Border Deal Could Spark New Kyrgyz Protests

Although the Kyrgyz political scene has been unusually quiet since the December parliamentary election, popular anger is mounting over widespread poverty and a rushed privatisation process that is expected to raise utility prices.

These issues alone might have been enough to fuel a new round of street protests, and give the opposition a stick with which to beat the government of President Kurmanbek Bakiev. The chances of that happening rose dramatically last week after parliament ratified a deal handing over a number of border areas to Kazakstan.

Territory is a potent issue in Kyrgyzstan, as seen in recent years when a similar handover of land to China became a major campaign platform for opposition groups.

Parliament’s decision is viewed with particular suspicion because it came shortly before a visit by President Bakiev to Kazakstan.

Under the border agreement, Kyrgyzstan cedes three formerly disputed areas to the Kazaks – a granite mine in the northern Talas region, the Karkyra area in Issykkul region, and a strip of land where a main road route runs along the river Chu, not far from the capital Bishkek. In addition, the Kazaks get a long-term lease on four tourist complexes on Lake Issykul, a popular summer holiday destination.

In return, Kyrgyzstan acquires a piece of land in the northern Chuy, resolving a situation where residents of the village of Stepnoye have had to make a long journey around a protruding piece of Kazak territory just to get to their farmland. (For a description of that situation, see Unclear Kyrgyz-Kazak Border Makes Life Tough for Villagers, RCA No. 521, 12-Dec-07.)

The agreement to redraw the borders was originally signed by Kazakstan’s Nursultan Nazarbaev and the then Kyrgyz president Askar Akaev back in 2001, but the Kyrgyz parliament never ratified it, both because the ceding of land proved so controversial at home and later because of continuing domestic political instability.

Akaev was ousted by the opposition in 2005, but his parliament remained in place even though elections to it had prompted the mass protests that forced him out. In December 2007, the Ak Jol party, set up only shortly beforehand by his replacement Bakiev, won an overwhelming majority in a new parliament.

This new dispensation undoubtedly opened the way to a speedy ratification of the agreement.

The fact that the legislation went through so close to Bakiev’s April 17 visit to Astana has led to some suspicion that his administration is keen to seek favour with the country’s oil-rich and – by regional standards – prosperous neighbour.

The Kazaks are already leading investors in Kyrgyz banking and other sectors, and are an important source of imports, including grain.

Anara Dautalieva, an activist with a Kyrgyz pressure group, suspects Bakiev is also on a mission to win the political backing of the powerful Kazak leader.

“The president may be preparing for the 2010 election and trying to gain support from Nazarbaev. There is every reason to think this – if it weren’t the case, why would these lands and resorts be given up so easily?” she asked.

The speaker of parliament, Adakhan Madumarov, rejected this kind of speculation, saying the proposal to speed up the ratification process had in fact come from parliamentarians, not the president.

For many people in Kyrgyzstan, the deal looks like a poor one because their country seems to give more than it gets.

The opposition, catching the mood of public disquiet, called a “kurultay” or open assembly on April 12 at which it demanded that the land exchange be annulled immediately. A resolution passed by the meeting argued that this parliament did not even have the right to sign off on the deal as it was not yet a legitimate institution – no detailed breakdown of the December polls that elected it has yet been published. (The opposition’s concerns about the results are discussed in Kyrgyz Opposition Queries Election Figures, RCA No. 537, 12-Mar-08.)

Opposition leaders pledged to organise public protests if the demands set out in the resolution were not addressed.

Ata Meken party member Bolot Sherniazov said the government was setting itself up for future ownership claims by citing a Soviet-era arrangement where Kazakstan paid for the construction of resort facilities in Kyrgyzstan – long before either of them became a proper country.

“When the Kyrgyz authorities say the Issykkul resorts were ceded to Kazakstan because the buildings were erected with Kazak funds, they are simply not behaving intelligently. Tomorrow we might be asked to provide documents to prove that all our other assets, including the strategic hydropower stations, were built with our money,” said Sherniazov.

He believes this agreement will set a bad precedent for future bilateral arrangements.

Political analyst Syrgak Abdyldaev told IWPR the deal lacked legitimacy, first because there had been no public consultation about it in Kyrgyzstan, and second because the exchange of territory was unequal.

“According to international law, if there is an exchange of land during the demarcation of borders, it should be equal for both sides. Was there an equal exchange of lands? No, there was not,” Abdyldaev.

The decision was defended by Zainiddin Kurmanov, an Ak Jol member of parliament, who said the deal was being misrepresented. He argued that disputed territory was defined under international law as being “ownership-neutral”, so that technically the land that was ceded was not actually Kyrgyz.

“Disputed territories count as no-man’s land,” he said. “In addition, international law dictates that border agreements should be ratified quickly, as prolonging the process can lead to serious international conflicts.”

Whatever assurances are given, many people in Kyrgyzstan – and not just those in the opposition – remain gravely concerned about giving away territory.

Parallels are being drawn with a 2002 deal under which the Akaev government ceded a strip of land to China, sparking protests across the country.

One of the parliamentarians involved in the campaign against the China deal was Azimbek Beknazarov, whose subsequent arrest enraged his constituents in the Aksy district of southern Kyrgyzstan. Protests over his detention led to heavy-handed police action which left six people dead in March 2002.

Aksy remains an open wound in the national psyche, and a live political issue. (See Kyrgyz Leader “Guilty” of Aksy Killings, RCA No. 538, 19-Mar-08.)

As with the Chinese treaty, the deal with Kazakstan could be the kind of controversial issue about which there is sufficient public concern to bring people out into the streets in support of the opposition.

Omurbek Tekebaev, who heads Ata-Meken, which failed to be awarded any seats in the parliamentary election despite being one of the strongest opposition parties, told IWPR he believed most of Kyrgyzstan’s population was unhappy about territorial “concessions” that demonstrated “the current leadership’s lack of understanding of the national interest”.

Dautalieva said mass protests now looked very likely.

“I am afraid it will become a second Aksy. There are now all the prerequisites for massive protests,” she said. “This agreement has become the detonator.”

Elina Karakulova is IWPR’s chief editor for Reporting Central Asia, based in Bishkek. Gulnara Mambetalieva, a journalist in Bishkek, contributed to this report.