Spock: First Vulcan in the Fleet?

[jimcat]

Hello everyone,
Sci – I did consider the points you make, but the line is quite clear: T’Pau is the only person ever to refuse to sit on the Federation Council. Whilst our jaded contemporary view of democracy might make that seem ambiguous, in the shiny “Star Trek” future, I hope that rules out any kind of election. She was offered the seat, and said no. Who did the offering is anyone’s guess. The Vulcan government, or the Federation?

Timo – I think the Mintakans are a lost colony because I don’t see why Vulcans would be logical at that stage in their development. They ought to be savage and incredibly emotional, if their society is developing in the same way as Vulcan’s did. Which proves nothing, it’s just a personal response to an aspect that didn’t make sense to me in “Who Watches the Watchers”.

You’re also right in that there could be lots of Vulcan colonies and “Vulcanoid” societies of unspecified origin that we don’t see because the Human starship Enterprise doesn’t have any reason to visit. Even so, if Humans don’t dominate by numbers, where are all the others? I’d argue for a very aggressive and expansionist policy of Human colonisation, on the basis of all those failed and failing colonies: Kirk on Tarsus IV, the various places they had to race off to with vital supplies, Omicron Ceti III, Tasha Yar’s colony on Turkana IV. There must be a lot of colonies that don’t have problems, but there must be enough overall for crises to erupt regularly somewhere. In fact, over 1,000 colonies might not be impossible, since it would only need five new colonies a year to get to a thousand in 200 years. Though of course, it’s all guesswork. It might mean that the Federation operates more like the “old” Commonwealth (aka the “British Empire” if that reference doesn’t mean anything to you). One big powerful state with lots of colonies, and some independent and theoretically equal partners. Or just as possibly, not.

Whilst I don’t claim to know (or be able to work out definitively from the available evidence) how the Federation is governed, the picture of a democracy has a big fly in the ointment for me: Ardana. How did such a planet get to be a full member world, and what kind of place is the Federation if it accepts their representatives as being fairly elected?

As an aside, my impression of the Federation administration and its diplomatic service isn’t good: Ambassador Fox in “A Taste of Armageddon”, Nilz Baris in “The Trouble With Tribbles”, Commissioner Hedford in “Metamorphosis” (“Surely they can find another woman to stop the war” doesn’t say much for her abilities) and High Commissioner Ferris who might be facing a crisis in “The Galileo Seven” but really doesn’t need to be that unpleasant. Yes, there are a lot of other diplomats and administrators in the Federation, but why are the ones we see so often useless?

Timon

 

[indranee]

To be fair, Kirk and the others certainly act like Spock is an exotic novelty. His curious Vulcan ways appear to be an endless source of fascination and amusement, and McCoy, in particular, can't stop commenting on how inhuman Spock is, emotionally and physically.

While it was never established officially, I can certainly see how someone watching TOS the first time around could get the impression that Spock was the first Vulcan most Starfleet types had ever met.

Could it be that he was the first Vulcan officer *in the fleet* who was the *only* Vulcan in a largely human-crewed ship? I can easily imagine (as mentioned upthread re the Intrepid) Spock being a novelty to his human crewmates in that case.

 

[Nerys Myk]

As an aside, my impression of the Federation administration and its diplomatic service isn’t good: Ambassador Fox in “A Taste of Armageddon”, Nilz Baris in “The Trouble With Tribbles”, Commissioner Hedford in “Metamorphosis” (“Surely they can find another woman to stop the war” doesn’t say much for her abilities) and High Commissioner Ferris who might be facing a crisis in “The Galileo Seven” but really doesn’t need to be that unpleasant. Yes, there are a lot of other diplomats and administrators in the Federation, but why are the ones we see so often useless?

Timon

Because the show isnt about the adventures of the Federation Diplomatic Corps. The desk bound paper pushers and bureaucrats will always be foils and impediments to our heroes.

 

[T'Girl]

FYI in the novelisation of STIV, Uhura claims asylum at the Vulcan Embassy.

I recall that, do you remember exactly whom the Vulcans were providing Uhura asylum from?

 

[antiquityscion]

I seriously think a lot of people assume Spock was the first Vulcan in starfleet because he was the first vulcan on screen.

Others assume he was the first vulcan only because Worf was the first Klingon in starfleet, and they are transposing the two.

Then you have the fan fic and the books and comics from the 70s on, and that further compounds the myth.

But really, no where in TOS, TOS movies, or any other Trek show does it explicitly state he was the first Vulcan in Starfleet.

 

[Darth Duck]

The promenade directory also lists the infirmary and the constable's office.

As well as a dozen or so pop-culture in-jokes and a bunch more references to the production crew. Or are we really supposed to believe Spacely Sprockets from The Jetsons has an office on the Promenade? Or that there's a duck and a hamster on a treadmill on the D?

 

[T'Girl]

The promenade directory also lists the infirmary and the constable's office.

As well as a dozen or so pop-culture in-jokes ...

Ummm, how is a "Embassy" a pop-culture in-joke?

Others assume he was the first vulcan only because Worf was the first Klingon in starfleet, and they are transposing the two.

One of the earlier comic did have a Klingon serving aboard Kirk's Enterprise (or the Enterprise A) for some time, I can't remember if he was Starfleet, of somehow "attached."

Name escapes me too (non-canon of course).



.

 

[Darth Duck]

The promenade directory also lists the infirmary and the constable's office.

As well as a dozen or so pop-culture in-jokes ...

Ummm, how is a "Embassy" a pop-culture in-joke?

It's not, but the Promenade Directory is just so riddled with in-jokes and doesn't list things we know are there like the Assay Office, the Klingon Restaurant and the Celestial Cafe. It also lists a Bajoran Consulate, which is slighting baffling since the station is Bajoran Territory and you don't hear of American Consulate in Alaska. I'm just trying to say, that the whole directory is suspect and should be taken with a grain of salt, even though it got a couple of things right.

 

[Sci]

Part 1:

And according the Deep Space Nine, Vulcan and the Klingon Empire also directly exchange ambassadors.

Vulcan had direct diplomatic contact with Bajor prior to Starfleet's management of the station, a embassy was on DS9. (there was a directory mounted on one wall in the promenade)

Well, I'm not sure if we should take unintelligible computer displays as authoritative.





<SNIP: Pictures >





Yes, I can see that there's a behind-the-scenes photo of an Okudagram that was never prominently featured on the Promenade set whose contents were never legible onscreen. This does not mean we should take the contents of that Okudagram as authoritative, any more than we should assume that there really is a giant hamster on a wheel aboard the Enterprise-D just because it's on the Master Situation Display in Main Engineering.



If we're going to start trying to suss out the Federation's basic constitutional structure, one of the things we need to remember is that "Journey to Babel" tells us nothing useful.

Actually JTB is our one clear example of the federation memberships decision making process.

It is literally the only example of Federation Member States making an important decision about the future of the UFP rather than the Federation government itself. And Kirk's narration makes it very clear that this is an unusual break from the normal political situation:




Captain's log, Stardate 3842.3. We have departed Vulcan for the neutral planetoid code-named Babel. Since it is in our sector, the Enterprise has been assigned to transport ambassadors of Federation planets to this vitally important council. The issues of the council are politically complex, the passengers explosive....



Captain's log, Stardate 3842.4. The interplanetary conference will consider the petition of the Coridan planets to be admitted to the Federation. The Coridan system has been claimed by some of the races now aboard our ship as delegates, races who have strong personal reasons for keeping Coridan out of the Federation. The most pressing problem aboard the Enterprise is to make sure open warfare doesn't break out among the delegates before the conference begins....





This is confirmed from the delegates' interactions: It is clear that some Federation Member States, such as Tellar, have been illegally mining Coridan for profit, while others, such as Vulcan, favor nationalizing the Coridanite mining industry and redistributing its subsequent wealth to the Coridanite populace at large. The Tellarite government's desire to continue exploiting the Coridanite people has led to extreme political instability within the Federation, which the Babel Conference is designed to defuse.



[Lounge]


(Sarek enters, and surreptitiously takes a tablet with a drink.)



GAV: Vulcan, I would speak to you.



SAREK: It does seem unavoidable.



GAV: How do you vote on the Coridan admission?



SAREK: You seem unwilling to wait for the council meeting, Ambassador. No matter. We favour admission.



GAV: You favour? Why?



(The room goes silent.)



SAREK: Under Federation law, Coridan can be protected and its wealth administered for the benefit of its people.



GAV: That's well for you. Vulcan has no mining interest. 


SAREK: Coridan has nearly unlimited wealth of dilithium crystals, but it is under-populated and unprotected. This invites illegal mining operations.



GAV: Illegal? You accuse us?



SAREK: Some of your ships have been carrying Coridan dilithium crystals.



GAV: You call us thieves?!



(Gav attacks Sarek, who shrugs him off easily.)



KIRK: Gentlemen. Gentlemen. Whatever arguments you have between yourselves is your business. My business is running the ship. As long as I command, there will be order.

SAREK: Of course, Captain.



GAV: Understood. There will be payment for your slander, Sarek.



SAREK: Threats are illogical. And payment is usually expensive.



It's very clear that this is a highly unusual situation and that the Federation is on the brink of civil war over this issue. In fact, it seems to confirm something I talked about earlier in this thread -- whether or not some Federation Member States would be able to exploit foreign worlds for their own profit ultimately speaks to the question of whether or not the Federation would have the right to stop them, to how much power the UFP should have over its Member States. It's sort of like the conflict over whether the U.S. federal government would be able to ban slavery in that regard.



What's depicted could very well be the standard, the membership might constantly be at each others throats. Sarek has had acrimonious "debates" with Ambassador Gav in the past.

Absolute nonsense. You don't go to all the bother of finding a neutral location to enact a conference of ambassadors who are literally assaulting one-another if this is the normal situation.





Kirk's Captain Log said this: The Coridan system has been claimed by some of the races now aboard our ship as delegates, races who have strong personal reasons for keeping Coridan out of the Federation. Obviously the federation lack the power and authority to simply tell the the membership what to do.

Or, rather, there are competing political movements within the Federation over what kinds and how much power the UFP should have over its Member States. There have been similar questions about whether or not the U.S. would have certain powers over its states, too.



And that the Federation government has been unable to exercise certain authorities does not mean that it lacks such authorities. Sarek is very clear in noting that the Tellarites' mining operations on Coridan are illegal; it may be, for instance, that it's not that the Federation lacks the authority to stop them, but, rather, that the pro-mining faction is so politically powerful that they have been able to thwart action against them. Similarly, it was clearly illegal for South Carolina to nullify federal laws it didn't like, but if it and the other nullificationists had been more powerful, they may have undermined the federal government's legitimate authority to make binding law over the states.

Law and power are not the same thing. There have historically been times when people were able to do things that were clearly illegal or unconstitutional, purely because they were powerful enough to get away with it.





But given that the federation council is composed of representatives who are citizens from those very same worlds, how could it?

That's a non sequitor. The United States Congress is composed of representatives who are citizens of the several states, but it still has the authority to make binding law over those states.



Why? Because Kirk's early narration makes it very clear that the Babel Conference of 2267 is being called as an emergency measure.

Kirk's narrative says no such thing, he says that the conference is being held at a neutral location. and there's disagreement on the entry issue.

You don't go to a "neutral" location if it's not an emergency measure.



The Federation, he makes it very clear, is on the brink of civil war over the issue of admitting Coridan to the Federation.

Civil War is likely overstating things.

The most pressing problem aboard the Enterprise is to make sure open warfare doesn't break out among the delegates before the conference begins....





Bold added.



Ambassadors were literally assaulting one-another. That's not something that happens if there isn't the potential for literal warfare.



The Conference is happening precisely because of a paralyzing political crisis, and represents a break from standard constitutional practice.

But we don't know what the "constitutional practice" is,

Uh, yes, we do. We know from "Errand of Mercy," from Star Trek IV, and from numerous episodes of TNG and DS9, up to and including "Forces of Nature," "Attached," "The Way of the Warrior," and "Rapture." The standard constitutional practice is for the Federation Council to commence session on Earth and to pass a law, and, with regards to the admission of new worlds, to specifically pass an act admitting the new world to the UFP.





for all we know, the membership always meets on neutral ground to consider a new entry into the federation's membership. Standard practice might be to completely cut the federation council out of the loop,

No, "Attached" and "Rapture" made it clear that new worlds are admitted by the Federation Council in its sessions on Earth.



Well, Fed member world don't give up their sovereignty when they join the Federation.





Well, yes, they do. The Federation Council decides their foreign policy for them; ...



Except there is the example of Vulcan (and by extension other members) that has it own foreign policy agenda.

It was the Federation Council that decided the UFP's members would go to war with the Klingon Empire in "Errand of Mercy." It was the Federation Council that gave instructions to Starfleet over potential war with the Romulan Star Empire in "The Defector." It was the Federation President who set Federation policy towards the Klingon Empire after the Praxis explosion in Star Trek VI. It was the Federation Council that ratified a treaty with the Cardassian Union that ceded Federation worlds to the Cardassians in "Journey's End." It was the Federation Council that admitted Bajor in "Rapture." It was the Federation that imposed a trade embargo on the Romulan Star Empire, making Romulan ale illegal throughout the UFP, and it was the Federation that conducted an alliance with them during the Dominion War. It was the Federation that decided to go to war with the Dominion, and to subsequently conclude peace with it.



In none of these cases were important foreign policy decisions made by Federation Member States.



It has embassies with at least two foreign political entities,

Yes, and the State of Ohio maintains offices in Ottawa, Canada, to encourage Canadian-Ohio relations and commerce. This does not mean that the State of Ohio conducts fully unilateral foreign relations with Canada.



As I indicated earlier, it is entirely possible -- especially given that Federation Member States are consistently cut out of the most important foreign policy decisions we see throughout STAR TREK -- that Federation Member States get to conduct some foreign relations within the context of Federation law. This is consistent with constitutional practice in modern-day federations like the United States, which allows U.S. states to have relations with foreign states with the permission of the U.S. Congress.

Spock's (private) efforts in Unification seem aimed at a rejoining of Vulcans and Romulans, not the federation and Romulans.

So what? This is irrelevant, as Spock's efforts are, as you noted, the efforts of a private citizen, not government policy. As such, the question of what would happen if the Romulan Star Empire were to wish to join with the Confederacy of Vulcan (as the Vulcan state is called in the novels -- let's use that for convenience) is uncertain.

It seems obvious that the Romulan Star Empire's conquered worlds would need to be emancipated and given their independence. From there, it's unclear if the remainder of the RSE would simply be voluntarily annexed by the Confederacy of Vulcan, or the CoV were to secede from the UFP and then form some new state with the RSE remainder (which itself would then need to apply for UFP Membership). Or what.

We don't know, but the lack of clarity over that situation doesn't really tell us anything useful about the relationship between the UFP and its Member States.





the Federation President gets to declare states of emergency

Which happen only on Earth, the planet that hold the federation council. And so might be a special case.

There is no evidence whatsoever that that is a special case. Further, we know from "Let He Who Is Without Sin..." that the Federation Starfleet gets to enforce law on Federation Member States' worlds, and from Star Trek III that there's a Federation-wide law enforcement agency called Federation Security.

Both of these are traits of a sovereign state which undermine the notion that the UFP is not a sovereign state in its own right.



The Federation is a state. It fits all of the legal definitions of a state. It possesses sovereignty, makes laws, has territory, and has the right to use force to compel obedience to its laws. It's not just a coalition or alliance or interstellar U.N. It's a state with its own government.

Except it just might be a political coalition. Or a trade and defense alliance, one with a central organization, with well defined limited powers.

You keep saying "might," but you're not presenting any evidence other than the Babel Conference -- and you're ignoring the clear evidence that the Babel Conference is a break from the norm.

The preponderance of evidence we do have is that it's a sovereign state in its own right. A coalition, or a trade and defense alliance, doesn't get to make foreign policy; doesn't get its own currency (a Federation credit, established in TOS); doesn't get its own military (Starfleet); doesn't get to declare states of emergency and put its military on its Members' streets ("Homefront"/"Paradise Lost"); doesn't have its own Federation-wide law enforcement agency (Federation Security from ST3); doesn't have its own Constitution guaranteeing specific rights to everyone within its territory ("The Drumhead," "The Perfect Mate"); doesn't have its own defined territory ("The Best of Both Worlds") that it can expand or give up at its own pleasure, without consultation from its Members ("Journey's End"); doesn't have its own citizenship status that it can, again, terminate or grant at its own pleasure ("Journey's End"); doesn't convene its own grand juries ("The Ascension"); doesn't have its own Supreme Court with the power of judicial review over all of the laws of its members ("Dr. Bashir, I Presume?"); doesn't have the authority to pass binding laws upon all of its Members and territory ("Force of Nature"); doesn't get to declare war or conclude peace ("Errand of Mercy" and DS9).



The Federation is a state. Period.

 

[Sci]

Part 2:

There's some precedent for this in real life. U.S. states in real life can form what are called &quot;interstate compacts&quot; with one-another. Many state governors maintain offices in the Washington, D.C., area in order to directly lobby the federal government on behalf of the state government (since the Congressional delegations don't work for the states), and many also maintain foreign offices to lobby foreign governments and companies on their states' behalf.

There are other examples. Most of Canadian provinces have a department for international affairs and the leeway with which they can operate is noted as a key characteristic of Canadian foreign policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Canada#Federalism_and_foreign_relations). I think German states also have some sort of representation in Berlin and can conduct foreign policy to a degree.

Very educational! Gracias.

Fascinating! I've often wondered if the Federation had to go through the same kinds of crises about finding the right balance between Federation and Member State power that the U.S. had to go through in finding the right balance between federal and state power -- or that the European Union is currently going through.

I'm sure it must have. I haven't read the Romulan war novel(s) but if they show the founding of the Federation I sincerely hope they resist the urge to show it as being practically identical with what we saw later. The broad outline of the institutions okay, but the Federation should be a lot less unified at that point.

Well, so far, the UFP doesn't even exist, but the Coalition of Planets essentially broke down and ceased to function in the first year of the Earth-Romulus War (The Romulan War: Beneath the Raptor's Wing).

I tend to dislike any hypothesis that involves postulating that the Federation Council is a bicameral legislature. Partially this is because we've seen no indication that it is anything but a unicameral legislature, and partially this is because I don't really like bicameralism all that much.

I tend to think it's unicameral as well. But it brings up the question - is the Council an equivalent of a lower or an upper house? Is representation proportional to population or are Member States equally represented? There's, of course, a reason bicameralism exists. Each member sending one councillor in the novels would suggest the second aproach. And indeed, Member States are so distinct and different amongst themselves (waay more different than US states or even EU members) that equal representation makes sense. But then, it's also probable there are big differences in Member States' population sizes. If we follow that aproach and there are multiple Councillors per member, the number each member sends might be different. Perhaps not as large a difference as if following total proportionality but still more than total equality? If there's just one Councillor per member, I guess that would translate to Councillors having a different number of votes amongst themselves... Something like the Council of the EU when it votes on most matters.

Well, the novels depict the Council as consisting of a single Federation Councillor from each Member State, with each Councillor receiving a single vote on any measure. There's a legitimate question about whether or not this means the Federation has a democracy deficit -- but, as you note, there's a balance that has to be struck between maintaining roughly equal representation and maintaining cultural diversity.

There's also a question about when the practical differences between how much representation a citizen of a world with 6 billion residents (let's say Vulcan) gets vs. a citizen of a world with, say, 1 billion (let's say Tellar). Sure, a Tellar resident's vote is theoretically worth six times more than the a Vulcan resident's -- but is there really a practical difference between the value of a Tellarite and Vulcan vote, when the numbers are that large?

Or maybe the requirement for something to pass is that the Councillors who voted for it represent both over half of the Member States and over half of the total population of the Federation. Sort of a "two houses in one" approach.

That's one idea. My hypothesis would be that to qualify for Federation Membership, a state must have a population that both meets minimum standards and doesn't exceed maximum. Let's say, maybe a Federation Member States has to have a population of at least 1 billion but cannot exceed a population of 10 billion, and if it does, then that Member State must be divided into two Member States or expelled from the Federation entirely.

Not sure I can take a graphic that references Tom Servo and Yoyodyne Propulsion as serious canon.

Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems is mentioned in four episodes and one of the movies.

No, it is not "mentioned," it is on other illegible computer set decorations. You're trying to defend claiming an illegible set decoration as authoritative canon by citing other illegible set decorations. That's like trying to defend the claim that the Torah is infallible by saying, "Of course it's infallible, the Gospels say so!"

Hello everyone,

Sci – I did consider the points you make, but the line is quite clear: T’Pau is the only person ever to refuse to sit on the Federation Council.

The exact line is:

KIRK: Bones, you know who that is? T'Pau. The only person to ever turn down a seat on the Federation Council.

That line is not quite clear. All it says is that she's the only person to ever turn down a seat on the Council. That doesn't tell us anything about how membership on the Council is determined or in what manner she turned it down.

Whilst our jaded contemporary view of democracy might make that seem ambiguous, in the shiny “Star Trek” future, I hope that rules out any kind of election.

What in the hell could possibly be "shiny" about the idea of the Federation Council not being a democratically elected legislature? That's a horrible thought!

And there's nothing "jaded" about the idea that someone could have been so universally respected as a leader that he/she would win any election in which he/she would stand. Everyone knew that George Washington would be elected the first President of the United States because he was so universally well-respected and beloved, for instance. If T'Pau is so well-respected on Vulcan that no one would be willing to stand against her, then that's not a bad thing or something that undermines democracy. It just means that there is already an overwhelming democratic consensus in her favor.

She was offered the seat,

There is no indication in that line that she was "offered" a seat.

I think the Mintakans are a lost colony because I don’t see why Vulcans would be logical at that stage in their development. They ought to be savage and incredibly emotional, if their society is developing in the same way as Vulcan’s did.

Why presume that a culture will always develop linearly, according to patterns established by other cultures? The ancient Athenians had a functional democracy (of sorts) in the 5th Century BCE, but it wasn't until the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries that democracy finally re-established itself throughout Europe again.

Cultures can develop new institutions in fits and starts, backtrack, lose them, and then re-develop them, and can do this in all sorts of orders.

It might mean that the Federation operates more like the “old” Commonwealth (aka the “British Empire” if that reference doesn’t mean anything to you). One big powerful state with lots of colonies, and some independent and theoretically equal partners.

I assume by "colonies," you mean, "settlements established by the Federation on uninhabited territory" rather than "territory that rightfully belongs to the native inhabitants whom we have conquered and oppressed," right?

Whilst I don’t claim to know (or be able to work out definitively from the available evidence) how the Federation is governed, the picture of a democracy has a big fly in the ointment for me: Ardana. How did such a planet get to be a full member world, and what kind of place is the Federation if it accepts their representatives as being fairly elected?

An excellent question. Certainly Kirk and Company seem shocked to discover the level of economic classism and oppression that exists on Ardana. My hypothesis is that Ardana is close to the Klingon border and rich in resources the Federation needed to survive, and that thus the President at the time rushed their Membership through the Council. Kirk makes it pretty clear that the Federation will be intervening in Ardanan society to end the class oppression that exists there, though.

As an aside, my impression of the Federation administration and its diplomatic service isn’t good:

Eh, can't be that bad. They managed to unify 150 diverse alien worlds and to, as Carol Marcus points out in Star Trek II, keep the peace for a hundred years. Certainly the Federation is far more peaceable than any state in the real world today.

Ambassador Fox in “A Taste of Armageddon”,

Certainly misguided throughout much of the episode, but his willingness to stay behind to serve as an honest broker for peace negotiations is quite admirable.

Nilz Baris in “The Trouble With Tribbles”,

What's wrong with Baris in "The Trouble With Tribbles?" Sure, he's irritating and mis-used the Priority One signal. But he was also right -- the Klingons were trying to sabotage the Federation colonization effort at Sherman's Planet, and Captain Kirk wasn't taking the threat represented by the Klingons seriously.

This is, at best, an example of two officials (Kirk and Baris) fighting a turf war, not an example of one being clearly better than the other.

and High Commissioner Ferris who might be facing a crisis in “The Galileo Seven” but really doesn’t need to be that unpleasant.

How dare he be unpleasant when he's trying to transport vital medical supplies to a world struck by plague in spite of a Starfleet captain's desire to stop and perform scans on a spatial phenomenon that wasn't going anywhere and would still be around hundreds of years in the future during a time of crisis! It's just awful the way he was being mean, wasn't it?

ETA:

As well as a dozen or so pop-culture in-jokes ...

Ummm, how is a "Embassy" a pop-culture in-joke?

It's not, but the Promenade Directory is just so riddled with in-jokes and doesn't list things we know are there like the Assay Office, the Klingon Restaurant and the Celestial Cafe. It also lists a Bajoran Consulate, which is slighting baffling since the station is Bajoran Territory and you don't hear of American Consulate in Alaska. I'm just trying to say, that the whole directory is suspect and should be taken with a grain of salt, even though it got a couple of things right.

I completely agree. Though, to be fair about the Bajoran Consulate, it's not unheard of for a state to host a diplomatic mission on its own territory. The Ronald H. Brown United States Mission to the United Nations Building, for instance, is located on United States soil, and the Italian Republic hosts its own Embassy to the Holy See (since the State of the Vatican City's territory is too small). Perhaps the Republic of Bajor opened up a consulate on DS9 to handle potential relations with Gamma Quadrant states and their citizens, for instance.

 

[T'Girl]

while others, such as Vulcan, favor nationalizing the Coridanite mining industry ...

Sarek: "Under Federation law Coridan can be protected. And its wealth administered for the benefit of its people."

Once Coridan is a federation member, Starfleet will be able to protect the Coridan planets from illegal mining operations, there by allowing the Coridan people to administer their own dilithum wealth, for their own benefit. Where do you see the Vulcans wanting the federation to steal/nationalize the Coridan people's national resources? Are we talking about the freedom loving federation here, or socialist Venezuela under the tyrannical Hugo Chavez?

What's depicted could very well be the standard, the membership might constantly be at each others throats. Sarek has had acrimonious "debates" with Ambassador Gav in the past.

Absolute nonsense. You don't go to all the bother of finding a neutral location to enact a conference of ambassadors who are literally assaulting one-another if this is the normal situation.

Oh please, politcians leave their capitals and travel to political retreats for meetings, it not that unusual. The members of diplomatic corps travel to conferences in far away lands, often at luxury resorts and lavish hotels.

Obviously the federation lack the power and authority to simply tell the the membership what to do. But given that the federation council is composed of representatives who are citizens from those very same worlds, how could it?

That's a non sequitor. The United States Congress is composed of representatives who are citizens of the several states, but it still has the authority to make binding law over those states.

What I meant was, why would a Vulcan representative support a measure outlawing arranged marriages in the federation? Why would a Tellar representative vote a measure disfavorable to Tellar's dilithium mining interests? When it's not in their respective home worlds best interests. You don't think Vulcan and Tellar have membership voting blocks they can call on?

Why would Montana, Illinois, Wyoming and West Virginia representatives vote against coal mining?

There might be some disagreement on how representatives get on the federation council, but you really think they can't be recalled and removed?

Ambassadors were literally assaulting one-another. That's not something that happens if there isn't the potential for literal warfare.??

[/quote]

[/quote][yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0XZlxKuig[/yt]

In 1850, during an argument over Senate procedural rules, Senator Henry Foote drew a pistol and pointed it at Senator Thomas Benton, at that point the United States Senate was adjourned for the day.

May 1856, Congressman Preston Brooks severe beat Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the floor of the United States Senate, after Senator Sumner's floor speech in which Senator Sumner compared Congressman Brook's relative Senator Butler to a pimp.

February 1902, Senator Benjamin Tillman and Senator John McLaurin, both from South Carolina, got into a fistfight over a tariff bill while the United States Senate was in session.

for all we know, the membership always meets on neutral ground to consider a new entry into the federation's membership. Standard practice might be to completely cut the federation council out of the loop,

No, "Attached" and "Rapture" made it clear that new worlds are admitted by the Federation Council in its sessions on Earth.

Journey to Babel takes place in the 23rd century, the episodes you sight are both in the 24th. There no canon references as to where the council meets in the 23rd century, or what their procedures are. Operating rules do change over time, as could locations the council might have met at. How many cities has the US Congress been located in? Seven, or is it eight?

It was the Federation President who set Federation policy towards the Klingon Empire after the Praxis explosion in Star Trek VI.

But it was Vulcan that initiated the contact with the Klingon Empire, at the Vulcans behest (order or command) the federation open it's dialog with the Empire. So the council will follow instructions from the membership.

It has embassies with at least two foreign political entities,

Yes, and the State of Ohio maintains offices in Ottawa, Canada

No, the State of Ohio does not receive a Ambassador from Ottawa, like Vulcan receive Ambassador Kor from the Klingon Empire, this was in the DS9 dialog, and there is no indication that Kor was a "pretend" Ambassador.


The preponderance of evidence we do have is that it's a sovereign state in its own right ...
Let's go..

A coalition, or a trade and defense alliance, doesn't get to make foreign policy ... Coalitions and alliances of sovereign nations do come together to form collective policies that they all agree to. At the Yalta conference Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin arrived at policies for reorganizing and reforming the nations of Europe. How that for "foreign policy." The representatives of the three nations did most of the detail work.

doesn't get its own currency (a Federation credit, established in TOS) ...
TOS establishes a credit, not a federation credit.. During TOS we only see Humans using the credits, so it might be tied solely to Earth, or it might be the monetary unit of a currency union, with a small group of federation members actually sharing a currency.

doesn't get its own military (Starfleet) ...
You're fond of referring to the novels, Diane Duane's novels "establishes" that there is no federation Starfleet, but instead independent branches associated with various worlds, The Enterprise in TOS is in the Earth Branch. This lines up nicely with the way Kirk refers to his ship, Earth colonies, Earth bases, Earth outposts guarding the neutral Zone.

doesn't get to declare states of emergency and put its military on its Members' streets ("Homefront"/"Paradise Lost") ...
We only see a state of emergency on the member world that hold the federation council, there no dialog that the state of emergency extend to any other planets. The President ability to declare a similar state of emergency elsewhere is non-existent from the show.

doesn't have its own Federation-wide law enforcement agency (Federation Security from ST3) ..
Federation wide? We saw less that a dozen guys, perhaps they were the security guards from the lobby of the federation embassy to Earth.

doesn't have its own Constitution guaranteeing specific rights to everyone within its territory ("The Drumhead," "The Perfect Mate") ..
Wow, just like some international laws, similar to the Geneva Convention right?

doesn't have its own defined territory ("The Best of Both Worlds") that it can expand or give up at its own pleasure, without consultation from its Members ("Journey's End") ...
The colony that the federation didn't want established in a disputed area in the first place, was a federation member? The NATO alliance had a defined territory it defended, it's member state's territories.

doesn't have its own citizenship status that it can, again, terminate or grant at its own pleasure ("Journey's End") ...
Name one person in that particular episode that had their "citizenship" removed by the federation..

doesn't convene its own grand juries ("The Ascension") ...
international court at the Hague.

doesn't have the authority to pass binding laws upon all of its Members and territory ("Force of Nature") ...
A "law" or recommendation that applies only in interstellar space and not on member planets. The way I envision (and have written of before) the federation's council's authority, it would be over things like interstellar traffic.

doesn't get to declare war or conclude peace ("Errand of Mercy" and DS9) ...
Name one incident of the federation formally declaring war. Yes, they've fought wars, but that the job of a defense alliance.

The Federation is a state. Period. ... Not necessarily, an alliance with a central organizing council works quite well too, really even better.

 

[neozeks]

That's one idea. My hypothesis would be that to qualify for Federation Membership, a state must have a population that both meets minimum standards and doesn't exceed maximum. Let's say, maybe a Federation Member States has to have a population of at least 1 billion but cannot exceed a population of 10 billion, and if it does, then that Member State must be divided into two Member States or expelled from the Federation entirely.

That could work. I'm sure there's a minimum population required (or every little colonized world could become a full member). Though I'm not sure about the maximum requirement. What if (almost) all of the population is on one planet? Separating a planet in two Member States might not really be practical. Or even allowed, from the membership requirements POV. The only alternative being expulsion strikes me as somewhat harsh. Though it would be an incentive for increasing colonization.

I completely agree. Though, to be fair about the Bajoran Consulate, it's not unheard of for a state to host a diplomatic mission on its own territory. The Ronald H. Brown United States Mission to the United Nations Building, for instance, is located on United States soil, and the Italian Republic hosts its own Embassy to the Holy See (since the State of the Vatican City's territory is too small). Perhaps the Republic of Bajor opened up a consulate on DS9 to handle potential relations with Gamma Quadrant states and their citizens, for instance.

Now it would be my turn to say: &quot;Very educational! Gracias.&quot;

What I meant was, why would a Vulcan representative support a measure outlawing arranged marriages in the federation? Why would a Tellar representative vote a measure disfavorable to Tellar's dilithium mining interests? When it's not in their respective home worlds best interests. You don't think Vulcan and Tellar have membership voting blocks they can call on?

The point is that the overall benefits of being in the Federation (a true federation, with real power) would outway the occasional damage of being forced to do something against your narrow local interests. So the Vulcan or Tellarite may not support a measure but they would have to accept it if got majority support. That's how federations work. If it's really something that is crucially important for that world, something they wouldn't be willing to give up to Federation-level decision-making, they wouldn't have joined in the first place. Or they would seek to protect it within the Federation Constitution framework (if it's not already). Or they'd leave the Federation.

Why would Montana, Illinois, Wyoming and West Virginia representatives vote against coal mining?

Maybe they wouldn't, but if the proposal gained a majority, they'd have to accept it. Like I said, that's the trade-off you get in a federation. Heck, EU Member States accept this in some policy areas, and the EU isn't even a full federation.

Coalitions and alliances of sovereign nations do come together to form collective policies that they all agree to. At the Yalta conference Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin arrived at policies for reorganizing and reforming the nations of Europe. How that for &quot;foreign policy.&quot; The representatives of the three nations did most of the detail work.

Yes, but being completely sovereign, they ALL had to agree it. They didn't vote. Majority wasn't enough. The chairman of the conference didn't unilaterally decide.
The Federation Council does vote on decisions. The Federation President does get to decide independently of the member states.

You're fond of referring to the novels, Diane Duane's novels &quot;establishes&quot; that there is no federation Starfleet, but instead independent branches associated with various worlds, The Enterprise in TOS is in the Earth Branch. This lines up nicely with the way Kirk refers to his ship, Earth colonies, Earth bases, Earth outposts guarding the neutral Zone.

And other novels don't show this. Nor, more importantly, the shows, aside from early TOS.

We only see a state of emergency on the member world that hold the federation council, there no dialog that the state of emergency extend to any other planets. The President ability to declare a similar state of emergency elsewhere is non-existent from the show.

But the very act of declaring that is something reserved for states. Even if, for some reason, it's just restricted to Earth. The UN Secretary General can't declare a state of emergency in NY City/State. Nor can the Secretary General of NATO or the President of the European Commision/Council declare a state of emergency in Brussels/Belgium.

Wow, just like some international laws, similar to the Geneva Convention right?

They're not called &quot;Constitution&quot; though. If we're gonna insist on terms being strict, like with Ambassadors...

 

[Sci]

while others, such as Vulcan, favor nationalizing the Coridanite mining industry ...

Sarek: "Under Federation law Coridan can be protected. And its wealth administered for the benefit of its people."

Exactly. Administered for the benefit of its people, not for the benefit of a corporation or wealthy elite (who are no doubt already profiting from illegal mining operations).

Once Coridan is a federation member, Starfleet will be able to protect the Coridan planets from illegal mining operations, there by allowing the Coridan people to administer their own dilithum wealth, for their own benefit.

Which means nationalizing it. (Most likely on the Member State-level rather than the Federation level, though; it seems more probable to me that the Federation would want the Coridanite government to take ownership rather than to take ownership itself.)

Where do you see the Vulcans wanting the federation to steal/nationalize the Coridan people's national resources? Are we talking about the freedom loving federation here, or socialist Venezuela under the tyrannical Hugo Chavez?

There is no contradiction between freedom and nationalizing an energy industry, particularly one that has already been established to be rife with corruption and under foreign control. Nationalizing an energy industry would help prevent private companies from becoming so powerful that they threaten democracy and would simply place the industry under democratic control.

Hugo Chavez is not a tyrant because he nationalized his energy industry, he's a tyrant because he does things like repress free speech and imprison political opponents.

Absolute nonsense. You don't go to all the bother of finding a neutral location to enact a conference of ambassadors who are literally assaulting one-another if this is the normal situation.

Oh please, politcians leave their capitals and travel to political retreats for meetings, it not that unusual.

No you're just getting ridiculous. If it's just a luxury retreat, they wouldn't give a shit about being "neutral." They're picking a neutral site because anything else is viewed as inflammatory because the political situation is too unstable.

What I meant was, why would a Vulcan representative support a measure outlawing arranged marriages in the federation? Why would a Tellar representative vote a measure disfavorable to Tellar's dilithium mining interests? When it's not in their respective home worlds best interests.

By that logic, no Member of Congress would ever have supported unionization, since it's against the financial interests of whatever major industries happen to be established in their home states. Sometimes legislators are able to recognize when something is in the national interest, or morally right, even if some giant corporation opposes it.

And why do you assume that the freedom-loving Federation is uniformly under the same sway of the plutocratic elite that so-called "democracies" are today?

There might be some disagreement on how representatives get on the federation council, but you really think they can't be recalled and removed?

I don't think we have any information whatsoever on Federation impeachment or recall elections processes, if any exist.

Ambassadors were literally assaulting one-another. That's not something that happens if there isn't the potential for literal warfare.??

<SNIP: Video of Ukranian MPs assaulting one-another>

Bad example. Those are MPs who all legislate for the country, not ambassadors from states that are foreign to one-another. The latter demands a far more formal and peaceful forms of official interaction, because it's inherently more dangerous. Assaulting an ambassador is potentially an act of war.

In 1850, during an argument over Senate procedural rules, Senator Henry Foote drew a pistol and pointed it at Senator Thomas Benton, at that point the United States Senate was adjourned for the day.

May 1856, Congressman Preston Brooks severe beat Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the floor of the United States Senate, after Senator Sumner's floor speech in which Senator Sumner compared Congressman Brook's relative Senator Butler to a pimp.

Bad examples, since those are both examples of the extreme political tensions that helped lead to the American Civil War.

No, "Attached" and "Rapture" made it clear that new worlds are admitted by the Federation Council in its sessions on Earth.

Journey to Babel takes place in the 23rd century, the episodes you sight are both in the 24th.

So now, to maintain your made-up pretense that the Babel Conference represents normal constitutional practice -- even though the episode itself makes it clear that it's a break from the Federation's norm -- you're making up MORE detail about how the standard process supposedly changed between TOS and TNG/DS9.

There no canon references as to where the council meets in the 23rd century,

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home makes it very clear that they meet on Earth.

How many cities has the US Congress been located in? Seven, or is it eight?

Really, really awful example, since all of the cities other than D.C. used as the seat of the United States government were used within the first few decades of the existence of the U.S., and most were from before the ratification of the United States Constitution. (The legal entity called "the United States of America" which existed under the Articles of Confederation was in fact not a sovereign state, but a loose alliance of sovereign states; in other words, it was a separate legal entity than the United States that exists today, in spite of popular perception.)

Since the ratification of the United States Constitution, exactly three cities have served as the capital of the United States: New York City, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Washington, D.C. The government set up shop in the District of Columbia on 17 November 1800, 12 years after the Constitution's ratification, and (barring a session of Congress that convened in New York City after 9/11 as a gesture of support for NYC) has never left since.

By contrast, Star Trek IV took place around 125 years after the Federation was established in 2161. The idea that they would have changed capitals at that point is just silly.

It was the Federation President who set Federation policy towards the Klingon Empire after the Praxis explosion in Star Trek VI.

But it was Vulcan that initiated the contact with the Klingon Empire, at the Vulcans behest (order or command)

No. There is no evidence that the Vulcan government initiated that dialogue. The exact line is that Spock contacted the Klingon High Council "at the behest of the Vulcan Ambassador." As we've already established in this thread, there's some ambiguity about what "the Vulcan Ambassador" means. Further, "behest" can also just mean request, not "order" or "command." It's entirely plausible that the Vulcan government may simply have petitioned President Ra-ghoratreii to take that policy but had no more capacity to order him to than, say, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts gets to order the United States President to maintain good relations with the Russian Federation.

It has embassies with at least two foreign political entities,

Yes, and the State of Ohio maintains offices in Ottawa, Canada

No, the State of Ohio does not receive a Ambassador from Ottawa, like Vulcan receive Ambassador Kor from the Klingon Empire, this was in the DS9 dialog,

True. As I've hypothesized earlier, it may be that the Federation does possess certain legal traits unseen in the modern era, up to and including the existence of formal bilateral relations between its Member States and foreign states within the context of Federation law.

and there is no indication that Kor was a "pretend" Ambassador.

Actually, the entire point of "Sword of Kahless" and "Once More Unto the Breach" was that Kor had long been relegated to a meaningless, powerless position because he was out of political favor with Chancellor Gowron. So that strongly implies that, yes, the position of Klingon Ambassador to the Confederacy of Vulcan is a "pretend" post.

The preponderance of evidence we do have is that it's a sovereign state in its own right ...
Let's go..

A coalition, or a trade and defense alliance, doesn't get to make foreign policy ... Coalitions and alliances of sovereign nations do come together to form collective policies that they all agree to. At the Yalta conference Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin arrived at policies for reorganizing and reforming the nations of Europe. How that for "foreign policy." The representatives of the three nations did most of the detail work.

Yes, but they retain sovereignty and can change their minds at any time. The coalition or alliance doesn't make foreign policy, the individual members make and must agree to that policy. We've explicitly seen the Federation make foreign policy without consulting its Member States, so that strikes down your argument here.

doesn't get its own currency (a Federation credit, established in TOS) ...
TOS establishes a credit, not a federation credit.. During TOS we only see Humans using the credits,

Spock refers to Starfleet as having invested 122,200 credits in him in "The Apple," so, once again, false. And since you're so keen on using computer screens, a computer screen created for TNG's "The Price" refers to the UFP as offering to pay Federation Credits for access to the Barzan Wormhole.

It's a Federation Credit.

it might be the monetary unit of a currency union, with a small group of federation members actually sharing a currency.

If the existence of the Federation Credit were the only piece of evidence in favor of Federation statehood, I'd agree. But the existence of the Federation Credit, combined with every other piece of evidence for Federation statehood, makes the idea of a mere currency union improbable.

doesn't get its own military (Starfleet) ...
You're fond of referring to the novels, Diane Duane's novels "establishes" that there is no federation Starfleet, but instead independent branches associated with various worlds, The Enterprise in TOS is in the Earth Branch.

And both later novels and later canon contradict this. I'm fond of referring to novels when there's no contradictory canonical information. It's the Federation Starfleet, and it's the Federation's military.

doesn't get to declare states of emergency and put its military on its Members' streets ("Homefront"/"Paradise Lost") ...
We only see a state of emergency on the member world that hold the federation council, there no dialog that the state of emergency extend to any other planets. The President ability to declare a similar state of emergency elsewhere is non-existent from the show.

1. Saying that maybe he can't make a declaration of a state of emergency on other Federation worlds has no evidence to support it.

2. Real-life coalitions or alliances or intergovernmental organizations still don't get to declare states of emergency in their headquarters' cities. The United Nations does not get to declare a state of emergency in the City of New York. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization does not get to declare a state of emergency over Brussels. The Organization of American States does not get to declare a state of emergency over Washington, D.C.

doesn't have its own Federation-wide law enforcement agency (Federation Security from ST3) ..
Federation wide? We saw less that a dozen guys, perhaps they were the security guards from the lobby of the federation embassy to Earth.

If they were security guards from an embassy, they would have had absolutely no authority whatsoever to arrest McCoy away from the embassy. They're clearly the Federation's FBI.

doesn't have its own Constitution guaranteeing specific rights to everyone within its territory ("The Drumhead," "The Perfect Mate") ..
Wow, just like some international laws, similar to the Geneva Convention right?

No. Treaties are statutory law that can be passed or repealed by a legislature and are only binding so long as a sovereign state is party to that treaty. Constitutions, on the other hand, are inviolate, are not international treaties, and cannot be changed in the manner statutory law can be changed. The United States Constitution, for instance, cannot be amended through a simple majority of Congress and a presidential signature the way the United States Code can, and it is not an international treaty.

doesn't have its own defined territory ("The Best of Both Worlds") that it can expand or give up at its own pleasure, without consultation from its Members ("Journey's End") ...
The colony that the federation didn't want established in a disputed area in the first place, was a federation member?

No. It seems to have not been a Federation Member State; it was a colony that seems to have been under the direct jurisdiction of the Federation government (in the same way a U.S. territory is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government) and which the Federation gave away without consulting the Member States' governments.

The NATO alliance had a defined territory it defended, it's member state's territories.

False. NATO does not have territory of its own. It is an intergovernmental organization, not a state. It has a legal obligation to help its Member States defend their sovereign[/b] territory, but it has no territory of its own.

doesn't have its own citizenship status that it can, again, terminate or grant at its own pleasure ("Journey's End") ...
Name one person in that particular episode that had their "citizenship" removed by the federation..

The entire point of the end of "Journey's End" was that the Native American colonists who stayed on that world once it came under Cardassian jurisdiction would lose their Federation citizenship.

doesn't convene its own grand juries ("The Ascension") ...
international court at the Hague.

You are either monumentally ignorant about the differences between international and national law, or you're being deliberately dishonest here.

A grand jury is a completely different legal entity from an international tribunal. Each individual international tribunal must be convened through separate international treaties negotiated between sovereign states -- it's a HUGE legal undertaking that only occurs for major problems. A grand jury, on the other hand, is a domestic court that can be convened for violations of domestic law, including relatively minor ones such as the charges described in "The Ascent." Intergovernmental organizations do not get to convene grand juries.

doesn't have the authority to pass binding laws upon all of its Members and territory ("Force of Nature") ...
A "law" or recommendation

"Force of Nature" was very explicit. This was not a recommendation, it was a law; no one would be able to travel faster than Warp 5 in Federation territory without authorization from the Federation government. Period.

that applies only in interstellar space and not on member planets.

... yeah, and federal laws governing behavior on interstate buses only apply on board those buses. That doesn't mean that the United States Congress lacks the authority to pass binding law. A warp drive speed limit doesn't apply on a planet because no one goes to warp on a planet.

The way I envision (and have written of before) the federation's council's authority, it would be over things like interstellar traffic.

"Force of Nature" makes it clear that you don't get to go to Warp 6 without permission, period, no exceptions. Not even for intra-star system warping rather than interstellar warping.

doesn't get to declare war or conclude peace ("Errand of Mercy" and DS9) ...
Name one incident of the federation formally declaring war.

The Federation Council declared war upon the Klingon Empire in "Errand of Mercy."

The Federation is a state. Period. ... Not necessarily, an alliance with a central organizing council works quite well too, really even better.

No, it doesn't, and putting a smiley face at the end of legal nonsense and self-contradictory arguments doesn't make it right. Every single argument you made against the preponderance of evidence indicating that the Federation being a sovereign state is nonsense.

And, frankly, there's one final reason to think the United Federation of Planets is a sovereign state in its own right:

It's called the United Federation of Planets, not the United Coalition of Planets or the United Alliance of Planets or United Customs Union of Planets.

 

[jimcat]

Hello everyone,
Sci – I can’t get too dogmatic about the Federation Council. I admit I haven’t read all the novels about Federation politics, or even thought about it particularly deeply. I think Captain Kirk’s description of T’Pau raises a question mark over whether the Federation Council is an elected body. It’s obvious you don’t, and I’m not in a position to say you’re definitely wrong.

“Shiny” was a deliberate choice. There are some very dark things going on just under the surface in Star Trek: John Gill is a respected historian with a deep understanding of historical forces? And he thinks a whole planet of Nazis is a good idea? Yes he’s gone a bit odd, but how much of a Hitler apologist must he have been when he was normal?

Sometimes, once you start looking at odd details that followed the dictates of a week’s plot, then the conclusions that appear can look very strange indeed. Having had the chance to reflect on it a bit, I’m still quite taken with the “Federation as British Empire” analogy. Not because I think a few vague background details prove anything, since this thread is proof that the available evidence can be interpreted as “Federation as United States or maybe European Union” is equally possible. I’m thinking of the description of Star Trek as “Hornblower in space”. If Kirk is Hornblower, then the Federation is (maybe) the British Empire. As Nerys Myk rightly says, the bureaucrats and administrators of the Federation are there purely to make our heroes look like decisive men (and women!) of action, but the British Empire has a distinguished history of arrogant diplomats and officious bureaucrats that easily match anything the Federation has managed, only for real. And yes, I do think Galactic High Commissioner Ferris (what an Imperial title, by the way) is pointlessly unpleasant. He’s supposed to be saving a planet, not deliberately getting up Kirk’s nose as part of some weaselly little personal power trip. The Enterprise has to make a specific rendezvous, and arriving early won’t hasten the movement of the drugs to New Paris by one minute.

The British Empire had a single currency (the pound Sterling, although there were local variants), and a single fleet (again, apart from some local formations that were still expected to operate in a way compatible with the main fleet). Naturally, there’s no royalty at the top of the Federation, but in most other respects, like the exchange of ambassadors (although in British Commonwealth usage they’re referred to as “High Commissioners”, and forego some of the more elaborate diplomatic protocol) and a “forward” colonial policy, the parallels are surprisingly close.

Doubtless the existence of genuinely uninhabited worlds means that the colonial policy can be more of the ideal of “bringing civilisation to the wilderness” instead of “savagely mistreating the existing inhabitants”, but the planet Neural is a good example of how bad it is for friendly people, happy with their simple lives and appalling nylon hairpieces, when not just the nasty Klingons but the supposedly nice Federation suddenly take an interest.

I suspect that “Federation as imperialist power” is a tough line to sell, but I would argue that we first see the “early” Federation, with a lot of colonies and few members. Earth runs things in an easygoing yet arrogant way and everyone is (usually) happy, at least until the Tellarites decide to exercise their rights as an independent power by authorising some mining in the Coridan system… Then we move on to a “golden age” when many of the colonies are becoming full members, but are very aware of their shared values and history and have no problem with supporting the Federation’s goals and institutions. Finally, the system begins to break down. Earth’s informal leadership is disputed; the member worlds (including the founding members) find that their goals are diverging. Some (apparent) Federation colonies like New Sydney opt for complete independence, unwilling to allow “interference” in their relations with other worlds or their internal affairs.

Which is just about where we leave it, at least as far as live-action Star Trek is concerned. The Fleet is seriously weakened by a devastating war on two fronts with the Borg and the Dominion, while the political structures of the Federation struggle to cope with external and internal threats, leading to certain elements within Starfleet attempting to replace “failing” civilian institutions. Has the Federation struggled through to a moral rather than a practical victory in its parallel with World War II, ready for a final lurch into a humiliating Suez-type disaster? I’m guessing not, and that the rough analogy will only go so far.

So was Spock the first Vulcan in the fleet? No, I don’t think so. Is Starfleet mainly Human? That’s a matter of opinion. I think so based on the Starfleet officers we see, but maybe there are other units of Starfleet that have no Humans in them, and operate according to a completely different set of traditions. Apart from possibly the Intrepid we’ve never really heard about them, though. I would suggest that the evidence we have indicates that there were no sizable non-Human Starfleet formations either at the Battle of Wolf 359 or in the various known campaigns against the Dominion. Why not, if they exist?

Of course your opinion, and interpretation of the available evidence, is almost certainly completely different. I think that’s an important part of the entertainment I get from Star Trek.

Timon

 

[Timo]

Hipshot time:

And he thinks a whole planet of Nazis is a good idea?

Well, it obviously is, if you get to play Hitler, and there's nobody playing Stalin...

...Although Gill apparently neglected to make sure that nobody would play Bormann, either.

The episode is certainly written to be read one specific way, for the 1960s audiences and more importantly the censors. But it's easy to read it another way, too, and tempting to think that the writers indeed meant it that way. Gill never repents, Gill never regrets. If not for Melakon, he'd probably be living his dream as the absolute ruler of a backward planet.

It's this tempting weirdness lurking behind the facades of the episodes that makes TOS so intriguing, in comparison with much of TNG or DS9 or VOY. And it's these "dark side" interpretations that give the most mileage, because they add to the material; the "light side" interpretations would only be repeating the most obvious attitudes and themes of the episodes, the ones written with the censors in mind.

Some (apparent) Federation colonies like New Sydney opt for complete independence, unwilling to allow “interference” in their relations with other worlds or their internal affairs.

Apart from the name (which might be a deliberate reference to a colony of proudly criminal independents), is there anything apparently UFP about the colony? How is it more UFP-like than the equally anti-authoritarian Omicron Ceti or the strangely incommunicado Deneva?

New Sydney even had its own police force, something never witnessed in an explicit UFP context where Starfleet handles all known law enforcement tasks save for arresting those headed for Planet Genesis.

On the surface, "Progidal Daughter" gives us the archetypical DS9 viewpoint on the Federation: from the wild outside, via an outcast and a traitor to the cause. But it's one of an absence of UFP values, rather than of neglect or perversion thereof. It's a story told from outside the UFP context, with our heroine leaving even the modicum of Federation influence behind by flying away from her Starfleet boss.

I would suggest that the evidence we have indicates that there were no sizable non-Human Starfleet formations either at the Battle of Wolf 359 or in the various known campaigns against the Dominion.

But Wolf 359 only featured one starship of even partially known crew makeup, the Vulcan-commanded Saratoga. Apart from that, the only other known participant was Admiral Hanson. The percentage of known ships in the Dominion War is even lower.

At most we can say that there were no known ships painted in non-Human colors, if such exist. Certainly the Vulcan T'Kumbra didn't sport obvious non-Human markings, although her pennants were deliberately kept off the camera.

Of course your opinion, and interpretation of the available evidence, is almost certainly completely different. I think that’s an important part of the entertainment I get from Star Trek.

...Nowadays, with all the material already completed for us, and mostly also thoroughly ruminated by us, it's the only entertainment I get out of it.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

I can’t get too dogmatic about the Federation Council.

All of this, is nothing but a fun little bit of meaninglessness while waiting for the kettle to boil. I respect my fellow posters points of view, even while obviously not sharing all of them.

Some (apparent) Federation colonies like New Sydney opt for complete independence, unwilling to allow “interference” in their relations with other worlds or their internal affairs.

Apart from the name (which might be a deliberate reference to a colony of proudly criminal independents), is there anything apparently UFP about the colony?

The Sappora system has the same name as the fifth-largest city in Japan. FWIW.

Name one incident of the federation formally declaring war.

The Federation Council declared war upon the Klingon Empire in "Errand of Mercy."

Wrong, the Enterprise receives a communication from Starfleet Command indicating war. No mention of the federation, the federation council, or of a declared war. You're making a assumption there was a declaration. And that the federation has the ability to make declarations. And there this http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=113841&highlight=declaration

Name one person in that particular episode that had their "citizenship" removed by the federation.

The entire point of the end of "Journey's End" was that the Native American colonists who stayed on that world once it came under Cardassian jurisdiction would lose their Federation citizenship.

Wrong, the final scenes (in the observation lounge) between Picard and Anthwara makes clear that the colonists are "giving up"' their citizenship status to remain in the Cardassian union. And not having their citizenship, as you put it, terminated at the pleasure of the federation. There's no suggestion that the federation has this ability.

It was the Federation President who set Federation policy towards the Klingon Empire after the Praxis explosion in Star Trek VI.

But it was Vulcan that initiated the contact with the Klingon Empire, at the Vulcans behest (order or command)

No. There is no evidence that the Vulcan government initiated that dialogue.

Further, "behest" can also just mean request, not "order" or "command."

"Behest."

encyclopedia britannica dictionary (first definition) ... authoritative order, command
oxford dictionary (first definition) ........................... person's orders or command:
merriam-webster.com (first definition) .................. an authoritative order.
dictionary.com (first definition) ............................... a command or directive.

Spock was speaking at a formal briefing, one that include his CinC. Sci, you're trying to walk around the fact that Vulcan, a member of the federation, had it's Ambassador authoritatively order/command/direct the federation to carry out a command to do something. In this case communicate with a foreign power.

no more capacity to order him to than, say, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts gets to order the United States President ...

No, Massachusetts can not "behest" the President of the United States, that the point I'm making. Between the member Vulcan and the federation's governing body, there flowed a instruction that the federation had to obey.

Spock refers to Starfleet as having invested 122,200 credits in him in "The Apple," so, once again, false.

Wrong, Kirk cuts Spock off prior to any unit of currency being mentioned.

And since you're so keen on using computer screens, a computer screen created for TNG's "The Price" refers to the UFP as offering to pay Federation Credits for access to the Barzan Wormhole.

And you've referred to illegible Okudagrams as proving nothing.

My graphic had the advantage of being in the background of several promenade scenes. Yours (awww) only on screen once, and for mere moments. That said, both credits and separately federation credits are canon. And the presents of both currency units and the differences between how they're referred to has to be considered, perhaps at another time.

(and several nations use the term "dollars" for their currency)

international court at the Hague.

You are either monumentally ignorant ...

The international court of justice is what it is, a judicial system created through the charter of a multi-nation organization (somewhat like the federation). No, I'm not saying that it "exactly" the same as what was referred to on screen. But a interstellar organization, if it so choose to do so, could create a judicial system to serve it's needs. Including a body to determine the validity of potential cases.

And while the ICJ doesn't have grand juries per se, there is a process to determine what cases it won't handle.

It's the Federation Starfleet, and it's the Federation's military.

United Nations Charter. Article 43

All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

Now the original idea was that the United Nations Organization (not a government) would have it's own military. Thankfully, no UN member was stupid enough to actually negotiated the required agreements to empower article 43, and give the UN direct control over a military force.

However, this does show that such a arrangement is possible, with a multi-nation organization (like the federation). There's also a possible arrangement similar to the peacekeeping forces we see about the Earth today.

The NATO alliance had a defined territory it defended, it's member state's territories.

False. NATO does not have territory of its own. It is an intergovernmental organization, not a state. It has a legal obligation to help its Member States defend their sovereign[/b] territory, but it has no territory of its own.

Umm Sci, how isn't that exactly what I said?

It's called the United Federation of Planets, not the United Coalition of Planets or the United Alliance of Planets or United Customs Union of Planets.

Come on Sci, you know as well as the rest of us that the term "federation" doesn't refer just to a type of government, your example is a empty one. Federations include unions, businesses and social groups. United Federation of Planets just as easily translates into Joined Organization of Planets, or Combined Coalition of Planets.

and putting a smiley face at the end of legal nonsense and self-contradictory arguments doesn't make it right

I place a smiley face at the end of most of my posts. Not just here, but on other boards as well, and on my E-mails too.

 

[jimcat]

Hi Timo,

I hope I didn’t inadvertently offend anyone (which doesn’t mean I think I might have offended you) by dredging up the unhealthy approach to fascism in “Patterns of Force”, but it was the hidden subtext that first really leapt out at me, and it had the advantage that it couldn’t be seen as a comment on the positions of any of the other posters in the thread.

Unfortunately, I can only conclude that colonial policy and government in the Federation is as big a can of worms as the rest of UFP organisation. The colonies we see or hear mentioned can’t really be taken as typical in most cases. The problem of the needs of the plot complicate the picture still further: How exactly does the notorious Kodos the Executioner manage to take over a colony, kill half the population and then just wander off because only half-a-dozen people have ever seen his face?

Whilst I think claiming New Sydney was colonised from people of Earth ancestry is fairly safe, the degree of Federation involvement in the process is by no means clear, as you correctly say. In general, Starfleet does seem to have pretty wide-ranging powers over Federation colony worlds, and the whole issue of Federation citizens’ rights in colonial settlements was a big part of the set-up in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

The Federation is obviously enthusiastic about the creation of colonies, to the point of making some over-hasty decisions occasionally. There seems to be an established practice of abandonment with resettlement for unsuitable colonies, and Turkana might (although the devil is still in the lack of details) be an example of a colony world that repudiated the Federation and suffered the consequences.

Even the process of colony creation is fraught with problems, since it must be expensive, and yet The Federation Has No Money. It certainly doesn’t seem to support the sort of “chartered company” approach to colonial development that other science fiction writers like H. Beam Piper have suggested, and which certainly operated in British colonialism. Penal colonies exist (the living hell that is New Zealand!) but I doubt that’s the origin of all the colonies. Judging by “This Side of Paradise”, a group of like-minded individuals club together to get supplies and transport and the Federation assigns them a suitable (they think, probably) world and… that’s it? I’m not even in a position to know whether Elias Sandoval is the elected leader or was appointed as governor by the Federation, and trying to decide is where it all becomes a matter of opinion.

The Space Hippies do very well at rejecting Federation society, but they have no problem at all with the idea of establishing a colony. In fact, their main complaint seems to be that the Federation doesn’t support their attempt to claim and settle a world they’ve not even seen. “We reach” indeed.

My assertion about the lack of non-Human fleets in Starfleet operations where they wouldn’t be excluded might not be definitive (what is?) but I was basing my argument on the DS9 casualty reports (recognising their limitations) and fan attempts to identify the ships at the Battle of Wolf 359. Neither are absolute evidence, but surely it’s significant that the weekly lists, although the casualties always seem to be the same, expand later on to name Romulan and Klingon casualties, but don’t have sections for Vulcans or Tellarites?

Although this thread does seem to have slithered off-topic, in fact my original post was exactly about this. How does an interpretation become “fact”, to the point where it’s stated in the official sources and some reference works? Are there facts that we can establish, or just interpretations that we can try to get a bit of a consensus on? Oddly enough, I have the feeling that’s a matter of opinion too.

Timon

 

[T'Girl]

Well, it obviously is, if you get to play Hitler, and there's nobody playing Stalin.

Kirk apparently didn't pick up in class on how John Gill's lectures became more animated when he spoke on Fascism. Gill had a entire planets populace to play his social/political experiment with. He was going to show everyone that national socialism wasn't a failed concept.

And if nothing else, he might get a published paper out of it.

Gill never regrets. If not for Melakon, he'd probably be living his dream as the absolute ruler of a backward planet.

Kirk (quoting): "It is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven."

Whilst I think claiming New Sydney was colonised from people of Earth ancestry is fairly safe, the degree of Federation involvement in the process is by no means clear

A century prior to the events of Prodigal Daughter, it was shown that individual worlds very obviously had their own colonies, certainly Earth and Vulcan did. We could extrapolate that other members did as well (That's an assumption on my part). New Sydney seemed pretty well established, it could be a former (now independent) Human colony with other species coming later. Or a group effort, with Humans getting naming rights through being the principal partner.

The Voyager series indicated that Vulcan has a colony called Vulcanis Lunar Colony establish prior to the events of TOS. With Commander Tuvok being born in the year 2264 in the Vulcanis Lunar Colony. I've though of the possibility that the planet Vulcan might have a private colonizing company called Vulcanis. Or a group of Vulcans formed the company for the one time purpose of founding a single colony, something like what you find in Robert Heinlein's and David Weber's novels.

The Enterprise series showed Vulcan fighting the Andoria for a planet both wished to colonize.

The federation would seem to found colonies too, the process of releasing these colonies upon maturity is unclear, does the federation "push them out of the nest," or do they simply file paperwork with the colonial office?

Judging by “This Side of Paradise”, a group of like-minded individuals club together to get supplies and transport and the Federation assigns them a suitable (they think, probably) world and… that’s it?

Maybe it like the Pilgrims on the Mayflower, a group locates a sponsor, a likely planet is selected for colonization, hire a ship, hope you don't die on the trip.

 

[Timo]

Sorry to digress further, but a couple of minor points here:

He was going to show everyone that national socialism wasn't a failed concept.

He didn't appear too eager to advertise his success. He would have had plenty of opportunity before Kirk arrived, I think. After all, Starfleet had been trying to contact him for "six months", and Melakon had deposed him "years" ago, indicating his Nazi setup was in place and presentable well before anybody asked him about it.

As for success, he'd only have to make sure that his version of the thousand-year Reich would be good for fifty years - the time he had to enjoy it.

He could probably have gotten off with sending his Earth superiors false reports for at least a couple of years... But there might have been practical problems with lying to Starfleet for fifty. What does Starfleet do to those who decide to become gods? In "Patterns of Force", the problem erases itself when Gill's rule collapses. In "Bread and Circuses", our heroes insist that Merikus "must be taken away and punished", but are powerless to achieve that goal exactly because Merrick has carved a nice niche for himself. The pseudo-Rome stays. And apparently, the Nazi Planet stays as it was, too. Playing god obviously is a winning move as long as you watch your back...

New Sydney seemed pretty well established, it could be a former (now independent) Human colony with other species coming later.

Why "human" colony? All we ever saw was Trills (both spotted and bumpy-headed), plus the definite and explicitly offworld minority of O'Brien.

That the name of the place sounded like "New Sydney" might be an utter coincidence, I guess. Or a coincidence made more interesting by the ever-playful UT, or perhaps the ever-playful UFP Naming Committee for New Things. Precedent exists in the form of the Space Jew Planet ("Zion"), the Cave-Dwelling Aliens ("Troglytes"), the Pick-Your-Shape Species ("Vendorians"), and indeed things like "Vulcan".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

Why "human" colony?

Based solely on the Australian name for the planet, and the Japanese name for the star system.

But, yes the UT could have come into play there.

Some thoughts on T'Pau, the line of dialog makes it sound (to me) like the seat on the council was already her's. Not that she declined to run for the position.
Or an attempt was made to nominate / draft her at the convention but she demurred.
Or the Grand Poobah of the Vulcan government had her on the short list.

More like (again) the position was her's and at the last minute she refused to be sworn in.