Taiwan Irked at Google's Version of Earth

frank_adrian314159 writes "As reported in The Register, Taiwan wants Google Earth to stop calling it a province of China. Although Google has yet to comment on this issue, it will be interesting to see the brightest minds that money can buy trying to solve what decades of diplomats have unsuccessfully wrestled with - how to balance the nationalistic pride of the inhabitants of Taiwan against the nationalistic pride of the inhabitants of mainland China." From the article: "Foreign ministry spokesman, Michel Lu, explained: 'It is incorrect to call Taiwan a province of China because we are not. We have contacted Google to express our position and asked them to correct the description.' Google has maintained a stony silence on the matter, presumably while it tries to work out a solution which will please both the Taiwanese and the hosts of the (lucrative, burgeoning, inviting) Chinese internet search business opportunity market."

Comments

PROC and ROC

[Moby Cock]

It is pretty much well established in the west to refer to to China (the big one) as the People's Republic of China and Taiwan as the Republic of China. This may be offensive to China or Taiwan, I can not attest to that, but it does seem to be the norm.

Ditto Tibet

[n1ywb]

It's interesting to note that Tibet also does not show up as an independent country in Google Earth. Apparently Google doesn't consider supporting an evil communist regime to be "evil".

I say google will...

[CDPatten]

Bow to the communist china's wishes, just like msn did with the "democracy" ban. The real question is will you anti-ms people be just as outraged as you were with MS?

Re:Simple solution

[Stargoat]

Because it will upset the Chinese. Taiwan is an island. Alcatraz is the United States, it is not Alcatraz the island. Hawaii, on a map, is usually listed as "Hawaii (US)". The Chinese mainland government has been an imperialist government for quite some time. They have fought wars with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, Nepal, and Tibet. They financed the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. They openly supplied and comforted the Khmer Rouge. The Korean War, which as any tourist to China can tell you is still proudly remembered, was fought against the entire United Nations: including United Kingdom, Australia, Turkey, Canada, New Zealand, the Philippines, Luxembourg, South Africa, and the Netherlands. With the exception of North Korea, Mongolia, and Pakistan, China has pretty much fought with everyone they can easily reach. China has been in the past 50 years an ultra aggressive power.

Google's mission statement is Do No Evil. The inclusion of Taiwan with an aggressive power such as China is not exactly good. They should acknowledge the defacto freedoms the Taiwanese currently possess.

Re:Simple solution

[Fallingcow]

Legitimacy is granted through the social contract.

If even one person refuses it, then the state no longer has legitimacy of control over that individual, HOWEVER, that individual has no right to reside in territory controlled by the state, as they have set themselves apart from society.

Conversely, if a majority of the people in a region refuse the contract, then the rule of that area by the state is not legitimate. The state can force obedience with arms, but a contract accepted only due to coersion is not binding. They may rule the region, but will not be legitimate there until the people freely agree to it.

If this is not the case, then the entire point of having a state has been lost and its purpose perverted.

Not so simple

[Errandboy of Doom]

China has not "owned" Tibet any time in the last 1500 years except for the last 50, and has had absolutely no control that was granted by the people of Tibet. That makes China an occupying, illegitimate, oppressive power in Tibet.

How do we determine when secession is permissible and when it is not? The Basque region in Spain, late 1700s US, Ireland, Hawaii since its statehood, the US South during the Civil War, the Caucasus, Tibet, Taiwan, Israel/Palestine for the last 2000 years, the Sunni triangle, Brazil, Luisitania, so many examples throughout history...

Is there really one simple test to cover all these situations? Everyone's flat declarations really seem to imply there's a some simple approach, but I'm not seeing it.

My first instinct is: secession should be allowed by popular sovereignty - if the locals want independence, they should get it. But does that mean the American South deserved to get its independence, even if it meant the continuation of slavery? So perhaps popular sovereignty is forfeited by a disregard for human rights. But what about in places where the population distribution for and against secession poses a logistical nightmare? Or what if, as in India/Pakistan a few decades back, it would just create two hostile states, tossing out the forced compromises of government for the aggressive posturing preferred by rival states? What if, like in the Basque region, allowing secession might leave the region economically destitute... even to the point it appears genocidal? Can logistical difficulties or paternalism justify a refusal of secession? I don't know, it seems like the answer is "sometimes." Many seem to rely upon historical ownership, but that rarely seems helpful. If a country is unjustly governing a territory, it shouldn't be mitigated because they've unjustly held it for a long time. And if a territory needs another country's rule of law, it shouldn't matter how recent it has begun to benefit. And if it is relevant, how long is long enough? 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years? And how many people does it take to secede? Do you have to have a simple majority, 2/3rds? Can my neighborhood secede?

I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I just don't know why this issue is so easy for everyone else, when the basic principles seem so elusive to me.

After we figure out when secession is justified, we can apply that answer to our maps and blindly ignore political blackmail by groups that are displeased. But it doesn't seem like anyone has done a thorough analysis of the political ethics of secession relevant to the contemporary geopolitical atmosphere, on slashdot or elsewhere.

Re:Simple solution

[SLi]

I had an interesting conversation with a (mainland) Chinese exchange student about the situation in Taiwan. I only had the chance to exchange a few words with him in sauna, however the absoluteness of the Chinese attitude in this matter startled me. I can't tell if he was really as absolute himself as we were talking about how Taiwan is seen in the mainland China in general.

Basically he claimed that it would be a political impossibility for the Chinese government to accept an independent Taiwan. There's a very big nationalistic sentiment in China (perhaps even bigger than the totally ridiculous amount you have in the US? Who knows), and he asserted that any attempt by the government to recognize Taiwan would be met with riots and possibly a revolution.

I didn't fully understand the Chinese stance on the issue, but it seemed to revolve around Taiwan having been "part of China" for hundreds of years.

I don't know if this tells anything or not, but in an effort to understand the situation better I asked him if it's important that the people who live in Taiwan come under Chinese rule or if it's just the land that they are after. He told me that they probably don't care about the people, it would be OK if they relocate somewhere, only the land simply must eventually come under Chinese rule. Any other line of thinking would lead nowhere.