Julien Thorez is a geographer at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), France, Paris. He runs the CartOrient mapping project ( www.cartorient.cnrs.fr ). In an interview specially for the analytical platform CABAR.asia, the expert discusses the conflicts in the region from the point of view of postcolonialism, analyzes the factors of the collision of interests of the two countries, and also highlights the most important forms of peacebuilding.
CABAR.asia: How can the conflict on the border between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan be explained in terms of the theory of postcolonialism in international relations?
One of the main contributions of the postcolonial approach to the study of international relations is the detachment from the Eurocentric and state-centric vision. The postcolonial approach also promotes the consideration of subordinate actors and the study of fluid, hybrid cultural identity. Among other things, the postcolonial approach addresses topics such as access to resources, border security and migration mobility, which contributes to understanding the complexity of the current situation on the Tajik-Kyrgyz border. In fact, one of the main characteristics of this conflict is a large number of points of disagreement between various actors involved in it: between representatives of the local population, between representatives of the central / regional authorities of two countries and two regions, between the local population and central authorities, etc.
In this regard, it is important to emphasize that the state authorities have been pursuing a “classical” national policy since 1991 with the aim of legitimizing and strengthening the nation-state. With an emphasis on promoting ethnic identity, the authorities often emphasize and promote it within the framework of essentialism. Moreover, the authorities produce an emphatic nationalist discourse about territorial integrity, unity, etc., which leads to increased public attention to these issues. In addition, such a policy often received ideological and economic support from international organizations, for example, on the issue of border policy or the construction of new transport infrastructures adapted to new borders. This policy is far from the postmodern and postcolonial concepts of societies and states.
On the other hand, states have to deal with the tsarist and Soviet legacy, which can be understood as a colonial legacy. And today, one of the main sources of tension in the region lies in the formation and strengthening of independent nation-states, which were created as Soviet socialist republics in the 1920s and 1930s, within the framework of the USSR. One of the consequences of such a policy is the social and territorial division of communities, which were previously characterized by interrelated relationships. This delimitation is a difficult process that is further strained by what is happening in a demographic context characterized by rapid population growth, and in an economic context associated with the adoption of the principles of a market economy, which increases the ground for disagreement over access to resources (land, water, pastures, etc.)
What other factors of collision of interests between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan exist that could aggravate bilateral relations? How do the political regimes of the two countries influence the intensification or weakening of conflict bilateral situations?
The border conflict between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan stems from a combination of several factors, as evidenced by its long history. The economic and social changes that took place in the XX century (the development of irrigated agriculture, the settlement of Kyrgyz people in new villages, population growth, etc.) contributed not only to the transformation of the territorial organization of the region itself, but also transformed the concept of the territory, as well as the mutual perception of communities.
In addition, it is not surprising that the national political life of each country affects interstate relations, and hence the level of tension on the border. Any statement about the controversial location of the border, the decision to close the border fully or partially, or any strengthening of a part of the border can be perceived in a neighboring country as hostile and re-start the cycle of tension and violence. Therefore, the role of governments and state representatives is absolutely fundamental to conflict resolution. For this reason, it is important to analyze border policy from the point of view of both foreign and domestic policies. In this regard, one can see that the Tajik authorities report much less about the conflict than representatives of the state or political force in Kyrgyzstan.
It should be noted that a fairly large number of comments and assessments about the conflict were published on social networks with a subtext about the bonuses of a violent conflict, when one side or another intended to either demonstrate military power, or find an external enemy, or eliminate the opposition, or destabilize the president, etc. However, it is important to remember that fake news and false rumors are often spread on social media, fueling extremist attitudes and violent behavior.
In addition, some discourses view the border conflict as a line of tension between the Turkic and Iranian worlds. However, I would not share this perspective of the analysis, since this view ignores the economic and geographic aspects of tensions, as well as political ones. Moreover, this approach spreads an ethnic vision of the conflict, which is an obstacle to its resolution.
I think that we should be very careful with such assessments and attempts at analysis. First, they are often a way to shift the blame for tensions to the other side, a neighboring country, or rival political forces. Second, while some of them may be partly correct, they are insufficient to understand the fundamental factors of conflict.
The parties declared an armistice back in May, however the hot phase ended later, and it seems that the conflict has entered a “cold” phase. Can we talk about the growing tension, about the flow of a border conflict into a trade war, and what forms in the history of international relations can border conflicts take?
As for the disagreements between the two countries, the conflict reached unprecedented levels of tension in April-May due to its scale. However, after the ceasefire, the government of Kyrgyzstan, like the government of Tajikistan, reiterated its willingness to peacefully resolve border disputes and reaffirmed its desire to maintain good relations. To this end, they stressed that it was a local conflict, which contributes to de-escalation and a move away from the spread of the conflict beyond its physical territories. Isfara Basin issues are fundamental to the local population, but they do not threaten the existence or sovereignty of Kyrgyzstan or Tajikistan.
In this context, it is obvious that the measures taken by one side, or another have not only a practical dimension, especially for the population living in border areas, but also a symbolic dimension associated with external and internal significance. But it is difficult to say whether they mean a worsening of the situation. The most important aspect is now interstate relations.
In this regard, how would you characterize the reactions from neighboring states or other centers of power? How appropriate is mediation on border issues? Can international organizations take on this role?
For the international community, the spring conflict is not a major event due to its modest scale, compared to the wars and conflicts that currently exist in different regions of the world (in the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, etc. Moreover, this conflict does not involve major players in the international system, which means that the conflict does not call into question the international and regional balances. In the region, the attention of the international community is now riveted on the events in Afghanistan, where the Taliban are strengthening their positions.
On the other hand, for the countries of Central Asia, relations between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are of particular importance due to geographical, economic, and social proximity, because of concerns about the potential destabilization of the region. In this context, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan can take part in resolving the conflict. Russia can also offer mediation to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, with which it has close relations. However, it is noticeable that in reality Moscow is pursuing a rather cautious policy in the post-Soviet space when its direct interests are not at stake.
As a result, I believe that in the current context, a sustainable resolution of border tensions is primarily in the hands of the authorities of Bishkek and Dushanbe, despite the fact that foreign actors (countries, international organizations) can provide them with their assistance or experience. In this context, it is very important that S. Japarov and E. Rakhmon negotiated at the end of June in Dushanbe, even if the agreement on the delimitation and demarcation of the border was not signed.
Can it be argued that the parties continue to conduct bilateral relations in the spirit of a zero-sum game? What can be done by the two countries to switch to win – win solutions and what conditions should be prepared for this?
I believe that in order to achieve a lasting and satisfactory settlement of the conflict for both states, but also, and above all, for the inhabitants of the border regions, a number of elements are needed.
First, it is necessary to desacralize the border and limit the symbolic meaning to the national territory. This means that politicians must stop promoting nationalist discourse about national territory, and, for example, in negotiations on the delimitation of borders, stop considering every disputed part of it as absolutely strategic. This is important not only for reaching an agreement on the delimitation of the border, but also for the use of border areas.
Secondly, the authorities must provide the local population of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan with a political and economic framework and conditions that allow them to live and develop normally. Specifically, they must consider the interconnections and relationships that exist between the populations living on both sides of the border, even if they are less intense than before, as a result of post-Soviet border policy.
States should take steps to provide local residents with the ability, by law, to freely and safely move, cultivate land or trade within a legal framework recognized by both countries. They must also create conditions for complementary land use and balanced resource allocation. From a practical point of view, it is important, for example, to create conditions for Tajikistan’s livestock grazing on Kyrgyz pastures legally under satisfactory economic conditions, just as it is important for the Kyrgyz people to have access to Tajikistan’s urban markets. In other words, economic actors from both countries should be able to work in both territories without their activities being perceived as aggression or loss of sovereignty.
As a result, both countries need to agree not only on border delimitation, but also on border policy based on openness and cooperation. In contrast, the past few years have shown that the “securitization” of the border, supported by international organizations, has not helped to ease tensions. And the militarization of the border has spurred local discontent and increased levels of violence in the event of conflict.
What forms of peacebuilding are available at this stage and are suitable for cross-border problems in Central Asia?
“New” borders are an instrument of the policy of state and nation-building of the post-Soviet states. They allow countries to differ from each other regionally and to unite on a national scale. For this, borders were equipped and closed, in the context of tensions between countries over regional distribution of resources. Some researchers also analyze this policy as a sign of the dominance of states over societies under authoritarian regimes. Overall, it has had a very significant social and economic impact on daily life, as most of the population of Central Asia lives in the border areas and regions.
It seems to me that now the main approach to solving border problems is regional integration and cross-border cooperation, since no political or social force any longer seriously raises the question of the existence of post-Soviet Central Asian states. In this regard, the recent evolution of Uzbekistan’s foreign policy, which has long been an obstacle to regional integration, gives real hope for an improvement in the situation in the region in this area.