The Federation / Klingon Alliance

[JirinPanthosa]

Whatever means under which those planets originally fell into Klingon rule, the reality is that it's their affair, not the Federation's. That might sound like a harsh line in the sand, but it's the truth.

That doesn't mean you openly support it, that just means you don't declare war on your allies to rectify the situation.

The TV series is always very vague about the status of Klingon Empire member worlds other than Kronos. But if sapient rights are being violated it's everyone's affair.

 

[MNM]

The Federation did sign more than one treaty with the Cardassians, I've usually seen the Cardassians as "Klingon-lite."

Politics make for strange bed-fellows.

True. though the stuff they signed with the Cardassians wasnt nearly as involved as the Alliance they did with the Klingons.

And like has been said, its politics, its beneifical, the treaty made the Fed/Klingon alliance the dominant Quadrant power.

Doesnt make the Federation any less hypocritical to ally with them though.

 

[Kevman7987]

The Federations job and purpose should be to free all planets from subjugation. The Federation should build a strong military and take down the Klingon Empire and free all those worlds.

Federation! Fuck yeah! Off to save the motherfuckin' day yeah!

Seriously though. How's that ideology working out for Uncle Sam?

Yes! It is time for the Federation to make the stars run hot pink and green with the blood of their enemies! THE GALAXY SHALL TREMBLE BEFORE THE POWER OF THE UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS!

BRING ME THE HEAD OF THE PRAETOR!

 

[Shik]

It isn't just 'early instalment weirdness' in TNG season one which suggests the Klingons don't operate an Empire along the lines of "subjugate and conquer" anymore. IIRC, doesn't DS9 have a Klingon restaurant on its promenade? This indicates that the Klingons did ultimately focus their energies on creating other, less aggressive methods of wealth production.

So...wait. You're saying that warriors don't like to eat out once in a while? That literally feeding the engines of war is not a valued & honorable position?

 

[T'Girl]

Seriously though. How's that ideology working out for Uncle Sam?

worked out fairly well in the first and second world wars, and for south korea, most of central america, eastern europe in the cold war.

not always admittedly.

more wins than losses though.

 

[PhoenixClass]

Seriously though. How's that ideology working out for Uncle Sam?

worked out fairly well in the first and second world wars, and for south korea, most of central america, eastern europe in the cold war.

not always admittedly.

more wins than losses though.

Wow, I don't even...

The US supported dictatorships and death squads and overthrew democratically elected governments in the Americas.

The US did not invade Eastern Europe and free those countries under Soviet domination (as suggested that the Federation do to the Klingon Empire and which prompted Brett's question). The domination ended only when the Soviet government did.

South Korea is a mixed case. It's government was repressive (inlcuding being run by generals rather than elected governments) until the late 1980s, and it has since become a recognizable democracy.

I will concede you World War 2.

There is a lot of propaganda around World War 1 so I am cautious about commenting on the history. I will point out, however, that the US did not join the League of Nations, which, while imperfect, would have helped evolve more cooperation between countries.

 

[Shik]

Seriously though. How's that ideology working out for Uncle Sam?

worked out fairly well in the first and second world wars, and for south korea, most of central america, eastern europe in the cold war.

not always admittedly.

more wins than losses though.

I will concede you World War 2.

I won't. World war II, which was a massive joint effort that was already 4 years underway when the US came to the party ("FASHionably late, dahling...") & was by no means about "freedom" as much as it was Boon & Otter saying "HE can't do that to our pledge..!" "Right, only WE can do that to our pledge!" Saving folks from subjugation? Right. And how WERE things afterwards for Jews? Oh, still kinda shitty? Well, the Slavs were OK, right? ...Handed over to the Commies, huh? Hm. How about the Romani? ...Deporatation programs & "Go home dirty Gypsy" even today? Really? Well...we freed the Jehovah's Witnesses & the Catholics at least!

Fuck, that's just the ETO. Seventy years on, there's big chunks of East Asia that love taking Japanese money & turning around to shit on their bed. At least when the Chinese invaded their territories in the past, they didn't try to work & rape them out of existence.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

So how can the Federation morally and ethically and in all good conscience become an ally and officially sign an alliance agreement with such an entity as the Klingon Empire?
The Klingon Empire goes against everything the Federation stands for.

Place it into modern times. How can any of the EU nations have an alliance with the US? The US goes against everything the EU stands for.

It's called "political expediency".

? US goes against everything EU stands for?
You don't know your history - not even the recent one. Either that, or you perceive your political ideology WAY out of proportion.

 

[Shik]

I was actually using the same terms as the person I quoted to make a point of irony, or perhaps absurdity. But one has to admit there's a lot that the two groups don't see eye-to-eye on. Max Barry's Jennifer Government takes it to its extremes.

 

[PhoenixClass]

worked out fairly well in the first and second world wars, and for south korea, most of central america, eastern europe in the cold war.

not always admittedly.

more wins than losses though.

I will concede you World War 2.

I won't. World war II, which was a massive joint effort that was already 4 years underway when the US came to the party ("FASHionably late, dahling...") & was by no means about "freedom" as much as it was Boon & Otter saying "HE can't do that to our pledge..!" "Right, only WE can do that to our pledge!" Saving folks from subjugation? Right. And how WERE things afterwards for Jews? Oh, still kinda shitty? Well, the Slavs were OK, right? ...Handed over to the Commies, huh? Hm. How about the Romani? ...Deporatation programs & "Go home dirty Gypsy" even today? Really? Well...we freed the Jehovah's Witnesses & the Catholics at least!

Fuck, that's just the ETO. Seventy years on, there's big chunks of East Asia that love taking Japanese money & turning around to shit on their bed. At least when the Chinese invaded their territories in the past, they didn't try to work & rape them out of existence.

My unstated reason for ceding the point was that, when it comes to Nazis, US self-interest and the interests of the human race in general are the same (i.e. to get rid of them, and they wouldn't go peacefully) I was just speaking narrowly on that basis.
The US pursued it owns selfish interests immediately after the war (and, of course, during).

 

[Misfit Toy]

Let's try to get back to a Trek-centered discussion, please.

 

[MacLeod]

Sometimes it can be easeir to effect change on the inside rather than on the outside, or as an ally or close firend saying to one another that's not a good idea, rather than an enemy or unfriendly nation saying it to another.

 

[Sci]

Whether or not the Federation should be allied with the Klingon Empire was a central policy question in the 2379 Special Federation Presidential Election in the novels. The election was featured in the book A Time for War, A Time for Peace, by TrekBBS's own KRAD. Federation Special Emmissary Arafel "Fel" Pagro of Ktar ran against Governor Nanietta Bacco of Cestus III; Pagro was firmly against the alliance with Qo'noS because of its policies of conquest and oppression, while Bacco was in favor of continuing the alliance. Pagro's views are self-explanatory; in Bacco's view, the alliance with the Klingons not only prevented war with Qo'noS, and not only assisted in the defense of the Federation in times of conflict against mutual foes, but also was serving to gradually, and peacefully, influence to the Klingons to abandon their imperialistic policies -- she cited the fact that Klingon expansion had significantly decreased since signing the Khitomer Accords.

In the end, Bacco won the election. A year later in the book Articles of the Federation, Chancellor Martok agreed to end the Empire's territorial expansion program at a summit with President Bacco, viewing the program as too resource-expensive for too little return.

Just FYI.

 

[PhoenixClass]

Militarily, the Accords are probably like NATO: a mutual defense pact, but neither side is obligated to help the other in wars of aggression.

The Federation doesn't help the Klingon Empire conquer territory; the two parties only cooperate on mutual matters and do no attack each other.

 

[Lance]

Whatever means under which those planets originally fell into Klingon rule, the reality is that it's their affair, not the Federation's. That might sound like a harsh line in the sand, but it's the truth.

That doesn't mean you openly support it, that just means you don't declare war on your allies to rectify the situation.

Well, let's say there are skirmishes on some of these worlds, and that the native populations want rid of the Klingon 'empire'. Fine, they make some waves, and they get their message out there to the great powers of the quadrant.

But unless it's a big enough revolt to affect the Alpha Quadrant as a whole, politically or socially, then the Federation can only lodge their disapproval of Klingon imperial might, and at a stretch it might even propose sanctions against the Klingons until they resolve the situation, but what Starfleet can't do is simply fly a fleet in there and liberate the subjugated peoples of said world (as the OP seems to be suggesting they should). Because ultimately, it's still an internal Klingon affair, and from what we see on Star Trek the peace accords didn't exactly tear down the boundaries of political independence (the Klingons still aren't Federation members by any stretch). All Khitomer really achieved was the dismantling of the military application of both major powers. Sending in the fleet to clean up the situation on the rebelling Klingon occupied planet would only be a one-way ticket to war with the Klingon empire. And the Feds don't want that.

(Of course, TNG elaborated further: "Yesterday's Enterprise" suggests that a tension evidently still existed between the Klingons and the Federation even in the time of the 1701-C's destruction, and "Aquiel" goes on to state for the record that there were Klingons conducting raids on Federation planets as recently as only a decade before the events of "Encounter At Farpoint", although this latter case could of course simply by renegade groups of Klingons whose actions are not sanctioned by the high council.)

 

[Robert Comsol]

TNG elaborated further: "Yesterday's Enterprise" suggests that a tension evidently still existed between the Klingons and the Federation even in the time of the 1701-C's destruction.

Lt. Castillo mentioned that the Federation and the Klingons had been conducting peace treaty negotiations. However, since director David Carson said we were watching a "parallel" time line, I consider the possibility that these events took place in an alternate universe, add to this that a "Klingon-Federation war" was a fabrication of Q in the original draft for "Deja Q", two episodes prior to "Yesterday's Enterprise".

I'd rather go with "The Emissary":

K'EHLEYR: Two days ago, Starbase Three Three Six received an automated transmission from a Klingon ship, the T'Ong. That ship was sent out over 75 years ago.
RIKER: When the Federation and the Klingon Empire were still at war.

("still at war" ?!? Didn't TOS and the movies suggest they had reached some kind of cease-fire, at least?)

UPDATE:
"The Emissary" supposedly takes place in 2365, 75 years ago would have been 2290.
Events in ST VI-TUC supposedly took place in 2293.

And "Aquiel" goes on to state for the record that there were Klingons conducting raids on Federation planets as recently as only a decade before the events of "Encounter At Farpoint", although this latter case could of course simply by renegade groups of Klingons whose actions are not sanctioned by the high council.

Yes, and in "Heart of Glory" we did see examples of such renegades:

KORRIS: Brother, this peace, this alliance, is like a living death to warriors like us.
...
KORRIS: It was one of our own cruisers sent to bring us back.
WORF: You destroyed a Klingon vessel?
KORRIS: I did not want to battle our brothers. I had no choice. They had been corrupted by the illusion of peace.

And here are two samples from TOS that reflect the Klingon point-of-view.

From "Errand of Mercy":

KIRK: We have legitimate grievances against the Klingons. They've invaded our territory, killed our citizens. They're openly aggressive. They've boasted that they'll take over half the galaxy.
KOR: Why not? We're the stronger! You've tried to hem us in, cut off vital supplies, strangle our trade! You've been asking for war!
KIRK: You're the ones who issued the ultimatum to withdraw from the disputed areas!
KOR: They are not disputed! They're clearly ours.

From "The Day of the Dove":

MARA: We have always fought. We must. We are hunters, Captain, tracking and taking what we need. There are poor planets in the Klingon systems, we must push outward if we are to survive.
KIRK: There's another way to survive. Mutual trust and help.

Bob

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I was actually using the same terms as the person I quoted to make a point of irony, or perhaps absurdity. But one has to admit there's a lot that the two groups don't see eye-to-eye on. Max Barry's Jennifer Government takes it to its extremes.

I find the EU and US have as much in common as feasible without becoming de facto the same culture - as for differences, one is left-leaning (on most issues), the other right-leaning (on most issues).

If you tried to make a point of irony/absurdity vis a vis the klingon empire/the federation - this is, of course, your prerogative.
I find the absurdity of your comparison nullifies its irony, though, seeing how the klingon empire is the opposite of the federation; their values - iron age ruthless conquerors vs politically correct diplomats - could not be more different.

 

[T'Girl]

K'EHLEYR: That ship was sent out over 75 years ago.

RIKER: When the Federation and the Klingon Empire were still at war.

("still at war" ?!? Didn't TOS and the movies suggest they had reached some kind of cease-fire, at least?)

Without looking up the exact dates, the Klingon ship would have been sent out about a decade after the events of TUC, plenty of time for the Federation and the Empire to have returned to a adversarial relationship.

And that's assuming that the events of TUC did result in peace. The storyline of Yesterday's Enterprise shows that the relationship wasn't firmly friendly.

 

[Shik]

2365 - 75 = 2290.

 

[T'Girl]

^ Okay, now when was TUC?