The present study investigates the governance of music higher education in Central Asia by examining two competing external integration frameworks that currently operate in the region: the European Bologna Process and China's Belt and Road Initiative. The empirical focus is placed on five Central Asian states, namely Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. The research draws on the theory of policy borrowing and lending as formulated by G. Steiner-Khamsi, the concept of soft power in educational cooperation, and the theory of regional education space as developed by S. Marginson, with the aim of analysing how these two frameworks act upon Central Asian music education institutions through different mechanisms and produce different effects. Documentary evidence is collected from national education laws, institutional reports from principal conservatories in the region, programme descriptions from the Shanghai Conservatory of Music's Belt and Road Art Talent Training Programme, Aga Khan Music Programme publications, diplomatic agreements from the 2023 China-Central Asia Summit, and statistical data from the World Bank and UNESCO. The analysis brings to light that the Bologna Process acts on Central Asian music education through structural standardisation, which requires the adoption of compatible degree formats, credit systems, and accreditation mechanisms, while China's Belt and Road Initiative operates through relational exchange, which offers talent training programmes, bilateral institutional partnerships, and cultural diplomacy events that do not require structural convergence. The paper puts forward the concept of dual integration pressure to describe the condition in which music education institutions must respond to both frameworks at the same time, and identifies a structural incompatibility between the multilateral norm convergence logic of the Bologna model and the bilateral relationship logic of the Chinese model. The findings point to the fact that music education, as a domain where cultural specificity and institutional standardisation exist in direct tension, makes visible a governance problem that remains hidden in other fields of higher education cooperation in Central Asia. A complementary engagement framework is proposed that identifies conditions under which the two models can operate without mutual interference and suggests that Chinese cooperation can address gaps in heritage documentation, traditional instrument exchange, and performance-based mobility that Bologna-oriented reforms are structurally unable to fill.