NOVPUBAfter six months of negotiation, England, France, and Austria finally reached a preliminary agreement. On December 12, 1875, representatives of the three countries signed the "Memorandum for Resolving International Conflicts" in Paris.
This memorandum, in essence, could also be seen as a draft of an international convention, clarifying the rules for the scramble for colonies. The law of the jungle was still inevitable, only now it was cloaked in a veneer of legal rationale.
Namely:
1. Actual occupation is the criterion, whereby the first to occupy shall have precedence;
2. Current colonial power ranges are to be used as the standard, with mutual recognition of one another’s sovereignty;
3. Any interference in the internal affairs of the colonies is forbidden; (Note: specifically, this includes forbidding the support of local powers, smuggling of weapons, and the export of nationalism...)
4. Disputes over no man’s lands should be based on merit, and allies are obliged to provide certain assistance, provided it does not involve their own interests;
...
The first three points are the crux, designed to ease colonial conflicts among the three nations; the fourth point will depend on how it is interpreted.
Certainly, there will be help, but the extent of this help, and whether it will be more of a hindrance than a help, has to be determined based on the actual situation.
For example, if a colonial team encounters an accident and ends up stranded in the territory of an ally, it’s expected that most would be willing to do a good turn and provide them with supplies.
If one desires to seize a strategic location, or a thriving colony, and needs allied support, it comes down to what interests can be offered in exchange.
Otherwise, the treaty would not include the stipulation "provided it does not involve their own interests." This clause in itself is a disclaimer, since the concept of interest is too broad.
This is only normal, as allies wouldn’t be comfortable lending a hand for nothing in return. None of the nations from England, France, and Austria are pushovers—why would they make it easy for others to take advantage?
Perhaps one might profit here and then incur losses elsewhere. In international diplomatic machinations, one must always think thrice before acting.
Often, what seems advantageous is actually a trap set by competitors. In this respect, Franz is a standout, particularly adept at leading his rivals to jump into pits with great joy.
By comparison, the British are on another extreme, excelling at sowing discord. One must be cautious when dealing with them, lest they lead you astray.
French diplomacy is more balanced, performing well in all aspects but lacking any particularly outstanding qualities.
In contrast, the Prusso Federation and the Russian Empire are much easier to deal with as their diplomacy tends to be impulsive, making them particularly susceptible to provocation or falling into traps.
This is Franz’s personal summary and is based on factual data. The Russian Empire has been long ostracized by European society, and its lackluster diplomacy is a major reason for this.
Otherwise, the post-Napoleonic war period would have been their best opportunity to integrate into the European world.
After the war, as Europe’s saviors, the Russians leapt to become a dominant power in Europe, yet they were still excluded from the mainstream circles—this failure in diplomacy was unmatched.
The Berlin Government was overly reliant on military power, thereby neglecting the development of diplomatic relations. This is evident in many ways, such as during the Prusso-Russian War period when Prussia, as a combatant, did not even secure an alliance with England and France.
This was a missed opportunity that came to their doorstep; they didn’t need an especially favorable alliance agreement, merely having a nominal alliance would have enabled them to gain much more benefits in post-war negotiations.
It can be said that without Bismarck, Berlin’s diplomacy would not have made the grade. Of course, this has become traditional—Prussian diplomacy has never been particularly good.
Otherwise, the role of the major player in the German Region would have changed hands in the previous century.
Regrettably, the Kingdom of Prussia won militarily but lost diplomatically. Austria was not defeated but instead, due to external wars, completed internal reforms.
As the victor, the Kingdom of Prussia appeared to have expanded its territory, yet in reality, it suffered more loss than gain.
Not only did it gain an enemy, but it also lost the hearts of the German princes, becoming the "thief" and "robber" synonymous with treachery in everyone’s mind.
With such an image, naturally, it could not lead, and subsequently, the Habsburg dynasty revived to full strength and even annexed Hungary, once again widening the gap in power between the two.
...
"When will the international conference be convened?"
Franz did not inquire about the location; it seemed that Napoleon IV had inherited the fondness for showcasing from Napoleon III, displaying a particular zeal for convening international conferences since ascending the throne.
In this regard, the French were especially generous, covering all related expenses whenever France hosted an international conference.
Of course, these expenses were limited to the daily living and accommodation of the delegations in France, as well as the costs needed to hold the conference.
It might seem that with few participants in international conferences of that era, the expenses were not significant, but they still amounted to a considerable sum over time.
England and Austria were focused on practical interests, and unless there were special circumstances, they usually wouldn’t compete with the French for hosting rights, as they were not celebrities in need of publicity.
Foreign Minister Weisenberg, "This time the conference will be at the ministerial level; everyone needs to coordinate their schedules. The plan is for next February, but the exact day has not yet been determined."
Franz nodded; when it came to the allocation of interests and the establishment of a new international order, the conference had to be of a high standard.
If it were not, sending a bunch of delegates who could not make decisions and had to consult their home country for everything, what would there be to discuss?
Negotiations involving interests usually took a long time, whereas high-level government officials were the opposite, possessing much authority and being able to make many decisions on their own, which made the negotiations much more efficient.
It had become imperative to alleviate international tensions; every day of delay meant immense economic losses for the colonial governments, and everyone was rather anxious.
"Has there been any sign of England and France drawing closer together, I mean in terms of covert contacts?"
Prior to the convening of each international conference, nations would exert their influence to gather as many allies as possible to secure more interests at the conference.
This time, Austria’s interests were not greatly involved, so naturally, the Vienna Government would not be inclined to invest heavily in public relations, but it was still necessary to keep an eye on England and France.
Weisenberg shook his head, "There have been contacts between England and France, but they seem unable to reach an agreement. Right now, the conflict over colonial interests between the two countries is quite severe.
Had it not been for the ’Anglo-Ebura War’ that we and the British were involved in as a lesson, they would both be worried about excessive losses and would have already started fighting in the colonies if not for that concern.
Especially in the Sudan area, the two sides are now at loggerheads. It’s said that England and France have also encountered conflicts of interest in the Indochina Peninsula and the Far Eastern Empire, but those places are too far for us to be concerned about, and we are not clear on the specific reasons.
This also involves civil colonial companies; when interests are at stake, it’s unlikely that either side would easily let go. Even if the governments of the two countries want to intervene, it’s difficult to get them to stop."
Civil colonial companies are a unique product of a historical phase, with the most famous being the British "East India Company," whose armed forces at their peak could rival those of a mid-sized country.
To some extent, the East India Company was more like a country than a company.
So, this "country" was consumed by bureaucrats, and due to their style of bureaucracy and corruption, the company suffered severe losses, leading to the dissolution of the renowned East India Company last year.
There were many such colonial companies under the flags of various nations, pioneers of the overseas colonial movement. Influenced by the governments of their nations, but not entirely under government control.
Those who engaged in overseas colonial expansion were mostly fortune-seeking desperados. In the face of interests, government orders were often ineffective.
Conflicts in the colonies of various nations were mostly caused by these civilian colonial teams. As long as there was profit, there was nothing they wouldn’t dare to do.
Not only externally, but competition among colonial companies from the same country was also fierce. If two colonial companies were discovered fighting, don’t be nervous, don’t be surprised; it’s a good thing, indicating a significant discovery.
The intensity of the conflict is generally proportional to the interests at stake. If an open-pit gold mine were found, internal conflicts within colonial teams could occur.
On the other hand, colonial governments directly led by nations were more restrained; usually mindful of their international image, they would act thoughtfully and seldom rush in recklessly.
Nowadays, ongoing conflicts between England and France over colonial issues boil down to interests. First come, first served is correct, but what if they arrive simultaneously?
This is also why France and Austria needed to delineate African spheres of influence; without a clear division in advance, considering the lengthy borders of their colonies, heaven only knows how many conflicts could arise.
No, the desert saved Franco-Austrian relations. Most of the current borders between their colonies are desert areas.
Deserts, with their low value, do not lure normal people to risk traversing for thrills. The desert creates a barrier where the two sides can’t come into contact, naturally reducing conflicts.
