“The efforts of states to finally agree on the borders in the legal field should proceed from in-country coordination, taking into account the views of local communities, which in practice will help to bring positive experience in the development of cooperation between the Central Asian states,” expert Chyngyz Israilov analyzes the significance and some aspects of unresolved border issues.
Follow us on LinkedIn
The complex nature of unresolved border issues in the Fergana Valley continues to be one of the major challenges to stability and good neighborly relations in Central Asia. The governments of the countries of the region, including Kyrgyzstan, are making every effort to resolve existing disputes. After the events of October 2020, the Kyrgyz leadership announced that “it is necessary to resolve all border issues.”[1] Certain results in this direction were announced by the end of March 2021, when Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan reached agreements on borders. Despite the fact that the numerical indicators of these agreements have not been finally approved, one cannot ignore their practical significance at the international and domestic political levels for Kyrgyzstan. At the same time, one should not lose sight of the latest events on the Kyrgyz-Tajik border, which could potentially affect the way of a speedy resolution of border issues between neighboring countries of the region.
Significance of the Kyrgyz Uzbek agreements for the region
The official joint steps of the governments of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to resolve all border disputes show the interest of the two governments in developing relations of a strategic nature. At the same time, peaceful relations between the two countries are not limited to cooperation, but also contribute to mitigating the existing latent-tense situation in Central Asia, which is associated with several factors.
Hitherto ongoing constant border conflicts over undescribed areas in the Ferghana Valley darkened the interstate relations of neighbors so much that states had to resort to factor number one – the use of various levers of containment.[2] These levers include natural resources, in particular the availability of gas reserves and issues of joint use of water resources. The history of the coexistence of independent Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan has always been tensed over access to water, be it a small canal in communities or a large river that fills reservoirs and irrigates agricultural land. Forced exchange of territories, transfer and receipt of certain lands clarify the “rules of the game” regarding the use of water resources. In this sense, the current head of the government delegation from the Kyrgyz Republic rightly notes that in such agreements “there are no winners or losers.”[3] From the point of view of interstate relations, such an alignment should provide an agreed legal framework as opposed to what has been the experience of the present and previous years, when each side interpreted the state of affairs in its own way and did not neglect the levers of pressure.[4]Factor number two is attempts to resolve border disputes without the active intervention of third parties, although in some fragments of crises in relations this option was in plain sight.[5] Moreover, there were certain opinions that through the entry of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan into the Eurasian Economic Union, it would be possible to resolve disputed border issues.
This feasible activity in a peaceful environment will allow countries to further expand areas of cooperation.
Establishing an agreed legal framework and interstate relations at the regional level will contribute to international security, which can be seen as a third factor. The described borders will, if not completely prevent, then at least minimize such serious threats as drug trafficking, illegal trade, and movement of destructive groups across the borders of neighboring countries. In addition, the border structures will finally acquire the opportunity to fully cooperate in accordance with the norms of interstate agreements and international law, excluding independent forays on this or on the other side of the undefined border sections.[6]
The next important factor of significance in international relations is the promotion of economic cooperation and an increase in the effectiveness of partnerships within the framework of international organizations in which both states are members. In addition to the border agreement, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan signed a number of contracts for a total amount of 127 million US dollars and there are plans to increase the total volume of mutual trade from one to 2 billion US dollars, while the mark of 1 billion will be reached already in 2021 year.[7] Another significant step of the parties is the intention to create a joint industrial investment fund with a capital of 50 million US dollars, which will have the potential to grow up to 200 million US dollars.[8] Currently, the total volume of trade between the countries in January-September 2020 amounted to about 239.5 million US dollars, it is noted that all this is due to the resumption of the work of the intergovernmental commission on bilateral cooperation since 2017.
According to preliminary data from the National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic, in 2020 Uzbekistan invested about 20.6 million US dollars in Kyrgyzstan, which is the 11th indicator from all countries and various international institutions, and the third among the CIS countries, behind only Russia and Kazakhstan.[9] An understanding was also reached with Uzbekistan on co-financing the construction of individual sections on the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic of the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway project and full participation in the construction of the Kambar-Ata-1 HPP.[10] In addition, with the entry into force of recent treaties, several more checkpoints will be fully operational.[11]
All of the listed aspects of foreign economic activity prove that countries, by promoting border issues, use the opportunity to implement large economic projects. Also, these tendencies in relations will allow the two countries to effectively fulfill their obligations and adhere to the principles of intergovernmental organizations, including by spreading positive experience in finding consensus on existing sensitive issues.
There is no doubt that the smoothing of old grievances and the elimination of contradictions by official means on the part of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan will have a positive effect on international relations not only in the region, but also on a larger scale.
Domestic political circumstances of the agreements
For the foreseeable future, certain elements of the agreements on the borders with Uzbekistan are likely to remain key points of open and latent tensions between the population and individual political blocs, on the one hand, and the government of Kyrgyzstan, on the other hand.
First, this is evidenced by the latest discontent on the part of the local community, migrants, and individual politicians regarding the Kempir-Abad reservoir.[12] On the one hand, such a course of events can greatly affect the domestic and foreign policy environment, fraught with risk, up to the suspension of the completion of work on delimitation and demarcation of borders. On the other hand, this will undoubtedly affect the economic plans of the countries in the sense that the outlined ambitious projects noted above will remain frozen or even not implemented. In the opinion of those who currently doubt the agreements, the transfer of strategically important objects, which are territories with water and a reservoir in exchange for land, cannot be regarded as equivalent. For example, the protesters appealed that “water resources are the main lever in Central Asia, voluntarily giving them to neighbors is a big mistake not only for the residents of our village, but for the country as a whole”,[13] and due to the identity of water and electricity, the recent initiative to revise electricity tariffs in the Kyrgyz Republic may strengthen the link between the “energy problem – border issues”.As history shows, the public will always take the opportunity to point out the government’s omissions, especially if it affects foreign policy interests and state borders associated with the country’s sovereignty. Surely, many have not yet forgotten fragments of border issues such as the transfer of Uzong-Kuush lands to the Chinese side during Akayev’s rule, the Karkyr pasture to Kazakhstan, and an agreement on Kyrgyzstan to lease a section of the road from Tajikistan in the Isfara river floodplain for 49 years during the Bakiyev presidency. Many people who participated in the decision-making on the marked sections of the borders are still reminded of these “betrayals”. From this it becomes clear that the current government in the most serious way needs to pay attention to alternative points of view, if they are of a constructive nature, in order to avoid repeating the fate of the above-mentioned sections of the borders.
Secondly, it is necessary to consider the expenditure side of these agreements. The state authorities should provide funds for the diversion of infrastructure facilities or the relocation of local residents, if such is planned. Perhaps these points will be separately negotiated by the parties in the form of any compensation and investment projects. In any case, in order to smoothly complete the entire process, the state should already think about the sources of financing for the exchange of land plots and the development of plans for the effective use of the received land.
Clarity and unambiguity of the clauses of the final form of agreements, identification of responsible structures, satisfaction of grievances and a clear plan for the allocation of funds to complete the process of acceptance and transfer of territories can ensure the sustainability of the agreements reached. A good practice that has been learned from the entire process of these agreements is that discussion meetings are held throughout the Kyrgyz communities, even if they are accompanied by the most inconvenient questions addressed to decision-makers.
Echo of events on the Kyrgyz-Tajik border area
Almost in parallel with the work being done with Uzbek colleagues at the border, the Kyrgyz government tried to negotiate with Tajikistan. After the agreements were reached with Uzbekistan, to some extent, there was hope that the Kyrgyz-Tajik border issues would finally move towards a settlement. However, instead, at the end of April 2021, sad tragic events took place on the Kyrgyz-Tajik border area, which claimed the lives of people and caused enormous damage to the infrastructure of local communities.[14] Fortunately, the parties managed to establish an official dialogue and stop further actions with the use of weapons. In parallel to the ongoing discussions on the results of the signed protocol and the joint statement of the delegations of the countries on the delimitation and demarcation of the Kyrgyz-Tajik state border,[15] some observations can be drawn that were actualized during and after these tragic events. All this must again be viewed through international and domestic political prisms.
First, the sudden outbreak of a sharp clash, which apparently no one expected in this form, and the information flow from both sides set an interesting tone for the process of coverage and response from the partners of the two countries in the early days of the events. For example, watching the news feeds of many news agencies, it was difficult to understand what is really happening on the Kyrgyz-Tajik border area.[16] Official Uzbekistan, acting as an active supporter of the fastest peaceful settlement of the issue from the first days of events, paid special attention to the importance of adhering to the previously reached bilateral agreements with Kyrgyzstan,[17] which may mean that it is unlikely that any changes will be made in the future. The position of Russia deserving special attention, as noted by expert A. Dubnov, on the part of the Kremlin was the need to “call for a harsh suspension of these hostilities” instead of “studying the situation”.[18] Although it was said later that Russian President V. Putin is ready to be a mediator in resolving the current situation.[19]Secondly, the justly posed questions about the effectiveness of the integration and regional associations, in which Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are members, will have to be answered, if not now, then in the future. One of the main questions will remain about what an organization should do in such situations, what obligations of countries within the organization exist and whether there are mechanisms to prevent an aggravation of the situation, etc.
Thirdly, the issues of relations between the Turkic-speaking countries have become topical. In addition, among the partner countries of Kyrgyzstan, Turkey was one of the first to express its readiness to assist in the restoration of the affected areas of the Batken region. Against the background of various geopolitical discussions about individual countries and integration institutions, the understanding of Turkey’s role will deepen – this is evidenced by numerous points of view on social networks in the Kyrgyz segment. It is clear that all this is perceived at the level of subjective opinions, however, the official platform in the person of the Turkic Council already exists, it remains only to observe what tendencies will await us in this direction.
It is correct to assume that the difficult process will be working on the consequences of the collisions for both countries. Expectations and, to some extent, pressure from the citizens of the republics will force governments to seek and consider all ways to normalize the post-conflict situation as soon as possible. In this sense, in order to avoid similar situations in the future, the importance of joining efforts in resolving the situation is noted in a common joint statement by representatives of civil society of both states,[20] however, it is not yet clear which organizations and activists were involved in this initiative. It is obvious from all this that the direct participants in the process will need to adapt effective practices and constructively approach the subjects of border disputes, considering the local context and interstate relations with Tajikistan. In turn, work on the consequences will certainly have an impact on in-country trends in Kyrgyzstan. The process of granting a special status to the Batken region has accelerated, the draft law of which was submitted for discussion in April this year.[21] This initiative aims to increase the socio-economic development of the region and prevent challenges that could negatively affect national security. Another important aspect is the real fight against smuggling of fuels and lubricants in the border areas.[22] The head of the State Committee for National Security of the Kyrgyz Republic said that this problem would not exist,[23] and the demands of local residents in this regard intensified after the tragic events in the border area. To some extent, the further success of the initiatives proposed by the authorities regarding the existing problems at the borders, both in domestic and foreign policy, depends on these factors.
Some of the conclusions
In the light of the current events, it remains relevant to give a new impetus to the international relations of the countries of the region, both on a bilateral and multilateral basis. This is also facilitated by the fact that the regional organizations that declare stability and security have not yet been able to offer effective mechanisms to gradually resolve the remaining border issues.[24] Judging by recent events, it is the remaining border disputes that need to be taken very seriously. On the part of states, constant attention will be required to manifestations, which can potentially become a topic for destructive polemics, which can be used by opportunists in order to level the achievements of peace and harmony between states. This approach will help decision-makers to quickly draw conclusions on the ensuing consequences and maintain a constructive dialogue with their own people, including steps to bring the issue of resolving border problems to a logical point. In turn, the efforts of states to finally agree on borders in the legal field should proceed from in-country coordination, considering the views of local communities.
This article was prepared as part of the Giving Voice, Driving Change – from the Borderland to the Steppes Project implemented with the financial support of the Foreign Ministry of Norway. The opinions expressed in the article do not reflect the position of the editorial or donor.
[1] Official website of the President of the Kyrgyz Republic, November 2, 2020, Acting President, Prime Minister Sadyr Zhaparov met with the activists and the public of Batken region, http://www.president.kg/ru/sobytiya/18132_ispolnyayushiy_obyazannosti_prezidenta_premer_ministr_sartila_sad_prezidenta_premer_ministr_sartila
[2] Azattyk, 11.06.2014, Canal repair – Kyrgyzstan’s response to Uzbekistan? https://rus.azattyk.org/a/kyrgyzstan_uzbekistan_-woter/25418103.html
[3] Azattyk, 26.03.2021, Head of the State Committee for National Security Tashiev announced that the issue of the border with Uzbekistan was resolved “by 100 percent”, https://rus.azattyk.org/a/tashiev-vopros-s-kyrgyzsko-uzbekskoy-granitsey-reshen -na-100-protsentov / 31170879.html
[4] IWPR Central Asia, 22.02.2005, Sultan Dzhumagulov, “Gas blockade” of Kyrgyzstan, https://iwpr.net/ru/global-voices/gazovaya-blokada-kyrgyzstana
[5] IWPR Central Asia, 24.03.2016, Timur Toktonaliev, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan are still far from constructive dialogue on the border, https://iwpr.net/ru/global-voices/kyrgyzstan-i-uzbekistan-poka-daleki-ot-konstruktivnogo-dialoga-po-granice
[6] Azattyk, 26.09.2013, Kyrgyz-Uzbek border: Antenna dispute, https://rus.azattyk.org/a/kyrgyzstan_uzbekistan_border/25118134.html
[7] Economist, 13.03.2021, They want to increase the trade turnover between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to 2 billion US dollars, https://economist.kg/2021/03/13/tovarooborot-mezhdu-kyrgyzstanom-i-uzbekistanom-planirujut-uvelichit-do- 2-mlrd / ; 03/23/2021, Experts discussed the prospects for relations between the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Uzbekistan. What were the conclusions? http://kabar.kg/news/eksperty-obsudili-perspektivy-otnoshenii-mezhdu-kr-i-ruz-kakie-byli-sdelany-vyvody/
[8] Sputnik, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan will create a joint investment fund, https://uz.sputniknews.ru/20210311/uzbekistan-i-kyrgyzstan-sozdadut-sovmestnyy-investfond-17677447.html
[9] National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic, Investments – Spreadsheets – Foreign investment inflow by country, http://www.stat.kg/ru/statistics/investicii/
[10] See footnote 14
[11] Elgezit, 16.03.2021, All checkpoints on the Kyrgyz-Uzbek border will be open, – President, https://elgezit.kg/2021/03/16/vse-kpp-na-granitse-kyrgyzstana-i-uzbekistana- budut-otkryty-prezident/
[12] Eurasia Expert, 19.04.2021, Residents of Kyrgyzstan staged a protest over the transfer of land to Uzbekistan, https://eurasia.expert/zhiteli-kyrgyzstana-ustroili-protest-iz-za-peredachi-zemel-uzbekistanu/; Kaktus Media, 04/19/2021, Migrants in Moscow criticized Tashiev for exchanging land plots. And they demanded his resignation, https://kaktus.media/doc/436232_migranty_v_moskve_raskritikovali_tashieva_za_obmen_ychastkami._i_potrebovali_ego_otstavki.html; Zhalbyrak TV, 19.04.2021, Leader of the Turan Zhenish Moldokmatov party about the Kempir-Abad reservoir, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28pTHVbvgF4
[13] Barometer, 19.04.2021, Meeting near the Kempir-Abad reservoir. Tashiev: We will offer Uzbekistan not 50 hectares, but 20 hectares, https://barometr.kg/tashiev-vstretilsya-s-mitinguyushimi-vozle-kempir-abadskogo-vodohranilisha
[14] Reuters, 2.05.2021, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan agree ceasefire after border clashes, https://reut.rs/2R4pHUB
[15] Government of the Kyrgyz Republic, 6.05.2021, Joint Statement of Government Delegations, https://bit.ly/2QZCtnr; NIAT Khovar, 05.05.2021, Joint Statement by Government Delegations, https://bit.ly/2RAjtvv; Asia Plus, 2.05.2021, Negotiations until 3 am. The heads of the State Committee for National Security signed a protocol on the delimitation and demarcation of the Tajik-Kyrgyz state border, https://bit.ly/3xWOdYG
[16] Central Asia Media, 1.05.2021, What international media write about the conflict on the border of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, https://centralasia.media/news:1699569; Kaktus Media, 04/29/2021, What about the situation on the Kyrgyz-Tajik border the Russian media write, https://bit.ly/33kqhQR
[17] Website of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, April 30, 2021, The Presidents of Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan considered ways to strengthen the dialogue, https://president.uz/ru/lists/view/4321
[18] Currently, 04/29/2021, “In one side, someone needs a small victorious war.” Who benefits from the conflict on the border of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan? https://www.currenttime.tv/a/kyrgyzstan-tajikistan-war/31230197.html
[19] RIA Novosti, 30.04.2021, Putin is ready to become a mediator in resolving the conflict between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, https://ria.ru/20210430/putin-1730670110.html
[20] Asia Plus, 05/03/2021, the Presidents of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan were asked to stop the aggression and take responsibility for the negotiation process on themselves, https://asiaplustj.info/ru/news/tajikistan/society/20210503/prezidentov-tadzhikistana-i-kirgizstana-poprosili-prekratit-agressiyu-i-vzyat-otvetstvennost-za-peregovornii-protsess-na-sebya
[21] 24.kg, 5.04.2021, Give a special status to the Batken region. The bill has been submitted for discussion, https://24.kg/vlast/188822_pridat_osobyiy_status_batkenskoy_oblasti_zakonoproekt_vyinesen_naobsujdenie/
[22] Kaktus media, 05/04/2021, Urmat Samaev: According to information that has come down to us, the conflict began due to smuggling of fuels and lubricants, https://kaktus.media/doc/437669_yrmat_samaev:_po_doshedshey_do_nas_informacii_konflkiaont_nachags.html
[23] Tazabek, 26.03.2021, There will be no smuggling on the border with Tajikistan, – K. Tashiev, www.tazabek.kg/news:1690961?f=cp
[24] See for example: Kaktus media, 4.05.2021, Yuri Poyta: The CSTO was unable to protect its own members, https://kaktus.media/doc/437652_uriy_poyta:_odkb_okazalas_nesposobnoy_zashitit_sobstvennyh_chlenov.html