Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan Border Clashes: Another Opportunistic Advance?
Nearly 100 have been killed in border clashes between the two Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in the past week, a significant escalation in a decades-long tension. The conflict arose primarily in the Batken and Osh regions, which Tajikistan has invaded, according to Kyrgyz state media. However, around half of the 970km-long border area has been contested by both states since their independence from the Soviet Union.
The border clashes began on 14 September, and death tolls on both sides have been rising since. The latest official number from Kyrgyz authorities from Sunday, 18 September indicate that 46 have died, meanwhile Tajik authorities have been less transparent, although Facebook posts from the Foreign Ministry indicate 35 have died. Tajik authorities claim civilians have been wounded, but have not published numbers. In addition to official deaths, hundreds have been wounded and both sides have accused each other of using tanks, mortars, rocket artillery, and drones against civilian areas and settlements. In response, Kyrgyzstan evacuated 136,000 people from conflict areas, in what state media calls an invasion, alleging that those without military insignia participated on the Tajik side in the attacks.
A ceasefire was achieved on Friday, 16 September although both sides continued fighting and accusing one another of breaching the agreement. The night of September 17 passed without significant fighting, and Kyrgyz state media reported that some evacuees started returning home on Sunday.
Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and UN Secretary-General António Guterres have called for an end to the violence and upkeep of the ceasefire, with Putin phoning both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan’s leaders to urge them to find a diplomatic resolution. Russia has historically played a mediating role in the tension, even after both states’ independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. A similar international outcry occurred just last year when another set of clashes erupted – the deadliest in the pair’s history – with 160 Kyrgyz casualties and fears of a full-fledged conflict.
While the most recent border clashes are of significant concern, the history of conflict between the two Central Asian states indicates a somewhat routine and expected outbreak of conflict. However, for both the 2021 and last week’s clashes, no official explanation has been provided by either side, although Kyrgyz state media continues to say that the most recent attacks constituted a planned military action that violates international law. Given the lack of published data from the Tajik authorities on casualties and explanations for the conflict, it remains challenging to interpret the position of Tajikistan apart from continually blaming Kyrgyzstan for escalation.
Yet, the timing of the border clashes alludes to a larger trend in using Russia’s preoccupation in Ukraine to advance the position of regional alliances and individual states’ territorial aspirations. The recent and continuing violence between Azerbaijan and Armenia is a prime example of this. Although not as direct as Azerbaijan and Armenia’s conflict, Moscow’s historic mediating power between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan could very well be a core pillar that allowed this round of clashes to be so deadly. Furthermore, the striking similarities with the 2021 outburst could suggest that Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are becoming used to more routine violence; if this is the case, the region could see more semi-permanent evacuations and a reshaping of the contested border landscape. Both states are members of the Russian-led CSTO, which has condemned both sides for continued violence, meaning that either state cannot overstep its regional influence without serious intervention from the transnational body.
Looking at the short term, the ceasefire achieved on Friday night shows signs of becoming gradually more stable as Kyrgyz communities move back into homes from evacuation and reports from both sides of violence are decreasing significantly. While Russia played a larger role in the 2021 conflict, it is unlikely that current conditions will require sustained diplomatic intervention from Moscow. However, the trend of regional players taking advantage of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to launch small-scale conflicts over territory is troubling and highlights the weakness of the region in relying primarily on Moscow as a diplomatic hegemon. While long-term sustained conflict between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan is unlikely, the regional and global position of Russia in the ongoing Ukraine war will send shockwaves across former Soviet Union territories. The continued weakening of Russia through sanctions and international condemnation could likely translate into a more unstable region that becomes more focused on local territory battles in favour of regional stability – a stability once upheld by Moscow.