The Maquis or the Federation?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

commanderkai wrote:

---

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.

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.

[R. Star]

MacLeod wrote:

---

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.

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.

[commanderkai]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

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).

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?

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.

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.

[MacLeod]

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.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

commanderkai wrote:

---

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?

IIRC, the colonists rejected Federation aid. They didn't consider themselves Federation citizens anymore. Eddington said they were about to declare independence.

[R. Star]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

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.

This is also the same Gul Evek who in DS9, tortured and killed the man who bombed the Bok'Nor, and seemed to be covering for the Cardassian colonists in "Preemptive Strike" when he paid lip service to "taking measures" to dealing with their colonists who had armed themselves.

Furthermore he's also the same Cardassian who had O'brien arrested under fabricated charges of assisting the Maquis. Heck in another episode, "Playing God" I think he wouldn't even help DS9's crew with any tips on fighting Vole infestations.

That all contradicts his behavior in "Journey's End" when he was acting like such a nice guy then. I'd say it's more likely he was doing exactly what Hudson was, being the one who was secretly leading the Cardassian colonists against the Federation citizens in the neutral zone and probably had official support behind the scenes being they were so eager to use Dukat as their fall guy.

[sonak]

commanderkai wrote:

---

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.

That's not really the way decisions in a democratic society work. Tiny minorities(and that's all the Maquis seem to be, a tiny minority of the Federation) don't get veto power over every little decision that gets made.

You say that they did it without the colonists' "consent," but presumably a democratic government that the colonists got to vote for or against DID make that decision.

What you're describing seems to be more like nullification, basically that a minority group in a government can just disregard whatever proper and legal decisions a government makes if they don't like them.

[R. Star]

sonak wrote:

---

What you're describing seems to be more like nullification, basically that a minority group in a government can just disregard whatever proper and legal decisions a government makes if they don't like them.

Well the American colonies were pretty much a minority group in the British Empire. They disregarded the legal decisions the British parliment made when they didn't like them and rebelled. Now those rebels are written into history as marble saints. History does define winners and losers very differently, even if the circumstances in which they fought weren't very different at all.

[sonak]

R. Star wrote:

---

Well the American colonies were pretty much a minority group in the British Empire. They disregarded the legal decisions the British parliment made when they didn't like them and rebelled. Now those rebels are written into history as marble saints. History does define winners and losers very differently, even if the circumstances in which they fought weren't very different at all.

I'll agree with your overall point even if I find the analogy somewhat flawed.

[DonIago]

One wonders how the American revolutionaries might be remembered if their declaration of independence had caused a world war.

[R. Star]

DonIago wrote:

---

One wonders how the American revolutionaries might be remembered if their declaration of independence had caused a world war.

It pretty much did. France, Spain and Britain's colonial empires were going at it world wide.

[Jono]

commanderkai wrote:

---

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.

You don't need to imagine it, the UK and US have already done that with Diego Gracia. The UK gave the island to the US to use and booted off the inhabitants, which the US seems fine with since they get a nice big military base in the Indian Ocean.

The inhabitants have tried to get their island through the courts, but haven't succeeded. The UK was even exposed as trying to make it impossible for them to ever get their island back off the US.

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.

These were both before the treaty was signed.

[MacLeod]

R. Star wrote:

---

Well the American colonies were pretty much a minority group in the British Empire. They disregarded the legal decisions the British parliment made when they didn't like them and rebelled. Now those rebels are written into history as marble saints. History does define winners and losers very differently, even if the circumstances in which they fought weren't very different at all.

Perhaps written into American history as marble saints.

But the analogy is flawed, The Maquis didn't appear to declare independance and set themselves up as an independant state(s). Rather they were unhappy with the treaty and decided to engage in acts of terrorism against both the Cardassian Union and the UFP.

[T'Girl]

commanderkai wrote:

---

If the treaty was signed before discussing the issue with the various colonies ...

NECHEYEV: An Indian representative was included in the deliberations of the Federation Council.

commanderkai wrote:

---

It always came off as they were settled there before the worlds became disputed.

NECHEYEV: ... settled there only twenty years ago, and at that time they were warned that the planet was hotly disputed by the Cardassians.

commanderkai wrote:

---

Hell, let's imagine the United States ceding Maine to Canada without the input of anybody within Maine.

A better example might be the Columbia/Oregon territory dispute between America and Britain. Beyond the Rocky Mountains the British wanted the Pacific region down to the 42nd parallel, below which was Mexico. America want up to the 54th parallel, (54°40 ) above which was Russia. After the threat of war, a treaty was sign establishing a boarder at the 49th parallel.

The treaty was a compromise.

America and Britain both claimed, and wanted the entirety of the disputed area, neither had control over it. America citizens and British subjects who found themselves on which ever side of the boarder had the option of moving or staying.

The impression I have from the episodes concerning this subject is that neither the federation, nor the union formally possessed the disputed region, it wasn't actually inside the federation, but was just beyond the federation's established boarders in that part of the galaxy. In colonizing the planets in question, the colonists had move just outside the federation. Hoping perhaps that the federation's boarder would be one day extended to encompass their new worlds.

After fighting over the disputed region for over two decades, and realizing that neither could win the area in it's entirety, the federation and the union divided the area between them. It wasn't that the federation didn't try to gain the space in which the colonies were located, they simply couldn't, it wasn't going to happen.

Neither federation, nor the union "ceded" anything, it was not theirs in the first place. They divide up a unincorporated portion of the galaxy.

The union lost colonies too. By staying on the worlds, which were then inside the new boarders of the Cardassian union, the federation colonists were voluntarily emigrating into the union.

[R. Star]

Jono wrote:

---

These were both before the treaty was signed.

No. The treaty was signed in TNG's season 6. The two episodes were respectively in season 7 of tng and season 1 of ds9.

Chain of Command, the episode where the treaty was signed, was for the purpose of giving the Trek viewers a major Cardassian episode to introduce them to the would be DS9 audience so they main villains over there don't just seem like another "alien of the week"