Routes Across the Nistru Transnistria: People’S Peacemaking Perspectives
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REPORT Routes across the Nistru Transnistria: People’s Peacemaking Perspectives May 2011 Routes across the Nistru Transnistria: People’s Peacemaking Perspectives SAFERWORLD MAY 2011 Acknowledgements This report was written by John Beyer of St Antony’s College, University of Oxford. The research was conducted by John Beyer in co-operation with Victor Chirila and Radu Vrabie of the Foreign Policy Association of Moldova (APE). Comments were provided by Laurence Broyd, Sabine Freizer, Stefan Judge, Walter Kemp, Margareta Mamaliga, Nicu Popescu, Stefan Wolff, Janet Gunn, Keith Shannon, Victor Munteanu, as well as colleagues from Saferworld and Conciliation Resources. The publication was edited by John Newman and designed by Jane Stevenson. This report was prepared under the People’s Peacemaking Perspectives project. The People’s Peacemaking Perspectives project The People’s Peacemaking Perspectives project is a joint initiative implemented by Conciliation Resources and Saferworld and financed under the European Commission’s Instrument for Stability. The project provides European Union institutions with analysis and recommendations based on the opinions and experiences of local people in a range of countries and regions affected by fragility and violent conflict. © Saferworld May 2011. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without full attribution. Saferworld welcomes and encourages the utilisation and dissemination of the material included in this publication. This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of Saferworld and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union. Contents Map iv Executive summary v Acronyms vi 1. Introduction 1 2. Analysis: mediation, obstacles and dynamics 2 Impasse a concern 2 Football diplomacy 3 Obstacles and suspicions 3 External stakeholders, external mediation 4 German-EU-Russian initiative 4 Costs and benefits of resolution 5 Including Transnistria 6 3. The players 8 Moldova 8 Transnistria 9 Ukraine 11 Russia 12 The European Union 12 EU: Germany 14 EU: Romania 15 4. Themes 16 Myths and stereotypes: media 16 Social issues: building bridges for youth 16 Bringing prosperity: building business 17 5. Recommendations to the EU: policy and programmes 19 Support Moldova 19 Work with partner countries 20 Help Moldova to develop strategies 20 Including Transnistria 21 Working with Transnistria to build confidence 21 Media strategy: myths and stereotypes 22 Building bridges for youth: social issues 22 Building business: bringing prosperity 23 Programme work in Transnistria 24 APPENDIX : Methodology and validation 25 Focus groups 25 Focus group methodology 26 Key informant interviews 27 Bibliography 28 iv Soldanesti Ribnitsa UKRAINE MOLDOVA TRANSNISTRIA Chisinau ROMANIA Tiraspol GAGAUZIA UKRAINE BLACK SEA 0 40km This map is intended for illustrative purposes only. Saferworld takes no position on whether this representation is legally or politically valid. v Executive summary TRANSNISTRIA , A SLIVER OF LAND ON THE EAST BANK OF THE RIVER NISTRU , broke away from the rest of Moldova in 1990. Although there was fighting after that, there have been no fatalities since 1992. This is not really a conflict: it is a stand-off which benefits the business interests of those who are close to ruling elites, and suits some external players. Transnistria has little prospect of being recognised, even by Russia. Moldova has little hope of eventual EU membership while the Transnistrian problem remains. To escape this stalemate, Moldova and Transnistria need to find a solution. Moldova needs to show Transnistrians that a resolution will be good for them, just as the EU works with Russia to show that a solution does not harm Russia. This study is timely in that it comes at a moment when Moldova is reaffirming its EU perspective, while elections in Transnistria may also presage some change. The problem of Transnistria is now on the borders of the EU: Transnistria is the EU’s problem. A German-EU initiative in 2010 sought to address the Transnistrian issue at a strategic level, engaging the key external player, Russia. This study brought together focus groups of ordinary people both in Transnistria and in the rest of Moldova. It is the first such study. The focus groups provide non-elite input, important when some in the elite have a personal interest in the status quo. The focus group perspectives have been reinforced by interviews with politicians and experts in Chisinau, Tiraspol and Berlin. The study is in three sections: a conflict analysis, an examination of the players, and themes from the focus groups. At the end, the report provides detailed policy and programme recommendations to the European Union, focusing on the following principles: n The EU to support Moldova’s approach to the EU, including more progress on Transnistria n The EU to work with partners, building on German-EU-Russian initiatives on Transnistria n The EU to work with Moldova to develop resolution strategies n The EU to work with Moldova to include Transnistria in EU negotiations n The EU to work with Moldova and Transnistria to build confidence n The EU to support a media strategy n The EU to work with Moldova on building bridges for youth and wider society n The EU to support business on both banks It is envisaged that this study will feed into the Strategic Conflict Analysis being under- taken by the European Representation in Chisinau, and the Reunification Strategy of the Moldovan Government. vi Acronyms AEI Alliance for European Integration DCFTA Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement DFID Department for International Development EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EEAS EU External Action Service EU European Union EUBAM EU Border Assistance Mission MMZ Moldova Metallurgical Works NGO Non-governmental organisation OSCE Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe SME Small or medium enterprise UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development WHO World Health Organization 1 1 Introduction “It is important that you asked us our opinion; projects should begin with the people” Liudmila Borodina, Director, NGO Basic Center of Rehabilitation OSORC, Tiraspol INTERNATIONAL - AND NATIONAL -LEVEL EFFORTS to prevent and resolve violent conflict and support recovery in crisis situations often remain poorly informed by the views and experiences of people directly affected. Their understanding of conflicts’ causes, actors and dynamics and their contribution to defining peacebuilding agendas is rarely captured, and less often made accessible to policy makers. High-level political analysis, while important, risks identifying different sets of priorities and opportunities for peacebuilding and development from more community-based perspectives. Yet both levels are relevant, co-dependent and should form the long-term ‘vision’ for a participatory and transformative process towards peace, stability and socio-economic development. The aim of this study is to capture community member perspectives of the causes and dynamics of the Transnistria situation and provide practical recom- mendations to the EU on how to effectively respond to these challenges. Six focus groups were convened to give non-elite views: three on the West Bank, three in Transnistria. On the Chisinau bank, one was a group from outside the capital, drawn from young people in the northern town of Soldanesti; another was based on university students in Chisinau; the third consisted of a group of professional women in Chisinau. In Tiraspol, there was a youth group (mainly of students), a young business people group, and again a professional women’s group. While focus groups operated on a ‘no names, no quotes’ basis in order to encourage free discussion, where quotations are used it is with the agreement of the individual. Focus group findings were expanded and complemented by meetings with experts and practitioners in Chisinau, Tiraspol and Berlin. This paper uses the term ‘Transnistria’ (since it is easier for English speakers), rather than the Russian ‘Pridnestrovie’, or ‘Transdniestria’. The ‘East Bank’ refers to Transnistria (often called Left Bank because it is on the left going downstream), the ‘West Bank’ to the Chisinau side of the Nistru. Terms such as ‘resolution’ and ‘settlement’ do not imply a specific solution. The study is in three sections: a conflict analysis, an examination of the players, and themes from the focus groups, followed by detailed recommendations to the EU on policies and programmes. “Transnistrian leaders realise no-one will recognise Transnistria, while Chisinau realises that Moldova cannot join the EU while the Transnistrian problem is there” Andrei Safonov, political scientist, Tiraspol 2 2 Analysis: mediation, obstacles and dynamics Impasse a concern A THEME RUNNING THROUGH ALL THE FOCUS GROUPS , on either side of the River Nistru, was that ordinary people would be better off if the Transnistrian problem were resolved. At the same time, the primary concern in life for groups on either bank was not a resolution of the Transnistrian issue but how to improve their poor economic situation and life chances. On both sides groups