Does the 'Right of Self-Determination' confer incontrovertible legal, and more importantly, moral legitimacy on the secessionist demands of champions of Taiwan independence? Does it leave Pan Blue leaders who call for eventual reunification in accordance with Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law without a moral or legal leg to stand on?

Not quite. The 'Right of Self-Determination' is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways.

As famed Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises noted in his book Liberalism:

“The right of self-determination ... is ... the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.”

If champions of Taiwan independence expect others to honour their demands for political secession from China, then they are obligated to honour others' demands for political secession from any “Nation of Taiwan” they hope to found. If champions of Taiwan independence are not willing to honor others' demands for political secession, then what obligation do others have to honor their demands for political secession from China?

The Republic of Singapore is a sovereign and independent nation. It is a member of the United Nations. It has a population of only 5 million. The “Taiwan Region of the Republic of China” has a population of 23 million. Using Singapore as a hypothetical standard, one could form five independent nations from the population of Taiwan.

The Republic of Nauru, a tiny island in the remote South Pacific, is also a sovereign and independent nation. It is also a member of the United Nations. With a population of only 13,000, and a land area of only 21 square kilometers, it is the smallest nation on earth. Using Nauru as a hypothetical standard, one could form 1,800 independent nations from the population of Taiwan.

Principled and consistent application of the “Right of Self-Determination” would legitimise the secession of ever smaller political entities from whatever larger political entity they currently belong to, stopping only at the level of the individual. Principled and consistent application of the 'Right of Self-Determination' would authorise every property owner on earth to hold a referendum, with himself as the sole voter, declare his own private plot of land a sovereign republic, and refuse to pay taxes to the nation, the state or province, the city or county in which he (formerly) resided.

Are champions of Taiwan independence principled and consistent champions of the 'Right of Self-Determination?' Are they willing to honour demands for political independence from any would be “Nation of Taiwan” they hope to establish? Is anyone obligated to take their unilateral demands for political independence from China seriously?

The answer to all three questions is no.

Champions of Taiwan independence are akin to political narcissists who demand independence for themselves, but refuse to allow independence for others.

The ruling DPP regime's behaviour while crushing the Kaosha Republic's independence demonstrated that champions of Taiwan independence had no qualms about using overwhelming force to prevent Taiwan's Aborigines from seceding from their Hoklo Fascist “Nation of Taiwan.” Not one champion of Taiwan independence raised his voice in protest when Chen Shui-bian ordered riot police and bulldozers to prevent secession from Taiwan.

Not a single Pan Green champion of 'Taiwan's Right of Self-Determination' raised his voice in protest when then-Vice-President Annette Lu scapegoated Taiwan's Aborigines, blaming them for overdevelopment, deforestation, soil erosion, and flooding in Taiwan's central mountain range. Aboriginal victims of Tropical Storm Mindulle, Lu declared, deserved no sympathy. They should be relocated en masse to Central and South America for damaging Taiwan's ecology. The island should be left in the hands of those whom Taiwan independence activists designate as “real Taiwanese,” i.e., themselves.

The BBC reported this moral outrage in a news article entitled: Aborigines protest Racial Bigotry in Taipei, demand Apology from Vice President Lu over Proposal to Ethnically Cleanse Taiwan of Aborigines.

If the nations of the world wish to adopt revolutionary new rules respecting the 'Right of Self-determination', then they are obligated to honor all peoples' 'Right of Self-Determination', not just some peoples' 'Right of Self-Determination'.

If, on the other hand, the nations of the world wish to abide by traditional rules governing national sovereignty and territorial integrity, then Chinese on Taiwan and the Chinese mainland are fully within their rights to say that Taiwan independence is not an option and that the demand to secede from China does not have the moral high ground.

Champions of Taiwan independence can have their cake or they can eat it, but not both.