Human rights in Transnistria: Long term realities and recent events
By Violla Valentin
Talking or writing about protection of human rights in regions lost in long term transition periods to democratic and open societies, I guess is anything but a noble and realistic rhetoric. While talking about protection of human rights in “phantom” countries, though with de facto independence, it is like trying the abyss. And the deepest frustration in this case is to witness how de jure actors and long ago established democracies can do little to protect and assure the rights of man kind fellows, whose liberties are universally declared, but violated with a vivid frequency.
A logical question arises here – who have ears to hear, a voice to convince, and tools to help those crying from the abyss? Is it easier or possible at all to assure the basic human rights within internationally unrecognized territorial entities coupled with authoritarian regimes? Or perhaps it is more realistic to leave the task to victims’ own salvation, hoping one day there would start a population awakening process strong enough to produce the change from the inside? Such thoughts are even less painful when history provides so many examples of strong social activism that resulted in changes of authoritarian regimes in so many parts of the world with different historical and political backgrounds.
Let us have a look at Transnistria, a narrow strip of land, East of the Nistru River, between Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova – the entity that proclaimed its “independence” after a short but bloody war against Moldova in 1992. Russia’s military, political and financial support played a decisive factor in that separatist victory. Transnistria’s independence, however, was not recognized as such by any international actors. Although, in 1990s, the Transnistrian authorities based in the city of Tiraspol have claimed to have unilaterally acceded to the most recognized international standards of human rights and protection of minorities (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), they violated all of them. This was nothing more than just a lip service.
On paper, Transnistria, or, as Tiraspol likes to call it in Russian Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika, pretends to be a country founded on the freedom and liberty of a multi-ethnic people. And the so-called constitution “puts specific emphasis on the country's respect for human rights and freedoms, civil rights and liberties, and the generally recognized principles and norms of international law”. In reality, this is an authoritarian puppet regime where human rights “are not at home”.
As human rights NGOs in Moldova and abroad recognized, the human rights record in Transnistria represents a constant range of violations, based on cultural, ethnic, and political disparities. As a result schools are closed, people get arrested and tortured, private land is illegally encroached, and boundaries are repeatedly infringed. And, in time, the violation record has proven a tendency of constant increase.
The attitude of the Russian Federation towards Moldova, a country claimed by Moscow within its “sphere of influence,” would most probably display a positive correlation between this variable and the aggressive behavior of the Tiraspol authorities towards Moldova and towards residents of Transnistria. Let’s take an example.
The change of political orientation in Chisinau after the 2009 repeated elections and the pro-Western and democratic values aspirations of the new administration there have also activated the militant reaction of Tiraspol and Moscow. Arbitrary arrests of free minded people, including of journalists and NGO activists, followed in Tiraspol and elsewhere in Transnistria. The population indoctrination and propaganda have been intensified. The official site went as far as claiming that “[Transnistria] especially stands out in the field of civil and political freedoms, freedom of religion, and the protection of minorities. As a result, spokesmen for large ethnic majorities, such as Moldovans living in [Transnistria], even confirm that life is better here than in the Republic of Moldova and that civil liberties are - on the whole - generally observed to a higher degree”. Usual, soviet-style, propaganda.
How do things stand in reality? We witness a new wave of oppressions, having as targets several Moldovan schools that teach using the Latin alphabet (prohibited by Tiraspol in the rest of schools in Transnistria where Moldovans are a majority) that still operate in the separatist enclave.
The Freedom House 2010 Report on Freedom in the World clearly states that political and civil rights are violated in Transnistria and the region is not free.
The EU Parliament, in a 2007 resolution, "deplored the lack of respect for human rights and human dignity in Transnistria" and "condemned the continued repression, harassment and intimidation of representatives of the independent media, NGOs and civil society".
An US Department of State report also condemned the Transnistrian authorities for reportedly continuing to:
• use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention;
• suppress the limited freedom of speech and of the press;
• persecute free assembly;
• deny registration and harass a number of minority religions groups;
• be a significant source and transit area for trafficking in persons; and
• declare homosexuality illegal, with gays and lesbians being subject to governmental and societal discrimination.
The Republic of Moldova accuses Transnistrian autorities of organizing incursions into some of the East-bank villages subordinated to the Moldovan government, such as Vasilevca, Corjova, which are claimed by Tiraspol in violation of a 1992 Russia-Moldova ceasefire agreement. Transnistria's security forces made arbitrary arrests, conducted beatings that resulted in deaths of civilians. Overall, the number of illegal arrests amounts to hundreds within the last decade. Numerous death cases of Moldovan citizens in Transnistria require investigations, but the Moldovan authorities simply cannot get access to those localities to launch investigations.
Most recently, the trend to deal with “other way thinkers” in “patriotic” Tiraspol seems to be arresting or kidnapping people and accusing of espionage for Moldova. The most notorious case is of the arrest in April of 2010 of journalist Ernest Vardanean, a Noviy Region journalist from Tiraspol. He was accused of “high treason”.
“Journalists are a threat for the Tiraspol regime because any spark of truth hinders the functioning of state structures, which are still controlled by the KGB,” stated the Oazu Nantoi, a Moldovan parliamentarian and one of the most knowledgeable experts on Transnistria.
The Moldovan government, the U.S. Embassy in Chisinau, the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have urged authorities in the breakaway region of Transnistria to release Vardanean from detention and ensure he receives a fair trial. Numerous human rights and journalists' associations, including Reporters Without Borders, have also condemned his arrest. The Armenian Helsinki Association considers Vardanean's arrest “a blatant violation of freedom of speech." It has organized a protest at the Russian Embassy in Yerevan, since Vardanian is of Armenian ethnicity. The protesters gave embassy officials a letter for the Russian president Medvedev urging him to use Moscow's strong influence on Transnistrian authorities to ensure they respect due process in the case.
A similar case is that of Ilie Cazacu from Bender, arrested on 19 March 2010 for high treason and espionage in favor of Moldova. Transnistria's “state security ministry” (not more than Russia’s FSB office in Tiraspol) has published the alleged Cazacu's confession to spying for Moldova since 2004, made in a letter addressed to Philip Remler, head of the OSCE Mission to Moldova, who visited Cazacu in prison a couple of weeks ago. Now, Ilie Cazacu risks up to 20 years in prison for “spying” for and within his own country. Cazacu's alleged confession comes almost two months after separatist authorities aired on state television a videotape showing jailed Ernest Vardanean confessing to spying for Moldova.
Moldovan Deputy Prime Minister Victor Osipov, who oversees the Transnistrian conflict, denounced the alleged confession as bogus, which proves separatist authorities do not have any evidence against Cazacu or Vardanean. What is Russia’s reaction? The Russian ambassador to Moldova, who was asked for help by Ilie Cazacu’s parents while were in the hunger strike in front of the Russian embassy, had suggested them to talk directly to the de facto authorities in Transnistria…
On June 16th, a 20-year-old woman, Elena Dobroviţcaia, from the city of Tighina (aka Bender), controlled by Tiraspol separatists, was kidnapped and held hostage for 3 days by the Transnistrian law enforcement bodies after her mother failed to appear before investigators. Zinaida Ciuhnenco, Elena’s mother, was in a hospital in Chisinau most likely to escape from persecution by the authorities from Bender. Zinaida Ciuhnenco says all her problems started in March 2009 when, while driving, hit a Transnistrian militia car from Bender. Since then she was arrested three times for 72 hours each.
Again, like in the case of Ernest Vardanean, civil society groups are taking attitude. The human rights association “Promo-Lex” from Chisinau insists that Moldavian prosecutors take actions in defending the young woman in Tighina who was kidnapped, since she is a citizen of the Republic of Moldova. But is Moldova in the position to enforce its own law on a territory it does not control?
Thus, at the end of the day, you get back to the question who has the voice to convince and the tools to assure the protection of human rights in non-recognized entities? Who and how can make internationally recognized rights and liberties of the mankind functional there? Is this a drawback of the human rights concept per se? Do full fledged actors need other mechanisms to enforce human rights? Or should global governance rethink the whole concept of human rights protection, adjusting it to realities that enclose unrecognized entities like Transnistria, or non state violators such as Hamas or Al-Qaeda.
This is something to be decided together. The civic activism and participation of grass roots level actors and stakeholders, with strong support from the international organizations and human rights NGOs, is highly recommended to develop effective mechanisms of human rights protection all over the world.
That is, there is need to support civil society’s activism in places like Transnistria. Moldovan NGOs, with their knowledge of people, community peculiarities, and personal credibility, can be a key element for trust building activities. On the other hand, in order to be efficient, grass roots actors need foreign technical assistance to upgrade their capacity. And probably the most important element here is that Chisinau ought to define a clear-cut strategy and develop a partnership with the civil society groups operating in the conflict region on building trust, confidence building measures, teaching people their human rights, and promoting civic education. Human rights protection is a joint action of efforts both in open societies and emerging democracies.
Comments