Welcome to Star Trek Simulation Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Joy

Aegis Treaty Interpretation and Breen Catastrophe Response

Subject : Aegis Treaty Interpretation and Breen Catastrophe Response

From : Ambassador Joy Two

To : Ambassador Drankum, Kith Ghoram, General K’Vorlag

CC : Ambassador Joy Seven, Ambassador tr'Aeolix, Cmdr Kirel

 

The Aegis treaty is complex, containing many requirements. Four might be sufficient to illustrate the current problem. 1). Aegis shall be used only for peaceful purposes. 2) Directives to Aegis shall come through civilian command channels. 3) The goal is to manage Aegis by consensus. 4) Should consensus be unachievable, differences shall be resolved through binding arbitration.

 

I have recently been attempting to work with Starfleet to develop procedures to implement the above requirements. Recently, Captain Quark rejected my most recent attempt with emphasis, and refused to further pursue the conversation. She insisted with emphasis that she intends to report through Starfleet chain of command and respect no other command authority.

 

In my opinion, this is not a small stretch of treaty interpretation, but a gross violation of the letter, spirit and intent of the Aegis Treaty. Her interpretation would not stand before any reputable binding arbitration service. Her interpretation is illegal and criminal. As of now, Captain Muon is refusing to speak to me on this subject. Being who and what I am, I can no longer in any way aid or abet her current methods for operating Aegis. Thus, the cooperation between Federation civilian and military operations has become dysfunctional. Thus, I sent word to Mudd’s embassy in San Francisco that my replacement should be sent to Aegis.

 

My sister Seven responded that “Someone on Aegis needs to be replaced.” I am awaiting developments.

 

In the meantime, while I am still here, as it remains my duty to attempt to build a consensus on how the station should be used, I have questions for the other allied representatives present.

 

1. Does your nation agree that the catastrophic events reported in Breen space need to at least be investigated , likely responded to, and that Sky Harbor Aegis is an appropriate asset to commit to this purpose?

 

2. If the answer to the above is yes, is your government content to participate passively as an observer, yielding all decisions to Starfleet? For the duration of any Breen catastrophe operations, is your government willing to waive significant parts of the Aegis Treaty, including the peaceful use, civilian command, consensus management, and binding arbitration clauses?

 

3. The Aegis Treaty as written seems entirely adequate for a peaceful use station in a static situation. The Breen catastrophe situation seems likely to be neither peaceful nor static. Arguably, in violating the peaceful use clause, the station’s proscribed command procedures are likely to be stressed far beyond conditions they were intended to handle. Is your government comfortable sending assets into harm’s way with a chain of command resting on the twin bedrocks of unanimous consensus and binding arbitration?

 

4. I have given thought to how the Aegis Treaty might possibly be altered to a workable form, honoring the spirit of the original treaty, but adapting the mechanics to a more dynamic situation. If there is a preliminary consensus that falls through the first three questions with yes, no, and no answers, would anyone care to discuss possible alterations to make the command procedures suitable for non-peaceful use?

 

This unit can abide if the Aegis Treaty is honored, modified, or nullified. This unit cannot function well if the treaty is to be ignored. It is my belief that the Breen Catastrophe will be best answered by a united Alpha Quad, rather than by Starfleet. I believe a consensus operation, while difficult to achieve, would be the correct answer. However, if we do not have a strong clear commitment and unity of purpose going in, any attempt to manage by anything approximating the procedures specified in the Aegis Treaty are apt to fail. Thus, it is thus important that if any attempt at consensus is to be made, it should be made immediately.

 

Ambassador Joy Two

Edited by Joy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governor K'Vorlag rubbed both fists against his ridgeplate, trying to get his blood flowing. It was hard to work up battle frenzy to respond to a memo. He took a deep breath and let it out as a growl...

His name was on the To: line. He envied the Ferengi troll. His government would not allow him to fire off a short evasive response. It also wouldn't let him speak his mind on those parts where he disagreed with the High Council. No job was easy. It must be conquered.

 

He began speaking his thoughts into the recorder. "Ambassador, I've read your memo and find you've extended bureacratic concepts to parts of the treaty where it just doesn't apply. Peaceful purposes, fine. Directives through civilian command channels? I find no mention of directives at all. I find no mention of civilian command, either. The two words are contradictory in Klingon. In the treaty language I see one mention of "ultimate civil authority" under the section titled Evolution but nothing under Management or Operations to imply civilians will command the station. The Empire would never have signed such a document. In fact, Article 7, Section 2 actually says the UFP, acting through Starfleet Command, shall be responsible for the management. Goal of consensus, fine. A failed goal, but how does one gain consensus with absent partners? Binding arbitration? I see one statement that a concerned Ally may submit an issue for conciliation, mediation or arbitration by a mutually agreed to neutral party. I do not see "binding". Right before that it says "in the hopes of a peaceful resolution" which admits that it cannot be binding except by the choice of the parties.

 

So I dispute half of your opening statements before you begin your argument. It does not get better.

 

It is proper and fitting that a Starfleet officer obey their chain of command. A Klingon would do no less. In the Federation's case, it is even under ultimate civilian authority, which you claim to rever. So how is this a gross violation, much less illegal and criminal? A commander who was forced to yield to the demands of competing parties would rule only chaos. As Kahless said, 'No warrior can serve two masters.'

So, to your questions:

1. My orders are to respond "Yes" and "Yes". While I do not personally care about the fate of the cowardly Breen, the High Council disagrees. And we agree that keeping Aegis above Cardassia is a harmful waste.

 

2. Your phrasing is meant to evoke a reaction. Klingons are not content. We do nothing passive, and we do not yield. We waive nothing. We remain partners in Aegis, even if we are seldom active. And we do not recognize your insertion of civilian command, consensus management, and binding arbitration, as noted.

 

3. I have seen nothing to indicate non-peaceful use. And I doubt the station will keep moving around. We do not see command procedures being stressed, especially since we do not recognize your assertion of unanimous consensus or binding arbitration.

 

4. The Klingon Empire has expressed no interest in additional changes to the Aegis Treaty, but it does accept the Federation proposal regarding the station removal from Cardassia. We would not be opposed to consider other alterations.

 

It is clear you do not share the same vision of Aegis that I do. That is not merely a Klingon to android difference. It seems our vision differs between people even within our species and our governments. To some it is the last best hope for Cardassia to join your bloody Federation, to me it is a convenient friendly port of call with a good bar. So be it.

 

I do wonder which government has raised the objections to continued operations that you have stressed so often. It has not been the Klingons. It has not been the Cardassians. The Romulans have shown only apathy, while the Ferengi seem concerned but say nothing. I saw the letter from your own President issuing the order to move. Is the Federation so fractured that it cannot support the directives of its own civil authority?

 

While I am aboard, I am at the Empire's service and your call.

 

Respectfully,

 

Governor K'Vorlag, Imperial representative"

 

He sighed and posted the response.

Edited by KVorlag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ambassadors,

 

To the issues the Federation seems to be having at the moment the Cardassian Union is silent.

 

To the interpretation of the Aegis Treaty we find The Federation acting through Starfleet as specified in the treaty. How the chain of command is being implemented would fall under our first statement and we stand silent.

 

To the more pressing issue about the Breen, it is of great concern to the Cardassian Union. In response to each of your points, Ambassador Joy:

 

1. If an outside force has moved in on the Breen then we are deeply interested in investigating this matter. If an internal conflict has occurred then we wish to know what implications there will be on our territory. If a natural disaster has befallen the Breen we again are interested. We do not care what methods or tools are used in this investigation. The Aegis station is an available asset for such a mission.

 

2. You seem to be implying the Aegis station would be commanding all missions and activity that might occur along the Breen boarders. Any investigations taken on by the Cardassian Union will be commanded by us but we welcome a safe port of call. We believe the diplomatic facilities of Sky Harbor Aegis can be used in discussing what implications arise from findings within Breen space but the management of the station has never been under the control of the Cardassian Union. We feel Starfleet is a adequate steward of any Cardassian interest until such time that we are capable or required to step in.

 

3. The Aegis Treaty seems to have affixed itself to the station more than the world it was established to aid, namely Cardassia Prime. We do not feel the Aegis station should be continually bound to the Aegis Treaty once it leaves the operational territory implied by the treaty, namely Cardassia Prime and the Cardassian systems and to a greater extend Cardassian territory.

 

4. Again we see the spirit of the Aegis Treaty to be specifically focused on the reconstruction efforts of Cardassia Prime. That treaty can remain in effect without the station it was named after hanging in our sky. Whether fact or fiction, the impression of Aegis' current placement in the eyes of Cardassians is that of an overseer. We wish the peace between us to remain and only the impression of hostility be removed.

 

 

The Cardassian Union would like to suggest the negotiation of a new Treaty of Alliance between all interested parties in an effort to face this unknown possible threat from the Breen or other entities within Breen space. We hope that lessons learned from the Aegis Treaty might aid in a more accommodating alliance for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0