Topic: Explore the border dispute between CARS and propose conflict

resolution mechanism while keeping in view the conflict resolution

models.

Abstract:
The border issues are of key importance in Central Asia Relationships (CAR). The border
between the region states, carried out in the Soviet period, excluding local religious, cultural,
ethnic and economic specificity, are increasingly turning to the conflict zones. Tension over
borders is only one further destabilizing issue in a difficult political and security environment.
Resolving these lingering and often quite substantial border disputes has become critical.
Regional relations have often been uneasy for a variety of reasons, and tensions over borders
have only made cooperation in other areas, such as trade, more daunting. At the same time,
border disputes have also become important domestic political issues. This paper aims to provide
an understanding of the interstate border disputes between CARs and also shed lights on the
different conflict resolution models which are necessary to maintain a peaceful situation in
Central Asia with respect to the territorial clashes between the republics.
Introduction:
It is widely accepted that national borders are a fundamental factor in determining the degree of
tension or cooperation in relations between states and within a region as a whole. For the past
decade Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan have
all been involved in high stakes negotiations to define their respective borders. Strong-arm
politics, economic pressures, shadowy backroom deals, nationalist sentiments, public
dissatisfaction and an environment of mutual mistrust have marked this process. The resolution
of border issues peacefully and transparently would have a positive impact on regional security,
economic cooperation, ethnic relations and efforts to combat drug trafficking and religious
extremism.

The contentious border settlement issues continue to serve as a factor that blocks intra-regional
cooperation in Central Asia, while fueling intergovernmental tensions and ethnic confrontations.
It may be viewed as a legacy of the Soviet Union’s planners who while establishing
administrative boundaries between the republics disregarded geographic and ethnic factors.
When Soviet policymakers drew the demarcation lines they could not imagine that these lines
would one day become real interstate borders. As a result, the territorial issues between the post-
Soviet Central Asian states have nearly opened the Pandora box. Although it was predictable the
violent reshaping of these borders, but it has not occurred so far as the states have largely
preferred to accept the old Soviet administrative boundaries. It seems that the time has finally
come for the resolution of the border issues, which would pave the way for strengthening
regional security, facilitating efforts in combating drug trafficking and religious extremism,
while also boosting intra-regional trade that long suffered from the economic blockades, closed
borders and disrupted communication links.

Amending Borders after the collapse of USSR:

Compounding the current difficulties, the borders were redrawn on numerous occasions, and
republics were permitted to secure long-term leases of territory from other republics. In a number
of cases, enclaves; isolated islands of territory within another republic were created.

All these factors combined to create a complex stew of territorial claims and counterclaims once
the Central Asian republics became independent states. Borders that were suddenly international
quickly took on major significance. Long-standing industrial and transportation links were
disrupted. Control of
territory meant control of
resources and improved
strategic positions.

Border Issues in New

Geopolitical
Realities of Central
Asia

Ferghana Valley
The most complicated border negotiations involve the Ferghana Valley where a myriad of
enclaves exist, and all three countries which share it are Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan
and they all have both historical claims to each other's territory and economic interests in the
transport routes, rivers, reservoirs, and industries. Negotiations over border demarcation in the
valley have been charged with tension and have stalled over scores of disputed points. While
talks continue with a broad understanding that border issues must be settled, there is little
likelihood of a final breakthrough any time soon.

Uzbekistan - Kazakhstan
In early 2000, Uzbekistan’s border guards were discovered undertaking a unilateral demarcation
of the border with Kazakhstan, allegedly deep inside Kazakhstan territory in an effort that
included building outposts. Kazakhstan reacted with alarm. The government issued diplomatic
protests on 27 January, established a Southern Military District and quickly deployed troops in
the area to forestall any further encroachment on its territory. A joint Kazakhstan-Uzbekistan
commission was established and held an emergency meeting, concluding its first round of talks
on 17 February 2000. This commission then conducted a further series of discussions. By
September 2000, there had been three rounds of talks on ongoing border issues. President
Karimov issued a statement that Uzbekistan had no territorial claims on any neighboring states in
an effort to reassure the region.

Uzbekistan – Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan has historical claims to the Uzbek regions of Khiva and Khorezm. Nationalists
argue that the majority of the inhabitants there are of Turkmen descent, and Khiva was home to
one of the most influential regional khanates during the 1800s. At the same time, Uzbek
nationalists assert that the Tashauz (Dashoguz) and Turkmenabad (formerly Cherjev) areas in
Turkmenistan have majority Uzbek populations and that Uzbekistan has a rightful claim to this
territory. Such claims would have led to a redrawing of borders, however, and were not
entertained by the authorities in Tashkent or Ashgabat. The governments recognized that raising
those issues would open virtually all Central Asian borders for negotiation and preferred to
adhere to the Soviet administrative borders. The real issues for negotiation concerned where
exactly to draw the border line, the type of border regime, and the status of leased lands on each
other’s territory.

Uzbekistan – Tajikistan
Historically difficult relations were aggravated by the activities of IMU guerrillas in 1999 and
2000 and the unsettled situation in Tajikistan after that country’s own civil war. Uzbekistan has
made it very difficult for any Tajik citizen to cross the frontier, parts of which are mined. A
recent warming of relations between the two presidents has yet to be felt at border posts. Their
mutual suspicion stems from historical claims to each other’s territory. The cities of Samarkand
and Bukhara, two of the most important and historic in Central Asia have populations that are
largely ethnic Tajik. The inclusion of these territories in Uzbekistan when Soviet republic
borders were drawn in 1924 deeply angered many ethnic Tajiks and inspired considerable
irredentist sentiment. These territorial claims were given renewed vigor in the early 1990s when,
with independence, the countries embarked on rewriting their histories to establish themselves as
historic nations. Redrawing borders to fit historical claims seemed a possible course of action.

Uzbekistan – Kyrgyzstan
With an ethnically diverse population, important water resources and a rich variety of historic
territorial claims, the Ferghana Valley has been at the center of border disputes between
Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. As with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, IMU activities in the region
have made already difficult border issues even tougher to resolve. For much of its pre-Soviet
history, the Ferghana Valley was controlled by the Khanate of Kokand, with its capital in the
Uzbekistan city of Kokand. Many Uzbeks continue to view the Soviet demarcation of borders,
which placed the city of Osh and other parts of the valley in Kyrgyzstan, as artificial and unfair,
depriving Uzbekistan of territory. This attitude is not given any official support, and it is
probably unfair to accuse Uzbekistan of irredentist sentiment in this regard. If anything,
Uzbekistan has viewed its compatriots in Kyrgyzstan with some suspicion.

Kyrgyzstan – Tajikistan
Disputes between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan were dominated in 1999 and 2000 by cross-border
IMU incursions into Kyrgyzstan’s southern regions. But wider issues of border delimitation,
illegal migration, and resources continue to complicate border questions between the two
countries. Two Tajikistan enclaves inside Kyrgyzstan’s Ferghana valley territory (Varukh, and
western Qalacha, a very small enclave north of Isfana) have added additional problems to
negotiations. The IMU incursions came directly from Tajikistan.

In reaction, Kyrgyzstan deployed some 3,000 troops in the Leilak District of Batken Province
and a backup of 4,000 in Osh Province in 2001. Kyrgyzstan also announced in July 2001 that it
would construct nine new posts along the border with Tajikistan to protect against possible IMU
incursions. Residents in the Isfara District in the eastern part of Sughd Province of Tajikistan
complained that their government did not stand up to Kyrgyz and Uzbek moves to establish
stronger military presences on the frontier.

What are Conflict Resolution Models?

The existence of conflict in the global system has obliged states to develop techniques for the
resolution of their disputes. The development and implementation of peaceful strategies for
settling conflicts using alternatives to violent forms of leverage is known by the general term
conflict resolution. The methods developed over the centuries for the resolution of international
conflict may be classified into three general categories:

a) Pacific Conflict Resolution Model

The methods of pacific resolution make available a variety of peaceful substitutes for violence.
In general terms, they may be classified as diplomatic- political or judicial. Such proceedings
often revolve around diplomatic efforts involving negotiations between diplomats or
representatives of concerned parties, which sometime also require mediations of good offices
with the consent of both sides. Another prominent part of pacific method of conflict resolution
includes Judicial Methods, which are an attempt to regularize the terms and procedures that form
the basis of the disposal of disputes. The two judicial procedures are arbitration and adjudication.
Solutions are reached on the basis of law and in some cases equity but they explicitly exclude
political compromise because only legal disputes can be judicially resolved. The awards of
arbitration and the decisions of an international court are binding on the disputing parties and
hence these procedures are described as decisional or binding.

b) Coercive but Non-Violent Model

States turn to coercive but non-violent methods of settling a dispute if pacific procedures fail to
produce satisfaction. Among the non-violent coercive techniques are the recall of diplomats,
expulsion of opposing states’ diplomats, denial of recognition of a regime, breaking off
diplomatic relations and suspension of treaty obligations. More obviously “unfriendly” is the
class of actions involving force short of war: blockade, boycott, embargo, reprisal and retorsion.

c) Forcible and Coercive Model

When states are unable to solve their disputes amicably, a solution may have to be found and
imposed by forcible means. The principle forcible modes of settlement include war, terrorism
etc. War in not a primary tool to get the conflict settled, states do not indulge deliberately in war,
it is a last resort. The scope and functions of wars lent credence to the assumption that force and
politics complemented each other. As said by Clausewitz; “war is but continuation of politics by
other means”. Moreover, Terrorism refers to political violence that targets civilians deliberately
and indiscriminately. Like other violent means of leverage, terrorism is used to gain advantage
in international bargaining situations by creating security dilemma.
 CONFLICT RESOLUTION MECHANISMS TO SOLVE BORDER
DISPUTES BETWEEN CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS (CARs)
In order to provide conflict resolution mechanisms to solve the decades long border disputes
between these Central Asian Republics, we need to keep in account the political, economic and
social conditions of these individual states and Central Asian Region as a whole. So for giving
any Conflict Resolution mechanisms we need to understand the scale of harm and benefit of the
above mentioned models in the context of the border disputes of these Republics.

Diplomacy and Negotiations for a Win-Win Situation

Central Asia is a region which emerged on the international arena with the dissolution of Soviet
Union, and all the Central Asian Republics were left alone, without any protection in between
the politics of its neighboring superpowers. The situation of lawlessness and aloofness led to the
birth of these border disputes which nourished with time in the unstable political and economic
conditions. Keeping in view the status quo and the instability in the region, the best way to
resolve these disputes is to opt for the Pacific conflict resolution model.

Why Negotiating and Compromising is the best way out?

Sticking to this model, the best conflict resolution mechanisms, for resolving the territorial issues
between the Central Asian Republics, are diplomacy and negotiations. The border disputes
between the states are originally because of lack of understanding as a region and the absence of
proper diplomatic mechanisms for all the states to negotiate over shared interests and borders.
So, providing mechanisms in which the concerned parties are given an opportunity to
diplomatically negotiations with each other via their representatives will help them come out
with a compromising situation which is a win-win situation for all. Achieving a compromise in
case of Central Asia is the best suitable option since it won’t harm the already unstable politics
and economy, moreover having a compromise might benefit states to help each-other pull out of
the disparities of the backwardness and incapability which was left with these states as a part of
Soviet legacy.

Recommendations and Mechanisms for the Border Disputes:

Ceasing Unilateral Demarcations

As in the case of Uzbekistan, which has border issues with all of its neighboring states, various
steps can be taken to resolve them. The unilateral demarcation of Uzbekistan in its border with
Kazakhstan, should be ceased and a platform should be established where all demarcation
should take place transparently through official joint commissions, in consultation with the
local population.

Resolving Cross-Border Issues via Negotiations

In case of cross-border movement issues, between Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, a
compromise should be achieved via diplomatic means by making policies which Simplify visa
requirements and border crossing procedures, open consulates in appropriate border cities, or
otherwise issue visas at border crossing points. This should also include improved training for
border guards in border and visa procedures, and taking stronger measures against corruption
among them and customs authorities and against harassment of travelers. This mechanism for
easing of cross-border situation will give ground to achieving compromise over the territorial
demarcations.

Judicial Platforms for Territorial Differences:

Another very important method for resolving the border disputes is the use of judicial
methods in which territorial differences be resolved on a mutually acceptable basis in
accordance with the standards of international law and practice. In this case all the states should
ratify border agreements in accordance with the legal procedures established under each
country's law; giving legislatures and the public access to relevant information so border
agreements can be subjected to normal political discussion, including by opponents.

Analysis:
Since their birth, the Central Asian Republics are divided by their unacceptable territorial
demarcations which have turned out to be the main bone of contention for making Central
Asia a peaceful region. The situation at the borders has leads to distrust, contempt and unrest
between the border communities. Many people are tired of these continuing conflicts and have
started to move to other regions and big cities in order to find a quiet and peaceful life. Much of
the population views these new restrictions with hostility and has felt the disruption in traditional
patterns of commerce and society acutely. In order to resolve these disputes in the best possible
way and in the best interest of Central Asia, the use of diplomatic platforms for negotiating to
establish compromising situations will help these states pull each other out of the turmoil of
territorial clashes.

The question here arises that why are these pacific or diplomatic means the most viable solution
for the border issues of Central Asia? The reason behind this is that if we opt for any forcible or
coercive means to resolve these problems, it would only add on to the unstable condition of
Central Asia. If these states boycott each other of apply embargos, this will only hamper the
growth of these states as they are dependent on each other for their growth due to shared
resources. So, following the pacific mechanisms there is a hope that the developments in the
region, like the change in Uzbekistan’s policy towards its neighbors, would provide a fresh
impetus for reaching a final solution to border disputes like those in the Fergana Valley.

References
Dudwick, K. K. (2008, May). WorldBank. Retrieved from
http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/526091468012314222/pdf/448580WP0Box
321IC10Whose0Rules0Rule.pdf

Reliefweb . (2002, April 4). Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/central-asia-

border-disputes-and-conflict-potential

Sikander, M. T. (2011, July). Retrieved from https://ndu.edu.pk/issra/issra_pub/articles/margalla-

paper/Margalla-Papers-2011/07-Conflict-&-Conflict-Resolution.pdf

Tolipov, F. (2020, July 16). cacianalyst. Retrieved from

https://www.cacianalyst.org/publications/analytical-articles/item/13632-border-problems-
in-central-asia-dividing-incidents-uniting-solution.html

Word Press . (2012, January 4). Retrieved from

https://arabmediation.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/what-are-intractable-conflicts/