Defining the lines that divide us
If asked, most of us, as normal citizens, would probably say that in the present day, apart from a few well-known disputes, the drawing of boundaries between OSCE participating States is a non-issue. But in fact, territorial ambiguities in the region abound. Some are the result of new international boundaries created since the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Some are a result of geographical movement: a river that defines a boundary changes course. And sometimes, there are discrepancies between treaty descriptions or maps and the practice on the ground.
Which leads us to a second popular misconception: that once two states have agreed on allocation of territory, tracing the boundaries on the map and on the ground is a straightforward, purely technical process. It is, in fact, complex and full of political pitfalls.
The OSCE participating States agreed on a common Border Security and Management Concept in 2005, embracing the political vision of open and secure borders in a free, democratic and more integrated OSCE area. Since this time, the OSCE Conflict Prevention Centre’s Borders Team has developed a rich programme of support for the realization of this vision. But time and again uncertainties and long standing disagreements about where the boundaries actually run have gotten in the way of progress.
At the request of the Lithuanian Chairmanship, the Borders Team organized a seminar in Vilnius on 31 May and 1 June 2011: Applied Issues in International Land Boundary Delimitation/Demarcation Practices. Presentations by academics and experts exposed the border officials, lawyers and diplomats from 20 participating States who attended to different models and methods of boundary-making and to possibilities for technical assistance. And not insignificantly, representatives of neighbouring countries had an opportunity to interact on the meeting’s margins. The exercise was about inclusiveness in defining the lines that divide us.
A complex process
The line that separates two states needs to be defined by mutual agreement. This is a task border experts call delimitation or delineation. It is matter of negotiation between states, and ideally should be as unambiguous as possible. Delimitation is usually followed by demarcation: physically marking the agreed dividing line on the ground, typically with cement or metal monuments at set intervals. Delimitation and demarcation are mutually dependent. The experts in Vilnius concurred that many tensions can be avoided if political delimitation negotiations, even at the highest level, anticipate problems that may develop on the ground.
With a flexible and adequate mandate, boundary commissions have been able to resolve many disputes that could have sparked conflict.
Boundary related negotiation is a complex process. Bilateral negotiations are usually, but not always, the best option. Ambassador Andreja Metelko-Zgombic of Croatia pointed to the examples of her country’s negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina on the one hand, and its submission of the question of the boundary with Slovenia to international arbitration on the other. A middle course is using the good offices of a third party.
Delimitation is usually carried out by boundary commissions. Experts stressed the importance of empowering them to negotiate. Experience has shown that frustrations arising when commissions lack the authority to broker conclusive agreements can cause relations between states to deteriorate. On the positive side, skilful delimitation can be an instrument of conflict prevention. “With a flexible and adequate mandate, boundary commissions have been able to resolve many disputes that could have sparked conflict,” said John Donaldson of Durham University.
Equally important is that a commission spends time in the field and takes account of the human element, the perceptions of people living near the boundaries. “It is crucial for residents to understand the delimitation and demarcation process and how it may affect their lives, it helps prevent conflicts,” Nurlan Sakenov, of the Foreign Ministry of Kazakhstan remarked. Sometimes communities straddle the proposed lines, sometimes there are issues of property rights or land use. There are many possibilities for compromise. Land can be exchanged, a forest for a field, for instance.
Senior negotiators from Lithuania and Belarus spoke about the 13 years’ work of the joint Lithuanian-Belarusian boundary commission to delimit the ambiguous boundary inherited from the Soviet period, completed in 2007. “The co-chairpersons of the commission were entrusted to make revisions to the line, providing there was an equal transfer of total territory. The commission sought to respect the boundaries of existing land and property and retain the integrity of transport and communication infrastructure on either side.” explained Zenonas Kumetatitis of the Lithuanian Foreign Ministry.
The commission sought to respect the boundaries of existing land and property and retain the integrity of transport and communication infrastructure on either side.
Driving the pillars into the ground
Demarcation, the physical marking of boundaries, is a complex process in itself, but should not be seen as a one off procedure. It is very much influenced and interlinked to the delimitation stage. “Discrepancies between the information gathered at the delimitation stage and the situation on the ground are a problem, the quality of demarcation depends heavily on the quality of delimitation data” said Gennadiy Breskalenko, of the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine. In some cases, the demarcation stage is an opportunity to improve inadequate delimitation, with marker locations being incorporated into the official boundary documents.
The nature and frequency of boundary markers depend on the physical and human geography of the boundary. Different approaches may be needed along a single line. Markers must be visible to borderland populations. “Unless they know where the boundary is located, neighbouring states risk encroachment of settlement or land use across the boundary, disputes about land ownership and resource entitlement and development of no-man’s land areas where potentially valuable land remains unused and law enforcement uncertainty encourages criminal activity,” explained Durham University’s Martin Pratt.
But the process is not over once the pillars have been driven into the ground. They have to be maintained, sometimes replaced. Geography changes. Uncertainties arise. Good boundary maintenance can resolve ambiguities that could spark a dispute, prevent a conflict over boundary definition before it can escalate. Al Arsenault, of Canada, spoke of his experiences with one of the oldest permanent boundary commissions, the Canada-United States International Border Commission (IBC), which has been in operation since 1925 and in which he served as deputy Canadian commissioner. Over 8,600 boundary markers define the longest land boundary in the world. The IBC keeps boundary maps updated and retains comprehensive data for each boundary marker. Annual field operations are led by the two deputy commissioners, who maintain close contact throughout the year. The trust within the IBC is so well developed that either side is permitted to replace and repair pillars unilaterally and communicate the results to the other side.
A chance for the OSCE to build confidence
While negotiations on boundary issues are sovereign matters of participating States, the OSCE is able to provide a forum for discussion of best practices and obstacles that others have experienced and are willing to share. The seminar in Vilnius was the Organization’s first opportunity to engage on the topic. The experience showed that exposure to examples of peaceful settlement of boundary disputes can be beneficial to participating States currently experiencing difficulties with boundary issues.
Clearly, boundary definition is a topic well-suited to the OSCE’s mandate for promoting stability in its region. Just as poorly negotiated or demarcated boundaries can be the cause of attrition in the relations between states, maintaining good practices in the processes of delimitation and demarcation can be tools for building inclusiveness. As is always the case in matters of conflict prevention, political will, pragmatism and the willingness to compromise are the keys to success.