Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

[horatio83]

I totally agree that in this instance the case would take some time and land before a judge but I also think that Sona is basically right, the Sonak would most likely be removed and compensated for, not at least via superior access to whatever happens to the particles once they are extracted.
I think this "fuck property rights when a few people have resources which would benefit everybody" angle is where Sonak is coming from but alas, this is entirely hypothetical.

What the Federation does is, as Picard points out when he talks with Dougherty, an act of theft and kidnapping. We have a name for a powerful political entity taking something from a weak political entity: imperialism. If anybody can point out an historical example of a strong nation taking something from weak nation without raping it at the same time I am all ears.

 

[sonak]

I totally agree that in this instance the case would take some time and land before a judge but I also think that Sona is basically right, the Sonak would most likely be removed and compensated for, not at least via superior access to whatever happens to the particles once they are extracted.
I think this "fuck property rights when a few people have resources which would benefit everybody" angle is where Sonak is coming from but alas, this is entirely hypothetical.

What the Federation does is, as Picard points out when he talks with Dougherty, an act of theft and kidnapping. We have a name for a powerful political entity taking something from a weak political entity: imperialism. If anybody can point out an historical example of a strong nation taking something from weak nation without raping it at the same time I am all ears.

it would be hard to come up with a historical example because none would be very analogous. We're not talking about a fuel source like oil, or something similar.

The analogy would be more like a small island with a primitive tribe on it, and the island has the cure for cancer on it, but in order to get to the cure, the island would have to be made uninhabitable for a long time, and the tribe has no interest in the outside world and refuses to relocate.

And yes, you've summed up my attitude pretty well, actually. Property rights are important, but they take a back seat when the issue becomes "property rights of a few vs. the good of a much larger number."

 

[horatio83]

I am very sympathetic to this attitude. In political terms it is basically an advocation of a strong, centralized progressive government (as opposed to lefties with slightly anarchic leaning who only play this game of "we gotta keep power in check"; no, we gotta take power) and one example in Trek would be the peace treaty with the Cardassians which I strongly approve of. Peace for trillions is more important than the property rights of millions of settlers.

I now think that the crucial dividing issue is my focus on rules and your focus on outcomes.
If I understand you correctly your point is that the Baku are screwed anyway. The Sona wanna take their planet and if they don't do it the Romulans or Klingons will do it sooner or later. The hippies are simply crushed so even a bad deal with the Federation is better for them.
My point is that the Feds have to play by the book. They are basically a soft power like the EU, not expanding via applying force but via being attractive. If they start to just take planets and rationalize it via correctly saying that the inhabitants are better off than if they had become conquered by the Romulans or Klingons they break their rules and ruin their reputation.

 

[sonak]

I am very sympathetic to this attitude. In political terms it is basically an advocation of a strong, centralized progressive government (as opposed to lefties with slightly anarchic leaning who only play this game of "we gotta keep power in check"; no, we gotta take power) and one example in Trek would be the peace treaty with the Cardassians which I strongly approve of. Peace for trillions is more important than the property rights of millions of settlers.

I now think that the crucial dividing issue is my focus on rules and your focus on outcomes.
If I understand you correctly your point is that the Baku are screwed anyway. The Sona wanna take their planet and if they don't do it the Romulans or Klingons will do it sooner or later. The hippies are simply crushed so even a bad deal with the Federation is better for them.
My point is that the Feds have to play by the book. They are basically a soft power like the EU, not expanding via applying force but via being attractive. If they start to just take planets and rationalize it via correctly saying that the inhabitants are better off than if they had become conquered by the Romulans or Klingons they break their rules and ruin their reputation.

yeah, that sums it up nicely. My view is the Baku are screwed anyway, the Federation might as well benefit from the situation rather than the Son'a alone, or some other power in the quadrant.

I'm a pragmatist and a consequentialist.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

and one example in Trek would be the peace treaty with the Cardassians which I strongly approve of. Peace for trillions is more important than the property rights of millions of settlers.

You mean the treaty the Cardassians wasted no time violating and it took a freaking Cardassian to let the federation know about that, and still they only gave a minor token response that didn't really solve anything and pretty much only cracked down on people who probably weren't even their citizens anymore because they didn't like the federation just sticking its head in the sand and ignoring the problem. becuase that kind sounds like a crappy treaty, seeing as the federation didn't seem interested in making sure the Cardassians actually followed its terms.

 

[R. Star]

But it sure prevented the Federation and Cardassia from ever going to war again.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

The analogy would be more like a small island with a primitive tribe on it, and the island has the cure for cancer on it, but in order to get to the cure, the island would have to be made uninhabitable for a long time, and the tribe has no interest in the outside world and refuses to relocate.

Except in this case there would be 8 to 10 other potential cures to cancer already available that their not pursuing becuase they never follow up on for some reason and the society in question that would benefit from it never really cared about it before that point in time.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

But it sure prevented the Federation and Cardassia from ever going to war again.

The funny thing is when you think about the consequences it actually contributed to the Dominion War since the Maquis kicking the Cardassians asses (really why is the federation worried about war with these people seeing as the suck at it) was what sold them on Dukat's let's join the Dominion idea.

 

[R. Star]

But it sure prevented the Federation and Cardassia from ever going to war again.

The funny thing is when you think about the consequences it actually contributed to the Dominion War since the Maquis kicking the Cardassians asses (really why is the federation worried about war with these people seeing as the suck at it) was what sold them on Dukat's let's join the Dominion idea.

Really... somehow I think the Klingons had more to do with that than a few disgruntled colonists with freighters and shuttles. Oh wait, the Founders started that war too. Either way, they willingly joined up and started a revanchist war against the Federation. Dukat never really mentioned the Klingons at all while he was in power aside from tactically.

 

[horatio83]

and one example in Trek would be the peace treaty with the Cardassians which I strongly approve of. Peace for trillions is more important than the property rights of millions of settlers.

You mean the treaty the Cardassians wasted no time violating and it took a freaking Cardassian to let the federation know about that, and still they only gave a minor token response that didn't really solve anything and pretty much only cracked down on people who probably weren't even their citizens anymore because they didn't like the federation just sticking its head in the sand and ignoring the problem. becuase that kind sounds like a crappy treaty, seeing as the federation didn't seem interested in making sure the Cardassians actually followed its terms.

Of course it wasn't OK that the Cardassians tried to arm their settlers in the demilitarized zone. If I remember correctly the Federation eventually decided to monitor the DMZ better and prevent weapon deployments.
But the people who later partly became Maquis could have simply left their colonies instead of stubbornly persist to continue to live their under Cardassian rule and, big surprise, being bullied by them.

I am firmly on the side of the Federation. Sure, they reacted too late to the Cardassian misdeeds in the DMZ but the Maquis did something far worse, they threatened the hard-earned peace and made it much harder for the Feds to solve this problem: we know from Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King that sometimes the best way to defend yourself is not via picking up arms as this gives your enemy an easy excuse to crush you.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the colonists. They have chosen a hard life on the border and their life's work is materialized in their colony so they naturally don't wanna leave. But I also gotta pull a Spock here, their interests matters less than maintaining peace ... and while the Feds didn't expect beforehand that the Cardassians would lead a proxy war via arming their settlers they knew perfectly well that living under Cardassian rule will be nasty for those of their settlers who decide to stay.

 

[R. Star]

and one example in Trek would be the peace treaty with the Cardassians which I strongly approve of. Peace for trillions is more important than the property rights of millions of settlers.

You mean the treaty the Cardassians wasted no time violating and it took a freaking Cardassian to let the federation know about that, and still they only gave a minor token response that didn't really solve anything and pretty much only cracked down on people who probably weren't even their citizens anymore because they didn't like the federation just sticking its head in the sand and ignoring the problem. becuase that kind sounds like a crappy treaty, seeing as the federation didn't seem interested in making sure the Cardassians actually followed its terms.

Of course it wasn't OK that the Cardassians tried to arm their settlers in the demilitarized zone. If I remember correctly the Federation eventually decided to monitor the DMZ better and prevent weapon deployments.
But the people who later partly became Maquis could have simply left their colonies instead of stubbornly persist to continue to live their under Cardassian rule and, big surprise, being bullied by them.

I am firmly on the side of the Federation. Sure, they reacted too late to the Cardassian misdeeds in the DMZ but the Maquis did something far worse, they threatened the hard-earned peace and made it much harder for the Feds to solve this problem: we know from Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King that sometimes the best way to defend yourself is not via picking up arms as this gives your enemy an easy excuse to crush you.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the colonists. They have chosen a hard life on the border and their life's work is materialized in their colony so they naturally don't wanna leave. But I also gotta pull a Spock here, their interests matters less than maintaining peace ... and while the Feds didn't expect beforehand that the Cardassians would lead a proxy war via arming their settlers they knew perfectly well that living under Cardassian rule will be nasty for those of their settlers who decide to stay.

Let's see... the Maquis colonists were getting raped by Cardassians, poised at public replicators, assaulted on numerous occasions as a daily occurrence. And your proposal is for them to peacefully protest and politely ask them to stop? That sure worked well for Jesus, King and Ghandi... wait, they were all killed.

 

[horatio83]

If Ghandi had attacked the Brits he would have provided them with an easy excuse to club him and his followers down. Ghandi did something far more "violent" than people with guns, he refused the authority of the Brits and thus changed the social order. Armed resistance seems revolutionary on the surface yet would have achieved nothing.

Back to Trek, the violence of the Maquis made it possible for the Cardassians to rationalize their military presence in the DMZ and supply their settlers even more easily with weapons ... which again made it harder for the UFP to finally solve this issue. And it should be obvious to each and every Maquis that only the UFP can solve it.

We are of course familiar with the Intifada argument from Palestine, i.e. the Maquis had to do something in order to create spotlight, otherwise the Federation would have never addressed the problem. I think that this is correct but only as long as the fighters realize that the only goal of violence is to create attention. Just like many people in Palestine haven't understood this most of the Maquis didn't understand it either which is why I am ultimately against their violence.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I am firmly on the side of the Federation. Sure, they reacted too late to the Cardassian misdeeds in the DMZ

And there in lies the problem they expected a group that had no problem defying a prior peace agreement to be totally trustworthy this time and didn't bother to keep checking to make sure they stay honest.

Which is why this treaty sounds like those impotent air fairy arms reduction agreements signed after World War I that didn't do squat in the long term.

but the Maquis did something far worse, they threatened the hard-earned peace and made it much harder for the Feds to solve this problem:

So its their fault becuase they didn't like getting killed while the federation twiddled its thumbs?

we know from Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King that sometimes the best way to defend yourself is not via picking up arms as this gives your enemy an easy excuse to crush you.

And we know from recent history that that actually doesn't always work, hell the main reason it worked in Egypt was that the military refused to take any actions against the protesters.

their interests matters less than maintaining peace

Which it didn't mostly becuase the federation basically let the Klingons do whatever to hell they want with token resistance.

... and while the Feds didn't expect beforehand that the Cardassians would lead a proxy war via arming their settlers

Which they probably should have seeing as how the Cardassians had no problem trying to secretly rearm after the war, and the whole Circle business on Bajor showing that they have no problem doing under handed things to get what they want.

they knew perfectly well that living under Cardassian rule will be nasty for those of their settlers who decide to stay.

To be fair the had a Cardassian Gul telling some of them that as long as they don't cause trouble they wouldn't be bothered and seeing as the federation trusted the Cardassians without question why shouldn't they, Except again the Cardassians weren't very trust worthy were they.

 

[R. Star]

That same Cardassian Gul, Evek was hinted to be the one supplying weapons to the Cardassian colonists and later fabricated charges of terrorism against O'brien. Real trustworthy guy.

 

[horatio83]

The Cardassians are as trustworthy as the Romulans. So what? It certainly doesn't imply that the peace treaty is worthless. Or do you trust everybody you make a contract with?

As I already said, the error of the Federation was to monitor the DMZ not as well enough as e.g. the neutral zone with the Romulans. better supervision was necessary ... but prolonging hostilities, be it via no peace with the Cardassians at all or via the little war of the Maquis are not better options.

And we know from recent history that that actually doesn't always work, hell the main reason it worked in Egypt was that the military refused to take any actions against the protesters.

I don't follow you here. You claim that peaceful resistance hasn't worked in recent history and then provide an example which shows that it has?
I don't claim by the way that peaceful resistance is ALWAYS the right way to proceed. Take 1789 France, there was no other way besides cutting of the head of the king and crushing the counter-revolutionary resistance.
But I fail to see the benefits of the actions of the Maquis besides providing spotlight. If you are aware of any others I am all ears.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

But I fail to see the benefits of the actions of the Maquis besides providing spotlight. If you are aware of any others I am all ears.

Well they did seem to be kicking the Cardassians asses up until the joined up with the Dominion.

 

[horatio83]

I thought more along the lines of something more boring like re-establishing peace in the DMZ and keeping the Cardassians from messing with them instead of giving them an excuse to screw them even harder.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I thought more along the lines of something more boring like re-establishing peace in the DMZ and keeping the Cardassians from messing with them instead of giving them an excuse to screw them even harder.

Well seeing as the TNG era federation seems to treat its problems as something to ignore for the most part until it goes away I don't see how that would work. Especially since the Maquis seem a little pissed that the federation didn't even realize there was a problem at first and then jumped down their throats when they tried to solve it the only way they could so their less likely to give a crap about their views on the situation.

Oh and I just want to respond to this real quick

And we know from recent history that that actually doesn't always work, hell the main reason it worked in Egypt was that the military refused to take any actions against the protesters.

I don't follow you here. You claim that peaceful resistance hasn't worked in recent history and then provide an example which shows that it has?

1)It only worked becuase the military refused to take any actions against the protesters

2) We also have the example of Libya which needed fighting to get rid of their dictator.

Also if you admit that it doesn't work all the time what makes you think it would work in this situation.

 

[horatio83]

Ehm, the military killed hundreds of people during the Egyptian revolution.

Anyway, the Maquis isn't the same as a popular uprising. As I already said, the best comparison is with Palestine and the error of the Maquis is that they believe that THEY ALONE can fight against the Cardassians.
Only the Federation can monitor the DMZ so the goal of the Maquis should be to get the attention of their government and once they got it cease hostilities. Via continuing to fight the Cardassians they give them a justification for a military presence in the DMZ and make the task of the Federation much harder.

It is no more a simple matter of a one-sided treaty violation after which the Federation would have had the diplomatic high ground (and being able to tell the other side that they are the only ones who fucked up matters!)..
Now it is a mess and the Feds can no more pretend that only the Cardassians misbehave. Their citizens are aggressive as well and the Maquis dealt them a diplomatic bad hand.

Let's not forget that the Maquis also started to fight against the Federation pretty quickly. How is that supposed to achieve anything? A bunch of pissed-off settlers can hardly win against such major powers, they just fight to make a point and not to actually achieve peace. Fighting for a just cause creates this warm feeling in your heart just like demonstrating for this or that during a rainy day does. But feeling good about yourself doesn't matter, outcomes do.

 

[R. Star]

Why shouldn't the Maquis fight back against the Federation? From the very first episode they appeared in the Federation was going after them.