EXTRACTS |  SUMMARY The Great Game in Asia Foreign Affairs - 1980 issue SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia Nineteenth century | 1800s Britain obsessed by the fear other European powers to take advantage of political decay of Islamic Asia *scramble for the easy pickings First: France Then: Russia (concern re southward march of Russian empire) Early 1800s - Constantinople of strategic concern to British Focus shifted to Persia, Afghanistan & Himalayas b/c Czarist armies overran Central Asia Last quarter 1800s assumption: great war / final showdown b/w Britain & Russia inevitable Alleged history of Russia attempt to move into Afghanistan, Iran & other neighbouring countries Alleged British agenda to stop Russia from doing so without war between the two the above claim likened to supposed US rationale to 'contest Russian expansion in much the same battlefield" The phrase "the Great Game" found in papers & quoted by a historian of First Afghan War Writers re 'Great Game' refer to either: activities of rival intelligence services; or in the broader sense, to describe: Anglo-Russian quarrel about the fate of Asia (as used in article) Great Game arose from a complex of disagreements b/w Britain & Russia 1791 British PM William Pitt opposed czarist annexation of Ochakov, a strategic port town (of Ottoman Empire) Rivalry forgotten: Napoleon Britain & Russia both fought 1815 aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, British 'fears' of Russia began to revive RUSSIA - LAND Then: Russia appeared to be the strongest land power in the world RUSSIA - SEA since the reign of Peter the Great Russia: planned to also be great maritime power Foreign observers: see Russia military strength through magnifying glass: exaggeration of Russian strength gave rise to exaggerated fears Most unrealistic: fear that Russians would march across Asia to attack the British position in India [  Playing on unrealistic fears & exaggeration of Russian strength also  = CIA tactic 1980s (I think it was  - Reagan era ) ...  and the current claims of Russian aggression etc ... same ploy  ] *Originally this had been Napoleon's idea *Napoleon noted: British power established in distant region = British vulnerability: *lines of communication *lines of transportation long & especially subject to disruption Napoleon persuaded Czar Paul of Russia to swoop on lines British communication & transportation to attack British in India *British in India Russian armies pulled back when Czar Paul died Road to India was not attacked. Russia unable to exploit Britain's vulnerability Previously Russia southward expansion into Asia = no relation / threat to British imperialist interests = grand dukes of Moscow campaigns of expansion into Asia CENTURIES before Britain arrived in India = late 1800s frontiers Russia marched upon, were very distant from Indian border British fear was Russian expansion would takeover of Constantinople & the Ottoman Empire / but no concern End of 1820s Russia 'abusing prerogatives' arising from military strength by annexing additional territories from Ottoman & Persian Empires British alarmed begin to see this as threat to British interests in India [ The 'abusing prerogatives'   angle sounds like another pretext for Western aggression, to me  |  See current claims of 'Russian aggression in eastern Europe for same rhetoric  ] 1800s propaganda campaign: Books appeared in England discussing the Russian threat to India. 1829 British PM, Wellington corresponded with President of the India Board about re invasion route Russians might follow (to attack India) if Russians move into Afghanistan From then, propaganda chorus: body of opinion in Britain that saw in every Russian move in Asia a threat to Britain's interest in India - no matter how far-fetched British Imperialism | India Indian Mutiny = British develop fear that mere threat of a Russian attack would encourage Indians to rise up & expel the British 1830 Lord Palmerston = bcm British Foreign Secretary = long career, shaper of British foreign policy = advice: Britain should have neither perpetual friends nor perpetual enemies Palmserston strategy = traditional British policy of upholding territorial integrity of Ottoman & other Islamic rulers in Asia against encroachment by any European powers *practice = from encroachment by Russia Islamic Asia = used by British as a vast buffer against 'Russian expansion' Purported rationale: fear if Asian regimes collapsed struggle b/w outside powers for valuable pieces to lead to general European war LAUGHABLE WESTERN PROPAGANDA 1832 Great Britain moved further in direction of democracy, by enactment of a Reform Bill that somewhat enlarged the franchise Russia - 1830s and 1840s brutal repression of popular revolts in Poland, Hungary and elsewhere "moved further in the direction of establishing herself as the world's chief enemy of freedom" PRETEXT for BRITISH AGGRESSION "ideological differences" between Russia & Britain = an increasing cause of friction [ One's 'superior' ideology or moral stance is always a good pretext for aggression.  lol ] RESULT OF 1800s propaganda: "Britons in ever greater numbers came to object to Russia not merely for what she did but for what she was." Russophobia soon outgrew particular political differences b/w two countries = cause in its own right of Britain's pretext | public agenda: "Britain's determination to stop Russian expansion in Asia" Undeniable factor determining British policy thru much of 1800s = "an antipathy toward Russia which soon became the most pronounced and enduring element in the national outlook" *economic factor assumed genuine significance LOL ... check out this propaganda: "British presence was established in Islamic Asia for strategic national security reasons" TRADE patterns of trade began to develop trade patterns gain significance over time Following: 1838 - Anglo-Turkish Trade Treat 1846 - repeal of the Corn Laws Ottoman Empire trade Ottoman Empire Turkish market = Britain’s 3rd best export in world Russia designs on Ottoman Empire threat to British ECONOMIC + POLITICAL interests Turkey an open market for British manufacturers Russia = high tariff barrier, excluding British goods = Russia 'enemy' on FREE-TRADE GROUNDS BRITISH TRADE - SEA POWER southern sea-coast of Asia configuration = narrow stretches of land & water = can choke off traffic to British @ number of points = Britain (as sea power) - vital to hold ENTIRE COASTLINE in FRIENDLY hands Russia effort to take Persia @ sea-coast threat to British commerce & powerful position Mid-1800s - x9 Claimed Reasons for British opposition to Russian Expansion into Asia 1. Upset of 'balance of power' - Russian European ascendency 2. Russian invasion of British India 3. Russian 'threat' = threat of India revolt against Britain 4. Russian expansion = to cause Islamic regimes to collapse 5. strengthen "chief enemies of popular political freedom" [ LMAO ... pure propaganda ] 6. strengthen a people whom Britons hated 7. threatened to disrupt big British trade with Asia & PROFITS 8. strengthen sort of protectionist, closed economic society ... "which free-trading Britain morally disapproved of" [LMAO ... more propaganda ... British want freedom to pillage | no question of morals in this | it is all about profit of powerful - profit for elites] 9. threaten the line of naval communications upon which Britain's commercial and political position [ie threat to British elite imperialism] Further reason (10) added toward end 1800s by: Lord Salisbury British Foreign Secretary & Prime Minister REPUTATION PRETEXT Lord Salisbury "observed that England would have to stop Russia from acquiring Constantinople because, having made such an issue of it for so long, England would lose her reputation as a formidable power if she finally yielded the point" FURTHER (11) reason - early 1900s: * discovered that there was OIL in the areas that Russia threatened oil possession = military and economic importance Britain vs Russia struggle raged from one end of Asia to other for almost 100 years Principal battlefields: Ottoman Empire Persian Empire khanates of Turkestan in Central Asia mountainous areas - eg Afghanistan (that stretch around the frontier of India) BRITISH IMPERIALISM SCREWED RUSSIA Crimean War (1853-56) Congress of Berlin (1878) Britain secured Constantinople and the Straits Britain undid results of Russian wartime successes against Turkey Britain - defending the Persian Empire PERSIAN GULF COAST * Russia did not exploit Persian hegemony to establish Persian Gulf coast position b/c fear of British reaction MORE PROPAGANDA "Britain salvaged at least her minimum security needs" First half 1800s - decades of fighting, Russia: = conquered Transcaucasus frontier = made final annexations of Georgia: Circassia and parts of Armenia and Azerbaijan By turn of century (ie 1900s ?): Russian hegemony in Persia was almost complete Last half 1800s - Russia conquest of Central Asia: khanates of Khiva, Bokhara and Kokand in western Turkestan Turkoman tribal region (then called Transcaspia) *no British protest British violent reaction = any hint of Russian interference on 'areas of frontier' India BRITISH INVASION x2 - Afghanistan: pretext: presence of Russian agents (in area adjoining India) 1838-42 - First Afghan War 1878-80 - Second Afghan War of 1878-80 Russia encouraged Persia to move against Afghanistan result: 1838 - First Afghan War (above) 1856-57 - Anglo-Persian War 1885 - Penjdeh crisis = Russia border patrols reach Afghan frontier = Britain & Russia almost go to war Pamirs Pamirs: "roof of the world" mountain pass invasion of India vulnerability point Russians get there first turn back the British expedition 1895 to compromise Russians kept the line of the frontier but British were given the mountain passes [ I do not understand who got what ] HIMALAYAS - FOREIGN AID Tibet 'Russian intrigues' Dalai Lama sought to throw off last vestiges of Chinese authority reported contacts b/w Russians + Dalai Lama in 1900 and 1901 Russian aid and establishing Russian influence 1903-04 Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon dispatched a British mission = mission fought its way to Lhasa, Tibetan capital = Dalai Lama fled = British control established [ so a 'mission' must be armed forces ] "What was so especially frightening about the Russian expansion in Central Asia was its persistence and seeming inevitability." [lol ... more propaganda ... it is the British who are imperialists in region] ** "Russians were constantly fighting on their frontiers, against mountain and desert tribesmen if not against regular armies." KEYS WORD HERE: ON RUSSIAN FRONTIERS "to secure the frontier against attack" gradual encroachment over the course of many decades must have seemed to contemporaries to be a series of separate conquests Russians seemed constantly to be pushing outward 1840 a Russian campaign to conquer Khiva met with disaster because Khiva was too far away and the logistical support 1873, Khiva fell to Russians {improved strategy} RUSSIAN REGIONAL GAINS Russians brought in logistical support, built roads and railroads, and organized themselves in such a way as to facilitate their going on to conquer the next adjoining territory. NOTE: "this was not done in pursuance of some overall master plan for the conquest of Asia" BUT: "to the outside world it bore the aspect of the carrying out of such a program" [Probably due to anti Russia propaganda] 1830s - British PM Lord Melbourne brings out the map showing Russian expansion & urging alarm LETTER 1933 Jawaharlal Nehru, future PM of India {to daughter Indira, future PM also} re traditional rivalry between Russia vs Britain in Asia Nehru wrote that " ... the possession of India especially brought the British right up to the Russian frontier, and they were continually having nightmares as to what Tsarist Russia might do to India." AMERICANS ARE REPEATING THIS 'TO RUSSIAN FRONTIER' GAME in UKRAINE (in particular) 1800s - Britain rounded out her position in India by the conquest of = Sindh and other frontier areas = "forward policy" of conquering Afghanistan = maintenance of a network of representatives and intelligence agents all across Asia THUS British India-related activities as taking place on, in Nehru's words, "the Russian frontier" = Russians bound to see them as a dangerous series of acts of aggression. British did not see them that way [or did not acknowledge ... lol] ------- "What the British government did see-and the British public did not-was how Britain, in its struggle against Russia, could support the independence and territorial integrity of regimes such as the Ottoman and Persian Empires, which were cruel and unjust, denying their subjects even the most elementary of human rights. It was natural to wonder why Britain would risk war to keep in power rulers of whom all civilized persons must disapprove." ------ Palmerston PRETEXT * reform the regimes that Britain supported More traditional attitude: Tory Party & Foreign Office = consider the question of which foreign governments to support in the light of British INTERESTS rather than in the light of moral principles choice b/w deplorable allies and a deplorable adversary choice b/w evils, between a sultan who committed atrocities against Armenians & a czar who committed atrocities against Jews "Moral considerations were inapplicable in such a situation, and to introduce them into the discussion of foreign policy therefore was to mislead." Reportedly, many in Britain at time (as in USA today) = not happy supporting a foreign policy not grounded in moral principle = introduction of moral considerations into foreign policy issues worked against Great Britain 1907 - British Yield Inhabited Persia to Russia = Britain settled her differences in the area = Persians attacked Britain but not Russia, for "tyranny was accepted from the Russians as natural to them, whereas Great Britain was expected to behave in accordance with her liberal traditions." [lol ... or, the Persians simply had a relationship with the Russians ... . because they have regional (and long-standing other associations)  with Russians -   their neighbours.  Thus there is a pre-existing  RELATIONSHIP, which is missing from the British incursions in what is a DISTANT and entirely unrelated region] Russia =  introduction of the moral issue into foreign policy was a source of strength =  rhetoric of liberation to justify her incursions  [hey, that's exactly like the West today ... lol] BRITAIN’S ISSUE real issue = whether Britain could afford to preserve the Islamic regimes of Asia = not in the moral sense but in the political and economic sense REAL PURPOSE = Britain to create buffer zone of these decaying empires = ideal buffer zone because they were too feeble to threaten or to hurt the Great Powers BUT = also too feeble to defend themselves against Russian encroachments = Britain the usurper, becomes Britain the regional the enforcer = drained British resources rather than adding to them By last half 1800s Ottoman and Persian Empire internal challenges govt not viable financial administration fell apart British cabinets failed to supply solution " " failed to persuade Ottoman & Persion govts to take action * British propping up exploited by Ottomans ie know the region key to British - therefore Ottoman exploit for financial gain avoided making reforms resisted demands of foreign creditors & foreign powers felt Britain would be obliged to defend them against enforcement attempt = Britain blackmailed by weak client state = US has same problem in 20th Century (1900s) [and I would say, presently ... lol] BRITISH ARE PISSED that Persia (at Russian instigation) >> moved against British interests in exploiting Afghanistan 'Britain thus was obliged to take military action against Persia' ... 'while at the same time trying to preserve the strength and integrity of Persia as against the Russians' PARADOX - USA above paradox not unfamiliar to USA today as it attempts to decide how to deal with an Iran (ie Persia) ( see: Iran held Americans as hostages )    [ hostages is just a pretext  | |  nations that do not intend war, do not go to war over a few hostages  | USA - look to: rivalry of countries Britain undertook to 'protect' against Russia = how USA should deal with: Greek-Turkish and Arab-Israeli conflicts, while simultaneously shielding against 'Soviet Union' = similar to Britain vs Persia against Afghanistan (both of whom it wanted to 'protect' from Russia) "Attempts by Palmerston and other British leaders to persuade Persia that Russia was her real enemy fell on deaf ears. " [LMAO ... I think I like the Persians] Asian regimes too weak to form a banding against Russia response, says the article. Also a problem of mentality? Or a consequence of weakness? = "In their world the weaker bowed to, instead of combining against, the stronger" Other issue of strengthening client states or would-be client states: = country was willing to stand up for its independence against Russia, it also was likely to stand up against Britain = Afghanistan is such an example ( First Afghan War ) Young Disraeli after the First Afghan War = pointed out that Afghanistan could provide the finest possible barrier against Russian invasion ... if only Britain would stop interfering in its affairs. TIP for imperialist empires: " ... best to leave to a local power the responsibility for defending both its interests and one's own." Defect in this policy = President Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the 1969-73 regional surrogates policy = power strong enough to act in such a capacity is likely to have ambitions of its own [  not sure I understand this  ... So, the down side is anyone powerful enough to act on one's behalf in a region, is also likely to wish to act in their own interests?   ] 1902 - Anglo-Japanese alliance = British alliance "finally contracted in order to defeat Russia in Asia" = freed the Japanese to fight the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 = short run success for Britain = Japan destroyed Russian power in the Pacific BUT = decades later, Japan went on to destroy British power & presence in Pacific Lord Salisbury  | British Foreign Policy Independence Strategy = most reliable policy for Britain / one that she could carry out INDEPENDENTLY without having to rely on others *requires strategic facts in place Britain had those available already & worked towards manifesting remainder of strategic goals to enable independent foreign policy: 1798 = Nelson control of Eastern Mediterranean for British navy = first of series of agreements b/w Britain & local rulers along PERSIAN GULF coast (assumed importance 1800s) Persian Gulf Coat = virtual British protectorate of the entire coastal route to India SUEZ CANAL - EGYPT partly accident / partly design = British occupying Egypt and the Suez Canal = Salisbury also obtained Cyprus from Turkey sold as: it being in TURKEY's interest that British forces should have the use of a location of such strategic importance BUT - Salisbury hopes dashed: = proved impossible to have British officials take charge of the administration AND obtain protectorate over the Ottoman Empire 1880 elections = Gladstone back in power = Salisbury program destroyed = Gladstone - on record as believing that Turks antihuman / washed his hands of the Ottoman involvement = Turks, unable to stand on their own, turned to the new power of Bismarck's Germany as their protector 1885 Salisbury resumed tenure of the Foreign Office = lamented that change (re Turkey) could not be undone = Gladstone's government had given away British influence at Constantinople = Gladstone "They have just thrown it away into the sea ... without getting anything whatever in exchange." while British interests still required that Russian expansion be stopped on the Ottoman and Persian frontiers, London unable to guide Ottoman and Persian rulers, in the interests of Britain BRITISH EMPIRE IN DECLINE By the end of the 1800s = Britain had lost control of elements upon which her destiny as a power in Asia depended eg. were Russia to (then) descend from the interior of Asia upon Persian coast, unclear how Britain (with only her fleet) could counterattack LORD CURZON - VICEROY INDIA [ to be continued ... ] SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Extracts / Summary to help me understand article. Article is written from the Anglo-US perspective. Very interesting. Get a feeling that if you understand history, you can understand the present. Pretty much the same kind of stuff goes on today, as it did at the turn of the 1900s and even earlier than that. It's the same game, same aims, same tricks etc.  lol Article seems to go on forever. I can only take in so much in one hit, because I'm not too bright.  lol Need a break from it. Excuse any typos.  In a rush.  Need to switch task. ꕤ