African Entrepreneurship Record

Of course, Russell was still very happy at this time. Russell, who used the Pirate Coast as a bargaining chip, was not afraid that East Africa wanted more, but was afraid that East Africa would look down on the Pirate Coast.

Russell's psychology is actually the same as that of the East African officials. How much is the pirate coast worth? The British government knows better than the East African officials why the British government directly chooses the pirate coast as a bargaining chip. Essentially, the pirate coast is the least valuable in the eyes of the British government. .

Although the British government is the suzerain state of many tribes on the Pirate Coast, it has no governance over the area. Currently, the Pirate Coast is also called the "truce states".

The Truce States can also be called the Truce States Alliance. This alliance was promoted by the United Kingdom in the early 19th century in order to stabilize regional stability and curb the development of piracy in the Persian Gulf.

After all, after Britain gained dominance in the Persian Gulf region, the main trade business in the Persian Gulf was mainly undertaken by British merchant ships, and the rampant piracy activities in the pirate coast actually had a negative impact on British interests. After all, piracy was essentially a The main source of income for many tribes on the Pirate Coast.

If the local political structure is not stabilized, Britain will not even be able to find criminals to punish. Therefore, Britain forcibly unites the large and small tribes on the pirate coast into a political force. In this way, the British government can also find the person responsible behind the pirates in the Persian Gulf, thus preventing its own country from After the merchant ship was robbed, there was nowhere to redress the grievances.

This political force is the "Truce States", which is equivalent to the predecessor of the United Arab Emirates in the previous life. It can be regarded as a transitional form of semi-state power.

This can also be seen that the early British colonization of the pirate coast was actually a kind of "justice". Although the essence was to safeguard its own interests, it did greatly improve the security of the Persian Gulf routes.

Of course, this also leads to the fact that the British investment in the local area is greater than the income, so the British government has no psychological burden at all in leaving this "baggage" to East Africa.

Russell suppressed the joy in his heart and said to Freer: "If East Africa wants to bring the entire pirate coast into its sphere of influence, there is no problem, provided that the East African navy must shrink within the scope that we in the UK consider reasonable."

The topic finally returned to the naval issue. For the British government, as long as the East African government controls the navy within any reasonable range for the United Kingdom, the Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic will not become East Africa's back garden in a short period of time.

What Britain lacks most now is time and energy, so as long as East Africa can be stabilized in a short period of time, it is the best result.

The Indian Ocean is regarded as a core interest by the East African government, and the same is true for the United Kingdom. After all, since the independence of the United States, the United Kingdom has almost diverted most of its overseas investment to Indian colonies.

Freer said: "In terms of naval scale, I still want to emphasize that the conditions offered by the United Kingdom are too harsh. Even if it is based on the Pirate Coast deal, it is impossible for us to accept the conditions originally proposed by your country."

A barren land like the Pirate Coast cannot bribe the East African government. This is just like Britain asking Germany to restrict the High Seas Fleet by using the Nigerian colony as a condition. It is impossible for the German government to agree. After all, what Germany wants is all of Britain's overseas territories.

Russell had already been prepared for Freer's rhetoric. After all, he did not think that East Africa would be able to accept British conditions just by relying on the "barren land" of the Pirate Coast.

Russell said: "The naval issue can be discussed slowly. Since East Africa cannot accept our British plan, and we cannot accept your country's naval development plan, how about a compromise?"

Freer did not directly refute Russell's proposal, so Russell continued: "Our original plan was 500,000 tons, and East Africa's requirement is to catch up with the navies of the United States, Germany, France and other countries, so at least 800,000 tons tons or more.”

"So to make a compromise, the East African Navy only needs to limit the total tonnage to less than 650,000 tons. This can ensure that the East African Navy does not lag too far behind the navies of other countries and is superior to the Japanese Navy. At the same time, it is enough to support the East African Navy to safeguard its own interests. how."

In Russell's view, 650,000 tons is enough for East Africa to maintain its status as a major power navy. It is just between Japan and France, and the East African navy is enough to be ranked among the top five in the world.

Of course, this is true on the surface, but this lacks a premise, that is, the navies of other countries will no longer develop.

Freer naturally noticed something, so he said to Russell: "This is impossible. While our East African navy is developing, the navies of other countries in the world are also developing vigorously. Take the Japanese Navy, for example, their naval tonnage increases by at least 10% every year. At the level of tens of thousands of tons, wait four or five years. Wouldn’t the Japanese navy also exceed 650,000 tons or more?”

"Similarly, the annual increases in the navies of the United States, Germany, France, and your country are much more exaggerated than those of Japan. Now the tonnage of the navies of the United States, Germany, and France is over 800,000 tons. In a few years, the tonnage will probably be 100,000 tons." Ten thousand tons is the bottom line, so 650,000 tons is simply not enough to meet the needs of our navy in the context of the naval arms race. "

As Freer finished speaking, the negotiations reached an impasse again, and Russell could only take one step back: "In that case, let's change a plan, which is not based entirely on fixed naval tonnage, but on proportion. "

"First of all, the East African Navy must not exceed the French Navy. Let's set a foundation. The total tonnage of the French Navy is now more than 800,000 tons. The East African Navy only needs to reach 80% of the French Navy. We use the French Navy as a reference. In the next ten years, the East African Navy cannot exceed this standard."

The French Navy is the most lacking in stamina in the second echelon, so Russell believes that using the French Navy as a standard, according to the current development of the French Navy, the French Navy will not be able to compete with Britain, the United States, and Germany for a long time, so using the French Navy as a reference is quite beneficial for Britain.

Freer was not in a hurry to refuse. After thinking it over again and again, he thought that this plan was still good. After all, 80% of the French Navy was enough to support East Africa's status as a great power. Of course, there are some details that Freer believes are unreasonable.

He said: "First of all, we cannot accept the ten-year period, five years at most. After all, if something unexpected happens to the French navy in the future, it will become a shackle for the development of our navy."

"Secondly, we also require that we cannot only use France as a reference. We also have requirements for the countries behind us in East Africa. For example, the Japanese navy cannot exceed East Africa. If the Japanese navy exceeds East Africa, we will re-formulate the naval development plan."

For the second point mentioned by Freer, Russell did not think it was a big problem. After all, the over-powerful Japanese navy was indeed a huge threat to Britain.

Of course, Russell still did not agree with the first point mentioned by Freer, so Russell continued to bargain with Freer.

...

After two months of tug-of-war, East Africa and Britain finally finalized the "East-British Reconciliation Treaty" in March 1911.

First, Britain and East Africa reconciled politically to promote the development of diplomatic relations between the two countries, and the two countries lifted mutual economic sanctions and deepened economic cooperation between the two countries.

Secondly, the British government offered some overseas markets and the Pirate Coast (UAE) as conditions in exchange for the non-radical expansion of the East African Navy in the next five years. The East African Navy should maintain 80% of the size of the French Navy. According to the size of the French Navy in 1911, the total tonnage of the East African Navy should not exceed 650,000 tons.

If the total tonnage of the French Navy exceeds 800,000 tons in the future, the East African government can adjust the size of its own navy under British supervision, and the total tonnage of the East African Navy should not be lower than that of the Japanese Navy.

Through this negotiation, both the East African and British governments got what they thought was a satisfactory result. Of course, Ernst was the most satisfied with the East African side. After all, it didn't take much effort to obtain a stable oil and gas resource production area, so that East Africa's shortcomings in energy issues in the future would no longer exist.