In a world where geopolitical tensions are rising, the recent guidelines issued by the Chinese government for criminal punishment against “diehard” Taiwan separatists have sparked international outrage. Beijing’s hardline stance on Taiwan’s independence movement, underscored by large-scale military drills and threats of severe repercussions, mirrors a troubling narrative closer to home. As the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) continues to push for a referendum on Texas independence, the rhetoric from some anti-TEXIT voices in the United States eerily echoes the authoritarian policies of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

China’s Stance on Taiwan: A Heavy-Handed Approach

China’s position on Taiwan is clear and uncompromising. The island, which Beijing considers a breakaway province, has long been a point of contention. Recently, China issued new guidelines aimed at criminalizing activities and statements advocating for Taiwan’s independence. This move accompanies a series of military exercises around Taiwan, intended as a “punishment” for separatist activities and a warning to external forces​ (American Military News)​​ (Yahoo)​.

These measures reflect China’s broader strategy of using legal, political, and military means to suppress any movement toward Taiwan’s independence. The CCP’s actions are designed to send a clear message: any attempt to challenge China’s territorial integrity will be met with severe consequences.

The Anti-TEXIT “War Hawks”: A Disturbing Parallel

The anti-TEXIT rhetoric in the United States, particularly from those who suggest using military force to prevent Texas from seceding, reveals a strikingly similar mindset. These “war hawks” argue that the federal government has both the right and the duty to maintain the Union, even if it means deploying troops against a state that democratically votes for independence​​.

The legal foundation for this argument often rests on the 1869 Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White, which declared that states do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the Union. While this ruling is a cornerstone for anti-TEXIT advocates, its historical context and relevance in today’s society are subjects of intense debate​​.

Hypocrisy and Human Rights

What makes this parallel particularly concerning is the hypocrisy it reveals. Many of the same voices that condemn China’s human rights violations and totalitarian governance are advocating for similar oppressive measures by the U.S. federal government. They criticize Beijing’s harsh policies towards Taiwan, yet they propose comparable actions to quash the legitimate aspirations of Texans who seek independence through peaceful and legal means.

The Ethical Dilemma

At the heart of this issue is an ethical dilemma: should a union of states resort to force to maintain its territorial integrity? The use of military intervention to prevent a state from exercising its right to vote on independence not only contradicts foundational principles of self-governance but also places the United States in the same moral category as totalitarian regimes like China.

Historically, the U.S. has championed the right to self-determination. Supporting secessionist movements abroad while suppressing them at home would be a stark hypocrisy. The international community, which often looks to the U.S. as a model of freedom and self-governance, would undoubtedly view such actions as a betrayal of core principles.

A Justification for Independence

If there is a legitimate concern that the U.S. government might adopt China’s policies regarding self-determination, then that alone is all the justification any state needs to assert its independence. The threat of military force against a state seeking to determine its future through a democratic process is an affront to the very values upon which the United States was founded.

Moving Forward: A Call for Peaceful Solutions

The Texas Nationalist Movement’s call for a referendum on Texas independence is fundamentally about giving Texans the right to decide their future. This movement is driven by a belief in the principles of self-governance and the conviction that Texans should have a voice in their governance.

The federal government’s response should be rooted in these same principles. Instead of threats of military force, a nation should engage in dialogue, legal processes, and negotiations. The path forward must honor the will of the people, ensuring that any decision about Texas’s future is made through peaceful and legal means.

The End Game

The parallels between China’s actions against Taiwan and the rhetoric of anti-TEXIT “war hawks” in the United States are deeply concerning. If the U.S. were to follow China’s example, it would undermine its own values and align itself with authoritarian practices.

As we witness the CCP’s crackdown on Taiwan separatists, it serves as a stark reminder of the importance of preserving principles of self-governance. The Texas Nationalist Movement’s push for a referendum is a test of the United States’ commitment to these values. It is imperative that the federal government respects the process and refrains from using force, thereby distinguishing itself from the totalitarian regimes it so often opposes.

For those who believe in the principles of self-governance and the right of a people to determine their future, supporting a peaceful and legal resolution to the TEXIT question is not only the right choice but the only choice.