KYRGYZ TURMOIL OVER A BORDER AGREEMENT

BACKGROUND: Defending
the border agreement with China, President Askar Akayev stated that the border agreement
is the best solution for a small country, a skillful piece of Kyrgyz diplomacy giving away
just 30 percent of the originally contested area. Talking about a good relationship with
China, government officials remind that China intended to acquire more lands, presenting
its own maps and planning to give Kyrgyzstan only four percent of the disputed areas,
while Kyrgyz officials argued that the old Soviet state borders should be the new borders
of independent Kyrgyzstan. Since 1964 the
Soviet-Chinese border problem, which then became a Kyrgyz-Chinese one, could not be
resolved. Now, the Kyrgyz President insisted that parliament ratify the agreement before
his trip to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit in St. Petersburg in June.
The first agreement was ratified by the previous parliament in 1998 and the current
parliament ratified the second one on May 10, 2002.

The opposition announced that both ratification actions were done with violation of
procedures, in a hurry, without appropriate consideration in the parliamentary committees.
Some MPs accuse the President of signing the agreements without consulting with
Parliament, violating the constitution, according to which only Parliament has the right
to change state borders. Opponents also argue that the Kyrgyz government did not present
the parliament with any documents containing Chinese demands to Kyrgyz lands or any maps
of the disputed regions; moreover, it is argued that due to a lack of patriotism and
experience on the part of the Kyrgyz leadership, imprecise borders were admitted as
disputable.

IMPLICATIONS: Paradoxically,
protests started in a backyard of Kyrgyzstan - Ak Suu (also known as Aksy), a remote
province of the Jalal-Abad region bordering with Uzbekistan. Azimbek Beknazarov, a
parliamentarian severely criticizing the territorial concessions and demanding the
impeachment of President Askar Akaev, had been arrested and detained in January this year.
His local constituency and human rights activists held protest pickets and hunger strikes
since his arrest. The refusal of the Jalalabad and of local officials to negotiate with
demonstrators seriously complicated the situation. As a result, six people were killed and
29 were wounded on 17-18 March in clashes between policemen and picketers. To stop the
bloodshed, the authorities released Beknazarov, dismissed the Jalalabad governor and some
regional officials.

The reluctance of central and local government officials to address the
long-lasting public complaints led to a spread of pickets throughout the country,
including the capital and parts of the Osh region. The inexperience and lack of
professionalism of some officials, their reliance on Soviet-style methods to silence
opponents, and deeper socio-economic issues bring together various groups of discontented
people across the country. Currently, thousands of protesters have blocked the Bishkek-Osh
road, the main highway between the northern and southern parts of Kyrgyzstan, in the
southern Jalalabad region.

Currently, protesters demand the annulations of the agreements on the Sino-Kyrgyz
border, the resignation of President Akayev, an unbiased investigation of the bloodshed in
Ak Suu, the closure of the criminal case against Deputy Azimbek Beknazarov, and the
release of opposition leader Feliks Kulov. One-sided reports on the situation in Jalalabad
by the National Radio and TV Corporation and the difficult socio-economic conditions were
mentioned among other reasons of mass discontent. Some activists add the need to lower
fees for electricity. The appeals of demonstrators look spontaneous and inconsistent, with
a modest emphasis of people\'s real needs and priorities. The most radical opposition
leaders suggest the impeachment of Akayev, but fail to propose any program or nation-wide
agenda for further development. Many opponents recommend the President only to dismiss
several top officials, including the head of the Presidential Administration, the State
Secretary and the Prime Minister, with a subsequent dismissal of the entire Kyrgyz
government.

Comparing with the rubber-stamped parliaments in neighboring post-Soviet Central
Asian states, the Kyrgyz parliament has become a home for the opposition. However, the
majority of the more than 30 political parties registered in Kyrgyzstan are little known
in all regions, or are based either in the north or in the south of the country; none of
them have managed to unite the opposition. Recently, however, four opposition parties -
the Ar-Namys (Dignity), Ata Meken (Fatherland), Erkindik (Freedom) and People\'s Party have
united to form one block, the People\'s Congress, to build up a nation-wide agenda.

CONCLUSION: The
tensions that started with a disagreement on border issues is being fueled by mass
discontent in the economic and social spheres, and has combined with an existing power
struggle in Kyrgyzstan. The risks are great that demonstrators, frustrated by low living
standards, unemployment, and rampant mismanagement and corruption, could be pushed to
impulsive actions unless some peaceful way of fostering a dialogue between the government
and various popular movements and opposition groups is not reached. In the capital
Bishkek, thanks to several years of experience, the government and its opposition already
know how to negotiate, how to build confidence, and how to discuss sensitive issues in
public roundtables or individual meetings. This good practice should not be forgotten now
and could be extrapolated in the country, including its remote provinces. A participatory
strategy is especially important for disadvantaged regions of Kyrgyzstan far from
administrative centers, such as Ak Suu or Kurshab. Rural people need to be informed in
time about political and economic processes by unbiased sources, to be involved in
dialogue with their local administration, and to be heard before they join mass
demonstrations.

AUTHOR BIO: Dr.
Anara Tabyshalieva is a visiting scholar at Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, SAIS, Johns
Hopkins University.