May 12th, 2013

GEOPOLITICS OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA

Borders in South and Central Asia

INTRODUCTION

While some seem to care above all about the economic growth of several booming economies (or as they are often called “emerging markets”, such as China, Russia or India), it is legitimate for others to worry more about the borders of some states in the very same region.

A border is the very line separating two political or geographical areas, more commonly called countries. Whereas in some parts of the world, the borders between two countries are not even a marked and are seen as simple trade corridors, the issue is raised in a totally different way when it comes to both South and Central Asia. The question of borders presents a major problem for several countries, especially given all it symbolizes: the stability of a state and its legal territory, a politically controlled and delimited zone and a corridor between two nations.

Were it after the end of the British Empire or that of the Soviet era, the borders keep being a matter of dispute and the cause of severe contentiousness in South and Central Asia nowadays. Drug trafficking and the circulation of energy are not the only problems. The border disputes mostly jeopardize the transnational security and the ethnical conflicts at stake.
A territorial dispute is a disagreement over the possession or control of land between two or more states, or over the possession and control of land by a new state that is not always officially recognized. In a sense, border disputes are territorial disputes between neighboring countries.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the unsettling border disputes have been revealing some of the deepest imperfections of the geopolitics of South and Central Asia: terrorism, ethnical discordance, riots, military interventions and the question of sovereignty.

What are and what have been the most burning points of conflict? Does a great deal of conflict potential still remain today? How can cooperation between neighbors be enhanced? Given the scope of the problem, can they eventually set up a peaceful agreement? What is The future of these conflicts?

We will tackle the issue by dividing the analysis according to the different regions we will develop. Starting with the two biggest countries, sharing most of the borders with their neighbors, that is to say India and the Republic of China, we will further on continue with the conflicts in the region of the Durand Line, and eventually focus on the landlocked countries of Central Asia.

I. The disputed territories of India

Out of its ten neighbors, India is said to face territorial issues with at least six, each of them being a recognized sovereign state: Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.

India and Pakistan: the Kashmir dispute

(Source: BBC)

Kashmir has been disputed by India and Pakistan since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947. The two nuclear powers have officially waged war twice over this region. Kashmir is over 60% Muslim and it is divided by a Line of Control (the ceasefire line agreed after the 1949 conflict), often breached by separatist militants. The Indian side -- Jammu and Kashmir state -- is home to 9 million people, while the northern part, administered by Pakistan, is home to 3 million In 1947, Kashmir’s ruler hoped to remain independent from both India and Pakistan, but as soon as October 1947, Pakistani-backed tribesmen invaded Kashmir. The ruler (or maharaja) ceded to India which promised to hold a UN-supervised plebiscite. As a matter of fact, Kashmir has never been allowed to vote on its future and a war broke out again in 1965 after a Pakistani offensive across the line. The Siachen war began in 1984, in the Saltoro Ridge/Siachen Glacier region, and only ended in 2003 by a ceasefire. On this high battleground, the Indian military first settled in 1984 and the Pakistani attempts to displace the Indian forces were mainly weak, until that of Pervez Musharraf in 1987. Later, in 1999, the dispute even raised fears of a nuclear conflict.
Since 1989, both sides have seen a Muslim separatist movement grow, against the Indian rule, with the insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir. Some separatists favor independence whereas others would like Kashmir to be part of Pakistan. In India on the other hand, the people would prefer the Line of Control to be declared as the international border. In 2008, elections were held in Kashmir and in spite of the 50% turnout, the winning party was pro-Indian, which led to even more protests in 2008 and 2009. The Muslim majority then started the Unrest in June 2010. For many reasons, both states are keen on fighting for the territory, and yet the separatists keep advocating the independence. The involvement and opinions of other nations, such as the United States, may also cause trouble because they bother third parties (cf. the involvement of Al-Quaeda). Moreover, the constant military presence may cause disregard towards some elements of the Human Rights. The dispute between India and Pakistan also relies on a water issue. The numerous disputes that began in the early 50’s, and the disputes for the rivers’ demarcation stand for it, and in particular that of the Sir Creek strip of water opening up to the Arabian Sea. The two countries tried to resolve most of these in the 60’s. Source: Wikipedia

The border disputes between India and China

Aksai Chin is one of the two main border dispute areas between India and the People's Republic of China, the other being the one over Arunachal Pradesh, which is administered by India (and claimed by China as South Tibet).
Many estimate that Aksai Chin is just an ice desert with little geopolitical interest. However, it is a burning issue for the Chinese and the Indian people. This area covers around 20% of the Kashmir region. China has always considered Aksai Chin as part of the Tibetan plateau and the Xinjiang province. Beijing first tried to prove its sovereignty over this territory by showing maps dating back from the 1910’s, but as this could not serve as proof, China led a war against India in 1962, winning the major part of the area. The rest was ceded to the People’s Republic of China by the state of Pakistan, who decided to make allies with Beijing in 1963.
India and China keep exchanging approved maps over minor breakthroughs. In the meantime, China holds steady in the region, for instance by supplying it constantly or by building a highway that links Aksai Chin and the southern Xinjiang Province.

All in all, while India claims areas of Kashmir, China claims parts of the states of Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. After the 1962 Sino-Indian Border Conflict, India retained the administration of Arunachal Pradesh, though China has continued to claim Arunachal Pradesh as a part of Tibet. The region is actually significant due to its closeness to Tibet as well as its agricultural resources.
The dispute goes on and spills over multilateral institutions, such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB), when China asked the ADB to remove Arunachal Pradesh from its loan plan in 2009, since for China that fact implied that the ADB endorsed India’s territorial claim.
Lately, a team of Chinese diplomats visited Sikkim for the first time which could have stated China’s accepting this border as a part of India. The development goes on as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also met his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao during the Asian summit in Cambodia.
In a more global sense, the Sino-Indian territorial dispute still provokes diplomatic and visa issues in these regions and impedes a common rise of the two countries, which remain very disconnected.

Consequence: the in-between status of Nepal

Although claimed by Nepal, Kalapaani has been occupied by India's Indo-Tibetan border security forces, since the 1962 border-war with China. Both India and Nepal claims the Kali River to be their territory on each side, making Kalapaani part of their sovereignty. The Sugauli Treaty signed by Nepal and British India in 1816 locates the Kali River as Nepal's western boundary with India and some discrepancies in locating the source of the river led to boundary disputes between the two.
It seems that China has already recognized Kalapaani as an integral part of Nepal, whereas India tries to negate the role of China in resolving the Kalapaani dispute so that it can continue its influence in the region. Therefore, the Indian foreign minister Mukharjee seiwed the opportunity, while visiting the region, to remind the people that China should recognize Arunachal Pradesh as an integral part of India.

India-Bangladesh: an ongoing dispute

The dispute started after the partition of Bengal in 1947, which left a poorly demarcated international border between India and Bangladesh (then-East Pakistan). The dispute over the Indo-Bangladeshi border worsened due to over 190 enclaves.
The best-known area of dispute is the zone near the village of Pyrdiwah which the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) had occupied since the 1971 liberation of Bangladesh, thus some 6.5 kilometers of border have remained in dispute for the past 30 years. Not far from this sight, the Boroibari region was also disputed between the two only a few days later.
The revival of the conflict took place in 2001, after 18 soldiers were killed - 16 of which were Indian. The governments had to fight for a rapid restoration of the status quo, in spite of the fact the ownership of several villages on both sides of the border was claimed by both countries.
Only 10 years later, and after many agreements and land swaps they proceeded to, India and Bangladesh tried to bury this territorial dispute, which was by the way symbolized by Manmohan Singh’s visit to Bangladesh two years ago.

II. The disputed border territories of China

A part from the border disputes between India, China and Pakistan in the Kashmir region (Trans Karakoram Tract, Aksai Chin…), China has also been disputing some border areas with other neighbors such as Tajikistan or Bhutan.

China and Tajikistan: the Pamir Mountains

According to the Asian Times, the Sino-Tajik border agreement that was ratified around 2011 by Tajikistan's Parliament flies in the face of images of China being a "bullying" and "belligerent" power that "will go to any length to fulfill its territorial ambitions”.

We are here tackling a 130-year-old territorial dispute. Although the Soviet Union and China already began negotiating a mutually acceptable border, a settlement remained elusive. With the final breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, the new Central Asian Republics - Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan - inherited the disputes with China. Border agreements with Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan were reached in 1996 and 1998 respectively. Border talks with Tajikistan were delayed by the civil war there, and an agreement was eventually reached in 2002, and then ratified in 2010-2011. Beijing decided to cede some parts of the region because of several events that put China’s legitimacy in question (the revolt in Tibet, the instability following the Great Leap Forward, the Tiananmen upheaval, separatist violence in Xinjiang province…).

China and its neighbor Bhutan

China shares a contiguous border of 470 kilometers (km) with Bhutan to the north and its territorial disputes with Bhutan have also been a source of potential conflict. Since the 1980’s, both governments have conducted regular talks on border and security issues aimed at reducing the tensions. These talks still take place nowadays because the border dispute is not yet settled.
According to official statements by the King of Bhutan to the National Assembly, there are four disputed areas between Bhutan and China. Starting from Doklam in the west, the border goes along the ridges from Gamochen to Batangla, Sinchela, and down to the Amo Chhu.
After the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet (1951), Bhutan withdrew its representative from Lhasa. Its border with China has never been officially recognized and demarcated and the 1959 Tibetan Rebellion and the 14th Dalai Lama's arrival in India made security a key priority for Bhutan.
Along with the occupation of Tibet, the Chinese Army occupied eight western Tibetan enclaves under Bhutanese administration. A Chinese map published in 1961 showed China claiming territories in Bhutan, Nepal and the independent kingdom of Sikkim (now a state of India). Incursions by Chinese soldiers and Tibetan herdsmen also provoked tensions in Bhutan. Imposing a cross-border trade embargo and closing the border, Bhutan established troughout its history very extensive military ties with India. During the 1962 Sino-Indian War, Bhutanese authorities permitted Indian troop movements through Bhutanese territory. However, India's defeat in the war raised concerns about India's ability to defend Bhutan.
Until the 1970’s, India represented Bhutan's concerns in talks with China over the broader Sino-Indian border conflicts. The path changed in 1971 when Bhutan voted in favor of the Communist China.
Since then, the two nations have tried to go towards a peaceful co-existence, especially since the 1998 agreements for maintaining peace on the border. Yet, China continued breaking these agreements, for instance by starting to build a road on Bhutanese-claimed territories at the end of the 1990’s, which made the negotiations last long.

The Chinese border disputes usually depend on the Chinese internal situation. When China is willing to concede territory, it is when something is wrong in the inner regions or provinces. What is left to solve is mainly solvable with negotiations between India and China.

III. Mobile borders in Central Asia

Central Asian Republics after the fall of the Soviet Union

For the past decade Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan have all been involved in high stakes negotiations to define their respective borders. In the years since independence, corruption, crime, and arbitrary bureaucratic power have made life difficult for local populations once accustomed to moving freely across what are now guarded international borders. The resolution of border issues peacefully and transparently would have a positive impact on regional security, economic cooperation, ethnic relations and efforts to combat drug trafficking and religious extremism.

The countries are highly interdependent in terms of networks, trade, social ties, and natural resource use. The water allocation is an especially sensitive issue. But, before all, the diversity of ethnicities is so complex these border disputes are not soon to end.

The most complex border negotiations involve the Ferghana Valley, where most of the enclaves are situated. All three countries which share it - Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan - have historical claims to each other's territory and economic interests in the transport routes, rivers, reservoirs, and industries. The enclaves were created by the former Soviet Union.
Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are heavily dependent on oil and gas from the other states and have proposed exchanges, but there has been a strong reluctance to change the status quo on the part of the downstream states. Uzbekistan has conducted training exercises that look worryingly appropriate for attacking the Toktogul water reservoir in Kyrgyzstan. It would moreover be strange if Uzbekistan’s military did not plan for defending what they consider to be their legitimate right to water, due to their historical access to water and, moreover, the country’s heavy reliance on water. The greatest regional threat at the military level is the militant Islamic fundamentalism that has increased in strength after independence. Most important in this case is the IMU (Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan) which in 1999 and 2000 conducted military operations in three states of the region and is believed to bear the responsibility for terrorist actions in Uzbekistan in both 1999 (the IMU incursions led Uzbekistan to mine its borders with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and since no clear border existed, numerous deaths and injuries were the result) and 2004.
These safety issues cannot easily be resolved, given the history between these countries and the threat posed by terrorism and ethnical conflicts. The ethnic composition in the region is problematic as all states have major minority groups that belong to one or several of its neighbors. The most extreme is Tajikistan where most of its titular people live either in Afghanistan or Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan on the other hand has the largest Diaspora groups in the other states. It is particularly true in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan where large populations of Uzbeks live in compartmentalized regions in the border areas with Uzbekistan. Such continued border conflicts in the region are a serious threat to the most important trade route that connects these three states.

Afghanistan and Pakistan: the Durand line

The Durand line is the result of an agreement between Sir Mortimer Durand, a secretary of the British Indian government, and Abdur Rahman Khan, the ruler of Afghanistan. The agreement was signed in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 1893. When the Durand Line was created in 1893, Pakistan was still a part of India, which was controlled by the United Kingdom. There are two major ethnic groups near the Durand Line: the Punjabis (the largest ethnic group in Pakistan) and the Pashtuns (the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan). Most Punjabis and Pashtuns are Sunni Muslim. There are also a lot of Pashtuns in northwestern Pakistan where the British established the Durand Line after conquering the Pashtuns’ land. Pakistan helped the Taliban take power in Afghanistan in the 1990s but says it cut support to them after joining the U.S.-led campaign against militancy following the 9-11 attacks on the United States. Pakistan, which is facing its own Taliban insurgency, says it wants peace and stability with its western neighbor. The conflict is still violent today: there are many battles along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. On one side is the Pakistani army, made up mostly of Punjabis, and on the other is the Taliban, made up mostly of Pashtuns. The conflict between the Taliban, the Afghanistan government, the Pakistani government, and foreign (including American) troops in the area is often violent. The Durand Line has endured suicide bombs, air strikes, or street fighting almost every day (2003, 2007, 2011…).

After the Death of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and the countless insurgent attacks in Afghanistan, U.S. military leaders said that terrorist safe havens in Pakistan must go, which came after the November 2011 NATO bombing in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed. In response to that incident, Pakistan decided to cut off NATO supply lines as well as boost border security by installing anti-aircraft guns and radars to monitor air activity.

Most of the Western forces are planning to withdraw by the end of next year but the dispute is not yet completely over. At the beginning of the month, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has ordered officials to take "immediate action" to remove the gate and other Pakistani military installations near the Durand Line.

Conclusion: end or future of conflicts? More than the border itself, it is the border dispute that seems to be an ingrained habit in South and Central Asia.
As many of these historical disputes are current even nowadays and still provoke conflicts, and sometimes armed interventions, many people create scenarios about the outcome of the great game of borders in South and Central Asia. Some underline China’s soft power, along with the complete withdrawal of foreign/US military forces from Afghanistan and Central Asia.

The remaining border disputes are sometimes hard to resolve because of the existing problems of sovereignty, history, tribal or ethnical feeling of belonging. Although some countries more or less managed to achieve an ethno-national identity, quite a few cannot match independence, statehood and allotted territory. That is why in some regions, people keep disregarding some obsolete administrative and political borders, which brings conflicts over and over again. Yet, the nations involved are either too weak or too influential to be able to come to reasonable agreements and balanced propositions - considering each party’s claims.
A positive conclusion is that a most of the disputes are directed towards a more peaceful type of negotiations, which can for instance reinsure the populations with respect to the security threats of terrorism or nuclear bombings. However, the situation can still be critical at times, the borders are neither well defined nor really crossed, which interferes in the international welfare of countries that are neighbors and would benefit more from peaceful and free trade and cooperation. It is also why the Western forces are still in fear and prefer to keep their military presence in some areas.