List of Federation Members

[rfmcdpei]

Timo wrote:

---

How much clearer could the writers be about wanting Klaestron IV to be a non-member?

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?

[Christopher]

rfmcdpei wrote:

---

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.

[foravalon]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Doesn't Earth's United Nations have some overtly hostile members at times, who make it clear that the UN should keep out of their business?

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!

[Timo]

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.

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

[David R. George III]

I'm just happy to see the Alonis make the cut....

[rfmcdpei]

Christopher wrote:

---

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.

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.

[Timo]

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

[Dimesdan]

foravalon wrote:

---

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!

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

[Sci]

David R. George III wrote:

---

I'm just happy to see the Alonis make the cut....

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?)

Dimesdan wrote:

---

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.

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.

Oh and Sci, thats a bloody brilliant list

Thankee, sir. Though, of course, as this thread demonstrates, it still needs plenty of work.

[foravalon]

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.

[Nerroth]

Sci wrote:

---

I would presume that the name was later transferred to a single system and its planets (the same way "Indian" was transferred from residents of India to residents of North America) for whatever reason. Star Charts says it's a Member, and there's no reason that colony couldn't have grown into one.

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!

[Christopher]

Nerroth wrote:

---

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?

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.

[Sci]

Christopher wrote:

---

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.

[Christopher]

Sci wrote:

---

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?

[Nerroth]

Christopher wrote:

---

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.

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.