What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Well, we're running into the fact that the Federation has been depicted as having all of the traits of a sovereign state in its own right (which the European Union is not, although it comes close in certain respects) and the idea that an interstellar federal union cannot reasonably be expected not to have diplomatic missions between its constituent polities. Like, yeah, there's no Ambassador of the Commonwealth of Virginia to the State of Maryland in real life, but I don't really see how, say, Earth and Vulcan could have a relationship even within the Federation without having a direct bilateral exchange of diplomatic missions.
There are a few real-world precedents we could draw upon.
For one thing, "ambassador" is not always a formal title; sometimes it is informal. The heads of the various diplomatic missions to the United Nations Organization are often called "ambassadors," but this is not strictly their legal title; their legal title is "Permanent Representative of [U.N. Member State Name] to the United Nations."
In the Commonwealth of Nations, the heads of diplomatic missions between Commonwealth members are not entitled as "ambassadors;" rather, they are entitled as the High Commissioner of [Sending Commonwealth Member State] to [Recipient Commonwealth Member State]." So, there's no British Ambassador to the Republic of India, for instance; there is a High Commissioner of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Republic of India. (Similarly, they don't have "embassies," they have High Commissions.)
Thirdly, there are instances in real life of direct bilateral or multilateral agreements between U.S. states, called interstate compacts. They have to be submitted to Congress for approval, but they exist. And U.S. states sometimes open offices in one-another's capitals to promote their home state industries. Similarly, each state in Germany has an office in the federal capital to represent that state's interests -- a sort of de facto embassy of that state in Berlin.
So we could account for the existence in dialogue of ambassadors of one Federation member to another by synthesizing these three real-world precedents. My personal head canon is that Federation Member States can conduct direct bilateral or multilateral diplomatic relations between one-another, subject to Federation regulation; that the diplomats exchanged between UFP Members are informally referred to as "ambassadors" but are actually entitled as High Commissioners of X to Y; that the de facto embassies exchanged between Federation Members are actually High Commissions; and that Federation Member States also maintain de facto embassies on Earth, often called embassies, but actually styled as High Commissions of [Sending Member] to the United Federation of Planets.
So in my headcanon, Sarek's formal title was actually High Commissioner of the Confederacy of Vulcan to the United Federation of Planets, and the "Vulcan embassy" referenced in TMP was actually the High Commission of the Confederacy of Vulcan to the United Federation of Planets. And in my headcanon, Jonathan Archer may have been called "ambassador to Andoria," but his actual title was High Commissioner of United Earth to the Andorian Empire. Etc.
Just to be clear, you do realize that states in the U.S. retain their own state governments and state legislatures, right?(Sorry, the way you worded that seemed to imply they don't.)
Yes, and it implied nothing of the kind. You literally bisected a single sentence here to take words out of context to make a spurious point.
It didn't canonically establish that it didn't involve a wrestling match between the Federation President and the Vulcan Grand High Panjandrum of Logic in a big tub of Andorian custard either. The production team intent was that it was unilateral. Previous Star Trek production teams had toyed with the idea of member worlds unilaterally seceding, including the possibility of Vulcan seceding during the events of DS9: "Homefront/Paradise Lost" when it was first conceptualised as the season three finale.
Wow, gee, thanks.
Interesting that you continually "well ackshually" other people for what we see on screen, and yet you invent an entire political system here that there is precisely zero on-screen evidence for. Sarek is consistently and exclusively referred to as ambassador throughout all appearances in the franchise. To obfuscate his true role and title would hardly be logical.
Ambassador from Vulcan. Ambassador to the Federation from Vulcan. Ambassador to Earth from Vulcan in the Kelvin Timeline. That's about it.
It works for the first generation. Everyone who sets up the colony in the first place is OK with the system. It's their kids where problems start to crop up. I suppose you could have some kind of rumspringa system, where any colony kids get to leave no questions asked if they don't want to live under that system.
How did T'Pau (season four Enterprise) go from Desert Dwelling terrorist, to world leader, in just a few hours, after the dissolution of the High Command?
Needs of the plot. Plus so much of the Vulcan High Command got discredited when V'Las' plot was exposed that even T'Pau was able to take authority for herself in the power vacuum the Kir'shara incident created. I imagine Soval vouching for her also helped.
We know that the Federation requires certain conditions of colonies in order to establish a colony in Federation space.
Based on what happened in "The Masterpiece Society," we can infer, which would be plausible anyway, that one of those conditions would be that freedom of movement within the Federation would be considered a fundamental right, and that a colony could not hold any citizen against their will, like ever, even if it was at risk of failing should certain of its citizens leave.
I would imagine that there would be reasonable limitations, for example that a planet, such as another colony, but any planet, would have a right to refuse an immigrant when resources are too limited, but I could see that the right to move anywhere in the Federation where there are sufficient resources to support the person would be considered fundamental. (There being sufficient resources could be the operative phrase doing all kinds of heavy lifting, depending on the circumstances.) Home worlds like Earth would have resources aplenty, so humans returning home so to speak would rarely, if ever, be an issue.
As to the situation you posited, think also of an original colonist who divorces another colonist. They might want to leave, if their former spouse is staying, even though they were an original founder. Anybody can change their mind, etc.
If there's a rule that all governments need to be some kind of democracy, you just see really wide interpretations of what that means. For example, you elect a new King only when the old one dies, technically democracy without term limits? Or it's a hereditary monarchy but the people have the right to hold a referendum and remove them from power at any time. That seems like a possible Hysperia solution. The Federation keeps an eye out to make sure the people really do have the ability to kick out the King if they are unhappy. Or maybe it's just a UK situation and elected Parliament is really in charge.
I meant that as a bit of friendly teasing and would not have said it that way if I had realized you would be offended or irritated by that. Apologies.
Have they said that that was their intent? But either way, the fact that it is canonically unclear if secession was unilateral or consensual should be noted.
I also very clearly mark what is canonically certain and what is just my mental fanwank. You're absolutely free to reject my entire speculation about intra-Federation ambassadors being commissioners; it is completely something I made up with no basis in canon per se. And if I forget to note what is canonically certain and what is my fanwank, please do feel free to "well actually" me!
Would the Federation really accept that it's a democracy if someone rules for decade upon decade long after being elected once? In real life, democratic mandates have an expiration date for a reason. Ronald Reagan was enormously popular in 1984, but we didn't elect him President For Life.
I really don't think that's enough to be a real democracy.
I mean, Queen Paolana seemed pretty definitively in charge in "Reflections."
I think it's simpler just to assume that Hysperia is an independent world.
Or a protectorate without, I assume, full membership, like the Evora Homeworld from the beginning of INS?
Sure! Though a protectorate is still legally independent -- being a protectorate is a type of alliance, not a type of membership. (Though the practical impact of being a protectorate during the colonial era was that you de facto came under the thumb of your "protecting" power, even if you were independent on paper.)
Yep. Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar for example. Never British colonies but as British protectorates under local rulers and governments were sitll colored red or pink on 20th century maps of the British Empire.
The same way Castro, Mao, Charles de Gaulle, Khomeini, etc., did. The ruling government collapsed and the revolutionaries/exiles filled the vacuum left in the wake.
Both TOS and TNG establish that Federation ambassadors have at least some authority over Starfleet. Per Memory Alpha, they "have powers to issue orders and special instructions to Starfleet starship commanders." To me, that makes them more Federation government officials that are an extension of the Federation Council rather than foreign dignitaries representing just their world vis-a-vis a diplomatic mission.
Ambassador Robert Fox in TOS all but takes command of the Enterprise at Eminiar VII and orders Scotty around with little concern that he or McCoy will overrule and put him in his place. Fox was the best example of a civilian TOS diplomat throwing around his weight and expecting the folks in uniform to obey his orders.
Yikes!
And then the one that loses the debate doesn't talk to you for 15 years. Maybe that's just a Sarek thing.
It would be interesting to see how Scotty, if he had General Order 24-ed the planet, how would he explain the Enterprise coming back to Earth without the Captain, First Officer, the Ambassador, and the planet they were all sent to establish peaceful relations with, completely destroyed.
They called the Enterprise a GARBAGE SCOW! (no further explanation necessary
).Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
