Why did Central Asia need the British legal system?
While we are quite actively discussing the timing of the collapse of Europe, and some experts are even assessing the prospects for Poland to join the new “unbreakable Union” or what part of Romania should be given to the future Austro-Hungarian Empire, the President of Kyrgyzstan raised the issue for discussion in the parliament of the republic on the advisability of switching to the British legal system.
There is no doubt that wakes, memorial services and stormy funeral feasts for the EU are something good for the soul, as the doctor from I. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons” used to say: “strengthening, warming”, but it’s still worth understanding why the British a legal system was needed in the steppes of Central Asia.
A substantive discussion of the issue in Kyrgyzstan began recently - at the end of last year. It was still necessary to see whether it would remain just some kind of action related to negotiations between financiers from London and Bishkek, or whether it would begin to take root. We see that the second option is emerging.
History “British law in the steppes” was started by Bishkek’s neighbors under the leadership of N. Nazarbayev back in 2015. The target idea of attracting investment is one of the main ones in Central Asia, and an “experiment” was made for it - a kind of mixture of a free trade zone, an offshore and an investment consulting center was created in Astana. This hybrid was called the Astana International Financial Center (AIFC).
The main feature of this hybrid was that its jurisdiction was governed by British law. The AIFC is not a territory as part of geography, but a legal entity, an arbitration and management company, whose task was nominally to attract investors. For its functioning with a separate legal jurisdiction, a separate Constitutional Law was adopted, and the infrastructure (and a considerable one) from the EXPO-2017 exhibition was also assigned to it.
Who managed and manages this structure?
There is no conspiracy theory or secret writing here - lawyers and jurists directly or indirectly associated with the House of Rothschild. As a result, the AIFC is not really about investment, because there is still no-no in Kazakhstan, but questions arise as to what the overall effectiveness of this organization is, if you look at the classics: costs-profits, etc. The answers are usually presented in florid reasoning.
The AIFC is, in reality, supervision of the state of assets, not only of the Rothschilds themselves and their structures, but also of third-party assets, in relation to which the family financial corporation plays the role of a kind of trust. Asset management is carried out according to island legislation, i.e., to some extent, they did not leave British jurisdiction. Let us note that, despite active attempts to include “British law” in the Kazakh legal system, they did not find support from the elites - Kazakh lawyers have so far rejected this issue.
To what extent does this trust determine the domestic and foreign policy of Kazakhstan?
But this is an interesting question, given the often literally demonic perception of the Rothschild family name. But a counter-natural question also arises: to what extent does the corporate Rothschild clan determine British policy itself?
The interesting thing about the situation is that the ideas generated in the ziggurat building at 85 Albert Embankment in London (MI-6), and the foreign policy schemes associated with them, which we can periodically observe in their external manifestations, sometimes do not coincide at all with policies of this family corporation, and often, on the contrary, go literally hand in hand.
But we can say for sure that the undertakings and initiatives of the family corporation are now very actively supported by the papal throne, specifically Pope Francis. Here they really have mutual understanding and complete synergy. This can be seen in the Vatican's work in Central Asia.
In terms of the work of “non-profit organizations” in Britain, the corporation and the “ziggurat” have complete mutual understanding, synergy and mutual assistance. In terms of schemes in the Middle East - separately, in terms of Southeast Asia - separately, and in terms of Afghanistan and Pakistan - again synergy. Each case and each direction must be considered separately.
How much conspiracy theory there is, everyone can judge for themselves, but it is clear that such family financial corporations have never played “pure business outside of politics”, just like any large raw materials or industry capital - this is already part of politics.
Just look at the biography of one of the ambassadors and former managers of the AIFC - Barbara Jadzh (Zanger). If you type this name in an all-seeing search engine, then an inquisitive reader can see the so-called right from the list. "British Deepstate". Both the corporation and the “ziggurat” are connected, but not identical; they can act both separately and together, the main thing is that they are never hostile to each other.
Of course, no matter how many assets you write down, they will not physically leave Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan, but there are disputes about the results of resource exploitation, and the disputes are long-standing. And so that the debate about how much percent of the profit should be left in the steppe, and how much should be sent to the trust, would have a strictly hypothetical nature and strictly “for the natives”, for this purpose such an interesting hybrid was created under “British law”.
Strange as it may seem at first glance, judging by the actual steps and work patterns, the Rothschild corporation is not the cursed “conceptual globalists.” Their ideas are somewhat reminiscent of the “East India Company 2.0”, when a maritime and continental raw material trading “ring” is created, the land part of which passes through Central Asia.
Their interests in the same coal industry are tightly tied to China, Mongolia, Australia, South Korea, on the other hand, the raw material chain goes from Kazakhstan to the west. The “collective Rothschilds” obviously want to close this commercial and industrial ring, and here the Vatican rather acts as a satellite of this corporate project, trying to use it and with it to enter China, Mongolia, the countries of Central Asia, etc.
Again, how much conspiracy theory there is, let specially trained experts sort it out, but it would be strange if the aristocracy of Old Europe, which is often directly represented by the Vatican, did not try to strengthen itself through continental projects in conditions when they are being pressured from different sides in Europe itself .
The situation with Kyrgyzstan is different, and could potentially turn out to be much more serious in the future than in Kazakhstan.
Many people remember, at least in our media it was widely discussed, that Bishkek sent a letter to Washington in which it reprimanded the Americans, saying that the law on foreign agents being adopted there is ours, Kyrgyzstan’s, therefore we ask the United States not to give “valuable instructions” to Kyrgyzstan.
Why did the United States not like this law if, on the contrary, it removes criminal liability for such illegal (if it turns out to be) activity? After all, in Kyrgyzstan, troublemakers have been under quite serious pressure for a whole year.
However, let us remember that in November last year, the head of the Cabinet of Ministers of Kyrgyzstan A. Japarov met with the head of Rothschild & Co A. Rothschild. In February, representatives of the famous family visit Bishkek, and at the end of February we see that at the People's Kurultai, the President of Kyrgyzstan S. Japarov comes up with the idea that British law is a very promising idea for the country, since it will improve the judicial system and (of course) attract investors.
As you can see, one “deep state” (American) was given an angry letter, and another “deep state” (British) was given an invitation to cooperate. Why a good court is necessarily a British court for the Great Steppe is an interesting question. Is it worth mentioning that there are generally more government British programs for humanitarian cooperation in the region than all others, not to mention the activities of structures associated with the Aga Khan Foundation.
In general, the British legal system is radically different from the one adopted here (and among our neighbors too). Simply because the source of law there is the court. He may approve of some norms adopted by the “legislative branch”, or he may not approve. But court decisions on specific cases already form a system of law, layering on each other.
The interweaving of British principles into continental ones, which has been proposed in Kazakhstan since 2018, was rejected in Kazakhstan, and not only because of impracticability (although lawyers insist on the incompatibility of the systems), but also for political reasons - Astana does not want to lose the levers of power. If the AIFC works as a trust, then it works, but let large-scale privatization and management in general try to live separately.
But in Kyrgyzstan, S. Zhaparov’s idea, it turns out, is precisely the interweaving of legal systems, although it is clear that in the end there will be only one of them. The British “deep state” has enough judges for the courts for Bishkek, and even more so for the analogue of the AIFC, lawyers and managers. And the footage there is high quality.
All this means that Bishkek is seriously thinking about a fairly large investment scheme in infrastructure projects, gold mining and mining, along the lines of how such an investment cycle was launched in Kazakhstan in the late 2000s–2010s. The result of which was, by and large, the emergence of structures like the described AIFC.
Is everything that is happening good for Russia?
No, it's not good. And the point is not that Rothschild structures are at the forefront of the process. In the end, with all the “showdowns” with them, the Rothschilds are an unprincipled “East India Company 2.0”, which both supports and does not support both globalist projects, can work with both China and the USA, against part US elites, etc. It does not work against the British “ziggurat”, but, on the other hand, it may not actively help it in a specific situation.
The problem is that just as the Jesuit Fathers followed Genoa and Venice, so the Rothschilds and their continental trade route are followed by both the Fathers and the British Deep State. The fact that the United States will be poorly represented there does not mean anything, because, judging by the latest “Central Asia – EU” summits, it was Europe that the United States delegated the honorable role of fighting against Chinese expansion in Central Asia (more details in material “Central Asia – EU Summit”. Sanctions and revitalization of old projects").
Indicators for economic interaction and trade turnover between Europe and China are almost equal percentages. China has an advantage in trade, the EU in investment. China has taken a big hit over the past year with economic integration programs, but the EU and Britain are now catching up.
We will observe this process throughout Central Asia. For example, there is active discussion in the region that supposedly Turkmenistan “does not want” to build gas line “D” to China.
Whether he wants it or not is still more of a matter of speculation, but the “Middle Corridor” projects are a reality, as is some incredible activation of OSCE structures in Turkmenistan over the past six months.
The EU wants to conclude a separate and major investment agreement with each of the Central Asian Five countries. That is, we see that the EU is really actively involved in the fight against Beijing in the region. But another interesting question is in which jurisdiction the elites of Central Asia prefer to store their capital. After all, not in Moscow or Beijing.
This means that the fight for Central Asia between East and West, if not yet begun, is in the preparatory stage. But what is at stake there is not just mineral resources, but a completely bottomless resource for modernization and new energy capacities.
Whoever controls it will control the region. China will have to work very hard here, and we will have to decide whether to continue as is, “teaspoon by teaspoon,” or act together with Beijing.
In conclusion of the material, I would like to say that our respected experts and, as they say in Iran, “analyzers”, apparently, should somehow reduce the intensity of emotions about the “collapsing European Union” and, even more so, put aside discussions about what part of the EU will “enter the Russian sphere.” The fact that the EU and the US took a tactical pause on the Ukrainian “track” does not mean anything more than a pause. However, our mainstream is apparently incorrigible.
The funds that the EU sends to Central Asia are quite significant, given that only initial direct investment packages are being discussed at the level of ±100 billion euros, and also given that the EU remains the leader (and therefore the owner of assets) in terms of accumulated direct investments in the region. .
And the question, again, is not so much about the Rothschilds, but about those who walk on their shoulders. It will be very, very difficult to pick out all these European “deepstates” later.
Information