Post-DS9 Cardassia

[Nerys Ghemor]

Again, though, where does this notion come from that every nation's fate must ultimately be to be absorbed by the Federation? (Assimilated, if you'd like another word.) To rebuild is one thing, and a good one--but to absorb them...why?

[Sci]

Nerys Dukat wrote:

---

Again, though, where does this notion come from that every nation's fate must ultimately be to be absorbed by the Federation? (Assimilated, if you'd like another word.) To rebuild is one thing, and a good one--but to absorb them...why?

Well, from a real world perspective, it probably comes from Gene Roddenberry, because his idea in early TNG was that the Klingon Empire had joined the Federation. It was later writers who retconned that so that the Klingons had always been independent. But Gene's notion was that we demonstrate that we can be friends and overcome our differences by having the Klingons now be Federation Members.

And I think that the Federation has every right to make that its goal so long as the Federation doesn't interfere with the rights of foreign states to refuse. In other words, the Federation has the right to have the peaceful and non-coercive persuasion of every civilization to become part of the UFP as its goal, so long as it respects foreign states' wishes when they decide not to join. It may be somewhat ethnocentric of them to hold that goal, but it certainly doesn't violate anyone's rights -- and it does have the side-effect of fostering interstellar peace.

[superstring01]

Nerys Dukat wrote:

---

Again, though, where does this notion come from that every nation's fate must ultimately be to be absorbed by the Federation? (Assimilated, if you'd like another word.) To rebuild is one thing, and a good one--but to absorb them...why?

Because membership doesn't erase member worlds. It's a slightly more cohesive UN. Nothing brings security like having every warp capable world a member. It practically eliminates the threat of war.

~String

[Nerys Ghemor]

It doesn't erase member worlds, but it does force conformity to a greater degree than I think I would be comfortable with, and fosters a relationship of dependence upon a central nexus rather than alliance between equals. I, for one, would rather be approached to be part of an alliance, NATO-style, than actually become PART of an organization. (DON'T get me started on the UN.)

[superstring01]

Nerys Dukat wrote:

---

It doesn't erase member worlds, but it does force conformity to a greater degree than I think I would be comfortable with, and fosters a relationship of dependence upon a central nexus rather than alliance between equals. I, for one, would rather be approached to be part of an alliance, NATO-style, than actually become PART of an organization. (DON'T get me started on the UN.)

I'm not defending the UN. I'm not even talking about the UN. I'm addressing the fact that the Federation considers its mandate to make all people members. The UFP is like the UN and being a member doesn't do much more than allow members to share the peace, and ensure tranquility from within.

~String

[Sci]

Nerys Dukat wrote:

---

It doesn't erase member worlds, but it does force conformity to a greater degree than I think I would be comfortable with, and fosters a relationship of dependence upon a central nexus rather than alliance between equals. I, for one, would rather be approached to be part of an alliance, NATO-style, than actually become PART of an organization. (DON'T get me started on the UN.)

Which is why, as much as people like to bitch about the Federation being out to unify the galaxy, they're still better than the Borg: Foreign states DO get a choice in whether they want to be Federation Members. There's no evidence that the Federation has ever made anyone a member by force.