Chapter 8 Seventh Three Powers: Russia, Britain, and the United States

The first law of the state, as of the individual, is self-preservation.To preserve oneself means to have the right to acquire by proper means what is needed for the advancement of the nation, and thus to defend against the illegal actions of external powers. In order to act effectively, both individually and collectively, we must recognize the necessity of combining long-term and short-term perspectives.Although these two views seem to be logically contradictory, they complement each other in terms of their practice and influence, just like the centripetal and centrifugal forces in the universe.A good balance in judgment and decision-making can only be achieved when both exist together.The above situation is really only a description of the philosophy of life that is best expressed in paradox.By embracing contrary facts, rather than trying to reconcile them, we can keep our course as close to success as possible.The accepted political belief that the existence of a strong opposition is essential to the success of representative government is a practical demonstration of the above argument.Therefore, it is only after the details have been mastered in detail that we can build a firm basis for argument; A clear appreciation of the interrelationships of the various parts and their importance to the whole, followed by careful action.A correct understanding of these relationships and their importance depends on having a precise sense.

Leaving aside all other forms of movement and the experiences of groups and even nations, the world of change presents a multitude of inevitability and uncertainty against which thought must confront, and in the face of its pressures, to formulate and practice proved in.The development of the world tends to measure actions on the largest scale, and the world is more about the subtle, surprising, complex and unexpected things.Each nation or race deals only with its own internal and external problems, but its individual fortunes specifically affect the general outcome.These influences are not only varied, but lead to continuous changes in the relationship of parts to parts and to the whole.The relative importance and nature of these changes fluctuates.From friend to foe, from strong to weak, accidental events often change the situation surprisingly at a certain moment.Although the country and its leaders are vulnerable to the pain of disillusionment, coalition failure, and shaken foundations at any time, they should fully consider the current trend, look forward to the future from reality, evaluate the relative role of various factors at present, and predict possible scenario, although all this seems to be beyond the scope of their own generation in time.Because they are in their day the protectors of those who come after, they cannot shirk their responsibility.In short, they must take the long view and act logically on them when the time permits.But since human analysis and changes of events are so uncertain, and the difficulties of forecasting and estimating so obvious, they must deal with the situation at each moment with regard to immediate needs, with near-term considerations in mind. , They must focus on their own steps and the next step, and only when their pragmatic minds confirm that the basic direction is consistent with the long-term goal of national interests can they move forward.

Although tracing the origin and evolution of American expansionist impulses is far from the main topic of this paper, research in this area is still interesting.This expansion has taken a decisive step in recent times.However, a great deal of detail must be considered in order to be adequately studied in order to glean from them the key points describing the several stages of expansion.But it would not be perfect without the clear recognition that the expansion described above is but a fragment of the mood that has swept across the civilized world of Europe during the past few decades.We can see it in the advance of Russia into Asia, in the fragmentation of Africa, in the colonial ambitions of France and Germany, in the growth of German naval power, in the progress of Japan, and in the ongoing practice in southern Africa Clear evidence is seen in the Commonwealth of the British Empire.Every major power has a presence in this campaign, and its influence should never be ignored.Such a movement exists, and although we do not know where it originated or what its prospects are, we have seen and heard of it, and our role in it has greatly altered our relations with outside nations and races. relation.Whatever the future of the above-mentioned movement, at least it certainly has a future, but it is a difficult business to understand.At the same time, though, one does not ignore reality.They will do with their strength, with their hands, what needs to be done at this moment.

The purpose of this paper is to examine a concrete stage of the possible prospects mentioned above.Before embarking on such a study, however, it may be interesting and appropriate to briefly note how recent developments in particular reflect long-term and short-term perspectives.The fundamental importance of Cuba, the West Indies, and the Isthmus of Panama to American political, commercial, and military interests has long been known.It would take a long article to explain this in detail in the words and deeds of the public; We learn a thing or two clearly from the efforts at Santo Domingo, the failed negotiations to buy the Danish-occupied islands, and our treaty with Colombia to secure rail transport on the Isthmus.Concerns about the Americas have existed since the beginning of the century in the United States, and when the United States regards expansion as its vocation, the above-mentioned concerns have become something like a belief.Although it existed many generations before the American Civil War, and though it was temporarily forgotten by the outbreak of the Civil War, it was angrily revived at the end of the Civil War, with the American insistence on the withdrawal of French troops from Mexico being its first fruit .At a certain point, long-term perspectives are subordinated to short-term imperatives, but once the crisis is over, the country needs to look farther.

Meanwhile, things have changed or are in the process of changing.New factors emerged in the situation, and the influence and importance of the old ones became clearer, as they became more and more involved in the concrete as time went on. in action.In this way, the American idea of ​​promoting expansion has become sharper and more frank, with a wider range of communication and more confidence in expression.As a result, the long-term vision of the United States gradually went beyond the Antilles and the Isthmus of Panama, focusing on the Pacific Ocean, Hawaii, and the major events taking place in China and Japan.But this attention will still be insufficient, unless the United States and its supporters of expansionism finally realize the decisive influence of sea power on world history.Of course, sea power only serves expansion, its source and protector, and it is not expansion itself.Advocates of American expansion also failed to foresee the possibility of a push beyond the Pacific Ocean.They did not look beyond Hawaii, which, because of its importance to the United States, was viewed from a defensive standpoint, rather than as a springboard for greater influence in the world.According to the author's own observation, before the war between the United States and Spain, the expansionists in the United States were still controlled by the purely defensive ideology inherited from the early history of our country.At this time, the Americans only regarded the Antilles, Cuba, the Isthmus of Panama, and Hawaii as peripheral strongholds, and it became increasingly clear that dangerous influence on the United States could form there.To do this, the United States must take pre-emptive measures, if not decisive action, at least a clear policy.

It was against this psychological background that the war with Spain took place, and its results also particularly showed how quickly the seeds of thought would sprout as soon as they fell on the spiritual soil that suits them perfectly.Today, the fields left uncultivated by subsequent generations of the American Founders are being opened up for thought and discussion, for voice and for writing, for political programs and for press commentary.Historical habit makes Americans familiar with the idea of ​​establishing national power beyond the frontiers of their own continent, and the reasons for it.Although Americans were temporarily overwhelmed by novel ideas such as establishing hegemony in Asia, the long-term plan has always been ready to become a reality.This is not particularly at odds with short-term considerations and immediate action as circumstances dictate, as shown by the annexation of the Philippines, the furthest leap in American expansionary efforts.

For the moment, we must adapt our conduct to the new situation and organize our tasks within it.However, this is true for things that are about to be done, and not necessarily so for thoughts that focus on the future.After analyzing the reality, the next step should not only focus on the existing conditions, but also on the trends embedded in it. It is the history in the germ, and the issues in it are closely related to us and our descendants.Events of recent times have dramatically altered political relations among nations and made their study necessary to provide directions for long-term considerations for the distant future.Though such considerations are subject to much uncertainty, and inconsistencies may arise from moment to moment, it is of the utmost importance so long as the nation's voyage requires foresighted and continuous direction.Conducting this research requires flexible and tenacious convictions, because, with the possible exception of the Monroe Doctrine, Americans have a long-standing habit of paying little attention to topics of foreign policy.This is as much a product of our unique isolation as it is a result of our deliberate pursuit.This willingness is inherited from a previous history, when isolation from world affairs was more justified then than today; It is closely related to the warning of joining the alliance.Facing the changing world environment, we cannot get rid of its influence on us, and we must realize the necessity of conscious action. Only in this way can we recognize and understand a wide range of external issues.These issues are not only related to the increase of our common sense and the satisfaction of our thinking interests, but also have a great direct relationship with ourselves, profoundly affecting ourselves and our children and grandchildren.

With a long-term perspective, in the face of unexpected situations in international politics, decisions can be made quickly, because consciousness has been integrated into the general process of history.If you have considered the possible situations in advance, you can be prepared.Adequate preparation means having a sufficient understanding of current and future conditions, and the recent experience of the United States clearly shows the importance of such preparation.The wars over Cuba and Spain gave us world power, with all its responsibilities and opportunities.What could be more sudden and unexpected, and better illustrate how immediate considerations lead to decisive action?Clearly, thinking about and being mentally prepared for the various possibilities and trends of the day is by no means insignificant in order to make quick decisions in such situations.Far from being an isolated event, the United States was removed from its traditional attitude of interstate struggle in Europe and injected a new element into American politics.The war with Spain was only one of several simultaneous events that collectively drew attention to East Asia and recognized that the dramatic change in circumstances required a change in thinking and in the nation's policy preferences.Nothing gives a sense of the importance of dealing with the problem at hand than the well-known fact that Japan, nearly four months ago, expressed to our Government displeasure with our annexation of Hawaii, and is now content with our possession of the Philippines.

Like the expansion of the United States, the changes in the Eastern situation also originated from certain preparatory events before, but they were not noticeable when they happened, so they were not given special attention; on the other hand, as the situation The events marked by changes are all concentrated within a certain period of time, so they are quite sudden, so naturally people can't have a precise understanding of them, but only a vague understanding.Of course, they exist objectively, and this includes things that have a deep international impact on established countries from which we have tried to distance ourselves.As things went on, we had the Philippines, an action we couldn't very well avoid, not to mention it opened up new opportunities.However, opportunity is never inseparable from responsibility, because whether to take advantage of an opportunity or not to take advantage of it, we must make a decision, and the error or wisdom of thinking prevents it from being free from moral judgments.

It is also time to examine the charge that the possession of the Philippines and the exploitation of other opportunities invite: We have abandoned the Monroe Doctrine.This argument finds strength in prejudice.Even if the term Monroe Doctrine has some pejorative meanings, it has no more meaning than what it already has; Only then can we fully obey it.The policy that the Monroe Doctrine requires us to carry out can be summed up comprehensively: insist on resisting the expansion of the American continent by the European powers.As a balance to the above demands, we have adopted a code of conduct that does not interfere with words, let alone deeds, in matters of a purely European nature.However, this is not at all based on international law, but entirely based on our perceived self-interest.

The above two complementary gestures do not have any legal status and binding force like a contract or precedent.So, we can drop any one of them at any time without incurring accusations of illegal behavior.If we regard their pursuit as purely a matter of policy, and consider it wise because of their widespread acceptance, what course of argument is there to be sure that these two maxims will forever prohibit us from affirming our rights in Asia?The Monroe Doctrine, I think, began as little more than an acknowledgment of the familiar political tenet that geographical proximity is a source of trouble between nations.Owing to our partial position, we wish to avoid this situation; the natural consequence of this idea is the determination to disengage from the internal affairs of Europe.In short, we took advantage of the opportunities that the favorable environment gave us and kept a quiet one.But there are areas beyond geography where national interests meet and blend; and here the Monroe Doctrine does not prevent us from doing what our duty or interest requires.I know that we never hoped to achieve our goals by occupying the lands of the Europeans, because there is neither good nor sense in disturbing the situation, the stability of which depends on the safety of the history of races and nations through the centuries Continuation; but we have no qualms about the legitimacy or good or bad of territorial expansion in the Western Hemisphere, and our adjustment to the Western Hemisphere has not been conclusively achieved.Today, in Asia, we are confronted with problems that are closely related to our interests.We should consistently do what the situation demands of us, just as we would in any international disagreement with the European powers.If the deterioration of the situation creates a power vacuum, start by preserving the existing system or resisting the erosion of the system that must be brought about by the changes in the world driven by stronger states.The United States will exercise occupation and control over certain territories.However, the United States does not want to undertake other tasks at all, which is contrary to its tradition and current policy.But the above should also be conceived as a possibility, for once life, however lamentable, is extinguished, the corpse is of no use but for dissection or as food; and it is a law of nature that the vultures gather upon the dead.There is no point in complaining.The forward movement of the world should be regarded as a real existence, and people can only try to guide it to our own use, not blindly oppose it, let alone lament in vain for things that are irretrievably lost. In certain circumstances, the Monroe Doctrine will always be a valid theory.But after a few generations, it became more of a tradition, a conservative thing, for better or worse.Tradition tends to give established policies the character of eternity, and whether things are eternal is entirely determined by the changing world environment.The principle on which a thought is based may be necessary, and therefore eternal, truth; but its application varies widely, and creeds, norms, and doctrines are not living principles themselves, but only their expression.They cannot escape the influence of earthly changes, and their temporary application in a certain situation must not have eternal significance.We should not deify these revered dogmas, nor consider their revision impossible under any circumstances. No matter how true a claim is, it is still possible to adjust perceptions of its actual impact.Take America's alienation from the complex affairs of Europe. It is in any case impossible today to find a reason for us to intervene in a dispute in Europe; Cast an indifferent glance.Or just from the perspective of their own safety as in the past.Changes in the world have brought us to a time when the downfall of a European state might immediately and directly harm our own interests, prompting us to act either to avert the catastrophe itself or to mitigate its consequences.From these, we can naturally appreciate that, given the power and status of different countries, it is important to pay attention to the relationship between their inherent power and ourselves, and also their attitude towards us, which is closely affected by the national character and the government's spiritual control over the people. absolutely necessary.So the United States simply shares a common destiny with other countries, because all countries are more closely intertwined than before, and, especially in Asia, the external environment focuses all countries on a common denominator.There is nothing certain to say about this, and the possibilities for the future remain diverse. The coming together of influences from all parts, representing not only the interests of the nations but also the interests of larger groups such as races, creates a big question about the future of Asia.To this end, we can first discuss some key points in geography broadly in terms of factors such as location, size, and natural features.Then comes the political situation, and the possible scenarios that stem from both.In order to realize these visions, it is also necessary to pay attention to the environment surrounding the Asian continent, which includes the geographical situation of other Asian or European countries, relative power including political, economic, army and naval power, and the ease of contact with the Asian continent. The length, quality, and facilities of the lines of communication, and the points of political or military influence each country occupies in Asia arise from here.The problem of Asia is a problem of the world, and when it arose, the world was in an age when, owing to the rapidity of communication and communication by means of telecommunication, changes in countries and trends in them were attracting unprecedented attention.But sensitivity is not the same as understanding, just as symptoms and diagnosis are not the same thing.Research is necessary, and it can be discerned from the outset that political issues and military strategy, which include geographical factors, have much in common.In both there is to be found a center of interest, namely, the geographical situation of the nations concerned, which is the basis of their strength and action, even when they are at peace.The ability to project power to centers of interest is also of primary military importance, as power that cannot be freely transferred is not effective power.In fact, it is the quality of transportation and facilities that make maritime powers vary in performance and efficiency. If you observe the Asian continent from two aspects of length and width, you can first notice that it is almost completely north of the equator, and its main body is between the Tropic of Cancer and the Arctic Circle, which is the so-called temperate zone.It would, however, be erroneous to extrapolate from this the climate of Asia, for some variation is caused by the state of nature.The northern and southern Great Plains are exceptionally cold and exceptionally hot in Siberia and India, respectively.Mainly due to the vastness of the continents, the ocean cannot play a wide-ranging role in regulating the climate.The effect of vastness on temperature is most evident in the monsoons, periodic winds that change with the seasons, just as land and sea breezes change from day to night.However, the monsoon is as stable as a constant trade wind during its duration. The monsoon phenomenon mainly exists in the Indian Ocean, the Bay of Bengal and the China Sea. It is caused by the warming and cooling of the continents.The movement of the sun between north and south of the equator results in a periodicity in the direction of the atmospheric winds, with northeasterly winds in winter and southwesterly winds in summer. In rough outline, the Asian continent spans about 5,000 miles from east to west along 30 degrees north latitude, and adds several hundred miles along 40 degrees north latitude, which is the distance between Asia Minor peninsula in the west and Korean peninsula in the east. due to extension.Roughly speaking, between these two lines of equality lies the quintessential Asian landscape and political divisions whose volatile character makes today's Asian problems embarrassing and urgent.The Isthmus of Suez, Palestine and Syria, Mesopotamia, most of Persia (Iran) and many mountains in Afghanistan are characteristic of these two countries in the above-mentioned belt-shaped area. The Pamirs, the Tibetan Plateau, and the Yangtze River Most of the watershed and this most important part of the thousand miles lower down the great river.Also in this belt are Aleppo, Mosul and Baghdad, Tehran and Isfahan, Merv and Herat, Kabul and Kandahar, as well as Chinese cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing and Hankou in the Far East.Here, no city belongs to a country whose stability depends on its own power, or the non-interference of its ambitious neighbors.The Himalayan chain is only slightly outside the aforementioned area to the south.Although Japan is outside the mainland, it may be interesting to note that most of its territory and centers of power lie within the above-mentioned zone and span it from north to south. Broadly speaking, this is a contentious area.The political situation on its south and north sides is generally relatively stable, although not absolutely constant.The frontiers of the North and the South are subject to external shocks, turmoil and envy, invasion and defense, though at present these are more political than military.These behaviors, whatever their form, are essentially expressions of conflicting motives.The breakaway zone in Asia stretches east-west, while the movement in Asia is north-south.It is the character of this movement and its prospects that we shall study.Given the magnitude of the stakes and the relative calm of the situation, it can be believed to continue until some adjustment is made.This adjustment is either according to everyone's wishes, or it is completely determined by the competing players at the top.In practice rather than theory, balance can exist in situations of great inequality of power or in perfect equilibrium, which is another truth that seems contradictory but actually normal. A brief inspection of the map shows that there is a dividing line along the above-mentioned strip, and the political situation in the area passed by this line is turbulent.This line oscillates along the north-south direction, and the people and events it contains will be familiar to anyone who reads the news regularly.Just hearing the names Turkestan, Kifa, Merv, Herat, Kandahar, and Kabul can realize the above facts, as can the names Manchuria and Port Arthur.These wobbles can be seen in the western half of Asia and in the Far East, and will be more fully understood by a search of history.In fact, it is impossible to divide Asia north-south according to precise predictions.By examining the East and the West separately, separating the environment and events in one region from those in another, East and West Asia together form the real content of a big problem and inject a lot of complicated factors into it.Therefore, their relationship to each other and to the whole should be explored. For the time being, it is useful to consider the understanding of the East-West dividing line in Asia as a stage in the analysis process, and then examine the characteristics and distribution of forces along this line.The projection of these forces, both north and south, is the primary factor in the process of change that has begun and is ongoing.Glancing at a map, we immediately notice the all-too-obtrusive fact that the vast, unbroken Russian Empire stretched uninterrupted eastward from the top of Asia Minor and across the top of Japan.At such a distance, no political obstacle could prevent Russia from concentrating the forces at its disposal.Within Russia, only distance itself and the hindrances of natural circumstances can limit the freedom and fullness of the movement of forces.So Russia has the power factor of being at the center, plus the fact that Russia's territory is wedged into Central Asia, protected on one wing by the Caucasus Mountains and the inland Caspian Sea under Russian control, and on the other by stretching northeast from Afghanistan. Strengthened by the mountains on the western frontier of China, Russia has hitherto encountered no dire danger from the eastern flank of Central Asia. Russia's territorial advance to date has been accomplished in a single generation.Its wedge point in Central Asia is between Persia and Afghanistan. In this regard, it should be considered that advancing farther through Persia to the Persian Gulf has attractive and convenient conditions for Russia.The same activity can be carried out on the other side of the continent, and Russia has made considerable progress in reaching Port Arthur across Manchuria.Therefore, at both ends of the East and West, Russia has shown enthusiasm without complaint and regret. Its performance is not intermittent, but relaxed.Out of the laws of nature and racial instinct, Russia is trying to rely on the east and west wings to advance southward geographically, and the center of the advance is the mountains of Afghanistan and the deserted East Turkestan and Mongolia regions.Even if there is a will, it is impossible to interfere with Russian behavior in the above-mentioned areas and their mutual echoes in different areas.In terms of physical and political circumstances, the length of the above-mentioned zone is not a weakness of Russia, because its center of expansion cannot be crushed.If restrictions are really to be imposed, they must be done only on the flanks of the above-mentioned zone or inwards therefrom.Opponents of Russian expansion have no malice towards Russia, nor envy of its prosperity, they simply consider undue dominance unhealthy in any regime, whether as regards domestic or interstate parliaments .If the world federation becomes a reality, the healthy operation of politics requires the existence of opposition forces, which undoubtedly should be based on national or racial divisions. North and south are logically relative, so it can be speculated that Russian expansion from the north corresponds to expansion from the south of the dividing line.To some extent this is true, but there are clear differences between the North and the South, both in degree and in nature.The evolution of history has revealed more and more ambitions and attempts in front of us.It can be seen from this that although the South Asian peninsula is also deeply wedged northward into the disputed area of ​​​​Central Asia, the power center of the race that actually ruled the peninsula is thousands of miles away, and it is in contrast to Russia's territorial concentration. Yes, the distribution of their own population and military power is more dispersed.Because of this, India is not the main place for British political and military activities.It is just one of many lands to which Britain belongs, spread across the globe, united by Britain's super sea power.Of these many places, India is best suited, by virtue of its distance and terrain, to be used to exert influence in Central Asia or to act on the front lines of Russian expansion.India's land frontiers were protected by the mountains of Afghanistan and the Himalayas, and its rear flanks were impregnable as long as the British navy remained superior.In this way, India is effectively a base of advance, which can be the initial or final point of departure for an expeditionary force bound for Egypt or China; much less as a closer point for a march in any other direction. In essence, India is not just a base value to the UK.Its centrality relative to China and Egypt also applied to Australia and the Cape of Good Hope, so that India acted as an assisting centralizer of other colonial support for the Commonwealth of the British Empire.Nor is India insecure in terms of its relevance to other Asian problems.Acquisition of Burma allowed India to push its border eastward, avoiding the Himalayas, and opening the way for political and commercial influence in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River and China's western provinces.On the sea, the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong on one side and Aden and Egypt on the other side played a huge role like land strongholds, strongly supporting Britain's maritime operations in both east and west directions.In a broad sense, this kind of operation is aimed at the partition of Asia, or the flanks of the battle zone between the North and the South.This rivalry is today very clearly directed at the territory of Asia. It can be said that the territorial expansion of Britain and Russia in Asia constitutes the current regional background, not only the peaceful or military actions of Britain and Russia are based on this, but also the defensive or offensive actions of other countries.If it does not exist, many things that are currently attracting attention may be invisible; however, because of the existence of this background, there are suddenly many external opportunities and dangers for every country, and they must not be taken lightly.Therefore, it is necessary to think about and summarize these dangers and opportunities. They are the external interests of our country. These interests correspond to the strategic goals in the war in the political field. Like individuals, the first law of a country is self-preservation, which cannot be narrowly understood as an immutable cycle of life.Change and development are the characteristics of living life, but for the country, it is true that the expansion of scale cannot be regarded as inevitable.The same is true for people. After the body reaches a certain limit, the individual's body, especially the spirit, continues to develop and change for a long time.For the state, self-preservation means the right to acquire by appropriate means what it needs for its progress, and thus to defend itself against the illegal actions of external powers.We often study and analyze a disagreement among nations on the basis of clear and definite provisions of rights. In this case, we presuppose that the provisions of rights must be obeyed; When legal and institutional regulations are available, we can only deal with them expediently.From the perspective of self-preservation, this is appropriate and beneficial. If each country can honestly consider the needs of itself and its opponents, and seek an appropriate balance through mutual understanding and accommodation or fair arbitration, it will be beneficial to the countries concerned and even the The broader human community is of great benefit.Of course, in such a balance, the government and the country itself are not the ultimate goal, but only instrumental things. What they are responsible for is not their own, but the trust of future generations.Both renunciation and recourse to arbitration are therefore governed by this relationship of trust, and therefore cannot be taken from considerations of self-sacrifice alone.The individual is dealing with purely his own affairs, and his self-sacrifice is therefore highly commendable. Therefore, it is not enough to focus only on the territorial security of Britain and Russia, although they are the most competitive in Asia today.It must be taken into account that these two countries have both the need and the right to develop, and this is either affected by their tit-for-tat situation, or by the situation in Asia itself, mainly in the divided areas where many disputes exist.Therefore, we cannot only explore the above-mentioned issues within the scope of the two main contenders, Britain and Russia.For the world, especially for Asian countries, the right to development means dealing with the many problems in Asia, and means exploiting and exploiting vast areas of Asia, which have long been excluded from the general agenda . Development depends on two related factors: first, the vitality of internal organization, which is a force for the elimination of differences; second, the freedom of exchange with foreign resources.In civilized nations the former is the business of the nation itself.As far as domestic institutions are concerned, it is widely recognized that foreign intervention is acceptable only in the initial or decaying stages of political development.Organizational problems are essentially domestic, with foreign elements involved only in extremely rare cases.Freedom of exchange is different.Due to the dependence on the external environment, exchange necessarily implies the need for external permission, which comes not only from the object with which it is exchanged, but also from other external forces whose interests are involved in the exchange process. 這裡不想討論英國和俄國的內部管理方式，但如果這些方式在英、俄想得到但尚未得到的土地上的擴展對其他國家產生了某些影響，則另當別論。要認真考察這種影響，在決定政策時必須對其十分重視。作為當今歐洲國家間一個明顯特點是普遍的領土擴張傾向，它已造成了公共土地的相應減少；與此同時，對於那種包含有實行排他性控制之威脅的任何行為，有著更多的嫉恨。這種控制或通過直接佔領，或借助於操縱性影響，尤其是當它不是依託開放市場上的公平商業競爭，而是憑藉著排他性的軍事或政治力量時。 所以，在把現代方式應用於處於英、俄勢力範圍之間的那些亞洲國家和民族以促進其發展時，不管其中可以有多少商業性的途徑，所有尋求通過商業和交換來促進自身健康發展的國家都有著共同的利益。每個這樣的國家都希望在上述領域有平等的機會，不受基於公開或秘密的強權運用等非公平競爭的外來消極影響的阻擾。沒有什麼比這些更讓人害怕、讓人厭惡並助長爭吵。不過，分析結果仍表明，迄今為止。軍事力量的使用是問題癥結所在。發展是一個長時間的過程，但目前的趨勢是，通過獲取新的地理要點，通過鞏固在新舊土地上的權力，英、俄在實行領土控制方面正越來越具有優勢。 上述情形適用於大致位於北緯三十度和四十度之間的所有地帶，而不單單對於中國。由於巨大的面積、眾多的人口及表面上的無依無靠，中國很自然受到更大關注。就當前而言，論及的問題與發展的結果還無太大關連，這種發展結果或許並不能將四億人民這幾個字所寓示的對貿易的樂觀期望化為現實。由於遠在未來故而不好作準確的預測，發展結果對涉及的問題的影響很大程度上如一個變數對一個數學問題的影響。不過，就考察過程而言，這和把不同的數值代入運算式時顯示出的狀態又是根本不同的。變數發展結果無論大小，都會導致眾多的可能，故而在討論如何消除任何排他性的不當主宰局面這個政治問題時，必須將發展的結果考慮進去。 與此相聯，如果把亞洲的中央地帶看成一個源泉，認為借此全世界的國家通過互相交換或受益能夠給它們自己帶來生機，我們用不著試圖詳盡地估算這個源泉到底多麼巨大。這看來是非常合理的。僅僅是亞洲發展國內交通所需的勞力和資本的使用，就足夠產生值得重視的國家間相互影響。這種影響在未來會更大到何種程度，對關於現階段的必要預測並不重要。如果把所有的因素陸軍和海軍力量、陸上的和海上的地緣狀況、內外聯絡、商業活動和利潤都包括在考慮之內，上述影響將是級數意義而非分數意義上的。其級數大小取決於未知的變數之值，即有關國家的潛在財富，如它們將真正成為國際團體中的發達成員的話。 亞洲地區可以最終向世界的普遍繁榮提供直接或間接的貢獻，這正是各國備加關注的重大利益所在。從各國或對其謀求控制、或爭取分享的企圖來看，這些企圖又是和軍事行動的戰略目標一致的。如果暫且接受了剛才講的關於數值的可變性的觀點，接下來我們需要談及內外交通問題，這在戰爭政策上極其重要。完全是在國內範圍內的交通是商業發展的一部分，更不用說構成了重要國際航線的交通了。 一目了然的是交通主要可分為兩種方式海路和陸路。這種區分令人想到今天正穩固地盤踞在亞洲土地上的兩大歐洲強國的本質不同。這些事情將愈發清楚地表明，陸上強國與海上強國之間的新一輪多重較量又出現在我們面前。需要觀察並持續地追溯英俄間的長期競爭，這也許比其他任何東西都能更好地引導我們看清當前的複雜，並在兩個對手之間求得能最肯定、最容易地得以維持的那種協調。借助於這種協調，英國和俄國的各自權力不管各自的組成是怎樣的在大小與性質上都應趨於一致；與此同時，它們間的摩擦應被盡力減少。假如上述兩種局面能夠實現，從其中就很難再萌生出破壞和平的企圖了。 不論其出發點和方向如何，海上航線隨船隻的航行而延伸。這樣人為力量並不決定著它們的存在，而只是影響著對它們的運用。而且海上交通的載運量是陸上交通根本無法相比的。陸上運輸既受制於地形對交通的巨大阻礙，也受制於面對這些阻礙而加寬道路、增修鐵路所需的開支，它和水路運輸的成本不可比擬。鐵路根本不能與河運競爭，它在速度上的優勢不能彌補運量上的劣勢。由於簡便易行且載運量大，在相同距離內，水上運輸更為便宜，並因此更為普遍的運用。這些特點不是偶然、暫時的，而是本質上的、長久的。只有在沒有水上交通的地方，或是水運距離比陸運太過遙遠以至於前者的固有優點盡被抵銷之時，陸運在價格與運用的普遍性上才有競爭力。很有必要強調這些事實，因為鐵路運輸快得多的速度給普通人留下了非常不同的印象，他們容易忘記鐵路運力的有限。交通或者說物資交換的好壞不只是取決於速度，也取決於在較長的時期內能夠被穩妥運送的貨物數量。 水運的上述固有優勢可能會使它在促進所討論地區的發展方面處於無與倫比的地位。不過，如前所說，海上交通的存在是一回事，對它的使用又是另一回事。後者取決於能力，該能力一是體現在單純的海上海軍力量上，二是體現在海陸交界地帶的海上力量和陸上力量的相得益彰或是缺乏協調上。在海陸交匯地帶，由於陸軍力量傳統上是政治權力基礎的緣故，必然會有海陸力量之間的不協調問題，故需要達成其間的平衡。這種平衡所影響的不僅僅是周邊地帶。依託於海權的領土控制的性質、範圍及堅固性是政治影響的本質所在，這和根據地在陸上軍事行動中的作用是一樣的，來自這些根據地的影響輻射遠至內陸地區，並在那裡發揮著在範圍和程度上和始發點同樣的作用。 所以，陸權的使用受離海洋遠近的影響；與此相對應，在任何海陸交匯之處，陸上環境也制約著海權的使用，使其不再是一個獨立的因素，而在性質上受制於陸權的大小強弱。在不同時期和不同程度上，上述情形可表現在海港及可航行河流的出口處、在河流的中上游地段上、在島嶼及海岸對戰略的影響上以及象直布羅陀這樣的海峽及蘇伊士這樣的運河上。在所有這些情形中，陸權對海權的影響是顯而易見的。在國際水道被陸上軍力截斷之處如巴拿馬地峽，或這種截斷由於陸地的毗鄰而極易發生之處，也可見到上述情況。人工水道最容易受到被截斷的威脅，蘇伊士大運河是最清楚不過的例子所在；從地中海通往波斯灣的鐵路這無疑反映了亞洲的發展前景也顯示出了這種情形。 考慮到陸地和海洋作為交通管道的各自特點以及它們交匯之時的相互作用，無疑的是，對中國以及其他擁有海岸線的國家來說，海洋是發展商業的最有效的媒介物資交換使國家通過對外接觸獲得更新，從而保持、促進它們的勃勃生機。長江對於上述情形頗具意義，因為它有上千英里河段可供汽船航行，且將大海與其流域的心臟地帶連接起來。中國由於擁有海岸也就使其他國家能夠由海洋抵達中國。交通越方便，運輸量就會越大，財富相應地也就會越增加，相互作用在此具體地體現出來。要有大的收益，就必須對保持並促進有利的環境備加關心。也就是說，從商業交換中獲得最大好處的國家最希望商業能不斷發展，而商業的興衰又受和平與戰爭的左右，於是，借助海洋進行貿易的國家把和平作為首要的利益所在。實際上說商業國家的利益在於和平已是老生常談了。這些國家確實需要做好在必要之時訴諸戰爭的準備，以此來推行它們的和平政策，不過就此而言這樣的軍事準備本質上應是防禦性而非侵略性的。這也是出於以下原因：由於這些國家的主要利益是在海上交通方面並對其更具控制權，它們對爭端地區的陸上控制能力就不可能又強於其邊界和這些地區緊鄰的國家。由於海軍對內陸採取強制行動的能力有限，所以使用海軍要借助於政治智慧；而海軍作為用於防禦的軍事工具，對於一個國家的自由權利也不構成威脅。 如前提及的，俄國的統治範圍綿延甚廣且團為一體。再加上俄國離開放海域遠之又遠，它不可避免地要依賴於陸路來完成與亞洲多爭執地區的大量交通、聯絡任務。由於陸上自然條件如此惡劣，很難想像它們能由哪種政治擴張的進行而得以改善。這意味著，即使俄國現在抵達了海邊或是能夠很快做到這點，由於這些抵達點與俄國中心地帶過於遙遠，它們之間的聯繫歸根結底還要主要經由陸路。所以就俄國的幅員來說，海上貿易的好處只會波及離海岸較近的地區，而這些受益地區由於相對較小也就不會達到通常海上貿易所導致的發展水準。而且，因為瀕臨的是內海，上述地區又可能遭到敵國封鎖之害。單單看一下達達尼爾海峽以及波羅的海的出入口就一目了然了。 這些情況表明，如果陸地與海洋交通的比較優勢及其影響的確如上所說，俄國在財富積累方面就處在了不利地位。換句話說，俄國缺乏促進其人民他們既是獲取財富的工具，也是支持獲取財富的的福利的手段。假如這是事實，俄國順理成章地就會心懷不滿，而這又馬上會表現為侵略厭惡任何國家擴張行為的人最喜歡用這個詞。俄國必然會不斷推進，而這又充分顯露它的最終目標。如彼得大帝廣為人知的志向所表明的，俄國時常擁有有組織的推進計畫，可以謹慎地考慮這些計畫在多大程度上反映了俄國對自身明顯需要的認識以及在此之上的躁動不安。這些或許是亞洲局勢中最大的獨一無二的因素，可以這樣來表述它，只有部分俄國領土從海上貿易中受惠，而這些領土即使加在一起，和俄國的全部國土相比也只是沒有太大意義的一小部分。所以，俄國希望不僅獲得更多的、更開放的海岸，也希望通過直接佔領或間接控制以染指其他遠方的海濱地區，來自這些地區的好處將促進整個帝國的普遍繁榮。在此還需附帶言及俄國對內統治制度和一般政策的特點：在吞併了某一地區後，俄國通常要基本剝奪其他國家在俄國實行佔領之前就已享有的東西。 如果已經認識到了利益衝突的情形，但又只在其中看到敵對的根據，那就犯了個可悲的錯誤。一些國家在接觸海洋的程度以及自然條件方面更為幸運，這就大大便利了它們的貿易血液的迴圈。這些國家對於俄國即使沒有同情，也至少應多份坦誠，因為後者因其海岸的狹窄、內陸的廣闊與條件惡劣以及氣候的十分嚴酷承受著諸多的束縛與艱辛。 但是，儘管應該持有上述態度，俄國人民依舊有其自身的責任。不過，與此相同，在亞洲地區，任何可能發生的變革都最緊密地系於大眾和政府的道義責任。解決我們面臨的問題不能僅僅根據現有的自然的、人為的或法律上的權利，或者是文明發達社會中業已確定的那些原則。我們面對的可能是一個許多機制瓦解，或者是對它們組成部分重新調整的局面。其中任何一種情況成為現實，其影響都會是穩定、持久的，自然因素的存在與作用已清楚地展示了這些。這兩種情況也可能會達成一種平衡，從而使每一方都能通過自然選擇找到自己的合適位置。其間的鬥爭如自然選擇這個詞所表示的包含著衝突與痛苦。如果能理性地評估發揮影響的力量，並通過在今天看來顯然更適當的協商和妥協這些人為方式來求得自然的協調，這些也許能被避免，至少是部分地被避免。