Federation Foreign Policy

[Robert DeSoto]

Anyone think that the Federation's foreign policy is kinda weak?

Examples:

Entering the Romulan Neutral Zone is considered an act of war. So a Romulan Bird of Prey crosses the neutral zone and destroys several Federation outposts. Kirk does the right thing and chases those Romulans down and blows them up. (well technically they self destructed).
But shouldn't the Federation declare war on the Romulans for this? No wonder they kept violating the Neutral Zone again even in the 24th century (which the Federation never declared war either)

The Cardassian military amasses ships and troops along the DMZ in preparation to invade Minos Korva. Riker asks, are the Cardassians prepared for another war?
Admiral Necheyev says the Cardassians are betting that the Federation won't go to war over one star system. And they might be right.
So if a Cardassian invasion fleet crosses the DMZ and possibly destroys the Enterprise, the Cairo and whatever other ships are in the area, lands ground troops on Federation soil, the Federation has to THINK about whether or not go to war?

A Federation colony is destroyed by (they think) the Bajoran Resistance. The Federation's response is to send the Enterprise to talk to the Bajorans and help them negotiate on their behalf to the Cardassians. The first thing the Bajoran terrorists say is "wow, we should've attacked the Federation earlier"

Same thing happens when the Gatherers attack a Federation outpost. The Enterprise helps them reconcile with the Acamarian government.

Those are just four examples off the top of my head. But doesn't this just encourage attacks from other military and terrorist forces?

Can you imagine if North Korea crossed the DMZ and seized a South Korean city, they would actually have to THINK about going to war? Or the United States helping a terrorist group to reconcile with the government of their home country? Never. No government in the real world would tolerate the kind of crap that the Federation does.

Everyone in the Alpha Quadrant knows that Starfleet is one of the most powerful military forces in the Quadrant. Yet the Federation itself is run by pussies. So everyone keeps attacking them.

 

[The Borg Queen]

Yes.

It's funny how a race that have been barbaric savages for, oh, their ENTIRE history are suddenly so "enlightened" now they have Warp Drive.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^"Enlightened"? Hardly.

"Supremely naive"? DEFINITELY.

Robert DeSoto's dead-on. A foreign power attacts UFP space and the UFP debates whether to consider this an "act of war"?

No wonder the Dominion were so confident of success in their efforts to conquer the UFP. It behaves like the UN at it's worst!

"Mr. Dictator, please don't attack us again. It hurts us!"

"Oh, really? Well, bummer for you! We're attacking you until you break!"

"Oh, please, don't hurt us! We don't like it. What do you want? We'll give it to you!"

This is a foreign policy called "accomodation"--or, more appropriately, "appeasement". The idea is supposed to be, "If we give them enough, they'll be satisfied, and they won't attack us anymore." And then...they attack us again later, knowing we'll accomodate them again!

Think Neville Chamberlain. Was he "enlightened"? No--he was STUPID!

By contrast, was Winston Churchill "barbaric"? No--he was INTELLIGENT!

 

[Marten]

Chamberlaine appears strict in comparision.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Entering the Romulan Neutral Zone is considered an act of war. So a Romulan Bird of Prey crosses the neutral zone and destroys several Federation outposts. Kirk does the right thing and chases those Romulans down and blows them up. (well technically they self destructed).
But shouldn't the Federation declare war on the Romulans for this?

This was very much a cold war episode. Events like this were actually happening regularly. The whole point was to avoid war.

 

[Xerxes1979]

Good luck waging war against non-state actors, contempory real world events prove it to be a costly futile effort.

The Federation's response to the Gatherers was perfect in that it identified the structural causes of the conflict and resolved them at their source.

I'll grant you that Minos Korva was a mess, but that with pretty much all of Chain of Command has numerous problems as an episode. The crisis could easily been defused by seeding the prospective worlds with cobalt diselendide.

 

[Admiral Shran]

^"Enlightened"? Hardly.

"Supremely naive"? DEFINITELY.

Robert DeSoto's dead-on. A foreign power attacts UFP space and the UFP debates whether to consider this an "act of war"?

No wonder the Dominion were so confident of success in their efforts to conquer the UFP. It behaves like the UN at it's worst!

"Mr. Dictator, please don't attack us again. It hurts us!"

"Oh, really? Well, bummer for you! We're attacking you until you break!"

"Oh, please, don't hurt us! We don't like it. What do you want? We'll give it to you!"

This is a foreign policy called "accomodation"--or, more appropriately, "appeasement". The idea is supposed to be, "If we give them enough, they'll be satisfied, and they won't attack us anymore." And then...they attack us again later, knowing we'll accomodate them again!

Think Neville Chamberlain. Was he "enlightened"? No--he was STUPID!

By contrast, was Winston Churchill "barbaric"? No--he was INTELLIGENT!

Spot on again Rush.

Before DS9 I think the problem was Roddenberry's insistance that Humans, and the UFP, would ALWAYS find a way to talk their way out of conflict. While I agree that war should be the absolute last line of action, there are times when dipolmacy simply will not work (like with terrorists, or states bent on war).

If India suddenly invaded China and seized Chinese terrority, do we honestly believe China would want to talk their way out of the problem? Or, conversely, in China invaded Russia and seized Russian terrority, would be think Russia's only morally acceptable course would be to appease the Chinese?

The Federation should be thankful they had intelligent people like Sisko and Section 31 out there doing what was necessary to protect the UFP. Talking with the Dominion, or the Cardassians, simply wasn't going to get the job done.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I agree...the trouble with total pacifism is that if you're the only one playing by those rules, you'll be overrun. In some ways, I actually think the best outcome, until an aggressive government is overthrown by its people or otherwise deposed, is a situation akin to Mutual Assured Destruction--deterrence by a force so great that neither side is willing to actually use it.

Which of course doesn't work when you're dealing with crazies who lack the sort of respect for life (including their own) that a rational enemy does...in those case, there's only one thing left to do, and unfortunately, that's to use force.

The Cardassians, for instance, could be backed into a Cold War/MAD scenario because there was SOME level of rationality. But again, this requires force and the ability to use it. I think that had they not allied with the Dominion, they could have been broken USSR-style, much as Reagan did, had the Federation been willing to mass its defenses as required.

The Dominion, however, is an example of a non-rational enemy. They had no problem with genocide, and their slave-species were driven by a single-minded ideology with no room for rationality whatsoever. The Cardassians could be reached--the Dominion couldn't.

I also think the Treaty of Algeron was a HUGE mistake on the Federation's part. What is the incentive of a cloaked enemy to stay on their side of the Neutral Zone, without knowing that failure to do so could result in a strike in their space, on the target of a cloaked Federation ship's choosing?

The Klingons MIGHT, if they actually followed their honor code, abide by something like that since when it comes to actual combat, they ultimately engage in the open according to their form of bushido. But why would the Romulans? What's the incentive?

 

[Anwar]

I also think the Treaty of Algeron was a HUGE mistake on the Federation's part. What is the incentive of a cloaked enemy to stay on their side of the Neutral Zone, without knowing that failure to do so could result in a strike in their space, on the target of a cloaked Federation ship's choosing?

I never saw this as a problem, I mean it's shown that the Feds CAN see through Cloaks. And at the time the Treaty was signed, they had just come out of a major altercation where thousands died on both sides. It was a choice wherein the Feds and Romulans would fight a bloody war that would kill millions if not billions or the Romulans would just hide back on their side if the Feds didn't develop a tech that they were already counter-acting in other ways.

 

[T'Girl]

Entering the Romulan Neutral Zone is considered an act of war. So a Romulan Bird of Prey crosses the neutral zone and destroys several Federation outposts. Kirk does the right thing and chases those Romulans down and blows them up. (well technically they self destructed).

KIRK: What you do not know and must be told is that my command orders on this subject are precise and inviolable. No act, no provocation will be considered sufficient reason to violate the zone. We may defend ourselves, but if necessary to avoid interspace war, both these outposts and this vessel will be considered expendable. Captain out.

Starfleet can't be powerful on all possible fronts simultaneously. Also the politicians, ambassadors and bureaucrats who make up the Federation government change over time. As administrations change, policy changes with them. A Federation president who's a hawk one year could see her government be swept from power in a election, replacing the president with a weak and timid coalition leader.

But shouldn't the Federation declare war on the Romulans for this?

Not so much an act of war as a incident, all the Romulan's know for sure is that their ship never came back and they may have subsequently questioned whether the cloaking device even worked against Starfleets sensors. Starfleet's job (one of them) might be to protect the Federation from open war. Kirk unofficial instructions from Starfleet during BoT might have included entering either the neutral zone or actual Romulan space at his discretion as he saw fit, if in his determination it would result in avoidance of war. Which it apparently did.

 

[Withers]

Outside of a small handful (Ross...and that ballbuster whose name I won't even try to spell) most of the Admirals in Starfleet are complete D-bags. It seems like Admiralty status corrupts. Even Janeway falls victim to "It was for the good of the Federation/My Crew" bit by ignoring the Temporal Prime Directive and re-writing history.

That being the case it doesn't surprise me that the Federation isn't quick to act militarily. Admirals are bureaucrats at best. If they're not acting out of self interest they're acting on behalf of the Federation Council (which seems equally ineffectual.) It's the command structure of the Federation. The people worthy of making decisions don't want to be desk riders (nor should they be- they want to be Captains.)

-Withers-​

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Still not always true about admirals, though. (BTW, I believe you mean "Nechayev.")

The other one I always got a very good sense from--even though we only saw him once and then he was sadly killed, was J.P. Hanson. He came across as trustworthy...not just because of his warmth, but I think his willingness to put himself on the line at Wolf 359 and not just lead from a distance showed what kind of person he was. He wasn't about to order others to do what he himself wouldn't do.

 

[Anwar]

I dunno, I never liked "Cowboys" very much either in cop shows or military shows. If they wanted to be more realistic they should have the cowboys screw up and cause trouble in already unstable situations and its up to the more diplomatic types to keep the Cowboys from being tribunal-ed and resolve the incidents without military action.

 

[Withers]

I said "Outside of a small handful," most of them are D-bags. I mean... there are at least as many examples of the position corrupting someone as there are of decent Admirals in Starfleet, I'll put it that way.


-Withers-​

 

[Rush Limborg]

Spot on again Rush.

Before DS9 I think the problem was Roddenberry's insistance that Humans, and the UFP, would ALWAYS find a way to talk their way out of conflict. While I agree that war should be the absolute last line of action, there are times when dipolmacy simply will not work (like with terrorists, or states bent on war).

If India suddenly invaded China and seized Chinese terrority, do we honestly believe China would want to talk their way out of the problem? Or, conversely, in China invaded Russia and seized Russian terrority, would be think Russia's only morally acceptable course would be to appease the Chinese?

The Federation should be thankful they had intelligent people like Sisko and Section 31 out there doing what was necessary to protect the UFP. Talking with the Dominion, or the Cardassians, simply wasn't going to get the job done.

I agree...the trouble with total pacifism is that if you're the only one playing by those rules, you'll be overrun. In some ways, I actually think the best outcome, until an aggressive government is overthrown by its people or otherwise deposed, is a situation akin to Mutual Assured Destruction--deterrence by a force so great that neither side is willing to actually use it.

Which of course doesn't work when you're dealing with crazies who lack the sort of respect for life (including their own) that a rational enemy does...in those case, there's only one thing left to do, and unfortunately, that's to use force.

Right on, Shran and Nerys!

Folks, it's an Undeniable Truth of Life (Number Six, to be exact):

Ours is a universe governed by the agressive use of force.

It's hard to face...but it's true. The vast majority of those enemies of the Federation are not bound by the rules and principles the UFP lives by. Now, you can talk about "It's the rules that makes us better" all you want...but in the end, all that High-Horse won't matter when you see dying around you the people you were entrusted to protect.

 

[Robert DeSoto]

But shouldn't the Federation declare war on the Romulans for this?

Not so much an act of war as a incident, all the Romulan's know for sure is that their ship never came back and they may have subsequently questioned whether the cloaking device even worked against Starfleets sensors. Starfleet's job (one of them) might be to protect the Federation from open war. Kirk unofficial instructions from Starfleet during BoT might have included entering either the neutral zone or actual Romulan space at his discretion as he saw fit, if in his determination it would result in avoidance of war. Which it apparently did.

Yes you are right that Kirk destroyed the Romulan Bird of Prey in order to prevent a war. The Romulans sent "the Praetor's proudest flagship" to test Federation resolve. Their flagship never returned so they thought, damn Federation technology must be better than us, so there is no war.

In the short term, yes it prevented a war. But in the long term, once Romulan technology got better, they will just test Federation resolve again (like maybe in the Tomed Incident).

But here's the thing, if the Romulans know for sure that the Federation's response to an act of war is, well, actually going to war, then maybe they won't have to keep testing the Federation.

If a foreign power attacked your nation and killed your fellow citizens, would you not expect your government to respond with the full resources of your country's armed forces? (e.g Pearl Harbour)

 

[Sci]

But here's the thing, if the Romulans know for sure that the Federation's response to an act of war is, well, actually going to war, then maybe they won't have to keep testing the Federation.

If a foreign power attacked your nation and killed your fellow citizens, would you not expect your government to respond with the full resources of your country's armed forces? (e.g Pearl Harbour)

Not necessarily.

There is a such thing as a proportional response. I'm sorry, but a couple of outposts are not worth the costs of an interstellar war if the immediate threat can be neutralized.

The West Wing argues it fairly well. The set-up: The President of the United States, Jed Bartlet, is about to go on national TV to announce that the U.S. has destroyed the headquarters of Syrian Intelligence in retaliation for Syria's having shot down a U.S. Air Force plane. The President was friends with a man aboard, and he wants to launch a full-scale war in retaliation for the attack. Leo, his chief of staff, is talking him down.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIUlSM-qnMQ[/yt]

 

[The Borg Queen]

Think Neville Chamberlain. Was he "enlightened"? No--he was STUPID!

By contrast, was Winston Churchill "barbaric"? No--he was INTELLIGENT!

Huh? What?

Who said either of them were supposed to be that?

 

[TerraUnam]

If Romulan cloaking technology was being counteracted with Tachyon (magic particle, that) sensor nets at the time of the Treaty of Algeron, then signing away Cloaking technology was just a case of refusing to use as a weapon something which was already counteracted, and one that Starfleet didn't intend to use offensively anyway. Plus with the Khitomer Accords, the Klingons were usually able to provide cloaked ships as needed (per Unification). So the price of peace is forgoing something you weren't going to use anyway, and which is already contained. Seems reasonable to me.

Though after the events of Pegasus and especially after the Dominion War, the "no Federation Cloak" clause is pretty much a dead letter.

The Federation's Ace in the Hole, diplomatically speaking, has always been its ecnomomy, particularly as channelled through its Corps of Engineers and whatever else is part of the 24th Century Military-Industrial Complex. Economic power is the basis of all other power, and the Federation's economy is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else's. It can out-research and out-build every other power in the Quadrant. When the Dominion tried to go toe-to-toe with the Federation in terms of brute force, it was outsmarted. They ultimately lost to Federation science.

The Federation is big, diverse and free. It doesn't have to throw its muscle around to get what it wants. It just has to outlast the competition, which it usually does.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Think Neville Chamberlain. Was he "enlightened"? No--he was STUPID!

By contrast, was Winston Churchill "barbaric"? No--he was INTELLIGENT!

Huh? What?

Who said either of them were supposed to be that?

No one. I was satirizing the idea that "accomodation" is a legitimate means of maintaining the peace, as Robert DeSoto maintained.

And Sci, your clip actually proves my point. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war. But a superpower MUST be prepared to use force against those who attack it. Both Leo and Bartlett agree in that vid that force was completely neccesary against the enemy in question.

NO ONE is defending using full-scale war as the catchall answer--simply the necessity to back your words up with the fact that you are willing to defend yourself as far as is neccesary and proper.