Holy Roman Empire

After six months of negotiations, the representatives of Britain, France, and Austria finally reached a preliminary agreement. On December 12, 1875, they signed the “Memorandum on Mediating International Conflicts” in Paris.

This memorandum can essentially be viewed as a draft for an international treaty, outlining the rules for colonial competition. While the principle of “survival of the fittest” remains, it is now cloaked in a veneer of legal legitimacy. The key points are as follows:

One: Actual occupation takes precedence; first come, first served.

Two: Current colonial spheres of influence are recognized; each party acknowledges the sovereignty of the others.

Three: Interference in each other’s colonial internal affairs is prohibited (specifically, this includes supporting local factions, smuggling weapons, and promoting nationalism).

Four: For unclaimed territories, competition is based on capability; allies are obliged to provide certain assistance as long as their own interests are not affected…

The first three points are crucial as they aim to ease colonial conflicts among the three nations, while the fourth point depends on interpretation.

Assistance will certainly be available. However, the extent and effectiveness of that support will depend on the actual circumstances.

For instance, if a colonial expedition encounters an accident and ends up stranded in an ally’s territory, it is likely that everyone would be willing to offer some aid as a favor.

However, if there is a need to compete for a strategic location or a prosperous colony, securing help from allies will require negotiating benefits.

Otherwise, the treaty would not have included the condition of “as long as their own interests are not affected,” which serves as a disclaimer since the concept of interests is so broad.

This is quite normal. If allies were to offer help without any conditions, it’s likely that anyone would feel uneasy. Britain, France, and Austria are not naive. Wanting to take advantage of others is never that simple.

Perhaps one might gain something here but lose elsewhere. In international diplomatic battles, one must always think twice before acting.

Often, what seems like an advantage can actually be a trap set by competitors. Franz is particularly adept at making rivals happily jump into pitfalls.

In contrast, the British represent another extreme. They excel at sowing discord. Dealing with the British requires caution, as it’s easy to be led astray.

French diplomacy is relatively balanced, performing well across various aspects but lacking any particularly outstanding strengths.

By comparison, the Prussian-Polish Federation and the Russian Empire are much easier to deal with. They tend to be impulsive in their diplomatic actions and are particularly susceptible to provocation or falling into traps.

This is Franz’s personal assessment, grounded in factual evidence. The Russian Empire has long been marginalized by European society, with ineffective diplomacy being a major reason for this exclusion.

Otherwise, the period of the Napoleonic Wars would have been their best opportunity to integrate into the European world.

After the war, as saviors of European nations, the Russians suddenly became continental hegemons yet remained excluded from mainstream circles—this reflects poorly on their diplomatic efforts.

The Prussian government was overly reliant on military force, neglecting the development of diplomatic relations. This is evident from various aspects, particularly during the time of the Russo-Prussian War, when Prussia, acting as the hired thug, failed to secure any alliances with Britain or France.

They missed an obvious opportunity. It wasn’t necessary for the terms of an alliance to be particularly advantageous. Merely having a nominal agreement could have yielded significant benefits in post-war negotiations.

One could argue that after Bismarck, the Prussian government’s diplomatic efforts were inadequate. Of course, this was a long-standing issue. Prussia’s diplomacy had never been particularly effective.

You can support the translation at /dragonlegion

Otherwise, the leadership of the German region would have changed hands long ago.

Unfortunately, while the Kingdom of Prussia achieved military victory, it suffered a diplomatic defeat. Austria was not crushed. Instead, it completed internal reforms due to external conflict.

As a result, although Prussia appeared to expand its territory as a victor, it was ultimately a pyrrhic victory.

Not only did it gain a new enemy, but it also lost the goodwill of the German princes, becoming viewed as a “thief” and “bandit” who betrayed their trust.

Such an image cannot sustain a dominant position. Subsequently, the Habsburg dynasty made a strong comeback, even annexing Hungary and widening the power gap between the two states.

…

“When will the international conference be held?”

Franz did not inquire about the location. It seemed that Napoleon IV had inherited the showy tendencies of Napoleon III, as he was particularly eager to convene international conferences after ascending to the throne.

The French are especially generous in this regard. Whenever an international conference is held in France, they cover all related expenses.

These expenses only apply to the daily living and accommodation of the delegations in France, as well as the costs associated with the conference itself.

While it may seem that the number of participants in international conferences during this era is small and the costs are minimal, over time, these expenses can accumulate into a significant sum.

Both Britain and Austria focus on practical benefits. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, they typically do not compete with the French over the conference location. After all, they are not celebrities in need of the spotlight.

Foreign Minister Wessenberg stated, “This conference will be at the ministerial level, so we need to coordinate schedules. The plan is for it to take place in February of next year, though the exact date has yet to be determined.”

Franz nodded. When it comes to matters of interest distribution and establishing a new international order, a high-level conference is essential.

If the delegation consists of individuals who lack decision-making power and must constantly seek approval from their governments, then meaningful discussions would be impossible.

Negotiations involving interests often take a considerable amount of time. In contrast, high-ranking government officials possess greater authority and can make decisions independently, resulting in much more efficient negotiations.

Resolving international tensions has become imperative. With each passing day, colonial governments face significant economic losses, and everyone is feeling the urgency.

“Are there any signs of rapprochement between Britain and France? I mean, are they making contact behind the scenes?”

Before every international conference, countries will showcase their diplomatic skills, trying to rally allies for support in order to secure greater benefits during the discussions.

This time, Austria’s interests are not substantial, so the Austrian government naturally cannot afford to spend heavily on public relations. However, it is still necessary to keep an eye on Britain and France.

Wessenberg shook his head and said, “There have been contacts between Britain and France, but they likely haven’t reached any agreements. Currently, there are significant conflicts over colonial interests between the two countries.

If it weren’t for our experience with the ‘Anglo-Boer War’ as a cautionary tale, both nations wouldn’t be more concerned about potential losses and might have already engaged in colonial disputes by now.

Especially in the Sudan region where tensions are running high. It is said that there have also been conflicts of interest between Britain and France in the Indochina Peninsula and the Far Eastern Empire. We haven’t focused much on that area and are unclear about the specific reasons.

This situation also involves private colonial companies. When it comes to interests, neither side is likely to back down easily. Even if both governments want to intervene, it would be difficult to make them stop.”

Private colonial companies are a unique product of this historical era, with the most famous being the British “East India Company,” which, at its peak, had armed forces comparable to those of a medium-sized nation.

In some respects, the East India Company resembled a state more than a mere enterprise.

This “state” was ultimately consumed by bureaucrats, as bureaucratic practices and corruption led to severe losses for the enterprise, culminating in the dissolution of the renowned East India Company last year.

Such colonial companies exist under various flags and are the vanguards of overseas colonial expansion. They are influenced by their respective governments but are not entirely controlled by them.

Those engaged in overseas colonization are often fortune seekers willing to take risks. In the face of profit, government orders often have little sway over them.

Many of the conflicts that erupt in various colonies are instigated by private colonial teams. As long as there is profit involved, there is little they won’t dare to do.

Competition among colonial companies from the same country is equally fierce. If two colonial companies engage in a fierce struggle, there’s no need to panic or be surprised. It’s a good sign that they have made significant discoveries.

The intensity of their conflicts typically correlates with the potential profits at stake. If an open gold mine is discovered, internal strife within the colonial teams could very well occur.

In contrast, colonial governments directly overseen by various countries tend to be more restrained. They usually consider their international image and think carefully before taking action, rarely charging in recklessly.

Currently, the ongoing conflicts between Britain and France over colonial issues stem fundamentally from competing interests. While “first come, first served” is a valid principle, what happens when both sides arrive at the same time?

This is also why France and Austria are keen to delineate their spheres of influence in Africa. If they do not clarify these boundaries in advance, who knows how many conflicts might arise along their lengthy colonial borders?

However, it could be said that it is the desert that has saved Franco-Austrian relations. Most of the current boundary lines of their colonies run through desert regions.

Desert areas have low value, and normal people would not take risks crossing deserts for thrills. With deserts acting as barriers, encounters are minimized, naturally reducing the likelihood of conflict.