If California stopped paying taxes to the federal government, didnt allow the federal government on its lands. Everyone using the ports came to an agreement with California and not the USA. Had its own President. Didn't follow any federal law, did EVERYTHING ELSE a separate country would do....
>China says Taiwan is a part of them, Taiwan says no, fair enough.
This is the part you're oversimplifying, the CCP does not say "fair enough." Taiwan has the highest democracy index in Asia, and the 8th highest in the world trailing only Scandinavia, NZ, and Ireland right now. It's not arbitrary or silly to the people of Taiwan if the CCP wants to take that away from them.
Not exactly. China says there is only one China, and Taiwan is part of it, and the CCP is the government of all of China. Taiwan says there is only one China, and Taiwan is part of it, and the government of Taiwan is the legitimate government of China - all of it.
De facto, of course, they are two separate countries.
So the analogy would be something like a revolution in the US, the revolutionaries winning, President Biden fleeing to Hawaii with his cabinet, and then the rest of the US having a hissy fit because the president of Mexico visited Hawaii.
China is really insecure about Taiwan, and they show it every time anybody shows any bit of recognition to Taiwan. Maybe the issue is that Taiwan claims to be the legitimate government of all of China, and the CCP doesn't feel that their legitimacy is all that solid...
[Edit: "Would this be acceptable?" Acceptable to who? In that analogy, would it be acceptable to the rest of the US? Why do you think that's a relevant question? If California has truly separated from the US, then the only way the US thinks they have any say is if they have refused to accept that California has separated. And even then, they only think they have some say. They don't actually have it, and they have no moral grounds for saying that they should have it.
So China can buzz off. They have no right to decide who can be allowed to visit Taiwan.]
> Not exactly. China says there is only one China, and Taiwan is part of it, and the CCP is the government of all of China. Taiwan says there is only one China, and Taiwan is part of it, and the government of Taiwan is the legitimate government of China - all of it.
That's not true. The official stance of the current government is that Taiwan is an independent country and has no need to “declare” independence. This contrast with the longtime position of the KMT which ruled during the long effective one-party era and has had varying influence during the more democratic period of the last few decades, but is currently the main opposition party.
It's kind of weird that so many people seem to have their idea of Taiwan stuck in the KMT one-party-rule era.
I think DPP's stance has been unambiguously clear, the current tension is mostly focused on the mainland's reaction. KMT has been inline with mainland's ambiguous definition and to be fair any chinese person (including Taiwanese residents) would understand why given that they were educated about the history of civil war and both parties' ambition for unification. KMT's decline has given rise to an increase sense of identity. But when I met many people my age (70s - 80s), they were traditionally educated to 'recover' mainland and they vowed to work hard to achieve that. Now apparently status quo is changing.
So I'm a little baffled that in the west the talking point is about who owns who but we all know it's not the point but maintaining or breaking status quo is.
If California was independently governing itself, then yeah it'd be comparative. It's like a country visiting the Confederate States of America during the US civil war.
Your comparison doesn't bear any resemblance to reality.
More like the Union lost the civil war and retreated the Puerto Rico, which had just been acquired from Spain four years earlier. And then proceeded to institute martial law and an aggressive Amerification campaign, stamping out Spanish language and local culture, before becoming a new democracy in the 90s that only retains the name USA as a technicality.
If California and its inhabitants decided to be its own country and Mexico visited California President Newsom would this be accepted?
The whole thing seems arbitrary and silly to me. I guess that’s politics for you?