Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Surely, everyone can cause upheaval and claim independence for fairness.
Going by Mikado's argument, "the' scots, "the' irish and "the" tibetans want independence, they can all declare and achieve it by all means, violent or otherwise, it is all justifiable?
|
You're misrepresenting me - I didn't say "all means" were justifiable.
Quote:
|
Problem is, "the" does not represent majority of the scots, irish, native americans, tibetans.
|
Problem with the Tibetans is that independence cannot be freely discussed in Tibet, therefore it's impossible to know what the majority of Tibetans want. In Scotland there's a democratic process by which Scots can move to full independence if they want.
Quote:
|
Perhaps, China secret service could one day support native americans, scots and irish independence just as CIA has been clandestinely supporting the free Tibet, Taliban, Kosovo. How's that for a switch and equality?
|
There's plenty of examples of countries supporting independence movements - USA, GB, Australia, USSR (& Russia), Iran, Saudi, etc, etc, etc. China has supported independence movements in South East Asia. I daresay that as China's wealth and overseas entanglements increase so will China's interest in certain independence movements.
Whether support for an independence movement is "right" or morally justifiable must depend on the circumstances. I think it'd be morally difficult to support Taliban fighters that behead and disembowel teachers, for example, on account of their methods. It'd be difficult to support violent Scottish nationalists (if such existed) since there's a peaceful route for Scotland to become independent if Scots want. Taking Tibet, I think it'd be morally impossible to support burning Han Chinese to death, but possible to support non-violent protest aiming at increasing human rights and autonomy in Tibet.