[0]

A Republican insider with 17 years Senate experience prefers PMR independence over Kosovo's. Several others in DC now agree.

WASHINGTON DC (Tiraspol Times) - With a close-knit group of US State Department officials pushing for Kosovo independence, others in Washington are suggesting that Transnistria has a better case for statehood. On the basis of both history and international law, Transnistria (or Pridnestrovie, its official name) deserves it more says James Jatras, a longtime Senate foreign policy insider.

" - It’s time to start thinking less about precedents and more about contrasts. On each distinguishing point, the statehood claims of the disputed former Soviet entities carry more weight than Kosovo’s," he says.

" - First, Kosovo is indisputably part of Serbia and was before Yugoslavia was formed. The same cannot be said for Transdnestr with respect to Moldova. Simply put, these regions in their modern history have never been effectively controlled by an independent state identified with the former Soviet republics now laying claim to them. Serbia can demonstrate with respect to Kosovo a continuity of national capital and economic control, but Tbilisi, Chisinau, and Baku can make no similar showing with respect to the entities they claim."

Washington-based expert James Jatras also points out that in terms of historical legal precedent, Transnistria - which declared independence in 1990 - was never part of the Republic of Moldova, which only came into existence a year later.

" - Second, Kosovo’s status as part of Serbia is formalized in UN Security Council Resolution 1244, and the international presence in Kosovo and the suspension of effective Serbian control are defined by the Security Council, with Serbia’s consent. This means that the international control of Kosovo is consistent with Serbian sovereignty. Conversely, the failure of Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan to extend actual control over the frozen conflict zones is further evidence that the entities were never actually a part of those states. The status of the entities is (or was) defined not by the Security Council, but by the same authority by which the former Soviet republics themselves claimed statehood in 1991: the Soviet Constitution and Soviet law. With respect to Kosovo, the Yugoslav constitution had no similar provision. This means that a new UN Security Council Resolution, which Russia could block, would be needed for Kosovo to gain independence, but not for the frozen conflict zones on the territory of the former Soviet Union, which are legally entitled to claim independence on their own."

An American lawyer, James Jatras has 17 years of experience as senior foreign policy analyst for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee. As a specialist in international law, he has testified at the Hague Tribunal and has close ties to Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, the Ranking Republican on the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Contrasts in favor of Tiraspol, says DC policy expert

Adding to the differences in Transnistria's favor is the fact that Transnistria has a more socially coherent society than Kosovo and an established set of well-functioning government institutions, says Jatras. In Transnistria, unlike Kosovo, there is very little crime. To the East of the Dniester river, the population just want independence, but poses no threat to its neighbors.

" - Perhaps most importantly with respect to the interests of the international community, former Soviet entities in general can boast the absence on their territory of dangerously destabilizing jihadi and organized crime elements as well as a democratic governmental mandate and a tolerable standard of civil administration," says Jatras, contrasting Kosovo's current sitution with "the relative peace and tolerance in the former Soviet entities and the absence of extraterritorial claims by them."

Since a ceasefire was brokered in Transnistria in 1992, Moldova has not attacked again and no further fatalities have been recorded as a result of the conflict.

James Jatras says that assertions of Kosovo’s supposed “uniqueness” amount to a simple propaganda ploy to help move events forward to a preconceived result.

" - If Transdnestr makes its move before Kosovo, the contrast will not be in favor of the latter. Indeed, it is not inconceivable that independence of the frozen conflict zones could proceed sooner, more smoothly, and more peacefully than anything anticipated in Kosovo," says the Republican Party's James Jatras. Increasingly, several others in Washington DC are listening and agreeing with his analysis.

Pridnestrovie, which is also known as Transdniester or Transnistria, declared independence in 1990 in the breakup of the Soviet Union. Although not recognized as an independent country, it meets the requirements for statehood under international law. It has a population equivalent in size to the population of Montenegro, U.N.'s latest member. It has a territory approximately twice the size of Luxembourg, and a government with its own flag, national anthem, passports, stamps, car plates, a Supreme Court, a democratically elected parliament, a Central Bank, and a currency, the PMR Ruble.

See also:
» Kosovo report linked to Transnistria independence [1]
» No precedents in the unique case of Transdniester [2]