Quote:We do not want relief from the embargo. That has too many potential problems. Moving capital sized vessels through your house territory would always be after we asked permission. Our gunship is, in reality, a heavily armed freighter. Our Cruiser an exploration vessel. The only real combat capital ships we have are our Destroyer, Battle cruiser and Juggernaut. If we were to be moving ships of this size through your house we would always ask permission first.
I do want Liberty and the Zoners to have a good working relationship. While our neutrality is our problem as you put it, it is still the core issue here.
I see. If ratification is all we can offer, then as I said earlier, I will be happy to provide my signature and to gather the signatures of the relevant figures within our government and security forces once our objectives are met.
From what you say, those conditions that I require seem very close to being met.
Currently, we recognise that space around your installations as owned in the same way as corporations own land and facilities. However, we are prepared to agree that it is your sovereign territory, both the station and the sphere five kilometers around it. This would exclude any trade lanes of course, which would remain in the hands of whomever their current ownership is attributed.
As Im sure you know, there is a fine line between neutrality, which is what you aim for, and supporting acts of piracy and terrorism. Now, even though independant worlds space is currently lawless, you obviously have your own set of morals such as, but not limited to, the objection to a needless waste of life.
Surely the Council of Zoners does not support nor condone acts of violent aggression, piracy or terrorism, even within its "lawless" space? A rhetorical question, of course.
From my current understanding, what you seem to have said in your previous transmission is that:
The Forces of Liberty can continue a chase into the no-fire zone unhindered by Zoner intervention.
The Forces of Liberty can make the arrest of the fugitive inside the no-fire zone, if neccessary, with force.
Afterwards, if requested by the Council of Zoners, proof of both the chase outside the no-fire-zone and inside that zone would be provided.
If the suspect escapes or reoffends, you will deny the use of your facilities to the individual in question and take away the safety of the no-fire-zone for said individual.
This will allow us to again attempt the arrest of that individual without being hindered by the restrictions of your no-fire-zone.
The fugitive could be a violent criminal in a bomber, for example, or a smuggler with slaves, again for example.
And that:
If the Forces of Liberty encounter loiterers around a Freeport, we can request them to leave without the use of force.
If there is prior proof of the crimes of any individuals who are loitering in the Freeport no-fire-zone, then we are free to make an armed arrest of those individuals inside that zone.
If previously unconvicted accomplices of the criminals assist said criminals, then we would arrest them too and provide evidence of their agression inside the zone on request by the Council of Zoners.
Is this the correct understanding of what you propose?
Quote:Now, we live in two different realities, You have black and white and we see things more as shades of gray. This does put us at slight odds. Our situation is unique, neutrality is a necessity, if we disavow a faction then we are at potential issue with many others. We do not condone the taking of life needlessly, we do understand your position, we ask that you understand ours.
I see as many shades as there are colours in the books of law in Liberty. As you said, that is the black of the ink used to write those laws and the white of the paper that the laws themselves are written on. I do however understand your position, though I cannot put it before the concerns of the house which I represent, if you understand what I mean.
Regards, Harrison McRemitz
The secretary of state for foreign affairs.
