If any state is being propagandized into secession it's Florida right now.

They, however, find themselves in a race with mother nature to see who will remove them from the continental US first.

The point here is that this is the equivalent of what US is doing, and something US would never tolerate itself. Just imagine for a second if China set up equivalent of NED and USAID, started funding political campaigns in Texas or Florida, and so on. This is what US is currently doing.

US is blatantly interfering in Chinese internal politics and violating Chinese sovereignty while acting as if US has some god given right to meddle in other countries. It's absolutely surreal.

It’s only surreal if you subscribe to the notion of might makes right. US prevents the change of status quo to be done by force. A diplomatic solution is in everyone’s interest.

Might makes right has literally been the policy US has pursued throughout its history. What US is doing is creating a tension half way across the world from itself by funding and arming a separatist movement in a Chinese province. This is something US would never tolerate being done on its own territory.

A "separatist movement" that encompasses the majority of the population of a "province" that was never fully under Chinese control.

You are spreading Chinese propaganda lies.

No, I'm stating basic facts of the situation. Educate yourself on the subject.

No, you spreading Chinese propaganda lies. I am much better educated on the subject than you.

If the people of Taiwan want to be independent, then it seems a bit paternalistic to assume that it's only because of US propaganda.

No, we can assume that because of long and well documented history of US interfering in Taiwan and pouring billions of dollars into creating a secessionist movement there.

No, we can assume that Taiwan is an independant sovereign country in its own right according to the will of its people.

The one pouring billions into creating a secessionist movement there is China.

Just like we can assume that Texas or Florida are independant sovereign countries in their own right according to the will of their people. Once DeSantis gets his private army going, I'll remember to cheer for Flordia's freedom and independence https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/02/politics/florida-state-guard-...

Except Florida and Texas have actually been part of the USA for centuries, while Taiwan has never been part of the PRC and has existed as a de facto sovereign country as long as the PRC has.

Plus only a clear minority of the people of Texas or Florida actually wants to secede, whereas a large majority of Taiwanese wants to remain an independent country.

Hawaii also has a massive secessionist movement since the original inhabitants never elected to join the US.

I think you and GP should be aware of Calexit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_California

Texas and Taiwan share very little in common in terms of history as political states and entities in the world economic system. It's a strange analogy you're asking us to make with negligible equivalencies.

What Texas and Taiwan share is that they're both territories of sovereign nations. US has no business interfering in the internal politics of other countries. It's that simple.

US State Department acknowledges that Taiwan is par of China in black and white:

    The United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent across decades and administrations.
    The United States has a longstanding one China policy**, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act,
    the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances.  We oppose any unilateral changes
    to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait
    differences to be resolved by peaceful means.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/

You keep quoting this, seemingly without reading it:

From the "Six Assurances" mentioned right there:

> The United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

Additionally, the "Taiwan Relations Act" (again mentioned right there) says:

> The act authorizes de facto diplomatic relations with the governing authorities by giving special powers to the AIT to the level that it is the de facto embassy, and states that any international agreements made between the ROC and U.S. before 1979 are still valid unless otherwise terminated.

(noting the that Postdam treaty you mention elsewhere was made with the ROC government because it was in 1945)

> The TRA provides for Taiwan to be treated under U.S. laws the same as "foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities", thus treating Taiwan as a sub-sovereign foreign state equivalent. The act provides that for most practical purposes of the U.S. government, the absence of diplomatic relations and recognition will have no effect.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Assurances

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act

None of this has an actual meaning under international law. The legal standing of Taiwan is that it's part of China. Plain and simple.

> None of this has an actual meaning under international law. The legal standing of Taiwan is that it's part of China. Plain and simple.

While I understand you disagree with what I'm saying, trying to claim that the Taiwan situation is "Plain and simple" just seems an untenable claim.

The Taiwanese themselves have a different government to mainland China, with a pretty capable defense force.

There is a Taiwanese team in the Olympics.

How is any of that "plain and simple"?

It's enormously funny how you say that a document that you yourself just cited to support your argument has no actual meaning.

Try harder, little propaganda bot.

Maybe they should. They didn't even seem bothered to vote against the Crimea annexation, so there's some history there.

I never got this argument and I now where this point devolves into - I see this take a lot from Chinese on Weibo, locally here in Asia, and by Chinese people in the States. I’m Taiwanese-American for background.

If China were to interfere domestically into U.S affairs covertly and somehow convince Texas into secession - I would find it difficult to believe the United States would go to war with Texas. If it was democratically voted, most Americans would be fine with it. It would be extremely unpopular to go to war over this. Just reverse it, if California were to leave the Union, most conservative states would say good riddance. Now bomb SF? Not even the most deranged Americans would want that.