THE PRIME DIRECTIVE

MAIN DISCUSSION

FINAL SUMMARY

The Prime Directive is a key aspect of Federation policy, and is also inextricably bound up with its policy of First Contact with newly discovered civilisations, and has been and remains one of the most difficult to administer and do so consistently.

The Prime Directive is not specified in the United Federation of Planet's Articles of Association, but it forms General Order No.1 in Starfleet's General Orders and Directives and is deemed to apply to Federation citizens not just Starfleet personnel. This General Order is what is commonly called "the Prime Directive". It developed from Vulcan policy that had been established before at least the 1950s (ref. [Enterprise: Carbon Creek], therefore before (formal or official) Vulcan First Contact with Mankind in 2063, and it was adopted formally quite early in Federation history but the date is not known.

During the 23rd century era which features Captain James T. Kirk's historic first mission of deep space exploration, as depicted in [TOS], the Prime Directive exists as Federation Starfleet's formal policy. [TOS: Bread And Circuses] seems to contain a direct quotation from it: "No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet. No references to space or the fact that there are other worlds or civilisations." But the Prime Directive's definition has a looser interpretation than that which evolved by the mid-24th century (the [TNG]-era onwards). In Kirk's time, deliberate contact with pre-warp societies was sometimes ordered by Starfleet. Kirk's violations of the Prime Directive under circumstances where he had no orders to infringe it, however, are many. Sometimes his violations involve major policy decisions which should have required at most full instructions or at least input from superior officers at Starfleet Command, such as the initiation of a probably bloody and prolonged arms race on Tyree's planet in [TOS: A Private Little War]. However, Kirk goes without reprimand or punishment for his high-handed actions and his "imaginative" interpretation of the Prime Directive. It seems that field commanders have very broad discretion, for instance Kirk decides that the Prime Directive does not apply to societies ruled by a computer and which seem stagnant ref. [TOS: The Return Of The Archons] and [TOS: The Apple].

By 2364 and the start of Captain Jean-Luc Picard's exploration mission into deep space, as portrayed in [TNG] onwards, the Prime Directive has evolved from forbidding interference in pre-warp societies (except for Starfleet orders to do so) to prohibit interference in the natural development of any society. (The Prime Directive does not preclude investigative missions to observe pre-spacefaring societies, but the missions must be covertly conducted.) This brings the Prime Directive even further into the category of a life philosophy, and its broad scope means that it is the most difficult formulation of the Prime Directive to interpret and administer. Inevitably, senior field commanders are bound to encounter a situation involving Prime Directive issues, and this is borne out by the number of times between them that commanding officers Picard, Sisko and Janeway end up wrestling with this the Federation's "cardinal protocol" (Janeway's term for it, in [#104 Counterpoint] while discussing the Prime Directive with Kashyk).

The Prime Directive raises serious problems, partly because of its scope, but also because its significance as Federation Starfleet's General Order No.1 means that Starfleet personnel swear an oath which includes the promise to sacrifice one's life and to sacrifice ship and crew if required to uphold the Prime Directive. This oath requiring the ultimate self-sacrifice is occasionally recorded e.g. the USS Valiant crew in 2217 on Eminiar VII plus the expectation of death to uphold the oath by Picard in [TNG: Who Watches The Watchers] and by Janeway to protect Kellan's people from the missile Dreadnought in [#33 Dreadnought] which missile, after re-programming by Torres, had been taken into the Delta Quadrant by the Caretaker's displacement wave. Generally, Kirk, Janeway etc. manage to avoid the self-sacrifice including the sacrifice of crewmembers and ship, sometimes in dubious circumstances such as Picard in [TNG: Justice]. This "imaginative" interpretation of the Prime Directive and the lack of punishment for infringement (at least for our hero captains) is actually necessary, for dramatic reasons, otherwise there would be no Star Trek shows or else there would have to be a new cast as captain and crew every few weeks! Whilst Prime Directive violations are recorded by Starfleet and be cited to create prejudice against the violator, as evidenced in [TNG: The Drumhead], it seems that only deliberate violations resulting in deliberate mass slaughter are punished as with Captain Ronald Tracey in [TOS: The Omega Glory].

Official exceptions to the Prime Directive are an appeal for asylum or an appeal for aid especially medical aid, as in [#154 Nightingale] when Kim decides to aid a stricken Kraylor vessel when he is deliberately misinformed that it is a medical transport, but there are regulations to govern these along with the discretion of the relevant commanding officer. The Omega Directive, ref. [#89 The Omega Directive], has priority over everything including the Prime Directive.

A major issue is whether the exceptions to the Prime Directive, both official and unofficial, render it ineffective and even questions whether it should exist. It is undisputed that the Prime Directive should exist (Picard's vehement arguments in, say, [TNG: Symbiosis] and [Star Trek IX: Insurrection], are eloquent) and indeed should exist as fundamental policy, but whether it is actually in force is another matter. Essentially and inevitably, the Federation is obliged to take a pragmatic approach, being guided by practical experience and observation rather than philosophical theory.

The following diverse though often interconnected issues are the most significant ones which arise as the result of the Prime Directive's evolved wider definition:

• The Federation Council establishes a temporary warp factor 5 upper limit, ref. [TNG: Force of Nature], after speeds above that were found to cause dangerous damage to the space-time continuum. The limit was abandoned a couple of years later; presumably newer Federation starships such as USS Voyager are equipped with improved and environmentally-friendly warp drive systems which do not damage the spatial continuum. But the Federation deals with numerous species not subject to the warp 5 speed limit nor which are constrained to install environmentally-friendly warp drives, and in the Delta Quadrant, Voyager is the only Starfleet vessel (except for the Equinox whose crew installed an enhanced warp drive contrary to Federation principles). Without modified warp drives, a species that attains above warp factor 5 is damaging the space-time continuum, yet the Prime Directive of [TNG] onwards forbids interference. Therefore, it seems that environmental morals hold no influence with regard to the Prime Directive.
• The Temporal Prime Directive represents interference by Starfleet, particularly the Starfleet of the 29th century via the Temporal Integrity Commission (presumably a development of the Federation Department of Temporal Investigations, ref. [DS9: Trials And Tribble-ations]), but is viewed as interference to preserve the social and temporal order i.e. the timeline as received by the time the 29th century is reached. Inadvertent or deliberate changes to the timeline are viewed as being undesirable by Starfleet. The principle was established during Starfleet's first deep space exploration of the 22nd century, when Captain Archer and the crew of the NX-01 Enterprise interfere in the Temporal Cold War to preserve the timeline, aided by a temporal agent from the future. The Temporal Prime Directive is a General Order which was introduced later, and which prohibits interference with the normal development of history, and includes a ban on giving aid or information to inhabitants of previous eras because such actions might influence future eras. Close detail about the Temporal Prime Directive is irrelevant to this article, but it is noted that violation of the Prime Directive and/or Temporal Prime Directive normally occurs due to incomplete adherence to the directive, or to incomplete remedy thereof. We can deduce that adherence to the Temporal Prime Directive is assumed by Federation Starfleet to uphold the Prime Directive, even if means interfering with the prosperity or even existence of a society that results from a violation.
• A major argument against the Prime Directive's existence or at least against its high status is that the Prime Directive can be used as an excuse not to act in circumstances when action would seem justified. For instance, the United Federation of Planets refused to intervene or even supply aid to the Bajorans following the brutal Cardassian occupation of Bajor in the early 24th century, on the grounds that the occupation was an internal matter of the Cardassian government and that to assist the Bajorans would violate the Prime Directive. It could be argued that the Federation should have intervened on compassionate grounds and to prevent the oppression of a species; these reasons are cogent ones for Janeway and other Starfleet captains before her. However, it can be counter-argued, as Picard does in [TNG: Pen Pals], that the reason for the Prime Directive is that no one has the right to impose their own standards on others and it exists precisely to avoid giving into temptation and that, though difficult, it is, in the broader picture, an ultimately beneficial principle.
• An argument against the Prime Directive is that it is inconsistently applied. That is an invalid argument. If the premise (the Prime Directive) is itself in error it should be abolished (or at least amended), yet throughout the history of the future the Prime Directive's principles are considered worthy. The inconsistency of application does not invalidate a principle. Likewise, a principle is not valid just because it is applied, whether applied consistently or inconsistently. An example is murder - in real life Earth of the 21st century investigation and judicial punishment is inconsistently applied even within a single country but that does not mean murder should be treated lightly nor have its status as a crime abolished.
• Is it morally right that there should ever be such absolute circumstances as envisaged by the Prime Directive, especially given the Starfleet oath to uphold it if necessary by the sacrifice of one's life or the lives of other personnel such as a starship's crew? Is it morally right to require Starfleet personnel to sacrifice their lives in circumstances they believe are wrong? How far is a Starship Captain entitled to decide that his crew should be sacrificed, for instance should she/he always consult them first, would it be decided by a majority vote, would be time to consult them, in what circumstances should he consult them, what if there are non-Federation personnel on board, etc? (Presumably they are deemed to surrender jurisdiction to the ship's captain but acceptance by them or their governments of that might differ if the supreme sacrifice were actually to be made.)
• As Picard says: "Living is making choices!" ref. [TNG: A Matter Of Time]. The Prime Directive has to exist, for what the Federation supports is one of the ways that defines what the organisation is and what it stands for. It would be impossible to have a neutral or compromise situation - there must either be the Prime Directive or not, and not to have it would not be simply neutral but actively negative, i.e. it would be an actual positive declaration against the Prime Directive's principles. The Federation, fortunately, is not the sort of organisation to have just a token principle - that is not what heroes of television shows do or should do.
• Inevitably, at times, contamination of a society will occur, deliberate or otherwise. Contamination of a pre-warp society is considered to be the most serious and which most requires rectification e.g. [TNG: Who Watches The Watchers]. But it is likely that upon even officially sanctioned interference or intervention, some contamination will occur. In [TOS: A Piece Of The Action], in 2268, Dr McCoy inadvertently leaves his communicator behind on the pre-warp planet Sigma Iotia II. In [Enterprise: The Communicator] even the act of trying to remedy a contamination leads to contamination. Interference by the Federation in any circumstances is fraught with the risk of unpredictable consequences.

SUMMARY

The Prime Directive is not a neutral philosophy - one either has interference or non-interference, with no completely neutral ground. The Prime Directive is considered by Starfleet as a laudable or at least necessary philosophy, and is one of the defining protocols of the Federation, indeed, as General Order No.1, it is the "cardinal protocol" (Janeway: [#104 Counterpoint]). Federation Starfleet's personnel do require guidance for, as Picard observes: "A person's life, the future, hinges on each of a thousand choices. Living is making choices!" ref. [TNG: A Matter Of Time]. By requiring Starfleet personnel to take an oath to uphold the Prime Directive with their lives, the Federation underlines its commitment to the Prime Directive. But with the evolution of its definition to stipulate non-interference in all societies whether pre-warp or not this leads inevitably to a plethora of situations in which field personnel are forced to interpret the Prime Directive often in "imaginative" or unorthodox ways. The situation of Janeway and the crew of USS Voyager is unique in that, located in the Delta Quadrant cut off from Starfleet for years (two-way limited contact is firmly established in [#144 Life Line] and more firmly in [#166 Author Author]), they have an unusually difficult set of circumstances in which to operate. Already aware of it, the situation of ship and crew is thrown into sharp relief in [#30 Alliances]:

Chakotay: "Starfleet works well in the Alpha Quadrant but out here maybe we should be thinking more like the Maquis. The Maquis had to survive on their own. We were up against insurmountable odds. We had to create our own opportunities for success, because nobody was willing to help us. Sound like anybody you know?"
Janeway: "If you're suggesting we abandon our principles just because we're out of hailing range-"
Chakotay: "....The ship has taken so much damage we'll be lucky to get warp drive on line again. And we can count on the fact that the Kazon will be back. I don't think we can afford to keep doing business as usual."

This is an approach to problem-solving that is briefly summarised in the words Riley Frazier tells Chakotay in [#59 Unity]:

"Sometimes radical problems require radical solutions."

Janeway's own working rules sometimes override Prime Directive considerations e.g. her making alliances with other species or groups thereof (which backfire e.g. [#30 Alliances] and [#127 Dragon's Teeth]). Janeway's "cardinal protocol" seems to be, not the Prime Directive, but "get this crew home" (she says this in [#68 and #69 Scorpion]), and as well, like other Starfleet hero captains, she is driven by humanitarian considerations. Starfleet tends to take a tolerant view toward Prime Directive violations by its senior personnel, but not where deliberate mass killing is involved (ref. Captain Tracey in [TOS: The Omega Glory]), such that they do not lose their job or rank and Starfleet tends to support their decisions. In addition, desiring to do good whilst recognising that the Prime Directive is designed to prevent it imposing its standards or moral values on others, there are official exceptions to the Prime Directive such as the Omega Directive which aims to protect vast tracts of space in which people might live or travel through from the destructive power of the Omega molecule. Through its regulations governing asylum, partly noted in [DS9: Captive Pursuit] and [#34 Death Wish], Starfleet also does not neglect the individual's right to personal safety and freedom from oppression.

SUMMARY BY QUOTATION

Much of the debate about the Prime Directive is contained within a single scene, in [TNG: Pen Pals]:

Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "It is no longer a matter of how wrong Data was, or why he did it [he answered a call from and maintained contact with Sarjenka, a girl from a pre-warp society, whose planet is on the verge of a natural disaster]. The dilemma exists. We have to discuss the options, and please talk freely." Worf: "There are no options. The Prime Directive is not a matter of degrees. It is an absolute." Dr Pulaski: "I have a problem with that kind of rigidity. It seems callous and even a little cowardly." Picard: "Doctor, I'm sure that's not what the Lieutenant meant. But in a situation like this we HAVE to be cautious. What we do today may profoundly affect the future. If we could see every possible outcome-" Will Riker: "We'd be gods, which we're not. If there is a cosmic plan, is it not the height of hubris to think that we can or should interfere." Geordi La Forge: "So what are you saying? That, that the Dremans are, are fated to die?" Riker: "I think that's an option we should be considering." La Forge: "Consider it considered and rejected!" Deanna Troi: "If there is a cosmic plan, are we not part of it? Our presence at this place at this moment in time could be a part of that fate." La Forge: "Right, and it could be part of the plan that we interfere." Riker: "Well, that eliminates the possibility of fate." Data: "But, Commander, the Dremans are not a subject for philosophical debate. They are a people." Picard: "So we make an exception in the deaths of millions?" Pulaski: "Yes." Picard: "And is it the same situation if it's an epidemic and not a geological calamity?" Pulaski: "Absolutely." Picard: "What about a war? If generations of conflict is killing millions, do we interfere?" Pulaski's shoulders slump. "Ah, well, now we're all a little less secure in our moral certitude. And what if it's not just killings? If an oppressive government is enslaving millions? You see, the Prime Directive has many different functions, not the least of which is to protect US, prevent US from allowing our emotion to overwhelm our judgement." Pulaski: "My emotions are involved. Data's friend is going to die. That means something." Worf: "To Data." Pulaski: "Does that invalidate the emotion?" La Forge sighs. "What if the Dremans asked for our help?" Data: "Yes, Sarjenka's transmission could be viewed as a call for help." Picard: "Sophistry." Pulaski: "I'll buy that excuse. We're all jigging madly on the head of a pin anyway." Worf: "She cannot ask for help from someone she does not know." Data: "She knows me." Riker: "What a perfectly vicious little circle." There is a long silence. Data gets up and goes over to stand facing Picard. "We are going to allow her to die, are we not?" Picard decides. Regretfully: "Data, I want you to sever the contact with Drema IV." Data goes over to the computer control interface and presses some buttons. Computer: "Isolating frequency." Sarjenka: "Data, Data, where are you? Why won't you answer? Are you angry with me? Please, please, I'm so afraid. Data, Data, where are you?" Data goes to sever the contact with the planet. Picard: "Wait." He sighs. "Data. Your whisper from the dark has now become a plea. We cannot turn our backs." [TNG: Season 2: Pen Pals]

CONCLUSION
Despite the absolute nature of the Prime Directive and particularly in its 24th century form ([TNG] onwards), Starfleet tends to take a pragmatic approach in interpreting and administering it, and grants wide discretion to its senior officers particularly once they have become entangled in a situation. Aspects of the philosophy are explored through numerous episodes which portray both success and failure or 'fudges' at dealing with situations involving the Prime Directive. The television viewer is usually pro-Starfleet, trusts Starfleet personnel (in particular the hero crews) and has the benefit of hindsight and of being able to appraise from the armchair. Therefore, the television viewer tends to agree with the Prime Directive philosophy and perforce accepts its rather inconsistent application, and to support our heroes' successes and sympathise when they are less than successful. The final words come from two Starfleet officers:

Picard: "Beverly, the Prime Directive's not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy, and a very correct one. ...." Crusher: "It's hard to be philosophical when faced with suffering." [TNG: Season 1: Symbiosis]