3. Endgame by Jennifer Siegel

Many historians contend that the Great Game ended in 1907 with the signing of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 which settled the posturing between the Russians and English in Persia, Afghanistan and Tibet – the three important Great Game countries.  Historians have given different reasons for why the Russians and English entered into this agreement.  Some of have said that it was because both countries needed to focus on European issues and could not afford to be distracted by Central Asian issues.  Others have suggested that the British finally realized that they were no match for Russia’s overwhelming military might.

This book is a detailed examination of these theories.  The author contends that the Great Game did not end with the signing of this agreement, it simply took a different form.  Furthermore, she argues against those historians who argue that the genesis of this agreement was a need to focus on European issues.  For the most part her analysis is thorough and convincing.

For those of you interested in the Great Game I would highly recommend this book.

The Reprehensibles Part VIII

My first award of 2006 cuts across both parties and both houses of Congress. Chuck Schumer, Democrat, New York, is the nominal recipient but the award has to be shared with Hillary Clinton, Peter King, Bill Frist, all of the members of the House Foreign intelligence Committee, Lou Dobbs and the mass media. They are recipients of this prestigious award for the work that they did to kill the Dubai Ports World deal.

Dubai Ports World, one of the largest operators of ports worldwide, acquired the British company, P&O, in a transaction valued at about $6B. P&O also operates ports throughout the world including 5 high profile ports in the US: New York/New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. Dubai Ports World is owned by the Government of the United Arab Emirates. Soon after the acquisition was announced Lou Dobbs, the CNN anchor, reported in his usual biased way that a UAE company will be in charge of operating five important US ports and he went on to report that two of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of the UAE. He left his viewers to make the connection: UAE = 9/11 hijacker or selling these ports to Dubai Ports World = more 9/11 like events.

Step in Chuck Schumer the loudmouth senator from New York. For two weeks Schumer and his band of liars, trashed the deal between Dubai Ports World and P&O, the President's approval of the deal and anyone who stepped up in favor of the deal. They relentlessly argued that Dubai is unsafe, the home of terrorists and a deal with them will mean that terrorists will be able to get into the US and do more damage. They pointed the finger at Bush claiming that he is soft on terrorists, he doesn't have a plan and that he mishandled the approval of the deal. They so dominated the news cycle with their message that nobody was able to argue the other side.

Not once did they mention that the deal was approved by the non-partisan body which approves all major foreign investments in the US. Not once did they mention that Dubai Ports World is not taking over the coast guard or the INS - the bureaucracies that are responsible for the safety of our ports. Not once did they think about the damage that this could do to foreign investment in the United States. Not once did they consider that the US economy is surviving in large part because of investments in the US' debt by China, Japan and the Middle East and that the US would quickly slip into a recession without this foreign financing. Not once did they think that they were behaving just like the French who they so love to pillory. Not cone did they think that they were being racist.

This was the worst case of election year posturing and lies that I have seen in a long time. Absolutely reprehensible.

2. Curzon Imperial Statesman by David Gilmour

This biography of George Curzon was generally a reasonable one except that it seemed to lack a lot of substantive criticism of Curzon's life and work. It was somewhat critical but it could have been more critical. I became interested in Curzon because when he was Foreign Minister in the post war years he was responsible for a failed treaty with Persia. I have always felt that the treaty was an anachronism borne out of the mind of a man who did not understand the new realities of the post-WWI world. This book helped me understand some of the reasons behind the treaty.

Curzon was an accomplished imperialist. He had a short tenure as an MP, a few years as undersecretary to the India Office, seven years as the Viceroy to India, a number of years as a member of the Imperial War Cabinet and four years as the Foreign Minister.

He became familiar with the near and middle east as well as the Indian subcontinent by taking regular six month voyages traveling to Egypt, the Sudan, the Arabian Peninsula, Persia, Afghanistan, Turkey and India.

He was a consummate imperialist and a great believer in the Great Game - the decades long cold war between Russia and Britain to control the land passage to India and the Caucuses. It was this Imperialist philosophy that blinded him to the realities of the post world war one world: he continued to believe that it was important to try to restrain Russia even though England was under huge economic pressure to cut its expenditures on the empire and the Russian revolution had significantly reduced the military might of the Tsarist empire.

For me this book answered a lot of questions. For those of you interested in great imperialists and/or the Great Game this is a worthwhile read.