March, 2 is both in Chisinau and Tiraspol a Remembrance Day related to the Transnistrian conflict. In March 1992 the Transnistrian conflict got into a military dimension after the clashes around Dubossary unfolded. Since 2010 this date was chosen by the new government of Vlad Filat to “honor those who died in the military conflict of 1992 defending unity and independence of Republic of Moldova and victims of that conflict”. Remarkably in Tiraspol March, 2 became an official Remembrance Day only in 2017 due to a decree of the new president Vadim Krasnoselsky. In Transnistria the establishment of this day was aimed at remembering “the start of repulsing a full-fledged Moldovan aggression”. So now both banks of the Dniester have one commemoration day with fully parallel visions of what had happened 25 years ago. This is the only one official data for Chisinau when the Transnistrian conflict is referred to while the authorities of the left bank have created a plethora of another remembrance days: on June, 19 and August, 1 the victims of the conflict, from Bendery and the whole republic respectively, are honored. This is also a widespread practice in Tiraspol to organize ad hoc events devoted to some round anniversaries. For instance, in March this year the 25th anniversary of Transnistrian volunteer corps is celebrated.
In Transnistria the establishment of a new remembrance day took place in a very interesting context. Actually in January this year the Moldovan president came to Tiraspol after the head of the Moldovan state had not visited the left bank for about 10 years. For the end of March a new meeting between two leaders is envisaged. So why did the authorities in Tiraspol make this new contribution to a symbolic divorce with Chisinau? The president Krasnoselsky clarified this during his speeches at the war memorials in Tiraspol and Dubossary. He said that despite some positive initiatives of Igor Dodon there are many other political forces in Moldova fulfilling their own agenda of one-sided activities and harsh rhetoric towards Transnistria and that Moldova should clean up own act first. “Everything is unclear, that’s why I am convinced that independence is our guarantee of security”, Krasnoselsky said. So the new Remembrance Day seems to be an instrument of Tiraspol’s reconfirmed political distancing from Chisinau. Transnistrian authorities are ready to discuss humanitarian, economic and social issues and make some concessions like closing 10 criminal cases issued in the past against Moldovan officials to support 5+2 format but their course of striving for independence and association with Russia is still valid. Within this framework it is remarkable that the decree of Krasnoselsky establishing March,2 as a commemoration day does the same with June, 10 which is celebrated in Russia as official “Day of Russia”. Besides, it was announced that the Russian flag would be used in Transnistria along with the local one.
What about Moldova? On March, 2 The Moldovan high officials (Igor Dodon, Andrian Candu and Pavel Filip) laid flowers at the memorial “Eternity”. Also a march of veterans from the center of the town to this memorial was organized. Besides, prime-minister Pavel Filip took part in a ceremony of unveiling a monument devoted to security officers died in the military conflict. The monument was built by the Information and Security Service of Moldova, the key security service of the country. It was also announced that deputy prime-minister Gheorghe Balan, who is the key Moldovan negotiator within the conflict resolution process, participated on February, 28 in launching of revised edition of the book “Omagiu si recunostinta” (“Homage and gratitude”) in memory of fallen heroes in military actions for defending territorial integrity and independence of Moldova. Igor Dodon also announced the idea of establishing the dialogue platform between two banks of the Dniester and together with his advisers and representatives of the Socialist party laid flowers at the bridge in Varniţa. Actually the president did not dare to honor the victims from the left bank and de facto stayed in the same commemoration paradigm as the government.
For the prime-minister the commemoration day was a good opportunity to make his usual massage that the country needs unity and stability (which can be allegedly provided by the current government). But the only one practical issue which the ruling coalition is particularly taking care of is the mobilization of veterans who used to be angered by how the state ignored them by not paying sufficient pensions, providing ordinary health care etc. In April 2016 after the veterans announced their readiness to organize public demonstrations, the government proposed a special program called “Memory. Honour. Respect”, which is aimed at meeting veterans’ basic needs. Even Vlad Plahotniuc made a statement this year that the government would do its best to take care of veterans.
In its turn the political opposition (Andrei Năstase, Maia Sandu, Viorel Cibotaru, Oazu Nantoi) adopted a declaration on February, 28 which was devoted exclusively to the issue of how the authorities are working on the resolution of the Transnistrian issue. The document is quite eclectic because it seems to contain discourses of all political leaders who signed it. While Sandu and Năstase even during the press-conference where the declaration was made public paid more attention to Moldovan internal problems like corruption and “alliance” between Dodon and Plahotniuc, Oazu Nantoi used geopolitical arguments, predominantly about Russia’s participation in the conflict resolution. Nevertheless all the political leaders seemed to share one common position that “Transnistrization” of Moldova should not be accepted and that a “special status” of Transnistria is a quite fuzzy formula which should be specified on the basis of the country’s current constitution. Later on Maia Sandu said that she would accept the Gagauzian option of autonomy for Transnistria. So the leaders of the opposition just used the commemoration day for expressing once again their discontent about the official authorities but there was nothing beyond this speech act.
Despite of modest numbers of people participating in public events on March, 2 (as it was in Transnistria too), we cannot assume that the discourse about the history and current estate of the Transnistrian issue is something marginal on the right bank. All key politicians were engaged into public commemoration events with subsequent high-profile media coverage. The society in Moldova does not see the Transnistria problem as an urgent issue, but it has a quite consolidated view on it beyond all other geopolitical and ideological cleavages. According to the recent survey of Gallup, 60 % of Moldovans would see Transnistria as an ordinary region within Republic of Moldova, without any autonomy. And only 23 % would accept the option of autonomy for the left bank. So the Remembrance Day contributes to the reproduction of stereotypes towards Transnistria whose separatism allegedly endangers the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.
To sum up, we should say that on both banks of the Dniester river the commemoration of the Transnistrian conflict has become highly institutionalized and even routinized. The conflict parties are not determined to seek for any touch points. The commemoration practices, old and new ones, help them to keep political distance from each other and provide the legitimization for current policies in the conflict resolution they pursue.