Adressed to the Council of Zoners

[pbrione]

[Incoming Transmission]
[Source: Whitehall, New London]
[CommID: Bretonian Foreign Office]

Your description of a "slight hiccup" could hardly be more of an understatement. For Bretonia, such an amendment would render the entire agreement essentially worthless; the BPA does not include Omega3 within its standard area of operations, the BAF effectively acts as a police force and assumes the responsibilities of the BPA in the Dominion of Omega 3. Granting consent to the BPA to enforce laws in an area in which they do not operate appears, I must confess, to be a rather blatant attempt on the part of certain elements within your Council to derail these negotiations at a point when we had just managed to reach a rather difficult agreement.

Your point regarding taking sides in conflicts, Mr Nichols, seems somewhat misguided. For a start, I would have hardly thought that a conflict between 2 lawful Houses and a group of murderors, pirates and terrorists, many of whom are a threat to Zoners as well as us, was a conflict in which anyone could desire to remain "neutral"; both in terms of ethical standards, self preservation and the political weight of parties involved. We understand you do not take sides in wars between groups, such as Rheinland and Liberty, or even between the corsairs and Bretonia, given that the terms of the agreement as it stands does not allow arrests merely on the basis of affiliation with a hostile group. This is not what we ask. All that we have requested is the right to arrest those who have committed greivous offences against our people and, might I point out, committed offences against the Council of Zoners itself, as your own laws already prohibit loitering and the use of your bases to stage attacks.

If you instead would rather that your bases were used to shelter such criminals from us, then I think that would in fact be a far clearer example of taking sides in our conflicts - a conscious decision to harbour and protect those who harm both our peoples from our attempts to provide justice. Please don't insult us by trying to say that your no fire zones shelter our forces equally from the criminals - we all know that our Armed Forces have little need of it and that the vast majority of those taking advantage of it are criminals. After all, it is they who are running and hiding to try and escape justice. If you therefore enact a policy which aids those who run and hide, you are aiding the criminals, not us. So don't for a moment be naive enough to think that you can avoid taking sides and maintain perfect neutrality - whatever your decision someone will benefit from it more than others. You have to accept responsibility for the decisions that you make, and realise that our previous agreement is in fact the best decision, not just for us, but for peace-loving citizens everywhere who want to sleep safely from the threat of dangerous criminals. If any among your council honestly believe that this false vision of "neutrality" is more important than the welfare of ordinary citizens of all our nations then, frankly sir, they are fools.

I request that you ask your Council to reconsider, pointing out that in the specific system of Omega3 the Armed Forces (and similarly for Liberty) in fact take on the responsibility of the House Police forces to catch dangerous criminals and hence the privileges granted to them should reflect that status also. The previous terms of the agreement already provide adequate safeguards against us using the no fire zones to wage war on enemies, due to the fact that mere affiliation with a hostile power is not sufficient grounds for an arrest; evidence of specific offences is required. Perhaps your Council delegates missed that point - be so kind as to point it out clearly to them.

Might I remind you that, as of yet, we have not ratified any of your new laws and will not be doing so until we have a satisfactory Foreign Law Enforcement Treaty from you. Whilst at present we are continuing to respect your no fire zones out of politeness whilst these negotiations continue, we are not in any way obliged to do so until we have ratified your laws. Perhaps your council should bear this in mind when they make declarations designed to stall and delay these negotiations.

Trusting that your delegates will see sense over this issue,

Lord Charles Canning
9th Earl of Malmesbury
Foreign Secretary of Bretonia

[End Transmission]

---

Sir Stanley Nelson




<span style="color:#000066">Charles Canning </span><span style="color:#000066"> Foreign Secretary</span>