How can peaceful resolution of border disputes be achieved? What would the benefits be? This study by the International Crisis Group describes how the borders of the states of Central Asia, drawn up by the Soviets in 1920s, often followed neither natural geographic boundaries nor strict ethnic lines. For independent states these unsatisfactory international borders create considerable conflict. Following a decade of mainly antagonistic attempts to re-define them and resolve the conflicts, this report suggests alternative ways to proceed. Territorial claims and counterclaims are just some of the issues needing to be resolved.
For a 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. Progress has been slow. The peaceful and transparent resolution of border issues would have a positive impact on regional security, economic cooperation, ethnic relations and efforts to combat drug trafficking and religious extremism.
When borders become international they take on greater significance. The resolution of territorial disputes is obviously emotional and goes to the heart of each country’s definition of national interests.
- Control of territory means control of resources and improved strategic positions.
- Long-standing industrial and transportation links are disrupted by complicated regulations.
- Ethnic populations that have long enjoyed access to friends and family just across borders are now isolated and often face visa requirements and other access difficulties.
- Cross-border movement has often been limited in the name of security, yet few border services are sufficiently proficient to prevent determined narcotics traffickers or terrorists from crossing frontiers.
- The most complicated border negotiations involve the Ferghana Valley. Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, which share it, have both historical claims to each other’s territory and economic interests in the transport routes, rivers, reservoirs and industries.
- Concessions made in border negotiations can be rich fodder for political oppositions (in those Central Asian countries where opposition groups are allowed to operate) and this has served to further constrain the latitude of governments to compromise.
It is important that any territorial differences be resolved on a mutually acceptable basis in accordance with standards of international law and practice. Ways forward include:
- Ensuring that border demarcations take place through official joint commissions, having first given legislatures and the public access to relevant information, so that border agreements can be subjected to political discussion, including by opponents.
- Ceasing the practice of mining unmarked frontiers and taking steps to remove all mines from borders.
- Simplifying visa requirements and border crossing procedures, to open consulates in appropriate border cities or issue visas at border crossing points.
- Granting regional governors more latitude to deal with the social concerns of local populations in disputed border areas and encourage local authorities to allow non-governmental organisations and community groups to engage in dispute mediation and border monitoring.
- The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, governments and donors should be willing to offer monitoring and mediation services and training in all aspects of border dispute resolution.
