posted
Minutiae Man and I have been discussing this, but I thought I'd like to hear what the rest of you think. A few questions.
1. It's 2265 (or earlier, I'm writing a museum article), you're the government of Earth, and you're thinking, what do I get out of Federation membership. Earth is already the main component of Starfleet and Federation bureaucracy (judging by onscreen appearances) and would itself be the most powerful, richest race in this part of the Galaxy. How does Fed membership benefit Earth? Does it give Earth a free reign to do what it likes with less interference or trouble (no tariffs, no need to defend interior borders, no multiple treaties) from less-powerful Fed members, who would otherwise be annoying minor powers? Or does the necessity of dealing of a bunch of squabbling minor members not make it worth the trouble?
2. Is Fed membership based on race, on population, or economic power or what? We've discussed this before in regards to Mars, but when (if at all) does a colony qualify for Fed membership? Let's say that humans colonize some distant planet. The population gets up to two million or so (like Deneva). Can they be independent and a Fed member or will they always be an Earth colony? Franz Joseph suggests, on the model of the UN, that there is trusteeship status, which might be halfway between a colony and a full member. Possibly, a colony would be granted trusteeship status (with consent of the homeworld), then eventually become a Fed member. On the other hand, so colonies might not seek independence.
3. How many Fed members are there in 2265? (Supposedly 150 by the 2370s)
4. What's the best analogue for the Federation? Is it the United States (modern or pre-Constitution), the European Union, the United Nations or what?
Thanks all!
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I had a lengthy reply eaten by an IE crash, so rather than rewrite all of that I'm just going to answer the easy questions.
1.) Earth in the Federation is the capital of a major power. Earth out of the Federation is just another technologically advanced but politically and culturally isolated backwater.
2.) "Member worlds" is the common term. The case of Kesprytt suggests that smaller political entities are not forbidden from seaking membership, however.
3.) 32. Maybe. I've got a long theory. Well, it isn't that long. Ok, I'll just write it down. In "Journey to Babel" the (or rather, a) Federation Council is going to go to Babel to vote on admitting Coridan. Now, when the Orions attack the Enterprise, we learn that she is the only Federation ship authorized to be in the whole sector. I do not think it is necessarily a huge leap to conclude that all the delagates to the conference were traveling aboard the Federation. This is not unbelievable, since the Enterprise begins the episode in orbit of Vulcan, which is presumably far from where she has been exploring just a few episodes before.
So, if (and this is a fairly big if, actually) the Federation Council which is meeting at Coridan is anything like the Council later developed in the TNG era, and if there is only one ship (not perhaps the wisest move, seeing as how that one ship is nearly blown up, but we hear of no others, and hear something that could mean that there were no other ships going to Babel), then all we need to do is count how many delagates are aboard the Enterprise. According to...McCoy, I think, there are 32 ambassadors, and a much larger number of staff for each. Aides and the like. We see from Sarek's example that only one ambassador is sent from each world. Therefore, if this admittedly unstable chain of reasoning holds, we can say that there were 32 Federation members at the time of "Journey to Babel." (And 33 shortly after, according to TNG's "Sarek".)
4.) It is my belief that the Federation qualifies as a single nation, as we would understand a nation, but that it is organized more loosely than the modern United States.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think the Fed is a lot closer to the UN than the US. Earth is a superpower, as are the Klingons (or, at least they were.) Thus, Earth enjoys all the benefits of being a capital world, I.E. virtual utopia.
As an aside, except for your fringe John Birch society types, it's highly unlikely that people on earth would be opposed to anything Starfleet wanted to do. They're in the driver's seat, their world is made perfect. It looks like benign fascism...the dream of every little girl and boy is apparently to serve the state (greater good of humanity?) and join Starfleet.
If I were at paramount, I'd do a series showing the fall of that ideal society, due to hidden faults in the societal infrastructure. It's human nature that would be their downfall. Can you imagine, for example, what would happen to Earth if the Klingons suddenly got their shit together, and reemerged as a real power?
Why would they need or accept the Federation then?
A nice civil war with irrational reasons for it to be fought is in order. Yep. I'd rather watch that than any of this early days of wholesome exploration mumbo jumbo.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
1. Earth probaly saw that the Federation offered it oportunites that would be denied it if it went alone. The Federation would presumbly offer a wider rang of goods,services,resources and technology. It would also give Earth a diplomatic punch far in excess of what it could muster alone. It also allows Earth a legitimte avenue of influencing the decisions of the other Fed members. Whilest there would be a degree of influence in Earth matters, the gains (military,social,fincial and technolgical) must have clearly outweighed such concerns.
2. The internal politics of the Federation seem to be that each Member world has control of its own colonies. The only evidence that I can think of off hand was during the Dominon War the 10th Fleet was assinged to Betazed and its colonies, which suggest that some member worlds have their own colonies. As to the make of the Federation the hierachy seems to be Member Worlds, Associate members, protectoretes and then colonies.
3 Sol's quick and dirty line of reasoning for the number of Fed members in the 2265 is reasonble, however I do have a dime memory that there was approxmatley 33 members on the Trust Territories in the U.N. The 32 members may only be the members on the foregin commitee or the Fed equivilent of the Trust committe. Of course there are more prosaic answers: the rest are already there, didn't want to attende etc.
4. The Federation resembles the early US or the EU if you ask me. I mean we have seen that it's possible for a Fed member to offer aslyum from the Federation its to officers, national spy agencies still seem to exist, as do various defence organisations. Many of these would not be in a Nation-State.
Quick Rant I suppose: What is the attraction with a Federation Civil War? Why have I seen this suggestion come up all the time as a possible future series? I mean it dosent seem to fit any thing that Star trek is supposed to represent. I know that it can be unrelistic but does everything have to come back to some dystopian, vison as humans as creature unable to escape there base nature? Don't we see enough of this in scifi?
I suppose in a belated attmept to keep this on track Turkina 5? 7? left the Federation ,which suggest that colonies do have some say in thier own governace.
Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't want a show about a dystopia. But I REALLY don't want a show about a utopia.
A civil war would pull that utopia apart, and its one of the only sure fire and believable methods for doing it. Hence its popularity amongst the online community.
After the war is over, it wouldn't have to be a scene of total anarchy and destruction. Who knows what kind of Civil War they could have, anyway? Why would anything other than ideas need to be destroyed, anyway? I'm envisioning something quite a bit different from your typical civil war based on the events of 1861-1865.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I would agree that most (but not, I think, all) utopian literature has that fatal flaw. But, uh, that's what Star Trek is, regardless.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
There are implications, especially in the third year of the TOS, of a major interstellar warfare. This warfare results in the Treaty of Axanar which brought humans and Vulcans closer. ("The Mark of Gideon", "Whom Gods Destroy"). I wish we had more information on these events.
Anyhow, I think we saw only the ambassadors who had an interest in the Coridan issue aboard the starship Enterprise. I think there are more member worlds than those represented in "Journey to Babel".
To answer the questions, I am basing my information on what is presented in the original and ignoring the history of Enterprise:
Q1. Earth is a major player hundred years before the time of Kirk. She has developed alliances with other planet-states. These alliances are important for trade and protection. By the first season of TOS, Earth is the nucleus of her alliance. The benefits for Earth are numerous. Benefits: 1. Prestige and honor. She is first among worlds in her Federation. 2. Trade. She benefits from trade with other planet-states. 3. Protection. She has a fleet which acts to protect the interests of free, open trade and the democratic system of governance favored by the member worlds of the Federation. 4. Missionary. The ships of the Starfleet are representatives of the values and morals of Earth. They can spread the good word of the Federation and encourage non-allied planet-states to join the Federation.
Q2. Criteria for joining- Planet-states must have: 1. a technological level comparable to Earth 2. an open, democratic society 3. resources needed for the alliance 4. a sound economic base
Q3. Members. I would suggest a higher number than the 32 suggested. As I stated above, we only saw the representatives interested in the Coridan issue.
Q4. Federation is analogous to the United States in her role in the 1950's and 1960's. (The modern Trek is also the United States.) I don't see an United Nations parallel in the Federation.
Earth-U.S. Member-U.S. Allies Enemies-enemies of the time
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
a tech level comparable with Earth can't be one of the criteria. afterall, those aliens in Insurrection had only recently discovered warp drive.
IP: Logged
posted
But they weren't applying for membership, only protectorate status.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
1) I imagine trade agreements and other considerations would be a major factor. Also the Federation was founded after the Earth-Romulan Wars so presumeably mutual defense is an issue; I doubt Earth on its own would be able to maintain a force as large as Starfleet. Then there's technology transfers and stuff like that- presumeably at least *some* of the other fed members have tech Earth doesn't/didn't. Maybe cultural reasons as well; enriching society and all that seems a very Trek thing to me; strength through diversity.
2) In the case of colonies i imagine there would be some sort of 'halfway' status between dependant colony and full member, sort of like the old US territories. As for when it achieves this status, i would suggest that it should be when a certain population level has been reached, the planet can support it's population at a certain standard and a democratic government has been introduced. The trusteeship could be a sort of trial period to prove the planet can do this.
3) Relatively few full members; between 30-50. Perhaps. Or not.
4) Perhaps something along the lines of what the CSA was supposed to be like (only minus the slavery); a relatively weak central government, with more power invested in plaetary governmrnts.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
are you sure? didn't troi say something along the lines of "they [the aliens] have only just developed warp drive. with the losses in the dominion war, the federation is taking everyone they can get to recoup the losses"? it's been a while since i saw the movie, but i remember them applying for actual membership.
IP: Logged
posted
There has to be a 'halfway' status - such as Bajor. I submit that any world (regardless of whether it is a colony or just discovered alien race, which meets certain societal (1 world government), moral (individual rights and freedoms), & technological (warp drive) parameters can apply - and then the application is put to a vote by the extand members. How fussy the members are is determined by the needs of the Federation at the time (eg: war).
I doubt that all members of the Federation are democracies (as we consider and understand the concept) - there are other just forms of government which allow maximum individual freedoms. Otherwise Kronos will NEVER make it.
I see a definite parallel between the UN and the Federation - or rather the UN as I suspect it will be in another 10 years: - more clout, bigger budget, and the US (Earth) as its policeman.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
oooh, ooooh, maybe it's like the UN in Evangelion. each country has it's own say in what they do, but there is a UN Military and the UN makes big decisions by member vote.
IP: Logged
posted
A concept which has as much in common with the real UN as rocks do with butter.
The aliens in "Insurrection" had just become (or were applying to become) a "Federation protectorate" as I recall.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
maybe you missed the "oooh, oooh", and where i said " the UN from Evangelion. sure sounds like i was seriously talking about the ramifications of the real world, there.
IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
