<As the horrifying humanitarian disaster in Cambodia continued growing the Vietnamese decided they had to do something about it.>
That is incorrect.
The real history: A horrifying humanitarian disaster happened in Cambodia, and the Vietnamese did nothing, for years. Then, the Cambodians did something suicidally stupid. They started attacks on the Vietnamese frontier, and disputed that boundary. Then, and only then, when their own nation was attacked, did the Vietnamese act. Humanitarianism was not the reason why the Vietnamese overthrew the Cambodian government. The timing of events makes this clear, no matter what the diplomats may have said.
Yes, the position of Kant, which I agree with, is a broad sweeping generalization. What Kant is saying, is that there can be no self-determination, no true republican freedom, no "consent of the governed", under the occupation of a foreign conquering army. If that army of foreigners exercises sovereign power, then it is absurd to describe this situation as "freedom". And it is equally absurd, to say that this is the beginning of a process that will lead to freedom. And, yes, it is possible to come up with exceptions. There are a few counterexamples. But that's all they are, exceptions to the general rule. It doesn't invalidate the general principle. |
