Europe’s forgotten neighbor
BELGRADE, Serbia — Some colleagues and I just returned from a brief but enlightening trip to Moldova and Transnistria, January 21-23. We wanted to learn more about the complex political, social, and economic situations and how our programs (BST and BTD) can assist those working to improve them.
A bit of background: After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent collapse of the Moldovan economy, the population began to leave in search of a better life. Officially, roughly one-third of all working-age Moldovans have migrated abroad. In 2007, these foreign workers sent home over $1 billion, or 36 percent of the country’s GDP, fueling the country’s weak agricultural-based economy. With an average monthly income of somewhere around $150, and the majority (60 percent) of the population living in rural areas, Moldova is the poorest country in Europe. And most make significantly less than the national average when one considers that the figure is inflated by the increasing fraction of super-rich. Compounding the problems, or rather, an impediment keeping the small nation of 3.4 million from moving more rapidly forward, is the frozen conflict in the country’s eastern border region of Transnistria. After a unilateral declaration of independence on September 2, 1990, which was not recognized by any other state, the territory entered a brief war with Moldova, which resulted in the creation of the so-called Transnistrian Moldovan Republic. The status of the territory has been disputed since, with a 1,200-strong Russian military presence among the fairly evenly-split Moldovan-Russian-Ukrainian population.
In Moldova, as in many transitional countries, there is a large gap between rich and poor. But the difference here is the degree of the contrast. Pedestrians in Chisinau’s streets either look Western, in smart suits and ties, or as if having just materialized from a century ago. And perhaps differing from much of its neighbors, this gap just seems to be getting worse, without a sign that it will reverse. We were told of another important gap mirroring the rich-poor gap; that of the growing chasm between those who are in the know and those who aren’t; i.e. those who are aware of their rights, are well-informed of events and issues that affect them, and feel like a member of society. Obvious reasons for this growing gap are mass migration, a weak independent media, and lack of Internet access. Although it has made strides in development in recent years, civil society remains fairly elitist, as opposed to grassroots, without enough contact with citizens. The work of civil society is not sufficiently visible, again obviously a problem of the lack of independent media. It is crucially important for civil society to continue efforts to increase citizen participation, particularly outside the capital, motivating ordinary citizens to help push the country forward.
In Transnistria, isolation and lack of independent and unbiased information are tenfold. An authoritarian regime keeps tabs on all organizations, making work difficult. Laws governing NGOs are strict and similar to Russia’s, thus the donor community can fund largely “soft” issues. The capital, Tiraspol, perhaps surprisingly, perhaps not, is cleaner and neater than Moldova’s capital, Chisinau, but the lack of contact with the outside world is clearly apparent. Many describe it as a place frozen in time. Soviet era monuments are scattered around town. An enormous rose-colored granite statue of Lenin stands in front of the government building and a triumphant Soviet tank greets you on the main road. Transnistria’s first and most influential nongovernmental organization’s headquarters features side by side images of Che Guevara and Putin on its façade. In such an environment some good civil society organizations do exist, thus many are of the opinion that these must be kept active, working, and connected to the outside world, so that when changes to this forgotten area finally do occur, responsible proactive citizens are ready to lead the way.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
A small correction to an otherwise good and relatively objective analysis … You wrote that: “After a unilateral declaration of independence on September 2, 1990, which was not recognized by any other state, the territory entered a brief war with Moldova, which resulted in the creation of the so-called Transnistrian Moldovan Republic.”
The Transdniestrian Moldovan Republic was declared in 1990, and the war took place in 1992. So the war did not cause the creation of the entity. It was the other way around.
Also, your turn of phrase “the territory entered into a brief war with Moldova” is incorrect. Transdniestria did not start the war. Transdniestrian forces never had any designs on Moldova, and never crossed into Moldova. Moldova, on the other sent, sent troops to Transdniestria to enforce its territorial claim and establish sovereignty.
It is a historically accepted fact today that Moldova began the war, and that Transdniestria merely entered the war as a reaction to the invading tanks and the aerial bombing of its civilian neighborhoods.
Apart from that, keep up the good work. And regarding the “responsible proactive citizens” who can “lead the way”, did you ever talk to anyone from the Renewal movement (www.obnovlenie.info) ?
January 31st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Quite right; my words in this sentence were indeed vague. What I meant to convey could perhaps be better said as: The territory issued a unilateral declaration of independence declaring the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, and after a brief war with Moldova, that is the name by which the territory still calls itself today.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Yes. Better, that way. Transdniestria didn’t start the war, and never crossed over into Moldova’s side. Not even while the fighting was going on. But the rest of the blog post is quite accurate in most places and gives a good overview to both Moldova and Transdniestria. Thanks.