Moldova failed in its 1992 take-over attempt of Pridnestrovie. [0] But today, a new kind of war is going on: A propaganda war, fought with foreign money. Under the guise of promoting democracy, the propaganda does exactly the opposite. It has one single purpose — to undermine the free will of the population to choose their own future.

Uncover the financing of anti-independence slurs against Pridnestrovie and you will uncover the meddling hand of dollar diplomacy: The U.S. Embassy in Chisinau issues American government grants which undermine the hard nation-building work of Pridnestrovie's democratically elected government.

For over a decade, U.S. taxpayers' money has been flowing to groups in Moldova whose main purpose is to turn back the clock on the freedom that the people of Pridnestrovie fought so hard for. The freeflow gushing of government funds is overwhelming: More than one hundred different campaigns and projects, one after another, have been on the receiving end of a wide open checkbook.

With a special fondness for anti-independence propaganda, the U.S. government has been financing TV stations (TiViK-Asket, Tiraspol, 1996 and 1999, Elita TV, 1998) and radio stations (Lik Television and Radio Company, 2004, New Wave Radio, 2004) as well as newspapers (Novaia Gazeta, 2003, Oleg Nagornii, 2004).

Taxpayer-dollars also went to so-called "information campaigns" of radical Moldovan nationalists: For instance, in 2001 the American taxpayers funded the publication of a nauseating 100-page screed called "The Collage - Chisinau versus Tiraspol" in three languages: Romanian, English and Russian. Showing a clear preference for double standards over democracy, the publication was authored by a Moldovan nationalist group with no participation by any Tiraspol NGOs.

History is clear: Pridnestrovie was never part of an independent Moldova. Pridnestrovie was part of the Soviet Union, as was Moldova, joined together by force in an oppressed Soviet-ruled entity known as the "Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic". When the Soviet Union fell, the two sides went their different ways, as did dozens of others in the post-Soviet space.

The United States supported the independence of other post-Soviet republics as they emerged into freedom following the fall of the iron curtain. So why was there no clear, unambiguous support when the same thing happened in Pridnestrovie? In 2007 the DoD's Donald Rumsfeld summed up the current U.S. position like this:
" - The United States certainly remains committed to a peaceful political settlement of the Transnistrian conflict and a reintegrated, sovereign Moldova."

Memo to State: Pridnestrovie (Transnistria) was never part of the Republic of Moldova. [0] The current position of the United States reflects a clear misunderstanding of history — a misunderstanding no doubt caused by self-serving Moldova's interests in distorting the historical record. There never was a "sovereign Moldova" which included Pridnestrovie (Transnistria). If the United States supports joining the two, the statement should say "integrated" ... but not "reintegrated", as the two were never united in an independent sovereign Moldova at any time in history. At most, they were only together in the shotgun marriage known as the MSSR, the artificial entity created as a result of the Stalin-Ribbentrop pact and its secret protocol dividing Europe between Hitler and Stalin; two of history's most brutal dictators.
Is this what the U.S. "remains committed" to? If so, fine, as that is each country's prerogative. But it is not exactly the same as a "Sovereign Moldova" ... and it is probably also not a policy supported by the citizens and taxpayers of the United States of America.

There is nothing inherently wrong with rooting for Moldova's territorial integrity, but the statement is meaningless until you first define just what Moldova's territory really is. (For more on that, click here.) [1]

The embassy-funded grant program is still in full flow: The emerging democracy in Tiraspol is under heavy attack, outgunned in the information war and unable to match the spending of U.S.-funded operations.

In the face of this propaganda war, Pridnestrovie, however, staunchly maintains its independence. It tries hard to tell its side of the story and to stem the tide of what it sees as inappropriate, foreign-funded meddling in its internal affairs. On 11 March 2006, the president issued a decree prohibiting NGOs from receiving funding from foreign governments. After much criticism from the opposition-controlled parliament [2], an amended decree was issued on 31 March 2006 restricting its effect to NGOs which have a political agenda, support a political candidate or try to “influence the political will of others”. They are still allowed, of course, but only when they are real expressions of democracy. If they are set up and financed by foreign puppet-masters for internal political influence then Pridnestrovie views it as an encroachment of its sovereignty.

As a country which secured its independence on the basis of the democratic principle of self-determination, the official position is to agree with those who once wrote that "in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". [3]

That, simply put, is the basis of Pridnestrovie's nation building efforts.

Source: U.S. Embassy (Chisinau, Republic of Moldova), 22 February 2006 and 13 March 2006.

WHAT'S RELATED: Mudslinging: Black hole or Black ops? [3] Geopolitics and Pridnestrovie's unique role in Europe [3] Stronger international ties to secure Pridnestrovie's place in the new Europe [4] Moldova: Issues and solutions [5] more... [6]