THE TRANSNISTRIA "REPUBLIC" AND ILLEGAL ARMS EXPORT By BOGDAN GEORGE RADULESCU Transnistria's separatists [image1center] HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY In 1989, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the democratic wind that swept Eastern Europe, the Romanian speaking population of the Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic declared its independence, and after the fall of Nicolae Ceausescu’s communist regime in Bucharest, this population shifted, both culturally and economically, towards post-communist Romania. During the 1990s, a host of Moldovan intellectual elites went as far as putting forth the idea of a reunification of the Republic of Moldova with Romania, as an act of historical justice also based on the language and cultural affinity between the two states. Everyone had in mind the model of the German reunification. That was the moment when the legal heir of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation entered the stage. Alarmed by the snowball effect of former soviet republics breaking away completely from Mother Russia, the authorities in Moscow invented a new conflict between the Romanian speaking majority in the Republic of Moldova and the Russian minority in this former soviet republic. In one part of Transnistria, especially in Tiraspol, where Romanian speakers are less numerous, a breakaway movement was born. On September the 2nd, 1990 the Russian speaking separatists proclaimed, in their turn, the Nistrian Moldovan Republic, which was meant to inherit and preserve Soviet policies. In 1992, with the help of the Russian troops, they succeeded in taking control over the largest area of Transnistria, following armed clashes with the Romanian speaking population. The civil war of 1992 killed about 15 hundred people. Just like in South Ossetia or Abkhazia, the Russian strategy proved efficient. The idea was to have strategic enclaves occupied by Russian troops that would prevent any former soviet republic from drifting toward the Euro-Atlantic orbit. After an agreement was signed between the Romanian majority population and Russian minority in Transnistria, Moscow decided to leave behind several thousand troops to „maintain peace”, as it were. But eventually those troops helped consolidate the authority of the separatists. Since then the government of the Republic of Moldova has had no authority in Transnistria. Despite an agreement signed with the Republic of Moldova in 1994, which provided for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria, that agreement was never ratified by the Russian State Duma. The international community has repeatedly called on Moscow to pull out its troops from the area. See the resolutions of the OSCE Summits in Istanbul and Lisbon. RUSSIA’S STRATEGIC REASONS FOR MAINTAINING A FROZEN CONFLICT IN TRANSNISTRIA On September 17th, 2006 the Transnistrian separatist authorities held a referendum on whether Transnistria should become part of the Russian Federation. The surprise came from Russia which ruled out such a possibility. Dmitri Oreskin, the head of the Merkator think tank in Moscow has recently stated that, quote: „Transnistria would be too big a black hole for Russia’s budget.” But why is Russia’s keeping this enclave of its Soviet past alive? 1. Russia needs a grey area outside its borders to be used as a “black market” meaning arms smuggling) to consolidate the budget of the Federation. Just like the simmering inter-ethnic and religious conflict in Kosovo, the rozen conflict in Transnistria is fertile ground for instability and rganized crime. Transnistria has become a hotbed for drug and arms trafficking. Although the main actors on this black market are Russian and krainian criminal groups linked to the Russian intelligence services, oscow can continue to “plausibly deny” involvement thanks to ransnistria’s uncertain status. 2 Transnistria is the most western point of Russian influence, a thorn in the side of the North Atlantic Alliance that reaches to the Black Sea, a potential corridor of the South Kaliningrad type, whose instability can be tapped by Moscow’s continental geopolitics. The goal is to prevent the Republic of Moldova from shifting toward the European Union and Romania, which is a NATO member state. ARMS EXPORTS Tiraspol has free access to the Port of Odessa. With the consent of the Ukrainian authorities (and probably the Ukrainian intelligence services) this port has become a hotbed for the trafficking of weapons (conventional but also chemical) and nuclear materials. 20 billion dollars worth of weapons are being smuggled through the Port of Odessa every year. As of 1996 Transnistria has been producing arms and ammunition which have been illegally exported to Kosovo, Chechnya, Abkhazia and the Arab states. In 2003 the co-rapporteurs of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Jossette Durrieu and Lauri Vahtre emphasized the threat represented by arms trafficking in the Transnistrian region. They have labeled Igor Smirnov’s regime as “most corrupt”, Smirnov himself being an owner of armament factories, while his son was chief of customs. Transnistria became a platform for drug and arms trafficking which was done, most often, with the help of Ukraine. Ukrainian interest groups have also thrived in the instability maintained across the Dniester. Ukraine, which together with Russia and the OSCE plays the role of mediator between Chishinau and Tiraspol, has been increasingly leaning toward Transnistria. Its stance betrays genuine accessory to the smuggling that’s going on through common customs points. It seems that former Ukrainian president Leonid Kucima had managed to institutionalize and place under his control a series of Ukrainian-Transnistrian local networks, using his position as head of state to lend pretence of “legality” to the arms trade that was going on. Last year the European Union set up a monitoring mission at the Moldovan-Ukrainian border. The 101 members of this mission led by Ferenc Banfi have been overwhelmed by the task. They have declared themselves incapable of monitoring the trafficking activity on the 12 hundred kilometer long border, of which 470 kms is Transnistrian border. They have suggested that the Moldovan and Ukrainian police do the monitoring. But it’s common knowledge that these, too, are utterly corrupt. Military expert Alex Vatanka with Jane's Defence Group has estimated that Moscow, Kiev and even Tiraspol will try to take advantage of the growing tension in the Middle East, following the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Taking advantage of the recent developments in the Middle East, a series of arms exporters from Russia may have already helped states that have been sponsoring terrorism (like Iran, Syria but also North-African Sudan), via Transnistria. It is believed that Russia has exported arms, but also fighter jets, helicopters, tanks, armored vehicles and air defense installations. It is from this region that Syria and Lebanon have been acquiring weapons in the last ten years. It may be that terrorist organizations have been supplied with weapons by the regime in Tiraspol in one way or another. SOVIET ARMAMENT UNDER THE CLEAR BLUE SKY In the self-proclaimed “Republic of Transnistria” there is a 40,000 tons arsenal (arms and ammunition) which belongs to the Russian Federation. The Supreme Security Council in Chisinau has warned that the Russian arsenal at Kolbasna, partly manufactured before the Second World War, and which is stored in inappropriate conditions, can explode at any moment. According to Moldovan military experts the detonation force of this arsenal is so big that it may wipe out everything on an area ranging from 500 to 3000 square kilometers, wreaking havoc on human communities and the environment. Therefore, if 20 thousand shells, bombs and missiles kept by Russia under the clear blue sky explode, not only the Republic of Moldova will be harmed, but also Romania and Ukraine. What’s even worse is that a potential detonation would blow up the gas pipe crossing Transnistria, not far from Kolbasna. At present there are more than 10,000 tons of explosive materials in the Russian arms depots in Transnistria. If that blows up, the effect is comparable to the Hiroshima bomb. The OSCE met the refusal of the authorities in Tiraspol when it wanted to detonate that entire arsenal in a controlled environment. The head of the OSCE mission to Chisinau, David Schwartz said that one of the detonation chambers (DONOVAN) that reached the Port of Odessa in mid April was turned down. Transnistria claims financial compensations from Moscow in exchange for renouncing or destroying this arsenal. Tiraspol hopes that Moscow will erase a 100 million dollar tranche of a total debt of 400 million. This entire arsenal should be withdrawn in compliance with Russia’s commitments made at the OSCE Istanbul Summit in 1999. Just like the simmering inter-ethnic and religious conflict in Kosovo, the frozen conflict in Transnistria is fertile ground for instability and organized crime and that has been seriously taken into consideration by the United States in its security calculations. Washington is interested in implementing “the Greater Middle East Initiative”, later renamed “The Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative”. At the same time, the Transnistrian issue is a piece in the mosaic of financial and oil interests of both the United States and Western Europe, in Central Asia and in the Caucasus. BOGDAN GEORGE RADULESCU

© Article from EuropeFront.com - European News Network http://www.europefront.com/news/267/the_transnistria_republic_and_illegal_arms_export.html Published: 02/01/2007