UNPRECEDENTED ESCALATION

Since mid-September, relations between the two post-Soviet Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, have deteriorated again. Conflict situations on the Tajik-Kyrgyz border due to problems of delimitation, land, water and pasture distribution, are frequent. However, the tragic events of recent weeks have demonstrated the bloodiest escalation in relations between Bishkek and Dushanbe.

Reasons for confrontation

Since the collapse of the USSR, there have been almost hundreds of incidents on the Tajik-Kyrgyz border. The key reason is the indelimited interstate border. Its total length is about 987km, of which only about 520 km have been clarified. The main obstacle to agreement on this issue is the parties' appeal to different maps when defining the disputed sections of the border. While Tajikistan relies on Soviet maps from the 1920s and 1930s, Kyrgyzstan relies on ones from the late 1950s.

For example, it is worth mentioning the story of the Vorukh settlement on the border between the two countries. This is a Tajik enclave surrounded by Kyrgyz territory. The bone of contention is the road connecting the main territory of Tajikistan with Vorukh. According to early Soviet maps, it belonged to Tajikistan, while according to later maps—to Kyrgyzstan.

The disputed lands are located in rural areas with neighbouring Kyrgyz and Tajik houses, making it difficult to draw an interstate border. Such a situation exists in particular between the Sughd province of Tajikistan and the Batken province of Kyrgyzstan. In the post-Soviet period, clashes have often started as conflicts between local residents using stones and hunting rifles, and have escalated into confrontations involving the armed forces of both countries.

A serious conflict on the Tajik-Kyrgyz border took place last April. It began with a dispute between residents over the issue of water distribution and resulted in dozens of deaths on both sides. However, the current escalation was unprecedented in terms of its scale and again led to an armed confrontation between the two armies using heavy equipment, military aircraft and multiple rocket launchers.

This time the military clash claimed the lives of almost hundred people on both sides and injured hundreds more. Both sides exchanged mutual accusations of unleashing bloody fighting, shelling civilian homes and infrastructure, and invading sovereign territory.

"Tajikistan violated all previously reached agreements, sent troops to the Kyrgyz border in advance, used armed forces and heavy military equipment to treacherously attack the border and civilian facilities along the entire perimeter of the Kyrgyz-Tajik state border in Batken and Leilek districts of Batken region of the Kyrgyz Republic," the statement of the Kyrgyz Foreign Ministry stated.

Tajikistan, in turn, placed all responsibility for the military escalation to Kyrgyzstan. According to Tajikistan's State National Security Committee (SNSC), "Kyrgyz military forces used all available heavy guns and firearms to subject the villages, civilian structures and residential buildings on the Tajikistan-Kyrgyzstan border to intensive mortar bombing and shelling ”.

The signing of a protocol by the heads of special services of both states on the establishment of peace halted the further growth of the confrontation. Kamchybek Tashiyev, head of Kyrgyz SCNS, noted that "the main essence of the protocol is to stabilise the situation and establish peace between the two countries and to work to resolve the situation".

But how long will the ceasefire continue? The negotiated ceasefire will unlikely last long if the parties fail to launch a comprehensive dialogue to establish good-neighbourly relations and permanently resolve border disputes. This goal requires the will of leaders and political elites of both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, but the problem is that mutual mistrust and even mutual hatred become increasingly popular in both countries. This factor is seriously hindering efforts to find common ground between Dushanbe and Bishkek, holding them hostage to societal attitudes which fundamentally undermine the possibility of a compromise based on mutual concessions.

No alternative to peace talks

Tensions between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are exacerbated by the ineffectiveness of bilateral contacts, even though both countries are members of the same regional international organisations and use practically the same geopolitical platform.

One of such platforms is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Coincidentally, the Tajik-Kyrgyz escalation was at its peak during the recent Samarkand summit of SCO. Presidents of both countries participating in the forum even met and agreed to cease hostilities, but it barely took effect, prolonging the bloody fighting for several more days.

Meanwhile, Russia has been the key moderator in all discussions on the peaceful resolution of the Tajik-Kyrgyz conflict. However, as the Tajik-Kyrgyz confrontation escalates, Russia becomes more reluctant to choose between Bishkek and Dushanbe and does not want any of its possible mediation actions be interpreted as support to any of the conflicting parties .

Russian side makes equidistant statements in this context. Russian President Vladimir Putin, in his telephone conversations with his Tajik and Kyrgyz counterparts, called on the sides to prevent further escalation and to take measures to resolve the situation exclusively by peaceful, political and diplomatic means as soon as possible. The Russian Foreign Ministry said that "urgent and exhaustive measures should be taken for the stable transition of the situation to political and diplomatic tracks, suppression of any attempts to escalate the conflict, as well as prevent provocations by third parties”. At the same time, Moscow expressed its readiness to assist on the key problem in relations between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, namely the incomplete process of delimitation and demarcation of several sections of the Kyrgyz-Tajik state border.

As to the ‘third party’ mentioned in the statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry, experts assume the regional balance of power in the context of the Kremlin’s own policies because of the dissatisfaction with Bishkek's pro-Western sentiments like, for example, the development of military cooperation between Kyrgyzstan and the US and Bishkek's agreement to join the project along with Uzbekistan and China on the construction of a railway line that would connect these countries with Europe bypassing Russia. It is clear that political and public circles in Kyrgyzstan are not happy with the supply of military hardware from Russia to Tajikistan, which exceeds similar supplies from Russia to Kyrgyzstan. This discontent is accompanied by calls for Kyrgyzstan's withdrawal from the CSTO.

Nevertheless, since there has been no real progress in the development of effective bilateral dialogue between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, a number of experts believe that only the UN can offer an alternative to Russian mediation, at least in the short term. Remarkably, amid the tragic events on the Tajik-Kyrgyz border, the UN Secretary General António Guterres not only called on both sides to enter into negotiations on a long-term ceasefire but also expressed the willingness of his organisation to assist in finding a sustainable solution to overcome the border disagreements.

However, the statements of the conflicting sides made at the 77th session of the UN General Assembly only confirmed the diametrically opposite positions of Bishkek and Dushanbe. Kyrgyz President Sadyr Zhaparov accused Tajikistan of committing aggression and attacking his country. Tajik Foreign Minister Sirodjiddin Muhriddin made a similar accusation against Kyrgyzstan, also condemning the Kyrgyz leader for creating a ‘false impression’ of the nature of events.

Yet the commitment to political and diplomatic approach of the sides and their willingness to continue negotiations on the basis of international principles and norms sounds comforting. This may be the only thing that can prevent territorial disputes between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan from escalating into an inter-ethnic and inter-state conflict.