Belt and Road: How Is It Different from British Colonialism?

Introduction

In 2013, President Xi Jinping launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), one of the most ambitious infrastructure programmes in modern history. Over a decade later, it has drawn comparisons to British colonialism — with critics calling it a new form of imperial expansion and supporters insisting it is fundamentally different.

The comparison raises uncomfortable questions. While Britain's empire was built on direct territorial control, China's influence is exerted through loans, infrastructure, and economic interdependence. Meanwhile, the UK is retreating from the global stage, its soft power waning as China's grows. What does this shift mean for the world — and for the future of English as our global lingua franca?

The Case for Comparison

Both the British Empire and the BRI share a core strategy: build infrastructure to facilitate trade and extend influence. Between 1850 and 1950, Britain constructed railways, ports, and telegraph networks across Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Today, China is doing something strikingly similar — building seaports in Sri Lanka, railways in Kenya, and roads across Central Asia.

Critics point to what they call "debt-trap diplomacy." Countries that cannot repay Chinese loans have been forced to hand over strategic assets. Sri Lanka's Hambantota Port, leased to China for 99 years after a debt default, is the most cited example. Zambia's power grid and several African mines have faced similar pressures. The pattern, critics argue, mirrors colonial-era resource extraction — just without the flag.

The Centre for Joint and International Defence Studies has noted that over 140 countries have signed BRI cooperation agreements, creating a web of economic dependency that, while voluntary on paper, can be coercive in practice.

The Case Against

But the comparison has its limits. The British Empire claimed sovereignty over its territories. It settled colonists, imposed legal systems, and extracted resources through force. China does none of this — at least not formally. There are no Chinese governors in Nairobi or Beijing-appointed magistrates in Colombo.

China frames the BRI as "win-win cooperation," filling an infrastructure gap that Western nations have largely ignored. Many developing countries welcome the investment precisely because Western alternatives come with political conditions — demands for democratic reform, anti-corruption measures, or environmental standards — that Chinese loans do not.

As The Star Malaysia has reported, for many governments in Southeast Asia and Africa, the BRI offers something the West won't: large-scale, no-strings-attached financing for desperately needed roads, bridges, and power plants.

Britain's Retreat, China's Advance

Perhaps the most striking aspect of this comparison is the divergence in trajectory. While China is building a global network of infrastructure and influence, Britain is doing the opposite.

Post-Brexit Britain has shrunk from the world. Trade barriers with its closest partners have risen. Diplomatic influence in Asia and Africa has declined. The UK's overseas development budget has been slashed. The country that once governed a quarter of the world's population increasingly struggles to project influence beyond its own borders.

This retreat has consequences beyond geopolitics. English became the world's dominant language largely because of the British Empire and later American economic power. But as China expands its cultural and economic reach — through Confucius Institutes, Mandarin language programmes, and the sheer gravitational pull of being the world's largest trading partner — the linguistic balance could shift.

We are unlikely to see Mandarin replace English anytime soon. But we may see a world in which English is no longer the default — where Mandarin becomes essential for trade in Africa, diplomacy in Central Asia, and technology across the developing world.

Conclusion

The Belt and Road Initiative is not colonialism in the traditional sense. China does not claim territory, impose governance, or settle populations abroad. But the economic dynamics — debt dependency, resource access, and strategic asset control — echo patterns that history should make us wary of.

Meanwhile, Britain's retreat from the global stage is not just a political story. It is a cultural and linguistic one. The question is not whether China's rise will diminish English — it is whether the UK, having lost its empire, will find a new way to remain relevant in the world that empire helped shape.

What do you think? Is the BRI a new form of colonialism, or a genuine development partnership? And should Britain be worried about its declining global influence? Share your thoughts in the comments below.