What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
How The Great Game has evolved, with Central Asia emerging as a pivotal theater for competing powers.
I am a big fan of the Anglo-Russian colonial rivalry, also known as The Great Game. I have this habit of viewing most things through that prism to derive some meaning from global geopolitics. As a result, when most people have moved on with the understanding that The Great Game ended with World War II, I cannot help but see a continuation of it in the Cold War, the ‘end of history’ unipolar era, or the present rise of the Sino-Rus alliance and the stirrings of a multipolar world.
In my mind, The Game never ended; it merely changed its shape. The scope as well as the geography has widened, naturally, the stakes have gone up, the players have multiplied, and layers of deception have piled upon one another, with the media distracting us as usual. But at its core, Eurasian ‘access and control’ still retains the key. Tech advancement, the 4th Industrial wave, AI, and chat-bots notwithstanding, Eurasia, also known in geopolitical parlance as Halford Mackinder’s ‘Heartland and World Island,’ remains the ultimate prize.
ALSO READ: NATO paradox and other American miscalculations
There are historic similarities too. Like in the previous century, Central Asia continues to elude. With Atlantic Europe in their pocket, Russia and China grabbing huge geographies of Eurasia, and with a raging battle in Ukraine that looks poised to determine the future of Central/East Europe, it is back to Central Asia for the ever-expansionist West.
What could be the larger idea? In the Great Game dialect, the larger idea would be to weaken the adversaries, thus making way for a future grab at the heart of the two civilizations. Two civilizations that remain unconquered.
ALSO READ: Can Georgia avert another colour revolution?
Therefore, taking advantage of the present Russo-Ukraine conflict (under the assumption that Russia’s influence is weakening over the CARs), the West has initiated a series of moves aimed at Central Asia in a manner that reminds one of the US overtures to the CARs during the late 90s and early 2000s. EU’s Josef Borrell visited Kazakhstan and subsequently met with all five CAR foreign ministers in Uzbekistan last November. Prior to that, the European Council President Charles Michel visited most of the heads of state in Astana. He again went this last week to meet all the leaders.
The gifts that the West brings to the table have changed. The end-of-century proposals that the US put forth both before and after 9/11 had remained lined with robust pitches about pipelines, tech transfers, trade relations, and an occasional base or two. The recent proposals, with the exception of a 1 billion dollar investment proposal by Air Products in Uzbekistan, mostly hover around areas of clean energy, climate change, and assistance to NGOs striving to ensure social justice.
If that sounds sufficiently woke, it is. If environment, social, and governance (ESG), gender equality, or diversity is how the West aims to ‘help’ Central Asia and become a counter to the tremendous influence that Russia (and now China) enjoys, then that only makes my trials to mount these gambits within The Great Game frame relevant.
Why do I think so?
Both China and Russia offer strength and stability to the CAR governments. Russian and Chinese influence maintain the sanctities of their political boundaries, which provide steady business environments and help them grow. In a region like this, where there is always the fear of Islamic destabilization lurking somewhere, security guarantees and handholding through economic development are big blessings. Chinese Premier Xi Jinping, for example, in his most recent address in Xian, focused on not only integrating BRI and SCO but hinted that the 5 CARs should stick together to defend against terrorism, separatism, and extremism. The fact of the matter is that ‘there are dozens of industrial transfer programs with Kazakhstan, a dozen in Uzbekistan, and several in discussion with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. These are extolled by Beijing as part of ‘harmonious Silk Roads’,’ as Pepe Escobar notes.
ALSO READ: What if India joined Western Bloc? Exploring Cold War geopolitics
What is remarkable is the joining of hands of Russia and China. I have already covered the Kazan Forum; an initiative timed perfectly to dovetail with the Xian summit, and as a response to the much-touted G7 at Hiroshima. For those who need further confirmation, consider this from a Valdai Club analyst: ‘China and Russia are equally interested in the stability of Central Asia simply because they are directly neighboring most of the states located in this part of Eurasia… you would not put your neighbor’s house on fire in order to hurt another neighbor. But if a certain power is located thousands of miles away… may well be betting on destabilizing that region… the common task of China and Russia is to prevent this.’
On the other hand, if the CARs find themselves accepting airy Western proposals on clean energy, social governance, or democratization over the tangible Sino-Rus offer of security, stability, and economic development – that can only result in one thing: destabilization and possible colour revolutions. After all, ‘clean energy’ translates to deindustrialization – which translates to large-scale unemployment and a drop in the standards of living; and social governance and democratization translate to empowering non-state actors – from NGOs to radical terror groups – in a bid to undermine the government and state security mechanism.
The West never intended to control the Asian heartland. Right after the time England sent their spies from India to figure out the extent of Russian control to today, the idea has always been to keep the region festering. In the eyes of the West, Central Asia is a rare geography that has the potential to cause significant distress to two regional giants at the same time.
At one end, thus, remains the trials to destabilize, and at the other end, a will to prevent that. And that is just the Central Asian aspect of The Great Game – a portion of a global, unstoppable game of chess that has never revealed its true size and has not quite ended.
(Arindam Mukherjee is a geopolitical analyst and the author of JourneyDog Tales, The Puppeteer, and A Matter of Greed.”)
You May Also Like:
