Press release
Declaration of the Moldovan Association of Historians concerning the allegations of the Russian ambassador in Chisinau, Mr. Valery Kuzmin
In connection with the statement of His Excellency Russian Ambassador to Moldova Valery Kuzmin, expressed on the 14th of October, 2009, that the textbooks of history of Romanians taught in the Republic of Moldova contain negative views of Russians and Russia, Moldovan Association of Historians considers that these claims are tendentious and not corresponding to reality. It is true that the history of relations between Russia and the Romanian principalities / Romania has gone through various stages, including both collaborative moments and moments of tensioning of these relationships. Chisinau based historians have written history textbooks of the Romanians and tried to elaborate a balanced approach on the main aspects of these relations over centuries. Some historians have succeeded better in this endeavor, others less, but pluralistic visions of the past is a necessary ingredient in a democratic society and, moreover, a clear indication of its existence.
Interpretation of key moments in Romanian history, including those regarding the history of Bessarabia or present day Republic of Moldova – such as events of 1812, 1918, 1940/1944, 1991 or policies pursued under tsarist and Soviet regimes – may not coincide with those of contemporary Russian historiography. The same is true for other European countries, e.g. France and Germany, in the interpretation of the events of e.g. 1871, 1914, 1918, 1940. Despite the different visions of these events of the past, the two European countries maintain very good relations and, moreover, on their harmonious collaboration the very existence of European Union is based. In 2007 and 2008 France and Germany have produced two history textbooks that are taught in schools on both sides of the Rhine. Regarding the years 1940-1944, for example, the occupation of France by Nazi Germany and the repression of social or ethnic categories (especially Jews) is condemned fore straight. This is not perceived by Germans as offense, as the condemnation of French colonial experience in the same French-German textbooks is not perceived as an insult by France or the French nation as well.
In Moldova, the national history textbooks are called the history of the Romanians, because that is the history of the area where the Romanians are the majority, but this does not mean the exclusion of the ethnic minorities from this historical narrative. These textbooks treat the events of 1812 as tragic for the history of Principality of Moldavia in general and of Bessarabia in particular and condemn the Tsarist policy of conquest and colonization in the region. In that year one of the three Romanian medieval principalities – Principality of Moldavia – has been divided further (the first one being in 1774, when Habsburg Empire occupied its northern part, named afterwards Bukovina). For the Tsarist Empire it was a success, and it comes natural that Russian history textbooks promote this view because it corresponds to the Russian state interests. Yet, this interpretation has not served and may not serve as an opportunity for Moldova’s ambassador to Moscow to declare that Russia’s history textbooks are promoting a negative view of Romanians or Moldovans. Examples of this type may continue. It is known that the history textbooks in Russia condemns Tatar-Mongol yoke which dominated the Russian principalities for centuries, but it can not be interpreted as a denigration or offense against Mongolia as a state or the Mongols as a people. The existence of the same history textbooks in Russia today condemning the Nazi Germany’s aggression in 1941 has not been commented on by the German ambassador to Moscow as anti-German, because history is history. Moreover, present day Germany has asked for apologizes for the crimes perpetrated by Nazi regime toward other European nations and this behavior could serve as a model for other states that have committed comparable crimes to act in the same vein.
In the Soviet historiography there was a prevailing interpretation according to which all peoples have entered the Russian Empire voluntarily. This approach has been reproduced after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it also has been criticized by others, especially by non-Russian historians from Russian Federation. Reminiscences of the dominant Soviet paradigm could be traced in the way Moscow based historians are treating the history of the national republics that today are part of the Russian Federation. In this sense, in the last few years there were organized several celebrations on the occasion of “voluntary annexation” of Tatars, Bashkirs, Kalmuks, Chuvash and others into Russia. At the same time, the discourse used by regional authorities has been different from the one implied by the Moscow, including at the level of history textbooks of the above mentioned peoples, which are designed by local, other than Russian, historians. Our point of view is that these different interpretations regarding the territorial expansion of Tsarist Russia should be approached in a balanced manner by professional historians inside Russia as well as abroad and should not be speculated by the political actors.
Moldova has declared its intention to integrate into the European Union and Chisinau authorities do not want confrontation with Russia. On the contrary, Moldova is interested to maintain good relations with Russia. Nowadays, Moldova has a democratically constituted parliament and government and if the Russian Federation will accept it’s strive as an independent and sovereign state to decide its future, this attitude would be beneficial for both countries.
Chişinău, October 16, 2009
http://www.jurnaltv.md/#20553&20091013&20558&&3610&3595
http://www.infotag.md/press-releases-ro/580846/
http://www.unimedia.md/?mod=news&id=13889
http://unimedia.md/docs/19.10.2009_reactieai.pdf
