Prime Directive and Federation members.

[jolau]

Say a Federation member world loses all space-faring technology, such as a devistating civil war or governmental collapse (or the aftermath of a Borg invasion like in the Destiny series) where the planetary government collapses, they lose warp-capablity and subspace radio, and a Dark Age begins.

Are they then protected under the Prime Directive until they redevelop warp drive or does the Federation intervene to bring that civilization back from thier dark age?

 

[diankra]

The main precedent that comes to mind is TNG: Legacy, which suggests that when Tasha's homeworld collapsed into civil war, the Federation did indeed keep out. (Not keen on that myself, but it's not as bad as Homeward's interpretation of the Prime Directive).

 

[Myasishchev]

Tasha's homeworld was much more likely a human colony that just never joined the Federation, like New Sydney.

The PD just doesn't keep the UFP from interfering in areas where they already have sovereignty. I mean, take the planet in "The Man Trap." It's inhabited by one guy and his succubus. They don't have warp technology, but the planet was claimed and colonized by the UFP, and no PD issue arises.

Although on reflection probably ought to have, if the Salt Vampire was indigenous, which it apparently was.

 

[Pavonis]

Say a Federation member world loses all space-faring technology, such as a devistating civil war or governmental collapse (or the aftermath of a Borg invasion like in the Destiny series) where the planetary government collapses, they lose warp-capablity and subspace radio, and a Dark Age begins.

I doubt the Federation would allow a member world to engage in a devastating civil war, for one thing.

If a member world suffered from an external invasion, then the Federation damn well better step in to help, else what's the point of membership?

Are they then protected under the Prime Directive until they redevelop warp drive or does the Federation intervene to bring that civilization back from thier dark age?

The Prime Directive has been over-simplified and overused, in my opinion. The PD, as conceived, was to protect less advanced civilizations from interference from more powerful and more advanced civilizations, i.e., the Federation.

But once you're in the Federation, why would they suddenly let you down? The whole point of the UFP is to improve relationships between races by engaging in trade and sharing technology. If the member races aren't going to do that with each other, what's the point of the Federation?

 

[Unicron]

It would certainly depend on where the line is drawn between member autonomy/sovereignty, and that of the Federation as an umbrella organization, and that's something that's never been very clear. Some eps of TOS seem to imply that the member planets (at least core ones anyway) have some measure of internal sovereignty, as Vulcan seemed to have its own space ministry and maintained some cultural traditions that would be considered violent or dangerous, such as fighting over a mate.

Personally, I'd tend to think the other Federation members would consider, if not implement, some type of intervention to prevent a member from falling into that sort of dark age. Such actions would be considered to be in the interest of the Federation and also of the intervening members, to show that they don't simply abandon one planet to chaos.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Turkana IV, as I understand it, was 1) Not officially a Federation member (just an old Earth colony and 2) A failed state ruled by an incompetent and corrupt government-in-name only that, upon its collapse, ceded any claim of Federation membership or association.

Think of the Angosians from "The Hunted." If Roga Danar hadn't run into the Enterprise they would have shortly become Federation members; when Roga escapes again one year later and his fellow soldiers take over the capitol, suddenly the Federation gets a desperate message from what's left of the Angosian government trying to explain the situation seconds before they all get lynched on the steps of the World Government's Congress.

So now what? The legitimate government--the one that joined the Federation--is as good as gone. What's left in power now is a military junta run by a pack of extraordinarily formidable warriors with their own deep suspicions about Federation motives. Do you go in with phasers, oust the junta and reinstall a sort of Federation viceroy to try and restore the planet's former institutions (inviting the inevitable decades-long insurgency from Danar's clan of super-soldiers; yikes!), or do you send in someone like Jean Luc Picard--or better yet, Sarek of Vulcan--to try and mediate a solution where the new government remains in the Federation AND retains a minimum standard of civil rights for its citizens in accordance with interstellar law?

Naturally, once mediation fails, there's probably going to be another Babel/Pacifica/Whatever conference of Federation delegates to decide whether to try some other solution with Angosia or kick them out of the Federation entirely. Said conference will undoubtedly involve the trading of insults, hand-to-hand combat, and at least one half-catatonic fish-man suicide bomber.

 

[DonIago]

^I'm not sure that's a good example either given that the Angosians were responsible for their own problems...

A better example might be if DS9's Circle arc had happened -after- Bajor joined the Federation. I think if the Feds perceived that the will of the legitimate government (representing the populace in some recognizable manner) was to cut Federation involvement, than the Feds would oblige. OTOH, if the change in government was more along the lines of Dukat's alliance with the Dominion, I imagine the Feds might be less willing to back down since (at least initially) they didn't recognize his authority in any case.

 

[Timo]

Yet all this would set a very dangerous precedent. Unless very good safeguards were in place, the Feds could march in and declare any change of government "illegitimate", including military coups, civil uprisings, alien invasions, election outcomes that didn't please the UFP Council, and appointments of ministers whose table manners were not up to UFP scrap. Or, perhaps more frighteningly still, the Feds could decide to march out.

Which is pretty absurd considering that in practice, the UFP has next to nothing to say about how local affairs are run. The locals may legally enforce duels-to-death, or competitive-insertion-of-parasites-which-alter-legal-status, or quite possibly euthanasia-at-sixty, and the UFP simply says it's their way and their right. Why would the Feds care about coups or uprisings, then, when they have no interest (and apparently do not allow themselves to have one) in how the resulting government behaves?

Everything we've seen seems to paint a picture of an extremely laissez-faire Federal government that allows almost complete freedom in local rule, as long as there is some sort of a local rule that the Federal level can interface with.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think once a world has joined the Federation, it's in. It's already passed all the requirements for a Federation member world. Even if a global catastrophe falls upon that world and blasts it back to a pre-warp technological state, I believe it then becomes classified as a Federation world in distress and action is taken to restore that planet as quickly as possible.

I think the only time that wouldn't be a case is if the survivors of that stricken world decide they want out of the Federation, IMO...

 

[DonIago]

^Agreed.

 

[Myasishchev]

Turkana IV, as I understand it, was 1) Not officially a Federation member (just an old Earth colony and 2) A failed state ruled by an incompetent and corrupt government-in-name only that, upon its collapse, ceded any claim of Federation membership or association.

Think of the Angosians from "The Hunted." If Roga Danar hadn't run into the Enterprise they would have shortly become Federation members; when Roga escapes again one year later and his fellow soldiers take over the capitol, suddenly the Federation gets a desperate message from what's left of the Angosian government trying to explain the situation seconds before they all get lynched on the steps of the World Government's Congress.

So now what? The legitimate government--the one that joined the Federation--is as good as gone. What's left in power now is a military junta run by a pack of extraordinarily formidable warriors with their own deep suspicions about Federation motives. Do you go in with phasers, oust the junta and reinstall a sort of Federation viceroy to try and restore the planet's former institutions (inviting the inevitable decades-long insurgency from Danar's clan of super-soldiers; yikes!), or do you send in someone like Jean Luc Picard--or better yet, Sarek of Vulcan--to try and mediate a solution where the new government remains in the Federation AND retains a minimum standard of civil rights for its citizens in accordance with interstellar law?

Naturally, once mediation fails, there's probably going to be another Babel/Pacifica/Whatever conference of Federation delegates to decide whether to try some other solution with Angosia or kick them out of the Federation entirely. Said conference will undoubtedly involve the trading of insults, hand-to-hand combat, and at least one half-catatonic fish-man suicide bomber.

Presumably, the Federation would step in to restore order and the Charter.

I mean, what if a Starfleet Admiral effects a coup on Earth? Is the Federation bound to negotiate? Are only United Earth citizens legally allowed to fight against the usurpation of power? Even they?

Which is pretty absurd considering that in practice, the UFP has next to nothing to say about how local affairs are run. The locals may legally enforce duels-to-death, or competitive-insertion-of-parasites-which-alter-legal-status, or quite possibly euthanasia-at-sixty, and the UFP simply says it's their way and their right. Why would the Feds care about coups or uprisings, then, when they have no interest (and apparently do not allow themselves to have one) in how the resulting government behaves?

Good points, although you forgot slavery (at least in the 23d century), about which the central UFP government cares so little the officials they send to collect tribute aren't even aware of it.

 

[caisson2delta]

I think once a world has joined the Federation, it's in. It's already passed all the requirements for a Federation member world. Even if a global catastrophe falls upon that world and blasts it back to a pre-warp technological state, I believe it then becomes classified as a Federation world in distress and action is taken to restore that planet as quickly as possible.

I think the only time that wouldn't be a case is if the survivors of that stricken world decide they want out of the Federation, IMO...

My thoughts as well. I would think that the Federation would honor any legitimate needs or wants of the requesting authority. I would also think that they have safeguards in place to help stabilize member worlds that might fall into this type catastrophe. We have seen, on numerous occasions, the Federation rendering humanitarian aid to countless worlds. It would stand to reason that they would do whatever is necessary for a member world.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^I'm not sure that's a good example either given that the Angosians were responsible for their own problems...

So were the folks on Turkana IV. That's sort of the whole point of the prime directive, aint it? People taking responsibility for their own problems?

A better example might be if DS9's Circle arc had happened -after- Bajor joined the Federation. I think if the Feds perceived that the will of the legitimate government (representing the populace in some recognizable manner) was to cut Federation involvement, than the Feds would oblige. OTOH, if the change in government was more along the lines of Dukat's alliance with the Dominion, I imagine the Feds might be less willing to back down since (at least initially) they didn't recognize his authority in any case.

Well, there's two dynamics here. One is that The Circle was conducting a military coup and the legitimacy of the government's decision could easily be challenged (and there'd probably be a highly contentious court battle on DS9 to prove it one way or the other; cue theme song!). Another is that the Cardassians would have been caught engineering the coup, which would leave the anti-Federation element of Bajoran society up shit's creek without an orb. I can't imagine the Federation would tell them "tough titty, you're Feddies now, get used to it," they would probably give them an option to form an independent colony in or near Bajoran space or grant them some measure of autonomy (cue ending theme song!).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Presumably, the Federation would step in to restore order and the Charter.

I don't think the Federation is as legalistic as all that. The Charter is a statement of purpose, not a statement of law; elsewhere we've seen them function more like an ad hocracy, taking situations on a case-by-case basis (which perfectly explains why member worlds still have to use ambassadors/diplomats to smooth things over in time of controversy).

After all we know Starfleet is bound by the prime directive, but private citizens aren't, and the Federation Council may not be either. They can choose to react any way they want to react, but at the end of the day it comes to a vote by the council, not a unilateral decision by one or two guys with their own agenda.

I mean, what if a Starfleet Admiral effects a coup on Earth? Is the Federation bound to negotiate?

No, they're only bound to react. How they react depends alot on whether or not the Admiral has a name like "Janeway" or "James T. Kirk" and what the underlying reason for the coup is. Something tells me that an Admiral's "I have to take control of the planet until we can figure out how many Congressmen have been infected with Ceti Eels" would totally slide with the Council if it came from somebody like Ben Sisko.

On the other hand, "We need a stronger central government in order to combat the Dominion" probably wouldn't go over very well. The Council is just as likely to declare this an illegal action and issue a general order to the entire rest of Starfleet to arrest Admiral Leyton and anyone who has ever said a kind word about him.

Good points, although you forgot slavery (at least in the 23d century), about which the central UFP government cares so little the officials they send to collect tribute aren't even aware of it.

States' Rights, what can I say? Though something tells me if a planet was going to allow slavery they wouldn't have been allowed INTO the Federation in the first place.

 

[Timo]

To be sure, the issue of slavery and torture at Ardana was supposed to be hot enough a potato that Kirk's open report on it would have rattled things and probably caused heads to roll (figuratively in the Federal end, perhaps more concretely in the local end). Vulcan death rituals or Trill invasive procedures never appeared politically controversial in like manner. At least our heroes never attempted to threaten their adversaries with exposure in those cases.

All of the hero skippers have on occasion mentioned that they oppose slavery, making it sound like this is a UFP policy. They haven't exactly explicated that they'd categorically oppose duels, euthanasia or other formalized killing, or prostitution, or religion, or other things the episodes have nevertheless painted as at least mildly controversial. So the UFP draws some limits - but so vaguely that it may never arouse passions of coup or secession nature in any of the member worlds.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

I doubt the Federation would allow a member world to engage in a devastating civil war.

The Federation might not have much say in the matter. If it was a short civil war with a coup, by the time Starfleet was in position to do anything for the former government, a new (and popular) government might already be in place. In the interest of stability, the Federation might order Starfleet to stand down. There are occasions where both civil wars and to a lesser degree coups serve a legitimate purpose. It was a (British perspective) civil war that brought the United States into existence.

Tasha's homeworld was much more likely a human colony that just never joined the Federation, like New Sydney.

Which would make it United Earth's responsibility to intervene, if it was still a colony. Without Federation assistance, United Earth might have been too weak by the 24th century to project enough effort to solve the problem.

 

[Timo]

Why should United Earth be related to "human colonies" in any way, least of all be responsible for them or have power over them? Odds are that the colonists left Earth because they wanted nothing to do with the UE or the UFP... Or at least something like 99% of the human colonies described in TOS and TNG were breakaway ones, disinterested in central human government and almost completely out of contact with it.

Really, when did we see a colony that had been set up in the name of expanding Earth's glory? Even the well established Deneva could stay out of touch with the Federation for a year before anybody cared/dared pay attention... All the small agricultural worlds seemed to be ideologically founded, fiercely opposed to Earthly or Federal ways.

At most we had verbal mention of Earth Colonies Two and Five from TOS, probably indicating the existence of numbers 1, 3 and 4 as well, and suggesting that at least semantically these settlements still remained loyal to the species' homeworld. Assuming, of course, that they were human settlements; perhaps Earth would have set up colonies for its (undesirable?) nonhuman population?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

The terms colony and settlement have different meanings, A group of people who were "fiercely opposed to Earthly or Federal ways," would not be considered a colony.

 

[Pavonis]

I doubt the Federation would allow a member world to engage in a devastating civil war.

The Federation might not have much say in the matter. If it was a short civil war with a coup, by the time Starfleet was in position to do anything for the former government, a new (and popular) government might already be in place. In the interest of stability, the Federation might order Starfleet to stand down. There are occasions where both civil wars and to a lesser degree coups serve a legitimate purpose. It was a (British perspective) civil war that brought the United States into existence.

First, the OP was asking about a devastating civil war, not a short bloodless coup d'etat.

The OP wanted to know if the Prime Directive only applies as long as the civilization has warp drive and other high-technology of their own development and maintenance, not whether the UFP cares about internal politics.

My response was, and still is, that once a civilization is a member of the UFP, they're not subject to the Prime Directive anymore. If that's the case, then under any circumstances that happened to cause a civilization to lose some high technology (say, warp drive) that would otherwise isolate them, the UFP wouldn't suddenly consider them SOL and kick them out. I figure once you're in the UFP, you get the benefits of membership, including assistance in developing and integrating new technology into the planetary society and maintenance of that technology, too.

I suppose it may not be that way, though. It could be that continued UFP membership is predicated on the independent maintenance of your privately developed technology, and sudden regression in technological ability would invalidate the membership, and cause the PD to kick in again. That just doesn't sound very, well, friendly to me. What's the point of the UFP membership in that case? What's the point in joining if a member society cannot count on the assistance of the other members when needed?

Second, why wouldn't the Federation Council ask for a referendum on the new, supposedly popular, government? If it's legitimate, it'll win in a vote. Of course, I'm assuming that all UFP members are democracies. Maybe they're not. Still, I can't imagine that the UFP central government would allow a coup to occur on a member world without asking a few questions. They're not as passive as all that, surely.

Tasha's homeworld was much more likely a human colony that just never joined the Federation, like New Sydney.

Which would make it United Earth's responsibility to intervene, if it was still a colony. Without Federation assistance, United Earth might have been too weak by the 24th century to project enough effort to solve the problem.

Why do you assume that all humans are subject to the United Earth government, or the UFP government?

 

[T'Girl]

The OP wanted to know if the Prime Directive only applies as long as the civilization has warp drive and other high-technology of their own development and maintenance, not whether the UFP cares about internal politics.

My reading of the PD is that it protects "primative" worlds from the Federation itself and by extension from Starfleet. Federation Members are exclusively made up of technological worlds. During a profound civil war Starfleet would, I believe, step in to help the general populace, perhaps by isolating the warring factions away from the general populace on some lovely little island somewhere so they can resolve their differences.

Second, why wouldn't the Federation Council ask for a referendum on the new, supposedly popular, government? If it's legitimate, it'll win in a vote. Of course, I'm assuming that all UFP members are democracies. Maybe they're not. Still, I can't imagine that the UFP central government would allow a coup to occur on a member world without asking a few questions.

If a Member world (group of worlds) changed governments or government types after becoming a Member, the Federation might consider expelling that world from their collective warm bosum. It depend on who/what actual joined the Federation in the first place. Was it the government at the time or is it the populace of the world?

Pavonis if it is the populace that joined the Federation, then the government supported by the populace should be fine with the Federation regardless of what it is or how the populace placed it in power.

Tasha's homeworld was much more likely a human colony that just never joined the Federation, like New Sydney.

Which would make it United Earth's responsibility to intervene, if it was still a colony. Without Federation assistance, United Earth might have been too weak by the 24th century to project enough effort to solve the problem.

Why do you assume that all humans are subject to the United Earth government, or the UFP government?

Kind of goes back to what I understand the word colony to mean. Both of these, again as I understand;

1) A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country

2) A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.

I did stipulate in my post "if it was still a colony," I at no point assume that all human are subject to United Earth, and I've gotten is heated debate around this board because I insist that United Earth (in fact all Federation Members) are not subject to the Federation government, that the Federation government is the one that is subject to the will of the Members.