Ben Sisko post-Unity. SPOILERS PLEASE.

[Sci]

How can Sarek be Vulcan's ambassador to Earth if they're both in the Federation?

Canonically -- at least in the Prime Universe -- I don't think Sarek was ever actually identified as being the Ambassador of Vulcan to Earth. He was just referred to as "the Vulcan Ambassador," which can mean a lot of things.

He is referred to as the Vulcan Ambassador to Earth in ST09, but I question whether that applies to the Primeverse.

Even if it does, however, Federation Member States exchanging ambassadors with one-another is still different from the Federation having ambassadors to its own members. It may have been a case of institutional inertia -- Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri had all had ambassadors to one-another before the Federation, and the positions simply continued under Federation jurisdiction. But the idea that the Federation itself would send ambassadors to its Members just doesn't make sense; ambassadors are exchanged between equals, not from the higher legal authority to the lower legal authority. Nor would there be a need for a Member ambassador to the UFP, since representing the Member to the UFP is what a Federation Councillor does.

It's pretty clear that the political organization of the UFP is not exactly analogous to the United States, and that member worlds can send ambassadors to the Federation Council, or vice versa.

The UFP may not be exactly analogous to the U.S., but neither would it be something that fundamentally violates the definition of the term "ambassador." You'd don't send ambassadors to your own political subdivisions. You don't send ambassadors to organizations that legally have to do what you tell them to do.

And we've never seen a Federation Member State send an ambassador to the Federation that we know of canonically (and let's not confuse an ambassador to the state with an ambassador to its legislature).

But you're right that Starfleet would have no authority over civilian governmental decisions like ambassadorial appointments. I think fans sometimes forget that Starfleet isn't the Federation government, it just works for it.

Which I always find disturbing. The idea that Starfleet could tell the Federation to do is a bit like the ultimate victory of the military-industrial complex over civil society.

 

[Christopher]

Canonically -- at least in the Prime Universe -- I don't think Sarek was ever actually identified as being the Ambassador of Vulcan to Earth. He was just referred to as "the Vulcan Ambassador," which can mean a lot of things.

He is referred to as the Vulcan Ambassador to Earth in ST09, but I question whether that applies to the Primeverse.

ST '09 is part of the canon. Everything it establishes about the universe prior to 2233 would be true in the Prime timeline as well. Spock was born in either 2230 or 2232, depending on which source you consult. Therefore, Sarek married Amanda before the timeline divergence. Sarek claimed that he married Amanda because as Vulcan's ambassador to Earth, he had an obligation to understand humans. Therefore, he was Vulcan's ambassador to Earth before 2233; therefore, that is true in both timelines.

But the idea that the Federation itself would send ambassadors to its Members just doesn't make sense; ambassadors are exchanged between equals, not from the higher legal authority to the lower legal authority.

If you define the word "ambassador" the same way we define it in the present day. Words can change meaning over time, especially when multicultural interplay is involved. The Federation's definition of the term "ambassador" may be a hybrid of different civilizations' usages of the term, rather than having exactly the same meaning used by 21st-century English speakers on Earth.

Nor would there be a need for a Member ambassador to the UFP, since representing the Member to the UFP is what a Federation Councillor does.

Some works, such as The Voyage Home and Articles of the Federation, have seemed to imply that the Federation Council is made up of "ambassadors." It's possible that "ambassador" is the title used in the Federation for members of the Council, as a holdover from the early days when the member worlds were more independent and sent ambassadors as delegates for the Coalition of Planets (as seen in "Demons"/"Terra Prime" and The Kobayashi Maru).

The UFP may not be exactly analogous to the U.S., but neither would it be something that fundamentally violates the definition of the term "ambassador."

Words change over time and across cultures. No definition is fundamental or inviolable. "Ambassador" itself is an example. It's derived from the Latin ambactus, which means a servant or vassal. That's kind of the opposite of its modern sense of a diplomatic representative of the highest rank.

 

[Sci]

Canonically -- at least in the Prime Universe -- I don't think Sarek was ever actually identified as being the Ambassador of Vulcan to Earth. He was just referred to as "the Vulcan Ambassador," which can mean a lot of things.

He is referred to as the Vulcan Ambassador to Earth in ST09, but I question whether that applies to the Primeverse.

ST '09 is part of the canon. Everything it establishes about the universe prior to 2233 would be true in the Prime timeline as well. Spock was born in either 2230 or 2232, depending on which source you consult. Therefore, Sarek married Amanda before the timeline divergence. Sarek claimed that he married Amanda because as Vulcan's ambassador to Earth, he had an obligation to understand humans. Therefore, he was Vulcan's ambassador to Earth before 2233; therefore, that is true in both timelines.

Fair enough, but I still contend that Federation Members exchanging ambassadors amongst themselves makes much more sense than the Federation itself sending ambassadors to its Members.

But the idea that the Federation itself would send ambassadors to its Members just doesn't make sense; ambassadors are exchanged between equals, not from the higher legal authority to the lower legal authority.

If you define the word "ambassador" the same way we define it in the present day. Words can change meaning over time, especially when multicultural interplay is involved. The Federation's definition of the term "ambassador" may be a hybrid of different civilizations' usages of the term, rather than having exactly the same meaning used by 21st-century English speakers on Earth.

At which point, you still have to ask the question: What, exactly, would be the point of sending a single representative of the Federation government to its own Member governments? There isn't a single federation in the world that I am aware of that does this today, because even when a province/state is distant from the federal government, there's generally no need -- and if the federal government tried to create the position of a single representative to a province/state, it would probably be seen as an attempt to gain more control over the provincial government than federalism allows for.

Nor would there be a need for a Member ambassador to the UFP, since representing the Member to the UFP is what a Federation Councillor does.

Some works, such as The Voyage Home and Articles of the Federation, have seemed to imply that the Federation Council is made up of "ambassadors."

I haven't read the Voyage Home novelization, but Articles of the Federation implies no such thing. Members of the Federation Council are consistently referred to as Councillors, not Ambassadors, in that novel.

It's possible that "ambassador" is the title used in the Federation for members of the Council, as a holdover from the early days when the member worlds were more independent and sent ambassadors as delegates for the Coalition of Planets (as seen in "Demons"/"Terra Prime" and The Kobayashi Maru).

If that's the case, I would suggest that "Ambassador" is far more likely to have been the title given to Federation Council members in the 22nd and 23rd Centuries than to Council members in the 24th. Council members in the 24th Century novels have been consistently referred to by the title of Councillor.

The UFP may not be exactly analogous to the U.S., but neither would it be something that fundamentally violates the definition of the term "ambassador."

Words change over time and across cultures. No definition is fundamental or inviolable. "Ambassador" itself is an example. It's derived from the Latin ambactus, which means a servant or vassal. That's kind of the opposite of its modern sense of a diplomatic representative of the highest rank.

Actually, it's still quite appropriate. In international law, an ambassador is considered to be the representative of one head of state -- not of the state itself, but of the head of state -- to another. (That's also why the permanent diplomatic representatives of Commonwealth realms, who all have a single person simultaneously serving as their individual heads of state, are not called ambassadors; Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom, cannot legally send an ambassador to represent herself to Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. Instead, the equivalent position for Commonwealth realms is "High Commissioner.")

Further, an ambassador has to represent that head of state's policies and cannot in general formulate policy by him/herself. In a very real sense, then, an ambassador is still a servant of the head of state for whom he or she works.

 

[Christopher]

Fair enough, but I still contend that Federation Members exchanging ambassadors amongst themselves makes much more sense than the Federation itself sending ambassadors to its Members.

I don't think there's any evidence of that happening, and I'm not attempting to refute the point that a "Federation ambassador to Bajor" is unlikely now that it's a member. I was addressing the reverse question of whether the member worlds would have ambassadors representing their worlds to the Federation at large, for which I believe there is evidence.

I haven't read the Voyage Home novelization, but Articles of the Federation implies no such thing. Members of the Federation Council are consistently referred to as Councillors, not Ambassadors, in that novel.

I was referring to the film itself, not the novel. And specifically to the way AotF's description of Federation Council protocol implicitly related to what we were shown in TVH about Sarek's debate with the Klingon ambassador. Maybe I'm reading into it, though.

Further, an ambassador has to represent that head of state's policies and cannot in general formulate policy by him/herself. In a very real sense, then, an ambassador is still a servant of the head of state for whom he or she works.

But not a vassal, surely. And I only chose that example for its immediacy. Plenty of other words and titles have undergone far more radical change in meaning over the centuries.

 

[Sci]

Fair enough, but I still contend that Federation Members exchanging ambassadors amongst themselves makes much more sense than the Federation itself sending ambassadors to its Members.

I don't think there's any evidence of that happening,

Well, if we accept ST09's information about Sarek as applicable to the Primeverse, then we have direct evidence of Federation Members exchanging ambassadors amongst themselves: Sarek describes himself as Vulcan Ambassador to Earth. Vulcan and Earth about Federation Members; ergo, we have evidence of that happening.

and I'm not attempting to refute the point that a "Federation ambassador to Bajor" is unlikely now that it's a member. I was addressing the reverse question of whether the member worlds would have ambassadors representing their worlds to the Federation at large, for which I believe there is evidence.

There really isn't. We've seen ambassadors amongst Federation Members (Sarek), but never ambassadors from Members to the Federation itself.

I haven't read the Voyage Home novelization, but Articles of the Federation implies no such thing. Members of the Federation Council are consistently referred to as Councillors, not Ambassadors, in that novel.

I was referring to the film itself, not the novel.

The film itself never mentions Federation Council members' titles.

And specifically to the way AotF's description of Federation Council protocol implicitly related to what we were shown in TVH about Sarek's debate with the Klingon ambassador. Maybe I'm reading into it, though.

I would argue that you are. AotF describes the Federation Council as allowing relevant political stakeholders to speak before the Council on the Council Floor, but it does not establish that only ambassadors to the Federation may do so. By contrast, Articles of the Federation, as well as Trill: Unjoined and A Singular Destiny, make it clear that anyone, from a Councillor, to a Federation ambassador, to a foreign ambassador, to a Starfleet officer, to a civilian, may hold the floor with permission from the President.

Further, an ambassador has to represent that head of state's policies and cannot in general formulate policy by him/herself. In a very real sense, then, an ambassador is still a servant of the head of state for whom he or she works.

But not a vassal, surely. And I only chose that example for its immediacy. Plenty of other words and titles have undergone far more radical change in meaning over the centuries.

Sure. But my point was that the role of an ambassador hasn't changed quite enough for the original meaning to be inapplicable, either.

 

[Christopher]

Well, if we accept ST09's information about Sarek as applicable to the Primeverse, then we have direct evidence of Federation Members exchanging ambassadors amongst themselves: Sarek describes himself as Vulcan Ambassador to Earth. Vulcan and Earth about Federation Members; ergo, we have evidence of that happening.

I though that we were treating an ambassador from one Federation world to another as a separate category from an ambassador from the Federation itself to a member world.

There really isn't. We've seen ambassadors amongst Federation Members (Sarek), but never ambassadors from Members to the Federation itself.

Not directly, but we've seen ambassadors representing their worlds at Federation-wide events like the Babel Conferences. Assuming it's the Federation government holding the conference, it seems to be in the ballpark.

The film itself never mentions Federation Council members' titles.

Yes, I know that. I'm not talking about anything explicitly stated in the film. I'm talking about my interpretation of what Articles of the Federation seemed to be implicitly suggesting about what we saw in the movie by the way it described similar debate processes among Council members in the book.

I would argue that you are. AotF describes the Federation Council as allowing relevant political stakeholders to speak before the Council on the Council Floor, but it does not establish that only ambassadors to the Federation may do so.

I never at any point implied that it said "only" ambassadors could speak. That wasn't my premise at all. However, you make a good case that I probably misinterpreted some things.

 

[Thestral]

Well, if we accept ST09's information about Sarek as applicable to the Primeverse, then we have direct evidence of Federation Members exchanging ambassadors amongst themselves: Sarek describes himself as Vulcan Ambassador to Earth. Vulcan and Earth about Federation Members; ergo, we have evidence of that happening.

There really isn't. We've seen ambassadors amongst Federation Members (Sarek), but never ambassadors from Members to the Federation itself.

Well, we have seen ambassadors from the Federation itself to the Members, however. "In a Mirror Darkly" tells us that our-universe Jonathan Archer was Federation ambassador to Andoria in 2169.

It stands to reason that the reverse (an Andorian Ambassador to the Federation) would also be present.

ETA: and the Ambassadors from "The Forsaken" are unclear. Memory Alpha reports two of them as being ambassadors to the UFP (Arbanzan and Vulcan specifically), and one of them (Bolian) as being an ambassador of the UFP.

 

[Sci]

Well, if we accept ST09's information about Sarek as applicable to the Primeverse, then we have direct evidence of Federation Members exchanging ambassadors amongst themselves: Sarek describes himself as Vulcan Ambassador to Earth. Vulcan and Earth about Federation Members; ergo, we have evidence of that happening.

I though that we were treating an ambassador from one Federation world to another as a separate category from an ambassador from the Federation itself to a member world.

We were, but I misunderstood what you were saying. When you said, "I don't think there's any evidence of that happening," I thought that the "that" in your sentence referred to the exchange of ambassadors between Federation Members. Sorry for that misunderstanding!

There really isn't. We've seen ambassadors amongst Federation Members (Sarek), but never ambassadors from Members to the Federation itself.

Not directly, but we've seen ambassadors representing their worlds at Federation-wide events like the Babel Conferences. Assuming it's the Federation government holding the conference, it seems to be in the ballpark.

I hesitate to take anything in "Journey to Babel" was evidence of how the Federation normally operates. "Journey to Babel" makes it clear that the situation is highly unusual, and that the Federation is on the verge of a civil war over the issue of admitting Coridan to the UFP.

We know that the Federation called upon its Members to send ambassadorial delegations to Babel to determine the issue, and we know that the ambassadors will obey the instructions of their Member governments (which is one of the difference, btw, between a federal legislator and an ambassador -- legislators don't answer to their provincial or state governments, but instead to their own voters, who simply happen to be the same constituents as the provincial governments, because they are representatives of the people of the province, not of the province itself). But the implication seems to be that calling that conference was a very unusual situation (Sarek even being called out of retirement for it), and not par for course for the Federation.

The film itself never mentions Federation Council members' titles.

Yes, I know that. I'm not talking about anything explicitly stated in the film. I'm talking about my interpretation of what Articles of the Federation seemed to be implicitly suggesting about what we saw in the movie by the way it described similar debate processes among Council members in the book.

I'm not sure I understand why you interpreted Articles as implying anything about the titles of the Council members in Voyage Home. I had inferred that it might have been that you interpreted seeing two ambassadors debate in Voyage Home as implying that Council members debating on the floor in Articles were titled as ambassadors as well, but you indicated later that that was an erroneous inference of your interpretation.

Edited to add:

There really isn't. We've seen ambassadors amongst Federation Members (Sarek), but never ambassadors from Members to the Federation itself.

Well, we have seen ambassadors from the Federation itself to the Members, however. "In a Mirror Darkly" tells us that our-universe Jonathan Archer was Federation ambassador to Andoria in 2169.

Actually, "In A Mirror, Darkly" only calls him "Ambassador to Andoria." It never states whose Ambassador to Andoria he was. It's more than possible that he was serving as United Earth Ambassador to the Andorian Empire, for instance.

And, frankly, I'm reluctant to accept a barely-legible piece of info on a computer screen as being canonically binding, especially when the thing it establishes defies logic. Why would the Federation need an ambassador to its own political subdivisions? Australia doesn't send an ambassador to New South Wales.

It stands to reason that the reverse (an Andorian Ambassador to the Federation) would also be present.

Not really. What would be the point of having an Andorian Ambassador to the Federation when you already have the Federation Councillor from the Andorian Empire? It would be like the Province of Quebec sending an ambassador to Canada.

ETA: and the Ambassadors from "The Forsaken" are unclear. Memory Alpha reports two of them as being ambassadors to the UFP (Arbanzan and Vulcan specifically), and one of them (Bolian) as being an ambassador of the UFP.

The script for "The Forsaken" only refers to them as "a delegation of Federation ambassadors on a "fact-finding" mission to the wormhole." A quick search of the script reveals no elaboration upon them as being ambassadors of Federation Members rather than the Federation itself; they're merely referred to as "ambassadors" in the rest of the script except for one instance, when they are again referred to as "Federation Ambassadors."

 

[Thestral]

Actually, "In A Mirror, Darkly" only calls him "Ambassador to Andoria." It never states whose Ambassador to Andoria he was. It's more than possible that he was serving as United Earth Ambassador to the Andorian Empire, for instance.

Based on the rest of the file "Former assignments" list, which entirely deals with Starfleet and UFP assignments aside from commanding Enterprise and that the file is Federation Starfleet, it makes much more sense to assume that he was Federation Ambassador than UE Ambassador.

And, frankly, I'm reluctant to accept a barely-legible piece of info on a computer screen as being canonically binding, especially when the thing it establishes defies logic. Why would the Federation need an ambassador to its own political subdivisions? Australia doesn't send an ambassador to New South Wales.

Not really. What would be the point of having an Andorian Ambassador to the Federation when you already have the Federation Councillor from the Andorian Empire? It would be like the Province of Quebec sending an ambassador to Canada.

The representatives to the United Nations are known as Ambassadors, and there doesn't seem to be any problem with member states of the UN sending Ambassadors to their larger body. Even if the UN began to have more teeth, I can't imagine that we'd have any need to change the title of the Ambassador to the UN. Indeed, based on the UFP logo it makes a lot of sense that it was inspired, even in-universe, by the real-world UN. That could be one reason for the point, that Councillor and Ambassador are interchangable, or perhaps the one replaced the other as the commonly accepted terminology.

It could be that the ties between the Federation and its member states is structured differently than anything we have here on Earth (sensible), such that Ambassadors from the Federation to its political subdivisions are important and useful. It doesn't "defy logic" that a large loosely-federal state send ambassadors to its political subdivisions, it's just not something we see in the present day here on earth because of the way we've structured things.

The script for "The Forsaken" only refers to them as "a delegation of Federation ambassadors on a "fact-finding" mission to the wormhole." A quick search of the script reveals no elaboration upon them as being ambassadors of Federation Members rather than the Federation itself; they're merely referred to as "ambassadors" in the rest of the script except for one instance, when they are again referred to as "Federation Ambassadors."

Ahh. Scripts. Would that I had access to them instead of MA. Thanks for the correction though.

 

[Sci]

Actually, "In A Mirror, Darkly" only calls him "Ambassador to Andoria." It never states whose Ambassador to Andoria he was. It's more than possible that he was serving as United Earth Ambassador to the Andorian Empire, for instance.

Based on the rest of the file "Former assignments" list, which entirely deals with Starfleet and UFP assignments aside from commanding Enterprise and that the file is Federation Starfleet, it makes much more sense to assume that he was Federation Ambassador than UE Ambassador.

I wouldn't feel comfortable assuming anything -- not even that the information is canonically binding.

And, frankly, I'm reluctant to accept a barely-legible piece of info on a computer screen as being canonically binding, especially when the thing it establishes defies logic. Why would the Federation need an ambassador to its own political subdivisions? Australia doesn't send an ambassador to New South Wales.

Not really. What would be the point of having an Andorian Ambassador to the Federation when you already have the Federation Councillor from the Andorian Empire? It would be like the Province of Quebec sending an ambassador to Canada.

The representatives to the United Nations are known as Ambassadors,

The United Nations is not a government; the Federation is. The U.N. is an intergovernmental agency, and has no sovereignty of its own.

And besides the point, "U.N. Ambassador" is an informal title. The formal title is, "Permanent Representative of Suchandsuch to the United Nations."

and there doesn't seem to be any problem with member states of the UN sending Ambassadors to their larger body. Even if the UN began to have more teeth, I can't imagine that we'd have any need to change the title of the Ambassador to the UN.

If the UN became an out and out state, of course we would. An ambassador is a representative of a head of state to another head of state. If the UN becomes a state and the General Assembly a legislature, its members won't be representing their home states anymore, but will be representing the people of those states. Just like John McCain does not represent the government of the State of Arizona to the U.S. Senate, but rather the people of the State of Arizona. That's the legal distinction -- an ambassador represents a government, not the people that that government represents.

It could be that the ties between the Federation and its member states is structured differently than anything we have here on Earth (sensible), such that Ambassadors from the Federation to its political subdivisions are important and useful.

Again, what would be the point? Those worlds would already have their own governments, and would already be legally obligated to obey Federation law or be kicked out. A federation is supposed to be just that -- a federation, a government that shares power with its local governments. It's not supposed to be a government that sends one agent to its political subdivisions, and doing so would open the door to a power grab.

The script for "The Forsaken" only refers to them as "a delegation of Federation ambassadors on a "fact-finding" mission to the wormhole." A quick search of the script reveals no elaboration upon them as being ambassadors of Federation Members rather than the Federation itself; they're merely referred to as "ambassadors" in the rest of the script except for one instance, when they are again referred to as "Federation Ambassadors."

Ahh. Scripts. Would that I had access to them instead of MA. Thanks for the correction though.

You do have access to them! Behold, Star Trek Minutiae's Script Archive.

 

[Christopher]

I hesitate to take anything in "Journey to Babel" was evidence of how the Federation normally operates. "Journey to Babel" makes it clear that the situation is highly unusual, and that the Federation is on the verge of a civil war over the issue of admitting Coridan to the UFP.

We know that the Federation called upon its Members to send ambassadorial delegations to Babel to determine the issue, and we know that the ambassadors will obey the instructions of their Member governments (which is one of the difference, btw, between a federal legislator and an ambassador -- legislators don't answer to their provincial or state governments, but instead to their own voters, who simply happen to be the same constituents as the provincial governments, because they are representatives of the people of the province, not of the province itself). But the implication seems to be that calling that conference was a very unusual situation (Sarek even being called out of retirement for it), and not par for course for the Federation.

Hm. This must be based on extracanonical sources and conventional fan wisdom, but I've always had the opposite impression, that Babel conferences were held for any matter of great import for the Federation. ENT somewhat reinforced this idea in "Babel One," with Babel being the intended site of a Tellarite-Andorian summit 114 years before "Journey to Babel." I've always parsed the title "Babel One" to mean that it was depicting the first of multiple uses of Babel as a conference planet.

(By the way, I just checked the transcript of "Journey" to see what was actually said about Babel, and was surprised to discover that the word "Babel" was only spoken four times in the entire episode.)

I'm not sure I understand why you interpreted Articles as implying anything about the titles of the Council members in Voyage Home.

When did I say anything about the titles? What I mean is that I interpreted it to be suggesting that Ambassador Sarek was a member of the Council at the time. At least, I recall reading something that gave me that impression.

But can we drop it now? I've conceded that I was probably in error about my reading of AotF, and it's pointless to nitpick the remaining semantic quibbles.

And, frankly, I'm reluctant to accept a barely-legible piece of info on a computer screen as being canonically binding, especially when the thing it establishes defies logic. Why would the Federation need an ambassador to its own political subdivisions? Australia doesn't send an ambassador to New South Wales.

Logic is only as good as the premises it's based on, and you insist on a fundamentally ludicrous premise: that the way human beings in the 21st century practice politics and diplomacy is the only possible way it can ever be practiced in any place or time in the universe. There's no reason why a future human society, let alone an alien society, let alone an alliance of multiple alien societies, couldn't develop a definition of the role and duties of an ambassador that differs substantially from our current definition of the role. We've never encountered aliens, never learned how they organize their cultures, never attempted an interplanetary, interspecies government. We have no way of knowing what form it might take, and it's downright ridiculous to assume it would have to be limited to the strict definitions and categories we use on Earth today.

The representatives to the United Nations are known as Ambassadors, and there doesn't seem to be any problem with member states of the UN sending Ambassadors to their larger body. Even if the UN began to have more teeth, I can't imagine that we'd have any need to change the title of the Ambassador to the UN. Indeed, based on the UFP logo it makes a lot of sense that it was inspired, even in-universe, by the real-world UN.

Excellent point.

 

[Sci]

I'm not sure I understand why you interpreted Articles as implying anything about the titles of the Council members in Voyage Home.

When did I say anything about the titles? What I mean is that I interpreted it to be suggesting that Ambassador Sarek was a member of the Council at the time.

Okay, that's all I was trying to understand.

But can we drop it now? I've conceded that I was probably in error about my reading of AotF, and it's pointless to nitpick the remaining semantic quibbles.

I wasn't trying to nitpick; I just honestly didn't understand where you were coming from or what you were trying to say.

And, frankly, I'm reluctant to accept a barely-legible piece of info on a computer screen as being canonically binding, especially when the thing it establishes defies logic. Why would the Federation need an ambassador to its own political subdivisions? Australia doesn't send an ambassador to New South Wales.

Logic is only as good as the premises it's based on, and you insist on a fundamentally ludicrous premise: that the way human beings in the 21st century practice politics and diplomacy is the only possible way it can ever be practiced in any place or time in the universe. There's no reason why a future human society, let alone an alien society, let alone an alliance of multiple alien societies, couldn't develop a definition of the role and duties of an ambassador that differs substantially from our current definition of the role. We've never encountered aliens, never learned how they organize their cultures, never attempted an interplanetary, interspecies government. We have no way of knowing what form it might take, and it's downright ridiculous to assume it would have to be limited to the strict definitions and categories we use on Earth today.

Which is all well and good, except that we've never seen the Federation or its Members to have governments that operate fundamentally differently from our own. The closet we come to are vague references to ambassadors exchanged between Federation Members and one ambiguous reference to an ambassador to Andoria whose canonical status is questionable.

 

[cml898]

I love that site with the scripts for all of TNG and DS9. I've had links to that in my favorites for 5 years or so.

 

[Christopher]

Which is all well and good, except that we've never seen the Federation or its Members to have governments that operate fundamentally differently from our own.

No, we haven't seen it, but that's not remotely the same as saying that it "defies logic" even to suggest the possibility. You're going way beyond the pale when you dismiss even the hypothetical possibility in such absolutist terms.