Umm, what? Sorry, I wasn't calling for greater clarity. I was trying to emphasize that the writers were crystal clear about the Klaestron being non-members. Timo Saloniemi
The United Nations isn't a government capable of making binding law and in possession of its own military. It is, in its own words, an international organization and a tool of its Member States. The Federation, on the other hand, is exactly that -- a federation. A sovereign state that practices federalism. Which is not to say that the UFP might not have Members that want more autonomy than is norm, same way that, for instance, Alaska tends to prefer more autonomy than New Jersey or New York. I just get irritated when people associate the UFP with the UN, even though their symbol is really the only thing that's similar about them.
I think we can't assume that an interstellar federation would function the same way as any government confined to a single planet. It would just be too much vaster in size and distance. There would have to be a greater degree of autonomy for each individual world, simply because it would be impossible for any single body to regulate hundreds of entire planets at once. So no, the Federation isn't like the UN, but it isn't like the United States either. It's something else. The way I interpret it is that individual UFP worlds have a lot of autonomy over their internal affairs -- that as long as they follow certain basic precepts like having a unified global government, guaranteeing equal rights for everyone, and practicing an enlightened code of justice, they're free to make their own choices about how they manage their own local affairs. The Federation Council is responsible for interstellar affairs, matters that involve more than one world or that involve interactions with powers outside the UFP. That division of responsibility is necessary because if the Council had to deal with the internal affairs of hundreds of entire planets, it would be too overloaded to function. So the reason the Klaestron wanted the Federation to stay out of their business is because it was an internal matter, the prosecution of a crime committed on their territory. Even if they were a UFP member, they would still have jurisdiction over their own internal legal affairs. One could argue that since Dax was from another member world, that made it an interstate matter falling under federal jurisdiction, but it's hardly unheard of for a state and a federal government to disagree over who has jurisdiction over a particular matter.
That depends on if you relate the Federation to the UN with member nations, or to the US. It's a slightly different scenario there. I've always considered it more akin to the US than the UN. Edit... apparently I didn't notice the page change... Sci beat me to it. By several hours... move along, nothing to see here.
It also raises the question of who was signing these ridiculous treaties. Unilateral extradition? Was the Federation forcing two-bit planets to sign functionally lop-sided treaties only to find itself taken aback when they began to modernize?
Errm, the lopsidedness is in the Klaestrons' favor -- they can extradite whomever they want (in this case, Dax) from Federation territory without needing UFP permission. Why would the UFP have forced such a treaty on them? If anything, it suggests the UFP was bending over backward to accommodate the Klaestrons. Which raises the question of why they'd do that.
Et tu Therin? Let's just say that since January 20th, there's a new Sheriff in town, and thank gawd he's a Trekkie!
Well, one would think that even if the Klaestron weren't UFP members, the Feds would desperately want them to be. After all, they seemed to be living in the space near Bajor, space that probably was hotly contested in the recent Cardassian War. And basically everybody in that space seems to be less than enamored with the Federation - the Miradorn, the Kressari, the Xepolites, and now the Klaestron. It would have been nice to have even one sympathetic shoulder to lean on there... We should note that the treaty is not said to be one-sided. Yes, it allows for unilateral extradition - but probably by either party. That is, one side can take what it wants, and so can the other, without consulting the counterpart. That sounds like expedient frontier justice, which is what the Federation would be dealing with on this former battleground. Before there is mutually compatible law, there is mutual acceptance that the laws of the other should be respected. And the supposed crime of Curzon Dax was indeed committed under Klaestron jurisdiction, even though Dax subsequently fled to Federation space (and then unwisely loitered to neutral space where s/he could be captured). Timo Saloniemi
Hmm, that's a good point. It jsut seems striking to me that the Federation would have signed a treaty that allows significantly less powerful parties with close links to Federation opponents the right to enact extraordinary renditions of Federation citizens on Federation territory. I can't think of any Earthly parallels--Cold War-era Yugoslavia wasn't given the right to do that in any Western bloc country that I know of, say.
One might argue that the Feds did it because they thought that the flip side would prove useful for them. Perhaps the Feds were desperate to hunt down war criminals from the recent Cardassian nastiness, and the Klaestron allowed those to be captured and taken to the UFP without bilateral case-by-case understanding only if the Klaestron society could do the same to criminals hiding in the UFP. And the Feds were willing to risk that, because they thought the Klaestron would never be able to get their hands on a criminal the Feds didn't want to let go. Or perhaps the unilateral right was empty words only, and any Klaestron attempt would be stonewalled by UFP legal gobbledigook and, if need be, Starfleet phasers? It's not as if Sisko ever seriously considered respecting the warrant that Tandro presented. Timo Saloniemi
Now I might be wrong, but isn't Mr Obama the President of the United States of America and not the Secretary General of the United Nations who is in fact Ban Ki-Moon who has held that position for over two years now. Oh and Sci, thats a bloody brilliant list
Well of course it did! It's a pretty clear-cut case. Twilight established Alonis to be a Federation Member State, and that's been re-established every time they've appeared, such as the Alonis Federation Councillor we met in Articles of the Federation and mentioned in A Singular Destiny. Now, Danter, on the other hand.... Oy gevalt on that one. They're referred to as a Federation Member in their first appearance, but consistently behave antagonistically towards the Federation and are referred to as a non-Member in later appearances, or so I'm told. (Maybe I should put them on the list of former Federation Member States, along with Selelvia?) I believe that foravalon was interpreting Therin's statement referring to United Nations Member States who are hostile to the UN at times and make it clear that the UN should keep out of their business as having been a reference to former US President George W. Bush's infamous foreign policies of unilateralism and hostility towards the United Nations. Foravalon was not saying that Barack Obama is Secretary-General of the United Nations -- or, for that matter, that Ban Ki-Moon is President of the United States. For the record, my primary motivation in objecting to a comparison of the Federation to the United Nations is primarily because so many people don't seem to understand that the United Nations is not a government. Thankee, sir. Though, of course, as this thread demonstrates, it still needs plenty of work.
Sci's interpretation of my silly comments is correct, I was indeed referring to the new Sheriff in our town, the little-ol US of A, and Dimesdan's interpretation of Sci's work of this list is also equally accurate, this list is very cool and is off to a great start.
Could I just clarify that people in India itself, and in quite a number of countries on Earth, do not go around referring to people from Mumbai or Goa as being 'East' Indian? (And for that matter, there are places like Canada where terms like 'First Nations' are promoted in place of other, older, less geographically accurate terms used to describe those aboriginal peoples that are neither Inuit nor Métis...) But then, upon reflection, I'm kind of hoping not to have just proved foravalon's signature quote to be correct!
Indeed. People in India call themselves Bharati and their country Bharat. "India" is the European name for the country, coined by Alex T. Great after the Indus Valley which he conquered.
Hm. Odd. You would think that English might have adopted the actual native name for their own country at some point. .... of course, English can't even bring itself to call Germany "Deutschland" or Spain "España," so I suppose I'm being overly optimistic. ETA: By the way, while we're on the topic of proper names.... I'm wondering if anyone might know how to translate "United Federation of Planets" into Latin? That probably takes the prize for Geekiest Question Ever, but I was curious and the online English-Latin translator sites I've found haven't been helpful.
Well, going from this entry, I'd say the best word for "united" in this sense would be consociatus. "Federation" is from the Latin word foedus, a league or covenant. And "planets" would be planetae. My Latin's rusty, but maybe something like Foedus Consociatus de Planetae?
Well, to be fair, that latter name was derived from terms used by the Persians (not quite European, themselves) who had made it to the Indus before the Two-Horned One showed up. But even so, both India and Bharat are equally official names for the Republic. And in India's case, that term, or a derivation of it, has been in use both in Asia and Europe for millennia, and if anywhere has more currency there than it does regarding the indigenous peoples of the Americas. (Although, ironically, the civilisation of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro was when the Indus-derived term was most apt - perhaps a more relevant term in later eras could have been a derivation of 'Ganges', given its emergence as the main artery of the country after the Indus Valley civilisation's collapse.) Alternatively, one could call neither people 'Indian' and avoid that issue altogether... and probably end up opening a whole set of new ones.