The Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) published yesterday the findings from its recent inquiry into the UK’s engagement in Central Asia, the first such inquiry into the region since 1999. The aim of the inquiry was to “establish the nature of the [UK] Government’s current engagement as well as to identify opportunities for broadening and deepening engagement”.^[1]

The Committee’s report ‘Countries at crossroads: UK engagement in Central Asia’ highlights a number of key areas of concern, from illicit finance, human rights, trade and the environment, and sets out twenty-eight recommendations for the UK Government to take forward in order to be “both a reliable long-term partner and a critical friend” to the countries in the region.

“The UK Government now needs to adopt a clear, values-led approach to engagement in Central Asia”^[2]

– the Foreign Affairs Committee

Below is a summary of FPC’s engagement with the inquiry, as well as the FAC’s key findings and recommendations included in the report. FPC Research Fellow Dr Aijan Sharshenova and Professor John Heathershaw at the University of Exeter, who both gave oral evidence to the Committee’s inquiry (transcripts of which are available here), have also provided their initial reactions to the Committee’s report.

Background to FPC’s Engagement with the Inquiry

In March 2023, the Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), based on our publication series Can Britain be a ‘force for good’ in Central Asia?, submitted written evidence to the inquiry, which is available to read here.^[3] In June 2023, FPC and the John Smith Trust co-organised an online roundtable with experts from the region with the aim of providing an opportunity for a timely discussion on these themes. The outcomes and recommendations of this roundtable were also shared with the Committee, and are available here. FPC’s has been referenced in the FAC’s report seven times, and our Research Fellow Dr Sharshenova thirteen times.

Responding to the report’s release yesterday, Dr Aijan Sharshenova, said:

“[The report spotlights] the UK’s link to illicit financing and the Central Asian states, with an emphasis on the need to get its own house in order if the UK’s going to lead a values-based approach and promote democracy in the region.”

“This report goes further than anticipated on spotlighting the UK’s link to illicit financing and the Central Asian states, with an emphasis on the need to get its own house in order if the UK’s going to lead a values-based approach and promote democracy in the region. The report also looks more closely at the often overlooked tensions in Gorno-Badakhshan.”

“As a Chevening scholar myself, I am pleased the Committee took on my recommendation and is arguing for the expansion of Chevening scholarships for applicants from the Central Asian states.”

“The UK’s soft power influence and how the UK can restore its credibility in this area is outlined, but the report does not officially recommend the need for restoring funding to the BBC World Service in the region as was put forward by multiple expert witnesses as a way of countering the Russian-language monopoly. It does however state the need to combat Russian disinformation.”

“The report […] fails to mention media freedom, which is an omission as the UK is seen as a frontrunner in promoting this value alongside the US and the EU”

“The report also fails to mention media freedom, which is an omission as the UK is seen as a frontrunner in promoting this value alongside the US and the EU, especially in Kyrgyzstan where the UK Embassy supports independent local media jointly with the EU, Germany, France and the US.^[4] More support and measures could be done earlier in this area. This seems a missed opportunity, given the importance for people in the region to be able to access a range of independent information regarding the issues that concern their societies, and would have sat well alongside the human rights recommendations made by the report.”

And, Professor John Heathershaw, University of Exeter:

“This is a strong report which is especially hard-hitting on the kleptocracy problem. It also shines a light on little-known problems such as the terrible oppression of the people of the Pamirs by the dictatorship in Tajikistan.”

“As the report itself acknowledges, British financial and legal services have brought the kleptocracy problem to the UK. The BBC was a major source of free media in the region but has been harmed by government cuts. The Chevening scholarships to study in UK universities should be expanded, as the report argues.”

“The weakness of the report is that it’s too focused on geopolitics – where the UK has almost-zero power – and not on business and culture where UK-based non-state actors have huge global significance.”

“It is not realistic to form a CA5+UK forum at anything other than a junior level. Such a forum would be largely performative and achieve little. The UK is simply not at the level of the US, EU, Russia, and China who have similar forums with Central Asian states. The reason that France and Germany have far greater diplomatic engagement with Central Asia is not just a matter of choice but of their membership of the EU.”

“The power of ‘Global Britain’ is its non-state actors – in business and culture – not its shrunken aid budget, its relatively small armed forces, its beleaguered diplomatic service, and the diminished global position of the UK state following Brexit.”

“The power of ‘Global Britain’ is its non-state actors – in business and culture – not its shrunken aid budget, its relatively small armed forces, its beleaguered diplomatic service, and the diminished global position of the UK state following Brexit. British business and culture can either worsen or improve corruption and human rights violations in Central Asia when they engage in the region. It is the business of foreign policy of a middle power such as the UK to ensure that British institutions make things better not worse. They can do so, for example, by increasing scholarships to the UK and enforcing economic crime laws – as the report recommends.”

A Summary of the Key Recommendations in the Committee’s Report:

“For too long UK engagement has been characterised by reactiveness and short-termism […] We urge the Government to be considerably bolder and more ambitious in approaches to trade, human rights, regional cooperation, cultural exchange, and the environment.”

 – the Foreign Affairs Committee

• On UK engagement, the report calls for a Central Asia 5+UK meeting to be held in 2024 and recommends further high-level ministerial engagement with the region outside this meeting and to be held more regularly over the coming three years.

• On illicit finance, an issue that features heavily in the report, the Committee lays out key actions for the Government to take domestically and regionally for the UK to lead by example, as well as, outlines the implications of not doing so on the UK’s engagement with the Central Asia states.^[5]

• On the environment, the vulnerability of the region to climate change is emphasised and roadmaps for the UK to offer assistance are suggested, particularly on how to foster collaboration regionally on water use and renewable energy through the use of the UK’s convening power.

• On human rights issues, the report recommends:
  • Ways to “prevent tensions and escalation of violence in Gorno-Badakshan”.^[6]
  • Implementing the recommendations made in the Committee’s previous report – Never Again: The UK’s Responsibility to Act on Atrocities in Xinjiang and Beyond.^[7]
  • Applying lessons learned from the reforms on forced labour in Uzbekistan to forced cotton picking in Turkmenistan.
  • An overhaul of how the UK Government supports local civil society organisations and makes appropriate amendments to reduce the reporting burden on recipients of UK funding.
  • Coordinating action with the EU and US on suspending trading arrangements with Central Asian industries that are perpetuating human rights abuses, when and where appropriate.

• On education, the report outlines key areas where the UK can be ‘force for good’ and develop its soft power influence through establishing permanent British Council offices in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan (a recommendation from the 1999 report);^[8] supporting Uzbekistan’s World Conference on Creative Economy through high-level ministerial presence; expanding the Chevening scholarships available for Central Asian applicants; and responding to calls for engagement with UK expertise on educational reform.

• On security, the report calls for the UK to not “shirk its responsibilities” when it comes to drug trafficking with both drugs themselves and the illicit gains derived from them having links to the City of London.^[9] Secondly, it recommends that the Government focus on offering training to Central Asian armed forces when and where appropriate, keeping in mind the potential of misuse of the security apparatus by authoritarian leaders.

• On trade and investment, the report calls for a longer-term coordinated strategy in regards to the UK and its business community’s engagement with the region, making sure that ethical standards are maintained and “choosing noregret investments, which can be adjusted in light of any changing political situations on the ground.”^[10]

Disclaimer: This is a rapid analysis of the Committee’s report. The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre.

^[1] Foreign Affairs Committee, Countries at crossroads: UK engagement in Central Asia – Report Summary, UK Parliament, November 2023, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmfaff/1158/summary.html

^[2] Ibid, summary.

^[3] Adam Hug, Can Britain be a ‘force for good’ in Central Asia?, Foreign Policy Centre, December 2022, https://fpc.org.uk/publications/can-britain-be-a-force-for-good-in-central-asia/

^[4] UK in Kyrgyzstan, Twitter statement, Twitter, November 2023, https://twitter.com/ukinkyrgyzstan/status/1720132078820381040?s=46&t=L6RXrVacL1Z6pVUonYmAbA

^[5] Ibid, paragraph 36, page 22.

^[6] Ibid, paragraph 51, page 31.

^[7] Foreign Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2021–22, “Never Again: the UK’s responsibility to act on the atrocities in Xinjiang and beyond”, HC 198

^[8] Foreign Affairs Committee, Sixth Report of Session 1998–90, South Caucasus and Central Asia (HC 349-I)

^[9] Ibid, paragraph 78, page 49.

^[10] Ibid, paragraph 88, page 53.