UK | Defence & Security Conference

[Jamie]

"A name is yet to be decided, but naturally it would be something we would all have input on and I'm curious as to any suggestions. One I had considered proposing would be along the lines of the AEGIS Treaty Organisation. AEGIS, which by definition is a shield, or defined as protection.
Whilst having a lot of potential, starting small would be vital to promote the growth and manage it properly. An initial concept for the structure would be to lead with a council to head the organisation where each member state would have a seat, and the head of the council would be a Secretary General decided on a vote.
This would set the groundwork and once a year, the council would meet to discuss and expand or review as needed.

To see this established, I would propose the following action points take place:

• A draft agreement put forward and discussed, providing all parties are happy with the content, this can be handled by the individual countries internal policies to ratify.
  • I would be happy to formalize a draft to propose but would like to see if we could all confirm on a name.
  • This agreement would focus on the first points of the alliance: annual exercises, annual discussions and collective defence. It would also be beneficial to confirm the joining requirements, and leaving requirements of the treaty.
• Once a draft is confirmed for parties to take to their governments, I feel it may be mutually beneficial, with or without the agreement, for a nation to host a joint military exercise. The UK would be happy to host if no one else is but if anyone was in agreement and wanted too, we would appreciate it.
• Another meeting scheduled once / if all three parties sign the founding agreement to discuss the next steps and how to proceed.

We could quite easily write a lengthy agreement but it would have no traction behind it. By starting small, yet simple, we can make sure it would work and see the cooperation grow between the three of us."

Connor Odinson

 

[Connor]

"I like the suggestion of naming the organisation AEGIS which fundamentally represents the origin of the treaty in the first place, representing to the world that this arrangement is for defence, not offence. There is clearly a lot of room for expansion within the current remit however I am keen that this organisation does not see itself exploding into an unmanageable chaos and that smarting small really does mean - starting small. Cooperation, discussion and defence strategy are going to be the core components of this organisations and I agree that it would make the most sense for these to be the founding articles of any agreement written.

Our first exercise should be one focussed around the interoperability of our forces whom I foresee will be working together closely over the coming years and God forbid we enter a wartime effort where this organisation may be called upon; it will be essential that our forces can work together - for this reason I would suggest that any exercise fundamentally focusses around ground forces.. perhaps in a 'capture the flag' style operation which will force our personnel to work together for a common goal. This is especially important after we have already established a communications shortfall in our operations in the Middle East this year.

One thing we should discuss is how public we want this organisation to be: do we intend to keep this treaty a mutual defence arrangement between ourselves or a wider publicised organisation?"

Jamie Odinson

 

[Odinson]

"I think that starting with a limited amount of commitments like this, and building the organization from the ground up, is a very good idea," President Gore said. "I'd be more than happy to organize these ground exercises between the armed forces of our three countries... In regards to your question," Gore said to his Swedish colleague, "if I am going to make a national commitment like this, that involves mutual defense and military cooperation, I can legally and tentatively agree to it, but it would have to be approved by the Senate. There is no way that something on this scale could be kept secret for long. And quite frankly, I don't think we need to keep it secret - we have nothing to be ashamed of," he said.

Secretary Fitzgerald, the Secretary of State, cleared his throat and spoke up. "While AEGIS is a valid proposal for a name.... could I propose some alternatives? I actually have a small list that I came up with," he said as he unfolded a piece of paper.
"The Covenant; The Concordant; CAS or 'The Confederation of Allied States'; The Cordiale Treaty Organization... Aegis Treaty Organization is, however, also a good name," he added.

Connor Jamie

 

[Connor]

"Military exercises can be rotated through each one of us to ensure the cost incurred and mutual benefit is met by all three nations. If the United States is happy to host the first exercise, this can then rotate between either us or the United Kingdom, the remainder - and repeat. We each have our own pronounced specialisations, geographic and meteorological extremes which would be of substantial benefit to our forces. The logistics are the only difficulty however I am sure for the purpose of training we can arrange a mutual arrangement to ensure we can all meet the specifications of the exercise."

Nodding in response to the US President he replies "Oh of course, I suspect we will all require the approval of our legislature. I will certainly have to present this to Parliament when I return home."

"in respect of the name I think it's fundamental we are all happy with what is chosen - perhaps if we all provide three names, that's nine in total, and we each independently rank the names from one to nine; we will then have a top three which we can decide on together? That way the likelihood is that each of us scored those names particularly high? Often times, and this is from experience, if those within the organisation cannot find a relationship with the name of the organisation then it loses its prowess and soon its members."

Jamie Odinson

 

[Jamie]

"Rotating exercises sounds like a valuable option, echoing my Swedish counterpart in relation to the benefits that each country here can provide. Though, the host in all scenarios should be explicit about the size of the exercise so that allies know what can be sent in terms of equipment and quantity. Another consideration is that a timescale should be set to avoid repeats of historic events of exercises lasting well beyond their expected times. I would suggest that exercises occur the same time every year, perhaps arranged, as an example, every July. This could mean the exercise is a month long, with the last week of June spent moving troops to the host country.

If that sounds suitable, I will add the below to the draft treaty I will send across shortly:

- Members of the alliance must participate in the annual exercise, taking place in [ ??? ] each year, with the host nation rotating each year and is responsible for providing all information and details in the build up to the exercise.
This should include size, location, type of exercise and permitted / requested equipment. The host should allow easy transit of the equipment as to when it would take place.

Of course, this can be altered and re-worded as needed and will be defined better on the draft I am finalizing. For the purpose of these 'set' exercises, I'd recommend the name be the same throughout.
As an example, Exercise Joint Warrior I, II, III, etc; or maybe a suffix of the year. Exercise Joint Warrior '98, '99, '00, etc.

I concur that the name can make a substantial impact of how others see an organisation and would be happy to follow the process suggested to rank names from one to nine. Providing all here are in agreement, the United Kingdoms three contributions are:[1]

[1] AEGIS Treaty Organisation
Aegis, by definition, means protected or a shield.

[2] Group of Three
With the Group of Seven not formally existing any longer, perhaps mirroring the name based on the number of signatories.

[3] North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
I thought I would put this into the ring for nothing more then the infrastructure existed before it's demise in '95.

Perhaps even a combination based on what has been suggested thus far, as an example, AEGIS Concordant; but that's to just throw it out there.

Connor Odinson

 

[Connor]

"I am a fan of the roman numerals to signify the stage of the exercise as well as the reoccurring name - I would note that this date will need to be somewhat manoeuvrable providing all three nations agree, for specific climates and seasonal variations from host to host. This case be a case by case basis and would only really be relevant for when specific training needs to take place, perhaps to prepare for a specific perceived threat or a shortfall in our forces capabilities. With the same name the exercise will soon earn its on clout internationally for being at the forefront of technological capacity as well as the sheer talent portrayed in its tenure.

Together with the names already provided by the United States and the United Kingdom, we have added our own suggestions which include the North Atlantic Security Triad (NAST), Society for Mutual Defence (SMD) and Transatlantic Security Arrangement (TASA). I would encourage you both ti act impartially and genuinely rank the provisional names in order of your favourability rather than ranking your own significantly higher - all submissions will be anonymous."

The Swedish Secretary of Defence would shuffle a makeshift handwritten form around the table to both the British and the United States, purely for the ranking of each proposed name"

Odinson Jamie

 

[Connor]

"Well... winning by one point was the Transatlantic Security Arrangement (TASA). Needless to say the Department of Defence commissioned the following design styles in the event the name won; please tell me what you think. The logo appears in both a white and black colour scheme as and when it be appropriate. I am sure you'll acknowledge the nod to the former success of NATO within the design concept."

​

​

Jamie Odinson

 

[Odinson]

"I think the logo looks good," Gore said with a nod of approval. "I would be happy for the United States to host the first exercise. I think that there's an exceptional amount of good that can be done by having our forces train together, especially in major exercises that can allow our troops to interact with foreign forces who have different experiences and different ways of doing things. I'm sure Secretary Glass probably already has a few ideas of where this first training exercise can take place.... I am sure that we would all agree that it would be important for TASA to have a permanent headquarters. In the United States we could offer the former United Nations Building in New York City, which has gone unused for a handful of years, but is still in working condition," the President said.

Jamie Connor

 

[Jamie]

"The logo looks perfect, I've put together the below draft so we have something on paper. Naturally, this is just based on existing discussions and is fully open for a total re-write where appropiate. The main focus has been the expression of cooperation, an exercise every year. I've also added a section on a biannual summit but that could be yearly, or even longer if deemed appropriate. This would serve as a good forum for us to discuss progress and prevent it going stale. If you'd all like to review it and let me know if any amendments, I can get this updated.

In relation to the exercise, providing the Swedish agree, then we are happy for the US to host the first exercise. Did we agree on a formal name for the annual exercise, for consistencies sake?"

Transatlantic Security Arrangement DRAFT

[ November, 2000 ]​

Mutual Defence: The purpose of this is to develop collective defence between its signatories, the sharing and pooling of materials and equipment with the intention of supporting one another through military means.

National Security: Promoting collaboration in national security through intelligence and military interests to advance security within Europe and Oversea Territories.

Article I, Cooperation
Participants agree that the provisions under this agreement shall include the strengthening of cooperation in the following areas:

• The regular conduction of joint exercises and other training activities with a minimum requirement of one every year, with a different host each period.
• Joint development work on military doctrine.
• Sharing and pooling of materials, equipment and services for closer cooperation.

Article II, Collective Defence
Signatories agree that an armed attach against one or more member of the Transatlantic Security Arrangement shall be considered an attack on all members. Any such attack and all measures taken as a result shall immediately be reported to all members of the alliance. For the purposes of Article II, an armed attack is considered:

• Military attack on the territories of any party.
• Military attack on the forces, vessels or aircraft of any of the parties.
• Any form of intelligence operations against a member or in the form of cyber attacks.

Article III, Administration
The Transatlantic Security Arrangement shall host a biannual summit to discuss progress and allow any amendments to be proposed and providing all parties agree, the agreement shall be updated and the original signatures remain valid. The host will alternate between its members and in the event of change of circumstances, an emergency summit may be called by any member state.

Any disputes in relation to the interpretation or application of the treaty shall aim to be resolved through consultation between its parties’. If a dispute cannot be resolved under this guise, then it shall be referred to the International Court of Justice for legal advice.

Article IV, Notice of Withdrawal
This agreement shall continue to be in force until such time as all parties withdraw from it, intent to withdraw must be delivered in writing to other signatories which will commence a six (6) month notice period. If both parties wish to terminate this agreement, no notice period is required and the treaty can be terminated immediately.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, duly authorised by their respective Governments and businesses, have signed this Agreement.

Done in three originals, November 2000.

For the Kingdom of Sweden:
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Sweden

For the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

For the United States of America:
President of the United States of America

Published by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:
Point of Contact
Address: Foreign and Commonwealth Office, King Charles Street, London, SW1
Telephone: 03700 00 22 44
© Crown Copyright​

Connor Odinson

 

[Odinson]

Private​

"Thank you for drafting this," President Gore said, deciding that he had spoken too softly before and hadn't been heard. "I think this is a good starting point, and I don't think that we need to overcomplicate things. However, there are some things that I think should be added.

"First off, I think that we should agree on a location to have the headquarters of TASA and that we should each appoint an ambassador to represent our governments. This way, if an international crisis happens or a war begins, we already have an operational headquarters and we wouldn't have to waste time organizing a summit when one isn't in session. This would also give us a place where we could deliberate making amendments to the charter, admitting new members, and resolving disagreements between each other. We should each have an ambassador to TASA, as well as a military attaché that would be stationed at the headquarters as well.

"Secondly, it should be noted in the charter that, in order for a new member to be admitted, all current members must vote in favor. We should also have a title of 'TASA Partner Nation' for non-members who we have a close working-relationship with, but they are not members. This would be useful because it would allow us to test prospective members to ensure that they are reliable, and it would allow us to have working partners with nations that may have geopolitical reasons for not becoming full members.

"Third, there should be a way for the charter to be amended.

"Fourth, and this is important, I think that we should make sure we understand what Article II covers. For example, should colonial possessions and faraway territories be covered? For example, if American Samoa or the British Indian Ocean Territory be covered by the mutual defense clause? Should an uninhabited island in the Pacific be covered? What about other nations that share the same monarch as your nation, such as Australia for the United Kingdom and South Africa for Sweden - should they be covered under the mutual defense clause?"

"And finally fifth, I think it should be mutually agreed that we will respect the ownership and rights of military equipment domestic to our respective countries, and that we will not build such equipment without first going through the nation that owns the rights to that equipment.... I would like to know what everyone thinks of these points."

Jamie Connor

 

[Jamie]

Thank you for the in depth input, I'll comment my thoughts on each one and of course we'd love to hear any responses and the thoughts of our Swedish friends.

My government will look into assigning an ambassador regardless, as they would represent the British Government as part of TASA. As for a HQ, I understand the US can offer one, as can the UK. I figure a vote may be worthwhile to decide on where the HQ could be based? Maybe a similar voting system for how the name was decided.

Second, I can update it to incorporate this into the draft. The question I think we all need to identify is what requirements are set for a country to join. I don't think a 'partner nation' is a good step yet as that may be one for the future unless you both disagree? I thought the initial step was to start small but if we are already looking to establish partner nations before we've had our first exercise, I think it's a bit too fast. I do think an article about joining should be mentioned that all parties should agree but what requirements should a member have? Such as a certain defence budget, or minimum contributions etc?

Third, I believe is covered under Article III. The charter could be amended in a biannual summit or an emergency summit depending on the severity of the change required. Whether the summit is biannually or otherwise, it would serve as a forum for the charter to be reviewed in depth and for changes to be discussed when all parties are present.

Fourth point is a valid question, I suppose this comes down to what we all agree. I would not expect the alliance to support countries with Queen Elizabeth as their head of state, such as Australia. They have their own respective governments and are not part of the agreement. I do think oversea territories should be protected under this clause but we would be willing to limit it to Europe and North America if preferred. The reason I would say they should be included is that whether the territory is in Europe, North America or otherwise, it's still controlled by the governments in the agreement so should be protected as an attack on territory, regardless of where it is, is still an armed attack.

For the fifth point, I don't personally believe that this is something that should be stipulated in this agreement as this is a focus on collective defence, as opposed to trade. However, if both America and Sweden did want to see this implemented then we would only be in approval providing the benefit sees a discount too. It's no secret that, as an example, the US Defence Industry charge a 100% markup despite already been the largest defence supplier in the world; we would be willing to agree to this been in the agreement if this markup was limited to 25%, which would give allies of the Transatlantic Security Arrangement a 75% discount. This would be applied to all nations. To re-iterate, I don't think this is something that is fitting for this particular agreement which is based on collective defence and cooperation, not a trade agreement."

Odinson Connor

 

[Odinson]

Private​

"You're right," President Gore said, with his hands up. "I may have overstepped there. If we simply have a way to amend the charter, then in the future we can add the possibility of partner nations if we decide that is the route we want to take," he said as he continued to listen to Prime Minister Evans.

"I would also like to hear the Swedish perspective for the fourth point that I brought up... In regards to the fifth point, Prime Minister Evans, my response would be this: if we cannot expect members to respect the intellectual property of each other, how can we trust each other with our lives, and with the lives of our countrymen? I think this is important because this isn't a negotiation over corn imports - this is about weapons of war and technology that were produced in our own countries. I am willing to set up this alliance so that we trust each other utterly, but in order to do that, I think we should make sure that we aren't sneaking behind each other's backs to order parts for an aircraft or a vehicle so that it can be assembled and we can bypass each other's VATs or legally-imposed fees. I would not codify in the treaty that the United States will offer some kind of defense discount for members of TASA - the Senate would never agree to that.

"I would be willing to sign a separate agreement, independent of TASA, with each of your governments that said that we would not charge more than 50% profit for defense exports to your countries. If there were ever a war, or an urgent situation, I would imagine that the federal government would give away the product to you at base price if it was a matter of life and death - I would fight for this myself. But, if I am going to agree to that, I want to ask you to meet me half way. My political opponents are trying to use matters like this against me. I want to show that we can work with the rest of the world, and our allies, without just letting them rip our eyes out in political, economic, trade, and defense negotiations," the President said.

"Prime Minister Evans, I think that is a reasonable compromise from me. Does that sound reasonable to you?"

Jamie Connor

 

[Connor]

The Swedish representation take their time to hear the points provided by both the British and the Americans, often collaborating amongst themselves in soft ear-shot mumbles with ideas prior to broadcasting this to the rest of the table. Prime Minister Lofven would clean back in his chair, crossing one leg over the other and using one of the arm rests of his chair as a pillar to keep himself sat upright.

"Allow me to address your points one by one - whilst yes I agree that a central headquarters would benefit the organisation and fundamentally the logistics of being a transatlantic organisation means some sort of ambassadorship will be required without a doubt. I would suggest that this headquarters, hosting an office for each one of us, consists of a military attache as suggested by the US. This site must also include uplink capability to ensure collaboration from Washington DC, London and Sweden can be made in an almost immediate fashion should Article II be enacted or in the event of some other major incident and for any meetings taking place. The fact of where? Each of us have our own impressive cities and sites where this headquarters could take place and I fear that discussing this in-house may fracture our relationship with it being such a fundamental point of TASA - perhaps this is an opportunity to collaborate with the globe? Introduce our organisation? If we each establish our own very brief proposal sites and broadcast this to the world for consultancy. The winner is simply by that of public vote. Importantly though this site will be a significant terrorism target for the existence of TASA - whomever wins such a consultancy period must have the funding and capability to ensure the necessary counter-terrorism precautions are made.

Whilst I agree partnership nations may be a little premature, I do agree that an important addition to the draft agreement is the requirement for all founding parties to agree on the addition of new members. This is essential.

Whilst I understand the territorial gain of any nation worldwide is controversial and I know many sat around this table have their reservations about South Africa and Antarctica; I won't pretend that this is not still a sore subject. It is worth considering however that if overseas territory is not included in the defence pact then we may simply see a shift of targets making this organisation redundant - it will not take long for intelligence agencies to detect vulnerabilities oversea and acknowledge the lack of support by this alliance by doing so. I do think that all overseas territory, whether inhabited or not, should be included by the provisions of Article II. I would expect an attack on uninhabited islands in the Pacific be treated as an act of war - as such should feel the full wrath of the military capabilities of our forces; some of the most powerful on the planet. We must send a message.

Finally - the subject of trade - this is always a subject that finds itself cropping up in every agreement signed on the planet. I do agree with the United States that undermining one another does not do much in the way of retaining our strong friendship however on par with this I concur that this draft agreement, the establishment of TASA, is perhaps not the most appropriate place to establish this kind of agreement. I would be more than happy to see this subject resurrected after our formation to see an independent agreement drafted and signed by each of us; if nothing else but to cement trust."

Jamie Odinson

 

[Jamie]

"I concur with the idea of a public vote for the HQ of the TASA, naturally all of us here would push for ourselves to host such a facility. On a flip side, perhaps there is an option that we actually all host a TASA Facility which would support the alliance much better. In that, I mean that the UK, the US and Sweden all have a facility within their country for the alliance and that we all have ambassadors in each one. This means that if one is taken out in any means, there are others to back it up. We could then do this as a rotational basis for the main HQ between the biannual summits. For example, the US could be the main HQ for the first 2 years and then this would be the UK following the biannual summit for 2 years, then Sweden and so on. It would reinforce the idea that the summits host will alternate each year and allows all of us to contribute. This is just an idea though, we would be equally happy with one permanent HQ on a vote.

As for new members, I can introduce this as an article on the draft to present but what requirements would we expect? Given it's a defence agreement, my initial thoughts would be along the lines of:
- Minimum defence expenditure. There is little benefit to allowing a country to join the alliance if they are unable to contribute to defending all of us.
- We ought to establish the values for which we stand, we all seem to value freedom, the right to self determination, etc, thus adding others into the mix that don't stand by our values could cause internal conflict. I think we need a set charter for what we stand for.

We do all need to be united when it comes to what is covered in the defence pact as far as territory is concerned, I don't know of any reservations here relating to any oversea territory for the United Kingdom but if there is, please do let me know and we can discuss it. I do think South Africa is probably going to be the main topic, I would be keen to hear of our American friends input there.

For trade, I would like to see it discussed and introduced as a separate agreement once the defence pact formal draft is complete."

Odinson Connor

 

[Odinson]

Private​

President Gore listened to his British and Swedish colleagues speak and then responded to Prime Minister Evans, "Alright, we can finish discussing what the exact wording of the treaty establishing TASA is - but immediately afterwards we will negotiate a separate agreement protecting our domestic intellectual property, because I cannot sign the treaty establishing TASA until we formalize an agreement on intellectual property.

"I'm not necessarily against the idea of a rotating headquarters, while the others are temporarily reduced to some kind of auxiliary or regional headquarters until it is there turn. I agree that there may be some security benefit to this," the President said.

"In regard to your point about values... I think we would all agree that any candidate must have some legitimate and functioning system of representative democracy, they must unanimously be approved by the US, UK, and Sweden, and they must have a standing armed forces. The mission of our organization, in my opinion, should be straightforward: The Transatlantic Security Arrangement exists to ensure the collective defense of its members and the preservation of their sovereignty through military and political cooperation. I think this statement alone strongly states our commitment to collective defense while also leaving the door open to joint exercises and even joint operations outside of defense, if we ever deem it necessary.

"On the topic of overseas territories..." Gore continued, "If South Africa is an dependent territory of the Kingdom of Sweden - as Greenland is to Denmark - then I agree that it would be covered under Article II. However, if it's instead the Swedish equivalent of a Commonwealth Realm - as Canada and Jamaca are to the United Kingdom - then it's merely an independent nation with King Gustaf as its ceremonial head of state, and in my opinion would not be covered under Article II. Prime Minister Löfven, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that South Africa would fall more into the realm of a dependent territory, correct? If so, then I have answered my own question."

Jamie Connor

 

[Connor]

"The three of us are all majorly economically developed countries thus I see no reason as to why none of us at present cannot contribute a minimum defence expenditure; this to some degree should also incorporate a requirement to have an internationally deployable Armed Forces. For example if the United States only operated a green-water Navy, then there is zero scope for naval support should Article II be invoked. We must all be able to support one another in both peacetime and wartime and have the capacity to support ourselves through the hardship of war. The same expectations should be delivered to any prospective members."


"Mr President you are correct in the fact that South Africa is technically a dependent territory of the Kingdom of Sweden; as is Antarctica - aside from Argentine Antarctica and the British Antarctic Territory as distributed - and sub-Antarctic territories of Bouvet Island, Crozet Islands and the Kerguelen Islands, Heard and McDonald Islands and Prince Edward Islands. In accordance with the Global Assembly Resolution on Antarctica.

We would expect this treaty to cover all the aforementioned territorial claims - as we would expect it to cover Guam, or Ascension Island. Similarly we would not expect this treaty to cover the likes of Commonwealth Realms which are independent states in their own right."

Jamie Odinson

 

[Jamie]

"I'll primarily address the joining process. I concur, a member of the TASA should be able to provide significant support in defence to other allies, incorporating countries within the agreement that have no defence of their own would mean the other members are their protectors, not allies. My initial thought process for requirements for joining ought to be along the lines of:

- Must follow democratic principles.
- Prospective members must have an internationally deployable armed forces which consists of an air force and army at minimum and a navy where applicable.
- A minimum defence expenditure of 2%.
- All existing member states must agree to the ascension of a new signatory.

I specifically put a navy where applicable as countries who do not have access to water would be immediately cut out, though a substantial air force and army would be able to provide collective defence in my opinion. I can change these though unless we all agree.

A key point to joining is that all of us would need to agree. It would be down to each individual state to review the country wishing to join but it is at their discretion. For example, if a government sought to join us but Sweden did not want them too because of past ties, then that is at Swedens discretion and other members should respect that. Whereas if the UK would only allow a new signatory if they permitted an inspection of their armed forces, then that would be an option too. Or, another alternative is maybe the US would like a military exercise with that potential signatory before agreeing. My point is that this would give each of us the ability to get our own reassurances and put together an action plan for them to become a member.

To summarize what the joining process would be if you all agreed:

1. A country expresses interest in joining the alliance (We could either do applications, or something we favor more which would be to express interest to an existing member to endorse them.
For example, if France contacted the UK to ask us to endorse them, the UK would then raise this at the TASA Summit.

2. Each member state then discusses this enlargement which will have one of two outcomes:
If a single member outright, for any reason, refuses for that country to join, the endorsing country will inform the prospective that their application has been declined.
If no one outright rejects the expression of interest, the alliance will compile a membership action plan for that country. This is where each member would state their requirements such as a military exercise, inspection, or any specific requirement before agreeing.

3. The MAP (Membership Action Plan) will be given to the country seeking to join and will be required to offer a response on each point or to address each point. This may go back and forth for some time with no time limit.

4. Once all action points are complete, the alliance will discuss the membership application again and decide on any new action points, unless all parties agree to their enlargement or someone rejects them.

Of course this is just a concept I've put together but this can be amended entirely or even in smaller ways if any suggestions or input.

If you are happy with this, I can incorporate it into the draft and as there has been no objection to multiple HQs, I'll include that already."

Odinson Connor

 

[Connor]

A brief mumble drills through the Swedish delegation before the Prime Minister speaks to the rest of the conference.

"We unanimously agree that the initial draft as discussed is within the expectations of the people of Sweden - we think that this agreement should focus on exactly that; the people, which I believe it will do. I would like to say that the collaboration and cooperation between the parties here shows great hope for the organisation. This conference has made it abundantly clear that we can work together with huge success as an outcome."

Odinson Jamie

 

[Odinson]

"As the head of state and government of the United States, I would feel comfortable signing a treaty that covers the items we have discussed, and I have faith in both Sweden and the United Kingdom to be reliable partners. If I give my endorsement, and we can come to a separate agreement on the intellectual property and arms trade, I am extremely confident that the Senate will confirm this treaty. I have no issue with three headquarters, and the main headquarters rotating by year or whatever time period we deme best. I'm looking forward to seeing the final draft," President Gore said.

Jamie Connor

 

[Jamie]

"Apologies for the delay, the draft took a little longer to write up then I thought based on the points we've discussed since the last one. If you could all have a read and let me know your thoughts, any re-wording or if I've missed anything? I have formalized it a little more too."

Transatlantic Security Arrangement Revision 2

[ March, 2001 ]​

Mutual Defence: The purpose of this is to develop collective defence between its signatories, the sharing and pooling of materials and equipment with the intention of supporting one another through military means.

National Security: Promoting collaboration in national security through intelligence and military interests to advance security within Europe and Oversea Territories.

Article I, Cooperation
Participants agree that the provisions under this agreement shall include the strengthening of cooperation in the following areas:

• The regular conduction of joint exercises and other training activities with a minimum requirement of one every year, with a different host each period.
• Joint development work on military doctrine.
• Sharing and pooling of materials, equipment and services for closer cooperation.

Article II, Administration
The Transatlantic Security Arrangement shall host a biannual summit to discuss progress and allow any amendments to be proposed and providing all parties agree, the agreement shall be updated and the original signatures remain valid. The host will alternate between its members and in the event of change of circumstances, an emergency summit may be called by any member state. Any disputes in relation to the interpretation or application of the treaty shall aim to be resolved through consultation between its parties’. If a dispute cannot be resolved under this guise, then it shall be referred to the International Court of Justice for legal advice.

Article III, Collective Defence
Signatories agree that an armed attach against one or more member of the Transatlantic Security Arrangement shall be considered an attack on all members. Any such attack and all measures taken as a result shall immediately be reported to all members of the alliance. For the purposes of Article III, an armed attack is considered:

• Military attack or invasion on the territories of any party.
• Military attack on the forces, vessels or aircraft of any of the parties.
• Any form of intelligence operations against a member or in the form of cyber attacks.

Article IV, Enlargement
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other state in a position to comply with this agreement and contribute to the security of the Transatlantic region. Each prospective member shall be reviewed by each member state and a Membership Action Plan provided to ensure they meet the following criteria:

• Must follow democratic principles.
• Must have an internationally deployable armed forces which consists of an air force and army at minimum and a navy where applicable.
• A minimum defence expenditure of 2%.

Upon completion and all current members been in agreement, the new state will be offered to sign the agreement and will be formally part of the alliance.

Article V, Notice of Withdrawal
This agreement shall continue to be in force until such time as all parties withdraw from it, intent to withdraw must be delivered in writing to all other signatories which will commence a six (6) month notice period. This withdrawal period shall consist of a reduction of other articles to ensure a smooth transition. If all parties wish to terminate this agreement, no notice period is required and the treaty can be terminated immediately.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, duly authorised by their respective Governments and businesses, have signed this Agreement.

Done in three originals, March 2001.

For the Kingdom of Sweden:
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Sweden

For the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

For the United States of America:
President of the United States of America

Published by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:
Point of Contact
Address: Foreign and Commonwealth Office, King Charles Street, London, SW1
Telephone: 03700 00 22 44
© Crown Copyright​

Connor Odinson