Another 'thought experiment'regarding self-determination

As abstract as it is, I do not really see how the conventional definition of right to self-determination is "conceptually defective at its very core." From what I have read and heard, these champions of Taiwan independence have clearly defined the people of Taiwan, the "self" that is in self-determination as used by them. Even if they failed to take the time to understand their concrete referents, it would still not be deemed conceptually defective as it would be considered conceptually paradoxical. I just thought the two words meant slightly different things and had slightly different implications as a result.

To illustrate my point further, I would like to talk very briefly about another abstract concept mentioned in your writing: freedom. Like many things in life, freedom is fraught with paradoxes, but still both you and I rarely hear people say the concept itself is defective. The word "defective" in the English language, or in any other language, has a slightly negative connotation. On the other hand, "paradoxical" is a bit more neutral in this particular context. I would be very careful to use it as not to downplay or hurt the feelings of the other side, which is probably one of the last things I would want to do, especially if I wanted to try to sell my idea and convince the other side.

I am going to change gear a little bit. Let us just suppose for a moment that the right to self-determination is INDEED defective for the reasons presented in your writing. Then, according to your logic, you can easily make the argument that any group of people in this world can and has the right to tell the people in the geographic confines that we call China how to run their place so long these Chinese are considered the minority and part of an even larger group of people. If, somehow, we can get MORE than 1.3 billion people in this world to agree that China's serious problems with her socio-political structure are no longer internal or domestic because a nation does not have a self and China is a part of the world, then the 1.3 billion people in China should have no discontent in the event of a coercion by these more than 1.3 billion people. I repeat, the 1.3 billion should have no discontent.

However, that is not the case.

Why?

I speculate that the number of human rights advocates who call for a more humane and equitable Chinese society may well exceed 1.3 billion people if a poll is taken in the world. China seems to contradict herself by constantly insisting it is a domestic issue when it comes to human rights without regard for the number. In doing so, China has to consider her to have a self. Right? I am simply trying to follow your logic of majority rule as presented in your editorial.

"Hopefully this thought experiment will give us pause."

Subscribe to The China Post and save 25%. Click here

SharePrintEmail

Write a Comment

Terms

Enter your comments - 3000 characters max

Type in image code

Submit

 Receive China Post promos
 Respond to this email