Tsarist Foreign Policy in 1801-1854 and 1856-1914 - Essay Example

Tsarist Foreign Policy in 1801-1854 and 1856-1914. The Tsarist Empire, also known as the Russian Empire differed distinctly from the USSR, Soviet Union (Dmytryshyn, 2007). Tsarist Empire stood independently as an agrarian state that purely depended on agriculture unlike the USSR that became superpowers after undergoing industrialization. The population of the Russian empire overwhelmingly increased in the rural areas contributing over 85% of the entire population. The remaining 15% got absorbed in urban based industries. Agriculture acted as the main sector of the economy in the Tsarist Empire. The two empires, however, had certain similarities in their evolutionary history (Mackenzie & Curran, 2010). The Russian empire during this period had no system of government as they were led by a tsar whom they believed got his anointment from God. A tsar was, therefore, treated with much respect and made decisions on behalf of the other state members. The tsarist participated in the creation of the Armenian during the tsarist period. The Armenians’ however, later led in the revolutionary consciousness to the Russian Empire (Dmytryshyn, 2007). Until 1856, the Russian had not formulated a policy to moderate the number of immigrants whose number increased tremendously. Initially, Tsarist regime applied an assorted strategy that relied on the geographical location, difference in religion and the intensity of national awareness (Dmytryshyn, 2007). Significant transformation took place during the reign of the three rulers; Nicholas II, Alexander II and Alexander III from the dynasty of Romanov between 1856 and 1914. These rulers encountered different challenges despite personal qualities they acquired from their upbringing. The main objectives for change of tsarist foreign policy during this period comprised five main features. First, Russia is regarded superpowers and enjoys the prestige of holding the position. Second, the states’ realist and neorealist had an influence through the central power as the tsarist foreign policy designed a different manner of the major paradigm. The technicalities of matching the economic, military and technology applied by its rivals are the third element. Fourth, the modalities on how to match up to the standards determine on how contested Russians national identity connects domestic economic and political order with foreign strategy priorities and course. Finally, level to which western liberalism is a relevant representation for Russia (Dmytryshyn, 2007). The foreign policy created from 1856 to 1914 when Alexander III came into power in the Russian Empire, had much influence on all the immigrants’ including the Armenians. They faced limitations on political ideologies and culture caused by the russification policies. The Russian policies about the Armenians differed. The Russian response to the massacres of 1894 to 1896 in Ottoman for instance, relied upon the Russian domestic policies which were in line with certain priorities in the new Tsarist policy (Dmytryshyn, 2007). Attempts by the Armenians to seek the Russian intervention bore no fruits. The new tsarist foreign policy limited education of the Armenian alongside an interaction with the fellow Caucasians. The tsarist foreign policy and the new administration never favored the Russian Armenians due to its hostility. The foreign policy altered the attention of the tsarist toward the Armenians (Mackenzie & Curran, 2010). There hence the Armenians became rebels and were treated as disloyal by the Russians who previously regarded them as mercantile fellow-Christian. This perception continued up to the 20th century from early 1880 (Polunov, 2009). This trend continued long afterwards and influenced the relationship of the Russian Armenians with other nationalities. These nationalities included the Georgians, Armenians and the Armenians of Transcaucasia (Mackenzie & Curran, 2010). However, their interaction later improved during the term of Loris-Melikov in the ministry of interior. Against all odds, the Armenians in Baku and Tiflis still held positions in trade and industry. They worked and owned a good number of industries approximated to about 44%. As a result, most of the products that were sourced from Tiflis were branded as ‘Armenian goods’ (Dmytryshyn, 2007). The Armenians also held a bigger share of the oil industry in Baku and Banks of Transcaucasia. These influenced the Armenians had on the Russian economy had much significance on the tsarist foreign policy and demanded much attention of the tsars (Mackenzie & Curran, 2010). The change of tsarist policy also impoverished the nobility of the Muslim and the Georgian in the region. Before the reign of Alexander and the three leaders rule the Muslim and Georgian nobility were tolerated regardless of the fact that they had very little compatibility with Russian economic status (Polunov, 2009). The consistent rise of immigrants’ population and the role they played in the Russian economy gave the tsar a challenge. The Russian population gradually became inferior in their own land. This highly influenced the Russification policy commonly known as the tsarist foreign policy. The policy aimed at intensifying the Russian culture to outdo the Armenian culture that had dominated the Russian Empire (Dmytryshyn, 2007). As a result, some of the Armenian schools were shut down. For instance, in 1885 the Russian government closed down the Armenian parochial school. This aspect demystified the Armenian culture in favor of the tsars’ and Russian culture (Polunov, 2009). The Armenian teachers were, as a result, expected to take an examination of the Russian speech. The new tsarist policy, therefore, limited the number of Armenians who came into Russian. This was not the case before 1856. To further enhance the tsarist policy a mandatory military training for the Russian Armenian was introduced (Mackenzie & Curran, 2010). The tsarist foreign policy also abolished the use of certain statements in publications. In this case the policy curbed radicalism and enhanced nationalist sentiments (Mackenzie & Curran, 2010). Before then the use statements such as ‘Armenian nation’ were not restricted as the foreign policy never existed. The change in tsarist foreign policy also escalated colonizing of the Transcaucasia Empire. Russians would, therefore, be settled in the region thus enhancing the Russian imperial rule (Dmytryshyn, 2007). Furthermore, the policy escalated repossessing of the land owned by the Muslim and Georgian by the Tsarist government. It was affected by the establishment of the Caucasus, ‘Land Bank’ that would block Armenians from repossessing the land as they owned a good percentage of resources in the state (Polunov, 2009). The tsarist policy during the period 1801-1854 had no restrictions and limitations upon the Armenians on the resources they possessed unlike during 1856-1914. Armenians admitted into government reduced after 1854. During this period, the Armenians were also treated unfairly in the respective workplaces as a result of the tsarist foreign policy (Mackenzie & Curran, 2010). The tsarist foreign policy created an enmity with other empires both military and economically. The forceful military training of the Armenians, shutting down their schools escalated the suppression of the Armenians. Banning of use of certain words for instance ‘Armenian nation’ change the tradition of the Armenian and infringed the freedom of speech (Mackenzie & Curran, 2010). Denying the Armenians leadership in a government position as a result of the new tsarist foreign policy also differed from the previous life the Armenian Russian were used to and enjoyed. The Armenian interrelation with other communities was also limited by the tsarist policy of 1856-1914 (Dmytryshyn, 2007). Furthermore, they were denied the right to acquire lands that were owned by other communities after their colonization by the Russian government. The above stated are some of the changes that were associated with the tsarist policy introduced by the three leaders of the Russian empire. The emphasis directed on abolition of the Armenian culture and replacing it with the Russian culture was also contributed to by the tsarist foreign policy. Most of the changes affected the Armenians despite the fact that they held a large share of the Russian economy. They were the major owners of the industries and banks hence they were the stakeholders of the Russian economy (Mackenzie & Curran, 2010). In conclusion, change in the tsarist foreign policy resulted from the fact that Russian population was becoming inferior to other populations who occupied the vast land of the Russian state. The Russian territory expanded rapidly and captivated a good number of immigrant population (Mackenzie & Curran, 2010). The population, however, came along with certain challenges yet the government at this point had not structured a foreign policy document. For a long time before this reign the Russian empire had used eclectic technicalities depending on religious differences, height of national awareness and the location (Dmytryshyn, 2007). The nationalists believed on autocracy and allowed the immigrants to retain their cultural and religious rights if they proved to be constructive for the concern of the empire (Dmytryshyn, 2007). Reference Dmytryshyn, B. (2007). Imperial russia: A source book,1700-1917 [i.e. Seventeen Hundred to nineteen seventeen]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston MacKenzie, D., & Curran, M. W. (2010). A history of Russia, the Soviet Union, and beyond. Belmont, CA [u.a.: Wadsworth. Polunov, A. J. (2009). Russia in the nineteenth century: Autocracy, reform, and social change, 1814-1914. Armonk, N.Y. [u.a.: Sharpe. Read More