Review of the Cultural Aspects of Moldovan–Gagauz Conflict In

УДК 321.15(478-29) Elena Cirmizi, LL.M. Doctoral Student The School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution George Mason University REVIEW OF THE CULTURAL ASPECTS OF MOLDOVAN – GAGAUZ CONFLICT IN REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA Ongoing Moldovan 1 - Gagauz 2 conflict presents an example of a typical discursive 207 contestation with cultural roots and unequally distributed powers between majority and minority groups. The conflict arose following tense exchanges in the late eighties - early nineties between the Gagauz minority and the independence seeking government of then Moldovan Socialist Soviet Republic (MSSR). During that time, members of each ethnic group started to share a psychological defense mechanism and build a narrative that excluded the out-group members, thereby affecting Moldavian societal, cultural and political processes for the next decades. [17, p. 4-6]. After Moldova had achieved independence in 1991 and had gone through a civil war with the separatist movement in its eastern Transnistrian region, an agreement on Gagauz autonomy statute was reached in 1994. The statute was aimed not only at bringing the area around the Gagauzian capital, Comrat, back under control of the central government, but also at serving as a model for the solution of the conflict with the separatist Transnistrian regime. [13, p.1]. Although, some international observers regard Gagauz autonomy as a model for Eastern European and Caucasian ethnic conflicts, others consider it as either being too liberal, granting too many rights to the small Gagauz minority [16], or calling it a puppet autonomy that does not provide either protection, or a necessary degree of independence for the Gagauz minority. The conflict has initially formed around discursive narratives, based on ethnical and linguistic differences between two groups. In this article, we review the XXth century events in search of the drivers of the conflict. The Gagauzians are Orthodox Christian Turkic ethnicity located primarily in the southern part of Moldova. Smaller Gagauz settlements can also be found in Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, and Brazil. However, it is generally accepted among Gagauz that the Republic of Moldova is as much their homeland as that of the Romanian-speaking Moldovans. [12, p.209]. Before settling in Bugeac region of Bessarabia (now in southern Moldova), Gagauz people lived under Ottoman rule around Varna and Balchik, in Bulgaria. They fled Bulgaria during the Russo-Turkish wars in the first part of XIXth century and settled in the Bugeac region [5, p. 60-72] that was previously occupied by Tatar settlers, who were expelled to Crimea after the territory was seized by Russian Empire. During XIXth and XXth century the area was controlled by Russian Empire, Romanian Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, but no ethnic conflicts were reported between Gagauz and Moldovan population. [13, p.1] Due to their complicated history, some authors call Gagauzians one of the “problematic groups” for the purpose of clash of civilizations theory [9], because while being Orthodox Christians, they are not European in origin, nor linguistically, only due to religion and for political reasons, they were included in the Slavic-Orthodox civilization. [8, p.423]. From this point of view, the conflict at hand is in many parts a reflection of this alienation of Gagauz minority from the generally accepted picture of Orthodox civilization. For the conflict analysis and resolution scholars, Moldovan – Gagauz conflict also presents a few interesting discourses that are associated with deep beliefs and misunderstandings. For example, "chosen trauma" [15, p. 5 – 16] can be found in Gagauz and Moldovan narratives: Gagauz group vividly remembers atrocities and corruption committed by Romanian Nationalists during interwar period 3 [11, p. 55] (Romanians are “sister nation” of Moldovans 4 , therefore, the responsibility is being transmitted); Moldovans, on another hand, make emphasis on discrimination and deportations during the communists’ rule perceived as being supported by the Gagauz 1For the purposes of this article, we differentiate between “Moldovan” and “Moldavian”, where the first term is being used to describe ethnic Romanian-speaking majority of the Republic of Moldova, but the second one refers to any citizen or permanent resident of the Republic of Moldova. 2 For the purposes of this article, Gagauz and Gagauzian is used interchangeably, and refers to ethnic Turkic population of Southern Bugeac region of the Republic of Moldova. 3 Reports from Gagauz Villages of executions and floggings for failing to pay taxes, or to hand over requisitioned wheat and of imprisonment for public servants “refusing to recognize the Romanian Motherland” reached Paris peace negotiators in 1920. 4 This article does not discuss this point (auth.) 208 population (Although, Gagauz had suffered deportations at equivalent rate, they are viewed as a group that have historically supported any Moscow initiatives, speaks primarily Russian in business dealings and with government officials, so the enemy image is transmitted accordingly). The chosen trauma discourse is typical, when sides of the conflict feel humiliated by the current state of the events. Groups tend to reactivate the images of historical events. For instance, similarly as in this conflict, while discussing current international affairs, Russians might begin to focus on the Tatar invasion or Greeks may refer to the loss of Constantinople: the events from centuries ago. When such images of past are reactivated within a group, a “time collapse” occurs. Shared perceptions and feelings about a historical image become intertwined with perceptions and feelings about current events, and magnify the present danger or injustice. Unless a way is found to deal with the time collapse routine conflict reconciliation efforts will most likely fail. [17, p. 4-6]. The events of earlier 1990s in Moldova confirmed Volkan’s theory that when previously humiliated large group facing the question of “Who are we now?”— usually following a revolution, a war, or freedom after a long oppression by “others”— it tends to try to purify itself from “unwanted elements”. For instance, following the independence, Greeks purified their language from all Turkish words, Latvia removed Soviet Union memorial from their national cemetery, and Serbs attempted to purify themselves of Muslim Bosniaks. Some purification attempts are non- dangerous, others are genocidal (such as Srebrenica). Understanding the purpose and psychological necessity of purifications on time can help groups to develop strategies to keep prejudices from becoming destructive. [17, p. 4-6]. In the late 1980s, when support for the national movement began to grow, ethnic tension with Moldovans increased. [18]. After a new language law was passed by the central government in 1989, declaring Moldovan in the Latin script the state language of the MSSR the Russian-speaking part of the population, including the Gagauz, perceived the new language law as a direct threat. The crucial point was Article 7 of the law that mandated all employees in public sector to use the new state language, with the respective linguistic tests foreseen within five years. Demands for a union of Moldova with Romania deepened the minorities’ fears further, especially against the background of the Romanian rule in the period between the two World Wars [13, p.3], and was regarded as forceful Romanization with the perspective of possible unification with Romania. The result was a reactive and pro-active nationalism by the Gagauz, which concentrated on demands for control over local resources and revival of indigenous culture. The Gagauz Halki (Gagauz People) movement had been founded in 1989. A year later, in reaction to the Moldovan declaration of sovereignty, the Gagauz leadership proclaimed an independent “Gagauz Soviet Socialist Republic” and scheduled elections. The days before the elections were to take place, the conflict culminated when, approximately 40,000 Moldovan volunteers (primarily nationalistically oriented students and farm workers from central Moldova) mobilized by the central government travelled to Gagauz border and were met with Gagauz Halki armed volunteers. Soviet Army troops that were urgently moved from Ukraine managed to stop the volunteers and prevented clashes with paramilitary Gagauz formations. This event significantly alienated the Gagauz further from the Moldovans. The central authorities de facto lost control over the Gagauz capital, Comrat, and a small number of Moldovan policemen were killed over the course of next two years, in attacks on Moldovan police stations. [13]. Although, the conflict was generally kept below the level of large-scale violence, the example of the Transnistrian conflict that escalated into a civil war set a narrative for Gagauzians, because it similarly had a strong ethnic component. Transnistrian conflict, although contributed to the creation of the Gagauz Autonomy, became a powerful manipulating tool used by Gagauz nationalists in promoting their agenda, by perpetuation fears of forced Romanization among ingroup members. [18]. Lack of purification strategy among the government authorities on one side and the deepened fears based of the chosen trauma on another side contributed to the development of the destructive narratives that are still alive more than two decades later. Volkan defines the large group identity, whether it refers to tribes, ethnicity, nationality, religion or

Load more