“The border between the two countries is considered a paradise of solar and wind potential both for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Developing solar and wind parks and coupling them with green hydrogen facilities can create joint renewable energy communities, where collaboration among people can bring shared business models and generate revenue”, – writes analyst Dimitris Simeonidis, exclusively for CABAR.asia.
The morning of September 14 encased a tragic solemnity for the Kyrgyz and Tajik citizens residing on the border. Gunshot exchanges paved the way for yet another border clash that would endure over the next days between the two countries. Many analysts, but also citizens, rushed to maintain that the current dispute would also be short-lived and life would go back to normal, but unfortunately that has not been the case. After more than a week of virtually continuous fightings, the official death tally has exceeded 100 people, increasing uncertainty at alarming rates and once again making peacebuilding and regional stability the main matters in the agenda. The chief ramification of this is that other issues, such as regional development and cooperation are inhibited of joining the very same agenda and hence, questions arise. What can be considered the root cause for the never ending regional quarrels? What is the role of the exclaves and how can they contribute to effective negotiations that will lead to long-lasting peace?
Main reasons
As mentioned, in the absence of agreements and negotiations that dive deep into the problems the two state actors are facing, long-lasting peacebuilding will remain a utopia. As with most inter-state disputes globally and in particular during the 2020s, the primary cause of them involves two main elements, border delimitations and climate change. In the post-Soviet space of Central Asia, the enclaves-exclaves lie at the epicenter of these delimitation, so special attention will be paid to them.
Enclaves – Exclaves
The story of exclaves and setting up borders in Central Asia began immediately after Russia annexed the Khanates of Kokand and Kiva and the Emirate of Bukhara, at the end of the 19th century, which included the exclave-rich Ferghana Valley as well. The delimitation strategy, at that moment, was mandated by the existing political order in Moscow at the time. However, not long after that, in the 1920s shortly after the Soviet regime took over, the strategy changed and a National Territorial Delimitation(NTD) strategy was implemented across the whole Soviet space. The main rationale, based on several researchers, was to divide the region into ethnically-based republics, according to the understanding of the Soviet leadership. Others assert that the administrative units entailed solely an economic rationality. Regardless of the line of reasoning, nonetheless, the delimitation left several territories inside of others, which are the very well-known enclaves-exclaves. The main question now is: How are these units jeopardizing regional peace and stability?
Firstly, for virtually any type of development/construction works within the enclaves, there is a need for physical assistance from the main administration in the capital city. This means that for each of those projects multiple checkpoints ought to be passed. This either creates groups of people that benefit from this economy(border guards, business owners etc) and a group of regular citizens that might feel their personal(and national)space is threatened. Thus, tensions can heat up easily. In 2019, works that would take place only for the renewal of a road that would bypass Vorukh, a border incident cost 2 people their lives and more than 20 people were injured.
In addition, some of these territories are also resource-rich which, as in most cases, becomes a reason for debating over exploitation. This has been observed in the oil-rich region of Northern Sokh, where the two countries again locked horns over the projected earnings, but the case was also similar with Uzbekistan in regions such as Northern Ristan. This creates a reinforcing loop of decay, as disputes lead to lack of exploitation of natural resources, which leads to lack of economic development, which can lead citizens to misery and further disputes.
However, the foregoing loop is not the only factor that leads to public discontent. In such underdeveloped territories, residents usually view border police as the main impediment for development to come to their city as well. In some cases that might be true, as, for example, in Vorukh and Western Qalacha, residents have pointed towards the police officers as deliberately blocking the most important and direct roads that would connect the exclaves with the mainland. All of these are issues that need to be researched much more thoroughly in order to be able to find a solution as quick as possible.
Climate Change – Additional Stressors or Reasons to collaborate?
The effects of climate change are considered to be among the biggest stressors of conflict over the past decade and Central Asia has more reasons than most regions to be extremely stressed. The region is said to face almost double the burden from climate change than the global average and the exclaves are no exception to the rule. The whole Kyrgyz-Tajik border got lighted up again in 2019 chiefly over sharing of a water body, namely Ak-Suu in Kyrgyz or Isfara in Tajik. In Vorukh, but also in booming Sokh, population is increasing rapidly and so is the need for pastureland and water and external supply, given the circumstances, is extremely difficult. As the water level in most reservoirs in both countries, with the example of the Toktogul reservoir being prevalent, is steadily being lowered every year, the water available for other activities including drinking and irrigation will also be reduced. This will only add additional stress and neither of the two countries will settle until they secure all possible sources of water.
At the same time, the border between the two countries is considered a paradise of solar and wind potential both for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Developing solar and wind parks and coupling them with green hydrogen facilities can create joint renewable energy communities, where collaboration among people can bring shared business models and generate revenue, while providing cheap energy to everyone and reducing the dependence on fossil fuels. Poverty and lack of resource exploitation is being highlighted as one of the major reasons for this specific interstate conflict and, thus, climate tech to save the environment can actually save the local communities on both sides of the border. It is an eminent need that both governments start supporting such initiatives.
The role of external players and lessons learnt so far from other disputes
It should be taken into consideration, nonetheless, that the Kyrgyz-Tajik dispute is not the first one in history and that several ones have taken place around the world already, hence lessons can be used for the Central Asian states’ paradigm.
Recent efforts to bring resolution to long-lasting conflicts between state actors, even if they did not entail killings, took place in the Balkans. Kosovo-Serbia and Greece-North Macedonia, in reconciliation talks mediated by the UN with the assistance of the US administration, laid the foundation so that former disputes could give room to partnerships. For this to be achieved, all states had social-democrat affiliated parties in their leadership, which facilitated the process. Even if the Kosovo-Serbia relations took a step back again over the past year, both negotiations are a good example of resolution of border issues.
These elements, however, are very hard to find in the Kyrgyz-Tajik issue. The USA is ruled by a different leadership at the moment, which has refrained from intervening in such inter-state problems in any part of the globe ever since president Biden got elected. In addition, Washington has never been involved, even in peacebuilding talks, in Central Asian affairs, primarily because this is considered a territory where Moscow is the main security guarantor. However, even for Russia it would be extremely challenging at the moment to hold peace talks between the two countries. The main reason is that virtually all Russian resources are being directed in the Ukrainian front, which weakens its security outreach in Central Asia.
As far as international institutions are concerned, the EU has presented very small capabilities to mediate for a solution and the Armenia-Azerbaijan war has been a clear example of this deficiency. EU states, such as Germany and France, were present at the Minsk Group and their contribution did little to increase peacebuilding efforts among Yerevan and Baku. With over 30 years of friction between the two Caucasus states, the only support towards peace by Brussels was one set of peace talks held in July 2022, which were not characterized by success.
An equivalent to the Minsk Group would really prove to be conducive towards mitigating the heat between the two countries and bringing long-lasting peace. Turkey would be one of an appropriate initiator of such an initiative. Ankara’s first efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine at the same table for negotiations amidst an invasion with massive killings audibly shows Turkey’s capabilities to act as a mediator. To this Group, countries like Iran, due to its cultural (and newly established trade) ties would be a great second member. Despite the current internal unrest, Tehran has strong interest in Central Asia and has shown that it can maintain a balance among the different states. Thirdly, a more stable regional actor with relatively neutral status, such as Mongolia, would be a good addition. China and India could also have strong status as security guarantors, but both states are expected to refrain from clearly establishing security guarantor status in a region dominated by Moscow. Nonetheless, the war in Ukraine might work as an encouraging factor to their behavior.
Kyrgyz – Uzbek negotiations : a new flame or a way to apply lessons learnt
As the Kyrgyz – Tajik peace negotiations are expected to resume, another regional conflict looms, again around water. The Kyrgyz – Uzbek border is home to the Kempirabad reservoir, whose sharing has been a reason for conflict over the past years. In 2021, resulted in the conflict resolution, according to Tashiev, but the border was still not clearly demarcated. Contemplating on unrest from the local population, the two sides re-started negotiations in September 26, when President Sadyr Japarov met with Prime Minister Abdulla Aripov in Bishkek. In October 4, the Kyrgyz President attempted to convey the results of the first round of negotiations to the locals in Osh, but with very little success, as protests sparked anew.
Even though the issue might seem minor at the moment, the Kyrgyz – Tajik paradigm has delineated that both the regional and the global community need to be alarmed, informed and act now for regional peace and stability in Central Asia.
Again, in this case, a pattern emerges and is evident. This pattern, like in the Kyrgyz – Tajik case, is based on two main elements. First, the main source of the dispute are not the governmental bodies, but the local communities. The second element is that both states have unresolved border demarcation issues. These include enclaves, such as the Barak enclave which is close to the reservoirs, but also Sokh, Sohimardon, Jhangail and Qalacha, which, no matter how much both have been proclaiming that they are near resolution, there is nothing concrete yet.
These elements make the situation increasingly worrisome and a scenario of a spillover effect between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan is looming. Considering the overall stance of both states and the fact that both are currently recovering from internal problems (Uzbekistan in particular, after the Karakalpakstan unrest), there is very little chance that escalation can happen in a governmental level. Nevertheless, the unrest of the local population and the reluctance to cede even the slightest of land (or water) from their side is a clear sign for concern. Increased security measures on the region might help limit the unrest in a local level, but on the other hand it can cause even higher discontent among the population, creating a reinforcing loop of violence. This would be particularly unwanted in Tashkent, especially after the events in Nukus. Overall, the foregoing conclusions from the dispute between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan can function as lessons learnt and policy recommendations for the situation in the Kempirabad reservoir, in order to avoid escalation as soon as possible. A pragmatist approach of joint green energy projects and clear border demarcation, while providing capacity building among local residents in peacekeeping would ameliorate the situation.
Solution – Negotiations
The latest clashes along the Kyrgyz-Tajik conflict have clearly delineated that the heated relations between the two countries are here to stay, unless long-lasting solutions are found for peacebuilding. For these solutions to take place, painstaking comprehension of the root causes is paramount. The new negotiations ought to have a clear path towards creating a border delimitation that will be respected by both parties and that will be able to be ratified by the international court. A special task force on enclaves/exclaves would play a crucial role for peace. For this to happen, historical documents that are used to support each side should be taken into an international arbitrary body, or an international set of mediators, so that there is clear understanding over the reasoning of each claim. Trust is the key element during these negotiations and it is the biggest obstacle to be bypassed at the moment.
A second set of clauses needed to be added includes specific development programs targeting the exclaves. It is of utmost importance that their economy becomes a booming one and that it creates new jobs. This can be combined with the third set of clauses, which will involve climate policy. Both countries should resort to climate-friendly innovations and investment programs, that will encourage renewable energy sources and sustainable water management/irrigation projects, with clear guidelines on water sharing being the most important clause in this case.
The main issue here, apart from trust, is that residents are ready to resort to clashes even in hearing about potential resolution by enclave swap or similar agreements. Leaders of both countries must, now more than ever, resort to a more calm rhetoric that will better facilitate the peacebuilding process.