Aegis Treaty Renegotiation

[Joy 0]

Subject : Aegis Treaty Renegotiation

From : Ambassador Joy Two

To : Captain Muon Quark

 

 

Captain

 

I have been meditating upon the contents of the 2376 Aegis treaty, and waiting patiently for Ambassador Drankum to reveal his objectives and legal approach. His recent note rejecting the proposed amendments on the basis that it coms from a non-civil organization is revealing. It also echoes my reading of the treaty. The commander of Aegis does not answer to Starfleet, or to any other military organization, but to an amorphous ‘consensus’ of civil authorities.

 

The treaty does not contain a section on military chain of command. I believe this to be a significant oversight. Given it’s weapons, given the history of Aegis, and even given the name ‘Aegis,’ the station is in part a military asset. As such, it requires a commanding officer, a single source of over riding orders should conflict arise. However Aegis is not a sovereign entity. The captain of Aegis, of any ship or station with military capability, must answer to some higher authority. The treaty is clear that said higher authority is not Starfleet, but is a consensus of civilian authorities.

 

I share memories with my sister, Ambassador Joy Seven, who has considerable experience with a committee which oversees and directs military organizations. The exercise is not trivial. I shall state as a self evident truth that when trouble arises, there will be no initial consensus. The civilian command authorities will require weeks to months to get their acts together. Thus, when there is no consensus, there ought to be a default set of rules of engagement, a default area of operation, and a default set of missions that may be undertaken. Such missions might include suppression of piracy, diplomatic exchange, supporting interstellar trade, and providing humanitarian aid. At the same time, the Aegis commander should not be free to launch any mission he or she pleases. Missions such as supporting insurrection, improving planetary cultures at gunpoint or launching war of aggression should be explicitly forbidden without a consensus of relevant civilian command authorities.

 

Also, if one signatory power becomes involved in a conflict, but other signatory powers wish to remain neutral, under what circumstances would Aegis become belligerent?

 

Also, if two or more Aegis signatory powers come into active conflict with one another, under what circumstances does Aegis become belligerent?

 

These are not abstract questions. In the lead up to their attack on Aegis, the Breen launched a disinformation campaign which suggested the Romulans committed acts of war against Cardassia and the Federation. The treaty does not cleanly handle that situation. Not long ago, the Cardassian government did not wish the Federation to contact species 8472. The act of one signatory government was seen as putting other signatory governments at risk. Again, the question might be what sort of missions are allowed under the initiative of the Aegis commanding officer without the permission of a consensus of civilian command authorities.

 

I do not know if Ambassador Drankum has thought this through in detail. It seems clear that he does not wish policy set by Starfleet. Given the rocky recent history of Aegis, I can see where he is coming from. It is not clear that he has throughly thought through what would be required to create an alternate chain of command.

 

I too noted that there is no provision in the existing treaty that describes what is required to authorize moving the station. I also noted that there is no provision in the treaty forbidding the Federation assigned commanding officer from moving the station. Clearly, a consensus of civilian command authorities would have the power to define an area of operation for Aegis, but given no are of operations has ever been defined by a consensus of civilian command authorities, it is generally the prerogative of a captain to move his or her vessel.

 

Not that I would use said argument until and unless someone gets totally obstructionist. If at all possible, let us strive for the proposed unanimous consensus.

 

There are a number of other items in the Treaty which might be cleaned up. For example, the precedent seems to be that Starfleet security and Federation law prevails throughout the station (excepting the embassies), while the treaty calls for multiple security forces and multiple jurisdictions. We might wish to clean up such things, but I am not eager to raise more issues than absolutely necessary.

 

Comments Welcome

 

Joy