The Overlord wrote:
In "Journey's End" Picard was, reluctantly, willing to remove a group of aboriginals from this planet they moved to, because it was claimed by the Cardassian Union. In Star Trek Insurrection, Picard was ordered to remove the Ba'ku, aliens who looked like white people, from an a planet they moved to, Picard actively fought against his superiors. That seems like a contradiction to me.
Why is Picard willing to removed the aboriginals from their adopted home, but he fights the removal of the Ba'ku with every fiber of his being.
Removing the aboriginals from their new planet was done to appease a morally repulsive dictatorship who had no real desire for peace with the Federation. Removing the Ba'ku could have resulted in medical cures that would have helped billions of people, one of these goals sounds better then the other. So is Picard a hypocrite on this issue?
I don't see a contradiction here.
In 'Journey's End', the people were (at that point) still
Federation citizens, which I daresay Star Fleet felt obligated to protect. If they stayed, the Cardassians would see this as the UFP breaking its word and intruding on what was supposed to now be THEIR turf. If the Cardassians then started acting aggressively against Federation citizens, what was Star Fleet supposed to do then? Start another war?
Also, most of the .... less palatable aspects of the Cardassian Union were yet to be fully established. Even if they were KNOWN to be a bunch of scumbags, does it follow that the UFP should only keep its word if the other side fits the UFP's moral code?
It is also conceivable that similar things happened on BOTH sides of the DMZ, as various groups of colonists on either side were obligated to up stakes and move on.
The Baku. Their world. Not UFP citizens. Different ballgame.