Transnistria will always be Transnistria

Getting the two sides of the Dniester to see eye to eye means that we first need to grasp where they are coming from. Right now, each side has its own incompatible version of reality.

Transnistria believes itself to be a separate country, created after a referendum showed an overwhelming wish to no longer be part of the Moldavian SSR. In Transnistria's view, their declaration of independence was no less legal or democratic than similar declarations by its neighbors, Moldova and Ukraine. Later, Moldova lost its right to govern Transnistria when it sent tanks and planes against civilians in an attempt to impose its rule by use of force. Transnistria, rightly or wrongly, does not consider itself part of Moldova. It does not believe that Moldova has a legal right nor a moral right, or any a historical basis, to rule over Transnistria.

Moldova believes that Transnistria is part of its own country. Starting from this premise, they then think that they are dealing with separatists who in essence represent a sub-national group and that they are breaking away over a difference in the ideas by which the government runs the country.

In this kind of war of ideas, you can in principle win by changing people's ideas. Given that, the classical strategy for countering such a situation is oriented around winning hearts and minds. You engage in a process of political reform in which you introduce democracy to make the government's ideas legitimate. You engage in a campaign of economic development assistance. All those strategies are good, they all make some sense, if the problem you are trying to solve is a classical difference over ideas within a single country. Except, the Moldova/Transnistria situation is not.

What is then? It is not a conflict over a set of ideas. Rather, it is about the survival and self interest of communal groups within the nominal state. Transnistrians are not fighting for an idea of what's best for all Moldovans; they are not trying to persuade Moldovans that a government which include Transnistria would be good for everyone. They are fighting for the self interest of Transnistria against the self interest of Moldova -- and vice versa. Because it is not a war of ideas you cannot expect to win it by changing people's minds. It's a war of identity. Identities can't change in the way minds can.

Moldova has blinded itself to this possibility completely. They still think that if Transnistria is opposed to Moldova, it is because it is a puppet state controlled by outside forces (in this case, by Moscow). Moldova completely misses the real picture: That the dynamics of the Transnistrian conflict originate within Transnistria itself, for primarily reasons of identity. You can not take this away without erasing identies - or what is also known as ethnic cleansing. Thankfully, Moldova has not gone that far. The war in 1992 was stopped with Russian intervention before it reached that stage.

In a hypothetical process of ethnic cleansing, Moldova would need to erase a very large number of ethnic Moldovans, too, who were born and grew up in Transnistria. These are "nominal Moldovans" who identify themselves as Moldovans on the census, but who are in mostly intermarried with the rest of the Transnistria and who often speak Russian, even at home. They are politically in full agreement with the majority Slavs on independence. There are of course exceptions, but most of the Moldovans in Transnistria look to Tiraspol and Moscow for reference, not to Chisinau or Bucharest.

Is this an economic conflict? It is, to the point that any family - and any country, even an unrecognized one or a would-be country - needs an income to survive. So money obviously has its role to play, but it is a serious analytical mistake to focus on the money and make it into the star of the show. The vast majority of the 500,000+ people in Transnistria don't control any assets. Why, then, do they still cling so steadfastly to independence? It all comes back to identity.

What this means, eventually, is that no matter how much Moldova democratizes from within, gets showered with money from abroad, moves closer to the EU and becomes overall dolled-up attractive, Transnistria will still maintain its separate, distinct identity. Transnistria will always be Transnistria. Maybe, over time, poorer and more backwards. Maybe even, from our perspective in the West, less free. In whatever form, even if it means sliding downhill, Transnistria will keep maintaining its separate distinctiveness. Reason: Because it is a war of identity. Identities can't change in the way minds can. This is why, for Moldova at least, Transnistria is already lost.

So what can Moldova do, if anything? The standard playbook for terminating such a conflict war starts with a negotiated power-sharing deal between the sides. But the problem with the power sharing compromise is that the stakes for each side are literally existential. For Moldova, if Transnistria is brought into the structures of the country and is made to share in the levers of power, it would mean an immediate halt to any plans for EU- and NATO integration. Most likely for good. For Transnistria, the stakes are even higher: They are afraid that if the other side gets control of their state structures, the result might be a slow form of genocide. The kind of compromise the playbook calls for by definition implies ceding power, which Moldova is loath to do and which Transnistria literally can't, at least not without giving up their whole identify. Ceding power also means compromising with people who you think are threatening you with elimination. If you miscalculate and give up too much power, the result is fatal. So the downside risk is cosmic. By contrast, refusing to compromise means to have an ongoing, chronic low level economic war and cold war, which isn't great -- but probably looks a lot better than the elimination of your identity. So we have a recipe for stalemate.

A compromise can only be created by outsiders using coercive leverage to drive all sides towards a deal nobody wants to make. This is what has been tried with the customs clampdowns, where the screws are about to be tightened even more as of July 1st. Is that the solution? Let me just say: Time will tell. But, using history as a guide, this kind of desperate leverage just hardens the positions of the Transnistrians.

Then there's economic aid, for example, along the lines of how the Palestinean Authority was being goaded towards accepting a Two-State Solution with Israel until Hamas won power there. This sort of aid-for-reform can get results, but it means that the West has to be willing to work directly with Tiraspol. Direct contacts, coupled with aid along the Palestine model, will find fertile ground here. Does it mean cutting Chisinau out of the loop? Only to the equivalent extent that Israel is out of the loop when Palestine is approached directly by the West. A toe-hold, in the form of bilateral representation offices, would do more good than harm for everyone - and that includes Chisinau.

Another prospect is regional diplomacy along the lines of talking to Russia and hoping that they have more influence over Tiraspol than we have. But, notwithstanding Moldova's conviction to the contrary, there are actually reasons to be skeptical about that. Again, it comes down to the issue of identity. So the taboo of recognized independence should be dealt with, and a contingency plan drawn up for how best to manage this with as little disruption as possible.

If this is ruled out, over and over again, then the only other real option is military power. How many troops will be needed to pacify Transnistria if it is taken over by force and fourth generation warfare breaks out in the aftermath? And how much does Transnistria, or even Moldova, really matter for a new and nasty war to flare up among civilians right on the EU's border? The worst kind of war to fight is the one where the outside power is bogged down against a people defining themselves by identity - not just ethnicity - and defending not only their homes, but their identity's very survival.

The author, Steve Hill, is a conflict resolution specialist. In April, he published The How-To for peace and prosperity on the Dniester which recommends acceptance of individual differences and separate identities as the key to lasting peace.