Federation Foreign Policy

[Rush Limborg]

Well, the key to "unpredictability" is a strong intelligence force. With assistance of spies, we know how they think, and how to deal with them.

But there is no such thing as an omniscient or infallible spy network. You cannot operate under the assumption that you know everything or that there may not be a vital piece of information you're missing.

But of course. No intelligence is 100% perfect. There is always the risk of false intel. But that does not detract from the essential importance of knowing your enemy as much as possible. With the assurance of the strongest, most efficient intel force possible, the risk will be cut to a minimum.

 

[Anwar]

No, he would not. But neither would he advocate the foolisness of "Just take it back, and leave no disincentive for the enemy to attack again."

Neither are we, we just think that retaking Minos Korva and bulking up the defenses while maybe taking out local Cardassian installations or something similar is a better response than all-out war.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I agree. Just take out the "maybe".

 

[stonester1]

No, he would not. But neither would he advocate the foolisness of "Just take it back, and leave no disincentive for the enemy to attack again."

Booting their ass out of your space and costing them military assets in the area isn't a disincentive?

I think it would be.

 

[Admiral Shran]

I think we've all lost focus on the main point of this thread. In "Chain of Command," Admiral Nechayev flat out says that the Cardassians are thinking about invading Minos Korva because they believe the Federation won't risk war over one star system. She goes on to say that they, the Cardassians, might be right. So, in other words, the UFP is seriously considering not going to war, at all, with Cardassia even if there is an invasion.

I think we can all agree that this is a pretty weak foreign policy.

IMO, it also shows that the Federation has failed utterly in dettering aggression. The Cardassians feel they can get away with an invasion and occupation of UFP terrority. The fact that they would eventually get their asses kicked is meaningless. If the Federation had done a better job of showing force and deterring them, the invasion would never have been considered. And by "showing force and deterring them," I mean making the Cardassians, or any other Alpha Quadrant power, believe that such an action against UFP interests would result in dire consequences and then following up with those consequences should the need arise.

The best offense is a good defense. The Federation clearly didn't live by that motto in "Chain of Command." They were lucky that Jellico and the Enterprise crew were able to find a way to work the situation into the Federation's favor.

 

[stonester1]

I think I can bottom line it thusly...like any free society with an elected government and a foundation of high ideals as it's standard, there are probably periods where the UFP government and it's foreign policies are more doveish than others.

 

[siskokid888]

I think we've all lost focus on the main point of this thread. In "Chain of Command," Admiral Nechayev flat out says that the Cardassians are thinking about invading Minos Korva because they believe the Federation won't risk war over one star system. She goes on to say that they, the Cardassians, might be right. So, in other words, the UFP is seriously considering not going to war, at all, with Cardassia even if there is an invasion.

I think we can all agree that this is a pretty weak foreign policy.

IMO, it also shows that the Federation has failed utterly in dettering aggression. The Cardassians feel they can get away with an invasion and occupation of UFP terrority. The fact that they would eventually get their asses kicked is meaningless. If the Federation had done a better job of showing force and deterring them, the invasion would never have been considered. And by "showing force and deterring them," I mean making the Cardassians, or any other Alpha Quadrant power, believe that such an action against UFP interests would result in dire consequences and then following up with those consequences should the need arise.

The best offense is a good defense. The Federation clearly didn't live by that motto in "Chain of Command." They were lucky that Jellico and the Enterprise crew were able to find a way to work the situation into the Federation's favor.

I think you all are missing the point that the Fed is supposed to be operating on a higher ideal - that all life is precious and not to be wasted, including the Cardassians, Klingons, etc. and escpecially the innocents that end up being caught in the crossfire during a war. That is the direction they are approaching from - war as ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT. If avoiding war means you occasionally have to give in, so be it. I'm sure the Vulcans, as pacificts, would condone this, as it is always pointed out that although they can do violence, they do everything they can to avoid it. The Fed and Starfleet protect LIFE. That is job one for them.

 

[stonester1]

Yes, that is their ideal. But they do live in a tough galaxy that doesn't share those ideals always. SO...for the sake of protecting themselves, they occasionally have to do the best they can.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I think we've all lost focus on the main point of this thread. In "Chain of Command," Admiral Nechayev flat out says that the Cardassians are thinking about invading Minos Korva because they believe the Federation won't risk war over one star system. She goes on to say that they, the Cardassians, might be right. So, in other words, the UFP is seriously considering not going to war, at all, with Cardassia even if there is an invasion.

I think we can all agree that this is a pretty weak foreign policy.

IMO, it also shows that the Federation has failed utterly in dettering aggression. The Cardassians feel they can get away with an invasion and occupation of UFP terrority. The fact that they would eventually get their asses kicked is meaningless. If the Federation had done a better job of showing force and deterring them, the invasion would never have been considered. And by "showing force and deterring them," I mean making the Cardassians, or any other Alpha Quadrant power, believe that such an action against UFP interests would result in dire consequences and then following up with those consequences should the need arise.

The best offense is a good defense. The Federation clearly didn't live by that motto in "Chain of Command." They were lucky that Jellico and the Enterprise crew were able to find a way to work the situation into the Federation's favor.

I think you all are missing the point that the Fed is supposed to be operating on a higher ideal - that all life is precious and not to be wasted, including the Cardassians, Klingons, etc. and escpecially the innocents that end up being caught in the crossfire during a war. That is the direction they are approaching from - war as ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT. If avoiding war means you occasionally have to give in, so be it. I'm sure the Vulcans, as pacificts, would condone this, as it is always pointed out that although they can do violence, they do everything they can to avoid it. The Fed and Starfleet protect LIFE. That is job one for them.

Does this 'higher ideal' forbids the federates from acting in self defense, protecting themselves?

If yes, then it's an suicidal philosophy - and the federation will disappear shortly, staying passive, like a sheep at slaughter while the other powers take it apart piece by piece.

If no, then any invasion should be defended against, and the lost territories regained - this is the policy that, on medium-long term, will prevent most wars and will save the most lives.
Exceptions from this principle should only be allowed when objective necessities impose them - ex. starfleet doesn't have the resources to retake the system.
If the invading power commits genocide against conquered federation citizens - or even against foreign nationals - harsher responses are warranted and necessary.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I think you all are missing the point that the Fed is supposed to be operating on a higher ideal - that all life is precious and not to be wasted, including the Cardassians, Klingons, etc. and escpecially the innocents that end up being caught in the crossfire during a war. That is the direction they are approaching from - war as ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT. If avoiding war means you occasionally have to give in, so be it. I'm sure the Vulcans, as pacificts, would condone this, as it is always pointed out that although they can do violence, they do everything they can to avoid it. The Fed and Starfleet protect LIFE. That is job one for them.

Sir, even Spock noted, before the reveal that the Organians were powerful beyond imagination, that their absolute pacificism was illogical.


As for the "higher ideal"--I hate to break it to you, but if the "higher ideal" results in a government that allows its citizens to die--than that "higher ideal" is WRONG.

How does result in more citizens dying?

Well, as Admiral Shran pointed out, the UFP in "Chain" was, as far as the Cardassians were concerned, unwilling to go to war over a single star system. Thus, the Union had no disincentive to attack!

If the Union knew that the UFP was willing to go to war, there would be such a disincentive.

 

[Sci]

If we're talking specifically about Minos Korva and the situation in "Chain of Command," rather than in general principle about what the Federation should or would do in other such situations, I think we should bear one name in mind:

Jaresh-Inyo.

He was probably the Federation President during "Chains of Command" and during the negotiations that led to the Federation-Cardassian Peace Treaty that created the DMZ and abandoned Federation worlds to the Cardassians, prompting the rise of the Maquis. He was explicitly established to be Federation President during that time (2369-2373) in the novels, in fact.

And I think that it's safe to say that the Jaresh-Inyo administration was quite irrationally pacifistic. I'm not a fan of the term appeasement, but I'll be the first to say that simply abandoning Federation worlds to the Cardassians in treaty is appeasement, pure and simple, especially since there's little evidence that the Cardassians gave up any of their worlds to the Federation. And certainly when those Federation citizens formed the Maquis to protect themselves from Cardassian persecution, the Federation was absolutely in the wrong by condemning the Maquis rather than the Cardassians. And goodness knows that President Jaresh-Inyo proved himself incompetent in DS9's "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" -- incapable of understanding the need for increased militarism on Earth to defend against the Founders, and equally incapable of seeing the dangers of too much militarism, nearly leading to his own ouster in a coup d'etat.

So I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that the Federation's foreign policy during that time period is their normal policy. It strikes me as a rather noticeable outlier stemming from a rather poor President.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Oh...I completely agree.

BTW...while I do not condone Leyton's coup in any way--it was illegal, and totally unnecesary (Jaresh-Inyo should have been impeached, as i'm sure the Articles prescribe)--still, I kinda understand why Leyton felt the need to do it. A president who is so "accomodation"-minded, year after year--and who proves himself completely incompetent, and so easily duped--does not deserve to hold the executive office!

Again, I think what Leyton did was wrong--but I understand why he did it.

 

[Anwar]

Actually, the Cardassians DID give up territory and worlds to the Federation when the border was redrawn. It was mentioned in "Journey's End".

 

[Rush Limborg]

Wasn't Bajor one of the systems they gave up--or was that before the "Journey's End" treaty?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

^Oh...I completely agree.

BTW...while I do not condone Leyton's coup in any way--it was illegal, and totally unnecesary (Jaresh-Inyo should have been impeached, as i'm sure the Articles prescribe)--still, I kinda understand why Leyton felt the need to do it. A president who is so "accomodation"-minded, year after year--and who proves himself completely incompetent, and so easily duped--does not deserve to hold the executive office!

Again, I think what Leyton did was wrong--but I understand why he did it.

Which is sort of the point of the episode, I think; I imagine it deliberately made Leyton's position the sympathetic one. Seeing as the episode is about the dangers of fear and paranoia eroding liberties, and leading people to embrace dangerous ideals supposedly to defend against the nebulous enemy, it's far more effective if the president is indeed in over his head and Leyton is offering the "sensible" option, because then it replicates in an audience the exact "yeah, do that, keep us safe, you're a stronger leader" thinking that leads into military coups and the assorted...unpleasantries. The overall "message" is stronger that way.

 

[T'Girl]

^ The most effective terrorist might be the one who doesn't exist.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

^ The most effective terrorist might be the one who doesn't exist.

Indeed. Good summary.

I think at least that an actual terrorist (as in, a violent criminal hatching plots to bomb things) is often far easier to defeat than the fear and panic and paranoia that rips society apart and the tightened grip of paranoid government that also results. Which, of course, is why they're called terrorists. It's not the violence and the attacks that are their real weapons, it's the spread of terror, and all too often the governments and people do far, far more to spread that than the terrorists themselves could ever do. All they have to do is blow a few things up and hatch a couple of plots, and soon their enemies are doing all the work for them. That's what the Dominion was counting upon- that the Federation would weaken itself and its ideals through fear and paranoia, so the founders could more easily assume control- either militarily or, I imagine, through more subtle means. After all, the Dominion doesn't necessarily want to fight a war- if the Founders can take control of solids through easier means, they will. Send four founders to Earth, blow up a conference or two, and soon Earth and the rest of the Federation are either fighting civil wars and weakening themselves or are on the road to being a little outpost of the Dominion in their own right.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Once again, as Ben Franklin said, a society willing to give up essential liberties for the sake of temporary security...deserves neither...and will lose both.

 

[Sci]

^Oh...I completely agree.

BTW...while I do not condone Leyton's coup in any way--it was illegal, and totally unnecesary (Jaresh-Inyo should have been impeached, as i'm sure the Articles prescribe)--still, I kinda understand why Leyton felt the need to do it. A president who is so "accomodation"-minded, year after year--and who proves himself completely incompetent, and so easily duped--does not deserve to hold the executive office!

Again, I think what Leyton did was wrong--but I understand why he did it.

Well, the thing to bear in mind about Leyton, too, is that he didn't try to oust Jaresh-Inyo just because he thought he was doing the wrong thing -- Leyton literally wanted to install himself as military dictator of the Federation and to end Federation democracy. So while I understand wanting to get rid of Jaresh-Inyo, too, let's not try to romanticize Leyton's motivations even as we condemn his means; his ends were just as disgusting as his means.

(Jaresh-Inyo should have been impeached, as i'm sure the Articles prescribe)

Unless the Federation has made appeasement a high crime or misdemeanor -- and that would be a very difficult thing to do, and then to defend against judicial scrutiny -- I don't see how he could be impeached. Presidents are supposed to be impeached if they commit crimes, not if they're just incompetent.

Actually, the Cardassians DID give up territory and worlds to the Federation when the border was redrawn. It was mentioned in "Journey's End".

This demonstrates the difficulty in legally defining appeasement, even if we see it. I would argue that it was still appeasement, because it certainly seems that whatever territory Cardassia gave up to the Federation was not as valued by its Cardassian denizens as the territory the Federation gave up was by their Federation denizens. As such, I would argue that it was an unequal exchange and one which encouraged Cardassian militarism.

The question becomes whether or not the exchange of territories was proportional (in both physical and conceptual terms), and whether or not the Federation has the legal right to force Federation citizens to relocate, and whether or not the Federation should have intervened to protect Federation citizens living on new Cardassian territory.

Wasn't Bajor one of the systems they gave up--or was that before the "Journey's End" treaty?

From what I understand, the Cardassian exit from Bajor came about as a result of the efforts of the Bajoran Resistance, not the Federation. Certainly the Cardassian Union didn't give Bajor to the Federation -- Bajor remained an independent state after the withdrawal.

 

[Penta]

Sci: While I hesitate to bring real-world politics into the discussion, one of the results of the Clinton impeachment thing in 1998 is that more brilliant legal minds than anyone who's ever likely to come to this forum looked over the law and precedent re impeachment with fine-toothed combs that practically worked on the quantum level.

(I'm only being a mite hyperbolic.)

The end result is: If the UFP's relevant constitutional provisions are anything like the US's, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever the legislature wants it to mean, no more and no less.

(You might agree with Clinton's impeachment, you might not, but I've not in 12 years heard anyone say that Congress didn't have the power to impeach. Whether they should have or not, sure. But whether they could or not?)

Judicial review is also inapplicable if the UFP's justice system uses anything like the Common Law system used by (most of) the US, England, etc. I suspect they do.

Impeachment is a pretty classic example of a political question, and political questions are what's known as "non-justiciable". Or to put it another way, courts in a common law context (Especially if they derive any authority from US precedent) refuse to rule on questions like that.