Special Administrative Regions?

Trek Books, Games and General chat

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby Sonic Glitch » Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:28 pm

Graham Kennedy wrote:
Sonic Glitch wrote:Please note, at no point did I say that the decisions made/actions taken by Admiral Dougherty are reasonable.

Yes, I don't mean reasonable in the sense of do you think he's being reasonable, but rather in the sense of do you think this is really what the writers intended to depict.

If what is said is taken literally, the film depicts the Federation as an aggressive state which conquers those less powerful and subjects them to tyrannical rule. My question is, is this really what the writers were shooting for?

I suppose it does cast a new light on the Federation/Klingon alliance. I had always taken it more or less as a given that this happened because the Klingons gave up on their campaign of conquest and learned to live at least semi-peacefully with their neighbours, thus the Federation felt they could be allies. It seems that the reality may have been more along the lines of the Federation becoming more like the Klingons! :)

I was attempting to demonstrate that there is no contradiction to the planet being "in Federation space," but not a member.

And again, this is something I find stunning. We are to believe now that the apparent conundrum of the Ba'ku planet is that the Federation simply conquered it. I agree it's not a contradiction as such... it's just kind of weird, given how the Federation is generally depicted.

I should have phrase that better, I apologize for that. It should say, more accurately, the Federation would claim areas of space with pre-spaceflight planets (and let's be honest, we do certainly see a number of those in the Original Series) and those areas would be part of Federation space.

Well, it certainly does seem to be that way based on Insurrection. So much for the Federation as "good guys", I guess.

Have you ever read Prime Directive by the Reeves-Stevens'? The idea I'm trying to emulate is based on the development they write about. For example, if the Baku were a native population on their course through evolution and not the Space Amish, I would see the Federation controlling the sector and monitoring the Baku as they develop. Once the Baku develop warp capability the Federation starts the First Contact process and offers them membership/protectorate status. If they refuse I don't doubt the Federation comes to some sort of mutual agreement about control of the space/protection of the Federation's self-interest. Since the Federation in general is supportive of the right to self-determination, I see the arrangement of non-interference in development but control of the sector until such point as the Prime Directive no longer applies, and then the Federation makes their offer of membership and if refused at least make some attempts at negotiating an agreement or alliance.

In Prime Directive it is established that the Federation keeps a close eye on primitive populations in its sphere of influence, but also holds several sectors "in trust" in a way for theses species to make their colonization efforts as their space programs develop -- essentially making sure nobody else sweeps in and occupies these things before the developing species gets a chance to join the galactic community. For example, if the Federation would observing Earth they would make sure no other governments or private corporations or what have you would sweep in and claim Mars or Jupiter or any of the uninhabited planets or nearby habitable systems (Alpha Centauri for example). I do find it interesting however that in Prime Directive it is the development of Subspace Radio that makes a civilization ready for contact, not warp drive -- I guess it was written before the Warp Drive = Prime Directive No Longer Applies decision was made.

Does this make sense?

Oh yes, and it sounds nice and reasonable, for the most part. But what I'd say is that such a planet would be the equivalent of a present day enclave. Take the most famous example of an enclave, Vatican City. It's completely surrounded by Italy, so it would make sense to refer to it as being "in Italy", and I'm sure Italy has all sorts of agreements and treaties as to how the two relate to one another. And if some invading power wanted to attack the Vatican City, I'm sure Italy would have something to say about it, if only because you'd have to go through Italy to get there.

I can see the Federation being in a similar relationship to a primitive world, where they literally have them "surrounded". And yes, the Federation might monitor their development as they might do to any primitive culture, we've seen that before. And might offer them Federation membership once they hit warp, and if that didn't pan out then then would need to negotiate some sort of right of passage for them to travel through Federation space. All well and good and reasonable.

But this is not what I object to about Insurrection. In Insurrection, Dougherty explicitly states that since it is "in Federation space" it is their planet to do with as they please, no matter what the locals may have to say about it. And what they please is mass abduction by force. It's the equivalent of Italy deciding it really likes that massive pile of artwork the Vatican City has, so one day they just send the army in and grab it all. And the justification is simply "Well why not? Vatican city is in our territory, so it's up to us what happens with it."

Point being, in the normal run of things "it's enclosed by our territory" is NOT the same thing as "it's a Federation planet that belongs to us". But apparently the Federation doesn't see it that way.


Graham .. I think we're on the same side just getting lost in the details. You're Vatican enclave example (the first one) is what I was trying to describe. I too take issue with Dougherty's interpretation and decision and sincerely doubt it was entirely above board as he claimed (lends some credence to the Dougherty is Section 31 theory). That's just my explanation for th, "the planset is in Federation space" line. At no point did I say "the planet is in Federation space and therefore they can do with they want." I don't believe the Federation as it's been explained would operate that way -- certainly the Federation we see in TNG wouldn't. And I doubt that's what the writers of Insurrection intended to portray but we can tally that up to another strike agains the film..
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
User avatar
Sonic Glitch
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 5834
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 1:11 am
Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby Graham Kennedy » Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:44 am

Sonic Glitch wrote:Graham .. I think we're on the same side just getting lost in the details. You're Vatican enclave example (the first one) is what I was trying to describe. I too take issue with Dougherty's interpretation and decision and sincerely doubt it was entirely above board as he claimed

He didn't say that specifically, but that was his entire rationale for why they were interfering - the Son'a have the technology to harvest the rings, and "we have the planet".

(lends some credence to the Dougherty is Section 31 theory). That's just my explanation for th, "the planset is in Federation space" line. At no point did I say "the planet is in Federation space and therefore they can do with they want." I don't believe the Federation as it's been explained would operate that way -- certainly the Federation we see in TNG wouldn't. And I doubt that's what the writers of Insurrection intended to portray but we can tally that up to another strike agains the film..

I'm not so much accusing you of thinking that way, more that that's how the writers seemed to be thinking! Or more likely, they didn't really think through the implications at all. :)
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8292
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby Platonian » Sat Apr 19, 2014 6:54 pm

Graham Kennedy wrote:Or more likely, they didn't really think through the implications at all. :)


I think you've "hit the nail on the head," Graham.

This is a great discussion: intelligent and thought-provoking. It's good to know the Forum can reach such heights! This is why I joined. I hope to see more of such worthwhile discourse!

Graham: Please let us know when your article is on-line. I certainly want to read it!
"Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical."
Blaise Pascal
User avatar
Platonian
Chief petty officer
Chief petty officer
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:01 pm
Location: Platonius via Los Angeles

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby Teaos » Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:42 am

We know there is certain traits you need to have to join the Federation, equality, good judicial system ect. Maybe the Baku and other such members are people who dont match all the criteria, but are still afforded certain privileges of Federation membership.
User avatar
Teaos
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14672
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:00 am
Location: Behind you!

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby Platonian » Mon Apr 21, 2014 4:43 am

Teaos wrote:We know there is certain traits you need to have to join the Federation, equality, good judicial system ect. Maybe the Baku and other such members are people who dont match all the criteria, but are still afforded certain privileges of Federation membership.


Interesting observation, thanks.
"Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical."
Blaise Pascal
User avatar
Platonian
Chief petty officer
Chief petty officer
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:01 pm
Location: Platonius via Los Angeles

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby Coalition » Mon Apr 21, 2014 4:54 pm

Teaos wrote:We know there is certain traits you need to have to join the Federation, equality, good judicial system ect. Maybe the Baku and other such members are people who dont match all the criteria, but are still afforded certain privileges of Federation membership.


Warp capability? Of course how did the Son'A manage to leave in warp ships if the Federation was watching? Perhaps the Federation visited rarely (the Baku weren't a technical culture), and the Son'a left between one of those visits. So where did the warp capable ships come from, what was used to hide them, aso? Did the Son'A slowly build them over centuries, sneaking materials out, sneaking themselves out, assembling them one part at a time? When the ship was finally built, how much celebration was done as they went FTL for the first time in centuries?

The Federation initially might have seen the Baku, and wondered if there had been a massive extinction event (since there was only the village left), and this village was all that was left. They might have consoled themselves thinking that per the Prime Directive they would have not interfered with the event, but at least they weren't there to listen to the calls for help. For the village, I wonder if there used to be other villages on the planet, but as natural causes picked off people, they slowly shrunk until there is just the one village left. The rest of the planet is littered with cultural artifacts, but just this one village has the survivors. Those cultural artifacts should include high technology, unless they deliberately destroyed them so the Federation (or anyone following) would not find them.

But when the Federation arrives a few years/decades later, they notice the residents haven't aged. So they build the Duck Blind, and put the town under observation. Since the Baku don't have warp technology they cannot officially greet them into the Federation, they just observe a village of immortals working for eternity. A minor anthropology experiment, but the Rings are the key medical benefit. I wonder how the Federation personnel assigned to the Duck Blind reacted when they first realized they were being made younger? What sort of reactions happened then?
Relativity Calculator
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)
Coalition
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:34 am
Location: Georgia, United States

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby Graham Kennedy » Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:14 pm

Platonian wrote:
Graham Kennedy wrote:Or more likely, they didn't really think through the implications at all. :)


I think you've "hit the nail on the head," Graham.

This is a great discussion: intelligent and thought-provoking. It's good to know the Forum can reach such heights! This is why I joined. I hope to see more of such worthwhile discourse!

Graham: Please let us know when your article is on-line. I certainly want to read it!


It's up now.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8292
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby Platonian » Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:18 pm

Graham Kennedy wrote:It's up now.


Just read the article, Graham. Thanks for the kind acknowledgement. :)

I hope people write in with their ideas on the subject. Even if they don't, I wager it's made at least some people think about it!
"Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical."
Blaise Pascal
User avatar
Platonian
Chief petty officer
Chief petty officer
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:01 pm
Location: Platonius via Los Angeles

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby Graham Kennedy » Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:41 pm

Well it's had something like 80 views, so somebody is reading it :)
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8292
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby Sonic Glitch » Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:44 am

Graham Kennedy wrote:Well it's had something like 80 views, so somebody is reading it :)

I was 1! Well-written Graham. And, like Platonian I appreciate the acknowledgement.
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
User avatar
Sonic Glitch
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 5834
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 1:11 am
Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby Duskofdead » Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:41 am

Graham Kennedy wrote:
Sonic Glitch wrote:Re the Baku: I always interpreted it as that the planet was in a sector of space claimed/controlled by the Federation even if they weren't Federation members.

See, I find that a stunning proposition. You are saying that you think the Federation can just pick out a block of space and decide that it belongs to them, even though it's occupied by people that have absolutely nothing to do with the Federation... and then on that basis, the Federation can decide that it has the legal right to confiscate property from those people by force. People who have no right to vote for the government, no right to petition it, no right of due process... who have none of that because they don't even know the government exists.

This seems reasonable to you, really?


I consider this to be reaching.

Space is large, and it's three dimensional. If a non-Federation or non-warp-capable planet is located in a swath of space dotted with Federation colonies, outposts, relay stations, traffic, science vessels, etc., there's more than enough room to "respect" a planet's immediate "space" while still referring to the much larger swath around it as Federation territory.

Honestly I don't think it is any more complicated than the fact that the Vatican is considered a sovereign country while otherwise it's widely understood to be not just part of Europe but part of Italian soil. Only by being really anally literal with how we're interpreting claims to things like "planet in Federation space" does it become a problem. Obviously from the shows there is no reason to believe that if non-member worlds put up a satellite or a shuttle leaves the atmosphere for their first moon landing they don't run into a signpost claiming all the space outside the planet's atmosphere as Federation space.

The Bajorans likewise were regarded as controlling some kind of standard area around the Bajoran system (the Klingons were referenced to have withdrawn "just outside of it" when they got in trouble for stopping ships illegally in "Bajoran space") despite only being a one-system race (aside from whatever nomadic refugees of the occupation might have settled offworld) and also despite not having the military capacity to actually 'enforce' a border themselves. I would consider it similar to maritime laws regarding the ocean out to a distance of x to be considered part of a nation's boundaries.

So I don't think there's really any contradiction, given how vast space is and how small one solar system and its immediate environs are in comparison, to say there's a non-member planet within Federation space.
User avatar
Duskofdead
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:06 pm

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby Graham Kennedy » Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:33 am

Duskofdead wrote:
Graham Kennedy wrote:
Sonic Glitch wrote:Re the Baku: I always interpreted it as that the planet was in a sector of space claimed/controlled by the Federation even if they weren't Federation members.

See, I find that a stunning proposition. You are saying that you think the Federation can just pick out a block of space and decide that it belongs to them, even though it's occupied by people that have absolutely nothing to do with the Federation... and then on that basis, the Federation can decide that it has the legal right to confiscate property from those people by force. People who have no right to vote for the government, no right to petition it, no right of due process... who have none of that because they don't even know the government exists.

This seems reasonable to you, really?


I consider this to be reaching.

Space is large, and it's three dimensional. If a non-Federation or non-warp-capable planet is located in a swath of space dotted with Federation colonies, outposts, relay stations, traffic, science vessels, etc., there's more than enough room to "respect" a planet's immediate "space" while still referring to the much larger swath around it as Federation territory.

Honestly I don't think it is any more complicated than the fact that the Vatican is considered a sovereign country while otherwise it's widely understood to be not just part of Europe but part of Italian soil. Only by being really anally literal with how we're interpreting claims to things like "planet in Federation space" does it become a problem. Obviously from the shows there is no reason to believe that if non-member worlds put up a satellite or a shuttle leaves the atmosphere for their first moon landing they don't run into a signpost claiming all the space outside the planet's atmosphere as Federation space.

Maybe I'm not reading you right or something... but that's not what happens in this film. The Federation isn't treating the Baku planet like it's a sovereign territory surrounded by their own space - I'd be fine with that. I have no doubt such cases exist - for example the Proto-Vulcan planet in "Who Watches the Watchers" were probably such a case. Maybe those Malcorian guys in First Contact (episode not film). And in those cases, the Federation acts reasonably - they monitor, watch, study, but do not interfere or assume rights over the inhabitants.

But in the case of Insurrection, Admiral Beardy specifically states that "we have the planet", and this is the legal basis for the fact that they can carry out their plan to kidnap everyone on this planet, forcibly transplant them somewhere else, and then radiation-bomb the entire surface, killing everything on it.

Yeah, the Vatican is surrounded by Italy. If the Italian government decided to forcibly remove all the inhabitants and firebomb the place - with the justification being along the lines that "it's in our territory", I think people might object. Quite strongly.

That's my objection to the film - that the fact that the Baku planet is within Federation space is simply assumed to mean that they Federation can do whatever it wants to it.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8292
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby Black Jesus » Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:53 pm

How far does territory or control of space go for any of these governments? More specifically, how far in an "up" and "down" direction does it go? A few light years? To the edge of the galaxy? Or is it limited to a relatively two deminsional plane?
User avatar
Black Jesus
Master chief petty officer
Master chief petty officer
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:35 pm

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby Mikey » Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:57 pm

Black Jesus wrote:How far does territory or control of space go for any of these governments? More specifically, how far in an "up" and "down" direction does it go? A few light years? To the edge of the galaxy? Or is it limited to a relatively two deminsional plane?


Certainly it's easier for us to discuss when we think of the 2D, "top-down" extents of political division, because the z-axis of the galaxy is so small in relation to the x- and y-axes. However, to answer your question I don't think we can make a statement as to how far along that z-axis these divisions exist as a generality; those borders would be just as fluid and variegated as any other borders, based on the extent of the progress the government in question made in any given place.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33196
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Special Administrative Regions?

Postby McAvoy » Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:57 pm

For all we know, smaller powers like for example the Tholians or Sheliak and so forth could be on top or bottom of Federation territory as opposed to side by side.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 4024
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

PreviousNext

Return to Books / Games / General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron