Sursa: Facebook“Moldova’s statehood suits some who use it for personal interest or for the interests of the Russian Federation”
On August 27, the Republic of Moldova celebrated 35 years since the proclamation of independence from the USSR. The event was celebrated with a parade attended by President Maia Sandu, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Romanian President Nicușor Dan. Independence Day also comes against the background of Moldova’s efforts to join the European Union. The international press has covered his as well as the scenario in which Moldova reunites with Romania.
In an interview for “Universul”, Professor Octavian Țîcu, a historian, former youth and sports minister and deputy in the Moldovan Parliament spoke about the scenario of reunification which no longer seems like a passing mention in a history textbook.
– Professor, the subject of the union of the Republic of Moldova with Romania is more present than ever, both in the Romanian and Moldovan press and in the international press. What’s the interest in this subject?
– The tone was set by the President of Romania, Nicușor Dan, who spoke in one of his first interviews, given to the German press, about union. It was a timid start. Then, Mrs. Maia Sandu opened the “Pandora’s Box” and gave several successive interviews to the British and French press in which she clearly said that union with Romania is a future option for the Republic of Moldova and she would vote for it. Obviously, coming from the president’s mouth, things gained momentum. Moreover, a series of current ministers and deputies from the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova and from the previous government expressed solidarity with the President.
Already at the highest forums and at a governmental level, there is talk about the union of Bessarabia (Eds: the historical Romanian name for the country) with Romania. I felt it in a recent visit to the United States, to the American Congress and the Atlantic Council, where diplomats and members of Congress talked about the fact that the union of the Republic of Moldova with Romania is a crisis solution for the Republic of Moldova in the conditions of the war in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine posed a security problem for the Republic of Moldova, so that a neutral country, without an army, exposed to Russia’s hybrid war, sees union as a matter of survival. Here, the consensus is much broader than it was before the war, where things were seen through the prism of national, linguistic and cultural or economic unity. Now the security factor has intervened just like in 1918, when the Bolshevik invasion raised the issue of the entry of the Romanian armies and our survival.
– Twenty years ago, in Romania there was a lot of talk about the union with the Republic of Moldova. Later, for a long time, the subject disappeared. Do we have an explanation for this?
– If we were to take it chronologically, then we have to start with the 35 years of independence. The Act of Independence of August 27, 1991 was clearly seen as a first step towards reunification. To be clear, the independence of the Republic of Moldova was seen by those who made it as a first step towards reunification. These were the ideals towards which the national revival and the Popular Front of Moldova led by intellectuals, writers, doctors and all those who created this movement were moving. Then the Romanian language, the Latin alphabet, came back and Moldova adopted the anthem “Wake up, Romanian”.
Later there were several factors that prevented this union. One was the political class in Bucharest. Why was it possible in 1918 and not in 1991? Because in 1918 there was an independent political class, which thought in terms of national unity. In 1991 there was a neo-communist government led by (former President Ion) Iliescu, and those who were in contact with this government tell us very clearly that these people tempered the unionist momentum. They did not want to upset the “Big Bear”, so this is where our momentum was buried. Then came the war in Transnistria, through which Russia, which had anticipated the intention of reunification and wanted to halt any initiative.
Then came the arrival of former Soviet nomenclaturists, such as Vladimir Voronin. The struggle took place between the intelligentsia, which promoted the Romanian language, history, the ideals of unity through schools, and these neo-Soviet and neo-communist politicians who were somehow anchored in the idea of Moldovan statehood. This lasted until about 2009, when Voronin’s regime was overthrown. Already, since 2009, we see a dichotomy in the Romanian political class. For example, President Traian Basescu, who is a champion of unionism, and who spoke openly about the union.
On the other hand, there are leaders of Romania who spoke about the European integration of the Republic of Moldova. During Traian Basescu’s mandate, there was this ambiguity. Then came 2018. A century after the Great Union, the Romanian Parliament voted a decision voting for the union of Romania with the Republic of Moldova, and left the option open to the citizens and authorities of Moldova. It was an important moment. Since then, there has been a constant increase in unionist preferences in the Republic of Moldova, amplified by the war in Ukraine.
This is where the impasse of the Moldova government comes in. It is a wall that you hit and you realize that more than that is not possible, because the Republic of Moldova is a difficult state to govern.
Sursa: Arhiva personală
Moldova’s statehood suits some who use it for personal interest or for the interests of the Russian Federation. There are people who have become rich over time because they had access to state resources and were able to use this statehood for personal interest. Like the oligarchic groups, for example.
When you really want to govern in the interest of the citizens, you understand that if you delay the idea of joining the European Union, the only solution is the union with Romania.
“We already have more and more connections”
– Basically, how can the “reunion” be achieved?
– Speaking in pragmatic terms, reunification first of all needs to a public promotion campaign and people who would support us. I am not referring so much to the support of the processes as to the legitimization of the union. In the end, as has been said many times and I have felt it in the US, if Chisinau and Bucharest want to unite, no one can tell them not to. It is their sovereign right. In the Republic of Moldova, a referendum is needed, but the way things are evolving, it could also be a decision of the two parliaments. The important thing is that there is a constitutional majority, of 71 deputies in the Republic of Moldova, to achieve this. You should know that we do not have much to do in the sense of union. If we look at the evolution of the relations between the Republic of Moldova and Romania, you will see that we are integrated in many areas. The first areas were cultural, educational, then came the economic ones. In Iasi there are 700 companies from the Republic of Moldova that no longer see their purpose in this border we have. We already have increasingly extensive connections in terms of land and rail. We have Romanian citizens who are civil servants in the Republic of Moldova, not to mention the fact that those who are now in charge of the state are Romanian citizens.
Things have advanced a lot, and reunification would add a pragmatic issue of security and survival for the Republic of Moldova. It is one thing to have 6,000 soldiers along the Dniester River, who make up Moldova’s army, and something else to have a country with 20 million that would become 23 million. It is very important to understand that Romania also needs a reset. The reunion can become that important moment of resetting the way Romania works as a state. The future of the European continent will inherently move to the East. It will be the Warsaw-Kiev axis that will probably have a much more complex mission of transforming Russia which, from my point of view, will disintegrate. We will need resources, capabilities, potential for the reconstruction of Ukraine and for the advancement of the European Union towards the east of the continent.
From this point of view, perspectives open up that we must take into account. The Romanian political class needs to ask itself where it will be when the big card of the transformation of the European continent after the dissolution of Russia will be played.
“When we were united in a single state, we were a medium-sized power”
– Apart from the symbolic value, what would be the advantages for Romania? There are many who see the union only as an act to the advantage of the Republic of Moldova.
– It is the idea of national unity. We are a people that tried to be united, and when we were united in a single state were a medium power country in Europe. An advantage for Romania is the realization of its security. It is one thing to have an integrated territory at the borders that you control and another to have a territory where you do not know what can happen. Let me remind you that from the Moldavian Soviet Republic supplied all the agents who communized Romania after 1944. Also on the KGB line, many who were involved in Romania’s 1989 Revolution and worked in the Soviet embassy in Bucharest, and were Soviet citizens, were also involved.
Romania, more than ever, needs to integrate this territory and take control. Otherwise, the geopolitical reversal of the Republic of Moldova could have very high costs. Not only for Ukraine, which would find itself with another hostile force on its border, but also for Romania, because these citizens will be used by pro-Russian forces against Romania.
The River Prut would become the artery to union. The Prut Valley is an area of calamity. If we look, the greatest poverty is in this region. It is an area that is not encouraged by the division between Romania and Moldova and the economic potential of the Republic of Moldova and the eastern part of Romanian Moldova. The economic potential would mean another perspective on how Romania will develop in the coming decades.
“Romania is a European state that fully respects the rights of minorities”
– Are there any disadvantages for Romania in the discussion about the reunion?
– The disadvantage is the Transnistrian problem, which I see solved through a broader mediation with Brussels and Ukraine. At this moment we need mediation to know what we are going to do. Around 400,000 people live in the Transnistrian region, of which about 30% are Romanians, about 30% are Ukrainians, about 28% are Russians. Ukrainians and Romanians make up a majority in this region, therefore the issues could also be discussed from the perspective of a referendum on where they would like to belong. From the point of view of international law, the Transnistrian region belongs to the Republic of Moldova.
The second issue is related to the presence of multiple minorities, but I don’t see them as a problem. Many are scared of Russian minorities who would come to the Romanian state. We have been dealing with these minorities for 35 years on our own. You can see how easy it would be for us to integrate these minorities into the Romanian space by offering them a European development framework. The Gagauz community would not be a problem either, because most of them understand the advantages of integration into the European Union, some are also great beneficiaries of this integration. They understand very well that by uniting with Romania, which is no longer the Romania of the 19th or interwar century, in which they felt certain discrimination, Romania is a European state that fully respects the rights of minorities.
These would be the two aspects that could create certain impediments. But, I repeat, from an economic point of view, the Republic of Moldova is not a “Cinderella” that joins up with Romania. It will be a partnership that opens up multiple development opportunities.
“It leaves us free to decide what we want to do with our future”
– In discussions about reunification, the Russian Federation is always invoked, arguing that if we unite, Putin will getsangry. Factually, what could Russia do in this case?
– Now it can’t do anything, because the union can be done under the shelter of the war and the Ukrainian armies. The result of the war could of course affect this union. If Ukraine collapses, and the Russians reach the Dniester, the scenario of 1940 is repeated, that is, either the Romanians come, or the Russians come. At this point there are two options, either the current Parliament calls the Romanian armies, along with NATO, or the Russians occupy us. In the event of a victory for Ukraine or a collapse of the Putin regime, with the breakup of Russia, it leaves us free to decide what we want to do with our future.
– Maia Sandu referred to the union as “Plan B”. How do you evaluate this formulation?
– Yes, there were several expressions. Many do not like this expression, especially Romanians, because union is more popular in Romania than in the Republic of Moldova. Let’s not forget one thing, Maia Sandu and her party, PAS, are politicians, who are waiting for electoral campaigns, who want to capture certain segments of society and who have promised 2028 or 2030 as the year of European integration. Can you imagine what happens if PAS fails to get EU integration? This will greatly decrease the party’s popularity. Out of the desire to create additional pressure, perhaps also on EU decision-makers, the idea of union with Romania is being circulated as a perspective. There are many nuances related to the conveyance of this idea that must also be seen through the prism of the political life in Chisinau.
“The preference for union will increase”
– If you could make a prediction, what year will the union be and how will it happen?
– I will not risk guessing a year. I will risk talking about certain processes. If we fail with European integration, it is clear that the preference for left-wing parties, which are pro-Russia, will increase, because those in Moldova are as affected by Russian propaganda as those in Romania, with all the nonsense about communism. But on top of that, the preference for union and the preference for unionist parties will increase. It also depends on the war in Ukraine, if we have a victorious solution and the Republic of Moldova goes side by side with Ukraine in European integration, and together they solve the Transnistrian problem and become part of the EU in a reasonable time. If the Russians win, however, it will be a completely different option. The union will be a solution to the crisis of 1918. We are moving in these processes. When they will happen and how they will happen is unpredictable.
*Octavian Țicu is a professor with a doctorate in history, author and co-author of 26 books. He held the position of Minister of Youth and Sports and was a deputy in the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova and was a former boxer.