[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]

> the US will (or rather should) back the right to self-determination

Indeed. There are powerful institutional reasons why the US does so, including the desires of the American electorate and the structure of US commerce.

> 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.

Right, but primary among those conditions must be the power forms of power that could be brought to bear. This is more complex than "If the US 7th fleet were to sail to Hong Kong, it could be sunk by the area-denial power of the People's Liberation Army Navy." because power is more complex than that. But the fact that the PLA could invade Hong Kong is a significant weight on the scale. And so any exercise of power in order to back Hong Kongers right of self-determination is going to have to be more skillfully constructed than anything I could come up with. and it might not be possible. It depends partly on how subtle and skillful the diplomats serving under Trump administration can be.

And the results of that are not going to be consistent with the results of trying to support the self-determiniation of Estonians breaking away from a collapsing USSR. After all, the US didn't succeed at supporting the self-determination of Estonians prior to the 80s.