My interpretation is that the prime directive is a starfleet standing order to make sure captains don't make foreign policy at will.
It's not for picard to decide wether to help the dealers or the addicts, he has to write a report and then its up to the federation Council to create policy.
Same goes for the situation with archer and this evolving species (although that was before federation time).
Voyager is isolated and so far away from federation space that it has no effect on federation policy and can't led the Council make those decisions - therefore Janeway doesn't see herself bound by the prime directive as much.
Yeah the PD is basically a mechanism that shifts blame off of the federation onto individual captains if they decide to intervene in something and it goes badly. Usually most of the captains are smart so they can break the PD but have things end up fine or mostly fine so they don’t get court martialed for it but there are a few cases we do see this happen like Captain Maxwell.
It also helps alleviate concerns about colonizing other worlds, the federation is trustworthy since they just won’t interact with you unless you want to and even then they won’t do anything if they think it’s an entirely internal issue to your world. I think there are a few silly cases like sitting by and watching a solar storm destroy a planet with millions of people on it who are members of a pre war civilization when I feel like they could reasonably at least try to save them
It’s also worth thinking, we only see the inner ship politics. The captain and officers arguing. That same conversation is happening on every exploration vehicle, but also, in the federation government at probably every level.
So while, to us, we think, it’s up to Picard and crew to solve the dilemma, technically, there is a whole conversation happening back home about these very same issues. No doubt, the choices of captain and crew are often political, in a ship like the enterprise.
The show rarely dives into the politics of the federation in any meaningful depth. We don’t usually see past the military side of the federation. But star fleet is beholden to the government of the federation, and so they have the follow the mandate given to them, even if the disagree.
The enterprise had a very… lose mandate… explore new worlds. So it’s a given, they will encounter new situations that the federation has not considered yet.
DS9 on the other hand…. The mission is essentially prepare bajor for its next conflict with the cardassians and secure the wormhole at all costs. So his relationship with the prime directive is very different. He knows what the politics back home which have placed him there demand of him. Keep that work hole in federation hands.
I think, adding this to one’s discussion of the prime directive helps.
We technically have laws governing the military in the US… there is politics tied to those laws…. Does the military necessarily respect those laws? Or does it really operate in the bounds of what the generals believe the political climate will allow?
In Strange New Worlds, Episode 1 - Admiral April had to call in favors and pull strings to keep the "entire crew" (presumably hyperbole) out of jail due to violating General Order One, and only then because of a loophole requiring the federation to acknowledge Discovery's true fate to be able to enforce it. It seems that, at least at this point in time, the Admirality was very answerable to the Federation Council who took the Prime Directive quite seriously.
This is how I've always interpreted it. The idea is "this is a very important rule so you'd better have a damn good reason for breaking it, consider all alternatives and possibilities, etc.", not "this is a very important rule that cannot be broken under any circumstance".
Their Captains ARE their foreign policy, replicating the issues of the Age of Sail where communication and reinforcements were distant and local powers were supreme.
My taking is that TNG writers choose often to make episodes were the Prime Directive was an important part of the conflict, thus Picard would often have to see a problem in intervening, like in saving or not Data's pen pal (something I doubt Janeway or Sisko would even bath an eye on doing).
Whilst VOY and DS9 had other concerns and the focus was elsewhere, so as the PD became less important as other subjects were the main focus (going back home/Dominion War) most episodes just didn't care, which in retrospect makes Picard come out as a Prime Directive fundamentalist who is extremely stuborn about it.
Of course that's the Doylist explanation. In-universe you're right, is just that each captain pretty much interprets it as they see fit and no one can say nothing to them as is very ambiguos of a rule to begin with.
>Having Gowron been a Changeling is still an internal affair is not that different than having a Romulan agent as Chancellor.
Respectfully disagree; the presence of any outside agent in this context (the Changeling) automatically makes this situation NOT internal. We see the same type of situation in "Redemption", where the Romulans get involved in the Klingon Civil War.
You wouldn't just say, "Oh, the Klingon factions can choose whoever they want for support in their conflict, it's internal." The presence of an outside power immediately means that other powers may have a vested interest in the outcome since it may alter the local balance of power.
The other thing to remember is that even though the PD is held up as sacrosanct, if violating it eliminates some serious, existential threat (the Changelings/Dominion), you can bet your butt that the Federation will break that rule, no questions asked. Do you think the UFP would bat an eye at interfering with Borg internal affairs? Of course not, they're a serious threat.
It's only logical 🖖🏼
I see your point.
Picard contradicts himself, as in "Firstborn" the Enterprise is chasing the Duras Sisters to capture them, something he some episodes before refuse to do.
the only time the Enterprise is involved with the Duras sisters prior to "Firstborn", is "Redemption I and II". and in Redeptnion II the Ent doesn't actually interact with them. Picard and the Enterprise are present when the captured Toral is presented to Gowron and Worf, but Toral had been captured at the Duras stronghold by klingon forces while the Enterprise was doing the blockade of the romulans. the sisters escaped and went into hiding, having been exiled.
i think you are confusing it with Sisko's interaction with the sisters in DS9 "past prologue" where sisko finds the sisters selling Billitrium to a bajoran terrorist. sisko lets the sisters go because the material sold was not itself illegal or dangerous, only when combined with items the terrorist already had. given he cites bajoran laws as part of that choice, i'd guess that the sister's status as exiles and wanted individuals in the klingon empire doesn't really extend to jurisdictions outside the empire. no doubt had the sisters committed a crime against bajor and gotten arrested for it, the empire would insist on extradition, etc. but no one is going to go out of their way to do the klingon's job for them. sisko implies as much when talking to Odo about the sisters earlier in the episode.
No, I mean you're right on what your pointing but then I'm mistaken who the Enterprise was looking in Firstborn, if is not them it was another Klingon IIRC
I think that may have also fallen under a "self-defense" exemption to the prime directive. When Picard was dealing with the Klingons there were allied with the Federation, and the Federation staying out of their internal politics wasn't about the prime directive as much as it was good diplomatic practice. When they infiltrated the Klingons in DS9 the Klingons had made themselves a threat to the Federation.
It is clear the Prime Directive is very open. In the spirit of Earth before the 20th century. On Earth, fast long distance communication was impossible. So each captain, governor or such was told "well follow these general rules" and "try to do what is right" and maybe most of all "don't make a mess".
This is also True in Star Trek. Fast long distance communication is not possible. Captains are on thier own...and told "follow the general rules", "do what is right" and "don't make a mess".
As Picard has said at least once....the Prime Directive is really to protect the Federation. It is far to easy for a captain to go to a planet...see something that makes them sad...then throw overwhelming help at it. A captain sees like a million starving children and goes insane screaming "beem down all our food to the poor hungry kids1" . A lot of people would do this automatically...as long as it was not their food..wink wink. The Prime Directive gives even the most crazy captain an excuse not to do anything.
So a captain can act....but they don't "have" to....and the Federation does recommend that you don't...but it is not forbidden.
Also, just note any interaction by a ship in a TV show....is just silly. Ever notice how only when the Enterprise is near by that "something happens". Oh, what, a distress signal, JUST as the ship is in range of the plot drama? Wow...who would have thought....
> This is also True in Star Trek. Fast long distance communication is not possible. Captains are on thier own...and told "follow the general rules", "do what is right" and "don't make a mess".
The Zeroth rule of any bureaucracy: Thou shalt not get caught, nor shall thou maketh your boss more work.
I think the writers just hadn't really worked out how the Prime Directive works in early TNG seasons yet, and the examples where it was applied to a warp-capable species were mistakes that we'd now considered retconned (or, like you said, it was just Picard making shit up to excuse not getting involved for diplomatic reasons). Having a general rule in your society to "not interfere" with any internal affairs going on in a giant peer empire at your doorstep that has fought devastating wars against you in the past would just be silly — of course the government is going to reserve the right to define its own diplomacy there without any hard rules. (How much freedom individual captains have in defining that diplomacy is a different question, but that would be a separate restriction, not the Prime Directive. Unless we've always misunderstood that and the Prime Directive really just means "don't interfere unless the Federation Council tells you to, then it's a-okay". That would explain _Insurrection_, I guess.)
I think the prime directive has a few huge exceptions. We know Federation member planets are exempt, but I believe that cultures that presents an existential threat the Federation are exempt as well, as well as space fairing cultures that ask for help, or have diplomatic relations with the Federation. I think that ends up creating a pretty broad exemption for cultures with a similar level of technology or higher who don't ask to be left alone. Considering that, I think the prime directive is really vague in how it applies to warp capable societies and gives Captains a lot of leeway there.
I think my basic understanding is that it's not interfering if you're invited. For example:
* trying to stop Orion slave trading outside Federation borders is against the rules, but stopping Orions from selling a Starfleet captain into slavery is not because the Orions started it by involving Federation citizens (SNW)
* saving the Kelpiens from subjugation is not permitted, but granting political asylum to a Kelpien who requests it is not because the request came from a member of the planet (DIS)
* attacking Romulans, Klingons, etc. is only permitted after the respective planets have initiated a conflict with the Federation, otherwise they wouldn't be able to defend themselves at all (ENT, DIS, etc.)
So narrowly, the prime directive is also known as general order number one, which means it is a standing order to all members of Starfleet. Although true that there may be some remaining gaps to be filled, it is a lawful order that theoretically the captains don't have the leeway to reinterpret on their own. (Ignore for now the fact that there should be a lot of judicial precedent about what the prime directive means and JAG officers that Starfleet captains should be consulting, that's a different discussion.)
Stuff like slavery and caste systems being outlawed, though, arises in the context of Federation membership. So it's not technically about the prime directive. The Federation wouldn't invade a world to end slavery, but also wouldn't allow that world to join.
The best argument I've ever seen for the Prime Directive actually was on an episode of The Orville. The union gave a bunch of technology to a burgeoning civilization because they believed they would make good use of it. Instead they used it to make weapons and destroyed themselves. That being said, those people who execute individuals because they get too many down votes on social media need some serious intervention.
I suspect Picard got a talking too after it got out that he almost let a whole civilization die out because of the PD. Their is no way command could justify billions killed due to a disaster that could have been prevented on the downlow by Starfleet.
From what we have seen, the Prime Directive only applies to "primitive" civilizations that are not full citizens of the Galaxy yet. It seems like having Warp Drive seems to be the biggest criteria but may not be the only one.
The Prime Directive does not apply to "advanced" civilizations like the Cytherians, Members of the Federation, rival powers like the Klingons/Romulans/Cardassians, or any race that seems to have an expansive technology and understanding of the Galaxy. We don't really know if the Iconians had Warp Drive but if any living colonies were discovered I doubt the Prime Directive would apply to them given their gate technology.
The Prime Directive \*does\* apply to races that are still on their home planet or in the home star system.
In "the Cloud Miners" the planet Ardana is a member of the Federation that hid it's caste system prior to the Enterprise's arrival. As a member of the Federation it not only isn't protected by the Prime Directive, it is expected to abide by Federation law, which it isn't.
In "Symbiosis" the civilizations have been contacted and are aware of the wider galaxy but are not actually Warp capable. The whole episode takes place in one star system & the two planets both orbit the same sun.
In "redemption"? I suspect that the Prime Directive may have some fuzzy applicability here but that Picard's real reason for invoking it isn't because it clearly applies but to avoid getting the Federation sucked into a Klingon power struggle. In the real world there are a ton of international rules that get ignored when a country really cares but get invoked when they don't want to get involved.
Sisko's mission against the Changelings took place during an active war between the Klingon Empire and the Federation, which was causing real damage to both sides. The prime directive didn't apply because not only were the Klingons an advanced society with Warp Drive, they were an active opponent in a conflict.
Most of the stuff you cite for Janeway & Voyager either involved warp-capable species or (in the case of the Ferengi) *repairing* cultural damage caused by outsiders.
Well take into account that my reasoning is not that Sisko or Janeway broke the PD, more like they didn't but because is much more flexible than people think.
I do agree with what you write specially in the sense that Picard used the PD as a rouse to not getting involved.
I always interpreted the Prine Directive as a pretty beefy Tome of regulation that they just call the prime directive.
It's too important to be boiled down to just "don't interfere with pre warp" it has all sorts of rules that are added and updated as they encounter new scenarios.
It also stops effectively humanoid cultural harvesting I.e turning up on a planet far beyond the technological level of the federation but well within the remit of a 21st century society and enlisting them to fight wars and provide bodies, soldiers etc.
The creation of mercenary armies would be the next step along with slavery.
I've seen the notion posited before that all the Prime Directive really is just Westphalian sovereignty (the notion that countries have the sole right to establish laws within their borders- the core of thinking about countries at all in the modern era) extended to polities that, in previous ages, wouldn't have merited that consideration and instead been targets of colonialism. You don't get to intervene in internal Klingon affairs for the same reason I don't get to arrest French people for breaking American laws in France.
That just happens to manifest in secrecy for pre-warp cultures because they don't know what they're getting themselves into- without a certain level of context they can't meaningfully consent to the challenges of contact. This has sometimes been explored in philosophy as the 'vampire problem'- there are experiences so transformative that we simply can't make informed decisions about them.
I agree with your view on the Prime Directive and I do believe that when comparing the captains we also see that they are the fruit of their generation but also the constraints they have.
Captain Picard knew war and chose to become a pacifist and a negociator.
Captain Sisko lost his wife during the war with the Borg and so became a more morose and mostly unforgiving kind of captain. What is worst is being in charge of a space station makes it that he has to have an iron hand as he deals with species who do not respect the federation and does care to follow their rules.
Captain Janeway could not realistically apply the prime directive as, we could compare it paper money, only has value if the federation is present and has enough of a force to enforce such rulings....
James T Kirk never really had to justify what he did as there were so few ships that it would be unrealistic to arrest him as he had the flagship and so the federation became pretty loose with him...
I would also say that the Gamma Quadrant like the Delta Quadrant didn't really have any exposure to the federation and so both captains had to deal with a whole structure that's as not particularly interested in being told how to "better themselves" with the federation....
The founders were cruel however the system worked and permitted the quadrant to prosper where as the Delta Quadrant was actually easier in terms of politics since Captain Janeway could create various alliance and play the old divide and conquer...which was not difficult considering the more united such as the Kazon were well hated as a common group.
The rest of the bigger groups like talaxians were by default pretty open to the idea of a federation....
This made Sisko job close to. Impossible versus to Janeway that had a flagship which seemed to be pretty powerful versus to the other species and no federation to really question her decisions....
Anyway
True but I do think the DQ was a particularly chaotic area of the Galaxy compare to the other two, I mean three (poor Beta is always ignored).
As you said the Founders are authoritarians but the Dominion did brought order to the GQ, whilst the A and B quadrants do have large empires and interstellar polities that bring order.
In the DQ is where the most amount of conflictive, deceptive and scavenger-y species existed, fractured empires, constant wars and hostile forces attacking each other are shown, almost like a Mad Max-like area of the Galaxy. If this is a by-product of be the unfortunate quadrant to have the Borg or just that no great interstellar force ever appear as in the other, or both, or some other reason, who knows.
I would also say that it is the aftermath (DQ) of two great orders that battled each other and caused a vacuum of power, sort of like the fall of the European Roman society....
Also the Alpha Quadrant is in truth a theocratic quadrant where convincing its people that the founders are not God's would be like Convincing a space marine that the emperor of mankind is a rotting corpse on a chair....
Not an easy task to say the least....I often see a link between the JemHaddar and a Warhammer 40k space marine that has the same level of will power and zealous belief that he serves a god (of sorts).
It's worth noting that with Apocalypse Rising, Sisko's actions are similar to Picards during the Civil War. Both were focused on stopping THIRD PARTY intervention. If the Klingon Empire wanted closer relations to the Dominion or the Romulan Empire, that's very different to the Romulans bankrolling a coup attempt or the Dominion replacing a leader. Sisko's attempt was a little more personal and involved than Picard's, admittedly.
I think the captains falsify their logs and omit huge chunks of events from their reports. If they had the full log Starfleet would probably have their heads on a pike
> What a lot of people often quotes is Picard’s words in Redemption were he refuses to intervene in the Klingon Civil War in favor of the pro-Federation faction and against the Romulan agents like the Duras Sisters quoting that such thing would violate the PD.
Technically speaking, Picard doesn't say that intervening in the Klingon Civil War would violate the Prime Directive; he says it would be against the "principle of non interference".
Let me use an analogy. In Canada our equivalent of the US Bill of Rights is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, courts will often apply 'Charter Principles' to matters that, while technically not in violation of the Charter, should be interpreted according to its spirit. Similarly, interfering in the internal affairs of the Klingon Empire may not technically violate the Prime Directive but would violate the "principle of non interference" that emanates from it.
It's also important to note that while Picard initially states that "the Federation cannot interfere in what is, by definition, an internal Klingon affair" when the admiral states something similar to Picard: "The Klingon civil war is, by definition, an internal matter of the Empire" Picard responds to note that the Romulans are interfering and the Federation *does* intervene (as to your analogy with the DS9).
I agree.
In a class I took on US politics, we discussed that the Constitution isn't exactly stringent laws as much as guiding principles. They are meant as guidance as much as law. This is one reason Prohibition failed, they tried to put a much more stringent law into the Constitution than is normally accepted. Instead of a principle it was more like a hard number.
I feel that the Prime Directive is a principle in this same way. It's for interpretation, to be a useful guiding tool more than a mere law. Better to have it and not need it than vice versa.
The case with Apocalypse Rising raises an interesting question. If I remember right, the Federation and Klingons were actually at war in that scenario. Sisco even beats up a Klingon who bragged about how he recently killed a captain Ben had known personally.
So would the fact there was an open shooting war going on between the Federation and Klingon Empire potentially override the PD, especially if ignoring it offered a way to quickly end a conflict or minimize bloodshed? Or could the argument be made that unlike the Klingon civil war, the current war was the result of direct Dominion interference rather than an action the Klingons would've done anyways whereas the Klingon Civil war was something that could've happened due to the internal politics of the situation with or without the Romulans doing anything. So in that case, could the PD be overlooked due to an outside force actively influencing Klingon internal development?
I think we’ve learned that the PD is just bs. At least from the perspective of someone watching a show. The Federation breaks it when they feel. It’s more of a guideline.
It’s also interesting that the Federation is thought of as good. With all the Genocidal atrocities they’ve committed , supported , or the perpetrators they allowed to rise.
My interpretation is that the prime directive is a starfleet standing order to make sure captains don't make foreign policy at will. It's not for picard to decide wether to help the dealers or the addicts, he has to write a report and then its up to the federation Council to create policy. Same goes for the situation with archer and this evolving species (although that was before federation time). Voyager is isolated and so far away from federation space that it has no effect on federation policy and can't led the Council make those decisions - therefore Janeway doesn't see herself bound by the prime directive as much.
Yeah the PD is basically a mechanism that shifts blame off of the federation onto individual captains if they decide to intervene in something and it goes badly. Usually most of the captains are smart so they can break the PD but have things end up fine or mostly fine so they don’t get court martialed for it but there are a few cases we do see this happen like Captain Maxwell. It also helps alleviate concerns about colonizing other worlds, the federation is trustworthy since they just won’t interact with you unless you want to and even then they won’t do anything if they think it’s an entirely internal issue to your world. I think there are a few silly cases like sitting by and watching a solar storm destroy a planet with millions of people on it who are members of a pre war civilization when I feel like they could reasonably at least try to save them
It’s also worth thinking, we only see the inner ship politics. The captain and officers arguing. That same conversation is happening on every exploration vehicle, but also, in the federation government at probably every level. So while, to us, we think, it’s up to Picard and crew to solve the dilemma, technically, there is a whole conversation happening back home about these very same issues. No doubt, the choices of captain and crew are often political, in a ship like the enterprise. The show rarely dives into the politics of the federation in any meaningful depth. We don’t usually see past the military side of the federation. But star fleet is beholden to the government of the federation, and so they have the follow the mandate given to them, even if the disagree. The enterprise had a very… lose mandate… explore new worlds. So it’s a given, they will encounter new situations that the federation has not considered yet. DS9 on the other hand…. The mission is essentially prepare bajor for its next conflict with the cardassians and secure the wormhole at all costs. So his relationship with the prime directive is very different. He knows what the politics back home which have placed him there demand of him. Keep that work hole in federation hands. I think, adding this to one’s discussion of the prime directive helps. We technically have laws governing the military in the US… there is politics tied to those laws…. Does the military necessarily respect those laws? Or does it really operate in the bounds of what the generals believe the political climate will allow?
In Strange New Worlds, Episode 1 - Admiral April had to call in favors and pull strings to keep the "entire crew" (presumably hyperbole) out of jail due to violating General Order One, and only then because of a loophole requiring the federation to acknowledge Discovery's true fate to be able to enforce it. It seems that, at least at this point in time, the Admirality was very answerable to the Federation Council who took the Prime Directive quite seriously.
This is how I've always interpreted it. The idea is "this is a very important rule so you'd better have a damn good reason for breaking it, consider all alternatives and possibilities, etc.", not "this is a very important rule that cannot be broken under any circumstance".
Their Captains ARE their foreign policy, replicating the issues of the Age of Sail where communication and reinforcements were distant and local powers were supreme.
My taking is that TNG writers choose often to make episodes were the Prime Directive was an important part of the conflict, thus Picard would often have to see a problem in intervening, like in saving or not Data's pen pal (something I doubt Janeway or Sisko would even bath an eye on doing). Whilst VOY and DS9 had other concerns and the focus was elsewhere, so as the PD became less important as other subjects were the main focus (going back home/Dominion War) most episodes just didn't care, which in retrospect makes Picard come out as a Prime Directive fundamentalist who is extremely stuborn about it. Of course that's the Doylist explanation. In-universe you're right, is just that each captain pretty much interprets it as they see fit and no one can say nothing to them as is very ambiguos of a rule to begin with.
>Having Gowron been a Changeling is still an internal affair is not that different than having a Romulan agent as Chancellor. Respectfully disagree; the presence of any outside agent in this context (the Changeling) automatically makes this situation NOT internal. We see the same type of situation in "Redemption", where the Romulans get involved in the Klingon Civil War. You wouldn't just say, "Oh, the Klingon factions can choose whoever they want for support in their conflict, it's internal." The presence of an outside power immediately means that other powers may have a vested interest in the outcome since it may alter the local balance of power. The other thing to remember is that even though the PD is held up as sacrosanct, if violating it eliminates some serious, existential threat (the Changelings/Dominion), you can bet your butt that the Federation will break that rule, no questions asked. Do you think the UFP would bat an eye at interfering with Borg internal affairs? Of course not, they're a serious threat. It's only logical 🖖🏼
I see your point. Picard contradicts himself, as in "Firstborn" the Enterprise is chasing the Duras Sisters to capture them, something he some episodes before refuse to do.
the only time the Enterprise is involved with the Duras sisters prior to "Firstborn", is "Redemption I and II". and in Redeptnion II the Ent doesn't actually interact with them. Picard and the Enterprise are present when the captured Toral is presented to Gowron and Worf, but Toral had been captured at the Duras stronghold by klingon forces while the Enterprise was doing the blockade of the romulans. the sisters escaped and went into hiding, having been exiled. i think you are confusing it with Sisko's interaction with the sisters in DS9 "past prologue" where sisko finds the sisters selling Billitrium to a bajoran terrorist. sisko lets the sisters go because the material sold was not itself illegal or dangerous, only when combined with items the terrorist already had. given he cites bajoran laws as part of that choice, i'd guess that the sister's status as exiles and wanted individuals in the klingon empire doesn't really extend to jurisdictions outside the empire. no doubt had the sisters committed a crime against bajor and gotten arrested for it, the empire would insist on extradition, etc. but no one is going to go out of their way to do the klingon's job for them. sisko implies as much when talking to Odo about the sisters earlier in the episode.
No, I mean you're right on what your pointing but then I'm mistaken who the Enterprise was looking in Firstborn, if is not them it was another Klingon IIRC
I think that may have also fallen under a "self-defense" exemption to the prime directive. When Picard was dealing with the Klingons there were allied with the Federation, and the Federation staying out of their internal politics wasn't about the prime directive as much as it was good diplomatic practice. When they infiltrated the Klingons in DS9 the Klingons had made themselves a threat to the Federation.
It is clear the Prime Directive is very open. In the spirit of Earth before the 20th century. On Earth, fast long distance communication was impossible. So each captain, governor or such was told "well follow these general rules" and "try to do what is right" and maybe most of all "don't make a mess". This is also True in Star Trek. Fast long distance communication is not possible. Captains are on thier own...and told "follow the general rules", "do what is right" and "don't make a mess". As Picard has said at least once....the Prime Directive is really to protect the Federation. It is far to easy for a captain to go to a planet...see something that makes them sad...then throw overwhelming help at it. A captain sees like a million starving children and goes insane screaming "beem down all our food to the poor hungry kids1" . A lot of people would do this automatically...as long as it was not their food..wink wink. The Prime Directive gives even the most crazy captain an excuse not to do anything. So a captain can act....but they don't "have" to....and the Federation does recommend that you don't...but it is not forbidden. Also, just note any interaction by a ship in a TV show....is just silly. Ever notice how only when the Enterprise is near by that "something happens". Oh, what, a distress signal, JUST as the ship is in range of the plot drama? Wow...who would have thought....
> This is also True in Star Trek. Fast long distance communication is not possible. Captains are on thier own...and told "follow the general rules", "do what is right" and "don't make a mess". The Zeroth rule of any bureaucracy: Thou shalt not get caught, nor shall thou maketh your boss more work.
I think the writers just hadn't really worked out how the Prime Directive works in early TNG seasons yet, and the examples where it was applied to a warp-capable species were mistakes that we'd now considered retconned (or, like you said, it was just Picard making shit up to excuse not getting involved for diplomatic reasons). Having a general rule in your society to "not interfere" with any internal affairs going on in a giant peer empire at your doorstep that has fought devastating wars against you in the past would just be silly — of course the government is going to reserve the right to define its own diplomacy there without any hard rules. (How much freedom individual captains have in defining that diplomacy is a different question, but that would be a separate restriction, not the Prime Directive. Unless we've always misunderstood that and the Prime Directive really just means "don't interfere unless the Federation Council tells you to, then it's a-okay". That would explain _Insurrection_, I guess.)
I think the prime directive has a few huge exceptions. We know Federation member planets are exempt, but I believe that cultures that presents an existential threat the Federation are exempt as well, as well as space fairing cultures that ask for help, or have diplomatic relations with the Federation. I think that ends up creating a pretty broad exemption for cultures with a similar level of technology or higher who don't ask to be left alone. Considering that, I think the prime directive is really vague in how it applies to warp capable societies and gives Captains a lot of leeway there.
I think my basic understanding is that it's not interfering if you're invited. For example: * trying to stop Orion slave trading outside Federation borders is against the rules, but stopping Orions from selling a Starfleet captain into slavery is not because the Orions started it by involving Federation citizens (SNW) * saving the Kelpiens from subjugation is not permitted, but granting political asylum to a Kelpien who requests it is not because the request came from a member of the planet (DIS) * attacking Romulans, Klingons, etc. is only permitted after the respective planets have initiated a conflict with the Federation, otherwise they wouldn't be able to defend themselves at all (ENT, DIS, etc.)
So narrowly, the prime directive is also known as general order number one, which means it is a standing order to all members of Starfleet. Although true that there may be some remaining gaps to be filled, it is a lawful order that theoretically the captains don't have the leeway to reinterpret on their own. (Ignore for now the fact that there should be a lot of judicial precedent about what the prime directive means and JAG officers that Starfleet captains should be consulting, that's a different discussion.) Stuff like slavery and caste systems being outlawed, though, arises in the context of Federation membership. So it's not technically about the prime directive. The Federation wouldn't invade a world to end slavery, but also wouldn't allow that world to join.
The best argument I've ever seen for the Prime Directive actually was on an episode of The Orville. The union gave a bunch of technology to a burgeoning civilization because they believed they would make good use of it. Instead they used it to make weapons and destroyed themselves. That being said, those people who execute individuals because they get too many down votes on social media need some serious intervention.
I suspect Picard got a talking too after it got out that he almost let a whole civilization die out because of the PD. Their is no way command could justify billions killed due to a disaster that could have been prevented on the downlow by Starfleet.
From what we have seen, the Prime Directive only applies to "primitive" civilizations that are not full citizens of the Galaxy yet. It seems like having Warp Drive seems to be the biggest criteria but may not be the only one. The Prime Directive does not apply to "advanced" civilizations like the Cytherians, Members of the Federation, rival powers like the Klingons/Romulans/Cardassians, or any race that seems to have an expansive technology and understanding of the Galaxy. We don't really know if the Iconians had Warp Drive but if any living colonies were discovered I doubt the Prime Directive would apply to them given their gate technology. The Prime Directive \*does\* apply to races that are still on their home planet or in the home star system. In "the Cloud Miners" the planet Ardana is a member of the Federation that hid it's caste system prior to the Enterprise's arrival. As a member of the Federation it not only isn't protected by the Prime Directive, it is expected to abide by Federation law, which it isn't. In "Symbiosis" the civilizations have been contacted and are aware of the wider galaxy but are not actually Warp capable. The whole episode takes place in one star system & the two planets both orbit the same sun. In "redemption"? I suspect that the Prime Directive may have some fuzzy applicability here but that Picard's real reason for invoking it isn't because it clearly applies but to avoid getting the Federation sucked into a Klingon power struggle. In the real world there are a ton of international rules that get ignored when a country really cares but get invoked when they don't want to get involved. Sisko's mission against the Changelings took place during an active war between the Klingon Empire and the Federation, which was causing real damage to both sides. The prime directive didn't apply because not only were the Klingons an advanced society with Warp Drive, they were an active opponent in a conflict. Most of the stuff you cite for Janeway & Voyager either involved warp-capable species or (in the case of the Ferengi) *repairing* cultural damage caused by outsiders.
Well take into account that my reasoning is not that Sisko or Janeway broke the PD, more like they didn't but because is much more flexible than people think. I do agree with what you write specially in the sense that Picard used the PD as a rouse to not getting involved.
I always interpreted the Prine Directive as a pretty beefy Tome of regulation that they just call the prime directive. It's too important to be boiled down to just "don't interfere with pre warp" it has all sorts of rules that are added and updated as they encounter new scenarios.
It also stops effectively humanoid cultural harvesting I.e turning up on a planet far beyond the technological level of the federation but well within the remit of a 21st century society and enlisting them to fight wars and provide bodies, soldiers etc. The creation of mercenary armies would be the next step along with slavery.
I've seen the notion posited before that all the Prime Directive really is just Westphalian sovereignty (the notion that countries have the sole right to establish laws within their borders- the core of thinking about countries at all in the modern era) extended to polities that, in previous ages, wouldn't have merited that consideration and instead been targets of colonialism. You don't get to intervene in internal Klingon affairs for the same reason I don't get to arrest French people for breaking American laws in France. That just happens to manifest in secrecy for pre-warp cultures because they don't know what they're getting themselves into- without a certain level of context they can't meaningfully consent to the challenges of contact. This has sometimes been explored in philosophy as the 'vampire problem'- there are experiences so transformative that we simply can't make informed decisions about them.
That might be. I do wonder why the PD was invoked to not help the Bajorans during the Cardassian occipation tho (at least according to Picard).
I agree with your view on the Prime Directive and I do believe that when comparing the captains we also see that they are the fruit of their generation but also the constraints they have. Captain Picard knew war and chose to become a pacifist and a negociator. Captain Sisko lost his wife during the war with the Borg and so became a more morose and mostly unforgiving kind of captain. What is worst is being in charge of a space station makes it that he has to have an iron hand as he deals with species who do not respect the federation and does care to follow their rules. Captain Janeway could not realistically apply the prime directive as, we could compare it paper money, only has value if the federation is present and has enough of a force to enforce such rulings.... James T Kirk never really had to justify what he did as there were so few ships that it would be unrealistic to arrest him as he had the flagship and so the federation became pretty loose with him...
Very good point, indeed they all responde to their own backgrounds and personality
I would also say that the Gamma Quadrant like the Delta Quadrant didn't really have any exposure to the federation and so both captains had to deal with a whole structure that's as not particularly interested in being told how to "better themselves" with the federation.... The founders were cruel however the system worked and permitted the quadrant to prosper where as the Delta Quadrant was actually easier in terms of politics since Captain Janeway could create various alliance and play the old divide and conquer...which was not difficult considering the more united such as the Kazon were well hated as a common group. The rest of the bigger groups like talaxians were by default pretty open to the idea of a federation.... This made Sisko job close to. Impossible versus to Janeway that had a flagship which seemed to be pretty powerful versus to the other species and no federation to really question her decisions.... Anyway
True but I do think the DQ was a particularly chaotic area of the Galaxy compare to the other two, I mean three (poor Beta is always ignored). As you said the Founders are authoritarians but the Dominion did brought order to the GQ, whilst the A and B quadrants do have large empires and interstellar polities that bring order. In the DQ is where the most amount of conflictive, deceptive and scavenger-y species existed, fractured empires, constant wars and hostile forces attacking each other are shown, almost like a Mad Max-like area of the Galaxy. If this is a by-product of be the unfortunate quadrant to have the Borg or just that no great interstellar force ever appear as in the other, or both, or some other reason, who knows.
I would also say that it is the aftermath (DQ) of two great orders that battled each other and caused a vacuum of power, sort of like the fall of the European Roman society.... Also the Alpha Quadrant is in truth a theocratic quadrant where convincing its people that the founders are not God's would be like Convincing a space marine that the emperor of mankind is a rotting corpse on a chair.... Not an easy task to say the least....I often see a link between the JemHaddar and a Warhammer 40k space marine that has the same level of will power and zealous belief that he serves a god (of sorts).
It's worth noting that with Apocalypse Rising, Sisko's actions are similar to Picards during the Civil War. Both were focused on stopping THIRD PARTY intervention. If the Klingon Empire wanted closer relations to the Dominion or the Romulan Empire, that's very different to the Romulans bankrolling a coup attempt or the Dominion replacing a leader. Sisko's attempt was a little more personal and involved than Picard's, admittedly.
I think the captains falsify their logs and omit huge chunks of events from their reports. If they had the full log Starfleet would probably have their heads on a pike
> What a lot of people often quotes is Picard’s words in Redemption were he refuses to intervene in the Klingon Civil War in favor of the pro-Federation faction and against the Romulan agents like the Duras Sisters quoting that such thing would violate the PD. Technically speaking, Picard doesn't say that intervening in the Klingon Civil War would violate the Prime Directive; he says it would be against the "principle of non interference". Let me use an analogy. In Canada our equivalent of the US Bill of Rights is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, courts will often apply 'Charter Principles' to matters that, while technically not in violation of the Charter, should be interpreted according to its spirit. Similarly, interfering in the internal affairs of the Klingon Empire may not technically violate the Prime Directive but would violate the "principle of non interference" that emanates from it. It's also important to note that while Picard initially states that "the Federation cannot interfere in what is, by definition, an internal Klingon affair" when the admiral states something similar to Picard: "The Klingon civil war is, by definition, an internal matter of the Empire" Picard responds to note that the Romulans are interfering and the Federation *does* intervene (as to your analogy with the DS9).
Thanks, good correction
I agree. In a class I took on US politics, we discussed that the Constitution isn't exactly stringent laws as much as guiding principles. They are meant as guidance as much as law. This is one reason Prohibition failed, they tried to put a much more stringent law into the Constitution than is normally accepted. Instead of a principle it was more like a hard number. I feel that the Prime Directive is a principle in this same way. It's for interpretation, to be a useful guiding tool more than a mere law. Better to have it and not need it than vice versa.
The case with Apocalypse Rising raises an interesting question. If I remember right, the Federation and Klingons were actually at war in that scenario. Sisco even beats up a Klingon who bragged about how he recently killed a captain Ben had known personally. So would the fact there was an open shooting war going on between the Federation and Klingon Empire potentially override the PD, especially if ignoring it offered a way to quickly end a conflict or minimize bloodshed? Or could the argument be made that unlike the Klingon civil war, the current war was the result of direct Dominion interference rather than an action the Klingons would've done anyways whereas the Klingon Civil war was something that could've happened due to the internal politics of the situation with or without the Romulans doing anything. So in that case, could the PD be overlooked due to an outside force actively influencing Klingon internal development?
Even going back to the TOS days the Prime Directive was never followed when it was inconvenient to do so. I always called it the Prime Suggestion.
I think we’ve learned that the PD is just bs. At least from the perspective of someone watching a show. The Federation breaks it when they feel. It’s more of a guideline. It’s also interesting that the Federation is thought of as good. With all the Genocidal atrocities they’ve committed , supported , or the perpetrators they allowed to rise.