Date:

Share:

Dr. Filippo Costa Buranelli, Professor at the University of St Andrews: “Finding a Mutually Acceptable Solution in Terms of Inter-State Order and Justice Ultimately Depends on the Political Will of the Parties.”

Similar Posts

This post is also available in: Türkçe Русский

The border problems of the Central Asian states have been going on for many years. These issues bring with them border uncertainties, enclaves, water problems and armed conflicts. The complex nature of disputes makes it difficult to reach a consensus. Despite this, the conflicting states have recently been holding bilateral talks and even signing various agreements to become reconciling states. The consensus on the Kempir-Abad Region is one of the best examples of this. Because, in addition to improving their bilateral relations, the state parties have taken a pro-solution stance by bringing the problem to common platforms such as the Organization of Turkic States. In addition, the cooperation of these countries in large energy-based projects increases interdependence and reduces the risk of conflict.

In this context, the Ankara Center for Crisis and Policy Studies (ANKASAM) presents the views of Dr. Filippo Costa Buranelli, Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) at the University of St. Andrews in the United Kingdom, to evaluate the border problems of Central Asian states.

  1. Do you find the agreement reached between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan on the Kempir-Abad Region sustainable and viable?

It is important to recognize two dynamics at work here. One is between states; the other is between states and Kyrgyz society.  If we look at the dynamic between actors such as Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, the agreement on the Kempir-Abad Water Reservoir is both viable and sustainable in terms of its timing. This agreement, advantageous for Kyrgyzstan and strategic for Uzbekistan, as recently defended by Prime Minister Abdulla Aripov, has the potential to clarify the recent conflicts between the two countries.

Ultimately, I believe the two governments will make all necessary arrangements to fulfil their promises in this agreement, to share the water reservoir in a transparent and mutually beneficial way, and to respect the legal provisions of the border agreement. Neither side will want to see a repeat of the Kyrgyz-Tajik scenario, especially after so much diplomatic and human capital has been spent repairing the ties between Bishkek and Tashkent. Some announcements made during the planned visit of the President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev to Kyrgyzstan at least deserve praise for this achievement.

  1. What role do you think the United Nations (UN) plays in border conflicts between Central Asian states?

The shortest answer is “not enough” about the role of the UN. The UN has shown consistent interest in border issues in Central Asia, particularly through the Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy in Turkmenistan, advocating for political and diplomatic solutions to conflicts. But even so, the UN can’t do much. Any UN action in this regard will require UN Security Council approval, where Russia will tolerate interference in the region. Finding a mutually acceptable solution for interstate order and justice for border communities living in border regions ultimately depends on the political will of the parties.

  1. Do you think that initiatives such as The Belt-Road Project, TAPI and the Organization of Turkic States will contribute to regional peace?

All these initiatives encourage dialogue, consensus, and mutual understanding and create opportunities for cooperation. These are all good. One example of this is that developments regarding the realization of the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan Railway accelerate border settlement between the two Central Asian countries. However, as mentioned earlier, this development depends on the capacity and political will to see things not only as bilateral issues but rather as issues of systemic importance. Border issues are important not only for the parties involved but for the entire region. These initiatives are therefore pointing in the right direction but alone will not ensure peace and stability.

  1. What kind of solution can be proposed for the enclaves in the Fergana Valley?

To take a step towards solving this very complex problem, which stems from both colonial arbitrary land division and today’s over-securitization, I think we must first look at the roots of the issue. In this context, first, it is necessary to secure access between the enclaves in the states of origin and enclaves in the other state using economic, humanitarian and medical connections. Second, these roads can be jointly constructed, managed and patrolled. In the third stage, an agreement can be negotiated on the complete demilitarization of these areas. Fourth, these enclaves and the areas around them could be given special fiscal, bureaucratic and economic status, as if they were special economic zones, and take advantage of this. Finally, more activities focused on cultural diplomacy, community building, and participation of the elderly, border representatives, youth and other stakeholders can take consistent steps to de-secure the area and site instead of divisive identities. Nomadic and settled communities lived in these areas for centuries before the establishment of nation-states. Therefore, there is no reason why the level of trust and dialogue of the past cannot be repeated today.

  1. Is it possible for any state to be a mediator in resolving problems in the region?

I’ve thought a lot about this and discussed it several times with my colleagues and friends in Central Asia. A very strict understanding of sovereignty, already with strong ethnic-nationalist nuances, prevents any third party from meditating. Kyrgyzstan has mentioned that it could accept the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) or even just Russia as such a mediator. However, Tajikistan has not made any comments that it supports this solution. It seems that Tajikistan may want to continue to deal with this bilaterally because of the demographic and military advantages. But little can be accomplished without the serious political will to finalize the demarcation process.

Leaders want to appear uncompromising and tough because of internal issues and fear that any small concession could be read as a step towards greater defeat. Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan could be potential mediators. The Ashgabat administration can act as a mediator because of its permanent neutrality status, Kazakhstan, its location in the region and its very good relations with both actors, and Uzbekistan because of its good understanding of diplomacy. These states do not have the historical experience to help resolve border conflicts. Nevertheless, if any of these three states succeed in adopting a systemic and regionalist perspective on these issues, they can develop a unique Central Asian mechanism for the peaceful settlement of disputes. This will mean the establishment of regional order without the need for great powers and will be welcomed.


Dr. Filippo Costa Buranelli

Dr. Filippo Costa Buranelli received his master’s degree from the London School of Economics and Political Science and his PhD from King’s College London. Buranelli is currently a senior lecturer in the Department of International Relations at the University of St. Andrews, where his research focuses on the Eurasian and Central Asian regions.

Zehra AYDIN İŞCAN
Zehra AYDIN İŞCAN
Zehra AYDIN İŞCAN, 2018 yılında İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi Uluslararası İlişkiler lisans programından mezun olmuştur. 2020 yılında İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi Uluslararası İlişkiler Anabilim Dalı'nda “Uluslararası Uyuşmazlıkların Barışçıl Yöntemlerle Çözümü: Galtung Modellemesi” başlıklı teziyle yüksek lisans derecesini almıştır. Aynı yıl Marmara Üniversitesi Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Anabilim Dalı'nda doktoraya başlayan AYDIN İŞCAN, halihazırda doktora tezini yazmaktadır. AYDIN İŞCAN’ın başlıca çalışma alanları, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Barış Çalışmaları'dır.