Rethinking America's Transdniester policy

Can a country be a country if it isn't recognized by anyone? That was a question faced by George Washington and a bunch of his friends more than two hundred years ago. For eight long years, their country didn't exist - at least not on paper, as far as Great Britain and much of the rest of the world was concerned.

Today, the US State Department has taken it upon itself to declare to the what is and isn't a country. But this wasn’t the case in 1776. The United States started out life as a separatist group operating in what was universally acknowledged to be British territory. It could make “laws” if it wanted to, but the British were still in charge, and their laws were the ones being enforced. On July 5, 1776, despite the Declaration of Independence, the United States were still administered by the British and were both a de facto and de jure part of the British empire, albeit in open rebellion.

What matters here is that self-determination, for the past 200 some years, has always in the long run won out over outside claims of territorial integrity. Want to hedge your bet? Then add the principle of actual control. When a state is unable to govern a territory bent on independence, the territorial integrity argument becomes dust.

What is left is the sole political weapon of withholding recognition, like a spoilt child in a sandbox who won't play and prefers to break a toy before letting anyone else have it.

But refusing recognition has no bearing on whether a country is, or is not, an independent subject under international law.

Foreign recognition is not a criterion for independent statehood. If it were, the Taiwanese people would have a really hard time traveling on their ROC passports.

What really matters, and has always mattered most in international law, is called the “principle of effectiveness” (effectivités): The moment that the United States government, or any other separatist movement, actually becomes in control of its territory within defined borders. This, as the Montevideo Convention codified in international law, is the main practical and legal factor in determining whether a state is independent. That’s why the Chechens and the Basques can not be considered independent, but the Taiwanese and the Transdniestrians can. As the ICJ has already ruled, any judicial body must take cognizance of a State's presence on the ground. Moldova can say that is owns Transdniester - to which any international court of law will ask "so how come you can't enforce your so-called sovereignty over it..?"

Transdniester is real, very real. In fact, it is today much more of a state - with working government institutions and rule of law - than the United States of America was in the beginning of its existence, when it, too, was an unrecognized country.

Nevertheless, the failure for anyone to break the status quo, to start accepting the fact that there will never be a union with Moldova, means that the people here are left to suffer.

Diplomatic recognition is a good thing. It will help the people of Transdniester, and it will help the rest of Europe, too. It will allow closer co-operation and an integration into the international community, along with its norms, requirements, rules and standards. From the point of view of both Transdniester and the rest of the world, with the sole exception of Moldova, international recognition of the reality in Transdniester today would be a good thing. Among other things, it will be a big step for stability, security, and a more democratic and prosperous future for everyone in the region; even Moldova who will see the benefits once it overcomes the initial period of sulking.

But recognition is not the be all and end all. In the end, customs and norms are just political tomfoolery. When people fight for independence, they’re fighting for the right to govern themselves in peace, not the right to have embassies.

Says Igor Smirnov, the recently reelected President of the new and emerging country: "What matters first of all is the opinion of the people who live here."

If the people do indeed come first, there is only one viable option: Independence. No other future for Transdniester is backed anymore by an overwhelming majority of the local population.

Chisinau is deeply opposed, as it has been to any change in the status of Transdniester, an area that nevertheless has no history of ever having been part of an independent Moldova at any time in the past. In the end, the Moldovans will have to face the truth: What it refers to as Transnistria is gone from Moldova forever, as a result of the democratic choice made by the overwhelming majority of the people who live there.

Moldova's future - and it could be bright - lies within the European Union, if it can get past its long-gone territorial claim. A peaceful path to Transdniester's independence would lead the two neighbors to a promising new era of regional cooperation, including with the largest country in the neighborhood, Russia. And it would forever remove the uncertainty that investors detest and which has forced nearly a million of Moldova's own citizens to leave the country in search of a better future abroad.

Enter Washington, encouraging exactly the wrong tendencies within Moldova.
By repeating a tired mantra of a "territorial integrity" which, when examined closely, won't stand up to scrutiny past the sound-byte level, the American policy is one of giving Moldova false hopes. Emboldened by misleading propaganda, Moldova might then be tempted to make a false move. As a result, the fragile peace in Transdniester will evaporate within days, and a new wave of violence - possibly even another war - will erupt.

A smart, statesman-like approach by Washington would recognize as inevitable the need for a close partnership with Russia, where Russia is allowed to take the lead simply because this is naturally Russian space. Russia has held sway in Transdniester for as long as the United States has existed as a country. And even long before that time, the overwhelmingly Slavic-populated Transdniester was a part of Kievan Rus; the forerunner to modern Russia.

In this sort of partnership for change, Washington would be wise to focus on its own strengths, which is in some ways also Russia's shortcomings. Washington should concentrate on democratic strengthening, diplomatic dialogue and political reform in the region - in the end the only antidotes against authoritarianism, failed states, and violent upheavals. The people of Transdniester should sense that what the United States wants for them is to live in a strong and prosperous democracy. A transit agreement allowing legitimate exports to reach foreign buyers is a good start, supervised by neighboring states but recognizing the 1997 agreement allowing Transdniester autonomy in trade matters. It is a realistic goodwill gesture and the right move towards bold and sensible political initiatives to deal with the critical issues in the region.

The United States is still in a position to influence change in this corner of Europe. But that can be attained only by discarding hawkish confrontational policies, and not by pushing irresponsible proposals which are clearly against the will of Transdniester's strongly independence-minded people.

Columnist Michael Garner is a regular contributor to The Tiraspol Times & Weekly Review. Some of his writings published here include "Echoes from Kosovo reach Pridnestrovie, bringing new hope to status talks" and "No precedents in the unique case of Transdniester".