[toyg]

I understand the technicalities, but Wilson’s Doctrine clearly applies to the citizens of Texas in 2019 as much as to the citizens of Austria-Hungary a century earlier. If it became absolutely certain that an overwhelming majority of Texans wanted to secede, the right answer would be to draw up ways to allow them to do so in the smoothest and most legal way, not to send the US Army to quash it.

I understand the Civil War happened and all that, but it was a different time and hopefully the Western world works on better principles now. If the USSR had let Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia free to chart their own destiny, maybe it wouldn’t have eventually collapsed under the weight of its own hypocrisy and lies.

[enriquto]

> If it became absolutely certain that an overwhelming majority of Texans wanted to secede,

why does it need to be an overwhelming majority (what does that even mean exactly?) and not a simple majority? In case a non overwhelming majority of Texans wanted to secede, should their will be thwarted by a minority of their compatriots? It does not sound very democratic.

[toyg]

Democracy does not mean "51% rules", that's a common misconception. Democracy is about building legitimacy from as an uncontrovertial source as possible - from the clear and free choice of the body politic of a community rather than from some sort of divine revelation. Legitimacy comes from all political actors, from the minority accepting the will of the majority (because it knows its fundamental rights will be respected even in defeat, and that the "battle" could be fought again once people changed their minds) as much as from the majority itself. When we forget that, that's when the XX century nightmares rear their ugly heads.

51% on a binary choice for huge constitutional change is simply not an unequivocal result; it's well below the margin for error/fraud and reduces the legitimacy of the choice pretty dramatically. Obviously every group is free to set the rules it prefers, but taking a massive step on such a tiny majority is a recipe for strife and division. On such a small margin you can rule for a few years, not take decisions that are supposed to be set in stone and affect everyone forevermore.

Realistically, if you have more than 40-45% of the country opposed to a massive constitutional change, you are probably not getting enough legitimacy to make the process fully democratic in nature. There are further tests down the line, but a large margin is the very first one to meet if you really want to find "the will of the people" (which in itself is a troublesome construct, but that's another story). Once you get close to "2 in 3", then it's harder to argue.

[jinglebells]

Indeed. Take a look at Brexit, where only 37% of the electorate voted to leave the EU, it has been politically impossible to pass the legislation.

The electorate don't want it and the politicians can't get the votes to pass the withdrawal treaty.

[pvg]

Wilson’s Doctrine clearly applies to the citizens of Texas in 2019 as much as to the citizens of Austria-Hungary a century earlier.

How do you figure? I don't think any mainstream view of 'self-determination' and certainly not Wilson's just up and grants national sovereignty for the asking. Texas is plenty autonomous.

[toyg]

“I don’t think so” is not an argument.

Texas is a well-defined territory with a well-defined set of cultural characteristics. Its population has as much of a right to self-determination as Catalunya, Scotland, Croatia, Slovakia or Kosovo, should a consensus emerge in the region. This is hardly controversial.

[pvg]

It's hardly controversial that whatever Wilson's ideas were, they did not include Texas becoming an independent country. I also don't think it's controversial that all the intricate thinking, principles and international proclamations on self-determination don't actually boil down to 'any group or region can easily turn themselves into a sovereign country, if they really want to and work hard at it'.

[toyg]

Obviously there are parameters, but Wilson's principles have been one of the pillars of modern international relations. Discounting them would mean throwing us back to "might makes right", which is a recipe for permanent war.

If you want to discuss why Texas does not meet parameters for independent statehood in your opinion, I'm happy to listen; but you cannot unilaterally say an unexplained "no" without looking very clearly tyrannical.

[afarrell]

We still live in a world where might makes right. We also live in a world where the mighty identify themselves with certain principles and have certain incentives...which is why our current state of permanent war (since 2001 at least) is relatively mild

[toyg]

> We still live in a world where might makes right.

I'd like to think that's not the case. The proof is that we have states that, if it were only due to pure power, would have no business existing (the Baltic ones, Singapore, most Caribbean ones, etc).

I am not so silly to think that might is not a factor in international relations, but I also think we must strive to be better every day, resolving our problems in ways that don't always boil down to pure power. Otherwise we're just left with tribes and spears.

[afarrell]

> This is hardly controversial

> Catalunya

> Kosovo

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that it is non-controversial that Catalunya or Kosovo can secede and then using that to argue that it is non-controversial that Texas can secede?

[toyg]

In one of those cases, the US themselves deployed weaponry to protect the population's own right to self-determination, so at least to US audiences it should read as uncontroversial, surely.

Catalunya is still a bit fresh, but I think it is uncontroversial to say that quashing such demands has historically resulted in bad things happening that we probably wouldn't want to see happening again. In the age of the internet, you don't increase legitimacy by deploying batons.

I say this as a natural anti-independentist - I think the real challenge of our time is scaling government up, not down; and when one starts dividing and drawing lines, one is playing an extremely dangerous game that might well end up in Balkanization, ethnic cleansing included. But it is a fact that not all nation-states are as cohesive as France, and self-determination demands are legitimate when they reach certain numbers. The nation-state itself is a concept borne of very different times, which might be nearing its sell-by date. It shouldn't be scandalous to concede that a line on a map could be thicker in one place and thinner elsewhere, if that means a more peaceful existence and better cooperation at a higher level.

[afarrell]

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. I’m disagreeing with your belief in the non-controversial nature of your statement.

> The US deployed weaponry to...

Is an admission that an position is controversial enough that a major world power thought it prudent to enforce that opinion with violent force or the active threat of force. "Kosovo je Srbija" is still an opinion you’ll find expressed in earnest.

Would it be controversial for Texas to have the right to secede? Given internal (racial, economic) divisions within Texas, I’d say yes. Secession can also cause violence by removing a hegemon who enforces peace among different groups.

[toyg]

> an admission that an position is controversial enough that a major world power thought it prudent to enforce that opinion with violent force

But that is the point of Wilson's: the US will (or rather should) back the right to self-determination. That has been the case for a century, and completely doing away with it (or witholding it from its very own citizens) would be a regression.

> Secession can also cause violence

Absolutely, as we've seen in the Balkans. And that's why I'm not a fan of independentist movements, in general. I just don't think one can sustain Wilson in some scenarios and not in others, as a principle. One can calculate pros and cons and allow secession only if certain conditions are met, but we cannot dismiss it with prejudice.

[afarrell]

Austria-Hungary was not a state with a functional and loyal military in 1919. The reason why Wilson's Doctrine applied to it was that there were French, Romanian, Italian, and Serbian troops occupying parts of its territory.

[toyg]

It was as much for that as to avoid a repeat of the squabbling over territories that had caused the war in the first place. The main point was that territories should not be assigned just because this or that army controls it (which would have inevitably degenerated again, as it did), but because the population wishes to be so.

The failure of Versailles to fairly apply that rule (and later, of Germany and USSR to respect it, before and after WWII) resulted in tragic events that I hope nobody wants to see repeated. The model for a modern approach should be the Chzech/Slovakia divorce, surely, rather than e.g. Chechenya?

[afarrell]

Do I think that a velvet divorce is better than a civil war? Yes. Do I think that “the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must” is a detestable thing? Of course. But wanting a thing doesn’t make it so.

Examining the question “can Hong Kong meaningfully vote for independence?” inherently requires examining the power relationships involved: Who has power? How do they view themselves? What incentives constrain/impel their actions?

[toyg]

> wanting a thing doesn’t make it so.

If enough people want it, yes it does.

> inherently requires examining the power relationships

Indeed, but no country exists in a vacuum, not even a superpower like China. The world has a role to play.

[afarrell]

> If enough people want it, yes it does.

No it doesn't. Thats like saying that if you spend enough money, you can produce housing. That is only true in a world where money allows you to incentivize and organize a group of people to assemble housing. (A significant chunk of HN does not live in that world)

Likewise, if enough people want a thing, that allows some group of them to build a power structure which is able to incentivize some of those people to make the thing happen. But it is a fundamental law that in order to do any kind of work over time, you need to exert power.