Transnistria is a breakaway state located de jure within Moldova’s borders, on the banks of the Dniester river close to the Ukrainian border. The de-facto state of 500,000 citizens possesses everything to be considered as a country, except for international recognition. It is only recognised by three other unrecognised territories: Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Arstakh.

History

Under the USSR, 40% of Moldova’s GDP came from Transnistria, with a standard of living twice as high as that of Bessarabia.

Moldova declared its independence during the dissolution of the USSR. The leaders of the country re-introduced the Latin alphabet and acknowledged the country’s cultural ties with Romania. Russian was banished as an official language, and this decision was sparked a conflict beginning in March 1992. In July of the same year, a ceasefire was signed, and remains in place until today. Russia has kept about 1,000 troops along the demilitarised zone as a peacekeeping force. However many Moldovans see this as a foreign aggression on their land.

In 2006, further normalisation talks between Moldova and Transnistria began, without successful results. The same would occur in 2011; despite the implication of the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) in the talks, and with the US and the EU as external observers. In 2014, after the Crimean annexation from Russia, the president of the Transnistrian parliament, Mikhail Burla, officially asked Russia to annex Transnistria. The demand was never met.

Politics

Despite being called the Soviet Supreme, the national parliament has nothing to do with communism. Although clearly far from perfect with important voting fraud, the election system is considered to be democratic, and allows multiple parties from across the political spectrum to run, unlike communist states.

The Soviet (Council in English) is composed of 43 seats. 35 of these seats belong to the Renewal party, a nationalistic centrist party, for only 1 seat owned by the Pridnestrovie Communist Party (Marxism-Leninism). The communist party has not been in power for over a generation, and the only communist deputy is, as of today, in jail for violence against police officers during a protest. In an ironic comparison, the communist party of Moldova was part of the majority in the parliament from 2001 to 2009, which is has now been replaced by the Party of the Socialists (far-left) as the largest party in the 2019 elections.

The Economy

The economy is much closer to free-market socialism than to anything communist. While the state offers free healthcare, education and a subsidised transport system, they also have a flat tax rate of 10%. Some citizens call it “Wild West capitalism”, as business is unrestricted and everything is for sale. There are so few regulations that crypto mining has bloomed in the region. In a place where it is impossible to get the national currency from an ATM due to its international inexistence, where it is impossible to pay by card and where cryptocurrency is thriving, where corruption is rooted everywhere, it is without surprise that it has fostered the creation of a black market. Not only that this black market eases the lives of everyday citizens, but it also plays a huge role in arms trafficking and money laundering, for which the Transnistrian government is directly accused of.

Sheriff, the biggest Transnistrian company, is suspected of mass money laundering on behalf of the Transnistrian government, which makes most of its profits through arms manufacturing with its high-security plants. The company owns almost everything in the region: petrol stations, supermarkets, a television channel, construction company, etc. The best football team in the country is funded by the company. It was originally on behalf of the first president of the country, Igor Smirnov, and now controls all the region’s political and economic life. The current president, Vadim Krasnoselsky, was backed by Sheriff during the electoral campaign, effectively securing him the seat of president.

All the indicators shift towards an oligarchy rather than a communist regime.

Nationalism and Transnistria

Using communist symbols is far from being considered hypocrisy. It is an essential part of Transnistrian identity. The hammer and sickle became a nationalistic symbol to glorify the past and to differentiate it from the rest of Moldova. Stores sell busts of Stalin and Putin simultaneously and colonels such as Igor Nebeygolova proudly display the USSR flag alongside the flag of Imperial Russia. What seems to be schizophrenic, is in fact that the symptom of a nationalistic identity is that it misses its glorious past.

During the war, the Transnistrian mass media portrayed the conflict as a “sacred war against the genocide by nationalistic Moldovans”. The collective memory is the one of “a war for truth, justice and independence”. The techniques are the same as those used by media in ex-Yugoslavia during the Yugoslavia wars. Politicisation of education played a crucial role in the creation of the Transnistrian identity. This was evident for the leaders who forcibly closed all Romanian-speaking schools in the region; effectively increasing the gap between the region and Moldova. The EU and the OSCE denounced this act as a linguistic cleansing, leading to economic restrictions on Transnistria and a travel ban for all the leading elite.

The Transnistrian Identity Crisis

Historically however, the arguments supporting the independence of Transnistria are not wrong. Bessarabian Moldova has always been under the sphere of influence of Romania, while the Transnistrian Moldova has had strong Russian influence. Moldova had always been a very heterogeneous region, and Russian acted as a common language for a long time. When the USSR fell, the elites wanted to stay in power and effectively used identity and culture to foster this nationalism. The big difference between Moldova and Transnistria is that Transnistria defines its identity very clearly, unlike Moldova. The breakaway state feels part of the Russian sphere of influence and there is no doubt there. Moldova remains today split about its own identity. Are they Romanians or Moldovans? Are they closer to Europe or closer to Russia? These questions remain unanswered and split the political landscape.

However, “identity doesn’t fill your stomach” according to a Transnistrian citizen with the question of identity slowly losing its grip. Even though the region survived on its own with Russia’s economical help, it becomes harder to be ostracised as such by the rest of the continent. Goodwill has emerged from the north side of the Dniester. The current president is pleading for closer ties with Moldova and has suggested the option of federalising the country. The hope for the Sheriff Republic is to be able to export its goods without all the current limitations of being unrecognised.

The post Beyond the Communist Appearance: Transnistria appeared first on My Country? Europe..

To condemn violence in the name of Communism

First of all: it’s false that the resolution explicitly condemns the Communist ideology in toto comparing it to Nazism and Fascism. What it condemns is the totalitarian or authoritarian expression of it, specifically referring in several occasions to Stalinism. The resolution uses the word “totalitarian” rather out of context, for it seems to be interchangeable with “authoritarian”, although this has different connotations.

Nonetheless, it’s clear that the focus is on the dictatorial experience of the USSR and its satellite countries and not on Communism in general. No pacific form of this ideology is condemned. What is condemned is political violence, with particular reference to the rising popularity of revisionist tendencies of Nazism and Stalinism.

The alliance of Communism and Nazism

That being said, it is not wrong to say, as the resolution does, that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact has been one of the direct causes of WWII’s outbreak. Some may be tempted to accuse Western Democracies for putting Stalin in Hitler’s arms, and not collaborating with Russia against Nazi Germany. Actually, Stalin’s interest in that phase, as well as Hitler’s, was to change the status quo. The Allies would have never agreed to let the USSR expand to former Tsarists’ borders. Those negotiations occurring between Moscow and London, or Paris, were a mere instrument for Stalin to name a higher price with Germany.

Hitler didn’t care about the fate of the Baltics or Bessarabia, and desperately needed an agreement mostly for two reasons. First, he needed natural resources for the war industry. Second, he needed to be sure that, after the invasion of Poland, its Eastern flank would not have been menaced by the USSR. Without these conditions, it would not have been possible for the German war machine to work the way it did. The industry delivered what was needed, while the army left the border with the Soviets almost un-garrisoned to concentrate against France and the Benelux.

Communism and the aftermath of WWII: Western and Eastern perspectives

In Western Europe, historiography is still struggling with changing the perception of the Red Army and the USSR as a liberating force. The political craftiness of the left wing in distorting this perception is beyond doubt, but that’s not only the result of a malicious intention. Communists participated in the liberation of Western Europe alongside Liberal forces and the majority later accepted democratic rule.

That certainly has been a direct cause of the partition of Europe between the Western and the Eastern bloc, with Stalin prohibiting Communist uprisings against Democratic forces in those countries occupied by the Allies. Still, not to recognize the progressive rupture between certain European communist parties or ideologists and the USSR would be quite unfair.

Because of this differentiation between Communist ideological streams, its perception can’t be but different according to each country. The relative acceptance of communism in former “Western” Europe would be unimaginable in those countries more or less directly occupied from the USSR after the 1940s. The memory of the oppression of civil liberties under Communist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe is still strong in millions of people. So this time it would be unfair to force them to accept a Western perspective of a term, “Communism”, they rightly associate to brutality, misery, poverty.

Putin’s Russia meddling attempts

Apart from condemning past regimes, the resolution clearly speaks against  Russia’s historical revisionism. In particular, it refers to its exaltation of Stalinism, the USSR, and its attempts to shelve the crimes committed. The European Parliament clearly speaks out about the way these revisionist tendencies are part of the information war against European Democracy. It also remembers that the first victims of Soviet and Putin’s regimes are Russian people themselves.

Does this mean the resolution is a simple tool against Russia, as can be read elsewhere? Obviously not, but even if the focus was to emphasize the role of the Kremlin in altering the historical discourse, it wouldn’t be wrong. That problem is real, and it must be countered.

All of that being considered, what the resolution does is to condemn extremist political forces and historical revisionism, especially Russia’s. There’s also something else that should not go unnoticed. Point 20 explicitly reads: “to effectively ban neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups and any other foundation or association that exalts and glorifies Nazism and fascism or any other form of totalitarianism”. Many countries already ban some ideologies: is it the right thing to do, though?

The post Did the EU Really Compare Communism to Nazism? appeared first on My Country? Europe..

It was promoted as a product fit for the future of Germany. East German magazines often praised caffeine’s effects. Alertness and productivity were desirable traits for the socialist people, so it was a beverage of the future.

For the past, the DDR wanted to tap into the German history, possibly avoiding the too recent past. A connection to the previous history would foster their position as legitimate Germany, so the German coffee tradition was perfect. Especially considering that the tradition was quite strong in Saxony as the firsts German coffee houses opened in Leipzig. As a form of luxury, coffee was relatively affordable. It was also easier to provide to the population than a working car… Or so they thought.

The black frost, chicory coffee, and other unpleasantries:

In 1975, the so-called “black frost” spoiled Brazilian production of coffee. It destroyed more than half of the coffee trees. At the same time, the civil war ravaged Angola and Ethiopia. An earthquake hit Guatemala and Colombia had floods. Coffee leaf rust appeared in Nicaragua.

Let’s just say that it wasn’t the best time for production. Prices hiked, and imports became prohibitively costly for the DDR. Oil imports already consumed a big part of the import budget, so the SED tried to curb the import of luxury goods. They pulled Kosta, the cheapest caffeine brand, away from the market. In its place, East German citizens found coffee mixes: fifty per cent coffee, and fifty per cent other, unpleasant, things. Mostly chicory, beans, and grains.

Citizens’ reactions were far from stellar. People jokingly called this mix Erichs Krönung, a play on Jacobs Krönung, a western coffee brand, and Honecker’s name. Citizens resorted to the last available form of protest in the DDR: writing letters of complaint. More than fourteen thousand letters complained about its flavour, taste, and how it would clog coffee machines. But why was so important? People were used to disservices, lateness and goods shortage. However, coffee, as part of the propaganda, was a proxy for the living conditions. If the DDR’s capability was put in question, so would its legitimacy.

Chto delat?

What is to be done? Reserves dwindled down because people preferred to buy the costlier mix, without weird ersatz, so the state had to get new sources of coffee. Prices were sky-high, and the state had limited reserves of foreign currency, so how could they afford it? Barter, of course. The DDR tied foreign aid in machinery and services to coffee exports. The plan was to start up the production in various, neglected, countries. They targeted places like Laos, Vietnam, and Angola where they set up farms, trained the populations, and sent pieces of machinery.

Did it work out? Technically no. This was because the coffee production was often below agreed targets, but it was a (baby) step to act in a globalized world and to push their own ambitions. Unsurprisingly, the propaganda could spin it in a better way. It was presented as an alternative approach to the “Western neocolonialism”. Plantations where locals only worked as assistants to German technicians were justified as a supervision and assistance towards their socialist brethren. At least, the propaganda was a part of the East German state that worked with Teutonic efficiency.

The post The Brew of the People: the DDR’s Coffee Crisis appeared first on My Country? Europe..