Did the Prime Directive Matter?

[Shikarnov]

I don't see that the Prime Directive in TOS is different than in TNG and onward. I think Captain Kirk probably got caught in more "corrections" than we saw in TNG, but I can think of few outright violations of the principal -- excepting when the Enterprise crew was pulled into a conflict against their will, like in A Taste of Armageddon.

I'll grant that TNG seemed more than a little pretentious about such things, but TOS had its moments too. All things considered, though, I'd much rather listen to Picard lecture Crusher about the correctness of the Prime Directive than sit through Kirk reading the US Constitution as if he was a Southern Baptist preacher reading the Bible.

On topic, did DS9 ignore the Prime Directive? In some cases, yeah. In the Pale Moonlight is probably one of the more glaring examples; but it's one that I think the writers handled well enough. Maybe the Prime Directive wasn't mentioned specifically, but I think Sisko wasn't at all callous about his involvement in a conspiracy to commit individual murder or to manipulate events in a way that would certainly result in thousands -- if not millions -- more deaths.

I disagree with the OP's assertion that For the Uniform was a Prime Directive violation. The Maquis were not some kind of external power, but rather an unrecognized separatist faction of the Federation. Poisoning the atmosphere of Solosos III might have been an environmentally dubious choice -- and certainly a shocking one for a morally righteous Starfleet captain to make -- but I don't think it runs afoul of the Prime Directive at all.

 

[kkt]

We don't really know what the Prime Directive says. It's pretty clear about noninterference with pre-Warp civilizations, even in ways that are intended to be helpful, but non-Federation spacefaring civilizations, I have no idea. In all the series, the Federation has been helpful to various worlds that are suffering famine or plague, and they're not all Federation planets. Various Enterprise captains have promised Federation aid for newly encountered civilizations to help solve their problems (especially if they have some hold on the Enterprise and the captain wants them to let them go).

 

[TwoJakes]

If I remember correctly the Enterprise D couldn't directly interfere in the Klingon civil war due to the prime directive.

I recall that it was owing to the Klingon Empire being a sovereign entity, interferring would not be covered by a treaty, and the prime directive had nothing to do with it.

 

[Leviathan]

Does it apply in wartime?

 

[BillJ]

Does it apply in wartime?

I guess it would depend. I imagine it would be suspended against your enemy, since the whole point of war is to destabilize them enough to win.

 

[Paradise City]

Something in the Federation Charter is mentioned in the Romulan-Section 34 DS9 episode as the reason they aren't allowed to meddle in Romulan internal affairs. I presume it applies in Redemption too.

 

[Shikarnov]

I recall that it was owing to the Klingon Empire being a sovereign entity, interferring would not be covered by a treaty, and the prime directive had nothing to do with it.

My recollection was that the Prime Directive was very much a part of their decision. Picard lectures Worf on it; Admiral Shanthi expresses concerns about Picard's reasoning in planning the blockade. I checked the script on st-minutiae (Part I and Part II) and while the words "Prime Directive" are not specifically spoken, there's quite a bit about non-interference with internal affairs -- all components of the Prime Directive as we've come to know it.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

My recollection was that the Prime Directive was very much a part of their decision. Picard lectures Worf on it; Admiral Shanthi expresses concerns about Picard's reasoning in planning the blockade. I checked the script on st-minutiae (Part I and Part II) and while the words "Prime Directive" are not specifically spoken, there's quite a bit about non-interference with internal affairs -- all components of the Prime Directive as we've come to know it.

There's no reason to assume that the words 'non-interference' automatically must refer to the Prime Directive. Societies do occasionally have multiple laws and regulations based on similar principles.

 

[Shikarnov]

I suppose that's true @grendelsbayne , but it seems a little strange to me.

In the United States, for example, the first amendment to our constitution guarantees, among other things, freedom of speech. And while there are, I'm sure, countless laws and precedents that reinforce, expand upon, or somehow regulate that freedom (such as prohibitions of threatening language, slander, or incitement to violence), when we discuss freedom of speech or expression, invariably it's in reference to that amendment and not to some obscure bit from the bowels of our legal code.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I suppose that's true @grendelsbayne , but it seems a little strange to me.

In the United States, for example, the first amendment to our constitution guarantees, among other things, freedom of speech. And while there are, I'm sure, countless laws and precedents that reinforce, expand upon, or somehow regulate that freedom (such as prohibitions of threatening language, slander, or incitement to violence), when we discuss freedom of speech or expression, invariably it's in reference to that amendment and not to some obscure bit from the bowels of our legal code.

That's true of you, but probably not of lawyers who specialize in those particular areas of obscure legal code. Starfleet officers aren't Joe Q. Public, they're the professionals specifically responsible for enforcing these codes, so they would certainly discuss even relatively obscure regulations far more often than people might expect.

 

[Paradise City]

The Federation Charter is the instrument that counsels non-interference with others powers internal affairs. It's a political thing. The Federation likes to imagine itself as this galactic institution that encourages peace and discovery in the galaxy and it refuses to arrange itself into military blocs with external powers. It takes a non-aligned posture (unless there's some galactic threat like the Borg or the Dominion but those are exceptional circumstances) I don't think the Klingons-Federation alliance entails a binding defence provision particularly given how trigger happy the Klingons are about going to war.

The Prime Directive is more an ecological thing. It's got to do with non-interference with cultures at a lower stage of technological development. i.e not giving a primitive culture phasers or even revealing oneself. It harks back to bad memories of European colonists colonising the Americas with disastrous consequences for the inhabitants. So it's very much an ethos of let them go through the pain of development until they are ready. That kind of thing.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

The Federation Charter is the instrument that counsels non-interference with others powers internal affairs. It's a political thing. The Federation likes to imagine itself as this galactic institution that encourages peace and discovery in the galaxy and it arrange itself into military pacts with external powers. It takes a non-aligned posture (unless there's some galactic threat like the Borg or the Dominion but those are exceptional circumstances) I don't think the Klingons-Federation alliance entails a binding defence provision particularly given how trigger happy the Klingons are about going to war.

The Prime Directive is more an ecological thing. It's got to do with not interference with cultures of a lower stages of technological development. i.e not giving a primitive culture phasers or even revealing oneself. It harks back to bad memories of European colonists visiting Americas with disastrous consequences for the inhabitants. So it's very much let them go through the pain of development until they are ready. That kind of thing.

Whether or not the regulations against interference are part of the Prime Directive, both would appear to be part of the same principles of governance and foreign relations. I think that the American constitution has no right to vote, yet many aspects of law references it as if it were written in. It could simply be that the implementation of the Prime Directive gave force to broader changes in how the Federation governed and administered territories under its control and dealt with its own expansion.

Does it apply in wartime?

This is an excellent point. Whatever the codes governing interference are, they could perhaps be abridged during wartime. Would the Federation's laws have prevented aiding any dissenters or insurgency movement? They don't obviously leave Damar out to dry.
My bigger question concerns Sisko as Emissary. Challening Akorem, telling the Bajorans not to join out of religious motivations, telling them to sign an agreement with the Dominion for both political reasons and religious reasons, siding with the Prophets against the Pah Wraiths and prevent the Kai from forming an alliance all seem to fall outside the principles of non-interference, if not the Prime Directive.

 

[Paradise City]

I think if the Federation goes to war against a particular power then the injunctions against non-interventionism are waived. You wouldn't be able to conduct a war otherwise. The problems start though if there's an innocent third party caught in the crossfire. You're mandated to keep a hands off approach, the adversary might not be bound by the same scruples.

 

[TwoJakes]

You're mandated to keep a hands off approach, the adversary might not be bound by the same scruples

During war (all's fair) that mandate gets suspended. In Errand of Mercy, Kirk openly approached the leaders of a (supposed) primative culture and attempted a alliance, dangling knowledge and support as enticements.

 

[SoTrill]

Nah, it doesn't really matter by the next episode. I always that it was funny how at the end of "Justice" in TNG, S1, Picard violates the Prime Directive to save Wesley, and all we get was him looking all emo right before the credits role. No court martial. Not even a stern lecture from an Admiral.

 

[BillJ]

Nah, it doesn't really matter by the next episode. I always that it was funny how at the end of "Justice" in TNG, S1, Picard violates the Prime Directive to save Wesley, and all we get was him looking all emo right before the credits role. No court martial. Not even a stern lecture from an Admiral.

With 47 subsections, you'd have to be a pretty dense Captain to not find a loophole for any given violation.

 

[Jedman67]

Nah, it doesn't really matter by the next episode. I always that it was funny how at the end of "Justice" in TNG, S1, Picard violates the Prime Directive to save Wesley, and all we get was him looking all emo right before the credits role. No court martial. Not even a stern lecture from an Admiral.

In all fairness, when a member of your crew is being held hostage and subject to the death penalty, "non interference" goes out the airlock. Depending on the severity of the crime (in this case breaking a glass window and ruining some flowers) the starfleet officer on the scene may choose to cooperate with the planetary authorities, attempt to find some mutually acceptable arrangement, or just beam him out of prison and skip town.
Or that stupid episode with the proto-"vulcans" who thought Picard was a god, and he agreed to let himself nearly be killed in order to prove that he wasn't....but the less said about that one, the better.

 

[BillJ]

Or that stupid episode with the proto-"vulcans" who thought Picard was a god, and he agreed to let himself nearly be killed in order to prove that he wasn't....but the less said about that one, the better.

I think Picard and Company made that situation far worse. They should've just beamed the survivors aboard and allowed stories of a strange disappearance go on for a while and eventually die out.