The insufficiency of military means to ensure external security is something Kyrgyzstan tries to compensate for by developing partnership relations, military and military-technical cooperation, and participation in collective security systems. The Military Doctrine of 2002 notes that, while providing for the development of the military organization of the state, “the Kyrgyz Republic attaches primary importance to political-diplomatic and other non-military actions to prevent, localize, and neutralize threats to the military security of the state.
Development of Partnership Relations. In order to develop partnership relations, Kyrgyzstan signed a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance with the Russian Federation (1992), Treaties of Eternal Friendship with the Republic of Uzbekistan (1996) and the Republic of Kazakhstan (1997), and a trilateral Treaty of Eternal Friendship with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan (1997). On December 25, 2003, the presidents of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Kazakhstan signed a Treaty on Allied Relations.
Agreements reached with the People's Republic of China regarding the border, as well as on strengthening trust in the military sphere in the border area (1996), and on mutual reduction of armed forces in the border area (1997) allowed for the consolidation of existing borders and the reduction of troops and weapons in the border zone. Today's foreign policy course of China, which involves renouncing territorial claims and establishing friendly and mutually beneficial relations with all neighboring states, along with Kyrgyzstan's renunciation of support for Uyghur separatists, has contributed to the normalization of relations with a former potential adversary. In 2002, a Treaty of Good Neighborliness, Friendship, and Cooperation was signed between the Kyrgyz Republic and the People's Republic of China.
The development of partnership relations with neighboring states is facilitated by emerging processes of economic integration. On October 10, 2000, at a meeting in Astana, the heads of state of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan signed a Treaty on the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community. In 2002, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan signed a Treaty on the Establishment of the Central Asian Cooperation Organization. In 2004, Russia joined the Treaty. On October 7, 2005, at a summit in St. Petersburg, the heads of the member states of the Central Asian Cooperation Organization decided to join it with the Eurasian Economic Community. The main argument for this unification was the minimization of bureaucratic hurdles for further economic integration. In early 2006, an Agreement was signed between Russia and Kazakhstan to establish the Eurasian Development Bank with a charter capital of $1.5 billion, the activities of which are planned to be extended to the Eurasian Economic Community.
Military and Military-Technical Cooperation developed in several directions:
• bilateral cooperation with post-Soviet states;
• multilateral cooperation within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Collective Security Treaty Organization;
• multilateral cooperation based on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization;
• bilateral and multilateral cooperation at the regional level;
• bilateral cooperation with states of the world community;
• cooperation with NATO in the "Partnership for Peace" program.
Within the framework of military and military-technical cooperation, Kyrgyzstan received significant assistance during the invasion of illegal armed formations of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan into the southern part of the country.
Participation in Collective Security Systems. The insufficiency of its own defense capabilities required external guarantees of sovereignty and territorial integrity for the new independent states. Turkmenistan chose a security model based on neutrality from the very beginning. The other states in the region chose the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as the main field of activity in ensuring security.
On March 20, 1992, a Declaration on the Non-Use of Force or Threat of Force in Relations Between the States - Participants of the CIS was signed in Kyiv. The Commonwealth states committed to resolving disputed issues exclusively by peaceful means. Subsequently, these commitments were enshrined in bilateral and multilateral treaties, as well as in the Memorandum on Maintaining Peace and Stability in the Commonwealth of Independent States (signed on February 10, 1995, in Almaty), in which the Commonwealth states pledged to refrain from military, political, economic, and other forms of pressure on each other.
However, the agreements reached did not ensure the neutralization of external threats to the entire CIS. The Treaty on Collective Security (TCS), signed in Tashkent on May 15, 1992, was intended to address this issue and became the starting point for creating a collective security system within the CIS. It provides for a refusal to enter into military alliances, participate in groupings of states, as well as in actions directed against a contracting state. “In the event of an act of aggression against any of the contracting states, all other contracting states shall provide it with the necessary assistance, including military assistance, and shall support it with the means at their disposal in the exercise of the right to collective self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.”
Two vectors of security provision are highlighted within the framework of the TCS. Firstly, the formation of allied relations and the creation of a mechanism for preventing crisis phenomena within the Commonwealth. Secondly, joint deterrence of aggressive aspirations and countering possible threats from the external environment using the combined capabilities of the participating states.
The second vector led to the creation of a military organization of the Commonwealth. On July 6, 1992, by decision of the Council of Heads of State of the Commonwealth, the Main Command of the Joint Armed Forces of the CIS was established. In the same year, an Agreement on the Means of Systems for Warning of Missile Attacks and Space Control was signed. The participants of the agreement committed to ensure their operation at the deployment sites and to refrain from actions that would hinder the combat functioning of these means in unified systems.
However, in the 1990s, the political circles in Russia favored a line aimed at strategic partnership with the USA and NATO in matters of security provision. The policy pursued by Moscow at that time of “getting rid of freeloaders” led to the failure of attempts at economic integration within the CIS. The new independent states found themselves in a position where their main task became physical survival. The issue of collective security remained outside the immediate interests of the establishment of the new independent states, including those in Central Asia. The lack of experience in security provision activities was evident. In the Soviet Union, the leadership of the republics was practically excluded from participating in solving such tasks. Moreover, the possibility of external danger was perceived theoretically.
In this situation, the Main Command of the Joint Armed Forces of the CIS began to be perceived as a supranational military management body dictating conditions to the Council of Heads of State of the Commonwealth. Over time, it was replaced by the Coordination Staff for Military Cooperation (CSMC) with significantly fewer powers and capabilities.
The process split into two parallel directions: on the scale of all Commonwealth countries under the auspices of the Coordination Staff for Military Cooperation and in a narrower composition among the countries that signed the Treaty on Collective Security. In the first case, the basis of joint activity was cooperation in the field of security provision, while in the second, the participating states focused their efforts on creating a collective security system.
In the interests of implementing the Treaty on Collective Security, on February 10, 1995, in Almaty, the Concept of Collective Security of the States - Participants of the Treaty was approved. The Concept formulated the main sources of military danger and principles of collective security, defined priority areas of joint activities to prevent military threats, paths and methods for preventing wars and armed conflicts, as well as countering aggression, and provided the main directions for creating a collective security system.
The practical implementation of the TCS was embodied in a unified air defense system, the main tasks of which are to jointly protect state borders in airspace and conduct coordinated actions of air defense forces of the participating states to repel air and space attacks. Within the framework of the Unified Air Defense System, exercises called "Combat Brotherhood" are held for the air defense of the CIS member states, and joint combat duty is carried out.
The first attempt to ensure security through joint efforts directly in Central Asia was the creation of collective peacekeeping forces on the territory of Tajikistan. According to the decision of the Council of Heads of State - Participants of the CIS on measures to stabilize the situation on the section of the state border of the Republic of Tajikistan with Afghanistan dated January 22, 1993, it included the 201st Motorized Rifle Division of the Russian Federation and military units from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. It is worth noting two features of the creation and functioning of collective peacekeeping forces. Firstly, a large part of them consisted of the military contingent from Russia, which is not geographically part of the region, indicating the weakness of the security systems of Central Asian states. Secondly, the collective peacekeeping forces were created primarily to prevent threats from Afghanistan. Subsequently, the hypothetical Afghan threat repeatedly served as the declared reason for attempts to consolidate efforts in the field of security.
The collective peacekeeping forces played an important role in stabilizing the situation in Tajikistan and preventing the spread of the internal Tajik conflict to the territory of the region. However, they did not become the basis for creating a collective security system in the Central Asian region. In 1995, Uzbekistan withdrew its battalion from Tajikistan. According to some experts, Tashkent's demarche was due to serious political and ethnic contradictions between Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. In February 1998, Kyrgyzstan followed Uzbekistan's example, and then Kazakhstan did the same. The number of Russian contingents was reduced.
The second attempt to create a regional security system was carried out within the framework of the Central Asian Cooperation Organization (CACO). The armed conflict in Tajikistan and the Afghan threat, which was inflated at every opportunity, stimulated the development of the process of military-political integration of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. In July 1994, an agreement on military-technical cooperation among the three Central Asian states was signed, based on which a Council of Defense Ministers was established. On December 15, 1995, the regulation on the Council of Defense Ministers was approved, and on January 23-24, 1997, in Almaty, a Committee of Chiefs of Staff was created. In the same year, to neutralize possible conflict hotspots and stabilize the situation in the region, a peacekeeping battalion called "Centrazbat" was created.
After Tajikistan joined the CACO, relations in the field of multilateral military cooperation among its members were curtailed. In 2000, at the initiative of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan I. Karimov, a decision was made to eliminate the military structure, which led to the dissolution of the Council of Defense Ministers.
The Batken events of 1999, the invasion of illegal armed formations into Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in 2000 changed the attitude of Central Asian states towards the issue of ensuring security in the region and served as a stimulus for the development of an effective collective security system. Activities in the field of joint security provision transitioned from the realm of declarations to practical implementation.
At the end of October - beginning of November 1999, literally immediately after the completion of the first "Batken War," command-staff exercises "Southern Shield of the Commonwealth - 99" were held in the Ferghana Valley, as well as in the Chimkent and Jambyl regions of Kazakhstan, coordinating the actions of four Central Asian states and Russia in case of a worsening situation in the region.
Six months later, the same countries, under the auspices of the Coordination Staff for Military Cooperation of the CIS, conducted coalition exercises "Southern Shield of the Commonwealth - 2000" with the involvement of the unified air defense system of the CIS. Operational groups from Belarus and Armenia participated in the exercises. Before the start of the exercises, their leader - Deputy Head of the CSMC Lieutenant General Leonid Maltsev - stated that “for the first time, the mechanism of the Treaty on Collective Security would be effectively engaged, allowing for the strengthening of the collective military forces of its participants in one region of the Commonwealth or another.”
In the same year, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan signed a quadrilateral agreement providing for joint actions to protect against international extremism.
To enhance the effectiveness of the fight against "international terrorism," an anti-terrorist center was established in 2000 (Moscow, with a branch in Bishkek), which performed analytical functions. A system for exchanging operational data among intelligence agencies and other special services involved in collecting and analyzing information about the actions and intentions of illegal armed formations was created.
In 2001, joint command-staff exercises of Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan "Southern Shield of the Commonwealth - 2001" were held in Moscow, which addressed issues of repelling attacks by armed formations in the Central Asian theater of military operations.
To combat international terrorism, collective rapid reaction forces were created. They included army units from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. Air support was provided by the Russian Air Force. A regulatory framework was prepared for the actions of the collective rapid reaction forces — a collective agreement on benefits in military-technical cooperation, agreements on railway transportation of troops and military property, and others. According to the Agreement on the Basic Principles of Military-Technical Cooperation signed in June 2000, the states - participants of the Treaty on Collective Security implement armaments and military equipment among themselves at prices set for their armies.
Equally intense activities to create a collective security system unfolded within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In 1999, a Memorandum on Cooperation and Interaction of Law Enforcement Agencies and Special Services of the SCO member states was signed in Bishkek, and in 2000, a Convention on Combating Terrorism, Separatism, and Extremism was adopted. A Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure was established with a base in Bishkek. At a meeting in Astana in 2003, the heads of state - members of the SCO put on the agenda the issue of forming an integrated, comprehensive, multi-level regional security system in the Central Asian region.
Problems. The development of partnership relations with Central Asian states did not stimulate the resolution of inter-state contradictions and did not contribute to the cessation of economic pressure in the form of customs and communication restrictions.
Participation in the same international organizations did not entail obligations to extend their principles to inter-state relations in the region and to refrain from unfriendly actions towards neighbors. In this regard, the following principles are violated:
• the principles of the SCO regarding mutual respect for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity of states and inviolability of state borders, non-aggression, non-interference in internal affairs, non-use of force or threat of force in international relations, and the refusal of unilateral military superiority in adjacent areas;
• obligations within the framework of the Treaty on Collective Security to refrain from the use of force or threat of force in inter-state relations and to resolve all disagreements between themselves and with other states by peaceful means.
Attempts to create systems of collective security in the region at various levels until 1999 were largely unsuccessful. The reasons for these failures were primarily inter-state contradictions, as well as the absence of real common security threats. Common goals were not openly declared. Mostly, there was talk of countering the spread of Islamic extremism and preventing drug trafficking, but in reality, the spectrum of common interests is much broader. This includes security guarantees concerning China. Although it pursues a balanced policy in the region, its power and influence are growing, and one cannot exclude the rise of conflict in the future. The threat from Afghanistan has not been completely removed from the agenda, where the central government controls large cities with the help of contingents of Western coalition troops, while real power at the local level belongs to numerous armed formations. Recovering from its defeat, supporters of the "Taliban" are strengthening their positions. Overall, it is the awareness of the need for additional security guarantees in the context of significant uncertainty regarding the prospects for the military-political situation in the region and around it that contributes to the activation of efforts by Central Asian states and Russia to form a viable structure of collective security.
Despite the intensification of activities to create a collective security system after 1999, many of the reasons for the initial failures have not been eliminated. There is still no real common military threat to security for all states. Inter-state contradictions have bred mutual distrust. The practical interaction issues within the frameworks of collective security systems are limited due to fears of allowing representatives of the armed forces of other states onto their territory. During actual combat operations, these shortcomings could lead to unjustified human casualties. A precedent occurred in 1999 in Kyrgyzstan. Due to unfamiliarity with the combat area, Uzbek stormtroopers mistakenly bombed the village of Kara-Teyit. As a result of the error, 7 people died, and more than a dozen were injured. Thus, the formation of a collective security system in the region remains at the level of political decisions.
The extension of the stay of the US military contingent on Kyrgyz territory indefinitely after the signing of the Astana Declaration by the heads of SCO states in 2005 significantly reduced the effectiveness of its foreign policy efforts to ensure external security. Just as during the Gulf War of 1991, the US used the "anti-terrorist" operation in Afghanistan to establish its military bases. By asserting its military presence in the region, the US continues to encircle Russia and China with a system of military bases, which cannot but concern these countries.
Russia, which has long-standing historical, economic, political, and cultural ties with Central Asia, perceives the central Asian policy of Washington and the presence of American military contingents here as a threat to its national interests, believing that this presence, under certain conditions, could be used to exert military and other pressure on it. “Parts of American troops that remain at military bases or in Afghanistan or Pakistan will become a permanent headache for China. In this case, China will face the presence of missile defense components in close proximity to its borders. And with the placement of appropriate reconnaissance and monitoring systems at these bases, the southern regions of China will be like an open book, which cannot but cause dissatisfaction on the part of China.”
In this context, the actions of the official Bishkek can be seen as violating contractual obligations within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the SCO. The Collective Security Treaty states that “the contracting states shall not enter into military alliances or participate in any groupings of states, nor in actions directed against another contracting state.” One of the principles of the SCO is to prevent any unlawful actions directed against the interests of the SCO, and therefore against the states - participants. Kyrgyzstan may become an undesirable member of the CSTO and SCO, which could lead to corresponding practical actions from the other members of the organizations (if only to maintain the prestige of the organizations). Kyrgyzstan may lose the security guarantees of the SCO and CSTO, and then it will have to ensure its military security, including against threats from neighboring states, solely by its own forces.