The Second Great Game

Abstract

Throughout history, scholars such as Dr. Rajan Menon (2003), Dr. Stephen Blank (2012), and Dr. Younkyoo Kim (2013) have used the term “New Great Game” to characterize the various complex geopolitical relationships emerging, especially those in Central Asia. Building on this concept, this paper introduces the term “Second Great Game” to refer to the key power dynamic of the 21st century: the rivalry between the United States and China. This research explores the question: how does the 21st century geopolitical rivalry between the U.S. and China in the Indo-Pacific resemble the 19th century Great Game between Britain and Russia, and what might this mean for global power dynamics? By reviewing key historical events such as the Treaty of Gulistan, the First Anglo-Afghan War, and the Panjdeh Incident, this study first examines the Great Game: British efforts to maintain the balance of power against Russian expansion for an ice-free port. Similarly, it outlines contemporary cases of this seemingly “Second Great Game,” like China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the militarization of the South China Sea, and the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy aimed at preventing China’s regional dominance. Through a historical and comparative analysis, this study’s findings reveal that, although the means of influence have evolved from direct military confrontations to diplomatic alliances and economic strategies, the underlying motives for control over regions near the Indo-Pacific Ocean remain consistent.

My research question

How does the 21st-century geopolitical rivalry between the U.S. and China in the Indo-Pacific resemble the 19th-century Great Game between Britain and Russia, and what might this mean for global power dynamics?

Building on scholars who described a “New Great Game” in Central Asia (Menon 2003; Blank 2012; Kim 2013), my thesis attempts to defend the term “Second Great Game” for the U.S.-China rivalry, arguing it is the closest structural descendant of the original Anglo-Russian relations.

Method

A literature review across scholarly articles, treaties and policy documents, case studies, and reporting; thematic analysis to identify patterns in territorial, economic, and military practice; then systematic comparison of the two eras. Sources were drawn from peer-reviewed databases (JSTOR, ScienceDirect, Sage), with particular caution applied to documents produced by state-affiliated authors.

The two games

• The Great Game (19th c.): Britain’s defense of India against Russia’s southward drive for warm-water ports, traced through the Treaty of Gulistan, the First Anglo-Afghan War, and the Panjdeh Incident; buffer states, proxy rulers, and imperial frontier-making, with Afghanistan and Persia as the contested middle.
• The Second Great Game (21st c.): China’s Belt and Road Initiative and its strategic ports (Gwadar, Hambantota); artificial island-building and militarization in the South China Sea against the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling; and the U.S. response, the Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy, the Quad, AUKUS, freedom-of-navigation operations, and economic counterweights, with Taiwan, the Philippines, India, and the Maldives navigating between the two powers.

My argument

The instruments of great-power competition have evolved decisively, from territorial conquest and puppet regimes to economic diplomacy, strategic infrastructure, security alliances, and technological leverage. However, the motives remain the same: control over strategically critical regions, secure access to trade routes and resources, and spheres of influence, with smaller states “in the crossfire of competing influences,” serving as both intermediaries and proxy war battlegrounds. The thesis closes on an observation that unchecked rivalry destabilizes the regions it contests, and cooperation within the Second Great Game will require dialogue, regional resilience, and adherence to international norms.