Memo to State: Face up to reality

Last year, following Transnistria's independence referendum and its overwhelming rejection of integration with Moldova, a private U.S. intelligence briefing predicted future Transnistria statehood as "likely".

But even though parts of the American intelligence community now view separate statehood for Transnistria as the most likely outcome, current State Department policy hasn't yet caught up with reality. Foggy Bottom still clings to the increasingly unsupported notion that a future Transnistria can be ruled by Chisinau. It is time to get real.

Instead of pursuing a recipe for instability in the Black Sea region, we in the West should instead lead the way in a push for international integration and democratization that will bring the unrecognized states in from the cold. Making friends is always better than making enemies, and there is nothing in Transnistria's background or its cultural, historical and religious make-up which would necessary doom it to become an antagonist. But, as in all diplomacy, the art of the possible depends on the skills of the players. Here, Washington's Moldova desk has so far not shown any creativity or notable professional ability to realistically understand what is going on in Transnistria.

Equally absent is an understanding of ow to best solve the situation in a win-win way that will benefit Washington, Moscow, Chisinau, Tiraspol, and everyone in between. Missing completely in all situation assessments - for Transnistria, but never for Kosovo - is the pressing need to take into account the will of the affected population: The more than half million people who live in Transnistria. Hopefully the future of the area will be decided on what the people really want.

We now are faced with the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground, like it or not, is that the Transnistrians will never again be ruled by Chisinau. We have to face that.

Chisinau needs to become accustomed to the fact of the independence and sovereignty of an area that was once in its sphere of influence, back when the Soviet Union still existed, and realize these people have now found their own way in the world.

When they wanted freedom, Moldova responded with tanks and air attacks. This is not the way to win friends or influence anyone.

Any hope of a possible union between the two sides of the Dniester river fell apart in war and bloodshed, and to attack someone and kill them for wanting self-determination is simply terrible. It was terrible. We would not have had it so, but that wasn't our doing and it wasn't our choice.

Now, we have to understand one thing very clearly. Transnistria has been under its own administration since 1990. That is 17 years and counting. That is close to eternity for the new countries in Eastern Europe: It is longer than the Republic of Moldova has even existed.

Transnistria has managed to build institutions and a society on its own. It has plenty of defects, of course, but the same can be said about its two neighbors, Ukraine and Moldova. What is striking is that the people have said again and again, in referenda and polls, that they want nothing short of independence. Even saying that some of these polls may have been flawed is not the same as saying that independence is not overwhelmingly supported among the vast majority of the population (notably, by most of the local Moldovan minority as well).

They've been self governing since 1990. They're not going to be under Chisinau administration. That's just not going to happen.

So it is in our view best for all of the peoples, including the Moldovans in Transnistria, that this de facto situation be recognized de jure. For truly lasting peace and stability in the region, independence for Transnistria is the only way. It will enable both Transnistria and Moldova to leave uncertainty behind and build collaboration as partners, just like Ireland and Britain are now best of partners with each side recognizing the other's sovereignty and right to independent development. Recognizing this will also ensure that increased democracy and international integration finds its way to the people of Transnistria.

In Kosovo, everyone is trying to make the best of a non-ideal situation. We do what we can with the cards we're dealt. The same should be true in Transnistria, but Cold War leftovers infected with the Russophobe virus can't seem to see beyond the hammer and sickle. In doing so, any chance of a hard and fact-based analysis of reality is lost. But to who's detriment? Obviously, to the detriment of the customer who needs such analysis on which to base strategic decisions.

Smart and statesman-like diplomacy wouldn't be blinded by the hammer and sickle, or by the stale and outdated us vs them mode of thinking that certain "friends" in the ex-Communist countries peddle. Smart and statesman-like diplomacy would instead look at the long play and not close any doors if that means closing the opportunity for potential future influence.

There are no moral arguments, or even reasons in international law, for why more than half a million fellow Europeans should be fenced off in a reservation, invisible and outside the collaboration and supervision of the international community.

There are also no reasons why they should be held hostage to the whims of low-level bureaucratic wishful thinking which is based not on facts and reality, but on imaginary Alice in Wonderland diplomacy / fantasy.

Memo to State: Grow a pair ... and then face up to reality.

Also by John Moynihan:
» The Fourth World: Invisible countries