Problematic Post-Soviet Borders: Different Aspects of The Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan Confrontation
Posted on : May 31, 2021Author : Sagnik Sarkar
On the 28th of April 2021, clashes erupted between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, two ex-Soviet Central Asian neighbors, the first of its kind in several years. Cross-border shelling and clashes near the village of Kok-Tash in the Western Kyrgyz border had claimed the lives of four, while injuring dozens at the same time . Ever since then, the longstanding border conflict between these two nations took a new low, leading to an increased number of violent events and deaths, largely affecting civilian lives. More than a hundred houses were burned, and remnants of good neighbourly relations in the region were shattered. Clashes involving stones and guns had become regular events. Border clashes between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are not uncommon, however, happening before in 2013 and 2014 as well, but the recent escalation of events was the deadliest ever experienced between the two. And while the fighting came to a stop on May 1st as an aftermath of a ceasefire, the persisting tension can have serious repercussions in the future .
Conflict between Central Asian states is not a recent phenomenon. Critical infrastructure, ethnic groups, and entire villages straddle the poorly demarcated and often convoluted borders inherited because of the Soviet collapse. Same is the case with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Nearly half of the borders dividing the two nations have remained unmarked, fuelling fierce confrontations over land, pastures as well as resources such as water. Kyrgyz and Tajik delegations have held several rounds of talks in recent years but have failed to end the border controversy. Besides, to make things even more complicated, exclaves pepper the border regions of the Fergana Valley. Three Uzbek and two Tajik exclaves are in Kyrgyzstan, and one of the sites of conflict during the April 28-29 violence was along the road that leads to the Tajik exclave, Vorukh .
The recent eruption did not touch the Tajik exclave, though, spreading around the border just to the North. It revolved around the Golovnoi water supply facility, a critical piece of infrastructure which distributes waters on irrigation canals to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have had numerous disputes over the border in that region, but this is the first time that the Kyrgyz ownership of this facility has been contested. The clashes reportedly began as a backlash of Tajikistan’s decision to install CCTV cameras near the facility, sparking hostility. On April 28th, the local government of Tajikistan’s Isfara district installed cameras on an electric pole at the water supply facility. Residents of Kyrgyzstan’s villages protested, with crowds resorting to stone pelting. Governors’ talks did not help, and on 29 April, residents clashed again. Troops engaged on both sides, leaving scores of soldiers and civilians dead. Border posts and houses in the adjacent area came under gunfire while the two governments accused each other of shooting first. On the next day, 29th April, the Tajik military started shelling villages in Kyrgyz district of Leilek. Overall, the violence is said to have claimed more than 50 lives on both sides, injuring around 200, including a significant number of civilians .
Notable in the April conflict was the heightened scale of violence, and the dynamic use of weapons. The fierceness of the tussle could be explained by Tajikistan’s feeling of being newly ‘emboldened’. The rise of the new Kyrgyz president Sadyr Japarov, who was in prison just nine months ago, is seen in sceptically by many of the Kyrgyz. Adding to this, unsurprisingly, Japorov has also started a campaign of intimidation to silence voices critical of his regime. Tajik President Emomali Rahmon, no stranger himself to oppositionist challenges, understands well that Japarov’s response is a sign of the Kyrgyz regime’s weakness, not strength.
Another factor that lies behind Tajikistan’s self-confidence is the large-scale military exercises which it conducted jointly with Russia in early April. Despite enjoying cooperative military ties with Russia and being home to the latter’s Kant airbase, Kyrgyzstan has never engaged in large scale manoeuvres like the 50,000 troop strong exercises Moscow and Dushanbe jointly conducted in Tajikistan between April 19 and 23. This combination of the Tajik state’s recent show of military force with Russia and the Kyrgyz regime’s embattled domestic legitimacy may well be deeper, notwithstanding less visible drivers of the unusually deadly late April violence on the Kyrgyz-Tajik border .
Indeed, the recent escalation also brings forward an issue which is perhaps pertinent in the Kyrgyz-Tajik cross-border dispute – the problem regarding natural resources like grazing land, and most importantly, water. The system in place at the Golovnoi water facility is supposed to benefit all the sides. It divides a river, known as Aak-Suk by the Kyrgyz, and Isfara by the Tajiks, into two. The river courses northward along its natural path, weaving alongside fields alternately claimed by Kyrgyz and Tajik villagers before ending fully inside Tajikistan and then eventually in Uzbekistan. A branch created by the Golovnoi goes through a ‘Friendship’ canal, eventually ending up in the Tortkul Reservoir inside Kyrgyzstan, which it mostly uses for its agricultural fields, although some again gets rerouted back to Tajikistan.
But, in reality, disagreements regarding the ownership of the Golovnoi has made things messier. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have slightly different stories to tell regarding the facility. In Bishkek, officials explain how the facility was completed in 1973 at the expense of the Kyrgyz SSR. This fact alone is enough to legitimate their claims over the facility and the territory on which it stands, they argue. They spend money for its maintenance every year as well, those officials insist. Tajikistan, on the other hand, claims that Golovnoi has not undergone any repair for the past 12 years, and that it was in fact the attempt at reconstruction work undertaken by the Kyrgyz in April that sparked this latest round of unrest in the first place. Hence, the dispute was inevitable. The water sharing mechanism is further complicated by the fact that a certain portion of what ends up in the Tortkul reservoir is, under the terms of intergovernmental agreements, earmarked for feeding westward back into Tajikistan, albeit not to areas adjacent to the river initially feeding this whole chain. Such situations create a cascade of mutual dependencies. If Bishkek opts to hold back water from Tortkul, the Tajiks can engage in like-for-like retaliations at other locations .
In the end, the Kyrgyz-Tajik conflict yet again highlights the problems long associated with post-Soviet borders. Even though dozens died in the recent escalation, Kyrgyzstan is still going forward with its plans of overhauling the water distribution point. It was this very potential eventuality that the Tajiks say they were trying to avoid on April 28, when they arrived at Golovnoi and began installing surveillance cameras, so that the Kyrgyz would be spotted if they started doing any work that had not previously been agreed upon . This order by Kyrgyz President Japorov can yet again fuel tensions between the two countries in the future.
The hostility has temporarily halted, it has not permanently disappeared. Fear is still in the air. Kyrgyzstan has recently turned away dozens of passengers from Tajikistan, insisting that travel restrictions will remain in place until the border tensions are resolved . Both countries should now work maturely and in collaboration to mend this issue, by prioritizing the well-being of ordinary people in the complex border region. Human rights must now be one of the principal agendas in their talks which aim to find a solution to the longstanding bilateral complications . They must actively work together to ensure that they never get to witness such a deadly form of violence again. The two countries had promptly reacted to the cross-border ferocity by instantly agreeing on a ceasefire and showing their commitment to resolve the immediate tensions through diplomacy and positive talks. Both the countries have placed border demarcations and reconstruction efforts as priority, and rightly so, they must ensure that any border deal that comes into effect soon does consider the shared water infrastructure and the maintenance of a mutually beneficial mechanism. Afterall, the bottom line should remain clear: ‘Water is about survival. And survival requires peace’ . This issue cannot be resolved through shooting. What is needed is mediation and negotiation.
Sagnik Sarkar
Intern, Asia in Global Affairs
[1] “Four die as Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan armies fight on disputed border,” The Guardian, 29 April 2021
Four die as Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan armies clash on disputed border | Kyrgyzstan | The Guardian
[1] Margot Buff, “After Kyrgyz-Tajik Clashes, Residents Of Border Area Say Tensions Are All Too Familiar”, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, May 10 2021After Kyrgyz-Tajik Clashes, Residents Of Border Area Say Tensions Are All Too Familiar (rferl.org)
[1] Shairbek Juraev, Eric McGlinchey, Lawrence P. Markowitz, Edward Schatz, “The Current Hostilities between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan: Commentary by Dzuraev, Mcglinchey, Markowitz and Schatz”, PONARS Eurasia, May 6 2021 [1] Ibid[ii] [1] Shairbek Dzhuraev, “Peace on the Brink in Central Asia,” Crossroads Central Asia, 4 May 2021Peace on the brink in Central Asia | Crossroads Central Asia (crossroads-ca.org)
[1] Ibid[iii] [1] Ayzirek Imanaliyeva, Kamila Ibragimova,”Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan: Solving water puzzle key to preventing fresh fighting, Eurasianet, May 19 2021Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan: Solving water puzzle key to preventing fresh fighting | Eurasianet
[1] Ibid[vii] [1] Ayzirek Imanaliyeva, “Kyrgyzstan turns back Tajik nationals as tensions persist,” Eurasianet, May 26 2021Kyrgyzstan turns back Tajik nationals as tensions persist | Eurasianet
[1] Hugh Williamson, Syinat Sultanalieva, “After Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan border conflict, time for human rights agenda,” Eurasianet, May 20 2021 [1] Ibid[vii]
Leave a Reply