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 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.