By Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh
On
September 28, the Afghan Taliban, in what was described as its biggest victory
in 15 years, seized control of the city of Kunduz, the country’s fifth-largest
city. While the Afghan army was eventually able to regain control, the fall of
Kunduz, however brief, was a cause for major concern not only in Afghanistan,
but in Afghanistan’s neighbor to the north, Tajikistan.
The reason had to do with Kunduz’s location. The city
lies a very short distance from the Panj River, which forms most of the roughly
810-mile border between Afghanistan and Tajikistan.
This border has received a lot of attention in recent
years, mostly as a potential source of instability and insecurity. And there
are real reasons for concern. Heroin—of which Afghanistan is a major
supplier—regularly crosses this border in huge quantities en route to Russia
and Europe. The recent events in Kunduz also evoked the specter of extremist
fighters seeking to gain a foothold across the river.
These two concerns have informed many of the
international community’s policies towards the border regions of the two
countries, and over the past decade or so, vast sums have been invested to
counter these threats, often in the form of support to border forces and
counter-narcotics agencies.
All too often, however, the discourse around border
security has neglected the human security needs of the
communities living along the border, whose lives are directly affected by the
actions of governments, international organizations, and criminal or insurgent
groups of various stripes.
How do these communities assess the threats and
opportunities of living close to borders? How do they see their needs and
to what extent are these needs met by domestic or international actors? How do
they relate to their kin on the other side of borders? What roles can they play
in furthering cooperation between the two states and contributing to long-term
stability and development?
In the early summer of 2014, two colleagues—Kosimsho
Iskandarov of Tajikistan’s Academy of Sciences and Abdul Ahad Mohammadi of the
Afghan Institute of Strategic Studies—and I decided to find out. As part of
a joint project on security and human rights in Central Asia supported
by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and the Open Society
Foundations, our team visited five districts on the Tajik side of the border,
and three—including Kunduz—on the Afghan side.
The study assessed how border populations living on
both sides of the Amu Darya and Panj rivers in Afghanistan and Tajikistan viewed
their human security needs, how they related to communities on opposite sides
of the borders, and what roles they could play in reducing border tensions. We
interviewed a wide spectrum of people, both men and women, from a variety of
ethnic groups and all walks of life: government officials, the clergy, security
and law enforcement, community leaders, farmers, drivers, construction workers,
teachers, students, journalists, housewives, the unemployed, and pensioners.
Here’s what we found:
While most people pointed to an
increase in physical security and stability over the years, these gains were
seen as easily reversible, and had not led to improved livelihoods. A lack of
employment opportunities, poor access to education and health care services,
inadequate regulation of vitally important water resources—all of these
contributed to a sense of frustration at best and despair at worst. In short,
the security of borders did not necessarily correspond to the human security of
border communities.
Communities living along the
border often exist in a state of double isolation, both from their own
countries and from each other. Infrastructure linking them to the relatively
more economically developed center (especially in Afghanistan) is often
lacking, and efforts by governments to impose strict controls on the border
prevent easy access to communities on the other side. Although the past few
years have seen the openings of new bridges, bazaars, and crossing points at
several places along the border, in most cases, there is little to suggest that
the local communities have benefitted much.
Infrequent and limited
cross-border contact has led to negative stereotyping and entrenched
assumptions. This, in turn, contributes to mutual suspicion or, at best,
apathy, and further undermines the potential for collaboration and mutual
development.
Why should any of this matter? Simply put, when border
communities are protected, provided for, and empowered, they can be positive
agents for stability and cooperation. If, on the other hand, they remain
isolated and neglected, they can become points of vulnerability that contribute
to border insecurity.
What is needed is a model of border security that goes
beyond traditional physical security measures to focus equally on developing
secure and prosperous communities across borders. Such a model would have two
key components.
First, border communities should be directly involved
in the selection of development priorities. Local communities need to be
empowered to allow for their greater participation in local governance. People
need to be given economic and social opportunities that would provide real
alternatives to illegal activities, and prevent potentially destabilizing
manifestations of discontent.
Second, more and better cooperation between
communities across borders will increase mutual trust and confidence. Investing
in joint projects—around sharing of water resources, for instance—will also
help alleviate environmental and economic insecurity. And more investments in
border markets—including easier access, simplified procedures for the movement
of people and goods, and improved infrastructure—can help these markets fulfill
their potential.
The recent events in Kunduz show the need for a
comprehensive approach to security, one that does not privilege state security
over human security, especially in a potentially dangerous and vulnerable
region. Addressing human security needs now can help prevent grave consequences
in the future.
About The Author:
About The Author:
Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh is a
research associate at the Peace Research Institute Oslo.
This article was first published at Open Society Foundation's Website on October 14, 2015 and is licensed under CreativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 and abide by the Intellectual Property Clause of OSF