Transdniestria recognition: The last taboo

Transdniestria is the "frozen conflict" that is closest to the European Union's borders. It is also one of those that are easiest to solve, assuming we can think outside the box and that we are willing to discuss a few taboos.

Among the taboos which have kept the conflict from being resolved is the unwillingness of some of the international participants to deal with what Transdniestria really is, and seriously discuss what the leadership of the disputed territory seeks.

Having spent time in the region, it is obvious that Transdniestria doesn't seek to become anything that it isn't. It just aspires to be recognized for what it is, warts and all. It seeks closer relations with other countries (including Moldova) on an equal basis according to international law, and starting with a recognition of its now nearly two decades old de-facto statehood.

If we bring the frozen conflict in from the cold, and integrate a would-be country into the family of other nations, will that improve stability in Europe and improve relations between the two sides of the Dniester river? If the answer is yes, then that is an idea worth trying.

What Transdniestria wants, the recurring leitmotif in all their communiques, is essential, and so simple. Their bottom line is this: "We want to be considered a country if indeed we meet the requirements for statehood under international law. We want the same rules to apply to us that apply to any other state in the world, and we want to strictly abide by these rules. We don't want to be an outcast or a no-man's land anymore."

Well, my feeling is that this request is not unacceptable, all things considered.

My feeling is that the population of Transdniestria will benefit from being incorporated peacefully into the world community of nations, and that it will be a setback if they are forced under Moldovan rule - a rule which they are opposed to, and which they have not lived under at any time since Moldova was formed as a separate state.

If the Transdniestrians only request is that they be recognized for what they already are - independent - then perhaps it isn't such a terrible idea.

Unfortunately, in polite society in Brussels and Washington, there are certain words which are never mentioned. When the subject turns to Transdniestria, one of these words is "recognition."

Some fear that Transdniestria would be given an unwarranted legitimacy if the current reality is objectively dealt with and its government recognized for what it is.

Fine.

But what can we do if this is the only solution?

If it all hangs on the pronouncement of just one word - which happens to be correct - isn't it worth trying to say it just once? Isn't it time to break a taboo if that will break the stalemate in the dialogue?

Here is my proposal.

That a mediator, someone respected as a neutral by both Moldova and Transdniestria, go as quickly as possible to Tiraspol.

That he or she be sure that two words "recognition" and "dialogue" are pronounced in the same sentence and then acted upon by both Transdniestria's leader Igor Smirnov and the Moldovan leader Vladimir Voronin.

Then, in that clearly staked-out dialogue area, where both parties sit face to face and talk as equals, a real dialogue can take place on how to build good and lasting relations for the years ahead. But no such groundwork can exist unless both sides realistically recognize what they are dealing with. Failure to get a grip on reality will mean failure in the subsequent dialogue, too.

If each side recognizes each other for what it is - not for what it wishfully wants the other side to be - then each side will have its back against the wall.

Each will, for the first time, be confronted with its own truth, with its own calculations ... and, of course, the consequences of having hold off so long on recognition.

Especially since saying "recognition" also means saying "abiding by the rules of international relations," some of which include stepping up to the plate and be held accountable in fields such as democracy, human rights standards, freedom of trade and freedom of movement, and, naturally, closer cooperation with neighbor countries.

Recognition?
As in international, diplomatic recognition and formal government-to-government ties?
Well, yes. We have to work with what we have. Let's see who has the better strategy.

Also by Michael Garner:
» The phony pacifist love-in
» With friends like these...
» Winning hearts and minds in Transdniester
» Right to self-determination vs. inviolability of borders
» Rethinking America's Transdniester policy
» No precedents in the unique case of Transdniester
» Echoes from Kosovo reach Pridnestrovie, bringing new hope to status talks