Dynamics of the Moldova / Transdniestria ethnic conflict (1988-92)

1992: A Transdniestrian civilian writes "PMR" on a stolen tank while another hoists the new republic's red-and-green flag on it

Two major historical-territorial areas can be distinguished within contemporary Moldova: "right-bank" Moldova - Bessarabia proper - extending between the Prut and the Dniester rivers to the west of the Dniester; and "left-bank" Moldova - Transdniestria, or Trans-Dniester - situated to the east of the Dniester.

The larger part of modern Moldova's territory was included in the Russian Empire in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. After the 1787-91 Russian-Turkish war, the Yassy Peace Treaty (1791) allocated the Tiraspol and Dubossary districts to Russia. Two years later, the northern part of Transdniestria, previously under Polish control, passed to Russian rule.

The Bucharest Treaty after the 1806-1812 Russian-Turkish war accorded the territory between the Prut and the Dniester (Bessarabia) to the Russian Empire. Under the terms of the Paris Treaty of 1856, Romania received southern Bessarabia, but this was returned to Russia two decades later at the Berlin Congress in 1878.

After World War I the territory of Moldova was divided once again. In October 1917, the collapse of the Russian Empire permitted the national liberation of the Moldovan people. Nationalist-democratic forces who came to power in right-bank Moldova proclaimed the independence of the Bessarabian People's Democratic Republic.

The Bessarabian Parliament (Sfatul Tserij) appealed to the Western powers for recognition and assistance. However, in December 1917, Romanian troops marched into the Bessarabian republic, and in 1918, the Sfatul Tserij voted for union with Romania.
At the time, the territory to the east of the Dniester was not included in Moldova. It had stayed Russian, and then became a Ukrainian possession. By February 1920, civil war in Ukraine had led to the establishment of a Soviet regime there.

After the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922, left-bank Moldova became an administrative region within the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, recognized as a Union republic within the Soviet federation.
The Soviet government did not recognize the legitimacy of the inclusion of Bessarabia into Romania. In 1924, at the Soviet-Romanian conference in Vienna, it demanded that a plebiscite be held in right-bank Moldova; a demand refused by the Romanian government.

On 12 October 1924, the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (MASSR) was created as a national-territorial unit within the Ukrainian SSR as a Soviet protest against the recovery of Bessarabia by Romania. This ASSR comprised today's Transdniestria as well as parts of Ukraine, and for the most part of its existence it had Tiraspol as its capital.

The agreement reached between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939) saw Romanian Bessarabia as being within the sphere of Soviet interests and guaranteed tacit German approval of eventual Soviet occupation of the territory. On 26 June 1940, the Soviet government presented Romania with an ultimatum to cede Bessarabia. Romania yielded, and two days later Red Army troops entered right-bank Moldova.
On 2 August 1940, the USSR Supreme Soviet adopted a law on the formation of the Moldavian SSR (MSSR), a new Union republic within the USSR, which included five western districts of the abrogated MASSR within Ukraine (Grigoriopol, Kamenka, Rybnitsa, Slobodzya, and Tiraspol) and most of the incorporated Bessarabia.

In June 1941, the Romanians, fighting as Germany's allies, reincorporated the whole of Bessarabia, but the Soviet Army reconquered it in the autumn of 1944 and the MSSR was restored. In February 1947 the Paris Treaty with Romania recognized the 1940 Soviet Romanian frontier; thus, political control of the whole of Moldova remained in Soviet hands.

It is only natural to assume that historical developments have contributed not only to the mixed ethnic composition of the population but also to the aggravation of inter-ethnic tensions and grievances resulting from the perceived injustices of territorial attribution and ethnic coercion in Moldova.

Moldovans, the titular nationality of the MSSR and of the Moldova Republic after the collapse of the Soviet Union, constitute slightly less than two-thirds of the total population of the republic. Ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians in non-Russian republics of the former USSR are usually referred to as the Russophone minority because they either indicate Russian as their mother tongue or speak mainly Russian rather than the language of the titular nationality of these republics.

Demographically, Moldovans are the largest ethnic group in both right-bank and left-bank Moldova. However, while in right-bank Moldova the Moldovans predominate both among the urban and the rural population, in left-bank Moldova (Transdniestria) the ethnodemographic situation is considerably more complex. Here, the Moldovans, though numerically constituting the largest single ethnic group, represent only a relative numerical majority (one third of Moldovans compared to two-thirds Russophones). The Moldovans predominate in rural areas, while the Russophones form an almost overwhelming numerical majority in the large industrial centres like Tiraspol, Rybnitsa, Bender, and Dubossary. In Tiraspol, the Russophones comprise 87 per cent of the city population, in Rybnitsa 64 per cent. A similar situation is found regarding the ethnic distribution of the population in Southern Moldova, where the Gagauz, a Christian Turkish group which migrated to Bessarabia from Bulgaria in the early nineteenth century, predominate.

Linguistic disputes and growth of ethnic political activism in Moldova

The development of ethno-political disputes in Moldova appears closely connected with the dynamics of the rapid socio-political transition experienced by the republic since the late 1980s. These transformation processes in Moldova were largely the product of sociopolitical change in the USSR under perestroika. Democratization and glasnost proclaimed at the Union level by the Gorbachev leadership entailed a rise in political pluralism at the level of the Union republics. There came a surge of mass social movements, each pursuing its specific interests and advocating political objectives which differed from those officially endorsed by the Communist authorities.

The first stage of socio-political change in Moldova (summer 1988 to summer 1989) is connected with the formation of Moldovan and Gagauz voluntary associations of nationalist intelligentsia and activists. The initially proclaimed goals of these movements centred on the promotion of cultural and linguistic interests; very soon, however, these voluntary associations began to grow, becoming social movements numbering tens of thousands of activists and sympathizers. The ideological platforms of the movements (Popular Fronts), besides cultural goals, included ethno-political claims: the Moldovan Popular Front (MPF) was aiming at the political sovereignty of Moldova within the USSR federation, that is, for recognition of the priority of the Constitution of the Republic and its legislation over that of the USSR on the territory of Moldova; the Gagauz Popular Front (GPF) held that achieving national-territorial autonomy for Gagauzia (Southern Moldova districts) was one of its major goals, seeing this as the only way to ensure socio-cultural and socio-economic development for the Gagauz people.

Reacting to the growth of nationalist-democratic movements which challenged not only federalist but also basic Communist values, Communist leaders in industrial centres of left-bank Moldova mobilized supporters of "socialist internationalism" to form a counter-nationalist, pro-Communist movement of the Russophones loyal to the Union centre and to the "socialist choice" of "the Soviet multiethnic people." On 8 July 1989, the first institutional Congress of the so-called "Internationalist Movement" (IM) was held in Chisinau. (Sovetskaya Moldavia (Soviet Moldavia) newspaper, 25 November 1989).

All three social movements proclaimed their support of perestroika, though each of them perceived the final objectives of these reforms in ethnic-political terms. Trying to enlarge their social bases, the leaders of the IM seconded the claims of the Gagauz for an autonomous status within Moldova. Competing social movements engaged in propaganda campaigns among the public. From the summer of 1989, mass rallies and demonstrations organized by activists of newly-formed movements - so unlike the previous public life of the society of "mature socialism" - became recurrent events on the political scene.

In May 1989, after the publication of the drafts of new republican legislation on the status and functioning of languages in Moldova, the issue of official language became the rallying cry of the competing social movements. The ethno-political nature underlying discussions of the status of languages was evident. The MPF claimed that the Moldovan language should receive the status of sole official language in Moldova, as an important symbol of the republic's aspirations to true sovereignty within the USSR. Without restricting the spheres of functioning of other languages in Moldova, this claim would mean that knowledge of Moldovan would become obligatory for all officers in republic level and local bodies of power, for the administrative personnel of industrial enterprises, and for employees in state-owned public services.

Previously, neither the USSR or Moldovan constitutions had envisaged any formally official language. At the same time, Communist propaganda had encouraged the molding of "the new historical community - the Soviet people" on the linguistic basis of the Russian language, and had proclaimed Russian as the only means of interethnic communication between nationalities of the federation. Russian was an obligatory subject of study in all educational institutions of non-Russian republics, whereas knowledge of the language of the titular nationality was not required of the Russophone population in non-Russian republics.

With perestroika, such inequity became particularly deeply felt by the titular nationalities. Affirming the right of the non-Russian republics to have constitutionally proclaimed official languages other than Russian meant for nationalist-democratic forces not only a revolutionary cultural affirmation but an act of political challenge, a first step on the road towards asserting the political sovereignty of their republics within the USSR. Other demands advocated by the MPF included a return to writing Moldovan in the Roman rather than the Cyrillic alphabet and constitutional recognition of Moldovan as the main language of inter-ethnic communication in Moldova - the status previously enjoyed by the Russian language.

Russophones in Moldova saw these drafts of new legislation as linguistic discrimination, and became anxious that new policies might cause their children to become assimilated Moldovans. The IM exploited these fears, aiming to enlarge its political support. At rallies and in other propagandistic activities, IM leaders demanded that both Russian and Moldovan be legally recognized as the official languages, and that Russian should have the status of sole language for interethnic communication.

Linguistic disputes over the draft legislation demonstrated the politicization of both Moldovans and Russophones and the cleavage between supporters of the values of republican sovereignty and defenders of the empire of Soviet nationalities. Recognition of Moldovan as the official language would necessarily imply a lower status for the Russian language, and thus, for parts of the Russophone population, a considerable drop in group ethno-political status.

The Moldovan Popular Front also demanded a reassessment of the political and juridical interpretation of the historical events of 1918 and 1940 in Moldova, in official historiography which had defined them as "socialist revolution" and "fraternal liberation of the Bessarabian people from the yoke of bourgeois militaristic Romania." This demand was not met by the Moldovan authorities, but it represented another source of growing ethnic anxieties among the Russophones.

Confrontation between the MPF and the IM, as well as inter-ethnic tensions between Moldovans and Russophones in general, became particularly acute prior to the Moldova Supreme Soviet (parliament) session set to open on 29 August 1989 and to approve new republican legislation on languages. On 21 August, in the large industrial centres of Transdniestria (Tiraspol, Bender, Rybnitsa, Dubossary), the Russophones went on a general protest strike, demanding that the adoption of legislation on languages in the republic be postponed until analogous legislation be taken at the Union level by the USSR Supreme Soviet. Over 80,000 workers at 116 factories and plants are said to have participated in the protest strikes in Transdniestria (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 30 August 1989). Sympathetic strikes were held in southern districts of Moldova populated by the Gagauz (Komrat and Chadyr-Lungi).

The MPF, in turn, counter-mobilized Moldovans to take part in mass rallies in support of the draft language laws. On 27 August in Chisinau, and in almost all centres of right-bank Moldova, some 400 rallies and demonstrations with approximately 500,000 participants were reported (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 29 August 1989). Moldovan Popular Front activists picketed the Moldovan Supreme Soviet building.

On 31 August, the Moldova Supreme Soviet approved the new republican legislation on the status and functioning of languages, recognizing Moldovan as the only official language of the republic. A five-year term was established for final introduction of the official language into office and clerical work in all state enterprises and bodies in zones where Russian was currently used in this function. IM leaders and activists were not satisfied with the new legislation. Protest strikes in Transdniestria demanding the abrogation of the newly-approved language legislation and the arrival of the USSR Supreme Soviet Commission in Moldova went on till mid-September.

The August/September 1989 confrontation over the status of languages marked the first crisis in inter-ethnic relations in Moldova. Latent inter-ethnic political conflict had now become manifest.

First power shift and proclamation of sovereignty

The second stage of socio-political change in Moldova came with the period between September 1989 and June 1990, and was highlighted by a major shift in the power structures of the republic. The pro-Union Communist government of Moldova was succeeded by a coalition of nationalist-democratic forces, which won the democratic elections in February 1990 and proclaimed the political sovereignty of Moldova within the USSR. In September 1989 the MPF had advanced republican political sovereignty as the major objective of its political struggle. Criticism of the Communist-controlled republican government included appeals for an official re-evaluation of the historical events of 1940, and for the priority of republican legislation over the Union legislation in Moldova.

A spectacular rise in mass political activism, fuelled by the Moldovan ethnic movement, began after 17 September 1989, when the new republican draft law on parliamentary (Supreme Soviet) elections was published in the press for discussion. The MPF held a series of rallies and meetings to air its pre-election political programme, which combined affirmation of republican sovereignty and ethnic revival with anti-federalist and anti-Communist demands.

The October 1989 rallies staged by the MPF are reported to have gathered tens of thousands of participants in Chisinau alone. In November, two violent clashes were reported between the police and the Popular Front demonstrators. On 7 November in Chisinau, several thousand protesting demonstrators stopped the Communist Party celebrations of the anniversary of the 1917 Revolution by climbing onto tanks and forcing the Communist Party leadership of the republic to leave the review stand (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 8 November 1989). In addition, a Popular Front rally held on 10 November 1989 ended in rioting. After the rally, some 10,000-15,000 demonstrators demanding immediate dismissal of the Moldovan Communist Party leadership are reported to have attacked several official buildings in the centre of Chisinau. An attempt was made to set fire to the republic's Ministry of Internal Affairs building. The police struck back by beating and arresting the protesters; 40 civilians and about 100 policemen were reported to have been injured during the violent clash (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 12 November 1989).

On 16 November, Moldovan First Secretary of the Communist Party, K. Grossu, was dismissed after the weekend clashes and was replaced by Petru Lucinschi, known to be reform-oriented and liberal. On 21-24 November, the Supreme Soviet of Moldova approved a new democratic electoral law and fixed new parliamentary elections in the republic to be held on 25 February 1990.

The success of the anti-Communist revolution of December 1989 in Romania had an important impact on the growing radicalization of the Moldovan nationalist movement and non-Communist commitments of large masses of the Moldovan population in general. At the February 1990 elections, the majority of the seats in the new Moldova Supreme Soviet were won by candidates supported by the Moldovan Popular Front and by nationalist-oriented Communist candidates who expressed support for sovereignty for the republic.

On 27 April 1990, the newly-elected Moldovan Parliament approved constitutional amendments changing the flag of the republic from the red banner with socialist symbols to the Romanian ethnic three-colour (blue, yellow, and red) flag. (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 1 May 1990).
On 23 June, the Moldovan Parliament adopted the Declaration on the Sovereignty of Moldova, which proclaimed the priority of the Moldovan Constitution and legislation over the USSR Constitution and legislation on the territory of Moldova.

The same day, the Parliament approved the conclusions of the parliamentary commission on the political and legal evaluation of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact's consequences for Bessarabia and North Bukovina. The commission had concluded that it was illegal for the Soviet Union to incorporate Bessarabia in 1940. With these acts the Moldovan Parliament was following the example of the Baltic nations in challenging the constitutional principles and established practices of the Soviet Union federation (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 25 and 28 June 1990).

In this period, inter-ethnic conflict between the Moldovans and subordinate ethnic minorities of the Russophones and Gagauz manifested themselves in legislative confrontation between the Moldova central, republican, and local bodies and authorities, and in escalating protest actions by the minorities against Moldovan attempts to affirm the proclaimed sovereignty of the republic.

Although the protest strikes in Transdniestria against language legislation had stopped by the end of September, that did not mean compliance. Russophones opted for the tactics of non-recognition at the local level. On 7-8 September 1989, the deputies of Tiraspol City Council voted to ignore the new language legislation by all bodies and offices on territory under the authority of the Tiraspol local government. On 14 September, similar decisions were adopted by the sessions of Rybnitsa and Bender city councils, adding a demand to the USSR Supreme Soviet to abolish the Moldovan Republic laws on languages.

As parliamentary elections approached, Transdniestrian leaders presented their demand for national-territorial autonomy for the Russophone-populated districts within Moldova. In Rybnitsa (3 December) and Tiraspol (28 January) local referenda were held in support of granting these towns the status of autonomous self governing and self-supporting territories. These referenda also supported the formation of the Pridnestrovian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within Moldova (PASSR). On 12 December 1989, a mass rally organized by the Gagauz Popular Front in Komrat proclaimed itself the First Congress of the representatives of the Gagauz people, and petitioned the Supreme Soviet of Moldova for the establishment of the Gagauz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within Moldova (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 9 December 1989; 30 January, 3 February 1990).

Spring 1990 saw new aggravation of inter-ethnic symbolic disputes. Sessions of the city councils of Tiraspol (30 April), Bender (3 May), and Rybnitsa (8 May) abrogated the constitutional amendments concerning the new republican flag on their territories. The Moldovan Parliament reacted by amending the penal code of the republic to stipulate stricter punishment for non-observance of the legislation on republican state symbols (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 4, 7,15 May 1990).

The critical challenge to the legitimacy of the Moldovan central government came in June 1990. On 2 June, Russophone deputies from legislative bodies of all levels elected from the territories of five districts of left-Bank Moldova convoked the "First Congress of People's Deputies of Transdniestria." This Congress adopted a resolution demanding the creation of an economically independent Transdniestria region and political autonomy within Moldova. The Congress called on the Russophone population to hold local elections to the Supreme Soviet of Transdniestria, which was to proclaim independence or autonomy within Moldova unless such political autonomy be granted by the central Moldovan authorities to the Russophone districts of Transdniestria (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 5, 7 June 1990).

From declaring sovereignty to declaring independence

The third stage of political transformation in Moldova comprises the period between June 1990, when the Declaration of Sovereignty was adopted by the Moldovan Supreme Soviet, and August 1991, when Moldova proclaimed its complete independence from the USSR. On 25-26 July, the Moldovan Supreme Soviet approved new laws on the economic self-support of the republic and the procedure for ratification of USSR legislative acts by the republican Parliament (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 26, 27 July 1990). The latter act institutionalized the principle of the supremacy of republican legislation over the federal legislation of the USSR.

The creation of republican institutions not subordinate to the central Union structures began in autumn 1990, with the establishment of the republican guard and republican police, not envisaged by the Union Constitution. In January 1991, the Moldovan Supreme Soviet backed the confederation approach towards the new Union Treaty and joined the position of the Baltic republics, Armenia, and Georgia in non-participation in the USSR referendum on the preservation of the Soviet Union federation.

On 23 May, the Moldovan Supreme Soviet struck the words "Soviet" and "Socialist" from the official name of the Republic of Moldova. In the period between June 1990 and August 1991, interethnic disputes in Moldova culminated in the first crisis of ethnopolitical legitimacy, which erupted into violent clashes that were to claim human victims.

On 1 July 1990, a local referendum in Bender (Bendery in Russian / Tighina in Moldovan) supported the creation of the Transdniestria ASSR on the basis of association between the towns of Bender and Rybnitsa. Predictably, one week later the Moldovan Supreme Soviet declared the results of the Bender referendum illegal and anti-constitutional. On 22 July 1990, the Second Congress of representatives of the Gagauz people, held in Komrat once again, called on the central authorities of Moldova to review the petition of the First Congress demanding national territorial autonomy to the Gagauz districts, declaring the intention to proclaim such autonomy unilaterally if necessary.

On 27 July, a special session of the Moldovan Parliament, through a special act of the Supreme Soviet, confirmed the guarantees for free cultural autonomy of the Gagauz community in Moldova and promised state assistance to Gagauz cultural institutions. However, the Moldovan Parliament refused to grant territorial autonomy to Gagauz districts, and objected to demands for autonomous bodies of power (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 29 July 1990).
On 2 August, large protest rallies were organized in Komrat and Chadyr-Lungi.
On 19 August, the Congress of the Gagauz deputies to the Soviets of various levels proclaimed the formation of the Gagauz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (GASSR) as independent from Moldova and a subject of the USSR federation. The Congress set 28 October 1990 as the date for local elections to the Supreme Soviet of their unilaterally proclaimed autonomous republic (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 22 August 1990).

The Moldovan authorities reacted by declaring such separatist decisions illegal, banning the Gagauz Popular Front as a subversive movement. On 2 September, in Tiraspol, the Second Congress of Russophone deputies of all levels elected in Transdniestria declared the establishment of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (PMSSR) as independent from Moldova and a subject of the USSR federation. The PMSSR was announced as the legal successor to the Moldavian ASSR, which had existed within Ukraine prior to 1940.

The secessionists argued that, just as Moldova did not recognize the supremacy of USSR legislation over the republic, Transdniestria would also not recognize the supremacy and authority of Moldova. The Congress further declared that USSR legislation and Moldovan legislation pre-dating 31 August 1989 (the date of the adoption of the language laws) could be considered invalid on the territory of the proclaimed PMSSR. The population of Transdniestria was invited to participate in elections to the Supreme Soviet of the PMSSR on 25 November (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 4 September 1990).

On 16 September, the Second Congress of the Gagauz deputies of all levels of Soviets recognized the independence of the PMSSR and, in turn, declared the establishment of the Gagauz Soviet Socialist Republic (GSSR) within the USSR but independent from Moldova. The Congress confirmed 28 October as the date of elections to the Gagauz Supreme Soviet, to be held in southern districts of Moldova and organized by local Soviets (SM, 19 September 1990).

The claims of these unilaterally proclaimed new republics were perceived by the Moldovan majority as an encroachment on their territorial integrity and caused intense escalation of inter-ethnic tensions. Large-scale rallies involving tens of thousands of demonstrators were organized by the Moldovan Popular Front in Chisinau and all major centres of right-bank Moldova, demanding that the Moldovan government should take urgent, decisive measures to suppress the separatists.

By 23 October, when Moldovan Prime Minister Mircea Druc, under pressure from Popular Front radicals, signed a decree legalizing the organization of detachments of Moldovan volunteers subordinated to the republican Ministry of Defence, the situation had grown beyond the control of the Moldovan government. As numerous formations of volunteers mobilized by the Moldovan Popular Front and radical activists started to arrive in the Gagauz districts of Southern Moldova, Gagauz local bodies initiated a counter-mobilization of volunteers into self-defence groups.

Transdniestrian authorities promised their support to the Gagauz and called for the mobilization of self-defence groups of the Russophone workers. Thousands of Transdniestrian workers were reported to have been sent from Tiraspol in support of the Gagauz. Barricades, barrages, and control posts on the roads leading to Southern Moldova were set up by Gagauz self-defense formations. Civilian self-defence formations blocked the Dubossary Bridge connecting right-bank Moldova with this nearest Transdniestrian city. On 27 October, the concentration of opposing formations of volunteers in the Komrat, Chadyr-Lungi, and Vulkanesht districts of the Gagauz area reportedly reached 80,000 people on either side (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 October 1990).

On the eve of the 28 October Gagauz elections, the Moldovan Parliament declared a state of emergency in Southern Moldova and called for USSR central government troops to help the republican police in maintaining social order. Moldovan police and internal troops managed to separate the opposing formations and to prevent major outbursts of inter-ethnic hostility in Gagauzia. Then, on 28 October, the elections to the Gagauz Supreme Soviet were held. Tension in Southern Moldova seemed to subside, and volunteer formations started to leave the area. At the same time, however, the confrontation in the Dubossary district reached such a height that three people were killed and nine wounded in a violent clash between the Moldovan police and Russophone civilians on 2 November, near the Dubossary Bridge over the Dniester. Two of the dead were Russophone ethnic Moldovans and one was a Ukrainian. All three died on the Transdniestrian side. Moldova saw no fatalies in the clash. (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 27 October, 4 November 1990; Dialog nos. 19, 20).

Realizing that further escalation could assume the Nagorno Karabakh pattern and provoke the Union central authorities to apply force and impose martial law in the republic, both conflicting parties undertook to search urgently for a compromise. An extraordinary session of the Moldovan Supreme Soviet, held on 3 November, passed a resolution demanding complete withdrawal of volunteer formations of all parties from Southern Moldova and from the Transdniestria area, as well as the removal of road barricades and control posts (Sovetskaya Moldavia, 4 November 1990). A special parliamentary commission of reconciliation, headed by Moldovan Communist Party First Secretary, Petru Lucinschi, was formed to negotiate with the Transdniestrian and Gagauzian leaders. Both parties responded to the mediation offered by the Union President, Mikhail Gorbachev, who then held talks with Moldovan and Transdniestrian leaders on 3-4 November in Moscow (Izvestiya, 4 and 5 November 1990).

A special commission of the Moldovan Supreme Soviet was constituted, containing representatives of all ethnic minorities, and given the task of elaborating draft amendments to the Moldovan law on the status and functioning of languages. On 24 November, the Moldovan government abrogated the decree on legalization of the Moldovan volunteer formations and called for their disbandment. However, no decision concerning the destiny of the Moldovan republican guard was taken (Sovetskaya Moldavia , 15, 25 November 1990; Dialog no. 21, 1990).

Despite appeals made by the USSR central government to the local authorities and to the IM leaders of Transdniestria to waive their decision to organize elections to the Supreme Soviet of the self-proclaimed PMSSR, such elections were held on 25 November. The first session of the Transdniestrian Supreme Soviet recalled from the Moldovan Supreme Soviet all deputies elected from the left-bank Moldova constituencies (Sovetskaya Moldavia , 30 November 1990).

On 22 December 1990, the Union President, Mikhail Gorbachev, issued a decree in which he attempted to call Moldova to order by threatening presidential rule from Moscow. The decree declared the unilaterally proclaimed Gagauz and Transdniestria republics and the elected bodies illegal and juridical invalid. The same decree insisted that the central government of the Moldovan republic repeal or revise numerous laws and decisions. Such "objectionable" laws included the creation of a separate republican guard, a language law supposedly giving preference to Moldovan speakers, and a denunciation of the Union annexation of Moldova under the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Sovetskaya Moldavia , 22 December 1990).

One week later, the Moldovan Parliament agreed to comply by disbanding its national guard and revising the law on languages, which the Union President alleged restricted minority rights. The Supreme Soviet of Moldova rejected, however, any modifications to the republic's Declaration of Sovereignty, and refused to recognize the supremacy of USSR legislation over that of the republic on the territory of Moldova (Sovetskaya Moldavia , 30 December 1990).

On 21 January, the Third Extraordinary Congress of Transdniestria deputies was convoked to discuss the Gorbachev decree. The Congress repeated its demand to the USSR Supreme Soviet and to the Union President to recognize the independence of the proclaimed PMSSR and GSSR and to let representatives of those republics sign the Union Treaty independently from Moldova.

The august 1991 coup attempt and the transition to independence

The failure of the August 1991 coup in the USSR can be regarded as the landmark of the fourth stage of socio-political transition in Moldova. Two events of major significance mark this period: Moldova's declaration of complete independence in August 1991, and worldwide recognition of the new republic after the definitive disintegration of the Soviet empire and the resignation of Gorbachev in late December 1991.

Together with the Baltic states, Moldova was among those few Union republics to condemn the organizers of the Communist putsch in Moscow from the outset. On 21 August, an extraordinary session of the Moldovan Parliament called for active resistance against the Union structures and against the putschists. After the failure of the Moscow coup, on 23 August, the Moldovan Parliament banned all activities of the Communist Party in Moldova (Sfatulo Tserij, weekly paper published by the Moldovan parliament, 28 August 1991).

On 27 August, the Declaration of Independence and the secession of Moldova from the USSR was adopted by the Parliament. On the same day, Moldova's independence was recognized by Romania; two days later, diplomatic relations were established between the two states. On 23 October, the government of Moldova declared republican ownership of all industrial enterprises formerly under Union structures. In November/December 1991, the Moldovan Parliament adopted legislative acts on the creation of a national army, internal troops, frontier guard, and special police detachments (OPON). Nationwide presidential elections were to be held on 8 December.

As in other ex-USSR republics, the removal of the Union centre and the process of state-building were accompanied by growing differentiation and rivalries within the elite of the titular nationality. The radical wing of the Moldovan nationalist movement, headed by Moldova's former Prime Minister Mircea Druc, called for the restoration of Greater Romania within the 1940 borders, through reunion of independent Moldova with Romania and presentation of territorial claims to Ukraine. A large group of Moldovan intellectuals, followed by some of the rank and file, left the Moldovan Popular Front, disapproving of Druc's radicalism. The majority of the Moldovan elite backed the moderates, headed by Moldovan President Snegur, whose policies envisaged strengthening Moldova's independence, preserving economic ties with other ex-USSR republics, and joining the Commonwealth of Independent States.

On 14 October 1991, the Moldovan Popular Front declared its transition into opposition to the Snegur government (Nezovisirnaya Moldova (Independent Moldova) newspaper, 24 October 1991). After that, the MPF leaders called a boycott of the forthcoming presidential elections. On 1 December, a rally of the coalition of radical nationalist parties declared the formation of a "Pan-Romanian National Council of the Reunion," for Greater Romania within the borders of 1940. This Council consisted of radical nationalist Moldovan Parliament deputies and their colleagues from the Romanian Parliament who belonged to right-wing opposition parties in Romania (Nezovisirnaya Moldova, 4 December 1991).

At the nationwide elections held in Moldova on 8 December, Snegur won the presidency, receiving 98 per cent of the vote. Voter turnout was high, at 83.9 per cent (Nezovisirnaya Moldova, 13 December 1991). The failure of the MPF boycott and the victory of Snegur demonstrated the popular support and legitimacy enjoyed by the moderate nationalist leaders.

The same period between August 1991 and December 1991 was marked by a new crisis in inter-ethnic conflict between the Moldovan majority and the Russophones of left-bank Moldova. On 25 August 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the PMSSR proclaimed Transdniestria independent from Moldova. The Moldovan Parliament did not recognize this proclamation, and on 27 August the Moldovan central authorities issued an order authorizing the arrest of separatist leaders of Transdniestria and Gagauzia. The next day, a special decree of President Snegur abolished or suspended the publication of almost all local Russian language newspapers, accusing them of Communist propaganda and support of the coup junta (Sfatulo Tserij, 28 August, 4 September 1991).

On 1 September, the Russophone population of Transdniestria began a railway blockade of Moldova demanding the release of the arrested leaders and threatening to interrupt electricity and gas supplies to right-bank Moldova, populated predominantly by Moldovan's. On 2 September, the outlawed Supreme Soviet of the PMSSR approved the Constitution of the republic, adopting the former socialist Moldovan state emblem and flag as symbols of the Republic of Transdniestria (Izvestiya , 2, 3 September 1991; Sfatulo Tserij, 7 September 1991).

From 9 September, in the towns and cities of Transdniestria, armed formations of "forces of self-defence of Transdniestria" and "detachments of people's militia" (people's volunteer corps), subordinated to staff headquarters in Tiraspol, came into being. On 21 September, the Transdniestrian parliament approved a law on the creation of Transdniestrian republican armed forces (the republican guard) and announced military mobilization of males aged 20-40 (Izvestiya, 10,11 September 1991; Sfatulo Tserij, 14, 21 September 1991). Sentries and control posts were stationed by Transdniestrian guardsmen and militia on all roads and on the Dubossary Bridge.

A delegation of deputies of the Russian Federation Supreme Soviet arrived in Moldova to assist in settling the conflict. On 1 October, an agreement was signed between the Moldovan government and representatives of left-bank Moldova. It provided for the liberation of the arrested separatist leaders, mutual withdrawal of additional Moldovan police forces and Transdniestrian guards from Dubossary, and an end to the railway blockade of right-bank Moldova. However, control posts stationed by Transdniestrians on the roads and on the Dubossary Bridge remained (Nezovisirnaya Moldova, 4 October 1991).

Inter-ethnic conflict did not abate, however. Transdniestria's leaders insisted that Moldova should recognize the independence of Transdniestria as an indispensable precondition for initiating negotiations on Transdniestria's entering Moldova as an ethno-territorial autonomy with the right of free secession. The Moldovan central authorities, however, rejected direct bilateral negotiations with the leaders of separatist parliaments and refused to recognize the legitimacy of these bodies, demanding their dissolution and the return of deputies from Transdniestria and Gagauzia to the central Moldovan Parliament as a precondition for examining the minorities' demands.

In October 1991, the Parliaments of Transdniestria and Gagauzia called for local referenda to be held on independence and presidential elections on 1 December 1991 (Nezovisirnaya Moldova, 17, 31 October 1991). A decree issued by the head of the Transdniestrian Department of Internal Affairs envisaged the establishment of a Transdniestrian militia, and required dismissal of any policemen disinclined to swear allegiance to the PMSSR (Nezovisirnaya Moldova, 15 November 1991).

On 1 December 1991, two separatist leaders, Igor Smirnov and Stepan Topal, were elected president at the local elections held in Transdniestria and Gagauzia, respectively. The referenda held the same day supported independence from Moldova. On 3 December, the Supreme Soviet of Transdniestria approved the creation of the Transdniestrian Ministry of Defence (Nezovisirnaya Moldova, 4 December 1991).

On 25 December, the first semiarid groups of Russian Cossacks from the Don region of the Russian Federation were reported to have arrived as volunteers in Tiraspol, to swear allegiance to the PMSSR as a sign of solidarity and support to their Slavic ethnic brethren in Transdniestria (Nezovisirnaya Moldova, 21, 26 December 1991).

Large-scale inter-ethnic violence

A new socio-political transition began in winter 1992 after Moldova had gained international recognition. In early March, the new republic became a member of the United Nations. Between March and June 1992, domestic conflict between Moldova and Transdniestria escalated into large-scale organized violence with international implications. By late July 1992, only a fragile inter-ethnic peace seemed to have been reached.

On 9 January 1992, the Transdniestrian authorities decreed that the ex-USSR armed forces located on the territory of left-bank Moldova be placed under the command of the PMSSR government. The CIS armed forces ignored this demand and declared the neutrality of the former Union army in internal conflicts in the ex-USSR republics. In January-March 1992 came reports of armed assaults made by Transdniestrian guardsmen and Cossacks at military depots of the 14th Army and ex-USSR internal troops.

New signs of polarization of the Moldova-Transdniestria conflicts were reported in February 1992. In late February hundreds of Cossacks from the Don region of Russia began to arrive in left-bank Moldova in response to appeals made by the Transdniestrians to their Russian ethnic brethren. Their arrival served to heighten ethnic tensions. Soon afterwards, groups of Romanian volunteers were reported arriving in right-bank Moldova expressing their solidarity with the Moldovans against the separatists (Kuranty, 2 March 1992; Izvestiya, 5 March 1992).

At its third Congress, held in Chisinau on 23 February 1992, the Moldovan Popular Front renamed itself the Christian Democratic Popular Front (CDPF), underlining its political linkage with right-wing Romanian parties, which also sought further reunion of Moldova with Romania and the restoration of Greater Romania (Nezovisirnaya Gazeta, 26 February 1992).

On 1-2 March, Transdniestria demanded the closure of Moldova loyalist organizations in Dubossary. Moldovan OPON detachments sent from Chisinau were blocked at the Dubossary Bridge. After an exchange of fire with the guardsmen and Cossacks, one person was killed and one was wounded. On 3 March, Moldova closed its police office in Dubossary and transferred it to Cochieri, a Moldovan-populated village nearby. The same day, during a violent clash in Cochieri, six Transdniestrian guardsmen were killed and 11 wounded. On March 3, Transdniestrian leader Igor Smirnov declared a state of emergency in Transdniestria. New Cossack detachments were reported arriving in Transdniestria through the territory of Ukraine. Hostilities assumed the character of daily exchanges of fire and minor combat in the suburbs of Dubossary and in neighbouring villages with ethnically mixed populations (Izvestiya, 2, 5 March 1992; Nezovisirnaya Gazeta, 4 March 1992).

On 6 March, violent attacks and exchanges of fire were reported on highways in Bender and Grigoriopol districts. During an armed raid on a military depot on 15 March, some 600 Cossacks took possession of firearms, guns, machine and submachine guns, mortars, grenades, and ammunition (Kuranty, 7 March 1992; Izvestiya, 16 March 1992). In mid-March, hostilities spread to the rural areas of Dubossary, with hundreds of people participating in violent combat. On 16-17 March, over 600 Moldovan troops and Transdniestrian guards with a dozen armoured carriers were reported engaged in fighting near Cochieri village. In the combat near Koshnitsy village, the Moldovan side alone reached 3,000 troops (Izvestiya, 17 March 1992; Kuranty, 18 March 1992).

Flows of refugees leaving en masse were the product of the escalating hostilities. On 20 March, 6,000 refugees had to flee to the Odessa region of Ukraine after having been threatened or attacked by Moldovans. By 26 March, the total count of refugees was estimated at over 10,000 (Kuranty, 21, 25 March 1992; IZ, 26 March 1992). The flow of people in opposite directions aroused anger and hatred on both banks of Moldova.

On 17 March, an armistice agreement was reached. Trying to promote a compromise, the Moldovan Parliament agreed to grant economic and taxation autonomy to left-bank Moldova and to introduce new amendments into the law on languages. Transdniestria did not find these concessions satisfactory, however, and insisted that Transdniestria be granted, if not political independence, then at least political-territorial autonomy within Moldova and the right to free secession if Moldova should reunite with Romania.

By mid-March the Moldova-Transdniestria conflict had acquired international implications. On 17 March, the Romanian government demanded that the Russian Federation undertake urgent measures towards a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Moldova (Izvestiya, 18, 20 March 1992). Moscow was hesitant and gave ambiguous signals. On the one hand, the Russian government had recognized the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of the CIS countries. On the other hand, protection of the rights of Russophone minorities had also been declared an important objective of Russia's foreign policy toward ex-USSR republics. Political opponents of the Yeltsin government accused it of ignoring the alleged violation of human rights of Moldova's Russophone inhabitants and of betraying their ethnic brothers.
Ukrainian president Leonid Kravchuk, reacting to a request from Mircea Snegur, issued a decree for the creation of a 50-km special zone on the frontier between Moldova and Ukraine, aimed at preventing any further influx of Don Cossacks from Russia through Ukrainian territory (Izvestiya, 18 March 1992).

On 18 March, the local command of the 14th ex-Soviet Army (composed mainly of Russophones) issued a declaration expressing the intention to provide military support to Transdniestrians, even without orders from Moscow, should armed hostilities again begin to escalate. On 19 March, Moldova's President Snegur declared he did not exclude the possibility that his country might turn to Romania for military help: Don Cossacks from Russia had already intervened in the conflict on the side of the Russophones. The CIS United Armed Forces Command promised that the 14th Army would stay neutral (Izvestiya, 19, 20 March 1992).

On 19 March, during his emergency visit to Moscow, the Romanian foreign minister repeated Romania's appeal to Moscow to initiate four-way, peace making talks. On 20 March, the Russian Federation Supreme Soviet appealed to the Moldovan Parliament to seek a peaceful solution to the inter-ethnic disputes. At the same time it expressed the opinion that the economic autonomy granted to Transdniestria by the Moldovan central authorities should be supplemented with recognition of political status, guaranteeing the right of left-bank Moldova to self-determination if Moldova should lose its independence through reunion with Romania (Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 21 March 1992).

On 24 March, four-way negotiations between Moldova, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine started in Chisinau at foreign minister level. Russia and Ukraine agreed to the Moldovan demand that Transdniestria should not be present at the talks as an independent party.

A new outburst of violence in Dubossary region broke the armistice and complicated the negotiation process. On 30 March, Moldovan policemen attacked Transdniestrians on the Dubossary highway, resulting in one Transdniestrian guardsman killed and three wounded (Kuranty, 31 March 1992).

On 31 March, the Moldovan Parliament enacted President Snegur's decree introducing a state of emergency throughout Moldova. A resolution passed by the Moldovan Parliament repeated the demand that armed formations of Transdniestrian guardsmen be disbanded, that the Cossacks return to Russia, and that Moldovan power structures be restored in left-bank Moldova as preconditions for further negotiations on the future political status of the region (Izvestiya, 2 April 1992).

In April, hostilities spread to Bender district as well. On 1 April, four days of combat began between Moldovan OPON forces and Transdniestrian guardsmen, which led to the division of the city into two sectors, each controlled by an opposing group. As a result of this violence, 19 were killed and 18 wounded (Kuranty, 10 April, 1992). Officers of the 14th Army unit located near Bender threatened to break the neutrality and to intervene in the conflict to separate the sides unless the hostilities stopped. From 2 April, Transdniestria mounted a new railway blockade of right-bank Moldova. Starting on 8 April, new violent clashes in Dubossary district escalated into rocket fire exchange, armed raids and assaults, fighting, and terrorist acts along the whole frontier in Transdniestria.

This lasted till 17 April, when a new cease-fire agreement was reached. The official figures issued by Moldovan and Transdniestrian sources as of 17 April stated that since the beginning of violence in December 1991, 42 people had been killed (including 19 policemen and 23 civilians) and 130 wounded (including 72 policemen and 58 civilians) on the Moldovan side; and 60 killed, 100 wounded, and 60 missing on the Transdniestrian side (Izvestiya, 17 April 1992).

Between 12 and 28 May 1992, there was yet another new eruption of interethnic hostilities, with Transdniestrian guardsmen and Cossacks using tanks and armoured carriers stolen from units of the 14th Army. During combat in Grigoriopol district, 27 tanks and 12 armoured carriers were reported to have been used by the Transdniestrians. At least 54 persons were reported killed and 113 wounded in May. (Kuranty, 22 May, 4 June 1992; Izvestiya, 5 June 1992). By the end of May a new agreement on a 30-day-long armistice was reached, and new attempts were made to resolve the conflict through negotiations.

In early June, at the negotiations held in Moscow between the foreign ministers of Russia and Moldova, it was agreed to establish three working groups. Their tasks were to monitor the cease-fire agreement and to have consultations on the modalities of withdrawal of the 14th Army from Moldova and on the political and legal aspects of resolving the Moldova-Transdniestria conflict. (Izvestiya, 12, 19 June 1992).

On 3 June, Transdniestria's Parliament forwarded to the Moldovan Parliament a proposal to separate the armed formations in the zone of conflict and to stipulate a treaty of federation between Moldova and Transdniestria. The latter was to constitute a new status for Transdniestria as a politically autonomous republic within Moldova with the right to free secession.

Following debates held in the Moldovan Parliament on 9-11 June, the Parliament rejected the federation demands of Transdniestria but agreed to a special resolution promising reconsideration of the political and juridical status of left-bank Moldova (Izvestiya, 15, 19 June 1992). After consultations with military leaders it was agreed to start the withdrawal of troops from left-bank Moldova on 16 June. However, dramatic events in Bender were to check the peace seeking process once again.

Bloodshed and conflict settlement in Bender

On 19 June, the Moldovan government sent formations of their national army to impose Moldovan control over Bender. For two months the town had been divided into two sectors, controlled by opposing armed groups. Moldovan troops (reportedly some 2,500 soldiers and officers) attacked the northern sector of Bender, which was controlled by the Transdniestrian guardsmen. Trying to check the rapid arrival of additional guardsmen in support of the Transdniestrians, Moldovan aircraft bombed the bridge connecting the town of Bender with the highway leading to Tiraspol. Artillery was used by both sides. The command of the 14th Army garrison near Bender declared its neutrality, but the Moldovan press claimed that, without authorization, some individual soldiers participated privately in the fighting on the side of the Transdniestrian guardsmen.

The next day, groups of Transdniestrian guardsmen and Cossacks, outnumbering the Moldovan forces, arrived in Bender district. The Transdniestrians regained control over the larger part of the city. The Moldovan forces withdrew into the suburbs. The three-day combat resulted in 20 killed and 200 wounded on the Moldovan side, and some 300 killed and 500 wounded on the Transdniestrian side. Almost all the city buildings were destroyed by artillery fire (Kuranty, 21, 22 June 1992; Izvestiya, 22, 23, 24 June 1992).

On 22-23 June, leaders of the opposing parties reached an agreement on a cease-fire in Bender. However, developments spiralled out of control, unleashing a potent wave of inter-ethnic hostilities. Violent clashes were reported in the Dubossary, Bender, Rybnitsa, Parkany, and Grigoriopol districts. As of 24 June, human losses amounted to 500 dead and 3,500 wounded on both sides since the Bender battle. The number of Slavic refugees to the Odessa region of Ukraine totalled 30,000 - three times as many as during the previous months of warfare (Izvestiya, 25 June 1992; Kuranty, 27 June 1992). The number of armed members of military formations reported to be participating in the hostilities was estimated at 15,000 persons from each side, with approximately 400 tanks and armoured carriers and 300 artillery guns and mortars being deployed. By July, the total number of refugees to Ukraine and Russia exceeded 100,000 (Kuranty, 2, 8 July 1992).

When locally-stationed individual officers of the 14th Army threatened to ignore the neutrality orders of the Russian authorities and to take an active part to end the violent conflict, the danger of larger-scale violence compelled the political leaders to search with greater urgency for a way to settle the conflict and restore peace. On 25 June, during the Istanbul conference of the Black Sea countries, a special round of talks was held between the presidents of Russia, Romania, Ukraine, and Moldova. This yielded an agreement to halt the armed confrontation in Transdniestria and to undertake effective measures to ensure separation of the opposing armed factions.

The four presidents called on the Moldovan Parliament to reconsider once again the political and juridical status of left-bank Moldova. The same day, the Moldovan Parliament replied that recognition of Transdniestria as a separate politico-territorial unit was not open for discussion, but it did approve a special act envisaging for Bender with the status of a "free city" within Moldova and new legislative guarantees of wide-ranging economic and cultural autonomy for Transdniestria within Moldova (Izvestiya, 26, 27 June 1992).

On 8 July, negotiations between Moldova's deputy minister of defence, the commander of the Transdniestrian guard, the commander-in-chief of the 14th ex-USSR Army, and representatives of the Russian Federation Defence Ministry ended with the signing of a mutual order on cease-fire and disarmament along the entire frontier-line of left-bank Moldova, and the introduction of the CIS armed forces as peacekeepers (Izvestiya, 8 July 1992).

A political settlement of the Moldova-Transdniestria conflict would appear to have been reached in the course of intensive Moldova-Transdniestria talks, with active participation of the Russian Federation, in late July 1992. On 21 July, in the presence of the Transdniestrian delegation headed by President Igor Smirnov, the Russian and Moldovan presidents signed the Moscow Agreement on the principles of peace settlement of armed conflict in Transdniestria districts of the republic of Moldova. This accord envisaged the creation of a dividing line in left-bank Moldova between the opposing parties, to be supervised by military observers from Russia, Moldova, and Transdniestria (later, Ukraine would also join this peacekeeping force). It further stipulated gradual withdrawal of all armed formations, military equipment, and machinery from Transdniestria; withdrawal of the 14th Army to the territory of Russia; and the establishment of a special control commission on security in Bender, the Joint Control Commission (or OKK by its Russian initials).

Moldova took upon itself the obligation to determine and to settle the legal and political status of left-bank Moldova within Moldova and to grant to its population the right to self-determination if the political status of the independent republic of Moldova should ever change. This compromise may not have resolved the Moldova-Transdniestria conflict completely, but it appears to have been successful in suppressing violence and in providing peace, at least for the time being (Izvestiya, 22 July 1992).

Socio-political change and inter-ethnic violence

The above review shows the significant impact of socio-political transformation in Moldova 1988-92 on the politicization of interethnic disputes and the escalation of ethno-political contentions to the highest degree of militancy. Each new stage of socio-political change entailed political crises in inter-ethnic relations, accompanied by an escalation of anxiety-laden demands concerning the political status of ethnic groups with zero-sum perceptions of power issues.

We may identify five major critical points in the inter-ethnic political struggles in Moldova between late 1988 and mid-1992:

(1) August-September 1989: crisis resulting from the adoption of new republican legislation on the status and functioning of languages;

(2) October-November 1990: crisis prior to local elections to the Supreme Soviets (parliaments) of unilaterally proclaimed Gagauzian and Transdniestrian republics;

(3) September 1991: crisis following the failure of the coup in the USSR and the arrest of leaders of the rebel ethnic groups in Moldova;

(4) December 1991: crisis after presidential elections and referenda on independence in Gagauzia and Transdniestria;

(5) March 1992: crisis after the authorities of Transdniestria consolidated control of local government institutions.

Three major patterns and stages can be singled out in the development of disruptive inter-ethnic confrontation between Moldova and Transdniestria:

(i) November 1990 and September 1991: transition from nonviolent to violent ethnic political action as manifested in clashes between Moldovan troops and pro-independence civilians in Dubossary;

(ii) December 1991: transition to recurrent violent interaction in ethnically mixed urban and rural areas of left-bank Moldova; Moldovan police and special OPON detachments, Moldovan peasants on the one side engaged in violent interaction with specially created formations of Transdniestrian militia and semi-organized self-defence Russophone civilian groups on the other;

(iii) March-July 1992: transition to warfare - large-scale, organized, and sustained inter-ethnic violence pervaded the whole border area between right-bank and left-bank Moldova, culminating in the Moldovan attacks on Bender of June 1992. Organized armed military formations (Moldovan OPON, police and armed forces against Transdniestrian guardsmen and self-defense militia) representing established populations of opposing ethnicities engaged in warfare employing a vast range of conventional weapons. Paramilitary formations of adversaries (Moldovan and Romanian volunteers, Transdniestrian self-defence groups and Cossack detachments) added a guerrilla dimension to the war.

Resort to violence in the Moldova-Transdniestria conflict appears to have been highly instrumental and related to the issues of political contention. Violence seems to have been closely connected with the political nature of ethnic disputes in the changing Moldovan society. Comparing the timing of violence with the course of non-violent ethno-political disputes in Moldova, we can see that the points marking the transition from non-violent to violent ethnic interaction correspond to the ethno-political crises of legitimacy which marked the peaks of inter-ethnic struggles for power.

Ethno-political legitimacy crisis as transition to violence

Non-violent proactive action by a disadvantaged and aggrieved ethnic group seeking a revision of the established ethno-political order poses a challenge to the constitutional order if, as in the former USSR or Yugoslavia, a multi-ethnic state includes ethno-territorial principles in the foundation of its political organization. Challenges to the constitutional order mean, of course, challenges to regime legitimacy. Such legitimacy issues are likely to be especially severe in newly establishing or newly established political systems, since such systems lack a past performance on which to base their legitimacy. Any perceived inequities in the system are particularly likely to be deemed unacceptable. The situation in the state then approaches anarchy, because there is no adequately legitimate authority capable of resolving disputes among ethnic groups. Moreover, the government controlled by the ethnically dominant group does not enjoy full legitimacy even among the dominant ethnicity, due to rivalries among ethno-nationalist leaders and sub-élites.

Under such circumstances, virtually every issue of ethnic cleavage and dispute (language, religion, culture, official versions of the historical past, and the like) will often acquire a salient political dimension, and will generally turn into contests for power or become instrumentalized as such. When power conflicts between ethnic adversaries are particularly likely to become extreme and to be viewed as questions of survival, the likelihood of violence will increase dramatically.

Tilly places special importance on the argument that there is no sharp division between violent and non-violent collective action: there exists a close connection between the two (Tilly et al., 1975: 248; Tilly, 1978: 172-88). In this perspective, collective violence is seen as a by-product of group political interaction, of the struggle for power and of its repression. Tilly stresses that agents of government play a major role in such interactions, not only because governments often make claims which groups within their jurisdiction resist, but also, and primarily because, agents of government play a crucial role in collective violence as repressors of collective action. (Tilly et al., 1975: 243, 257, 283).

Let us now apply these propositions to the consideration of ethnopolitical disputes. It would appear that the stage of an ethno-political conflict when the central (ethnically dominant) government resorts to violence to repress the collective action conducted by the ethnic subordinates in their struggle for ethnically relevant redistribution of political arrangements, is most likely to become the point of transition from non-violent to violent collective ethnopolitical action.

This gives rise to an important question. At which stage of an ongoing ethno-political conflict is the central government most likely to repress the disadvantaged ethnic group contending for power? This stage the ethno-political crisis of legitimacy - appears to occur when the (ethnically dominant) government calculates that the challenge cast by the aggrieved ethnic group jeopardizes the regime's legitimacy in toto. No matter how tolerant and disinclined to repression the dominant ethnic group and its governing elite may be, there still exists a point in the escalation of ethnopolitical conflict which, once reached, is almost destined to entail reaction and repression from the agents of the central government.

This critical point can be called the ethno-political crisis of legitimacy - as the culmination of non-violent ethno-political interaction. Such a point has been reached when the aggrieved group has become, or is on the verge of becoming, so highly mobilized as a political actor that the central government comes to realize that the anticipated next step of the disadvantaged ethnic group will not only pose another challenge to the legitimacy of the regime but may also bring about complete delegitimation of the current order.

It is during such an ethno-political crisis of legitimacy that interethnic power contention becomes extreme. The stakes in terms of threats to and opportunities for the objective political interests of the groups involved are particularly high; zero-sum perceptions become widely shared and the likelihood of violence peaks. (For a more general discussion in legitimacy issues and politicized ethnicity, see Rothschild, 1981.) The outbreak of an ethno-political crisis of legitimacy means that a turning point in the power conflict has been reached and a new, intense, and different level of political interaction between the conflicting ethnic groups becomes possible. Violence then appears as a likely resultant mode of further conflict behaviour.

The dynamics of the Moldova-Transdniestria conflict indeed indicate that the ethno-political crises of legitimacy which occurred at different stages of the rapid socio-political transformation in Moldova, each time entailed violence. As demonstrated by the Moldova case, fast-paced socio-political change appears to be a major factor in shaping the dynamics of inter-ethnic violence. This influence can be assessed in at least three ways:

(1) It was the rapid character of the transformation of political life in Moldova which created an intricate superimposition of political struggles on interethnic cleavages, and the escalation of ethnic disputes to the stage of ethno-political crisis of legitimacy. The unresolved issue of power allocations between Moldova and Transdniestria and the salience of ethnic anxieties contributed to the reoccurrence and reproduction of legitimacy crises at each stage of sociopolitical transformation.

(2) Each new legitimacy crisis was more acute than the previous one, resulting in an ever-increasing scale of ethno-political violence. The overall pattern passed from the small-scale sporadic violence of single violent clashes between government agents and rebel civilians to large-scale organized and sustained warfare.

(3) Each new stage of socio-political transformation, with old patterns of ethno-political arrangements being broken and new issues arising, encouraged the growth of group organization and militant, politicized ethnic assertiveness. This is turn raised the level of political ethnic mobilization.

See also:
» Moldova's ethnic-based independence movement and the River of Blood
» Human rights groups confirm Moldova massacres in 1992 conflict
» 15 years later Pridnestrovie still grieves its war dead

On the web:
» International Tribunal faults Moldova for 1992 massacres
» The 1992 attacks against Transdniestria (in Russian)

Acronyms and abbreviations:
ASSR: Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
CDPF: Christian Democratic Popular Front
GASSR: Gagauz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
GPF: Gagauz Popular Front
GSSR: Gagauz Soviet Socialist Republic
IM: Internationalist Movement
MASSR: Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
MPF: Moldovan Popular Front
SSR Soviet Socialist Republic
MSSR: Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic
OPON: special police detachments created by Moldovan government
PASSR: Pridnestrovian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
PMSSR: Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic
PMR: Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic

Sources:
» Moldova Suverana
» Nezovisirnaya Gazeta (Independent Newspaper)
» Nezovisirnaya Moldova (Independent Moldova)
» Sfatulo Tserij (Weekly paper published by the Moldovan parliament)
» Izvestiya (USSR Supreme Soviet newspaper).
» Kuranty
» Rossiiskaya Gazeta
» Sovetskaya Moldavia (Soviet Moldavia)
» Dialog (Tiraspol local newspaper), nos. 19, 20, 21, 1990.
» Horowitz, D. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
» Rothschild, J. 1981. Ethnopolitics: A Conceptual Framework. New York: Columbia University Press.
» Shibutani, T., and K.M. Kwan. 1965. Ethnic Stratification: A Comparative Approach. New York: Macmillan.
» Tilly, C. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
» Tilly C., L. Tilly, and R.T. Tilly. 1975. The Rebellious Century: 1830-1930. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.