On February 6, 1922, representatives of the United States, Great Britain, France, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, and China signed in Washington, D.C., the Treaty of Principles and Policies Applicable to the Matter in China, commonly known as the Nine-Power Pact, which provides:

First, China should respect its sovereignty and independence, as well as the integrity of its territory and administrative power, and the signatory countries should implement the principles of "open door" and "equal opportunity" in China.

Secondly, the signatory States are prohibited from entering into treaties, agreements, agreements or understandings with one or more States, either individually or jointly, that infringe upon or impede the principles set forth in Article I.

Thirdly, the signatory countries are prohibited from seeking or sponsoring their citizens to seek general privilege rights in commerce and economic development, as well as any patents or privileges, in any designated area of China, and all countries have complete equality of trade opportunities with China. Pen & Fun & Pavilion www.biquge.info

-- There is no doubt that according to the treaty, the United States is the country that has benefited the most, and no country has been able to achieve the same conditions and status as it has in the financial and commercial fields. When all countries accept the constraints of the treaty and abandon other means to gain benefits in China only through normal trade, they have put themselves in the position of losers.

Including the United Kingdom. Although it can also gain some benefits from the treaty, the benefits to be gained by Britain are not even as high as the benefits it has lost compared to the overwhelming position it now has. And, as the United States grows stronger, the balance in the Far East, which it has long aspired to maintain, will be completely upset.

History is proof.

So, are politicians in London likely to support such a treaty proposed by Washington that would be more beneficial, or even harmful, to the United States than to the United Kingdom? Qin Lang spent a lot of time thinking about this question, carefully analyzing all the clues he had, and gradually looking for the answer.

History did not tell him the answer. Although the British delegates had signed the Nine-Power Pact, it was now 1899, not 1922, and the conditions that had prompted the British to accept that treaty did not yet exist.

Without the First World War, which lasted four years, consumed untold wealth, and led to the death of an entire generation of British youth in muddy trenches, the empire on which the sun never sets remains strong, radiant and undaunted by any challenge; Without the huge dividends from the sale of strategic goods and war bonds during the long war, and the fleet that had been built up over the course of three decades and rivaled by the Royal Navy, the United States remained insignificant and lacked a position and respect in the international community commensurate with its economic and industrial power.

The situation is very clear, there is a clear and irreparable gap between the two world hegemons, the old and the new, which is completely different from that of 1922.

So, will the British support that proposal? A proposal that is more advantageous to a challenger who supports the hegemony and interests of an empire? Theoretically, no country's politicians would accept, let alone support, that kind of proposal, and, as it is known, British politicians are sophisticated and cunning, adept at manipulating international politics and will not hesitate to use any means to defend British interests.

"There are no eternal enemies, no permanent friends, only eternal interests" - it is not just a British prime minister who mentioned this famous phrase in his public speech and put it into practice as a policy; Winston. Leonard. Spencer Churchill wasn't the first, either.

But Qin Lang believed that the British would accept the suggestion - and after thinking for a long time, he came to this seemingly extremely absurd conclusion: London would definitely support his proposal.

"I don't understand your conclusion, and I don't support it, although I'm glad to see a significant increase in U.S. international influence." One senator strongly objected, "Although the British government fears that the continued expansion of Russia and Japan will affect its interests in the Far East, and that it will have to devote the vast majority of its forces to Berlin, this does not mean that it will give us an opportunity for expansion." ”

"And, I must emphasize," went on to say another senator, "that London is probably more wary of us than it is of Russia and Japan." ”

"That's true." Qin Lang admitted. The senators were not wrong, except "afraid": while the United States remained only a small and weak country that lacked a threat -- only to the European powers at the level of Britain and Germany, of course, and to countries such as Spain – London was necessarily more wary of Washington than it was of St. Petersburg and Tokyo.

At least for now, St. Petersburg and Tokyo have not openly put forward claims such as "Eastern Europe for Eastern Europeans" or "Asia for Asians", but Washington advocates the creation of "Americana for Americans"; The Russians and Japanese also did not attack the sacrosanct territories of Her Majesty, and the Americans ...... Even excluding minor frictions that did not turn into war, the Americans did it twice.

U.S. troops have invaded Canada twice. For the first time, during the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress sent a legion to "liberate" Canada, despite the dire situation in the colonies of the Thirteen States on the home side, and the gallant Continental Army and militia of General Washington being pursued like ducks by His Majesty's colonial forces and Hessian mercenaries; The second was in 1812 - This invasion became the trigger for the Second Anglo-American War, which resulted in the burning of Washington by the British army and its Indian allies......

Of course, it was extremely fortunate for the Americans that Napoleon I held the main British power at bay in Europe, otherwise the British and their Indian allies would have burned New York and Philadelphia to the ground, or even until the United States went bankrupt. As if General Sherman's corps were in Georgia and Mississippi......

Just as a true American would never forget these histories, just as a true British politician would not forget the ambitions of the traitor-founded nation on the west coast of the Atlantic for the Queen's Canada, which had invaded Canada twice in a row when the United States was too weak to challenge Britain, it was almost self-evident what it would do when it became stronger.

London had to be wary of the actions of the United States, every move.

And America's intentions are not just for Canada, but for the whole world: Washington has always wanted a strong, hostile land power to Britain on the European continent, like France in the days of Napoleon I. Such a country could force Britain to concentrate its forces in Europe, while it itself would not be able to expand outward because of Britain's strenuous obstruction. So the whole world will be American -- not just Canada, but the whole world.

There was now such a powerful land power in Europe, and it was hostile to Britain: the German Empire of Wilhelm II. Wall Street financiers and Washington politicians were overjoyed to see that they would soon be able to fulfill their wish - as long as Germany and Britain began a military confrontation and the confrontation continued; If Germany does not have the strength to continue the confrontation, the United States will help it continue.

As long as it does not lead itself into a direct confrontation with Great Britain in order to support Germany, the United States can provide Germany with all the support, and it is easy to do so: to carry out a policy of "neutrality" with a clear inclination, to export strategic resources and funds, and even weapons and ammunition to Germany.

Politicians in London are aware of all these problems, which means that they cannot give the United States a chance to continue to expand its power, even in the Far East.

Containment, it is British policy.

“…… Containing us is not giving us a chance to continue expanding. The senator concluded, "I am sure that London will not support your proposal unless the British are all insane." ”

But Qin Lang's attitude was extremely resolute. "If there is no Germany, you are right."

"The Germans were not enough to induce the British to change the tactics they used against us." After a moment's hesitation, Harriman joined the ranks of the opponents.

Bush also joined. "Even if Berlin's most inappropriate involvement in the Boer War would cause London to see it as an enemy to be eliminated, London would not condone our expansion in the Far East." Again, he reminded, "It's as dangerous as withdrawing Canada's defenses." ”

"Unless you can come up with reasons that are enough to convince us." And that's what everyone meant, Harriman said: If Qin Lang could give a reason enough to convince them, they could use the same reason to convince the other members of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, the president and the secretary of state.

They were interested in Qin Lang's proposal - although it seemed unfeasible, they still liked it and wanted it to become a reality.

How can an open China that will not be taken away or carved up by competitors through force or other abnormal means, an outcome that Washington has wasted decades pursuing? Moreover, an international treaty proposed by the United States...... At least in terms of propaganda, it represents a substantial increase in the international standing of the United States, which is also Washington's dream.

Harriman, Bush, and several senators appreciate and fully support Qin Lang's attempts and efforts to promote the interests of the United States and the enhancement of the international status of the United States, but they just need some convincing reasons -- politics is always troublesome, but politicians are even more troublesome.

Qin Lang understood their thoughts, but unfortunately, for himself, it was undoubtedly extremely stupid for him to play all the hole cards without reservation, just like pouring beans from a bamboo tube. If you want to fight for your advantage, you must save the best hole cards for last.

"I'm sorry for that," he said apologetically. Harriman and Bush's heads immediately ached -- they knew Qin Lang and knew that he was pretending again -- but Qin Lang obviously wouldn't change his strategy because of their attitude.

"You'll see my reasons, but not now - it's too early to talk about them." He declared, "It is only when the war between the English and the Boers becomes more intense that everything becomes apparent and can be used as strong evidence for my conclusion." ”

"I don't understand the attitude of the British towards us ...... Boer War" Harriman paused and thought for a moment, "Do you think the British could lose the war?" ”

This speculation was even crazier than Qin Lang's proposal, and it frightened both Bush and several senators: even if the Germans supported the Transvaal at any cost, Britain would not be more likely to lose the Boer War than China was to win last year's war...... And is it possible that the Germans will support the Transvaal at any cost? No way. Only a Boer would have such unrealistic daydreams.

Qin Lang's evidence must be something else, such as ......

"Britain will win the war, but at great cost." Qin Lang began to play the role of a prophet, "The Boer War would eventually bring Britain to the pinnacle of world hegemony, but at the same time, it would also be the starting point of its gradual loss of world hegemony." ”

"A turning point?"

"A turning point." He nodded, "So Britain must change its policy towards the United States." From containment to co-optation and alliance. ”

Before the Boer War, the British were confident that they were not afraid of German provocations or the danger that American support for Germany might cause; After the Boer War, they had to reassess their own, German, and American powers, and whether the mighty empire on which the sun never set was capable of confronting an alliance of a country with a strong military power and a country with strong financial capital and industrial power.

Then the British would revise their policy; They had to revise their policies. While there are times when change doesn't mean a good outcome, and may even lead to a worse outcome, most people believe that it's better to try things out than to do nothing.

Harriman, Bush, and several senators had almost guessed Qin Lang's reason, but it was still hard to believe it. "How much will it cost Britain to win the war?"

"We'll see." Qin Lang replied. (To be continued, if you want to know what will happen next, please log in to the www.qidian.com, more chapters, support the author, support genuine reading!) (To be continued.) )