African Entrepreneurship Records 2

Chapter 1539 The Middle East
Assessing the strength of the Soviet Union at this stage is not an easy task and requires consideration from multiple dimensions. If judged by East Africa's own standards, East Africa is a primary industrial power with an urbanization rate of less than 50% and a relatively high proportion of agricultural population.

At that time, the urbanization rate of the Soviet Union was less than 30 percent, and it could be regarded as an agricultural country. However, no one could treat the Soviet Union as an agricultural country.

For example, Japan's urbanization rate is similar to, or even slightly higher than, that of the Soviet Union, but absolutely no one would think that Japan's national strength is stronger than that of the Soviet Union.

This is similar to the previous life, when the urbanization rate of the Far Eastern Empire reached about 60%, it was already difficult to compare its national strength with that of the United States. The United States had a stronger economy, but it was inflated, while the Far Eastern Empire had a strong industry, but its economic data was relatively low.

If we consider the early 20th century, specifically the period in East Africa, things wouldn't be so complicated. Steel production would be the most direct indicator of national strength, which is why the Soviet Union ranked fourth. This is also an important indicator that most countries would refer to.

East Africa today is an exception. In the 19th century, steel production was also a goal pursued by East Africa. However, after entering the 20th century, as East Africa's steel production rapidly increased and became the world's largest, the influence of steel production on the assessment of the quality of East Africa's economy decreased significantly.

Instead, the focus shifted to urbanization rates and per capita levels in various industries. Following this logic, East Africa was portrayed in propaganda as a "backward and weak" country.

For example, before the economic crisis, East Africa had long been the world's largest producer of steel. However, when it comes to per capita steel production, countries such as the United States, Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom, and France ranked higher than East Africa.

In terms of urbanization rates, the average urbanization rate in industrialized countries is now around 50%, while East Africa is only close, at around 46% to 48%, lower than that of the UK, Germany, the US, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc.

Of course, East Africa's urbanization rate is very high on a global scale. In 1932, the world average urbanization rate was about 20 percent, and East Africa's was about 18 percentage points higher.

……

Late 1932, Persia.

Persia has been one of the key strategic areas that East Africa has been operating in the Middle East in recent years. According to an agreement between East Africa and Britain, East Africa took over its western and northern regions, which were formerly within the sphere of influence of Tsarist Russia.

However, this also put East Africa in a relatively passive situation, with the Persian part of East Africa, which was under the sphere of influence, sandwiched between the Soviet Union (Azerbaijan) and Britain.

Britain was in a better position. It wanted to win over East Africa to counter the Soviet Union, thereby shrinking its own power and better protecting the security of its South Asian colonies. Since the end of World War I, Britain's global strategy has changed, and it has been mainly focused on contraction.

Relations between East Africa and the Soviet Union in the Middle East were quite tense.

The conflict between the two countries in the region has nothing to do with ideology; it is entirely a conflict of national interests. After all, this region was originally within the sphere of influence of Tsarist Russia, and the Soviet Union, from both strategic and economic perspectives, also hoped to strengthen its influence in the region.

Strategically, the Soviet Union also hoped to open up a sea route through the Persian Gulf, gain access to the sea, drive the development of its southern regions, including the Caucasus and Central Asia, and at the same time consolidate its national security.

Economically, this area was a traditional industrial market for Tsarist Russia, especially in trade along the northern Caspian coast, a tradition that the Soviet Union inherited.

However, East Africa was clearly not going to concede to the Soviet Union, especially given the global economic crisis and the urgent need for East Africa to expand into overseas markets.

To put it more simply, the competition between the Soviet Union and East Africa, two industrialized nations, for a single commodity market was one of the main contradictions between the two countries, a situation that had already begun to emerge during the Tsarist era.

As a major power along the Indian Ocean coast, East Africa has always coveted the markets of the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia. However, East Africa's rise came too late; these regions had already been divided up by various countries, especially Britain and Russia.

For ease of understanding, the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia are collectively referred to as the "Greater Middle East" region. In the past, the United States had a "Greater Middle East Democracy Project".

In the 19th century, East Africa was unable to develop the Greater Middle East market due to its national strength. Therefore, East Africa chose a compromise solution, which was to support Omanis (Zanzibarians) as intermediaries to sell East African goods to various parts of the Greater Middle East through their channels.

This includes the spheres of influence of Britain and Russia, and even Central Asia.

However, trade conducted in this way was ultimately limited in scale, since countries like Britain and Tsarist Russia considered this region their own "prey" and were unlikely to easily "share" it with others.

It wasn't until the beginning of this century, when East African military forces entered the Persian Gulf region, that East Africa's trade with the area further developed.

It was precisely because of military expansion that Britain was willing to cede the northwestern Persian region to East Africa after World War I.

Tehran, East African Embassy.

Today, East African Ambassador to Persia, Wirtz, received a letter from his homeland. The letter was sent by the East African Central Government and eventually mailed to Ambassador Wirtz.

After reading the letter, Wirtz called a meeting with East African diplomats in Tehran.

Wirtz said, "Gentlemen, some of the suggestions we mentioned earlier have been approved domestically and a response has been given."

"The Empire believes that the current situation in Persia is complex and times have changed. Therefore, we should change our diplomatic strategy in Persia. That is, to replicate the Empire's experience in South America and maintain the Empire's interests in the region as much as possible through economic cooperation."

"Avoid getting involved in the conflicts between various political forces, parties, ethnic groups, and religions in Persia. Without infringing on the core interests of the empire, restrictions on the development of Persia can be relaxed to a certain extent."

Undoubtedly, the East African government's new statement shows great sincerity towards Persia, and more importantly, it aims to minimize trouble.

As early as the beginning of this year, Ambassador Wirtz reported to the country that the development of East Africa in Persia in recent years has been so bad that it is not only universally disliked, but also universally condemned.

In the past, East Africa's semi-colonialism of Persia was very simple and brutal, often interfering in its internal affairs, attempting to support the Persian Kingdom government and suppress other factions.

This offended the local ethnic groups and the lower classes of Persia in East Africa.

The reason is simple: although the Persian government is more in line with East Africa's appetite for selling out national interests, they themselves are truly incompetent. If East Africa continues with its past diplomatic policies, it will be tantamount to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, ultimately leading to its downfall along with the Persian Kingdom. Ambassador Wirtz said, "You can't put all your eggs in one basket, especially in Persia, a region with a very complex situation. Over the years, our projects and trade in Persia have encountered many problems. The Northern Railway has not yet been completed, largely due to obstruction from local ethnic groups in Persia."

East Africa once planned a railway in Persia, attempting to extend it from the Persian Gulf all the way to the Caspian Sea coast, but progress was very slow. This was partly due to the complex terrain of Persia, and partly because East Africa was within Persia's sphere of influence, where ethnic and local forces were mixed.

For example, there are Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Arabs, Lur, Gilaks, Mazandarans, and finally Persians. The diverse ethnic groups, coupled with the complex terrain, have led to the formation of numerous tribes, families, and governments.

Some treaties between the East African and Persian governments involved these ethnic groups or regions. For example, the East African plan for the Persian Gulf-Caspian Railway was essentially the northern railway of Persia.

It passes through many ethnic regions, but East Africa receives the lion's share of the profits from this railway, the Persian Kingdom government receives a smaller share, and other forces not only get nothing but also suffer damage to their interests. For example, some mineral resources along the Persian Gulf-Caspian Railway were "plundered" by East Africa.

As for the "fair trade" between the East African and Persian governments, other powers naturally do not recognize it. The solution is not difficult: get them involved to share the spoils. However, the Persian government is clearly unwilling to do so.

The construction of this railway was originally funded and labored by the Persian Kingdom government, and they had no intention of sharing the benefits with other powers.

In short, there was too much money for too few people. The Persian government needed to obtain revenue, but their superiors in East Africa had already taken most of the interest. The remaining amount was barely enough to fill their own stomachs, leaving little room for others.

Wirtz said, "The Imperial Government is not interested in Persia's internal affairs. As long as we can protect the interests of the Empire and trade, we don't mind cooperating with anyone. For example, in the development of mineral resources, we no longer seek to monopolize mineral resources. As long as the Persians can develop them, we will be responsible for purchasing these resources back to our country."

In East Africa's trade with Persia, the plunder of raw materials was a significant aspect. In the past, East Africa was quite domineering, for example, by monopolizing the operation of mines. Now, East Africa can relax restrictions to a certain extent, allowing various Persian forces to participate, and East Africa has shifted from operating on its own to primarily purchasing.

Of all the mineral resources in Persia, the only one that could attract East Africa was its oil. However, Persian oil is mainly distributed along the Persian Gulf coast and does not require crossing the Persian Gulf-Caspian Railway.

Other mineral resources are scattered in the valleys and ravines of Persia, which are difficult to develop and inconvenient to transport. Now, East Africa does not want to go through the trouble of developing these resources in the Persian interior, but instead turns to Persia for development.

Of course, East Africa is not going to suffer a loss either, since Persia still clearly needs East Africa for the technology, equipment, and other resources required for developing mineral resources.

"Of course, the biggest advantage of doing this is that it can reduce our involvement in regional, ethnic, and religious conflicts."

If the development of a resource is truly profitable, it will also attract others, such as the British and Soviets, who can sabotage East African investment and even threaten the lives of people in East Africa by supporting local government armed forces.

This is not uncommon internationally. East Africa supported Paraguay and dealt with Bolivia, thereby extending its sphere of influence into the heart of South America and controlling a large amount of interests.

If East Africa can do this, other countries can too. The main question is whether it's worthwhile, and Persia clearly doesn't deserve such a large investment from East Africa.

In colonial-era terms, the investment outweighs the returns. Although Persia has oil, East Africa is not lacking in oil-producing areas. Moreover, Persia's oil is located along the Persian Gulf, in the area inhabited by Arabs. Therefore, as long as East Africa maintains good relations with the Arabs, it can also profit.

The Persian Gulf-Caspian Railway is different. Its span is too large, the forces along the route are complex, the risks are high, and the investment and maintenance costs are also high. Therefore, East Africa needs to change its approach.

Wirtz said, "In short, in Persia, according to the empire's final decision, our work will be completely transformed into one focused on economic colonization."

"Instead of treating Persia as a colony, which would require additional military and administrative costs, and could also lead to resistance from the local population, it would be a very unprofitable strategy."

"Therefore, we will gradually reduce our intervention in Persian domestic affairs in the future, unless it threatens the core interests of the empire."

"Of course, the suppression of the Soviet Union and the Labor Party in Persia remains our most basic political task and will not be shaken by this."

Even if it shifts to economic colonization, East Africa will not lower its guard against the Soviet Union and its supporting forces; this is politically correct.

The shift in East Africa's colonial strategy from Persia to more covert economic colonization was also a response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

Ambassador Wirtz said, "The Persian government cannot expect the Empire to directly confront the Soviet Union for their sake. After all, Persia is not our territory, but their own homeland."

"Therefore, the Persian government should make efforts to resist the Soviet Union, especially by strengthening its own military power and paying attention to the people's livelihood."

"To prevent local forces and the Labour Party from growing too powerful, the empire will correspondingly reduce its military presence in Persia, especially in the north, and shift its focus to the western coastal region."

The East African military presence in Persia is mainly concentrated in northern Persia, and was originally intended to deter the Soviet Union. However, the East African government now believes that this is not worthwhile, and that East Africa's interests in Persia are not worth the effort or resources required for this.

Even if the Soviet Union were to go to war with Persia directly, the problem could not be solved by the small number of troops stationed in East Africa, and there was a risk of being caught in the crossfire. Therefore, the focus in East Africa shifted to supporting Persia's own armed forces.

The Persian Kingdom government and other local ethnic groups may have had disputes and conflicts, but they were united in their attitude toward the Soviet Union, since allowing the Soviet Union to expand its influence would pose the greatest threat to them.

At worst, East Africa could simply pack up and leave, retreating back to the Persian Gulf, as long as it ensured that the Soviet Union could not gain access to the Persian Gulf.

Wirtz said, "Although Persia is an important part of the Empire's Greater Middle East trade, it is not indispensable. Our job is to maintain the Empire's current influence and trade share in Persia, rather than to have direct conflicts with Britain and the Soviet Union."

Of course, if East Africa does have a conflict of interest with either of the two countries, it will have plenty of time to react and deal with the risk, after all, East Africa is an invincible force in the Indian Ocean region.

This is precisely why the Soviet Union and Britain generally cannot act rashly or provoke East Africa.

(End of this chapter)