No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
In June 1990, following the example set by Boris Yeltsin and the Russian Republic, the Supreme Soviet in Chişinău declared Moldova sovereign. Henceforth, Moldovans would recognize only those laws approved by their own parliament and maintain relations with the other republics only within “an association of sovereign states.” Formal independence came a year later, on 27 August 1991, following the failure of the Moscow coup that sought to unseat Mikhail Gorbachev and preserve the Soviet Union. In the heady times that followed, Moldovans debated basic questions of political organization and, inevitably, the difficult issue of Moldova's relationship with neighboring Romania.
1. Prazauskas, Algimantas, “Foreign Policies of the Western Littoral States,” in Szporluk, Roman, ed., National Identity and Ethnicity in Russia and the New States of Eurasia (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1994), p. 169.Google Scholar
2. Matlock, Jack F. Jr., Autopsy of an Empire: The American Ambassador's Account of the Collapse of the Soviet Union (New York: Random House, 1995), p. 37.Google Scholar
3. Crowther, William, “Moldova after Independence,” Current History, October 1994, p. 346.Google Scholar
4. Socor, Vladimir, “Moldavia Builds a New State,” RFE/RL Research Report, Vol. 1, No. 1, 3 January 1992, pp. 42–45.Google Scholar
5. Socor, Vladimir, “Moldova's ‘Dniester’ Ulcer,” RFE/RL Research Report, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1 January 1993, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar
6. Mark, Rudolf, “Moldova: Progress Amid Crisis,” Transition: 1994 in Review, Vol. II, p. 59.Google Scholar
7. Ionescu, Dan, OMRI Daily Digest, Vol. 16, No. 2, 23 January 1996; The Jamestown Foundation, Monitor, Vol. II, No. 18, 26 January 1996.Google Scholar
8. The Jamestown Foundation, Monitor , Vol. II, No. 31, 14 February 1996.Google Scholar
9. OMRI Daily Digest, Vol. 118, No. 2, 18 June 1996; The Jamestown Foundation, Fortnight in Review, Vol. 1, No. 3, 26 July 1996.Google Scholar
10. OMRI Daily Digest, Vol. 16, No. 2, 23 January 1997.Google Scholar
11. Cited in Hockenos, Paul, “Where the Mighty Have Fallen, Modest Moldova Stands Tall,” The Christian Science Monitor, 10 December 1996, p. 6.Google Scholar
12. The Jamestown Foundation, Monitor , Vol. II, No. 189, 10 October 1996.Google Scholar
13. The Jamestown Foundation, The Fortnight in Review, Vol. I, No. 11, 6 December 1996.Google Scholar
14. Ibid.Google Scholar
15. Mostov, Julie, “Trading Priorities: Transdniestria and the Moldovan Economy,” ACE Analysis of Current Events, Vol. 9, No. 7, July 1997, p. 3. See also The Jamestown Foundation, Monitor, Vol. III, No. 91, 8 May 1997.Google Scholar
16. The Jamestown Foundation, Monitor, Vol. III, No. 108, 3 June 1997. Some Romanian politicians expressed concerns. Teodor Melescanu, deputy chairman of the Party of Social Democracy, worried that the treaty did not adequately protect Romanian minority rights in Ukraine. Some nationalists called it treasonous. See RFE/RL Newsline, Vol. 24, No. 2, 5 May 1997.Google Scholar
17. Mostov, , “Trading Priorities,” p. 11.Google Scholar
18. According to Moldovan Minister of Privatization Ceslau Ciobanu, cited in The Jamestown Foundation, Monitor, Vol. II, No. 95, 16 May 1996. See also, ibid., p. 11.Google Scholar
19. Hockenos, , “Where the Mighty Have Fallen,” p. 6.Google Scholar
20. The Jamestown Foundation, The Fortnight in Review, Vol. I, No. 11, 6 December 1996.Google Scholar
You have
Access