical for it to become part of Ukraine than to force it into a Moldova with which it has very little in common.

Stalin's borders? Just say no

In its proposal for a Friendship and Co-operation Treaty with Moldova, Transdniestria highlights "the importance of legally and politically completing the disintegration of the former Soviet Union."

In the Soviet Union, Transdniestria was an autonomous republic from 1924 to 1940. Its capital was Tiraspol until Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin decided to expand the Soviet Union by use of force.

Moldova — which is opposed to free, democratic choice for Transdniestria — bases its territorial claim on the now discredited Soviet-era borders which were forcibly created by Stalin under the Hitler-Stalin Pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). However, Moldova itself has repeatedly declared the Pact to be illegal.

In the early days of World War II, Stalin had his foreign minister sign this secret pact with Hitler's envoy on how the two would carve up Europe between them. As a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Soviet troops invaded Moldova — which was part of Romania at the time — and added it to Transdniestria. The capital was moved to Chisinau and the resulting entity became known as the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. Never a real country, the MSSR was merely a constituent part of the Soviet Union.

The only tie between Moldova and Transdniestria was the forced 1940-annexation by the USSR after the outbreak of World War II. In 1990, this annexation was officially declared null and void by Moldova with its 1990 publicly stated "reversal of the legal effects of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact."

In 1991, in its own Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI), Moldova again declared the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to be null and void ab initio.

In the eyes of Transdniestria, the logical conclusion is that Moldova can not lay claim to any territory which was merged as a direct result of a pact which Moldova itself declared null, void and completely illegal. Stalin's illegal merger of Moldova and Transdniestria was a war time act, and the forced incorporation of Moldova into the Soviet Union was done militarily. Under international law, the legal principle of "status quo ante bellum" would also mean that Moldova reverts to its pre-Pact borders, which among other things means no Transdniestria.

Dr. Patrick Armstrong, an analyst for the Canadian government, has formed part of a parliamentary committee on conflict resolution on the post-Soviet space. He is familiar with the Transdniestria situation and says that "generally speaking, they are only there because Stalin put them there. He could have chosen differently. But these people are trapped in Stalin's cartography."

Transdniestria's proposal is about completing the disintegration of the former Soviet Union, and to that end they see no reason that an arbitrarily chosen border which Joseph Stalin created should be more important than historical, political and ethnic realities ... or, for that matter, more important than the right of the people who live in the disputed territory to have a say in their own future.

"Self-damaging and artificial claim" says Kissinger colleague

To follow Kissinger's advice, one of the facts on the ground that must be faced by anyone interested in objective reality is that Transdniestria has few ethnic or linguistic ties to Moldova, and at no time in history has Transdniestria ever been part of any independent Moldovan state.

Dr. Henry Kissinger has been a long-time scholar of the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), a prominent right wing American think tank, where a colleague of his describes Moldova's continued claim to Transdniestria as "self-damaging" and "artificial." Dr. Michael Radu, a Senior Fellow of the Institute, agrees that there is little point for Moldova in maintaining a an unenforceable territorial claim on Transnistria.

" - Transnistria was never a legitimate part of the Romanian ethnic or historic area, and Moldova's claims to it are as self-damaging as they are artificial," says Michael Radu, a Romanian-American who is also co-Chair of FPRI's Center on Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Homeland Security.

" - America doesn't have friends, America only has interests," believes Henry Kissinger.

While this may sound a bit cynical, even coming from the master of Realpolitik, no one can dispute the fact that in today's world it is in America's interest to have a stable Europe with clearly defined borders. It is also obvious that it is in America's interest to eliminate the hurdles that prevent ratification of the CFE Treaty, and to bring as many states as possible together as responsible partners and members of the international community. This means facing the facts on the ground as far as Transdniestria is concerned, and working closely with decision makers in Moldova to help them get real about the situation, too.
Anything less is just wishful thinking.

See also:
» Transnistria to Moldova: “We just want to be friends…!”
» Foreign policy objectives urge other countries to recognize Pridnestrovie's nation building efforts
» US intelligence briefing predicts future PMR statehood as "likely"

Opinion and commentary:
» Memo to State: Face up to reality
» Independent Transdniestria good for Moldova