View Single Post
Old September 10 2008, 08:46 PM   #34
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: Difference Between Earth Starfleet and the UESPA?

TheAlmanac wrote: View Post
Sci wrote: View Post
Interestingly, in 24th Century Star Trek, there are no IGOs, no neutral interstellar organization to which the Federation, Klingon Empire, Romulan Star Empire, Cardassian Union, et al, can go with their disputes. In fact, the only IGO I'm aware of in Star Trek would actually be the Coalition of Planets from the ENT era.
The feature films, in particular, seem to imply that the Federation (despite the potential bias) acts as a de facto IGO in such disputes. The Klingon Ambassador demands the extradition of "renegade and terrorist" Admiral Kirk before the Federation Council in Star Trek IV,
And Ambassador Kamarang makes that demand of the Federation itself, not any particular Federation Member State. IGOs can't extradite people; only states (or the constituent parts of federal states) can.

and the Federation President includes the Romulan Ambassador in discussions around the assassination of Gorkon and its aftermath in Star Trek VI, even though the Romulans aren't directly involved (to his knowledge at the time, anyway).
Well, no, he specifically includes Ambassador Nanclus in discussions of a military attack, which again is a trait of states; IGOs don't have standing militaries like the Federation, and on the rare occasions when they do coordinate military strikes or wars, the constituent soldiers continue to fight under the flags of their own states. In any event, Nanclus's presence is the sort of thing that might happen between two states that are officially or unofficially militarily allied if one is thinking about committing an act of war against a third state. (What WAS odd was including Nanclus in the initial presentation to the President rather than waiting until the President had decided to commit to the attack before revealing that they were thinking about it to the RSE.)

In any event, one of the defining traits of an IGO is that it is supposed to not be a party to any given conflict -- but in those cases you cited above, the Federation is clearly a party to the conflict, and has IGO to which it and the Klingons can appeal for providing a neutral platform for the peaceful resolution of their disputes. The Federation is very clearly a state in the films -- the Federation President is depicted as having operational control over Starfleet, Starfleet is depicted as being a military, etc.

OTOH, the subsequent conference takes place on Khitomer because it is "a neutral site," even though it is later known as a Klingon colony, so YMMV...
Exactly. The Federation is not a neutral IGO, it is a state that is party to the conflict. There are no IGOs in the 23rd Century.
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote