The UN Mission of Observers in Tajikistan (UNMOT) officially ended on May 15. Following his final report to the UN Security Council last week, the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Tajikistan, Ivo Petrov, spoke on May 16 to the press at UN Headquarters in New York. Petrov called UNMOT a success, but said that problems may still lie ahead for Tajikistan. Below are his comments followed by three questions and answers.

Petrov: After seven years of UN involvement in Tajikistan, after five and a half years UNMOT in Tajikistan, yesterday (May 15) the mission came to a close after successfully implementing its mandate. This should be considered a success of UN peacekeeping. The reasons for this success are, first, the UN involvement at a very early stage of the civil war in Tajikistan; then the contribution of neighboring states who all made attempts and offered the good offices of their capitals for meetings of the Tajik warring parties, who made everything possible to bring the warring parties together. But the biggest reason for this success was the input of the two Tajik parties themselves – the government and the United Tajik Opposition (UTO), who after four years of negotiations came to a peace agreement…

The time period allocated for its implementation was 12 to 18 months. It took 32 months, but in the difficult situation after a civil war, it should be recognized as speedy progress. Now we have the situation after the general elections of February-March of this year – the elections were held on a multiparty basis – we now have a government and parliament functioning and the basic needs for a state to function.

The success of the peace process does not mean that Tajikistan is without problems. [See Eurasia Insight] Take only the surroundings. There is a constant instability generator in the south. Unless the Afghan situation is solved, there will always be reason to be very careful in saying that the situation in Tajikistan is irreversible. That’s why one of the main concerns of the Tajik government nowadays is also the situation in Afghanistan.

One source of concern is also the dire economic situation of the country. It is the poorest country of all the CIS states, with less than $10 per capita per month income. The international community was helpful in overcoming the humanitarian crisis in the country during these seven years, but what is necessary now is economic assistance for the country to underpin the achievements of the peace process and to additionally stabilize the country. I have said and I will repeat it now that compared with other countries in a similar situation – that is where there has been a civil war, there have been parties who have negotiated a peace agreement that has been implemented with the assistance of the international community – compared with such countries, the Tajik people have not received enough assistance, material assistance, from outside.

Now the new period, the transitional period, a period of stabilization of the achievements of the peace process, could be a good occasion for the international community to show interest in the situation, to help stabilize the situation in Tajikistan, which is vital for the stability of Central Asia as a whole.

Question: The United Tajik Opposition – was that primarily a right wing Muslim group?

Petrov: No, I wouldn’t describe it as a right wing Muslim group. First, the United Tajik Opposition was constituted of different political forces, some of which were not religious at all. The Democratic Party of Tajikistan is a secular party. … The Islamic Renaissance Party, which was the main body of the opposition, the United Tajik Opposition, that was a religious party, but I would never describe it as a right-wing religious movement.

Question: What role should the UN now play in Tajikistan, especially given some of the economic challenges facing the country? And the approach used in Tajikistan, which seems to be successful at this point – is there anything learned from that that can be used in Afghanistan?

Petrov: The UN, in my view, has a role to play in Tajikistan in the future through all its agencies. The UN could also have a political role in Tajikistan to help stabilize the peace process. But also the other agencies – UNDP, UNHCR, WHO, UNICEF – all are present on the ground, and they have a lot do to in a country where you have unemployment, where the social sector has collapsed, where the health system has also collapsed, and where through international assistance the country is getting more than 60 percent of the medicine being used in the country. I will underline that assistance, also political, to underpin the achievements of the peace process is very essential for the next one and a half years.

About applying the methods of resolution in Tajikistan to other areas, in other areas yes (it would work), in Afghanistan, maybe… The model of guarantor states had a very positive impact in Tajikistan, very positive impact. The contact group of guarantor states and international organizations – which has functioned for two and a half years and held more than 130 meetings – was very instrumental in advising the government, giving expertise and good offices in the periodic crises that occurred in the implementation of the general agreement.

Question: There were a number of successful hostage negotiations during this mission. Can you shed any further light on these episodes, and are there any valuable lessons for the UN that can be applied elsewhere in the world?

Petrov: We had two major hostage takings in which UN personnel were involved that were managed successfully. There was another hostage taking which did not have UN personnel involved, which ended with the killing of one of the hostages. There are several what we’ll call lessons learned, positive lessons learned. And I understand there is also an idea to have an international conference here later this year with the participation of major players during these seven years of UN involvement who could shed light on what could be used also in other peacekeeping operations. There is also the panel of experts on peacekeeping now, and we have sent them our lessons learned in a concise form that they can use in their elaboration on the issue.

Email this article
Posted May 17, 2000 ©Eurasianet
http://www.eurasianet.org

	The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, politcal and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.