Every effort should be made to prevent a local border conflict from escalating into an international one, experts say.
Follow us on LinkedIn
Analysts, political scientists and experts in the field of conflict resolution from 4 countries of Central Asia analyzed the key directions for the countries of the region to reduce the risk of a recurrence of armed conflicts in the border areas during an online discussion organized by the IWPR office in Central Asia, May 18.
The latest border conflict between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan exposed the entire spectrum of problems in this area and led to the militarization of domestic conflicts on the border.
Experts suggest using an innovative and promising approach to delimiting the borders between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan and, using global experience, abandon stereotypes and prejudices and look for new approaches to resolving border conflicts between neighboring countries.
IWPR Central Asia Regional Director, Abakhon Sultonazarov, stressed the importance of a balanced and non-emotional, analytical approach to the events that took place at the end of April on the Tajik-Kyrgyz border. In his opinion, such approach will contribute to the resolution of the conflict and revitalize peaceful life of the border communities.
Sultonazarov dwelled on a number of factors that ultimately led to bloodshed.
“Uneven distribution of resources in the Fergana Valley, conditionally divided during the Soviet era between Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, lack of jobs, poverty, and then the pandemic and the crisis caused by it, left their mark on the situation. The postponement of the delimitation of borders, coupled with the above factors, led to the tragedy that you and I have witnessed, “Sultonazarov said.
In addition, the conflict was facilitated by the presence of internal problems in both countries.
“We know that one of the most effective political instruments is the presence of an external enemy, this serves as a strong unifying factor, while eventually internal problems seem insignificant. And such problems exist both in Kyrgyzstan and in Tajikistan, it is no secret to anyone. They refer to the adoption of a new Constitution and the formation of a new political elite in Kyrgyzstan and the growth of socio-economic and political problems in Tajikistan and a number of others.”
Of particular concern to the IWPR Central Asia Office was the use of propaganda and the involvement of the media of both countries in the concurred information war.
“As you all probably know, for more than 20 years the Representative Office of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting in Central Asia has been studying conflict management and working on these topics, introducing international standards of journalism and expert assessment in the region. During our trainings, within the framework of analytical schools and Media Schools, we purposefully strive to instill in our alumni and contributors objectivity, balance, fact-checking, and providing an equal voice to all participants in any conflicts. In our materials, we strive to maintain our high standards and not allow emotions to prevail, preferring not to rush to assessments.
The latest armed conflict on the border in the Batken and Sughd regions of two friendly states showed that propaganda and information wars that swept the whole world after 2014, when the Russian-Ukrainian crisis broke out, began to prevail in our region as well.
We saw with our own eyes that the expert community, journalists, and respected media, both in Kyrgyzstan and in Tajikistan, unleashed their full potential on inciting the conflict, instead of reconcile it, as it should be done by a serious and responsible media.
Fakes, mutual accusations, lack of balance and objectivity, following unverified, and sometimes clearly provocative statements on social networks, today have led to an actual information war, which does not contribute to the conflict resolution, “Abakhon Sultonazarov said, urging journalists and analysts, as well as the media of neighboring states, to take a more responsible approach to covering the conflict.
The political scientist, conflictologist and researcher from Tajikistan, Dr. Parviz Mullojanov, shared his analysis of the stages of the conflict and expressed his vision of resolving the situation.
According to the scientist, at the moment the protracted transboundary conflict is in the stage of escalation, namely in the stage of transition from intercommunal and local conflict to interstate and interethnic level.
“This means that this conflict began as a network of small inter-community disputes caused by competition for access to water and land resources. It did not affect either the state of relations between states, or the relationship between the two peoples. Only tension at the community level. Since 2014 – it first went into a state of armed conflict, that is, with the involvement of army units. This year, for the first time, it reached the interstate level. This does not mean that it will gain a foothold at this level. De-escalation may take place, but otherwise, we can expect its complete transition to the interstate level, affecting interethnic relations, internationalization (that is, the involvement of third countries), an arms race, and so on. And also going into debt – for which you will have to pay with your sovereignty,” he said.
Mullojanov spoke about the difficulties of delimitation in this densely populated region, noting the placement of land plots in a checkerboard pattern, water resources in the transboundary zone, disputed territories; intercountry highways that pass through the neighboring border several times.
“There are 40 water canals in this zone, the Tortgul reservoir, from which the Ak-Tatyr (Machai) canal, the Big Fergana canal and the Ravat Hydrozel start. There are also difficulties with pastures, especially for Tajiks, since since 2009 Kyrgyzstan has adopted a law banning livestock grazing for foreigners, including on unlimited sections of the border. In addition, the rapid delimitation of borders is not facilitated by the presence of different maps that do not reflect the real state of affairs – even the 1989 maps ”.
According to Mullojanov, the militarization of the borders greatly influenced the social and economic life of the residents of the border regions on the Kyrgyz side, since before that, local residents often traded with Tajiks and visited Tajik bazaars, schools, mosques and hospitals. The residents of the borderlands have long lacked a sense of security.
He believes that one of the main reasons for the growing conflicts is the state of the so-called “demographic scissors” in the region – population growth given a decrease of land and water resources. However, in world practice, this situation is resolved through the use of advanced water-saving technologies.
“There are countries where demographic scissors do not work – despite the population growth, the amount of cultivated land and water does not fall, but grows due to the introduction of modern methods,” Mullojanov said.
The most difficult and explosive situation has developed precisely in the Isfara-Batken zone, where the Tajik enclave Vorukh is located on the territory of Kyrgyzstan. It is here that most of about 70 disputed areas remain, where pastures, land, water and transport infrastructure are located. ”
It will be very difficult to resolve the conflict. Among other things, one should take into account the domestic political agendas in both states, when, due to pressure from below, from the communities, too large concessions will directly affect the popularity of governments.
The political scientist believes that at the moment countries need to make every effort to prevent the development of a local border conflict into a protracted interstate and interethnic conflict.
“Our goal is to prevent further escalation and consolidation at the interstate level,” Mullojanov said.
Director of the Center for Political Studies, Chief Researcher of the Institute of Philosophy, Political Science and Religious Studies of the KN MES Republic of Kazakhstan, Professor Aydar Amrebayev, analyzed the role of external players in resolving the border conflict between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.
He spoke about the possibilities of self-identification in Central Asia, its integrity and integration processes in it, as a single international entity, integration and disintegration factors in building the identity of peoples, as well as the role that external outside regional forces have played and are playing in these processes.
Are we aware of ourselves as Central Asians? – asked a Kazakhstani expert and quoted a quote from an article by the moderator of the meeting, an Uzbek analyst, Farkhod Tolipov “Central Asians: the peoples of the region or citizens of states?”
“Today, in an attempt to explain regional relations and general development, studies in Central Asia tend to use more often such dualistic constructions that separate the countries of Central Asia as a sedentary nomadic population, Turks-Persians, upper-lower reaches of rivers, small-large countries, strong- weak, etc. However, such a linear approach to regional relations overlooks the deep interdependence of the peoples of the region. Nomadic peoples have not wandered for a long time, at least since the establishment of Soviet power and urbanization; the Turkic and Persian peoples are no longer deeply divided peoples, and their lives and history are closely intertwined; the upper and lower reaches of the countries actually constitute one ecosystem … ”, – Amrebayev quoted an article by Farhod Tolipov.
“In my opinion, this is a very correct attitude aimed at an integrated perception of the region. I think this is very important in order not only to interpret the events that have taken place, but also to try to find some positive way out of this situation, to take some kind of constructivist position. ”
The expert spoke about the reasons and factors that contributed to the border conflicts, among which there are problems inherited by the countries of the region both from the past and from today.
“Our peoples have received a whole range of problems from the past. These are the borders of the region artificially drawn by the Bolsheviks, the phenomenon of divided nations, the ideology of deferred responsibility for their own destiny, self-doubt and distrust between peoples and elites, as a consequence of the imperial strategy of “divide and rule”. The economic division of labor imposed from the outside in our republics, a single water and energy complex of the region, controlled from one center. The technological dependence of the region on external counterparties, the backwardness and deterioration of the social infrastructure, the unqualified national human resource, the development according to the residual principle of loyal metropolises, the so-called “nat. personnel “in management positions at different levels. Well, and of course, absolute irresponsibility. Recent events testify to the lack of professionalism of state bodies, both on the one and on the other hand. Lack of dialogue between the state and society. The concept to which the President of Kazakhstan, the “hearing state” calls, is now relevant not only for Kazakhstan, but also for all countries of our region. When making certain decisions, state bodies should be sensitive to the needs and sensitive issues of local communities, local communities, which do not quite adequately perceive the decisions that are laid down in some agreements, in some joint decisions ”.
The current situation has given rise to a whole heap of new problems, Amrebayev noted.
“Economic nationalism and the use of control of water resources as a policy tool and forcing individual national interests to the detriment of the interests of the entire region, opposition of national cultural identities to each other, as the dominant ideologeme of political elites in our countries. They, not having some kind of constructive strategy for the future for their countries, are building a strategy for the image of the enemy in the person of their neighbors, who are supposedly to blame for certain troubles of their own people. Accordingly, the dichotomy “friend or foe”, “near-far”, intercountry competition for the attention of major world powers in terms of attracting investments, technologies, construction of transport and logistics corridors, involvement in certain integrated economic complexes, the absence and underdevelopment of a common market, its segmentation, the export of labor outside the region with its own needs for qualified personnel, the jealousy of authoritarian elites in countries towards each other, corruption and non-transparency of political regimes and their decisions in our countries, low social standards, lack of knowledge and ignorance of common historical, ethical the moral code that our peoples have, but is at the level of the collectively unconscious. ”
Now an active information war is going on in the information space around the topic of Central Asia and the conflicts that are occurring or brewing here. It comes from different centers, has its own goals, and we become such objects of this influence. On one side or the other.
Touching upon the role of external players and issues of integration of the countries of the region, the expert noted that so far it has not been possible to build a single platform of our own.
“Today Central Asia is facing a number of external and rather intrusive proposals. How to equip Central Asia? There is a Russian project for the Eurasian land gathering, some countries are forced to participate in it, someone is trying to find their dividends there, someone is watching with caution, someone is distance themselves from this process, but nevertheless, a common platform, this Eurasian project recommended Russia, not yet. Even on the platform of the Consultative Council of Central Asia, these issues are not diplomatically discussed, they are afraid of offending our northern neighbor. The same thing happens when our Chinese comrades speak. When they talk not only about the Common Economic Silk Road, but also about the Community of Common Destiny, then we also do not have a common ideological platform, an idea that would stand and say, yes, we are ready to pragmatically cooperate in the economic belt of the Silk Road, but we have our own destiny ”.
Unfortunately, the region’s elites are now developing exclusively their own national response programs. Some kind of interface formats, docking with the Silk Road. , the same is happening in relation to American projects, the New Silk Road, or the “C5 +1” format, despite the fact that it seems to be an integrating project, but nevertheless, everyone there under the table is trying to play his own game and trying to get what something additional dividends. All these options do not work for Central Asia, in general. In this regard, what are the scenarios about the role of external players?
Under the influence of external forces, our countries are united into a kind of integrity. The motive can be the economic feasibility of ensuring security, the community of human security and a single ecological space.
Option 2 – splitting Central Asia not only into separate isolated states and nations, but also into separate subnational enclaves, tribal, territorial clan, ethno-confessional, etc.
From the point of view of our within regional interests, the countries should strive to preserve their own stable state formations, while gravitating towards each other and forming soft and integrated formats of cooperation that meet their national interests, Amrebayev said in conclusion of his speech.
The moderator of the meeting, an Uzbek political scientist, director of the non-state scientific institution “Bilim Karvoni” (“Caravan of Knowledge”), Doctor of Political Sciences Farhod Tolipov, outlined the typology of border conflicts in Central Asia and offered his recommendations for an early settlement of the border conflict between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.
He noted that from the point of view of typology, all recent border conflicts in Central Asia, including the last one, fall under the category of low intensity conflicts, which are characterized by two or three parameters.
- They are not long, short-term lasted two or three days.
- The second characteristic of low-intensity conflict is sacrifice.
“Of course, each individual victim, be it a lost person or a wounded person, is a tragedy. But from the point of view of this classification, the number of victims in low-intensity conflicts can amount to several tens and no more. These are not thousands or tens of thousands of victims, as is the case in larger-scale armed conflicts or wars.
3. Finally, the third characteristic of a low-intensity conflict is its small geographical coverage.
“None of them, not even the last incident, had the property of escalation. That is, they did not go beyond the geographical area where they were provoked. None of these incidents tended to escalate significantly. Thus, the incidents that we have observed and are observing do not fall under the category of war, some kind of terrorist attacks, I mean from the point of view of cross-border incidents. These are not some kind of proxy of war, as we observe, in particular, in Afghanistan, ”Tolipov said.
One of the explanations for this nature of the conflicts in Central Asia is that this region differs markedly from other regions where such border clashes occur, the territorial claims of countries against each other, the expert said.
“Take, for example, the Kashmir problem between India and Pakistan. Or the Nagorno-Karabakh problem between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Or what is burning in the Middle East today – the war between Israel and Palestine. Similar conflicts that occur in the world, and there are also quite a few of them, are of a completely different nature. And one of the distinguishing features of “our” conflicts is that there is no antagonism between the states involved in these conflicts. There is no antagonism between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, at the official level. There is no antagonism at the official level between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan even, ”the political scientist emphasized.
Few in the world, you can find situations when similar incidents occur in other countries, few, where presidents, speaking officially, would call each other fraternal peoples. And this moment deserves special attention. This is a factor that needs to be capitalized on, says Farhod Tolipov.
“Unlike others, there is another factor in our region that sets us apart from others. This is the absence of claims to each other’s territory. Please note that since 1991, when the countries gained independence, one of the first treaties and statements that they adopted among themselves was an agreement on the recognition of the former administrative borders of the Soviet Union – state borders. Thus, it was emphasized that there are no territorial claims of one state to another.
Being a supporter of integration processes in the region, Tolipov believes that the integration climate that already exists now, despite the difficulties, will always return the countries to a normal course, despite the emerging sporadic conflicts.
As a recommendation at this meeting, the expert proposed the so-called “Principle of region-building”.
“The approach to the problem of border delimitation in Central Asia should be innovative and forward-looking, based not on momentary interests and nationalistic feelings, but on a clear strategic program for the development of countries and the region as a whole. There is such a concept of ‘out-of-box thinking’, which means going beyond the usual clichés, prejudices, concepts, stereotypes, standards of thinking in search of new solutions. Until now, so to speak, ‘in-box thinking’ has operated with the concepts of sovereignty and nationalism, which, by definition, determine an uncompromising strategy on the issue of borders. It’s time to get out of this approach and look for a solution in a regional format. ”
Erica Marat, associate professor and chair of the department at the College of International Security at the National Defense University in Washington, who spoke last, said that what is now lacking is the analytical approach demonstrated at this meeting, instead of the nationalist noise that now prevails in the media of both countries and in social networks.
Her presentation was advisory in nature, she advised to focus on short-term goals in resolving the conflict.
The first thing to do is to focus on shorter-term goals and not try to make a clear demarcation now. This is a rather ambitious and difficult task, since the most difficult sections of the border, densely populated, staggered, with a lack of natural resources remain.
The main task, in her opinion, at the moment is to focus on the humanitarian problem of the population in both countries who have suffered from the conflict.
“Now it is very important to stabilize the situation in the border areas. Financially, psychologically. Rebuild their houses. You need to investigate and try to find agreement on what actually happened. A list of facts that both the Kyrgyz and Tajik sides can agree with, ”she said.
In the short and medium term, it is very important to accept the “Status Quo” of this territory. It is necessary to declare that this territory will remain under management between the two states. “That is, we will not now draw clear lines there, because they are of a rather conflicting nature. It is necessary to try to create conditions for the peaceful development of various communes through trusting relations between the two states, through trusting relations between the population. And when we find a balance, when the population will trust each other, when the population will be able to resolve disputes among themselves not through military interventions or provocative statements, but will be able to peacefully resolve their local problems, only then can we begin the official demarcation of territories. Now, when there is such an acute conflict situation, when so many people have suffered, people have died, including children. This is an extremely emotional moment. And now this decision can lead to even more tension, ”said Erika Marat.
She noted with regret that experts who speak objectively and in a balanced manner are now considered radical. “In social media and in traditional media, on both sides, unfortunately, we see more nationalistic, hostile statements, building up an external enemy. More balanced expert communities, at least in Kyrgyzstan, act in a closed manner so as not to attract crowd noise. ”
Erika Marat stressed that it is important to hear the voices of the expert community, who see the real picture behind all this noise and suggest focusing on the internal aspects and humanitarian causes of the conflict. Creating an image of an external enemy can be beneficial for internal political reasons for the leadership in both countries.
Regarding the issues of the influence of fakes, she noted that now it is not so much fakes that are dangerous, as disinformation and propaganda emanating from the ruling elites, their attempt to hide information, to conduct negotiations behind closed doors, not to be as accountable to their population, both nationally and local level.
Erica Marat called on the parties to observe law and order, to value peace and good neighborly relations at the local level. She recommended journalists of both countries to cover events not only from their side and try to understand and show sympathy for the other side of the conflict. Only such a humanitarian approach will help keep the peace.
The experts answered the questions from the viewers on the CABAR.asia channel on Youtube, and also discussed their own theses and recommendations. They invited the organizers to continue discussing the problems raised during this meeting.
You can see the full version of the online discussion at the following link: