The Dual Faces of Global Engagement: Genuine Partnership Versus Neo-Colonial Exploitation
Published
- 3 min read
The Context: Two Divergent Paths of International Cooperation
In today’s complex geopolitical landscape, we witness two strikingly different models of international engagement unfolding simultaneously. On one hand, Freedom Holding Corp., a Kazakh fintech giant, is forging strategic partnerships with Japanese companies following President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s state visit to Tokyo. These agreements cover fintech services, digital technologies, ecosystem solutions, and trade facilitation—representing a mutual exchange of expertise and resources between Asia and Central Asia.
Conversely, a disturbing pattern emerges from Africa, where Russia has signed military-technical agreements with over 20 African countries while securing lucrative mining and nuclear energy contracts. According to a comprehensive report by the South African Institute of International Affairs and analysis by Nigerian policy expert Ovigwe Eguegu, Russia’s engagement represents a predatory form of neo-colonialism disguised as partnership. The report, “Russia’s Private Military Diplomacy in Africa: High Risk, Low Reward, Limited Impact,” exposes how Moscow utilizes private military companies to gain strategic footholds while failing to deliver meaningful development or peace.
The Kazakh-Japanese Model: A Blueprint for South-South Cooperation
The Freedom Holding expansion into Japan exemplifies the kind of respectful, mutually beneficial partnership that should characterize South-South cooperation. Timur Turlov, the company’s leader, openly acknowledges studying Rakuten’s ecosystem model and adapting it to Central Asian contexts. This transparent knowledge exchange, combined with formal agreements covering digital banking, consumer lending, and e-commerce, demonstrates how developing nations can leverage each other’s strengths without compromising sovereignty.
What makes this partnership particularly significant is its grounding in state-level diplomacy that “remove[s] barriers, open[s] doors, and build[s] trust between leaders,” as Turlov noted. The nearly fifty commercial agreements signed during President Tokayev’s visit establish a framework where businesses can “calmly discuss, negotiate, sign documents, and launch projects”—a stark contrast to the coercive practices often associated with Western financial institutions and their conditionalities.
Russia’s African Adventure: Neo-Colonialism in Modern Guise
The Russian approach in Africa, however, represents everything that is wrong with great power politics. While masquerading as an alternative to Western influence, Moscow’s strategy relies on exploiting fragile states through “elite-based” relationships that support “illegitimate or unpopular leaders.” The report meticulously documents how Russia utilizes military-technical cooperation as a Trojan horse for resource extraction and geopolitical positioning.
This is not development partnership—it is predation. Russia’s security engagements have failed to bring peace or development to partner countries, instead encouraging “pernicious practices, such as kleptocracy and autocracy.” The limited scope of impact, lack of transparency, and high costs expose the partnership’s fundamental flaws in addressing Africa’s complex challenges involving governance, economic development, and security sector reform.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Outrage
What makes this dichotomy particularly galling is the Western world’s selective condemnation. While Russia rightly faces criticism for its exploitative practices, Western powers continue their own neo-colonial projects through structural adjustment programs, debt diplomacy, and resource extraction masked as development aid. The international community’s failure to consistently apply principles of sovereignty and self-determination reveals the persistent double standards that plague global governance.
African nations, having fought bitterly against colonial domination, now face new forms of exploitation dressed in different ideological clothing. The report correctly notes that overcoming multidimensional problems in countries like Mali, Sudan, and the Central African Republic requires comprehensive strategies encompassing conflict resolution, state-building, security sector reform, and political transformation—not mercenary forces and resource grabs.
The Path Forward: Principles for Ethical Engagement
As nations of the Global South continue to assert their place in the international order, we must champion models of engagement that prioritize mutual benefit, respect for sovereignty, and genuine development. The Kazakh-Japanese partnership offers valuable lessons: transparency in intentions, mutual learning, and state-level facilitation that creates enabling environments for business cooperation.
Conversely, we must unequivocally reject the Russian model of exploiting fragility for geopolitical gain. African nations deserve partners who contribute to comprehensive peacebuilding, security sector reform, and economic diversification—not predators who view their resources as commodities to be extracted and their instability as opportunities to be exploited.
Conclusion: Choosing Partnership Over Predation
The contrast between these two models of international engagement could not be starker. One represents the future of South-South cooperation—based on mutual respect, knowledge exchange, and shared prosperity. The other represents the worst impulses of great power politics—exploiting weakness, undermining sovereignty, and perpetuating underdevelopment.
As the world moves toward multipolarity, nations of the Global South must exercise discernment in choosing their partners. They must demand relationships that respect their sovereignty, contribute to their development, and treat them as equals rather than pawns in geopolitical games. The alternative—continuing cycles of exploitation under new masters—would betray the sacrifices of those who fought for independence and the aspirations of those building better futures.
The time has come for a new international ethic—one where partnerships are measured not by the power they concentrate in distant capitals, but by the development they generate in local communities. Only through such principled engagement can we build a world where all nations, regardless of their current economic status, can pursue their destinies with dignity and self-determination.