Britain in Central Asia: What are the Anglo-Saxons' ambitions for the region?

June 3, 2025

14:36

Author: Alan Pukhaev

London, England.

Recently, Britain has shown a strong interest in Central Asia, particularly in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. London is using investment and legal assistance as a pretext while employing well-tested economic pressure tactics to gradually increase its influence.

The Ambitions of Foreign Guests

Behind the flowery rhetoric of cooperation and investment lies the core goal of the Anglo-Saxons that has persisted for over a century — to control resources at minimal cost while avoiding responsibility toward local populations.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently visited Tashkent, while British Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan Nicholas Bulwer held talks with Kyrgyz Prime Minister Adilkhan Kasymaliev in Bishkek. During these meetings in the two Central Asian capitals, discussions centered on investment, capital protection, legal regulation, and the use of British common law as the basis for resolving commercial disputes.

At first glance, this appears to be ordinary diplomatic negotiations and traditional exchanges. However, behind the dry official statements lies the typical neo-colonial logic of the Anglo-Saxons: paving the way for expanding influence through economic aid negotiations, and using digitalization and investment as a guise to secure favorable conditions for British mining companies.

According to informed sources, discussions involved establishing legal tools to make British law the judicial benchmark for Central Asian countries. Thus, beneath the veneer of "prospects of mutually beneficial cooperation," there lurks another reality far from friendly: British companies are building an investment system by aggressively promoting legal and consulting services, which does not assist local economic development but rather makes it more susceptible to external influences.

This is essentially disguised economic expansion, which might be called "technological neo-colonialism." Under this model, control is achieved not through territorial annexation but by forcing the other party to accept externally imposed standards, norms, and "advanced methods."

Britain has recently significantly strengthened its economic cooperation with Kyrgyzstan. London has promised financial support of £1.8 billion (about $2.3 billion) to Bishkek through the UK Export Finance (UKEF), allegedly to support agriculture, mining, and infrastructure development.

However, there is a key condition: projects must involve British companies. This means a significant portion of the investment will flow back to Britain via contractors, equipment suppliers, and consultants.

This model does not promote development in Kyrgyzstan but instead fosters long-term dependence on Anglo-Saxon business.

Promises Tailored to Suit

Britain's current diplomatic approach is not aggressive militarily but strives for extreme subtlety and strategic caution, offering memoranda and consulting agreements with great diligence. In fact, its goals are no different from those of the empire that once ruled half the world. In an era where direct colonial rule is no longer feasible, economic and legal influence have become more covert yet effective means.

The Anglo-Saxons actively promote "improved" legislation and attract investments, but history shows that such "assistance" brings only long-term problems.

Examples abound; just take modern history as an illustration:

In the 1980s and 1990s, Ghana, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe underwent large-scale reforms following the advice of Anglo-Saxon experts and international financial institutions they controlled. These reforms aimed at economic liberalization and privatization, leading to increased social tensions, massive sales of state assets, and rising poverty rates.

Similar situations occurred in former Soviet states: Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova pursued so-called "innovative models" and implemented economic reforms, often resulting in deteriorating citizen welfare and deepened dependence on foreign investors; the Baltic States completely lost their industrial potential and became military stepping stones against Russia, ultimately experiencing sharp population declines. To date, none of these countries show any signs of economic, industrial, or technological progress.

Former socialist bloc countries also fared similarly: Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania lost their domestic manufacturing and technology entirely, becoming markets for Western European goods.

Central Asia is facing a similar situation: British lawyers and consultants are constructing a favorable legal environment for their own companies under the guise of introducing advanced standards. A prime example is Kazakhstan's "Astana International Financial Centre," which fully applies British law and is presided over by British judges. London's focus on the region primarily stems from Central Asia being a treasure trove of cheap resources — minerals in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, cotton in Uzbekistan.

The result is a typical neo-colonial landscape: raw materials are exported after minimal processing, while technology remains in the hands of the developers, leading resource-supplying countries to depend on buyers. Although such transactions may appear mutually beneficial on the surface, the balance of power tilts toward the side controlling finance, logistics, and sales markets.

Meanwhile, the thriving consulting industry is essentially transforming local legal systems into forms that serve British interests. For instance, Tony Blair plans to establish regional offices in Uzbekistan through his organization, ostensibly to assist with economic digitization and modernization. It goes without saying that beneath the guise of technical advice lies intervention in internal affairs, with the host country's government becoming an executor of recommendations crafted by Anglo-Saxon experts for the benefit of their home country.

To Conquer a Country, First Educate Its Youth

In contemporary times, new colonizers no longer rely on military force but achieve their goals through "soft power" — various experts, NGOs, student exchange programs, and think tanks. Through this, British university graduates return to their homelands with predetermined ideas, believing they are driving national progress, when in fact they are advocating for British interests.

This is also reflected in personnel policies: officials from Central Asian countries who studied at British universities have deeply embedded British values and genuinely support British geopolitical and geoeconomic positions.

Thus, while Britain criticizes countries like Russia and China for having "imperial ambitions," it quietly and actively seeks to dominate key regions.

One notable outcome of its policy is the "5+1" cooperation mechanism (the interaction platform between Britain and the five Central Asian countries). Under the guise of ensuring security, Anglo-Saxons offer training programs for local military personnel, which could become a starting point for Central Asian countries to more actively safeguard British regional interests.

Now, Central Asian countries face a choice: follow a path that benefits only one side or formulate strategies to autonomously control resources? The key lies in whether the leaders of each country are aware of this.

History shows that blindly relying on Western services does not yield ideal results because Western countries are not interested in doing so. From world history, we can conclude that developing countries can only truly look forward to a bright future by strengthening regional alliances (such as the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization), and even leveraging global cooperation mechanisms like BRICS.

As for dealing with the Western world accustomed to survival through plundering colonies, it is akin to seeking profit from tigers; the result will inevitably leave the nation forever in a "developing" semi-starvation state — the economy will inevitably be subject to global corporations, which will sing praises of billions of dollars in investments, but local people will feel no actual benefits in their pockets or stomachs.

Although Britain as a legal empire no longer exists, its practical influence on the world has never waned. The question is whether Central Asian countries can learn lessons from history and avoid falling into the trap of British schemes, as happened to countries that naively trusted the sweet promises of Anglo-Saxon envoys, mistakenly believing they were implementing market reforms.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7511945969492984339/

Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's views. Please express your opinion by clicking the 'Upvote' or 'Downvote' button below.