Fulbright Update:
Event features lively discussions, cross-boundary cooperation
Since one key peace journalism tenet is building bridges between parties in conflict, I’ve often found myself teaching seminars in rooms full of journalists from India and Pakistan, or Abkhazia and Georgia, for example. Last week, in a peace journalism seminar at Vadul Lui Voda, Moldova, I found myself in a similar situation.

The discussions between journalists from these conflicted regions got a bit heated at times, among the most contentious I’ve seen, although the animated discussions never descended into yelling or storming out of the room. Despite this, I left the seminar feeling good about the work we did.

The 3.5 day seminar was titled “Peace Journalism Principles and Applications,” and was sponsored by UN Human Rights’ office in Moldova. I was the project designer and lead instructor. The participants were 20 journalists from three areas: Moldova, which is in the process of joining the EU; Transnistria, a Russian-leaning breakaway region; and an autonomous, Russian-speaking region of Moldova, Gagauzia.

Liuba Starii, Ludmila Hitsuc

Our contentious discussions largely centered on the Ukraine-Russia war. I knew we were going to generate some heat when one of the Transnistrian journalists called the war a “special operation”—Putin’s sanitized euphemism for the war. The Transnistrian journalists discussed how they cover the war, and used the descriptive term “neutral,” which, to other participants from Moldova, means ignoring the death and destruction that the Russian invasion has wrought in Ukraine. I intimated that ignoring Russia’s actions in an attempt to appear neutral is, in fact, a pro-Kremlin stance. To reinforce this, I quoted anti-apartheid South African bishop Desmond Tutu, who said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

We also discussed the language used to describe the stalemate between Transnistria, a region that claims independence but is not recognized by any other country, and Moldova, which considers Transnistria Moldovan territory. One participant, Evgheni Sholari,  presented an excellent guide, produced by journalists on both sides, that recommends what language journalists should use to turn down the rhetorical heat—peace journalism, to be sure. The neutral language recommended by the guide includes saying “Transnistria” instead of “unrecognized Transnistria” or “Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic,” calling the 1992 war that started the conflict “armed conflict on the Dniester (River) in 1992” instead of “armed aggression” or “Russian aggression.” I told the participants I disagreed with the guide’s recommendation to call the 1500 Russian troops stationed in Transnistria “peacekeepers.” My point was that peacekeepers are inherently neutral, which these Russian troops (which is what I would call them) are not.

Andrei Trubceac, UN Human Rights office

The sponsor, the UN Human Rights office in Moldova, lined up some excellent speakers for the seminar, including Eugenia Crețu, editor in chief of Europa Liberă Moldova; Nikola Petrovski and Andrei Trubceac from the UN Human Rights office in Moldova;  Olga Borisova from the Memory Walk project;  Irina Kartashova from Dnestr TV/Novaya Volna; and Viorica Zaharia, the president of the Press Council of Moldova. Also, history professor history professor Sergiu Musteață discussed contested historical narratives in Moldova, including contentious issues surrounding language and identity. War reporters Viorica Tătaru and Andrei Captarenco from TV8/Dincolo de Nistru also presented alongside photojournalist Larisa Kalik, who is originally from Transnistria. She joined us online from Ukraine, telling the participants that ”I wish you to never experience” seeing the death and destruction she has witnessed.

The participants were put into teams from conflicted regions (one Moldovan and one Transnistrian or Gagauzian), and tasked with producing cross-boundary stories about contested narratives. These will be finished in May. One group, for example, is doing a report on the future of Moldova from two perspectives—one a pro-Russia, eastern orientation, the other a pro-EU orientation.

At the end of the seminar, one of the Transnistrian journalists shared her frustrations when reflecting on the heated discussions, and observed that it is impossible to change people’s minds. I told her and the other participants that our goal was never to change anyone’s minds, but rather to generate dialogue and cooperation, and to plant some seeds for what will undoubtedly be a long, painful road to reconciliation and peace. In this, I believe we succeeded, despite the fireworks.

Palii Timur, Alla Tofan, Natalia Munteanu, Evgheny Cheban.