Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Quickie question, guys: what problematic UFP members would be around by the time of the Khitomer Conference?
By problematic, I mean ones that very evidently have elements going against established Federation ideals. Ardana is the one that first comes to mind; Gideon, Aurelia, possibly Catulla or Coridan as well.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
You have the main list there. But I daresay the Federation would be an interesting melting pot and with wiser folks, to the point that there wouldn't be that many busybody blowhards like we have now, Nancy Gracing their way through planet lists complaining about such-and-such society's table manners.
That said, by the 24th Century the Federation was of the mind that Bajor could blow its old caste system out of its collective earring, whereas Ardana got away with virtual murder a century prior.
I would argue/retcon they perhaps weren't full members, but merely a protectorate or some other aligned non-member world.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Well, I'm currently outlining the next article in my project, which is post-Khitomer turn-of-the-24th-century time. I'll be addressing all those fun little "how are they members?" planets in it, & other than Ardana I couldn't think of any that were really a problem.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Necessity makes strange bedfellows. The Klingons didn't go soft after Khitomer, and there were several treaties.
The early Federation had an air of NATO about it, I would wager, but even if we look at modern UN membership we get a sense of wonder at why certain asshat nations get a vote on anything.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Spock notes the chief asshat of Ardana was within his rights to execute Kirk. I rather doubt that is the case with any full member planet of the Federation. The references to non-interference would also support that view. Ardana must have been some sort of affiliate.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Spock notes the chief asshat of Ardana was within his rights to execute Kirk. I rather doubt that is the case with any full member planet of the Federation. The references to non-interference would also support that view. Ardana must have been some sort of affiliate.
Systems with strategic importance (but the inability to defend themselves from a hostile empire) might become sorta protectorate worlds. Ardana might be the South Korea to the UFP- where an attack on a UFP representative would go through their justice system the way the attacker on the US ambassador will go through South Korea's system.
Add the Prime Directive into that and you've got a recipie for trouble for visiting starships!
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Spock notes the chief asshat of Ardana was within his rights to execute Kirk. I rather doubt that is the case with any full member planet of the Federation. The references to non-interference would also support that view. Ardana must have been some sort of affiliate.
Kirk explicitly says "Ardana is a member of the Federation" and goes on to insist that its council fulfill a "responsibility that nothing interferes with its obligation to another member of the Federation." To me that sounds like membership with full and equal standing to other members. The order of non-interference with respect to the planet's internal socio-political situation comes from Plasus, who says Kirk's orders do not entitle him to "defy local governments" and threatens to personally report him to Starfleet Command if he does so.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Then maybe we should be looking at the UFP as more of a NATO (with military/trade obligations but reltive autonomy for member countries) and less of a United States (where one set of federal laws overrules state law).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Actually, I'm using the EU model, which us far more accurate.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
It may also be worth considering that the Federation of TOS may be very different in structure than the Fed of TNG. NATO might actually be closer to what we see in TOS than the EU, given the Ardana example.
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Spock notes the chief asshat of Ardana was within his rights to execute Kirk. I rather doubt that is the case with any full member planet of the Federation. The references to non-interference would also support that view. Ardana must have been some sort of affiliate.
Kirk explicitly says "Ardana is a member of the Federation" and goes on to insist that its council fulfill a "responsibility that nothing interferes with its obligation to another member of the Federation." To me that sounds like membership with full and equal standing to other members.
I agree that it sounds that way, but I am suggesting there was more to it than the shorthand references, like associate membership or some other affiliation treaty.
Put simply, I reject the notion that true Federation member planets can execute Starfleet officers and citizens of other Federation planets on a whim. The Federation has but one death penalty on the books by that time ... yet we should believe member worlds are free-fire zones?
That's not the Federation of Star Trek. Federation citizens have rights that apply to every citizen. Individual planetary laws do not override them. While I imagine the Federation is far less homogenous than the United States, I don't accept that capital punishment for trespassing is legal on any world any more than I would expect Jerry Brown's California to be able to execute a US naval captain for entering the state without permission while on a desperate mission to secure almonds.
Which brings up a point ... there wasn't the first Federation official or Starfleet liaison here?
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Trimm: It may also be worth considering that the Federation of TOS may be very different in structure than the Fed of TNG. NATO might actually be closer to what we see in TOS than the EU, given the Ardana example.
It's mentioned in dialogue that the UFP had greatly expanded in the time the Romulans were absent- and considering the way new cultures would add to the melting pot (along with new legal viewpoints and philosophy) it's a good call to think the TOS and TNG versions of the Federation are about as different as that of the US founding and the US of post western expansion.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Other than Ardana, is there any other specific support for the view of a Federation governmental sea-change? The danger of using that alone is circular logic.
It seems to me that this notion stems from the idea of Ardana being a full member, and thus Ardana's membership is thought to require a massive shift in the entire Federation over the course of a century. That is to say, a single planet is taken as evidence of a change for a hundred.
On the other hand, if we presume the Federation is largely the same, then we have a lot less change to explain away, focusing our attention instead on the single naughty planet with its brutally dictatorial artist class.
Simple addition of new members doesn't seem like a specific idea … the Federation is presented as a constitutional republic. And while constitutions can be altered or ignored, I'd be most interested to know of evidence of greater statism and federalization of formerly-planetary powers in the TNG era as opposed to the TOS era.
If anything, I would think the Federation high commissioners and similar asshats running about in the TOS era for different missions, as opposed to local folks usually running the show in the TNG era, would seem to point toward things being the same, if not actually contrary to the statist sea-change argument.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
That's the interesting thing about TOS though, we don't actually see many Federation planets outside of the occasional starbase. Actually, just offhand, I'm not sure we see any Federation planet explicitly named as such other than Vulcan and Ardana.
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
