One could say that, but they'd be wrong. The very first episode they're directly in they attacked and destroyed a Federation ship for no other reason than they could. They weren't going to "peacefully coexist" with anyone.
Yeah, I think the Marquis really highlights the dark side of the Federation. I have no idea how, knowing how the Cardassians operate their government and justice system, any Federation diplomat could not see the dangers of putting Federation colonies under Cardassian "protection". A government is supposed to protect its people, not trade entire colonies to a fascist state for a "peace treaty". Oh, and, what did the Federation do once Sisko became aware of the Cardassian government arming its colonies? It did nothing. Hell, even worse, it worked WITH the Cardassians to try to destroy the Marquis. So, even with the Cardassians blatantly violating the treaty, it does nothing to bring any sort of consequence against them.
Apparently you're ignoring the part where the colonists were intended to be relocated and -at their request- were given the -option- of staying where they were under Cardassian rule. The Federation was protecting its people by signing the treaty. Specifically they were protecting millions of people from a war with Cardassia. Treaties -always- involve compromise. It's the way the universe works, and yeah, it sucks if you end up on the short end of the stick, but if you'd really rather have a war between two powers than move? That, IMO, doesn't speak well of you. We have no idea exactly what the Feds may have done once they became aware of what the Cardassians were doing. Sisko's team made a point of trying to stop the Cardassian arms shipments, but "The Maquis" doesn't make it clear what other repercussions may have ensued. As far as I'm aware the Federation didn't particularly do anything to actively end the Maquis threat until Eddington's group started openly attacking Federation assets...good move on his part....
You didn't watch Parts 1 and 2 of the Maquis or TNG's Preemptive Strike then. They were acting against the Maquis from day one. That's why Eddington started hitting back.
Now forgive me, since I don't have all the details on the treaty, so I am basing this on personal opinion from what I saw during my viewings of DS9. If the treaty was signed before discussing the issue with the various colonies, the Federation government screwed up, royally. It's one thing to convince people to leave for the greater good, it's quite another to give them no choice or input. So yes, the Federation certainly intended to relocate them, but I never got the impression that the colonies had any say in the process at all, which, as you can imagine, would upset all of those colonists who saw their worlds as their new home that they built. On the other hand, the colonists took a gamble, and bet that if they stayed, the Federation would not allow its citizens to be unjustly treated by Cardassia, an aggressive, fascist state, much like Western governments wouldn't exactly stand to see their citizens being unjustly treated when visiting nations like China. In the end, they were still Federation citizens, even if they were now apart of Cardassian territory, and they should still have the rights and freedoms of all other Federation citizens, no matter what world they live on, or the amount of political influence they can leverage Compromise can be achieved without infringing on the rights of your citizens in such an unjust way. These colonists had the protection of the Federation...up until the Federation decided to wholly cede colonies without their input. Imagine any democratic state ceding territory in such a way to a fascist dictatorship. Hell, let's imagine the United States ceding Maine to Canada without the input of anybody within Maine. Once the treaty is signed, they're told to relocate. Yeah...I don't see that playing well, and that's from one democratic state to another. Sure we have an idea. There were none. The Federation didn't carry out anything within the series against Cardassia over violating the treaty by arming its colonies. The Federation did not do anything to protect its citizens from Cardassian violence. The Federations did not make the Cardassians abide by the treaty, and abandoned its citizens because it might start a war... Oh, but wait, once the Maquis started fighting Cardassia, the Federation was more than happy to fight the Maquis. Sisko freaking gassed a Maquis colony without any canon consequences. Oh, and should we forget how Cardassia basically kidnapped O'Brien from Federation space and framed him as a Maquis agent? Seriously, compromise in treaties are fine...if both sides are acting in good faith. As we're all aware, the Cardassians weren't. To be honest, how the Federation handled the Maquis on screen, I'm amazed that huge swaths of non-core worlds didn't rebel immediately. How would you feel if you lived near the Romulan or Klingon border, (just to name two) and realized that, if the Federation decided it was necessary, will sign your home away, and will not protect your rights even when it blatantly violates the treaty they just signed. More than that, if you try to fight back, they'll help said treaty violaters against you, and if they're having a really hard time with one of your rebellion leaders, might just decide to use a WMD against your colony without any consequence.
I'd probably decide that choosing to live on a disputed border world near a hostile power probably wasn't the smartest move I ever made. Sorry for not replying to the rest at this point, I'm about ten seconds away from crashing.
That would only be true if you had moved there knowing you would be on a disputed border line. It is implied that they had been there for a long time, possibly before the Federation encountered the Cardassians and before the War. The real question is why you would want to stay there after the numerous (and told to be very violent) conflicts never mind after the treaty was signed. Then again we could ask many why they would want to live anywhere near either side of the Israeli border (as one example).
But are people living near the Israeli border being offered every possible form of aid they could desire if they are willing to relocate? I somehow doubt it. That's the biggest sticking point for me in terms of comparing a contemporary relocation effort with relocating in the 24th century; a number of the concerns that would apply in this day and age seem likely to be less valid in the future depicted in Trek.
We don't know if they were being offered every possible form of aid they could desire if they are willing to relocate or not. Except we really don't know if those concerns applied in the 24th century or not. I guessing they still do seeing as planetary evacuations weren't treated as a minor thing seeing as its a whole freaking planet.
Borders have been redrawn for centuries on Earth, and yes sometimes a group of people are affected by it. So place yourself as the Federation President, would you not sign a treaty and risk a war that could potnetially cost tens of thousands of lives or a agree to a few worlds swapping ownershp and relocating those citizens. Which is more important those worlds of the lives of thousands? I think many would say preserving life is more important. Remember the Federation wasn't abandoning these people it offered them relocation.
It always came off as they were settled there before the worlds became disputed. To me, this really comes down to the fact that the Federation surrendered these worlds without the consent of the populations that have already been established there. Once the treaty was signed, the Federation was basically going to forcibly relocate their populations, possibly even violently. The question is not would you stay or go. The question is did the Federation government have the authority to violate the rights of the colonists "for the greater good" of the Federation.
Why should the colonies solely have the right to decide whether or not the treaty is enacted? You ask any population of size a question and you'll get disagreement. If 98% of the Federation supported the treaty and 2% said war would be preferable, should the Federation go to war? Seriously, for the people who don't favor the treaty, I'd like to hear what they would have done instead. There seems to be a lack of alternative suggestions in this thread.
It's interesting, but if you look at the first season of Voyager, the Maquis come off as hostile and violent. Or it least there were small suggestions hinting at it. As if to contrast against the more peaceful and calm Starfleet characters. Later they seemed to be more Federation-like and honorable. I think that was part of the view the writing was attempting to show at times- 'the Maquis are bad, see how violent and ruthless they can be?'.
Well, there's the rub. The concept of the Maquis had its genesis in a TNG episode (Journey's End). And yes, in that episode, the colonists themselves brought up the idea of living in the DMZ under Cardassian rule. It was their own idea. They wanted it. They did not want to move. So the Federation didn't make them move (though they had the right to). Basing one's opinion on the Maquis on DS9 episodes alone, isn't going to give the whole picture. DS9 did not tell you that the colonists willingly chose to live in the DMZ under Cardassia's control. Only the TNG episode did that. And I'd just like to repeat that the mere fact that the colonists DID choose to live there, knowing they'd be ruled by Cardassia, is of course not intended by me to be a justification as to what the Cardassians later did. But as I said, the initial negotiations - again, in the TNG episode in question - appeared to be quite reasonable. There is absolutely no indication that *those* Cardassians, led by Gul Evek, would ever turn around and do something like arm their colonists to provoke a shooting match. I find it very likely that Evek would never have authorized this, and would in fact be disgusted by it.
If I was Federation president, after the Cardassians destroyed the Federation colony in "Ensign Ro" and tried to put it on the Bajorians, I'd be skeptical and any treaty I enter into would take that sketpicism into account to say nothing of repirations for that slaughter. Suppose I decided to give them a second chance, that was just during the armistice after all, so while my representives are trying to finalize the peace treaty in "Chain of Command" they then try and sieze Minos Korva to dictate favorable terms. I think I'd start to get the idea the Cardassian Union isn't at all interested in peace. Even after the peace treaty was signed, the Cardassian time and again would attack Federation targets whenever there was an advantage to be had. TNG's "The Chase" and DS9's "Emissary" are perfect examples. By the time the Maquis even became a concern, the Cardassians had a clear pattern of aggressive behavior, treaty or not. If the Federation was too chickenshit to stand up to a technologically inferior fascist power that was into hostile expansion at any given oppurtunity, I wouldn't blame the colonists one bit for standing up for themselves.
Wasn't "Journey's End" a highlight that the Federation was perfectly willing to forcibly relocate the colonists against their will, which only then the colonists decided to take the risk? Sure, it was their own idea, in the sense they're picking, in their opinion, the choice between forcible relocation and seeing their colonies being handed away without any Federation discussions with the colonists. More importantly, if Sisko's numerous colonists about those in the DMZ still being "Federation Citizens", why did the Federation not step in and protect the interests of their citizens once evidence of Cardassian violation of the treaty came to light? This is the same Cardassian government, no matter who was negotiating. They were still a fascist dictatorship, whose history of treating non-Cardassian worlds is not exactly something to be praised *coughBAJORcough*. Even so, you would be correct that the Maquis would not be justified if the Cardassians did abide by the treaty. The whole Maquis issue didn't arise up until the Cardassian government violated the treaty, armed their colonists, and attacked Federation citizens. Gul Evek might, or might have not had a say in the matter, but it does not matter either way. It was a treaty between Cardassia and the Federation, not between the Federation and Gul Evek. Once the Federation did not punish Cardassia for violating the treaty, the treaty was worth nothing, and they sacrificed entire colonies worth of their citizens for a peace of paper.
The evidence would seem to indicate that the Cardassians had aggressive behaviour prior to the signing if the treaty. One outcome of not signing the treaty could have been another war, so which is more important the safety and wellbeing of the hundreds of billions (if not close to a Trillion) of others or at best maybe a few tens of millions of border worlds which you have offered to resettle elsewhere? Perhaps it was not so much the treaty that was at fault, but either Starfleet Command or the Federation Council or both for failure to act over possible Cardassian Infringements. Increased patrols, escorting of transports etc.. Flying he flag in a more visible way.
IIRC, the colonists rejected Federation aid. They didn't consider themselves Federation citizens anymore. Eddington said they were about to declare independence.