Where is United Earth's government located?

[Sci]

Is it a whacky idea to suggest that the capital city of United Earth need not have been a permanent fixture? Maybe, depending either on a fixed schedule or on wherever the Executive Head of Government was from, the capital city kept changing? We are talking about the Trek future with transporters and all. Maybe there are permanent building structures in 5-10 cities across the world and at one particular time the entire UE government operates from one city but shifts depending on schedule or change in Executive government?

I really don't see how that would be practical. I mean, we've had the capacity to do conference calls, and later video calls, for decades, but that hasn't stopped the need for legislatures and executive branch officers to convene in actual cities in physical proximity to one-another, even when they all would have strong incentives to stay in their home districts.

 

[Tallguy]

By the 23rd or 24th centuries this might be practical. (Of course in the 2260s they rounded up all of the delegates into a starship and schlepped them to Babel. But that's interplanetary.)

I'm thinking of what was the state of the world when the government was founded? Post WWIII. Then some tall skinny nut job comes out Montana and says "Hey, I discovered faster than light travel! Oh, and the ALIENS are here!" (I'd put that in the column for "ZC really discovered something that the neighbors didn't have" because warp drive or no, why are the Vulcans making first contact with a world that JUST bombed itself into oblivion? Screw you, ENT. But that's another thread.)

What governments there are are going to pick themselves up as best they can and then surrender their sovereignty to this new governing body? Yeah, they're not doing that over the phone. OR it's not the existing governments but a new movement doing an end run around the powers that got them into this mess. Also not over the phone and probably in as neutral a territory as can be found. (Hello, penguins!)

How does ZC's flight in 2063 square with Q's post atomic horror of 2079 "by which time more rapid progress had caused all United Earth nonsense to be abolished"?

 

[Avro Arrow]

I'd honestly expect it to be Geneva.

Geneva has been my "headcanon" (or whatever we're calling it these days) Earth capital for a while now, after I read something (unlicensed, IIRC) that claimed that. (I don't know for sure, but I would guess they picked Geneva due to Switzerland's famed neutrality, plus the well-known Geneva Conventions.)

Actually, my pick would be Munich, because that's where the Oktoberfest is.

If I was a citizen of United Earth, I'm not sure I'd want my government picking its capital on the basis of which city had the best party...

nothing against Paris - one might think it'd be a good idea to have United Earth's capital be in a different city than the Federation's. Wouldn't it be easier that way? Like Ottawa - as I said, it's the capital of Canada, but Toronto is the capital of the province of Ontario (even though that's also where Ottawa is).

I would agree with this. As someone who lives in Ontario, the thought of a single city being both the national capital and a sub-national capital seems such an odd concept. So I don't like the thought of Paris being the capital of both the Federation and Earth. I haven't looked into it, though, so it may be there are other places in the world where this is done, so it probably wouldn't seem odd to those living there.

 

[Sci]

I did mean that they should convene in person. As I said, there should be some number of cities (say 5) where there are permanently maintained structures which could be used to convene and conduct business. At any given period of time (say 1 year or 2 years) all business could be conducted from one city. Then the venue shifts. Or the venue shifts based on change of guard in the Executive. The purpose of shifting venues across the world is to not give undue importance to only one city for the entire planet. Changing capital cities makes every region on the planet important or "special".

I don't think this is impractical in the Trek future where there are transporters and shuttlecraft.

I think that's still impractical because, in addition to the direct support mechanisms and infrastructure that need to develop to support the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive, there's also the issue of civil society and foreign relations. Not only is it impractical to move entire ministries, but there's the question of organizations whose goals are to advocate for specialized causes -- sentients' rights organizations, for instance, or organizations that advocate for the interests of particular industries or professions. And then there's the question of where foreign embassies will put their chancelleries. We know from DS9 that transporter use requires transporter credits, and PIC S1 seemed to imply that civilian shuttlecraft usage required payment. So even in a world without poverty, I suspect that the costs of moving so many organizations would be prohibitive, and that shifting capitals would inhibit the operations of civil society in the democratic process.

 

[Sci]

I'm thinking of what was the state of the world when the government was founded? Post WWIII. Then some tall skinny nut job comes out Montana and says "Hey, I discovered faster than light travel! Oh, and the ALIENS are here!" (I'd put that in the column for "ZC really discovered something that the neighbors didn't have" because warp drive or no, why are the Vulcans making first contact with a world that JUST bombed itself into oblivion? Screw you, ENT. But that's another thread.)

What governments there are are going to pick themselves up as best they can and then surrender their sovereignty to this new governing body? Yeah, they're not doing that over the phone. OR it's not the existing governments but a new movement doing an end run around the powers that got them into this mess. Also not over the phone and probably in as neutral a territory as can be found. (Hello, penguins!)

How does ZC's flight in 2063 square with Q's post atomic horror of 2079 "by which time more rapid progress had caused all United Earth nonsense to be abolished"?

I don't think it's particularly unrealistic to imagine that things might have gotten worse in the 2070s before they got better. "Attached" (TNG) establishes that the last of the independent national governments agreed to join United Earth in 2150, so that means there's 87 years between First Contact and the final unification of Earth.

The novels set in the First Splinter timeline had previously established that the Traité d'Unification establishing United Earth was first signed in 2130 (Articles of the Federation). Section 31: Control established that a prior attempt at a united world government called the United Earth Republic had been established in the 2110s but had collapsed before the Traité was signed. So the unification of Earth was a process that took at least 50 years, with starts and stops, and with the sovereign state called United Earth apparently existing alongside national governments that had not yet joined it for at least twenty years. Of course, that's all the First Splinter's history; actual canon might end up different if they decide to establish anything about this stuff in new episodes.

Geneva has been my "headcanon" (or whatever we're calling it these days) Earth capital for a while now, after I read something (unlicensed, IIRC) that claimed that. (I don't know for sure, but I would guess they picked Geneva due to Switzerland's famed neutrality, plus the well-known Geneva Conventions.)

Myriad Universes: A Less Perfect Union by TrekBBS's own William Leisner establishes Geneva as the capital of United Earth in at least one alternate timeline. As you say, this is because of its famous role in international relations -- site of the signing of the Geneva Conventions, home of the United Nations Offices at the Palais des Nations, and referring to Swiss neutrality. (Geneva is also the capital city of the Earth Alliance on Babylon 5.)

I would agree with this. As someone who lives in Ontario, the thought of a single city being both the national capital and a sub-national capital seems such an odd concept. So I don't like the thought of Paris being the capital of both the Federation and Earth. I haven't looked into it, though, so it may be there are other places in the world where this is done, so it probably wouldn't seem odd to those living there.

Something somewhat similar happened to the United Kingdom, since London was famously the capital of the Kingdom of England before the Acts of Union.* It's not exactly the same, of course, since the U.K. is a unitary state and there is no devolved English government the way there's a devolved government for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

In the Swiss Confederation, there is no de jure capital, but the City of Bern is the de facto federal capital and is also the capital of the Canton of Bern.

But yeah, the more common scenario appears to be that either a federal union makes the federal capital a special district, or makes the federal capital into a constituent polity in its own right (e.g., Berlin being both the federal capital and a state in its own right).

* Okay, technically the City of Westminster located within the large urban settlement commonly called London, itself named after the City of London which neighbors the City of Westminster. But I digress.

 

[Paul Weaver]

there's no landmass on Earth except that one which remains even partially unclaimed

Well there's the Bir Tawil triangle, which is larger than Greater London, so certainly large enough for a capital city.

There's also Svalbard, which while it's part of the Kingdom of Norway, isn't part of Civil Norway and has an very independent history (most people on earth, including from China and India, as well as countries like Afghanistan and North Korea, can move there without need for a visa - as long as they have the financial means to support themselves and have housing (and getting housing is a problem). Quite possible a future capital could have stemmed from an area like that.

There's also places which don't exist in the 21st century (they were looking at building a new continent -- "New Atlantis" -- in the 24th century, as well as Aquatic cities like New Martim Vaz) which could be contenders.

 

[Sci]

Well there's the Bir Tawil triangle, which is larger than Greater London, so certainly large enough for a capital city.

I did not know about Bir Tawil -- fascinating! I find myself thinking that might actually be the best option if one really doesn't want to use an existing city.

There's also Svalbard, which while it's part of the Kingdom of Norway, isn't part of Civil Norway and has an very independent history (most people on earth, including from China and India, as well as countries like Afghanistan and North Korea, can move there without need for a visa - as long as they have the financial means to support themselves and have housing (and getting housing is a problem). Quite possible a future capital could have stemmed from an area like that.

I have a hard time imagining a major city developing in the Arctic Circle.

 

[Paul Weaver]

I have a hard time imagining a major city developing in the Arctic Circle.

Poor Murmansk, bugger that about 3/4 of US state capitals, and about 100 world capitals - including Brussels.

 

[Sci]

Poor Murmansk, bugger that about 3/4 of US state capitals, and about 100 world capitals - including Brussels.

It has a population of 307,257. That's respectable, but surely the capital city of the entire planet would be larger than that. In fact, 143 national capitals are already larger than that; to get to national capitals in the area of 307,000 people, we're talking about fairly small countries like Cyprus, Lesotho, Costa Rica, Equatorial Guinea, and Slovenia.

Murmansk is also at latitude 68°58'14"N. Whereas Longyearbyen, the de facto capital city of Svalbard, is at latitude 78°13'N. That's more than a full ten degrees further north. Average temperatures in Longyearbyen range from a high of 15°F in February to a high of 48°F in August. By contrast, average temperatures in Murmansk range from 21°F in January to 66°F in July. Murmansk is significantly further south and significantly warmer than Svalbard.

I just have trouble imagining United Earth putting its national capital in a region that's so far north, so cold, and I have a hard time imagining the population of such a city exceeding that of the already-existing capital.

 

[Enterprise1701]

Russians and Norwegians use the metric system.

 

[Sci]

Russians and Norwegians use the metric system.

Yes. And those temperatures can be converted into Fahrenheit, and vice versa.

 

[Arpy]

Trek could use some new cities that arose after the post atomic horror, and flesh them out with their own characteristics and cultures. Maybe one of them was chosen at a time when we were leaving the past in the past. Maybe one in the empty plains or desserts of the US where thousands then millions came as the landscape changed and rivers diverted, to escape the radiation in other parts of the country. New Rio Grande City, New Hope, New Philadelphia, something like that.

Or perhaps a less likely city that managed to survive nuclear annihilation and rose to greater global prominence in the aftermath. Maybe Athens. While the rest of Europe was dealing with radiation poisoning and reconstruction, Athens' good luck, educated and democratic population, and positioning between Europe, Asia, and Africa set it up for whole new significance in human history.

I'm curious what other cities in other parts of the world would work and how? Maybe not ECON cities *if they were the instigators, regardless if their cities fared better.

Why Morocco @KRAD? Tatooine on Earth? What do you imagine it like in the 24th Century?

 

[Tallguy]

Ahhhh. So a vote for Metropolis!

 

[KRAD]

Why Morocco @KRAD? Tatooine on Earth? What do you imagine it like in the 24th Century?

I was mostly thinking in terms of an African city that was on the Prime Meridian. That was about as much thought as I gave it. I'd give it more thought if I was actually writing a story to establish it.

 

[Mike Farley]

Minsk.

 

[serdogthehound]

Ahhhh. So a vote for Metropolis!

So Capital City, Kentucky
(Its a real thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_City and linked to Metropolis)

 

[DEWLine]

Sidebar: The Final Reflection referred to something called "Federa-Terra" as the capital of the Federation on Earth...?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Sidebar: The Final Reflection referred to something called "Federa-Terra" as the capital of the Federation on Earth...?

I guess Federa-Terra is supposed to be some kind of brand new manufactured city (i.e. one built from scratch to be the capital). This was, of course, way before Paris was established as the Federation capital city.

As for United Earth's capital? Meh, I'm still jonesing for Munich. Prosit!

 

[Imaus]

(Pure headcanon) A floating city built of hexaognal platforms that can be built up and expanded as needed at 0e, 0n - maybe at least for the legislation. Executive and Judicial functions can be elsewhere, though I would put them together.

Transport and building such a thing would not be an issue for a global body; nor would moving ministries or so on. We've seen this in the past, and are seeing it now with Nusantara of Indonesia, NAC of Egypt, and Sejong of South Korea. It's a building and scheduling programme, not something insurmountable. The US could had (and maybe should had) moved from DC to like, Saint Louis or so by 1900 for example...I recall there was a murmur of such a movement :V.

As to why Paris, San Fran and London are seen in Trek - well the implication is that the West survived the nuclear war much more intact than the East, ECON were the losers, and Asia suffered more thereof.

I can see Paris as being a big European city, but not a global one. San Fran was chosen most likely for Starfleet due to America getting an implicit edge in the Space business - the Ares IV, Vulcans landing in Montana....

 

[Sci]

(Pure headcanon) A floating city built of hexaognal platforms that can be built up and expanded as needed at 0e, 0n - maybe at least for the legislation. Executive and Judicial functions can be elsewhere, though I would put them together.

Transport and building such a thing would not be an issue for a global body;

Building a city is never "not an issue." It's always an enormous expenditure of resources.

nor would moving ministries or so on. We've seen this in the past, and are seeing it now with Nusantara of Indonesia, NAC of Egypt, and Sejong of South Korea. It's a building and scheduling programme, not something insurmountable.

No one said it's insurmountable. But building a new city is always gonna be a big deal, and moving the capital on a consistent basis is not a practical option even if it is technically possible. Lots of things can be possible yet have their costs outweigh their benefits.

The US could had (and maybe should had) moved from DC to like, Saint Louis or so by 1900 for example...

It was a bad idea in the late 1800s and it's a bad idea now.

As to why Paris, San Fran and London are seen in Trek - well the implication is that the West survived the nuclear war much more intact than the East, ECON were the losers, and Asia suffered more thereof.

There is no such implication. We have zero idea who won or lost World War III, nor even if the concept of winning or losing meaningfully applies to that war. We don't even canonically know if the Eastern Coalition is based in Asia or was a participant in WW3 -- for all we know, the Eastern Coalition could have been a set of former U.S. states on the East Coast that were in conflict with Montana post-war collapse.

Finally, the idea that Asia didn't survive in proportional numbers as Europe and North America in a utopian ST future is incredibly offensive. It's not an optimistic future if all the world has been significantly depleted of an entire racial group. It's not an optimistic future if there are far fewer Asians than in real life.

Far better to assume that Asia fared no worse than Europe or North America.