Bridging the Dniester will require tolerance and mutual respect

I was skeptical when The Tiraspol Times invited me to pen a column. Working with Moldovans, they had told me in no uncertain terms that this newspaper is an apologist for rebels, a Kremlin mouthpiece, and - well - a few other things not fit for print. Still, I thought, a paper which carries opinion columns by Pat Buchanan, quotes Victor Davis Hanson in its articles, and has a Condoleeza Rice statement on its "about us" page couldn't be all bad.

Condi's call to shatter the mistrust of past grievances and fostering a new spirit of tolerance and mutual respect is especially appropriate along the banks of the Dniester river in this half-forgotten corner of Southeastern Europe. Here, for sixteen long years, two governments have grown increasingly distrustful of each other as the result of past grievances. One is recognized internationally, the other is not, and both of them are a far cry from showing any tolerance or mutual respect of those who live just a bridge away, on the other side of that river.

Not a single week goes by in Moldova's press without a government minister or politician stooping to personal attacks and disqualifications of unrecognized Transnistria and its Tiraspol-based government. Things have gotten so bad that the place isn't even dignified with a name anymore. In official Chisinau parlance, it is now merely Stinga Nistrului - the "left bank of the Dniester". Or, when daydreaming, "our Eastern region".

Anyone who begs to differ is immediately cut down to size. Elections are not elections but "a farce". Results are "illegitimate", those who don't toe the Chisinau line are "rebels", and anything that local government does is "unconstitutional." More worrying still is the tendency to belittle the people of Transnistria, as if they are bereft of their faculties and have no free will to ever engage in meaningful political discourse. A common theme is that anything which happens in Transnistria is stage-managed by Russia, and that if only the bear will roll over and die, the mostly-Slavic population of Transnistria would rush to join Moldova.

Newspapers, NGOs or individuals who put forward a dissenting view are dealt with in a particular harsh fashion. They are paid agents of Moscow, says Moldova and some of its proxies in the West, or stooges for some evil Kremlin masterplan aimed at domination in its near abroad.

Instead of arguing facts on their merits, it is enough to merely smear someone with the "you are a Russian agent" brush. Throw enough mud and some of it will stick. Sow enough doubts about your opponent, and by doing so, his arguments - even if true - will not be given a fair hearing. These attacks are aimed at delegitimizing dissent. Such discourse implicitly rejects the dissenter's right to participate in a discussion about the future of the region. It is particularly ironic that one of the charges which is levied against Transnistria is, precisely, that it suppresses dissent.

In this political imagination, the problem with those who disagree with them is not that they are wrong but that they are evil, paid stooges. This is why we see a stream of replies to opposition arguments not with reasoned rebuttals but with personal attacks. Because, when it comes down to it, I can have a debate with someone I disagree with. I can share political discourse and debate conflict resolution proposals with someone who is merely wrong. But I cannot allow pure evil a role here. I have a duty to stop it, by any means at my disposal.

Following Transnistria's September 17 referendum, and the realization that there is little likelihood of Transnistria ever joining Moldova voluntarily, this lack of tolerance and respect has been ever more explicit. In the prevailing ideology of Chisinau, anyone who attempts to see things in a way which gives the benefit of the doubt to Transnistria is, at best, merely Kremlin's handmaiden.

In this worldview, there is no such thing as an individual Transnistrian identity or voter preference, and if there is, it is suppressed at gunpoint by minions put in place by the Kremlin to quell free (read: pro-Moldovan) speech. Moldova can do no wrong, whereas Russia, in comparison, is the devil incarnate. Thus, having equated Russia with the devil, anyone who does not explicitly agree with this is, in effect, an agent of Satan. A purveyor of pure evil. Now, lets take this line of argument seriously for a moment, and work through its implications.

If you truly see the world in those terms, don't you have a duty to make absolutely sure that the devil does not get a chance to present its arguments? Aren't you duty-bound to do whatever it takes to prevent that? Doesn't fraud, distorsion and dishonesty become almost a patriotic obligation if the alternative is to yield even an inch to beelzebub?

Forget the fact that this ideology is fundamentally incompatible with democratic discourse and the collaboration upon which all conflict mediation must take place.

I can achieve a working relationship with my opponents only if I see political differences as normal, as a result of human beings' natural tendency to have different views on any given subject. But I cannot do so if I think that political differences are the result of the fact that I am good and my opponents are Satan spawn.

The distrust and satanization of the other side must stop if they are to ever hope to shatter the mistrust of their past grievances. William Hill, an associate of Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy and former head of the OSCE mission to Moldova, said the same thing in September 2006: "The point is to get beyond the pressure and recriminations".

In making this point, the former OSCE Head of Mission shared both Condoleezza Rice's call and a similar statement uttered by her predecessor, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. In a speech at the Commonwealth Club in July 11, 2001, Kissinger answered a charge of war crimes by cautioning ponderation: "We should remember that over the last 20 years, we went through many crises, about which opinions in this country were severely divided. And we will never heal these wounds if we do it on the basis of competitive discussions of criminal charges. I would tell these people that they should have the courage to state their case withouth having to throw accusations around."

To find any common ground, both sides must first foster a new spirit of tolerance and mutual respect. If that happens, then the common ground can become literal - as in a common, unified state. Or maybe, with tolerance and mutual respect, the two sides can agree to just disagree, and the common ground then becomes ideological - not a common state, but a common understanding that as neighbors, they must live in peace and work together for the benefit of shared future progress in the region.

Whatever the preferred outcome is, it starts with tolerance and mutual respect and with a clear rejection of anyone who makes it his or her business to demonize those on the other side of the river.

William Maurice is an independent scholar and researcher who specializes in contemporary Southeastern Europe. Although born in India, he has lived most of his life in North America and Europe. On the Internet, he uses the handle "mauco."