CABAR.asia editorial cites the opinions of international experts on the consequences of the conflict on the border between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, effective ways of de-escalation and the relevance of mediators in this issue.
Follow us on LinkedIn
Any conflict, be it internal political or transcending borders, has certain consequences for their parties. During the conflict on the border between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan from April 28 to May 1, according to published data, 36 people from the Kyrgyz side were killed, 186 were injured, and about 58 thousand people were forced to leave their homes. According to the Tajik authorities, 19 people were killed, 87 wounded and about 15 thousand local residents were evacuated to safe places.[1] Several international organizations expressed their concern and called for an end to the clashes.
As one can see, the acute phase of the conflict led not only to human casualties on both sides, economic damage, forced migration, but also continues to influence internal and foreign policy processes.
Domestic politics: growing militarization and political strife
Russian expert, PhD in historical sciences Stanislav Pritchin believes that the past conflict will have a serious impact in the future on the border policy of both countries, which “will become tougher in general, especially in the Fergana Valley. One can already observe the growth of militarization and the strengthening of the military component, ensuring the security of the borders. If until this moment no one considered the military conflict as a real possibility, now we all saw that the development of the situation could proceed in this way. In any case, despite the negotiation process, the parties will still keep in mind the possibility of escalation and, accordingly, will build their defense plans based on this possibility. ”
PhD Candidate in International Relations at the Center for Europe-Eurasia Research (CREE) at INALCO/Sorbonne Paris Cité, France Mélanie Sadozaï focuses on the internal political discourse: “Borders in any country are by definition linked to sovereignty. For President Japarov, the conflict took place just a few months after he became the head of Kyrgyzstan, it will thus be decisive in legitimizing his position in the eyes of the citizens. He has made the border issue a priority ever since he was elected and took a big risk: he needs now to act on his statements. The outcome of the negotiations will play a role in the confidence he has generated among the Kyrgyzstani people. In Tajikistan, it will surely have an impact on the construction of the official discourse on national unity.“
Kanatbek Abdiev, an independent Kyrgyz researcher, Master’s student in Conflict, Security and Development at King’s College of London, points out that the conflict exposed all the existing problems in public administration, security and corruption in Kyrgyzstan, but at the same time contributed to the position strengthening of the newly elected President: “All political forces consolidated around S. Japarov and called on others to support any of his decisions. Such support certainly plays into the hands of the authorities, especially in the light of the recently adopted Constitution through a “controversial” referendum and the upcoming parliamentary elections.”
A political scientist from Tajikistan, Parviz Mullojanov also notes that all political and social forces within each country will use the conflict for their own purposes: “Governments will use it to strengthen their positions, while various political parties will try to use the mistakes of the authorities to raise their popularity among the population. In Kyrgyzstan, this influence will be stronger, because the new government has just begun to strengthen its positions, and the internal political struggle there will really unfold closer to autumn. In Tajikistan, the vertical of power has already been built, therefore, so far, the conflict does not particularly affect the political situation in the country. Another matter if the Tajik authorities do not consider the interests of local communities, then this will seriously affect their popularity both in the region and in society as a whole. ”
Foreign policy: new contours and the search for support
Expert Kanatbek Abdiev believes that the system of regional collective security during the border conflict not only failed to work, but also showed its incapacity in modern realities: “This suggests that the traditional format of Russia’s leadership in Central Asia is changing its configuration. If earlier these were collective meetings of the heads of the CIS states, now Russia prefers to work in a bilateral format. Proof of this fact is the mini tour of the Russian Defense Minister Shoigu in Central Asia, the meeting between Putin and Rakhmon in Moscow at the victory parade on May 9 and the expected meeting between Putin and Japarov at the end of May.
At the moment, the issue of Russia’s leadership in the region is actively contested by the United States and China. The withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan and the search for a new base, as well as the growing influence of China, cannot but influence the foreign policy priorities of the five Central Asian countries. The crisis in relations with its neighbor forced Kyrgyzstan to reconsider its foreign policy objectives, which have always been aimed at the Russian Federation. The country’s parliament began to discuss the withdrawal from the CSTO, and Sadyr Japarov for the first time gave a frank interview to a Turkish TV channel about the foreign policy mistakes of the previous leadership of the country and intentions to strike up friendship with Turkey.
Stanislav Pritchin also highlights certain changes in the foreign policy activity of states: “for example, the President of Tajikistan visited Moscow. Although no one said a word about the conflict at official meetings, nevertheless, everyone views this trip in the context of seeking support for Tajikistan’s position in the conflict in Moscow. In addition, the visit of the President of Kazakhstan to Tajikistan is already underway, and the visit of the President of Uzbekistan to Tajikistan is being discussed. In turn, Kyrgyzstan is actively working towards Turkey. As one can see, quite serious steps are being taken and the question is that the parties are trying to find support in their position on the conflict in the international arena in order to explore the issue in this way.”
Parviz Mullojanov believes that both sides will appeal to Russia as the main arbiter. However, in addition to this, as the expert emphasizes, “Kyrgyzstan can continue its rapprochement with Turkey and other Turkic countries – along the line of integration models promoted by Istanbul, like the League of the Turkic World or the Army of Turan. In turn, Tajikistan can continue its rapprochement with Tehran. It is also possible that Dushanbe will finally join the EAEU this year.”
Mélanie Sadozaï highlights some adjustments in Tajikistan’s foreign policy: “The Tajikistani authorities actually changed their position from silence to official statements. In late March 2021, when the Kyrgyzstani authorities suggested to swap Vorukh for other portions of lands in the Batken region, no official statement was released in Dushanbe. However, after the violence broke out, on April 30, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan Sirojiddin Muhriddin stated that his country will never give up lands that “rightfully” belong to it.”
A fundamental element in the foreign policy of Central Asia, according to Mélanie Sadozaï, is “the importance of regional actors in negotiations, as bilateral relations seem to be leading to a dead end.”
De-escalation options and the mediation dilemma
The most effective de-escalation, in the opinion of Kanatbek Abdiev, is peacebuilding: “However, peacebuilding begins after the end of the conflict, which we cannot yet confirm. However, some peacebuilding activities can take place even during times of conflict. For example, in stable areas, civil society actors, local authorities can contribute to the development of conflict resolution mechanisms.
Given the current stage of the crisis, priority should be given to activities to support economic recovery, including employment and livelihoods (while rebuilding infrastructure and public works), especially for youth and women. Youth-led community works programs not only help to rebuild local infrastructure, but also empower young people to participate in their communities. These actions can be combined with trainings and discussions by youth leaders on reconciliation and nonviolent communication.
Longer-term peacebuilding activities with a serious analysis of the conflict involving both conflicting parties are needed. Unfortunately, there are currently no efforts on both sides to build resilience, build capacity and contribute to conflict resolution, as well as a set of specific [targeted] actions.”
Analyzing the difficulties of resolving the conflict, the French expert Mélanie Sadozaï rightly notes that “the solution does not lie simply in the demarcation of the border, especially since physically marking the border seems very complicated when one knows the landscape. For instance, there are roads where Tajikistani territory is on the left side and Kyrgyzstani territory on the right side. With the two countries literally and physically facing each other, how can one consider border posts or barriers? Therefore, as the demarcation seems harsh, one crisis exit strategy would be to clearly allocate resources (water and grazing lands) based on a common understanding of maps. Currently, the two countries do not agree on the one “true” map. Another element is the issue of actors. The resolution of the conflict will not be achieved by a few people in government offices alone, but by taking into account local authorities who deal with border issues regularly and know the landscape, as well as people living along the borders whose lives are affected by them on a daily basis. It must also include experts who have technical knowledge of border demarcation.
Both Presidents officially declared that they wanted the conflict to be resolved through peaceful means, and without resorting to the military. This is a first step. However, it is hard to imagine that any of them will make concessions, as President Rakhmon and his Minister of Foreign Affairs have publicly asserted that Vorukh will remain a part of Tajikistan’s territory. On the other side, President Japarov needs to strengthen his power and credibility: giving up lands would create dissatisfaction among the Kyrgyzstani society. This complicated set up calls for a mediation not necessarily to have the two leaders directly talk to each other as they already do, but to define the framework and the content of the negotiations.”
Russian expert Stanislav Pritchin notes a certain dilemma of mediation in such conflicts: “As practice shows, the main factor depends on the political will of the two states. Following the example of the Karabakh conflict, we saw that the Minsk Group worked for many years, and, in the end, nothing was achieved. Nevertheless, mediators are needed, because a third look allows one to look at the situation from the outside without emotional attachment and offer some compromise options that may not be visible in a bilateral format. Another issue is the implementation of the agreements because there are already difficulties with the implementation of even those agreements between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan on the border, which were reached at the political level.
In practice, it is very difficult for the Kyrgyz authorities to ultimately gain support for the same decisions from their communities on the border, which are directly affected. It is clear that the border issue is fundamental, it is politicized, especially in the Fergana Valley, where the key issue is water, pastures and complex geography, demography, when people live practically next to each other, use the same water sources. Enclaves add even more complexity, because this is a logistics issue that requires a very serious study. Therefore, it seems to me that any options that contributed to the settlement of the situation would be positive, including the involvement of some external players.”
Parviz Mullojanov sums up that “the presence of a group of mediators, as a rule, has a positive effect on the course of negotiations. The only condition is that the list of mediators must be agreed upon by both parties, and not imposed from the outside, or by one of the parties to the past conflict.”
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] https://rus.azattyk.org/a/31251150.html