Yes absolutely the Taiwanese situation is complicated by inter-Chinese conflict.
The official US position (shared by most of the world) is that Taiwan is Chinese territory. The settlement on that issue is that Taiwan will be fully and formally enveloped into the mainland, along with Hong Kong, the 2040s (IIRC). The US (and most of the world) does not recognize Taiwan as an independent sovereignty. Think Puerto Rico.
Yes, but my point was that this wasn't all some simple thing going back to a post-WWII treaty that was now being complicated by a US imperialist media bubble. The current official position came about decades later and is additionally complicated by the unofficial relations between the US and the two being quite different.
On a completely not-realpolitik-based personal side of things, having spent some time in all three of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, a forced eventual unification feels rather sad if it comes with the greater globalized monoculture that the mainland currently has.
All treaties, settlements and borders are subject to be changed. It's simply a fact.
It is entirely possible that, in a war or as a settlement, or under pressure, or by sale/trade, or by volunteer Russia will give the Kurils to Japan, or the United States will revise its position on Taiwan or Hong Kong (you've already see a Trump Administration send the signal he's willing to do this).
These relations are complicated, as various decisions made by different sovereignties will be replied to, can spoil relationships, can spoil trust, etc.
A nation can also ruin its reputation by being 'too flippant' in recognizing territory until its not convenient to do so any more. There's a giant fuzzy 'you-have-to-be-able-to-tell-the-future' calculus that is done in simulating various choices on how to proceed with sovereign decisions, as effects can be quite wide ranging.
America flipping its opinion on the sovereignty of the former British colony Hong Kong or on the civil war safehaven Taiwan, would represent a huge and damaging departure in relations with China. The United States may do such a thing, but would only do it if the 'realpolitik' calculus allowed it to risk - or wanted it to aggress - a war.
There's never a simple thing in geopolitics. We can only look to history, to policies and treaties and to potential outcomes to explain and predict. The United States breaking with long standing treaties would be huge news in this regard.
> There's never a simple thing in geopolitics. We can only look to history, to policies and treaties and to potential outcomes to explain and predict.
So doesn't this bring us to "it's news that China has started treating these waters differently" for objective reasons vs it only being an "American media bubble" thing?
China is treating these waters differently today for National Security reasons, and because of a unique period of history in which Chinese growth and infrastructure development has skyrocketed (China has been successfully industrializing into a modern economy). I had said: "Today, China is trying to build infrastructure, shipping routes and naval security in this area. This is important to China because of its historical vulnerability to naval embargo, through the Strait of Malacca and elsewhere."
The American media bubble is the narrative that China is being aggressive, that China is being unilateral, that China has no claims (especially vis a vis Philippines), that there is a unanimous interpretation in Asia, etc.
The media bubble in this regard isn't "something has changed" but "this is what's changed and this is what's going on."
It's a nice story about good versus evil and American freedom, sure, but that's only good for headlines and public consumption. It's not what is going to fill the history books.
> The official US position (shared by most of the world) is that Taiwan is Chinese territory.
Citation? It helps to be clear when you use "Chinese" in this context. It is certainly not the US position that Taiwan is PRC territory. They are deliberately ambiguous on this.
> The settlement on that issue is that Taiwan will be fully and formally enveloped into the mainland, along with Hong Kong, the 2040s (IIRC).
First I've heard of this settlement. Again, citations?
> The US (and most of the world) does not recognize Taiwan as an independent sovereignty. Think Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico does is not de jure independent and does not claim to be. Completely different. The ROC is de facto independent.
The termination of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty ("SAMSG") and the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act ("TRA"). In the "SAMDT" it was the policy of the United States that the Republic of China (ROC - Taiwan) was the sole legitimate sovereignty of mainland China.
President Carter terminated SAMDT, passing instead the TRA. The Taiwan Relations Act promotes a "One China Policy" - that of there being only one China. Under this policy, the US government recognizes the PRC (mainland) government, and no longer recognizes Taiwan (ROC) as a sovereignty. In this, there is no formal recognition, state-to-state diplomacy at high levels, present embassy, etc. The TRA makes provisions for the defense of the island in the case of military activity from the mainland. The TRA has been consistently reaffirmed by the United States government for 40 years.
> The settlement on that issue is that Taiwan will be fully and formally enveloped into the mainland, along with Hong Kong, the 2040s.
I have overspoken and confused the Hong Kong case with the Taiwan case. To be very clear: I am and was wrong about the timeline on a formal date for the mainland to envelop Taiwan.
The "Basic Law" of the Constitution of Hong Kong that establishes it as a separate autonomous region expires in (I had to look this up) 1947. This arrangement had been agreed to by the British and the mainland Chinese government, with the understanding the independence would cede after this time.
I had been under the impression that Taiwan had a similar provision in their constitution. However, looking this up I found that it is not the case. ROC and PRC both agree that there is "One China" as does the United States, but there remains disagreement about where the sovereignty resides. A good example of this is that ROC sided entirely with PRC with regard to the South China Sea and the international disputes and findings.
There does not appear to be a deadline on the federalization of the relationship, and I sincerely apologize that I stated this incorrectly.
Now, I do swear to have heard US diplomats and academics discussing the Hong Kong and Taiwan timeframe as a single event: "One Country, Three Systems." I have nothing formal or official to point to in this regard.
> Think Puerto Rico
There are many differences between the two cases and it was not intended to to be taken beyond the most immediate analogy. The US, as by the TRA, does not recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan as an independent sovereignty. I was trying to come up with something American readers might be able to compare that to. PR probably came to mind because it too is an island, and it too is not recognized as a sovereign state. Of course the analogy is not perfect and I would never claim it is.
Thank you for clarifying that to other readers.
There is not a strong constituency of Puerto Rico that claims independent sovereignty. I don't know if they are actively seeking political representation of any sort (as a US state?). There isn't actually much news/information (that I get anyway) about the political climate on PR.
> Now, I do swear to have heard US diplomats and academics discussing the Hong Kong and Taiwan timeframe as a single event: "One Country, Three Systems." I have nothing formal or official to point to in this regard.
It's definitely something people talk about sometimes as a potential (or for some even predicted) outcome, but it's mostly speculative with little firm basis in general, and even less in terms of any specific time frame.
The US has only ever "acknowledged" that the PRC considers Taiwan a part of its territory. The fact that diplomatic recognition has switched to the PRC does not imply that the US believes Taiwan is part of the PRC. It's deliberately ambiguous on all of this.
The official US position (shared by most of the world) is that Taiwan is Chinese territory. The settlement on that issue is that Taiwan will be fully and formally enveloped into the mainland, along with Hong Kong, the 2040s (IIRC). The US (and most of the world) does not recognize Taiwan as an independent sovereignty. Think Puerto Rico.