Japarov’s speech at the UN. What did he say about the situation on the border with Tajikistan, and why it is not true
3 months ago Web Desk Comments Off on Japarov’s speech at the UN. What did he say about the situation on the border with Tajikistan, and why it is not true
Japarov’s speech at the UN. What did he say about the situation on the border with Tajikistan, and why it is not true.
On September 20, from the rostrum of the UN, President of Kyrgyzstan accused Tajikistan of violating the agreements. We decided to recall the agreements of previous years and tell once again what the two countries actually agreed on.
Tajik politologist Sherali Rizoyon says that Sadyr Japarov’s speech from the UN rostrum contradicts the protocol signed after the last border conflict.
«The narratives formed by President Japarov are aimed at modeling a larger-scale armed conflict with a neighbor. I hope that now it becomes clear who is eventually the initiator of all border conflicts, and especially it is important to find out why all this is being done?» – notes the analyst.
According to Mr. Rizoyon, the performance of Kyrgyz president at the UN General Assembly «can lead to the worsening of the situation not only on the border with Tajikistan, but also a serious deterioration of security throughout Central Asia».
«The blatant lie voiced by the head of Kyrgyzstan pushes Tajik side to publish all materials about border conflicts, the testimony of real eyewitnesses at the border of the two countries, and especially those who suffered from the arbitrariness of Kyrgyz military in Vorukh, Chorkuh, Khojai A’lo, Ovchiqal’acha», – the political scientist highlighted.
«Pacta sunt servanda» by Sadyr Japarov
Analyst payed attention to the Latin saying that Japarov used in his speech – «Pacta sunt servanda» («Agreements must be kept») and recalled his words about annulment of the protocol signed with Tajikistan in 2009 by former secretary of the Security Council of Kyrgyzstan Adahan Madumarov.
«There are documents about the transfer to Tajikistan when Madumarov was secretary of the Security Council. There was talk of leasing four streets in the Maksat village for 49 years. But Madumarov had no right to sign this document. After the work of commission, it will be necessary to come to an agreement. Only after my signature the issue with border will be resolved. No one can decide it. We have no right to give up the land. This is not our private territory», – said President of Kyrgyzstan.
Mr. Rizoyon, back in 2021, in his article «Quarrel and enmity will do no good» wrote that «this statement is undoubtedly aimed at modeling a new conflict along the border».
«Thus, the same person from the rostrum of the UN General Assembly declares about «Pacta sunt servanda», but himself unilaterally, as in the Russian fairy tale «by a wave of the wand» cancels the signed interstate document. Where is the logic? Until when can everyone be misled», – asks Sherali Rizoyon.
How Kyrgyzstan doesn’t abide by the agreements
«Asia-Plus» has written several times that Kyrgyzstan doesn’t follow the agreements and signed protocols. The minister of foreign affairs of Tajikistan Sirodjiddin Mukhriddin has repeatedly stated this too.
Head of SCNS of Tajikistan Saymumin Yatimov, following the results of bilateral talks between the heads of SCNS of the two countries at the end of January this year, also said that it was a departure from previously reached agreements that leads to conflicts in the Tajik-Kyrgyz border.
«The depart from legal acts, retreat from signed protocols leads to conflicts. It is necessary to observe this protocols very strictly», – said head of the SCNS of Tajikistan.
He highlighted that it is important to eliminate the main causes of the conflict and make a decision based on the essence of the issues.
We decided once more to tell about the main key points of how Kyrgyzstan doesn’t follow the agreements with Tajikistan.
Protocol of road rental
At the beginning of the year, President Sadyr Japarov questioned the protocol of road rental by the Kyrgyz side of a 272-meter section of the Tajik highway, where a military conflict occured on 27th of January 2022.
Kyrgyz President says that the protocol has no legal force and Adahan Madumarov didn;t have any right to sign it. Even though the parties signed a lease protocol based on paragraph 5 «Agreement between the government of the Republic of Tajikistan and government of the Kyrgyz Republic on mutual allotment of land plots» dated 18th of May 2005.
«The parties present to each other the land plots referred to an article 1 of this Agreement for rent for a period of 49 years with a rent of 1 US dollar per year», – says in this paragraph of the agreement.
The road to Vorukh
The road to Vorukh is the main issue in resolving the border conflict between the two countries and the parties repeatedly signed protocols to solve this problem. However, Kyrgyzstan always violates the protocols and doesn’t fulfill its promises.
At the end of April 2013, there was a clash between residents of the Tajik jamoat Vorukh and the Kyrgyz village Ak-Say. The reason was the construction by the Kyrgyz side of the Ak-Say – Tamdyk road on the disputed territory near the village of Vorukh. The parties immediately sat down at the negotiating table, decided to suspend the construction of the road, but the Kyrgyz side didn’t follow this agreement.
In early 2014 due to the continuation of the constructions of this road by Kyrgyzstan, an armed incident occured between the border guards of the neighboring states. As a result of these clashes, dozens of people were injured on both sides, and there were victims. Only in July 2014, the representatives of the two countries recorded the writing agreements on the construction of roads.
According to the protocol №34 of 2014, the Kyrgyz side was allowed to build the Ak-Say – Tamdyk road, but simultaneously with the alternative Khojai A’lo – Vorukh road to bypass the Ak-Say village. By the protocol mentioned above, the construction of road Khojai A’lo – Vorukh should be 75% financed by Kyrgyzstan and 25% by Tajikistan, and the Kyrgyz side was to build it. Tajikistan has built its own section to connect the main Vorukh road with a new one. But Kyrgyzstan has «forgotten» about the section of the road in Vorukh.
Despite the countless comments of the Tajik authorities, Kyrgyzstan continued that unilateral construction of the Ak-Say – Tamdyk road, and today this road is almost done. The bypass part of the road for Vorukh was never built.
In 2019, on 13-14th of March, residents of the Tajik village Mehnatabad in jamoat of Vorukh protested against the constraction of the Ak-Say – Tamdyk road due to its close location to the conditional border and disputed territories. During the conflict, two citizens of the Republic of Tajikistan were murdered and more than 20 were injured.
After 5 days of negotiations, the delegation of the two countries with the participation of the Vice Prime Ministers put an end to this conflict. It was decided that based on the agreement of 2014, the construction of the Ak-Say – Tamdek bypass road will continue, but it will be used exclusively for cattle driving . Between Vorukh and Khojai A’lo, an asphalt road will be built to bypass the Ak-Say village.
Again everything was decided, and again Kyrgyz side violated the agreement: it continued the construction of the Ak-Say – Tamdyk road and ignored the construction works of the road to Vorukh bypassing the Ak-Say.
The last protocol
After an armed conflict in April 2021, where more than 50 people were killed on both sides, the delegations signed a new protocol and agreed that a new bypass would be built at the expense of the two states, and the Tajik side would use and maintain it.
«The parties will build the road together, and the Tajik side will use and maintain the road Khojai A’lo – Vorukh bypass the eastern side of the Tangi (Kapchagay) settlement. The status of the following highway will be determined by a separate state agreement between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan», – said the joint statement of the government delegations of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan issues on May 5.
The statement also noted that topographic working groups were instructed, together with project design organizations, to conduct a field survey of this site on the lands of the “practical use of the Batken district” by June 1, 2021.
Tajik side, according to the protocol, prepared the project of this highway. A delegation of the tajik Ministry of Transport headed by the Deputy Minister went to the place of the proposed meeting at the border. But representatives of the Kyrgyz Ministry of Transport didn’t arrive for planned approval. Neither the Tajik, nor the Kyrgyz authorities have officially commented on this violation of the agreements.
In early July, the chairman of the SCNS Kamchybek Tashiev said that Kyrgyzstan itself would build the Khojai Alo –Vorukh road.
“We decided that we will build it ourselves, and the road will be located on the territory of Kyrgyzstan. We also insist that the construction of roads should be carried out along the entire border line, and not just on some part of it,” – told the reporters the chairman of the SCNS of Kyrgyzstan at that time.
Another agreement and Kyrgyzstan’s refusal
On 29th of January 2022, following negotiations after another conflict, the heads of the SCNS of the two countries agreed to implement specifically this protocol in practice. But this does not happen because of the refusal of the Kyrgyz side. Meanwhile, the Kyrgyz leadership constantly declares that there will be no corridor to Vorukh. Thus, they publicly refuse the protocol they signed.
The border issue in Kyrgyzstan is politicized
By the opinion of Tajik politologist Sherali Rizoyon the reason for the breakdown of the agreements is that the problem of demarcation and delimitation of state borders in the information space of Kyrgyzstan has become a politicized topic, and is used in the internal political struggle of the elites.
«During only 2021, we witnessed when the agreements reached with both Uzbekistan and Tajikistan were not respected, or were not unilaterally implemented due to the “demands of local residents”», – said analyst earlier in an interview with «Asia-Plus».
Rizoyon expressed confidence that «unilateral assessment and verbal denunciation of agreements that do not take into account the interests of a neighboring country leads negotiations to a dead end».