The noninterference directive, prohibiting intervention in the normal development of any society. It also mandates that any Starfleet vessel or crew member is expendable to prevent violation of this rule.
This policy of non-interference prevents Starfleet from influencing the normal development of any civilization, particularly those that are pre-warp drive.
However, we have seen many episodes of Star Trek where the captain of the ship USS-Enterprise is forced to bend this Order or atleast create work arounds.
In today's world, we see this happening every where. Post industrial revolution and post colonialism when the concept of nation states and nationalism have taken deep roots, we look around and see nations around the world overtly and covertly pushing their ideas and advancing their interests.
And when questioned, these nations come up with wonderful ideas and answers that stump even a seasoned journalist.
At home, we see a direct involvement from across the border that fuels home grown disturbances into full fledged acts of terror and violence. And when questioned, these countries either completely deny involvement or simply say "we only extend moral, social and diplomatic support" to the cause.
Let us take a case thats more familiar. The western nations ganged up post-september to invade or liberate the people of Afganistan and Iraq from their authoritarian regimes. And when questioned, they give a moral answer, that beholdens all humans irrespective of nationality to come forward and relieve these nations from tyranny.
Well, they did that during the cold war times in Afganistan and now they are at it again.
Another case is Sri Lanka. India had, allegedly, initially financed tamil rebel movements in the island nation. And when questioned, India came up with the Tamil solidarity card. However, India got its fingers burnt trying this stunt and has not recovered yet.
Yet another case would be the Soviet involvement in keeping the eastern bloc of Europe under "friendly" regimes. And ofcourse the american involvement in proping up "friendly" governments in South America.
In each case, interfering governments came up with moral answers to cover their actions.
I for one, do not buy these answers. But for arguments sake let us assume that these nations did mean what they said.
So, would that still justify inteference.
However, noble the cause for interference may be, does that still justify the interfering nations right to get involved in the "normal" course of events shaping the history of the aggrieved country ?
Let us look at some more examples.
Lets us take africa. There are numerous conflicts that are plaguing the continent - The wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Human rights issues in Sierra Leone, Conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Genocide in Rwanda and so on and so forth. Some of them are results of external interference. But should the world watch as thousands of people die due to mal-nutrition, disease and AIDS. Should the world allow history to take its normal course and let the suffering peoples fate be decided without any alternative.
On the home front, should India been seen as being sympathetic to Baluchi resistance or to the Burmese democratic movements or should India back off and let destiny decide.
Should we have a Prime Directive ingrained in the nation's foreign policy ? Or is the Prime Directive a moralistic posturing that can never be implemented ?
Or perhaps, the World is not ready yet to make sci-fi policies, a reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment