[0]
Deal or no deal? Pridnestrovie's Igor Smirnov, left, and Moldova's Vladimir Voronin (File photo)NEW YORK (Special to Tiraspol Times) - A recent deal was announced by The Jamestown Foundation's Vladimir Socor and reported by The Economist's Edward Lucas. Last month, in Eurasia Daily Monitor, Socor claims that an existing Russian brokered deal would result in a Russian centered Moldova-Pridnestrovie (Trans-Dniester) confederation, with Pridnestrovie being allowed great self rule. Lucas' April 19th, Economist follow-up served as a quick rubber stamp.
But to date:
- the deal itself hasn't happened;
- there has been no confirmation of a deal by any of the three parties (Moldova, Pridnestrovie and Russia).
This isn't the first time [1] that Socor has spun a line about the Vladimir Voronin led Moldovan government seeking to become closer to Russia. Back in 2003, he suggested the same. Shortly thereafter, Voronin significantly distanced himself from Russia with a stated EU/NATO path for Moldova. Voronin has danced between East and West, as Socor has made a series of unsubstantiated claims.
Vladimir Socor
Could this recently announced deal have been nothing more than a calculated attempt to ignite a Western interest in the Moldova-Pridnestrovie dispute? A Pridnestrovie based source [2] believes that the Moldovan government might've intentionally leaked this possibly false deal for the purpose of scaring Washington to get more involved with the Moldova-Pridnestrovie dispute. Machiavellian wise, this would make sense. Moldova's government presently seems to be drifting between taking a Western or Eastern path. The Socor-Lucas promoted "deal" immediately provoked American diplomatic activity [3] on a disputed former Communist bloc territory (Pridnestrovie) which isn't receiving much Western commentary in relation to other disputed conflict areas like Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
- Nagorno Karabakh, Pridnestrovie, Kosovo
Nagorno Karabakh and Pridnestrovie have been de-emphasized for obvious reasons. Vis-à-vis the other former disputed Communist bloc territories, Nagorno Karabakh is comparatively farther away from Europe and among the big powers, its status involves complex interests and sympathies that have yet to be fully determined. At play is whether to favor a not so democratic, fossil fuel rich Azerbaijan versus support for a not so democratic Armenia, whose people had (in the not too distant past) suffered a monstrous genocide. On the other hand, some key forces in the West remain relatively loyal to Georgia's so called "Velvet Revolution". Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili is a Western-reared leader unlike his counterparts in Moldova, Azerbaijan and Armenia. As such, an emphasis is made to support Georgian claims over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Downplaying Pridnestrovie better supports Kosovo's independence drive; a diplomatic undertaking of the anti-Serb neo-conservatives and George Soros funded neo-liberals. Making Pridnestrovie a major enough story risks highlighting an otherwise obvious fact. Of all the former disputed former Communist bloc territories, Pridnestrovie has by far the best case [4] for independence.
It has now come to a point where no one trusts Moldova's Communist Party elected President Vladimir Voronin. He went from being a supporter of the proposed Common (or Joint) Economic Sphere (involving Russia and some other former Soviet republics) to desiring Moldovan entry into the EU and NATO. In 2005, Voronin stayed away
Pridnestrovie acknowledges not being in receipt of Russian aid over the past several months. Contrary to what some appear to believe, Russia hasn't always sided with Pridnestrovie [7] in its dispute with Moldova. Moldova remains a poor country, whose entry into the EU isn't likely to happen (if ever) any time soon. Several pieces to a geopolitical jig saw puzzle leave certain unanswered points.
- A Hail Mary pass
Within reason, a Russian brokered Moldovan-Pridnestrovie confederation can only occur with Moldova agreeing to be closer to Russia than the EU. Is the overall popular sentiment in Moldova conducive to this? Unlike Pridnestrovie, Moldova has noticeable opposition to closer ties with Russia. At the same time, there are realists in Moldova, who see which goals are most likely attainable.
It makes absolutely no sense for Russia to pressure Russocentric Pridnestrovie into joining a NATO/EU member Moldovan dominated state. Especially if Kosovo achieves independence. Based on their commentary, Vladimir Socor and Edward Lucas are in agreement. For them, it's an unhappily expressed realpolitik observation. One senses that their promoted Russian orchestrated "deal" story might be an American football version of the "Hail Mary pass" in the form of trying to get the West to stonewall Russian influence in the former Moldavian SSR [8] (today Moldova and Pridnestrovie).
The precedent of Republika Srpska [9] in Bosnia necessitates Pridnestrovie's apprehension about joining a potentially Western influenced Moldova-Pridnestrovie confederation. Since its creation in 1995 as a part of Bosnia, Republika Srpska's sovereign rights have been blatantly trampled on by the Western ''politicos'' overseeing Bosnia. From Pridnestrovie's standpoint, a Moldovan-Pridnestrovie confederation can only happen with a guaranteed broad autonomy in a Russocentric direction. A recent eXile article [10] discusses the West's biases that in the long run don't serve Western interests.
In this day and age, it's not politically correct to openly discuss the idea of major powers having spheres of influence. It's reality and should therefore not be excluded for being "archaic". One can have a Bismarckian worldview with a regard for human rights. Far from being perfect, Pridnestrovie is nevertheless a functioning multi-ethnic democracy at peace. It's not in Western interests to go against the reasonable will of a people who aren't anti-Western. (Michael Averko)
See also:
» Vladimir Socor - Hound for Hire [11]