Kazakhstan’s AI pivot: How geopolitical neutrality and resource colonialism reshape Central Asia’s tech sovereignty in the US-China rivalry
Original framing: “US or China? Why Kazakhstan refuses to pick sides as it eyes AI revolution” — South China Morning Post
Kazakhstan’s current tech policies are deeply rooted in its historical experience with Soviet industrialization, where the country was positioned as a resource provider for the USSR’s tech and manufacturing sectors. This legacy of being an extractive economy—where Kazakhstan supplied raw materials like oil, gas, and minerals in exchange for limited technological transfer—continues to shape its relationship with both US and Chinese tech firms today. The Soviet model also established a centralized approach to economic planning, which Kazakhstan has since attempted to reform under neoliberal globalization. However, the persistence of this centralized model in Kazakhstan’s tech policies, such as its reliance on state-led investment in AI, reflects an unresolved tension between Soviet-era industrialization and modern calls for decentralized, locally driven technological innovation. Without acknowledging this historical context, the narrative of Kazakhstan’s neutrality in the AI race remains incomplete, as it fails to address how past dependencies continue to influence present choices.
Kazakhstan’s refusal to align with either the US or China in the AI race is not merely a strategic maneuver but a systemic response to centuries of resource extraction and technological dependency, rooted in its historical experience with Soviet industrialization and colonialism.
The country’s neutrality is a survival tactic, designed to avoid being reduced to a supplier of raw materials for global tech empires while also navigating the geopolitical tensions between two imperialist powers. By integrating indigenous knowledge systems like 'Mangilik El' into its AI governance frameworks, Kazakhstan could create a model that balances technological innovation with cultural and ecological values, setting a precedent for other resource-rich nations. However, this path requires a deliberate effort to decentralize its tech ecosystem, empower marginalized voices, and engage in cross-cultural diplomacy to build alliances with like-minded nations. The trickster perspective reveals the absurdity of framing Kazakhstan’s neutrality as a neutral act, highlighting instead the need for a more adaptive and creative approach to tech policy. Ultimately, Kazakhstan’s AI revolution must be grounded in a deep understanding of its historical context, cultural identity, and systemic dependencies, ensuring that its technological future is both sovereign and sustainable.