¹ See Treadgold, Donald, “Russia and the Far East”, in Russian Foreign Policy: Essays in Historical Perspective, ed. Lederer, Ivo J. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1962) pp. 531–48Google Scholar. There has been extensive work in Russian and English on Russia's interest in the Far East and the nature of Russian Imperialism. The following works are particularly useful: Malozemoff, Andrew, Russian Far Eastern Policy 1881–1904 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958)Google Scholar; Geyer, Dietrich, Russian Imperialism: The Interaction of Domestic and Foreign Policy, 1860–1914 (transl. from German by Bruce Little) (Leamington Spa: Berg, 1987)Google Scholar; SirMarriot, J.A.R., Anglo-Russian Relations 1689–1943 (London: Methuen and Co., 1944)Google Scholar; Dallin, David J., The Rise of Russia in Asia (London: Hollis and Carter, 1950)Google Scholar; Romanov, B.A., Russia In Manchuria (1892–1906) (New York: Octagon Books, 1974)Google Scholar. In Russian one of the most important works not translated is Narochnitskii, A.L., Kolonial'naya politika kapitalisticheskikh derzhav na Dal'nem Vostoke (1860–1895) (Moscow, 1956).Google Scholar

² See Quested, R., “Russian Interest in Southeast Asia: Outlines and Sources 1803–1970”, in Journal of Southeast Asia Studies 1,2 (Sep. 1970): 49Google Scholar and Longmire, R.A., Soviet Relations with South East Asia (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1989), p. 6.Google Scholar

³ See Firuz Kazemzadeh, “Russia and the Middle East”, in Russian Foreign Policy, ed. Lederer, pp. 489–530.

⁴ For further discussion of Russia's motives and gains in the Central Asia area see Geyer, Russian Imperialism, pp. 86–100.

⁵ Quested, “Russian Interest”, p. 49. For more information on the government sponsored founding of the Volunteer Fleet, see Malozemoff, Russian Far Eastern Policy, pp. 12–13. It was designed for the maintenance of regular communication between the Black Sea and ports of the Far East and the shipping of “ample cargoes” as well as passengers to Sakhalin Island and replacement of troops in the Far East. Later, it also shipped settlers to Siberia, but this never exceeded 2000 per year.

⁶ Jelavich, Barbara, St. Petersburg and Moscow: Tsarist and Soviet Foreign Policy, 1814–1974 (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1974), pp. 232–49.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid., pp. 235–36. Malozemoff, Russian Far Eastern Policy, also has a chapter discussing the ideological influences behind Russian expansion in the Far East. Ukhtomskii would later write his account of the Tsarevitch's voyage to the East, which has been translated into English as Travels in the East of Nicholas II, Emperor of Russia, when Csarevitch, 1890–1891 (Trans. Goodet, R. ed. SirBirdwood, G.), 2 vols. In Russian, Poezdka naslednika… (St. Petersburg, 1893).Google Scholar

⁸ Quested, “Russian Interest”, pp. 49–50.

⁹ Ibid., p. 49.

¹⁰ See Thio, Eunice, British Policy in the Malay Peninsula 1880–1910 (Singapore and Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1969), p. 7.Google Scholar

¹¹ Quested, “Russian Interest”, p. 49.

¹² Apart from the recently edited published primary sources referred to in this article (see footnote 13), there are very few secondary works in Russian. See Quested, “Russian Interest”, pp. 48–60 along with Ch.Sedov, A., Tyurin, V.A., and Uzyanov, A.N. (ed.), Is istorii stran yugo-vostochnoi Azii (Moscow, 1968)Google Scholar; Solovyev, O.F., Otnosheniya mezhdu Rossiey i Birmoy v xix veku. Sovetskoe vostokovedenie, no. 4 (1956)Google Scholar and Russkie otkrytiya v Tikhom Okeane i severnoy Amerike v xviii-xix vekakh (Moscow/Leningrad: Academy of Sciences Publishing House, 1944)Google Scholar; Solov'ev, O.F., “Iz istorii russko-tailandskikh otnishenii, Istoricheskii Arkhiv 6 (1967): 111–30, “Otnoshenia mezhdu Rossiei i Birmoi v 19 v.”, Sovetskoe Vostokovedenie 4 (1956): 126–34Google Scholar; and Alyoshin, Iu, Sovetsko-Indoneziiskie otnoshenie (Moscow, 1963)Google Scholar. A recent book, Longmire, R.A., Soviet Relations with South East Asia (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1989)Google Scholar has an introductory chapter on the tsarist experience in S.E. Asia based on Russian archives and published primary materials. There is also a biographical account of a Russian explorer with some information on his ethnographic adventures in this part of the world in Webster, E.M., The Moon Man: A Biography of Nikholai Miklukho-Maklay (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986).Google Scholar

¹³ Politika evropeiskikh derzhav v Iugo-Vostochnoi Azii 1760–1860 (The Politics of the European Powers in Southeast Asia 1760–1860) (henceforth Pkd) (Moscow: Publishing House for Oriental Literature, 1962)Google Scholar; Politika kapitalisticheskikh derzhav i natsional'no-osvoboditel'noe dvizhenie v Iugo-Vostochnoi Azii (The Politics of the Capitalist Powers and the National Liberation Movement in Southeast Asia) (Moscow: The Science Publishing House, Vol. I, 1965Google Scholar, Vol. II, 1967). Some Russian Consulate reports from Asia, S.E. in Sbornik konsul'skikh donecenii (St. Petersburg, 1903)Google Scholar are reprinted in the above volumes.

¹⁴ Quested, “Russian Interest”.

¹⁵ Articles by historians of the region which have made reference to Russian materials have usually been dependent on the published primary materials or translations of articles by Soviet historians utilizing archival and other Russian sources. For example, see Sarkisyanz, Manuel, “From Russian Diplomatic Reports on Thailand”, in Relations Between Thailand and Other Countries (papers presented at the International Conference on Thai Studies 22–24 Aug. 1984, Bangkok), vol. III (Bangkok: Thai Studies Program, Chulalongkorn University, 1984)Google Scholar and Reid, A.J.S., “A Russian ijt Kelantan?”, Peninjau Sejarah 1,2 (1966).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Archiv vneshnei politki Rossii (AVPR-Archive of Russian Foreign Policy), fond (f.) Tikhookeanskii stol (Resources of the Pacific Ocean Department), delo(d).- file 1355[5 May (17) 1895], lines (11.) 151–52. In particular, while noting the importance of Singapore and Batavia in relation to the commercial route from Europe to the Far East, the Imperial Russian Mission in China was concerned with gathering information on England's control of parts of Indo-China and islands such as Borneo (a rich source of oil) which gave the former links with ports in China.

From here on the abbreviated form will be used when citing archival sources. The author investigated files 1355 to 1360 of the Pacific Ocean Department covering the time period of the article but there are many other extensive files up to 1366 (1914–17). Reports bear two date notations because the Russians utilized the Julian calendar which was twelve days behind the Western Gregorian calendar in the nineteenth century and thirteen days behind in the twentieth century.

¹⁷ Pkd, vol. 1, document 124 [15 (28) Apr. 1909], p. 242.

¹⁸ See Pkd, vol. 2, pp. 99–104 and document nos. 44 [18 (30) Sep. 1891], 45 [2 (14) Feb. 1893] and 57 [25 Feb. (9 Mar.) 1894]. Also AVPR, d.1355 [25 Feb. (9 Mar.) 1894], ll.41–43. There will be more discussion of this facet of the consulate reports later in the article.

¹⁹ AVPR, d.1355 [12 (25) Dec. 1900], ll.87–91.

² (The Asiatic Department was abolished as a semi-independent organization in 1895 as Far Eastern affairs became important enough to deserve the direct attention of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See Malozemoff, Russian Far Eastern Policy, p. 68. Originally, there were only two real specialists on the East in the Asiatic Department, P.M. Lessar, a specialist on Persia, and D.D. Pokotilov, secretary for Chinese affairs and later appointed minister to China. Kaptnist apparently found it difficult to remember a “single Oriental name” though he was fluent in several European languages. According to one diplomat who worked there, the diplomats in the Asiatic Department who “transacted the correspondence with the faraway regions of Asia” were looked down upon by their collegues who dealt with European diplomacy. See Kalmykow, A., Memoirs of a Russian Diplomat: Outposts of the Empire 1893–1917, ed. Kalmykow, Alexandra (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), pp. 13–24.Google Scholar

²¹ A first hand indication of this Anglo-Russian hostility is expressed in the insightful and intelligent memoir of the diplomat A. Kalmykow, an Orientalist in the Asiatic Department who was posted to Persia at the end of the 1890s, during the height of the British and Russian tensions and also served for a while in Bangkok. He noted, upon his appointment: “The two chief currents I encountered in the Russian Foreign Office were the recent alliance with France and the chronic enmity with England. Of course I was very patriotic and felt incensed against the British diplomats, the archenemies of Russia”. Kalmykow stopped in Singapore in 1898 and stayed at the Raffles Hotel en route to Bangkok. He was taken around the town by an unnamed consul but unfortunately does not relate much information on the consulate except to note that the consul informed him to be careful in his wanderings around the islands in the Gulf because “they are batteries masked with creepers. Singapore is a fortress” (p. 106). In general, Kalymykow's enthusiasm for the “clean, civilized, colourful and hospitable” (p. 105) Singapore seemed dampened by the consul's warnings of sunburn and the British military presence. Kalmykow, Memoirs of a Russian Diplomat.

²² AVPR, d.1357, ll.9–12.

²³ AVPR, d.1357, ll.1–9. In one very interesting report Rudanovsky on 15 (28) Feb. 1904 referred to the offer by a Sultan of Sumatra to sell some land in the northern part of the island to Tsar Nicholas II. Maps were included in the report to indicate the location. The Naval Ministry and Lamsdorf turned down the offer because, as he noted in a letter dated 5 Apr. 1904, they did not have permission to construct a base there. In the Imperial period, the Russian government frequently turned down other offers, perhaps because of lack of funds or fear of the British response. Furthermore, one must realise the concentration of Russia's foreign policy interests in the Far East.

²⁴ The announcement in the Straits Times declared “I claim not rights or relationship in Russia, where the ingratitude of a nation, that did not understand his [Alexander the First] high moral and religious principles, drove its great benefactor to an exile.” See AVPR, d.1355 [1 (13) Jul., 12 (24) Jul., 20 Jul. (2 Aug.) 1894], ll.45–50.

²⁵ AVPR, d.1352 [no date], 1.25.

²⁶ AVPR, d.1355 [1 (14) Aug. 1901], ll.93–101.

²⁷ AVPR, d.1352, 1.25. The consul wrote to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for information on what to do with Russian citizens who went to shore in Singapore without paying their passage on the Voluntary Fleet or sailors who remained on shore. Was it the business of the Consulate to return them to Russia and at whose expense?

²⁸ Quested, “Russian Interest”, p. 50.

²⁹ In general this seems to be true of much of Russian expansion in the central and Southeast Asian context. The major concern was to assert a strategic presence and observe any expansion by the British which could interfere with Russian colonial or expansionary interests. Any economic concerns or interests developed after a military or diplomatic presence was established. In that respect, it was a continuation of Imperial policy in Central Asia, which was also shaped by the antagonism between England and Russia, but further substantiated by the necessity to secure its territorial foothold in the Far East and its trade route from China. On Russian imperialism in Central and Far East Asia and its link with the domestic context see the stimulating analysis by Dietrich Geyer, Russian Imperialism.

³⁰ AVPR, d.1355 [8 (20) May 1891], ll.14–15.

³¹ The full report was entiltled Konsul'skiya doneseniya po torgovle i prom'shlennosti (Consulate Report on Trade and Industry-Dutch Indies) (St. Petersburg, 1895). One of Bakunin's major complaints was that many of Java's products of coffee, quinine, tobacco and other products reached Russia from Amsterdam and Hamburg rather than directly, highlighting the lack of Russian ships directly involved in trade. AVPR, d.1355, ll.57–64.Google Scholar

³² On 15 (28) Apr. 1909 Vyvodtsev wrote a report to the Ministry highlighting Russia's “minimal” involvement in trade in Singapore and how this could be significantly improved by utilizing Russian ships and steamship companies. He stressed that “trade must be put on a commercial basis free of bureaucratic interference”. Also factories could be built in Vladivostock. In addition he stressed that more Russian goods could be imported such as kerosene, condensed milk, flour, butter, spirits, vodka, matches etc. But, he notes the small number of Russian ships involved in the trade process in Singapore and the existence of one Moscow firm Shcherbachev, Chokov, i Ko., an agent of the Volunteer Fleet. Other Russian ships would sometimes deal with the English steamship agents, East-Asia Society and the Northern Society. Most of these ships would dock on the Dutch island of Sabang which was cheaper than Tanjong Pagar Dock. Some of them would also bring a small number of Russian passengers, students, scholars or civil servants but no immigrants. See Pkd, vol. I, document 124, pp. 242–44.

³³ Quested, “Russian Interest”, p. 50.

³⁴ Pkd, vol. 1, document 124 [15 (28) Apr. 1909], p. 242.

³⁵ Even in the Far East, in Manchuria and Mongolia, the Russians did not succeed in making much economic headway even though the push via the railway was touted by Witte and supporters as having great economic promise. See Geyer, Russian Imperialism, pp. 208–211.

³⁶ AVPR, d.1355 [25 Feb. (9 Mar.) 1894], ll.39–40, 41–43.

³⁷ AVPR, d.1355 [1 (13) Jan. 1891], ll.2–5. Also in Pkd, vol. 1, document 107, pp. 214–16. Vyvodtsev also relates that the somewhat perfunctory nature of his report was due to his difficult adjustment to living in a “harsh climate” and “the special circumstances of life in a country where the language and customs are alien to me and the hot climate makes it especially difficult to produce a particularly interesting report” (p. 214). The report describes the geographical position of Singapore, its political administration and the difficulties in controlling some of the local population there and in Malaysia, and its ethnic make-up.

³⁸ AVPR, d.1355 [14 (26) Aug. 1891], ll.18–19. Also in Pkd, vol. 1, document 110, pp. 221–22.

³⁹ Ibid., p. 222.

⁴⁰ For specific information on this issue see W. Makepeace, “The Military Contribution”, in One Hundred Years of Singapore, vol. 1, ed. Makepeace, W.et al (Reprint; Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 399–402.Google Scholar

⁴¹ AVPR, d.1355 [15 (27) Apr. 1891], ll.20–21. Also in Pkd, vol. 1, document 108, p. 217.

⁴² Pkd, vol. 1, document 109 [14 (26) Aug. 1891], pp. 220–21.

⁴³ Ibid., document 108 [15 (27) Apr. 1891], p. 218.

⁴⁴ Ibid., document 112 [18 (30) Sep. 1891], pp. 224–25. The consul informed Kapnist of the many speeches in the English parliament regarding the increase of military dues in the colony and how the colony was obliged to pay England for its own protection.

⁴⁵ See Thio, British Policy, pp. xi-xxxvii and Emily Sadka, The Protected Malay States, 1874–1895 (Kuala Lumpur and Singapore: University of Malaya Press, 1968) for information on the development of the residency system and the development of British policy in this period.

⁴⁶ On the resumption of this forward policy see Thio, British Policy, ch. 1.

⁴⁷ On the theory of the turbulent frontier see J.S. Galbraith, “The ‘Turbulent Frontier’ as a Factor in British Expansion”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 2 (1959–60): 150–60. On its relationship to expansion in the Federated Malay States see Thio, British Policy, pp. xix-xx.

⁴⁸ Pkd, vol. 1, document 107 [1 (13) Jan. 1891], p. 214.

⁴⁹ Sadka, The Protected Malay States, pp. 138–39.

⁵⁰ See Gopinath, Aruna, Pahang 1880–1933: A Political History (Kuala Lumpur: Monograph No. 18, Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1991)Google Scholar and Linehan, W.L., “A History of Pahang”, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 14,2 (1936): 139–68.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Thio, British Policy, p. 92. Thio's account emphasizes the economic considerations as the motive behind British control of the administration, noting that the Sultan of Pahang could be quite arbitrary in his dealings with entrepeneurs and their concessions.

⁵² This incident has been recorded in many sources; presumably Sultan Ahmad wanted to obtain the wife of the Chinese shopkeeper. See Ibid., pp. 77–78.

⁵³ The British magistrates in Pahang also tried to abolish debt-slavery, forced labour and other Malay practices which upset some powerful local officials. Ibid., pp. 130–31.

⁵⁴ Gopinath, Pahang, pp. 134–43.

⁵⁵ AVPR, d.1355 [23 Dec. (4 Jan.) 1892], ll.24–27. Also in Pkd, document 113, pp. 225–26.

⁵⁶ Ibid., ll.24–27, 28 (map of Pahang), 29–30, 31–34, 35–36 and Pkd, documents 113, 114, 115, 116, pp. 225–31.

⁵⁷ Pkd, document 113 [23 Dec. (4 Jan.) 1892], p. 227.

⁵⁸ Gopinath, Pahang, p. 135.

⁵⁹ Ibid., p. 137.

⁶⁰ Ibid., p. 143.

⁶¹ Pkd, document 114 [7 (19) Mar. 1892], p. 228.

⁶² Ibid., p. 228.

⁶³ Ibid., document 115 [1 (13) Apr. 1892], p. 230.

⁶⁴ Ibid., document 116 [20 Apr. (2 May) 1892], p. 231.

⁶⁵ Ibid., p. 231.

⁶⁶ Ibid., document 115, p. 230.

⁶⁷ For detailed information on the establishment of the Residency system see Sadka, The Protected Malay States. For a shorter discussion of the expansion of British political power over the Malay States see Turnbull, C.M., A History of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1989), chs. 11 and 12.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ One of the best discussions of this process is Thio, British Policy.

⁶⁹ Ibid., p. 165.

⁷⁰ Ibid., ch. vii and Turnbull, A History of Malaysia, pp. 151–54.

⁷¹ Thio, British Policy, ch. viii and ix. Eventually, he also wanted to centralize British control by drawing together the Malay States, the Straits Settlements, and Borneo.

⁷² AVPR, d.1356, ll.2–3 and Politika kapitalisticheskikh derzhav, v.l, document 111 [14 (26) Aug. 1891], p. 223.

⁷³ Thio, British Policy, ch. iv.

⁷⁴ Ibid., ch. ix.

⁷⁵ AVPR, d.1356, ll.4–5 and Pkd, v.l, document 123 [25 Dec. 1903 (7 Jan. 1904)], p. 240.

⁷⁶ File 1356 in the AVPR contains correspondence on the the Sultan of Johore and his proposals to visit St. Petersburg along with general reports on Johore as well as maps of Johore and Singapore. Footnote 369 in Pkd, also makes reference to Rudanovsky's letter of 20 Nov. 1903 (3 Jan. 1904) and the Sultan's proposed trip in 1905.

⁷⁷ On the early period of Siamese control of the northern Malay states see Turnbull, A History of Malaysia, pp. 108, 111, 112–15.

⁷⁸ Ibid., pp. 181–85. Also see the Honours Dissertation by Mohamed, NikNik, BinSalleh, Mohd., British and Siamese Relations with Kelantan, 1900–1910 (University of Malaya at Singapore, 1960) which deals with how the Duff company concession gave rise to the controversy between Siam and England over the political status of Kelantan.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ The King actually visited Russia in 1897 and later sent his son to study in the Corps of Pages until 1902. The latter also married a Russian woman but they were later divorced. See his son's Prince, memoirChakrabongse, Chula, Lords of Life (London, 1960) and Longmire, Soviet Relations, p. 8.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Pkd, v.2, pp. 99–104.

⁸¹ Ibid., p. 101.

⁸² Ibid.

⁸³ Ibid., document 44 [18 (30) Sep. 1891], p. 106.

⁸⁴ Ibid., document 45 [2 (14) Feb. 1893], p. 107.

⁸⁵ Ibid.

⁸⁶ Olarovskii in a report to M.N. Murav'ev referred to the “intrigue of England” and the “excessive pretension” of France in their relations with Siam. Ibid., document 68 [12 (24) Jun. 1898], p. 155.

⁸⁷ See introduction on “Russia and The Anglo-French Struggle for Siam” in Ibid., p. 133.

⁸⁸ Ibid., p. 101.

⁸⁹ Ibid., document 57 [25 Feb. (9 Mar. 1894)], pp. 126–27.

⁹⁰ For some personal information on the background of Olarovskii and his diplomatic connection with Siam see Sarkisyanz, “From Russian Diplomatic Reports”, and Kalmykow, Memoirs of a Russian Diplomat. For an extensive overview of Olarovskii's role in extending Russia's political and economic influence in Siam see Pensri Duke, “The Political and Economic Roles of Russia in Thailand in the Reign of King Chulalongkorn (1868–1910)”, paper presented at the Manila Conference of the International Association of Historians of Asia in November 1983.

⁹¹ Pkd, v.2, document 57, p. 133.

⁹² Ibid., document 67 [23 May (4 Jun.) 1898], p. 153.

⁹³ Ibid., document 68 [12 Jun. (24 Jun.) 1898], p. 155.

⁹⁴ Ibid., document 72 [1 (13) Aug. 1898], p. 167.

⁹⁵ Ibid., document 68 [12 (24) Jun. 1898], p. 155. Olarovskii noted that the major expenses of the mission were for housing.

⁹⁶ Ibid., v.l, document 119 [3 (16) Sep. 1902], p. 236.

⁹⁷ Ibid., document 120 [3 (16) Oct. 1902], pp. 237–38.

⁹⁸ Historians of Malaya know Raja Ismail for his role in the Selangor Civil War 1866–74 after which he seems to have dropped out of the Selangor administration. As a result, the discovery by A.J.S. Reid of E.I. Gnevusheva's translated article on Maligin in a Dutch journal and its reference to Kister's conversation with Raja Ismail proved informative on this side of his political activity. Reid concluded that Raja Ismail was “obviously intelligent and sufficiently adaptable to win the trust of Europeans” and furthermore “was concerned to preserve as much as possible of the pride and independence of the Malay people by facing up to the realities of power in the heyday of imperialism”. Reid, “A Russian in Kelantan?”, p. 47.

⁹⁹ Pkd, v.l, document 120, p. 237.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., p. 237.

¹⁰¹ In his report Kister stresses that he made this point categorically to Raja Ismail. Ibid., p. 237.

¹⁰² The information on Maligin comes from footnote 306 to document 120 in Pkd, v.l, p. 541. Also see Gnevusheva, E.I., “De Levensgeschiedenis van W.P. Mamalyga (Malygin). ‘Rustverstoorder’ in Nederlands-Indië” (trans. Sluimers, L.E.L.), Bijdragejt tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 121,3 (1965): 303–349.Google Scholar