Kyrgyzstan – Tajikistan: A historic step toward lasting peace Political analysts share insights on border agreement

On March 13, the Presidents of the Kyrgyz Republic, Sadyr Japarov, and the Republic of Tajikistan, Emomali Rahmon, participated in the ceremony to reopen the "Kairagach" and "Kyzyl-Bel" border checkpoints on the state border between the two countries.

It is worth recalling that Kyrgyzstan closed its border with neighboring Tajikistan four years ago, in May 2021. This decision was made after an armed conflict broke out on April 28 in the area of the "Golovnoy" water distribution point in the Batken region. The conflict escalated to involve military units and heavy equipment. During the state visit of Tajikistan's President Emomali Rahmon to Kyrgyzstan, an agreement was signed between the two countries regarding the state border.

Border negotiations between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan had been ongoing for over 30 years. Meanwhile, border conflicts, sometimes escalating into armed clashes, claimed many lives. Now, the final step has been taken—the presidents have signed the agreement.

Why is this moment considered historic, and what impact will it have on relations between the two neighboring countries, which have endured a series of border conflicts? There is hope that this agreement will establish lasting peace between the two states and help prevent any future clashes. But what steps must Bishkek and Dushanbe take to achieve this goal? How can they ensure that tensions never arise again between their peoples?

Renowned experts from both countries shared their insights on this matter with Caliber.Az.

Tajik political analyst Parviz Mullojanov believes that, first and foremost, the peace agreement between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan stands as one of the few examples of a peaceful resolution to a prolonged conflict that had remained "frozen" for nearly 40 years.

"Unfortunately, there are very few such positive examples in the world today. In most cases, territorial disputes between states end either through a military victory by one side or, at the very least, due to military exhaustion following prolonged and large-scale hostilities. In this case, however, despite periodic outbreaks of violence, further escalation was prevented, avoiding a full-scale military confrontation. This makes it a significant and positive precedent in international practice, one that could serve as a model for resolving other ‘frozen’ or emerging conflicts both within and beyond the region."

Secondly, by signing the peace agreement, both countries can avoid excessive financial burdens that would have been inevitable had the conflict continued. Now, the resources saved can be redirected toward addressing pressing socio-economic issues.

Thirdly, resolving the conflict will have a positive impact on the overall geopolitical situation in the region. This, in turn, will create a more favourable environment for implementing large-scale interstate and interregional projects—such as opening new transport routes connecting East and West. For this reason, many external players, particularly those invested in the development of the Trans-Caspian Corridor passing through Central Asia, have a vested interest in the successful conclusion and implementation of the peace agreement," the expert noted.

He is confident that the completion of the border demarcation process should put an end to conflicts and disputes over contested lands in the border areas.

"The issue of water resource distribution remains, as the region lacks sufficient water to meet the needs of its rapidly growing population. This matter will continue to be refined through discussions between local communities. On the one hand, this requires the development of an effective mechanism for allocating irrigation water in a way that maximally considers the needs of these communities, especially during peak agricultural seasons. On the other hand, both sides must also focus on improving irrigation systems in border areas, as population growth continues to increase local demand for water resources.

Additionally, both countries will need to work on implementing the agreement’s provisions related to road traffic and transport infrastructure in the border regions, which will also take time.

Therefore, as is often the case, signing an agreement does not mean the negotiation process is over. Regional and interstate discussions must continue to refine certain provisions, monitor and oversee the implementation of peace agreements, and respond promptly to any emerging challenges or complications. Most likely, both sides understand this well, and it seems that a control and monitoring mechanism is already being considered," Mullojanov stated with confidence.

The Director of the Institute of World Politics (Bishkek), Sheradil Baktygulov, first explained that after the dissolution of the USSR, the countries of Central Asia inherited highly complex borderlines and "grey" zones in disputed areas.

"All of this was, and still is, complicated by pseudo-historical myths and references to oral folklore. For more than 30 years, such interpretations have led to regular border skirmishes between Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, culminating in full-scale military clashes between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan in April-May 2021 and September 2022.

It is worth noting that on September 20, 2022, Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov, in his address to the UN General Assembly, criticised Tajik President Emomali Rahmon for failing to comply with the Almaty Declaration On the Observance of Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and Inviolability of Borders of the Commonwealth of Independent States. President Japarov also referenced the April-May 2021 conflict, during which 36 Kyrgyz citizens lost their lives. The Kyrgyz leader openly accused Tajikistan of armed aggression against Kyrgyzstan. He praised the heroism of Kyrgyz servicemen and emphasised that Kyrgyzstan had never initiated conflicts but was repeatedly forced to respond. Japarov firmly stated that 'Kyrgyzstan does not claim foreign lands, but it will not give up a single centimetre of its own territory to anyone.'

Therefore, the conclusion of negotiations between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan on disputed border areas is truly a historic event for the entire Central Asian region," the director of the institute assured.

He emphasised that with the ratification of the relevant laws by the parliaments of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, two Central Asian countries—Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan—will have fully resolved all territorial disputes with their neighbours. This will eliminate another potential cause for armed conflict, which could have directly or indirectly involved other nations.

"Another issue being addressed is the smuggling of goods and cargo, as well as the illegal trafficking of drugs and weapons through disputed border areas. Due to the lack of visible border markers and protective infrastructure, these areas became ‘grey zones’ that facilitated unlawful border crossings. The delimitation and subsequent demarcation of the border will significantly complicate operations for criminal elements of various nationalities and citizenships.

The signing of the border delimitation agreement marks the beginning of a long and demanding process of demarcation. It will require the physical placement of border markers and the development of border infrastructure. Ironically, it seems that for neighbouring countries to rebuild friendly relations, they first need to separate themselves with a reliable border fence. A mutually recognised border line—on both land and water—serves as the foundation for good-neighbourly relations," the Kyrgyz political analyst noted.

According to him, resolving the issue of disputed border areas involves a territorial exchange between the negotiating countries.

"This is a difficult decision for both the authorities of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Difficult, yet the most optimal among the available options. Naturally, there will always be those dissatisfied with the exchange, arguing that the land is ‘historically ours.’ This is a choice between pseudo-historical myths and cold, rational calculation. Common sense has prevailed, but supporters of myths continue to engage in myth-making.

For instance, one of the roads has been granted neutral status. This is the Tort-Kocho section (literally ‘Four Streets’)—an intersection of the Osh–Razzakov (Kyrgyzstan) and Isfara–Vorukh (Tajikistan) highways. Now, Kyrgyz and Tajik citizens can travel safely near previously disputed border areas. This and other routes serve as ‘lifelines’ for both nations, facilitating the transportation of food, medicine, construction materials, and other essential goods. Their previously undefined status led to localised lawlessness, sparking resentment between the peoples of both countries—often escalating into fistfights and even gunfire.

To establish lasting peace, the authorities of both countries must carry out the demarcation of the border and define the neutrality regime for the Vorukh-Isfara road. It is worth noting that Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have drafted agreements not only on disputed border areas but also on the rules for using roads and access to water management and energy facilities.

This comprehensive approach aims to resolve all contentious issues that have sparked local disputes between residents of Kyrgyz and Tajik villages. Initially, disagreements among locals may still arise, but as the new rules for coexisting and managing resources near the border take root, the number of conflicts is expected to decrease. In this regard, regular informational and educational efforts among the citizens of both nations will be essential," Baktygulov envisions.