Alexander Morrison, The Russian Conquest of Central Asia. A Study in Imperial Expansion, 1814–1914. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2020

Florin, Moritz

doi:10.1515/hzhz-2022-1385

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…96 Such processes have occurred in many other times and places, including the Russian expansion into Central Asia -a long series of events shaped by 'prejudices, paranoia and anxieties about prestige' among Tsarist Russia's elites. 97 Imperial and modern Chinese governments have treated 'the Uyghurs and other local Turkic people as fundamentally different from and inferior to the dominant Han population and, thus, incapable of either becoming equals to the Han or of even knowing how best to care for themselves'. 98 On the other hand, Indigenous peoples have made (de)securitising moves of their own, which suggests a decolonising possibility in these processes as well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foreign or Domestic? The Desecuritisation of Indian Affairs and Normativity in Securitisation Theory

Szarejko

2022

Millennium: Journal of International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is securitisation normatively undesirable? Many scholars who have studied this process by which issues come to be treated as pertaining to ‘security’ have argued that it is indeed preferable to keep as many issues as possible from being securitised. Rather, most issues ought to remain politicised such that they are seen as the legitimate subject of public debate. By contrast, I argue that we ought not to ascribe any inherent moral valence to securitisation or the reverse process of desecuritisation. Instead, each attempt to (de)securitise an issue ought to be debated on its own terms. To support my argument for the moral ambiguity of (de)securitisation, I examine the US Senate’s debate over whether to transfer the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Department of War to a new Department of the Interior in 1849. I argue that this is an inflection point in a longer desecuritising process by which the United States – acting on a presumed hierarchy – coercively assimilated Native nations into its domestic political order. I conclude that scholars should not discard (de)securitisation as an analytical tool but can instead use work on (de)securitisation to inform public debate on the likely consequences of any particular (de)securitising move, thereby serving a chastening role in public discourse.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foreign or Domestic? The Desecuritisation of Indian Affairs and Normativity in Securitisation Theory

Szarejko

2022

Millennium: Journal of International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gorchakov's directive officially identified consolidating the frontier with Khokand as the limit for further advancements (Hopkirk, 1992). However, subsequent annexations greatly exceeded this, being presented as a result of autonomous initiative by local military commanders, later accepted as a fait accompli in St. Petersburg (Morrison, 2021).…”

Section: Distinguishing the Titansmentioning

confidence: 99%

The return of Prometheus. Dominant powers and the management of careful revisionists

Natalizia,

Termine

2023

Riv. ital. sci. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After defeating the 20th-century challengers to the international order, the United States must today calibrate its response to the rise of the PRC, whose foreign policy poses problems both for policy-makers and IR scholars. Wilhelmine and Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and USSR have left a heavy mark on the scholarship on revisionist threats and their management. Like the mythological Titans, these states launched their challenge all the way to ‘Olympus’: they longed to build a new international order by war or a large-scale and long-standing competition. However, the myth of Prometheus teaches us that this ‘revolutionary’ path is not the only road for secondary states to gain primacy. Revisionism can also take a more careful shape, both by means and objectives. The article preliminarily discusses the understudied type of careful revisionism and distinguishes the subtypes of ‘incrementals’, ‘moderates’ and ‘gamblers’. These more nuanced forms compel status quo power(s) to face a dilemma between two strategic options: engagement or confrontation. Then it posits that a wisely gauged assessment of the careful revisionist challenge by the dominant power must inevitably lay at the basis of any grand strategy for preserving the status quo and preventing systemic change. Finally, it tests this hypothesis by investigating the confrontation between a dominant power – the United Kingdom – and six careful revisionists – namely the United States (1814–1860), the Kingdom of Sardinia/Italy (1852–1882), France (1875–1904), Russian Empire (1864–1907), Imperial Japan (1919–1936) and Fascist Italy (1922–1935).

show abstract

“…At once, players have remained constant and changed, sometimes changing only cosmetically. In the 19th century, the original "Great Game" was between the British Empire and Imperial Russia, 1856-1907(Hopkirk, 1992Sergeev, 2013;Morrison, 2021). In the 21 st century, currently, the Russian Federation has returned, this time joined by China as its "Frenemy" (erstwhile friend, potential enemy), the European Community with the United Kingdom in the lead arguably, the United States visibly in the background, plus Japan, India, Turkey, with Iran and Saudi Arabia invisibly in the background.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empires Old, New, Reincarnated and Imaginary: Economic Build-ups in Eurasia, China and Russia in Afghanistan Naval Build-ups in the South China Sea Region – Their Forecasted Outcomes

Jones

2023

Rethinking Asia in World Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maritime friction among powers, great and small, has escalated in the “Near Seas” region, including East China, Yellow, and South China Seas, largely because China has militarized that region by constructing artificial islands, and then fortifying them. United States warships repeatedly have conducted “Freedom of Navigation Operations” (FOPs) in the region, as have British, Indian, and Japanese warships, with France joining that list in early 2021 also. At the same time, China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” streams economically across Eurasia, with rising debt. This paper will address the objectives of China, the West, and neighbouring Asian countries in terms of increasing, decreasing, or replacing tensions in the region, as “empires” old, new, reincarnated and imaginary converge to participate in this fray. Inevitably, risk prevails, opportunities do also, as once-proud empires such as Britain, France, Russia, and Japan join in to confound if not deter China in its transparent effort as a rising power to control shipping and land transportation in this strategic but fragile corridor that connects Europe and the Middle East with Asia, vital to transporting raw materials, particularly energy, Eastward, and finished products, especially electronics and solar panels, Westward. Crucial issues emerging at a critical time require immediate but careful rethinking of Asia in world politics. Although a pandemic has altered and delayed the course of trade in 2020 and 2021, this may be both blessing and curse, a blessing in the sense that emerging power houses in Asia as well as Oceana have endeavoured to commit more resources toward augmenting the traditional Western powers, motivating them to become stronger Allies of the West. On the other hand, a curse, to the extent the opportunity for conflict increases as it has unfolded in Afghanistan over the summer of 2021. Perhaps this will inspire a rapprochement with China and instil in China a realistic expectation of achieving economic growth in moderation over a gradual time in contrast to a growth spurt in the short term that would lead to conflict and set China back much as Japanese aggression before 1945 led to warfare ending in Japan’s defeat and Allied victory. A desired outcome such as this may be unlikely, however, given China’s reported inroads into Afghanistan, rising threats to Taiwan.

show abstract

Alexander Morrison, The Russian Conquest of Central Asia. A Study in Imperial Expansion, 1814–1914. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2020

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Foreign or Domestic? The Desecuritisation of Indian Affairs and Normativity in Securitisation Theory

Foreign or Domestic? The Desecuritisation of Indian Affairs and Normativity in Securitisation Theory

The return of Prometheus. Dominant powers and the management of careful revisionists

Empires Old, New, Reincarnated and Imaginary: Economic Build-ups in Eurasia, China and Russia in Afghanistan Naval Build-ups in the South China Sea Region – Their Forecasted Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About