Immediately after announcing that the Kyrgyz-Uzbek border problems have been resolved “100 percent“The head of the National Security Committee of Kyrgyzstan, Kamchybek Tashiev, changed his position, emphasizing the profound difficulties in resolving the remaining borders in Central Asia.
As Bruce Pannier insured for the RFE / RL, while in southern Kyrgyzstan in late March, Tashiev visited Kyrgyzstan’s Birlik village, bordering the Uzbekistani Sokh region. Speaking in the Uzgen district of Osh province after the visit, he said: “With regard to this area, a final decision has not been made. To be honest, we have not reached an agreement on this part, including the contiguous territory.
As Pannier explained, Birlik used to be the venue clash in 2020 “That destroyed some homes and cars and injured more than 200 people.”
Although Tashiev had previously announced a land swap with Uzbekistan to eventually settle the delimitation of the border, in the province, he admitted that “Of course, if the people resisted [the land-swap agreements]Maybe some won’t be done ”.
Tajikistan so far, is not interested in land swaps. When announcing the good news about the Kyrgyzstan-Uzbek border deal, Tashiev also mentioned that the Kyrgyzstan had proposed a possible land swap option to resolve tensions over the Vorukh suburbs (Tajik territory is covered). around by Kyrgyzstan).
Visit this area this weekTajik President Emomali Rahmon assured Vorukh residents that no land swaps were under consideration.
“There hasn’t been any talks about being able to exchange Vorukh for another territory for the past 19 years and not likely to happen,” he said, citing recent reports as the reason. for your statement. “The demarcation is a long process and there is no emotional room in this,” he said.
Based on Tajik service of RFE / RL reports, Rahmon said agreements were reached on nearly half of the Kyrgyz-Tajik border in more than 100 rounds of negotiations since 2002. He claimed that the Tajik side had completed the work outlined in a roadmap. In 2016, Kyrgyzstan did not keep up with the plan because of “unknown reasons.”
It seems that the Tajik government does not pay as much attention as the Uzbekistan government does in dealing with the border issue. And none of these approach the difficulties that come after high-level deals.
As I wrote last month:
When Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan move from a paper agreement on where their borders are located, or demarcate, they will have to deal with a more complicated problem than demarcation – or marking the border. That process can be stressful at the local level, especially when territory swaps go into effect.
The demarcation process can be said to be ugly. People on both sides of these possibly changing borders have strong feelings about that. All concerned governments struggle with the democratic bridge between the individual and the state, especially in Kyrgyzstan, acutely aware that people’s sentiments cannot be completely ignored. This in turn allows bilateral political issues of border delimitation to be weaponized for domestic purposes when needed.
For President Sadyr Japarov’s government, a victory is crucial to stabilizing the country’s political situation. There’s a small amount of time for Japarov to prove qualified to back up his promises, that he can deliver both political and economic stability before he can follow his children. line of nearly every other Kyrgyz president. For Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, border settlement helps build his favorite reformist image, underpinned by his government’s emphasis and pursuit of greater regional cooperation. In Tajikistan, Rahmon is perhaps less motivated to see the border problem solved. The fragile status quo did not harm his regime the way persistent border dramas helped bring down the Kyrgyz governments.