Thanks in part to Russia, Thailand was never colonized
King Chulalongkorn (Rama V)
In the last years of the 19th century, Siam, as it was then known, was in a precarious situation. The danger that the country would be taken and colonized by either Great Britain or France was not imaginary. Thanks in part to Russian diplomacy, this was prevented, at least that is the conclusion of Natanaree Posrithong of Mahidol University in a scientific publication entitled “Russian-Siamese relations during the reign of King Chulalongkorn”
King Chulalongkorn
The Siamese King Chulalongkorn visited Saint Petersburg in 1897 and was received as a highly honored guest by the Russian Tsar Nicholas II. They had met each other a few years before in Bangkok during a trip through Asia of then Tsarevich Nicholas. The Tsar's hospitable attitude has largely influenced the Siamese diplomatic strategy in dealing with European expansionism.
It was the beginning of diplomatic relations between the two countries and the Tsar then sent a seasoned diplomat named Alexander Olarovski to Siam. He was appointed the first Charge d'Affaires and Consul General of Russia in Siam.
In this appointment of the first Russian consul in Bangkok, the Tsar stated: "This appointment aims to establish solid diplomatic relations between Siam and Russia in addition to our brotherhood and our great friendship."
Alexander Olarovsky
The special mission for Alexander Olarovski, who had already made his mark as a diplomat of Russia in San Francisco and New York, was to contain Britain's drive for expansion in Indochina and to act as a mediator in Siam's conflict with France .
The British settlers had already taken India and Burma, and the French were active in the Indochina peninsula. The Franco-Siamese war of 1893 already resulted in Siam having to give up Laos in favor of France, so that Siam turned into a buffer state between the British and the French, so to speak. It seemed only a matter of time before the country would be ruled by a colonial power. However, Siam had an important asset – cultivated the personal friendship between King Chulalongkorn and Tsar Nicholas II.
Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (Everett Collection / Shutterstock.com)
Russian mission in Bangkok
More than 300 people attended the opening ceremony of the consulate in Bangkok, including a large number of European diplomats. Olarovski reported to the Tsar that the King had provided the best building in Bangkok, close to the Grand Palace.
However, the role of the Russian diplomat was far from ceremonial. The confidential report of the Russian Foreign Ministry, which Olarovski was given on his appointment, gives clear indications of Russian concern about the situation in Siam. The report was intended to prepare Olarovski to gain insight into the Siamese-Franco-British conflict and to reaffirm the main objectives of his new role as the first consul-general in Bangkok.
Anglo-French agreement
Despite an agreement between Britain and France to respect Siam's borders, both countries showed little intention of adhering to it. The British extended their power to the Malay Peninsula and the French occupied Cambodia. Siam was sandwiched between these two powers, so to speak, and Russian influence was critical in stopping them.
Russian diplomacy
Initially, the Russians had a good relationship with France, as a Franco-Russian alliance existed, but the British, involved in the "Great Game" with Russia in Afghanistan, were seen as a serious threat by Olarovski. Russia also feared that Siam could fall under Britain's power because many Thai senior officials had trained in that country and valued what they had experienced in Britain.
The Russian diplomat was charged with opposing "Britain's expansion into Indochina through diplomatic channels," Posrithong wrote. “In addition, Nicholas II hoped that Olarovski would serve as a mediator to negotiate compromises to balance the balance of power between France and Britain, without Siam losing its sovereignty.”
Olarovski worked tirelessly as the Tsar's envoy to Siam to protect the kingdom of Nicholas II's friend. He used his good relationship with the French to convince them to withdraw from Chanthaburi. This province borders Cambodia, but had come under French control due to the Franco-Siamese War.
“Without Olarovski, the Franco-Siamese relationship would have completely bled to death after 1893, but Posrithong wrote. “Due to the efforts of the Russian Consul General, a slight sign of peace between Siam and France became visible in four years. Although Olarovski's efforts were largely successful in protecting the Chakri dynasty, he was unable to bring about lasting peace between the two countries.”
Britain
“Olarovski's diplomatic maneuvers certainly helped keep the British out of Siam,” says the writer. He maintained good relations with the British and is cited as an example of helping to set up the Royal Bangkok Sports Club, together with British colleagues. Olarovski shared a passion for horses with the British and was the first person to breed racehorses in Thailand.
The British Empire therefore respected the border between Burma and Siam for a long time, until World War II, when the kingdom was occupied by Japan.
Finally
Russia managed to maintain warm ties with Siam until the 1917 revolution. Siam, like many other countries that had good relations with the Russian royal family, refused to recognize the Bolsheviks.
Source: The Nation and the Russia Behind The Headlines website in part
After the various kingdoms and rulers came more and more under the eight of the most powerful (Chakri dynasty) in the course of the 19th century, Siam came into being. They mapped out where the borders ran, which was rather vague until then because it was a patchwork of spheres of influence. The English and French were active in the region and it is not surprising that Siam felt threatened or that areas that Bangkok believed to be under their influence would be taken over. Think of the French who steamed up the Chao Praya River with warships in 1893 to put pressure on Siam. As a result, Laos, among others, came under French administration and Siam had to give up those claims:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Siamese_War
http://www.siamese-heritage.org/jsspdf/1961/JSS_058_2h_Jeshurun_AngloFrenchDeclarationJanuary1896.pdf
Around the same time, the English and French had already agreed in a treaty (1896) to keep Siam as a buffer. Various Western countries had meanwhile established favorable trade relations with Siam, also something that was less beneficial to colonize the country. The time of colonization also came to an end at the turn of the century. The Russians will undoubtedly also have been a cog in all this, but I don't really get the impression that it was a very significant influence? Of course that doesn't make it any less interesting, all the little puzzle pieces together form the history or what we know about it.
I deliberately used the word “joint” in the title to somewhat temper the importance of the Russian influence.
A very interesting story Gringo.
In this case, better a good friend than a distant friend!
Wonderful and interesting story of Gringo. But the question remains: had it not been better colonized? Then the Thai would have known a much broader development through knowledge of English and / or French and would have been a lot more prosperous. OK, Thailand has its charms…but also so many shortcomings. The real “know how” and industry is also always “import”: Toyota, Suzuki, Nissan, and so many other branches of industry that would never have been present without the input from outside….Language and alphabet are rather folklore because you cannot end up with another country…let alone to conduct prosperous trade.
Have the other countries that were colonized in Southeast Asia become more prosperous?
For example Philippines, Indonesia, India, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc….
What benefits someone else if they are dominated/colonised?
Death, destruction and exploitation……….
You not only ask the question whether colonization would not have been better, you also answer it positively as far as the degree of development and prosperity are concerned. It seems to me that you have never visited the surrounding countries in the region that have been colonized.
Really, Jan? Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Burma have been colonized and have they developed more widely? No, Thailand is the most developed of these 5 countries.
As far as industries are concerned: the large agricultural industry and tourism have largely been set up by the Thais themselves (30-40 percent of the national income).
Well Jan, are the surrounding countries. who were once a colony, have they become so much better off?
So you see Russia doesn't always have to be portrayed as that big scary bear. As if all those so-called neat countries from the West (including the Netherlands and Belgium) always behaved just as neatly in the past…
Funny how history can take a completely different turn in a very short time (2017: reaction from T – compared to 2022 now)…
And especially how gullible we can be and ignore clear signs of aggression and war violence…
The big scary bear, pictured above as a good-natured hug, had already conquered the Crimea manu militari in 2014: we watched and approved, halfway anyway. Ukraine was fed up with us.
How stupid could we be by building pipelines at the same time and making Europe totally dependent on Putin gas?
We have also forgotten for years that in 1939 Stalin concluded a non-aggression pact with Hitler, that Hitler then invaded Poland and – according to the treaty – gave away half of Poland's territory to Stalin. And watched as Hitler led several million Polish Jews to Auschwitz and gassed them.
We are not aware of it.
I don't get the impression that T sees Russia as a good-natured bear. Russia, and all other countries including us in the "civilized West" act in self-interest including aggression and war. Matters are often complex, and countries often only help each other if they think they will benefit themselves or prevent damage to their own interests.
From a Russian point of view, a claim to Crimea makes sense (was theirs, important for the naval seaport etc.), but from a Ukrainian point of view, it makes sense for them to say “this land has been ours for years now so Russia is the aggressor /annexator” .
This is where diplomacy comes into play and consultation with third countries. Which interests will die and which will prevail? For example, the finger in the pie of Russia and its interests and good relations has been beneficial to Siam.
With regard to 1939, the Russians first tried to conclude a treaty with France and the UK that, in the event of aggression in the region by Germany, they would jointly stop Germany. The French could be brought to that, but the UK deliberately sent an envoy without authority to Moscow so that this came to naught. They preferred that Germany continue its expansion to the east and thus be spared the west. An additional advantage was, of course, that those detested and dangerous communists would receive serious blows. Only when Russia could not conclude a treaty with any other European country did they sit down with Germany as a last resort. Russia was not yet prepared for war (which was clearly imminent). Then a treaty with the enemy. Poland was seen as an extra buffer, the Wehrmacht had to be kept away from the Russian border as long and as far as possible. That's why the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty.
Conclusion: things are often not so black and white. Not in the 19th century, the 20th or this century.
(NB: yes, the invasion of Russia this year, it is reprehensible and wrong, there is little to argue about that)
A very interesting article. It remains interesting to read that in those days without planes, important people such as the King of Thailand traveled like this.
The question of whether colonization makes things better is highly controversial. It was certainly an advantage that in most colonized countries the leading clans were wholly or partly replaced and sometimes even wiped out completely. This often at the cost of many victims. Thailand was spared that fate. The question, of course, is whether it was worth the profit. To answer this question, I'll use the answer Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je gave to Foreign Policy:
“Is Hong Kong better than mainland China because it was colonized by the British? Does Western influence make Asian nations better? These may seem like the beer slurps of a bitter expat, but last week Foreign Policy reported that the mayor of Taipei, Ko Wen-je, had said this:
“For the four Chinese-speaking regions — Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong and mainland China — the longer the colonization, the more advanced a place is. It's rather embarrassing. Singapore is better than Hong Kong, Hong Kong is better than Taiwan, Taiwan is better than the mainland. I'm speaking in terms of culture. I've been to Vietnam and mainland China. Even though the Vietnamese are seemingly poor, they always stop in front of red traffic lights and walk in front of green ones. Even though mainland China's GDP is higher than that of Vietnam, if you ask me about culture, the Vietnamese culture is superior.”
In making this statement, Ko isn't speaking to Beijing but to the people of Taipei. He is displaying strength by indulging in a bit of cultural strutting — and proving he is unafraid of making himself more visible to the dragon across the strait.”
NB, We all know how things went with Russia.
That 's great , but we do not forget our Belgian pawn in this story , do we ? Gustave Rolin-Jaequemyns played an even bigger role for Thailand, he secured a truce when the French attacked Thailand and the Thai fleet was largely destroyed, he co-wrote the Thai constitution and led the team that carried out this assignment for King Rama v
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Rolin-Jaequemyns
Gustave Rolin-Jaequemyns is an almost unknown figure for many Belgians and certainly not Belgians, but he has played a very important role in the modern history of Thailand / Siam. Hans Markvard Jensen is also such a forgotten figure.
I forgot to add that he played a very big role with his influence with the French, so not only an armistice also prevented an invasion of the French and the resulting colonization.
France had taken possession of Indochina and claimed the area east of the Mekong and wanted to make Siam a protectorate. Two warships were sent to Bangkok and fire from the Siamese Navy was returned. The negotiations following the Pakna Incident of 13 July 1893 were closely monitored by the great powers and the Siamese were well aware that any mistake could prove fatal to their freedom.[6]
Rolin-Jaequemyns was aware that Siam only had a chance if it could offer its citizens legal certainty and an adequate standard of living and the colonial powers had sufficient security to establish relations. After a period of shuttle diplomacy, relying on his network of the Institut de Droit International, he brokered a truce.
The Russian story in this is unknown to me