there are two sides to war but not two sides too self-governance. War destroys legal rights and claims of independence and defaults to force for the decision,. your acceptance of war as a valid determinant of representation is puzzling and shows a value of villanelle over human rights as dod the Nazi, the soviet and the chinese.
The british ruling India and parts of China was not legitimate. it just showed power. And finally the brits had to admit it.
” War destroys legal rights and claims of independence and defaults to force for the decision”
Exactly! Which is the reason why active secessionist attempts are not generally suppressed with diplomacy. The CSA went down by the musket, Texas achieved independence from Mexico via the same.
“your acceptance of war as a valid determinant of representation is puzzling and shows a value of villanelle over human rights as dod the Nazi, the soviet and the chinese.”
War is a tool. It doesn’t feel, it is just a means to an end. Yes, a Hitler uses it for evil, and a Washington uses it for good. In the end, whomever uses it the most effectively decides the question in their favor.
It’s like when Franklin said that we have a “republic if you can keep it”. If Catalonia goes UDI, then it is up to them to keep it. I hope it isnt via war, but I suspect that it wont be pretty.
“The british ruling India and parts of China was not legitimate.”
In whose eyes though? The British held India through force of arms (with local help), and they saw it as “good”. We held the Philippians via the same rationale with intense opposition both at home and in the islands at the time.
Morally is it right? No, especially in hindsight. But was it the “law of the land”, and the reality of the situation? just as much so. They both are opposites, and can exist at the same time.