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

Simple solution

[nokilli]

Instead of choosing between pissing off the Chinese or pissing off the Taiwanese you piss both the Chinese and Taiwanese off at the same time. So instead of saying it is or isn't a province of China, you just call it West Hawaii.

Problem solved.
--
You didn't know.

Re:Simple solution

[KiloByte]

"Taiwan, province of China" -- obvious bullshit, but it's required if you want to conduct business in the very biggest country of the world, one that happens to have one of most evil governments.
"Chinese Taipei" -- obvious bullshit, Taipei is the capital of the country, not the country itself.
"Republic of China" -- obvious bullshit, they were the Republic of China before the communist rebellion, but they can't claim to be the whole of China anymore.
"Taiwan" -- the geographic name. Perfectly neutral.

So... we nearly say "Germany" instead of "Federal Republic of Germany", its real name. We use "Poland" instead of "Republic of Poland". We say "China" instead of "People's Republic of China". So, why won't we just call Taiwan... "Taiwan"?

Re:Simple solution

[jafac]

Considering how much US Govt. debt is currently financed by China, maybe it'd be more appropriate to call Hawaii East China. . .

(btw, thank you George W Bush, *true* Conservative!)

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

[stienman]

"Taiwan" -- the geographic name. Perfectly neutral.

When you have the political boundary layer on, it should show the political names, not the geographic names.

If there is a dispute of some sort (tiawan, tibet, etc) then the program should be clear that they use a specific set of political names (ie, "As recognized by the UN") and stay out of political rumbling. Tiawan is simply trying to bring this issue up in the "court of world opinion" again, and Google is a convenient talking point.

-Adam

Re:Simple solution

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

So instead of saying it is or isn't a province of China, you just call it West Hawaii.

When I read the parent post my first thought was...look and see if Iraq is listed as a state of the US, but calling Taiwan West Hawaii is far more funny.

Re:Simple solution

[funkyfreshcoderdude]

Why not China Beta?

Re:Simple solution

[cerelib]

I like that, but if I published a little piece of viewer software with a map that indicated Taiwan as West Hawaii would the Tawainese officials try to contact me. Google can publish whatever they want. Are they breaking some form of international or national laws? None that I can see. The real funny one would be if they identified Isreal as Palestine. I think we would wake up one morning to find a crater where the Google headquarters used to be.

Re:Simple solution

[Pxtl]

I think the problem is that even the Taiwanese government considers Taiwan a province of China. The point is that they believe that the Taiwanese government thinks itself the rightful rulers of China, just as the PRC governing party thinks of itself as the rightful ruler of China (including Taiwan).

Groups who want China and Taiwan to suck it up and make politics reflect reality unfortunately don't have control of the Taiwanese government.

Re:Simple solution

[macgeek]

And here I was thinking that they'd just check the referrer and make the map say whatever the referrer was hoping for - so if they came from a link in China, it would say that it was a province of China, and if it came from Tawain, it would say it was it's own country.

Personally, I'm in favor of just putting the borders on the map and leaving it blank. Or they could just let the user decide and then set a cookie....

Re:Simple solution

[Stargoat]

The ROC, the Taiwanese Government, has acknowledged that it is not the master of China. They have even eliminated the members of Parliment that were from the former provinces of China.

Pxtl seems to misunderstands the situation between China and Taiwan. China is the aggressor. The majority of the Taiwanese, if they believed they could declare themselves independent without total destruction of them and their land, would do so in a heartbeat.

Re:Simple solution

[snarkh]

one that happens to have one of most evil governments.

These moralistic terms are incredibly annoying.
Most people would agree it is opressive, but why do you expect other people to share your views on good and evil?

Re:Simple solution

[grumpyman]

Ditto on the good and evil thing. The other thing is, the term Chinese Taipei is used by a lot local 'Taiwan' groups when they abroad out as a representative of their 'island'. It is not bullshit, of course, unless the locals want to BS themselves when they go abroad.

Re:Simple solution

[KylePflug]

Because if they don't, they're evil. Duh.

In all seriousness, come one. I could just as easily say "these relativistic terms are annoying. Most people would agree that the Chinese have a right to their own opinion, but why do you expect us to value that opinion more than our own?"

But I do appreciate the blanket forgive-all of amoralism, and I'll be sure to bring it up if I'm ever being tried for, say, robbing your house or murdering your family. I'm sure you'll stick to your guns then.

Re:Simple solution

[grumpyman]

one that happens to have one of most evil governments

Don't get me started on the good and evil bullshit. The /.ers beloved company of Google has picked the 'evil' side. So now you should really reconsider using anything google.

Re:Simple solution

[lawpoop]

Well, there's still a problem. If the largest name designations are sovereign nations, then a province or state with it's own name would stick out like a sore thumb, especially if its sovereignty were in dispute.

It would be strange to list Alaska or Hawaii along side China, the US, or Germany -- it implies that they are at the same level, when in fact they are part of the US. The same thing goes for map resolution.

Listing Taiwan as anything other than a province of China is an implication of independence to the PRC authorities -- after all, Schizuan isn't listed on its own, is it? Then, what would be the reason for listing Taiwan on its own?

Re:Simple solution

[lgw]

I'm sure you'll stick to your guns then.

Nice turn of phrase! Guns, indeed. :)

Re:Simple solution

[R3d M3rcury]

"[...] they were the Republic of China before the communist rebellion, but they can't claim to be the whole of China anymore."

No, but they are part of China and, therefore, have as much claim to the name as the people on the mainland.

By the way, perhaps you've heard of the Republic of Korea (eg, "South Korea") and the People's Republic of Korea (eg, "North Korea")?

Re:Simple solution

[bleckywelcky]

Dunno what everyone is talking about. When I go to maps.google.com it shows up as Taiwan.

Re:Simple solution

[Mercaptan]

It's actually a little more complicated than that.

On the one hand, you have the Nationalists (the Kuomingtang, KMT), who led by Chiang Kei-shek brought a lot of Mainland Chinese Nationalists over to Taiwan back in the 50's after the Chinese Communists drove them out. The KMT settled in Taiwan and plotted their return to China to assert their democratic government there (both they and the Communists asserted that theirs was the legitimate government for the whole of China). This return, of course, has not quite happened although the KMT has claimed that Taiwan is part of China, in as much as they are the legitimate government of China as a whole. For a long time, the largely Mainlander KMT has remained (despite their minority status among the "native" Taiwanese, who are also ethnically Chinese, but have lived on Taiwan for several hundred years) have maintained a one-party system and martial law up until the mid-80's.

In that time there has been a liberalization of political life, leading to the rise of a large opposition party (the Democratic People's Party, DPP), consisting largely of "native" Taiwanese, as well as a change in the KMT's own membership as more "native" Taiwanese rise to positions of power within that party. The DPP could be described supporting Taiwanese interests over the KMT's party-line of reunifying with China under a Nationalist flag. This is intertwined with resentment over the KMT's repressive and corrupt policies over the years and a genuine need to address domestic issues within Taiwan.

Thus the reality of of whether or not the Taiwanese or their government favor reunification or independence can be well summarized by this paragraph from Wikipedia:

"The KMT supports the status quo for the indefinite future because unification under the Communist Party is unacceptable to its members and the public. The Democratic Progressive Party, which supports an independent Taiwan, supports the status quo because the risk of declaring independence and provoking mainland China is unacceptable to its members. However, both parties support taking active steps to advocate Taiwan's participation in international organizations. The numbers who answer favorably toward any particular resolution often changes depending on the particular wording of the question, illustrating the complexity of public opinion on the topic."

It is also important to note that a DPP president is currently in office, although the legislature is still fairly divided. So what's meant by "the government" is rather unclear at the moment.

("Native" is written in quotes to distinguish those Taiwanese who are ethnically Chinese, but have resided in Taiwan for the last few hundred years from the actual aborigineal tribes in Taiwan, who, like many native people, have suffered under a variety of hands.)

Re:Simple solution

[anaesthetica]

You are not entirely correct. The Kuomintang party (the old nationalist party that Chiang Kai-shek led) holds the position that Taiwan is a part of China, and claims to be the legitimate government over the Mainland. The Democratic People's Party (currently in power) believes no such thing, and would likely press for outright independence, if it thought it could get away with it.

Re:Simple solution

[WiFiBro]

Yes, some people got it, but you stepped on a toe of some patriot (modded 'troll').
I've had a chinese PhD student working next to me; he was almost reliously convinced that Taiwan and Tibet belonged to China For Historic Reasons. (where did i hear that one before, was it yugoslavia?)

Re:Simple solution

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Huh? "Good" and "Evil" are relativistic terms. Do you think the antelope consider lions to be evil?

Re:Simple solution

[doxology]

Hawai'i was annexed as a result of American-backed businessmen overthrowing the Kingdom of Hawai'i. The inclusion of Hawai'i with an aggressive power such as the United States is not exactly good.

Re:Simple solution

[SanityInAnarchy]

Because it will upset the Chinese.

Damnit, Google is supposed to be the good guy here. Being the good guy means you do what's right, no matter what the business sense of it, and as anyone who's studied Socially Responsible Investing knows, being the Good Guy ends up being profitable, even if nobody knows why.

Re:Simple solution

[Stargoat]

The kind that are afraid of 600 nuclear tipped missiles 100 miles off their borders. It's not cowardess, it's sensible.

Re:Simple solution

[jmorris42]

> The inclusion of Taiwan with an aggressive power such as China is not exactly good.

Yup, Google has violated their policy here, but they can join the long list of moral weasels on this issue. Fact: Taiwan is a soverign nation entitled to all the privledges and respect that status brings. Fact: For craven reasons mostly related to fear of upsetting trade relations with China almost no nation fully recognizes that fact. Fact: While being part craven in not extending full recognition to Taiwan and not applying the political pressure to get them seated at the UN, the continued existance of Taiwan as an independent nation state is entirely due to US policy.

Re:Simple solution

[Viper Daimao]

talk about google earth, not google maps (i know, so much google stuff. it gets confusing). It's seperate application that you have to download and install on your computer. I think you have to pay for some of the really high rez stuff too. Havent used it first hand so im not sure.

Re:Simple solution

[denelson83]

And what about the Republic of Cyprus? There's a sort-of breakaway political situation there, with the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".

Re:Simple solution

[snarkh]

But I do appreciate the blanket forgive-all of amoralism,

Well, if you want to use such value judgements, you should be consistent. Do you consider the US government evil for killing thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians?

It is easy to pass judgement on an alien country, which you don't understand. I don't like much of what the Chinese government (or US government, for that matter) does, but they typically do not do it just out of being evil.

Also do you think that if Chinese government is deposed, the Chinese will benefit from the resulting anarchy?

Re:Simple solution

[Viper Daimao]

bastion of democracy and freedom

You cant be in china, they dont allow those words.

Re:Simple solution

[tverbeek]

How about "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Taiwan"? It works well enough in the Balkans.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, another of those droids that the corrupt chinese communist dictatorship is paying to spread propaganda in the online forums...

This is the guy that said in another thread:

"Students in China did not "die for freedom" in Tian'an men Square. This is a Western myth. They were mere puppets, and their strings were being pulled by crime organizations and Western governments."

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Re:Simple solution

[Arker]

Funny thing, the the official name of the State currently controlling Taiwan is indeed 'the Republic of China' and their Constitution does indeed claim Taiwan as a province of China. It just happens to the only province that wasn't lost to the Communists.

Re:Simple solution

[HungWeiLo]

Well, California and Texas belong to Mexico for historical reasons, and Newfoundland belongs to Britain for historical reasons.

Independence is defined by the ability to defend your land from both military and cultural invasions. Everything else is moot.

Re:Simple solution

[Mr. Underbridge]

And there was never a war in Tibet, we went there to reinstate our rightful authority there given the fact that Tibet was a province of China under the Empire, and since the PRC is a successor state i.e. is in a chain of replacement governemnts of the Empire, the PRC is legally in control of Tibet.

You had me until that one. Simply because your "empire" once held that territory does not entitle you to do so indefinitely, particularly considering that both then and now, said occupation is completely against the wishes of the people who actually live there.

Using your logic, we can build about 5 cases for who should legally own Palestine, and we see where that logic gets us.

Your history is also largely incorrect. Tibet was independent between 600 and the start of the Mongol empire, and again from the time the Mongols lost control until the Qing dynasty tried to take over in hostile fashion. They gained some control over Tibet though not central rule, until the British started protecting Tibet. By 1900 the British sold Tibet out to China - again, against the wishes of Tibet - and China took over.

So to sum up, 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.

Re:Simple solution

[wuxier]

Having partial knowledge is the 2nd most dangerous thing, (the only thing worse is having prejudice), bacause it can easily mislead others without knowledge. If you'd like, I'm happy to exchange with you some Asia histoy offline with email.

Regarding this topic, is it exactly good to have bias without investigation? Even if you don't ask mainland Chinese, pro-unifying parties control congress in Taiwan, and pro-independence party is doing poorer in survey even with pro-independence government's help. The pro-independent president was elected with a 0.027% majority last year, and some story behind.

And by the way, China hasn't been exactly aggressive since its reform, and there's great free nation much more aggressive recently.

Re:Simple solution

[Stargoat]

China has outraged the world before. They will do so again. The Taiwanese are right to fear a country that has killed more of its own citizens in a one year period than are on the entire island of Taiwan. China has been spending years informing its citizenry that it is better to destroy Taiwan than let it go free. The people of Taiwan are much more familar with this than you are.

Furthermore, and you do not seem to realize this, the Chinese government is not a government of law, it is a government of personality. It is a dictatorship, run by individuals who answer to no voters, or anyone else, for that matter. Since I will assume you do not know Hu Jintao, or Jiang Zemin, you are not qualified to say that China will not launch nukes.

Your understanding and assessment of the situation is incorrect.

On the other hand, it is Tuesday, and if this is a troll, I vote for it as the best I've seen all year.

Re:Simple solution

[mallumax]

China holds indian territory. From a cnn story

" New Delhi disputes Beijing's rule over 38,000 sq km (15,000 square miles) of barren, icy and uninhabited land on the Tibetan plateau, which China seized from India in the 1962 war."

Re:Simple solution

[Stargoat]

I'm stargoat@gmail.com

The aggression of the United States has little to do with the situation in China. Actually, it has a great deal to do with the situation in China, but in terms of this particular aspect of the world, since China is dealing with the situation in a 3G context, we can discount the fact the US is overextended like a ballerina who's just been pushed off a plank.

Since China's reform, it has slaughtered students, invaded Vietnam, supplied Afghan fighters against the Soviet Union, worked on a genocide program against Muslims, and given nuclear weapon plans to Pakistan knowing full well that those plans would leak out to terrorist nations.

I love the Chinese. But the Chinese government is ultra-aggressive and is going to get a lot more people killed.

Re:Simple solution

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If there is a dispute of some sort (tiawan, tibet, etc) then the program should be clear that they use a specific set of political names (ie, "As recognized by the UN") and stay out of political rumbling.

What makes you think that'll help things? Windows 2k almost got banned because the pixels representing kashmir were the wrong color from India's perspective, and Israel is Palestine, depending on who makes the map. Political boundaries are, well, political.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

And there was never a war in Tibet, we went there to reinstate our rightful authority there given the fact that Tibet was a province of China under the Empire, and since the PRC is a successor state i.e. is in a chain of replacement governemnts of the Empire, the PRC is legally in control of Tibet. So what you're saying is basically the equivalent of saying that China can't send troops to its own territory.

Try telling that to my mother, uncle, and aunt who fled from Tibet through the Himalayas because a neighbouring country decided to assert their "rightful authority". My grandfather died in China-Occupied Tibet and my grandmother died shortly after getting out.

Rape, slaughter, famine, and cultural-cleansing are some of the many atrocities Tibetans were subjected to because China decided to assert their "rightful authority". Tibet was an independant country. Sadly, it no longer is. I don't claim Tibet is a country, but strongly incist that it was.

I suggest YOU look up some facts before posting pro-China "crap". Let's start with http://www.tibet.org/why/ and http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/

How can you be so misinformed? You should be ashamed of what China did from a humanitarian point of view, regardless of whatever political bias and motivations you may have.

Re:Simple solution

[VJ42]

If I remember my history properly China also holds some disputed territory that Pakistan ceeded to it, but is claimed by India. Wikipedia confirms that there are two border disputes though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksai_Chin

Re:Simple solution

[avdp]

Even if they don't use their nukes, a war certainly WOULD start, and Taiwan would get crushed like the little bug that it is. Not picking up a fight you have not a single chance of winning and nothing to gain from(*) is not being a "coward", it's being "sane". Only those with no skin on the line (for example, you) might call this "cowardice". The only cowards in this mess are the US (and other countries) for not recognizing what they know to be a fact: Taiwan is not part of China.

(*) Taiwan is independant, democratic and thriving. They just lack the "official" recognition (every country in the world - even China - trades with them and otherwise deals with them). Yes, most Taiwanese will tell you it would be nice on the principle, but that's about it. This is purely a political distinction that has ZERO effect on the citizen's life.

Re:Simple solution

[happyemoticon]

I am a double-talking snake in the grass, and I propose that you have the user first select what country they are from upon loading Maps or Earth. Then, if the user's from China, it's the Provice of Taiwan; if the user's from Taiwan, it's the Republic of China (Taiwan). Furthermore, if the user is from the USA, it becomes The Magic Land Where Semiconductors Come From.

Re:Simple solution

[Jonathan_S]

So... we nearly say "Germany" instead of "Federal Republic of Germany", its real name. We use "Poland" instead of "Republic of Poland". We say "China" instead of "People's Republic of China". So, why won't we just call Taiwan... "Taiwan"?

Because it's actually Formosa?

Re:Simple solution

[Brushfireb]

Man. Have you swallowed that much propaganda that you really believe your government is good?

I live in the US, and I know how bad the US is. Im not saying we are great, but jesus, at least admit your government is fucked up.

Oh wait...if you do, they will come get you! ;p

[Not posted as AC becuase I HAVE balls, unlike some of the others who are targetting you]

Re:Simple solution

[Fulcrum of Evil]

China wouldn't use nukes, because of Taiwan's proximity and the potential outrage of the world, and not doing what you think is right because you are afraid of the consequences is COWARDICE. I'm sure cowards all over would agree with you, but that's not saying much.

• China would probably use nukes only if they didn't stand to lose significant manufacturing capacity. They don'e seem concerned with how others see them.
• Very few people share your black and white view of courage. What good is being right if you're slaughtered like cattle?

Re:Simple solution

[Marxist Hacker 42]

How about a bit of server side scripting instead? If the requesting IP is inside China, then it's a provinence, else, it's a country, and be done with it.

Re:Simple solution

[busmacedon]

So, European powers and their descendant governments are "...occupying, illegitimate, oppressive power in..." the Americas? And that the Germanic tribes are "...occupying, illegitimate, oppressive power in..." England? And that the Turks are "...occupying, illegitimate, oppressive power in..." what was known as Lydia or whatever? And that the Japanese are "...occupying, illegitimate, oppressive power in..." Japan?

I was under the impression that an occupying power automagically by definition becomes the owner and ruler of occupied territory after it conquers/annexes it, regardless of whether the residents consent to this or not. Or what, you want all countries to release all claims and revert to the original tribal groups (whatever that means)?

Please define then how conquered territory is "legitemate" or becomes "legitemate".

If you say that all conquered territory is illegitemate, well, I have news for you! Most territory I can think of was conquered by someone at one time or another.

Alexander conquered Persia, so was his reign "legitemate"?

Furthermore, regardless of what you define as "legitemate", the occupying force controls the territory de facto and claims it. Alexander does not give a shit about your definitions of legitemacy!

Re:Simple solution

[Hal_Porter]

Oppression in a dictatorship is about keeping people from complaining about the ruler's bad behaviour by threatening them with death or torture, and I can't see how anyone can see that as anything but evil. Plus, once you go down that route, the rulers will get worse and worse as time goes by, partly to keep people in line, and partly because they can get away with it.

Re:Simple solution

[figgypower]

Wow, you are so wrong and misguided it isn't even funny.

The war against India was not imperialistic at all; it was a border dispute that India was getting too agressive about; we attacked them, taught them a lesson, and backed out. If we were so imperialistic, why don't we hold any Indian territory today? In fact those same territories that were under dispute then are still under dispute now.

Wow, guess who else is so wrong and misguided? Have you picked up a history book or bothered to look at multiple sources of history to see what actually happened in the 1962 Sino-Indian War? It was completely because of imperialistic desires; among other things, it provided a "bridge" into Tibet, which China claims as its own. There were protests in India and China over this occupation. Ethinically and geographically it belongs to either Tibet (a free one) or India -- definitely not China. Are you even aware of what China said was its valid reason for conquering the territory? It was to "liberate three million Tibetans from imperialist aggression, to complete the unification of the whole of China, and to safeguard the frontier regions of the country." What utter nonsense!

And guess who started the war? Like you said, the Chinese. First, the Chinese took over whatever it felt necessary (Tibet) and started heading towards the Indian border. Second, India put up a military to safegaurd what was clearly its boundary -- a good bit behind what China already claimed at that point. Then, the Chinese decided that border patrol was an act of agression and felt validated conquering MORE territory. And, no they haven't left, yet? Hence the "dispute". So why did India not press itself militaristically? Because India did not have a military set up that China already did in the region; it is hard terrain that India has to play cath up with. So, it remains a "border dispute" that China guards agressively.

The current Chinese foriegn policy towards India dictates, basically, containment. Yeah... no imperialism there! I wouldn't be surprised if you more of your post has it "so" wrong; heads up moderators -- the parent is spouting bullshit.

Some sources:

Asia Times: India in China

The battle for the border

The Sino-Indian War

1962 Sino-Indian War: An Overview

Re:Simple solution

[Shotgun]

And the States above the Mason-Dixon line are still holding the Confederacy hostage ever since the War of Northern Agression. But don't worry. The South's gonna do it again.

Re:Simple solution

[LordVader717]

Not that I want to support this propaganda stuffed moron in any way, it is an interesting fact to point out anyway.

As far as I know, nobody actually died on the Tiananmen Square. Sure there were bloodbaths trailing all the way to the square, marking the path the army took, but when they reached the square everybody packed up.

Re:Simple solution

[kryonD]

"So to sum up, 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."

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong and Wrong!

You might as well argue that half the "American Territories" in the Pacific are occupied and oppressed. When the current Chinese government took power, Tibet was in far worse straights under the rule of the Kuomintang who basically practiced a form of government somewhere between feudalism, nepotism, and the Mafia. Like most of China, the people pf Tibet were enchanted with the communist ideals and the nearly complete reduction in corruption and abuse. And for the first few years, until Mao's campaigns started and religion was squashed (that's the part that really pissed off the Tibetans), life was pretty good. Since then, there has been a constant butting of heads primarily driven by the Tibetan's deep religious culture and the communist drive to remove any possible authority that could conflict with the party (sorry God, Mao wanted the throne to himself).

China is at a very tricky turning point in that its citizens now have easy access to outside information and ideas that used to be easy to control. The peasants are better off in the current market economy than they were at the extremes of Mao's commune structure, but they are largely getting dis-satisfied with the gap in wealth. China is faced with either having to free their people socially, allowing Tibet to seccede, or to fight another bloody and unpopular war with the region to re-assert their "rightful authority".

In a nutshell, Tibet was happy to join and support the current Chinese government, they didn't stay happy, all past attempts to resolve the problem were brutal and wrong, and it's still messed up.

In a side note relevant to the article, the US was a backer of the Kuomintang government because of the whole, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" B.S. Nevermind that foot binding, slavery of women, and violent nepotism were the halmarks of these guys. So basically, the US supported the really bad government simply because they weren't communist. The Kuomintang still lost the country and fled to Taiwan which was the only territory they could hold against the communists. Chiang Kai Shek (head of the Kuomintang) eventually died and Western ideas finally moved them from brutal oppression to an open market society that was accepting of democracy. The people of Taiwan have every right to be proud of their acomplishments and desire independance, but the history is not that simple.

Re:Simple solution

[AuMatar]

On behalf of the yankees- please rise. We'll be happy to let you out. And take the rest of the red states with you.

Re:Simple solution

[Brushfireb]

Independence is defined by the ability to defend your land from both military and cultural invasions.

Brr. Wrong. Independence requires the willingness of the population who resides there. Without that small thing, its call OCCUPATION.

Try again next time, jimmy.

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.

Re:Simple solution

[coaxial]

Wow, you are so wrong and misguided it isn't even funny. The Korean War was fought because the UN (read USA) forces were encroaching far too close to our borders; in fact some border towns on our side were bombed. We had no choice but to intervene given the circumstances of the UN invasion of North Korea. The UN was there to overturn the communist government, and were essentially encroaching on our borders; who knew if they would push their advantage into China or not?

Well sense that wasn't the purpose for the war, it would seem that would be a remote possibility. Mao, wanting his own satelite states like Stalin, decided to jump into the war to protect North Korea after they were being routed after starting a war of aggression in June 25, 1950.

Several US generals were certainly in favor of it; of course this is not what actually happened but hindsight is almost 20/20.

You apparently don't know that the military is under civilian command in the United States. The army can whine all they want, but they're ultimately powerless, There were always those that wanted to continue wars to remove potential threats. Patton wanting to continue World War II against the Soviet Union for one, but they never have much clout.

The war against India was not imperialistic at all; it was a border dispute that India was getting too agressive about; we attacked them, taught them a lesson, and backed out. If we were so imperialistic, why don't we hold any Indian territory today? In fact those same territories that were under dispute then are still under dispute now.

Well given that China is still in disputed territory, one could argue that China is holding Indian territory today.

Re:Simple solution

[JudgeFurious]

Extraordinarily amusing. I thank you for a long hard laugh that was much needed. Your explanation of the Korean War is "interesting" to say the least.

  The only history you seem to have down correctly is the part that's unflattering to the US (not surprising). This is completely ok by the way because we know what our country has done wrong. You're not opening any eyes here with that stuff. It's common knowledge in the US. Your take on what your own country has done is pretty distorted though. Your points on the Korean War, Tibet, and India would be funny if you weren't so deprived of real information and you didn't sound so sincere.

  If you think we're led by monsters wait till you figure out the truth about your own government. That's probably never going to happen but hey, I'm wishing good things for you man.

  Don't you have an party loyalty class or something to attend somewhere? Go put your Mao cap and jacket on and head out the door before someone figures out that you're talking to people in the "decadent west".

  Hurry or you'll find yourself in a forced labor camp making me some sneakers.

Re:Simple solution

[Brushfireb]

Independence is defined by the ability to defend your land from both military and cultural invasions.

drr. Wrong. True Independence requires the willingness of the population who resides in the disputed territory. Without that small thing, its call OCCUPATION. Just because china can defend "their land" from invaders doesnt make it more legitimate.

Try again next time, jimmy.

Re:Simple solution

[mintrepublic]

And soon enough, California will be Mexico again...

Re:Simple solution

[ceejayoz]

You might as well argue that half the "American Territories" in the Pacific are occupied and oppressed.

Uh... yes? They certainly have been, historically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_W ar
"The shift to guerilla warfare however, only angered the Americans into acting more ruthless than before. They began taking no prisoners, scorching whole villages, and routinely shooting surrendering Filipinos. Much worse were the concentration camps that civilians were forced into, after being suspected of being guerilla sympathizers. As many as 100,000 civilians may have died in these camps."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Guam
"After World War II, the U.S. military had a heavy hand in the running of the island. This eventually led to resentment, and political pressure for greater freedom for the island in the 1950s."

Re:Simple solution

[snarkh]

Any government is opressive to some degree. American government, for example is keeping hundreds of people in Guantanamo without access to the judicial system. Many of the prisoners there may be innocent.

There is a big difference between Chairman Mao and the current Chinese government. You have to look at exactly what they do and to what purpose before writing them off as evil.

Re:Simple solution

[LeonGeeste]

You had me until that one. Simply because your "constitution" once held the South does not entitle you to do so indefinitely, particularly considering in the year 1861, said occupation was completely against the wishes of the people who actually lived there.

Using your logic, we can build about 5 cases for who should legally own Palestine, and we see where that logic gets us.

Your history is also largely incorrect. nation we now call the United States was originally formed as union of independent states under a military alliance (as was also referred to in the plural). The Treaty of Paris (1783) (look it up on Wikipedia) recognized the 13 colonies as independent states. The understanding at the time was that each state had the right to unilaterally leave. The writings of the framers establish that. In fact, the first secessionists were northern states, in the War of 1812.

So to sum up, the nation called the "United States" has not "owned" the South any time in the last 225 years, and has had absolutely no control that was granted by the people of the South except by coerced Reconstruction arrangements. That makes the United States an occupying, illegitimate, oppressive power in the South.

Every argument you're going to use that the the North's victory over the South was justified because the South held slaves and the North didn't applies equally to justifying England's victory over the colonies in the Revolutionary War.

Funny what happens when you take this self-determination deal to its logical conclusions. Just a thought.

Re:Simple solution

[Peter La Casse]

You make cowardice sound much less bad. Usually it's considered to be a negative thing.

Re:Simple solution

[Stargoat]

The Sino-Vietnam war was definitely of China's choosing. The idea in China was the concern of a Indochina Russian alliance. The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia motivated China to invade Vietnam. The Chinese army, supposedly, I obviously was not there, fought very poorly.

No. China was the chief supplier of the Afghan rebels. The Soviet after action reports make that clear. The Aghans might have had US Stingers, but they were wearing Chinese sneakers and using Chinese radios.

The Muslims in China have been under a situation that could be considered to be genocide for almost as long as the Communists have been in power. Aside from the direct assault on religion, the Communist Party has been deliberately moving Han into areas minority dominated. The idea is to make everyone Han. China may put minorities on their money, but the US does well. It does not mean that Native Americans as a people are almost extinct.

I do not approve of a nuclear armed Israel. I think the treatment of Mordechai Vanunu should make clear to everyone in the world that the nation of Israel is not a nation with laws for freedom. If the security wall and slaughter of the Palestinians wasn't enough. Concerning the US' role in the establishment of Israeli nukes: I don't see how that could not have US involvement, although some point fingers at the UK.

China is a government of personality. There is a man behind the bomb button. He does not answer to anybody. It is only a matter of time before someone like Mao or Hitler is given the power to destroy entire nations. China needs to change, or lots of people will get killed.

Re:Simple solution

[manifoldronin]

As far as the Chinese government is concerned, it could care less about the Slashdot audience.

The question is, does the Chinese government ever care about _any_ audience at all?

Re:Simple solution

[quarkscat]

Amen!

The Communist Chinese have taken one imperialist action after another since gaining power (invasion of Korea, Nepal, India, Tibet, Laos, Vietnam) as well as being involved up to their necks in nuclear proliferation to North Korea and Pakistan.
Rewarding the PRC with membership in the WTO was a gargantuan geopolitical mistake, which they have used for economic warfare and industrial/military espionage against the West.

Since the West (and the rest of the UN Security Council) have largely abandoned Taiwan to their fate, it is only a matter of time before the PRC overruns Taiwan. The PRC has downed US recon aircraft over international waters, and threatened to nuke the USA if it should interfere in the PRC's "internal affairs, including Taiwan".

I hate to sound like a raving nutcase, but perhaps it is time that South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan become members of the "nuclear club". Somehow, I don't think that the USA will be around to stand up to it's number one creditor when the PRC decides to take Taiwan.

Re:Simple solution

[Rufus88]

Most people would agree it is opressive, but why do you expect other people to share your views on good and evil?

Probably because, like most people, he's never met anyone who considered the term "oppressive" to be flattering.

Re:Simple solution

[Mr. Underbridge]

All of your examples are correct. However, in this more enlightened age, we frown on doing such things and believe instead in self-governance and self-determination. If there still existed any population of oppressed Celts in Britain, they would have the right to reclaim their territories. Unfortunately, they have mixed with the occupiers to the point that there is little to no genetic distinction, and as this happened 1500 years ago, there aren't any victims left.

However, Tibet is still around, as are Tibetans. China has no legitimate claim to the land, and your argument of "might makes right" doesn't fly. If it does, then the US could easily own all of the western hemisphere within 5 years, and by your argument would be well within its powers to do so.

Re:Simple solution

[Mr. Underbridge]

The Treaty of Paris (1783) (look it up on Wikipedia) recognized the 13 colonies as independent states. The understanding at the time was that each state had the right to unilaterally leave. The writings of the framers establish that. In fact, the first secessionists were northern states, in the War of 1812. So to sum up, the nation called the "United States" has not "owned" the South any time in the last 225 years, and has had absolutely no control that was granted by the people of the South except by coerced Reconstruction arrangements.

OK, I'll play. The Articles of Confederation, which were being drafted at the same time, contain this little tidbit:

"No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue."

That would seem to outlaw the confederacy without the consent of Congress which was obviously not granted. Also, in that treaty between the US and Britain I see nothing which delineates the rights governing relationships between the states.

That said, I do believe in self determination in general, and feel that pursuing the south as an incorrect move.

Re:Simple solution

[fbjon]

I would say that just because the US government is insidious and aggressive, doesn't mean the chinese government isn't.

Re:Simple solution

[bigox]

This is a common phenomenon with people from communist China. They deny the censorship and the oppression. It's a mix of nationalism, brainwashing, and fear.

The notion of being critical of their country is not compatible with being proud also.

If communist China is such a wonderful place, then why doesn't Taiwan want to join? You can't argue with these people. Even if you were standing beside them while CNN is on and it blacks out because they are doing a story critical of the commies, they will blame it on solar flares.

Re:Simple solution

[bigox]

BTW, Taiwan's pro-unifying party was once the `take over the mainland party' and is now the `don't piss them off since we've got money over there and don't rock the boat' party. No one there is really in favor of unification.

Re:Simple solution

[busmacedon]

All of your examples are correct. However, in this more enlightened age, we frown on doing such things and believe instead in self-governance and self-determination. If there still existed any population of oppressed Celts in Britain, they would have the right to reclaim their territories. Unfortunately, they have mixed with the occupiers to the point that there is little to no genetic distinction, and as this happened 1500 years ago, there aren't any victims left.

However, Tibet is still around, as are Tibetans. China has no legitimate claim to the land, and your argument of "might makes right" doesn't fly. If it does, then the US could easily own all of the western hemisphere within 5 years, and by your argument would be well within its powers to do so.


Who is "we"? So, you claim that some subset of people on Earth (I suppose including you) think that conquering territory is not kosher, and that there is a clear disctinction between "legitemate" government and "illegitemate" government, that these terms are defined and there is a litmus test for them. This subset of people also, by extension of this reasoning, claims that a people have a clearly defined "right" to rebel against "illegitemate" government. Furthermore you claim that self-determination/self-governance is vital for legitemacy.
(For example, the poster replying above you claims this legitemacy is established via social contract.)

Very well.

That does not necessarily mean that all other groups of people will agree with you. There are perhaps subsets of people on Earth that consider conquering and holding territory is sufficient to deem it under their rule. There are also perhaps subsets of people who don't consider consent of the ruled to be relevant at all in terms of rule, neither in their current domains or in any domains acquired in the future. I think substantially populous examples of both of these subsets can be found throught history and in the world today.

Thus, it is clearly possible for different groups of people, usually allied via cultural or political constructs, to hold different opinions on what defines legitemacy of government. They probably think your perceptions about government are foolish, just as you must think of theirs as not sufficiently "enlightened".

What makes your opinion relevant to the situation? Only as much as what you can do about it? I doubt anyone here would propose displacing the Chinese out of Tibet. Well, since Google is a US company, maybe we can somehow influence it to represent Tibet as an independent territory under occupation. The question then would be: do you think this would more accurately represent the state of affairs in Tibet today? Take note that the PRC administers Tibet as they wish, and furthermore is gaining legitemacy -- by the demographic method you mentioned -- populating it with Han Chinese.

Maybe the American public would not be comfortable with conquering the Americas (OTOH I could go into all those fun activities US government has done down there in Latin America purely for its own interests), but there is Chinese KFC in Lhasa.

Disclaimer: For those concerned about what perspective I am coming from, I am Russian.

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.

Re:Simple solution

[busmacedon]

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. This is mostly a copy and paste of my reply below:


So, you claim that some subset of people on Earth (I suppose including you) think that conquering territory is not kosher, and that there is a clear disctinction between "legitemate" government and "illegitemate" government, that these terms are defined and there is a litmus test for them. This subset of people also, by extension of this reasoning, claims that a people have a clearly defined "right" to rebel against "illegitemate" government. Furthermore you claim that self-determination/self-governance and a social contract is vital for legitemacy.

Very well.

That does not necessarily mean that all other groups of people will agree with you. There are perhaps subsets of people on Earth that consider conquering and holding territory is sufficient to deem it under their rule. There are also perhaps subsets of people who don't consider consent of the ruled to be relevant at all in terms of rule, neither in their current domains or in any domains acquired in the future. I think substantially populous examples of both of these subsets can be found throught history and in the world today.

Thus, it is clearly possible for different groups of people, usually allied via cultural or political constructs, to hold different opinions on what defines legitemacy of government. They probably think your perceptions about government are foolish, just as you must think of theirs as not sufficiently "enlightened".

What makes your opinion relevant to the situation? Only as much as what you can do about it? I doubt anyone here would propose displacing the Chinese out of Tibet. Well, since Google is a US company, maybe we can somehow influence it to represent Tibet as an independent territory under occupation. The question then would be: do you think this would more accurately represent the state of affairs in Tibet today? Take note that the PRC administers Tibet as they wish, and furthermore is gaining legitemacy -- by the demographic method you mentioned -- populating it with Han Chinese.

Maybe the American public would not be comfortable with conquering the Americas (OTOH I could go into all those fun activities US government has done down there in Latin America purely for its own interests), but there is Chinese KFC in Lhasa.

Disclaimer: For those concerned about what perspective I am coming from, I am Russian.

Re:Simple solution

[TekPolitik]

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,

For espousing theories of jurisprudence where ranting and rhetoric are much more fun, I sentence you to one hour of reading /. at -1.

(Obviously the GP was a positivist, but curiously a positivist who doesn't know what the actual rules are).

Re:Simple solution

[SLi]

While I definitely agree with you about the parent being a bit... senseless (somehow I doubt he has put his life in risk for any freedom ever), I think the military situation in the Taiwan strait is not that straightforward, unless China wants to flatten Taiwan with missiles. I think even they see that's not the productive way.

Simply put, China lacks the air force to secure superiority that is required for a successful invasion over the strait. The outcome with the current equipment would be quite uncertain, or at least there would be massive Chinese casualties and a prolonged war if no outsider reacted in any way. Of course major powers would react quite heavily in the case of a Chinese all-out invasion, which would not be exactly good for China.

However China has begun the process of modernising their air force, if I remember correctly, several years ago. Probably by 2015 they will be more than well equipped for a fairly quick military solution to the matter.

I don't claim to be an expert, but the way I predict it will go barring a total regime change in China is that once China starts to have the necessary equipment it will play tough and give an ultimatum a few years in advance like "either you will submit and recognize Chinese rule by 31 December 2019 or we will launch a military strike at any time we choose after that". After that it's quite much up to politics in all sides of the dispute (we must recognize that not only China and Taiwan have interests in it), all sides bluffing and betting over the opponent's willingness to escalate the conflict into a full war between superpowers.

Re:Simple solution

[Qzukk]

Political boundaries are, well, political.

So use those political boundaries. Google should have a pretty good grasp of the Chinese address space, so serve up a map to Chinese people showing Taiwan the way the Chinese want to see it, and show Taiwan the map they want to see.

Re:Simple solution

[xero314]

Simply because your "empire" once held that territory does not entitle you to do so indefinitely, particularly considering that both then and now, said occupation is completely against the wishes of the people who actually live there.

All members of current nations please feel free to form your own nations if you would like too. Native Americans, you nolonger have to be members of the US and are free to take any land you would like with you when you seperate (this goes for Texas too).

Control of nations is not granted, it's taken, it always has been (though some seem to think buying and taking are different). Just because a bunch of dissidents live in the same area doesn't mean that they are no longer under the rule of the country that claims them, that is after all what civil wars are all about. I'm not saying that forcing your way on other people is the right thing, but that is how most of the leaders of the world define a nation. I mean I live in a country where the founding document, the Constitution, specifically gaurantees the rights of individual states, but that hasn't stopped the federal governement from inacting laws and overriding state decisions

In a few years the map will probably show Iraq(US province) as it rightfully should (I mean we are colonizing it after all).

Re:Simple solution

[Bryansix]

Who cares what the UN thinks. We all know that they are not an unbiased opinion. People in the UN get bought out with bribes all the time. The fact is that if Google had just called it Taiwan then China probably would not have caught on. Everyone else calls it Taiwan.

For instance if you look it up on Expedia, they just call it Taiwan. If M$ can get away with that then Google can too.

Re:Simple solution

[rtb61]

Hey, who is kidding who. Pay levels are next to nothing in china and paid propagandists only operate at higher echelons of the chinese government (can't risk the masses becoming contaminated with thoughts of freedom, democracy and the ability to express your own opinion).

As for the nonsence "anti-chinese", don't insult the freedom loving democracy voting chinese scattered all over the globe, especially those in Taiwan with the petty self interests of a few communists chinese "supposidly" elected officials. Hint for you and your fellow autocratic officials, this is a lost cause and you only embarass yourself and your government.

/. is definately not the place to try and spread your propaganda, not that you should stop, as it is rather amusing but it is just silly and you will likely do considerably damage to your own future as well as your supervisors career (where do they send failures nowdays, will you be knee deep in the paddy fields in the near future :-O).

Re:Simple solution

[doodlelogic]

yes but India wold have to go through Pakistan-held Kashmir to get to most of that territory, so probably won't bother.

Sikkhim is disputed; mostly as the Dahli Lama lives there occasionaly.

Re:Simple solution

[wuxier]

You clearly have strong justice in mind, which is a good thing, if combined with truth. I should appologize for refering too much to current US policy too.

I would recommend you read some serious research papers on these topics. Read western's, not from China's, so that you can trust more. Like Far Eastern Economic Review, or Foreign Policy. Don't believe too much on random talks. By the way, Foreign Policy recently had an issue covering China. A Singaporean researcher's paper is particularly interesting to me, because it offered a view from neither big nations, and contains deep understanding. To make you more confident, his name appears not ethnic Chinese, (maybe ethnic Indian, I guess).

And about "deliberately... genocide", I suggest you take a trip to China's North Western region, where most Chinese Muslims live. My friend had travelled there and saw the western travelling with him, so most of areas are open to you to visit.

Again, I'm not interested in defending China government's wrongdoing, but I don't like people demonizing China either.

Re:Simple solution

[EtherealStrife]

When did california become independent of mexico, according to your logic?

Militarily all mexico has to do is start handing out firearms to all bordercrossers and we're screwed (there are already millions of 'insurgents' ready to rise up, many in powerful positions in local govt). Culturally, Mexico never left (and continues to grow stronger). Hell, I had to learn spanish just to order food at the drive-thru.

Re:Simple solution

[dakotamangus]

Legitimacy is granted through the social contract.

This is an enlightenment ideal, but many modern social anthropologists recognize states for what they are: power structures to differentiate class and power. While most modern states have done away with explicit slavery, they are still all about harnessing the work of the many to the benefit of the few. Your model for popular consent might be a decent indicator of how just a state is perceived by those it rules over, but no state has ever been conceived by referendum. All states start through the motives a few powerful men, and are only after justified as being the will of the people.

Re:Simple solution

[Hal_Porter]

I'd say that in terms of evilness, Mao > Current Chinese Government >> America.

The American government, BTW, isn't holding it's own citizens in gitmo, just people who where a) foreign and b) captured in a war figthing out of uniform for the other side. Back in WWII, spies and saboteurs where routinely shot not just held in dubious conditions. Traitors too actually, which would cover anyone in gitmo with US citizenship if they fought for the wrong side. So gitmo is actually an improvement on WWII. That said, people probably got tortured there, which I can't condone.

But the Chinese government is holding and torturing thousands of people without any pretence of a legal process. It also doing it to it's own citizens purely for peaceful opposition, which the American one doesn't. I'd guess that if you're American, you're not in mortal danger for criticising the US gov your last post, which wouldn't be true if you were Chinese. Also, unlike in America, the orders for the repression are absolutely linked to the people in power - read the Tiananmen Papers if you're interested. Now some memo could pop up tomorrow linking Rumsfeld to torture of course, but if it did it would be covered by the media (unlike China), people would lose their jobs and/or go to jail (ditto) and the US government would end up apologising and paying compensation. So the two US and Chinese government aren't really comparable morally.

And in any case, the misdeeds of the American government in a war isn't really the point here. Democracies do some highly questionable things to their enemies in wars, but dictatorships need to do much worse to their citizens just to survive. And you need to keep in mind that the democracies conduct in recent wars is less questionable than in WWII, where Kabul&Baghdad would have been levelled to the ground, and the people in gitmo would have been summarily executed.

And this is not a 'my country right or wrong' patriotic thing btw, since America isn't my country. I just think it's important to realise that there are good guys and bad guys, even if the good guys are not exactly perfect.

Re:Simple solution

[Guppy06]

"you just call it West Hawaii."

It's West Hawai'i, YIC!

Re:Simple solution

[aminorex]

The Articles of Confederation were not in effect when the states of the Confederacy seceded. The right of secession is guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.

Re:Simple solution

[aminorex]

Antelope don't make value judgements. They just run when triggered.

Good and evil are not opinions. They are non-natural properties, predicates determined at their boundaries by ineluctable relations.

Re:Simple solution

[aminorex]

China kills people for "economic crimes" and drug offenses, then sends a bill for the bullet to the family of the victim, more executed prisoners each year than all of the rest of the world combined.

China forces abortions and sterilization on women every day.

China tortures peaceful, law-abiding people for practicing their religious freedoms guaranteed by Chinese law.

China imprisons journalists for offenses which are nowhere defined.

Yeah, China is evil, and on a vast scale.

The U.S. executes and imprisons its citizens unlawfully too, but the scale is dramatically smaller.

Where the U.S. surpasses China in evil is in the mass-murder of people living in other countries.

"He did it too" is not a defense.

Re:Simple solution

[kimvette]

Or why not "51st US State" or better yet thanks to current treaties, "US Protectorate" :D

Re:Simple solution

[geekoid]

extremely unlikly that china would launch nukes.
1) they would be told to piss off my the rest of the world, and nobody would pay back debts.

2) the chinese culture will become the prevailing culture eventually.
Now this doesn't mean the chinese government will have world domination, just that their culture will be the most prevailiant out of a mixing pot of cultures brought together by a 'shrinking' world.

If you look at location, the fallout from a nuke attack would have devestating effects on china itself.

of course with mad men there are no gaurentees. I think the next nuke to be used against an enemy will come from Korea.

Of course, you can do just as much damage with conventional weapins as nukes, it just takes more of them.

Re:Simple solution

[Guppy06]

"The Korean War was fought because the UN (read USA) forces were encroaching far too close to our borders;"

The Korean War was fought because forces from the DPRK crossed the 38th Parallel.

"The UN was there to overturn the communist government, and were essentially encroaching on our borders;

Considering that DPRK forces initially almost pushed UN forces off of the penninsula entirely before being pushed back north (points north, like Seoul, were ravaged), I'd lay the blame on the DPRK for putting the stakes that high.

"who knew if they would push their advantage into China or not?"

So the Chinese withdrew from the war after Truman fired MacArthur?

"And there was never a war in Tibet, we went there to reinstate our rightful authority there given the fact that Tibet was a province of China under the Empire, and since the PRC is a successor state i.e. is in a chain of replacement governemnts of the Empire, the PRC is legally in control of Tibet."

And there was never a war in Canada, we went there to reinstate our rightful authority there given the fact that Canada was a holding of Great Britain under the Empire, was invited to join the Declaration of Inedependence, and since the USA is a successor state i.e. is in a chain of replacement governments of British North America (colonial governments to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of 1789), the USA is legally in control of Canada.

Re:Simple solution

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Google should have a pretty good grasp of the Chinese address space, so serve up a map to Chinese people showing Taiwan the way the Chinese want to see it, and show Taiwan the map they want to see.

Great. Once the Chinese find out, they accuse Google of being deceitful. Sounds like a lot of effort for something that may well bite you in the ass.

Re:Simple solution

[snarkh]

The U.S. executes and imprisons its citizens unlawfully too, but the scale is dramatically smaller.

Exactly -- the difference is scale, not what they actually do.

Where the U.S. surpasses China in evil is in the mass-murder of people living in other countries.

Ok, so here is a balance of evil. So by your argument US is roughly as evil as China presumably?

Re:Simple solution

[Fallingcow]

Yeah, I was just plagiarizing Locke. That's OK though, since (IMHO) he's mostly correct about the proper functions of a government and the right of people to revolution, though he makes a few too many assumptions about some other things for my taste.

Anywho, I already read /. at -1; the trolls are often some of the best reading :)

Re:Simple solution

[snarkh]

I'd say that in terms of evilness, Mao > Current Chinese Government >> America.

Come on, Mao's China and modern China are not anywhere comparable in terms of the scale of human rights violations. Tens of millions were killed under Mao. At present political prisoners number in perhaps hundreds at most a few thousands, which is comparable to the scale of Guantanamo. Whether those are foreigners or Americans is something of a moot point. Of course the Chinese regime is opressive in many other ways, e.g. freedom of word, but to even compare it to Mao is ridiculous.

And you need to keep in mind that the democracies conduct in recent wars is less questionable than in WWII, where Kabul&Baghdad would have been levelled to the ground, and the people in gitmo would have been summarily executed.

Why would war prisoners be executed? I don't think that was common in WWII. The Allies did some pretty terrible things in WWII, but attacking Iraq and levelling Baghdad without provokation would be pretty unprecedented for a modern democracy.

I just think it's important to realise that there are good guys and bad guys, even if the good guys are not exactly perfect.

The problem is that the "good guys" do some pretty bad things. Some of them can be justified and some cannot, but I am very skeptical about attributing "goodness" to the government of any major power.

Re:Simple solution

[avdp]

I agree with you that there is a little bit more to it than "hey, I am big and I have a lot of people" to the (hypothetical) military conflict, especially since third parties like the US might intervene and complicate things for China (the US has committed in the past to defend Taiwan although I personally have my doubts wether this country would have the will-power politically to come true on that). But I have little doubt, even with a technological advantage on the side of Taiwan that China would win. China may pay a great cost (in lives and financially) for the win, but that's the thing: they are so big, and frankly not all that concerned with political repercussions (domestically certainly, but even foreign) that they could bear that cost. Maybe it is all a bluff, but I certainly wouldn't risk calling it.

Re:Simple solution

[Stargoat]

The Pan-Green alliance, for the most part, is in favor of independence. The groups outside of Taipei, such as the Hakka, are also in favor of independence. If the threat of nuclear annihilation were lifted, many more would be in favor. The Chinese are a pragmatic people, if nothing else.

Re:Simple solution

[KylePflug]

Do you consider the US government evil for killing thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians?
In any case where true noncombatants were killed by deliberate action or careless inaction, yes, I would not hesitate in calling that incident evil. And I'm pretty conservative. Although I would definately think twice before applying a blanket qualitative judgment to an entire nation because of the outcome of what was likely incidental to an assault with a much different purpose.

but they typically do not do it just out of being evil.
Point me to where I said the Chinese did anything out of a desire to be evil and I will have a point to concede. Otherwise, what is your point?

Also do you think that if Chinese government is deposed, the Chinese will benefit from the resulting anarchy?
Once again, did I say this? "Theory for restructoring China" and "value judgment on a single aspect of Chinese governance" are not equivalent. Further, you'd do well to note that my reaction was to the "moralistic terms are incredibly annoying" bit, rather than anything concerning China in particular.

Anyway, as soon as you have success building a completely amoral, relativistic society, let me know.

Re:Simple solution

[Shakrai]

Militarily all mexico has to do is start handing out firearms to all bordercrossers and we're screwed

Umm... screwed?? Come again? Did I miss the headline where Mexico obtained thousands of nuclear warheads?

Re:Simple solution

[Rayonic]

I do not approve of a nuclear armed Israel. I think the treatment of Mordechai Vanunu should make clear to everyone in the world that the nation of Israel is not a nation with laws for freedom. If the security wall and slaughter of the Palestinians wasn't enough. Concerning the US' role in the establishment of Israeli nukes: I don't see how that could not have US involvement, although some point fingers at the UK.

Well that's just silly. First, France was the primary nation that helped start Israel's nuclear program.

Second, Palestinians were never slaughtered by Israel. Heck, their population has reached record numbers.

Third, the security wall/fence is a necessary measure due to the complete failure of the PLA to control terrorism. Furthermore, it's effective.

Finally, Vanunu should realize that there is a difference between speaking out against nuclear weapons, and revealing classified state secrets. If you tried the same gag in any other nuclear-armed nation, you'd be treated the same or worse.

Re:Simple solution

[jiawen]

I personally support the liberation of Tibet. But as an American, it's hard for me to say that without also believing that the territory of the US should be returned to the people it was stolen from -- the Native Americans. It's clearly impractical to return the land to them, but the US really, really needs to do some major compensation for all the deaths, land lost and cultural destruction suffered.

[snark]Now, if we could just figure out which Native Americans... After all, the First Nations weren't exactly on the friendliest terms with each other all the time...[/snark]

Re:Simple solution

[EtherealStrife]

They don't need thousands of nuclear warheads to take california, they're already here. Just a few firearms distributed to the right people (hell, just organize all the gangs and you're set! They come pre-armed!), and not a heck of a lot stands in their way. The military bases are stripped dry with Bush's War on, and New Orleans shows how law enforcement responds to real life-or-death situations.

And of course the obligatory comment:
I para uno bienvenido nuestros overlords ilegales nuevos!

:-)

Re:Simple solution

[MullerMn]

Don't you have an party loyalty class or something to attend somewhere? Go put your Mao cap and jacket on and head out the door before someone figures out that you're talking to people in the "decadent west".

Now, now, Kettle.. stop taking the piss out of Pot and get back to saying your Oath of Allegance every morning before heading to your nearest 'free speach zone' so that you can criticise your leader chosen through dubious elections with no oversight.

Re:Simple solution

[instarx]

As far as I know, nobody actually died on the Tiananmen Square. Sure there were bloodbaths trailing all the way to the square, marking the path the army took, but when they reached the square everybody packed up.

No,, tanks were used to run over people in tents within the square..

Re:Simple solution

[odourpreventer]

Damnit, Google is supposed to be the good guy here.

For the right price, everyone's a whore.

Re:Simple solution

[odourpreventer]

Third, the security wall/fence is a necessary measure due to the complete failure of the PLA to control terrorism. Furthermore, it's effective.

Of course it's effective, it's like one big prison, with a cleared "safety" zone and sniper towers. What the Israeli need to realise is that they're doing what the Nazis did: building ghettos. Oppression breeds terrorism.

Finally, Vanunu should realize that there is a difference between speaking out against nuclear weapons, and revealing classified state secrets. If you tried the same gag in any other nuclear-armed nation, you'd be treated the same or worse.

And what if you can't do one thing without the other? Vanunu's a hero because he did what's right, without thinking about his own safety. Yes, other people have done similar things and have been treated similarly or worse. They were heros too.

Re:Simple solution

[Hal_Porter]

Come on, Mao's China and modern China are not anywhere comparable in terms of the scale of human rights violations.

There's a "Greater than" sign between Mao and present china, and a much greater than sign between present China and America. I meant "Mao was more evil than presnent China, which was much more evil than present America". Or more to the point, my threshold for unacceptability requires behaviour worse than the US. I reckon China either now or under Mao would exceed it though.

Why would war prisoners be executed? I don't think that was common in WWII. The Allies did some pretty terrible things in WWII, but attacking Iraq and levelling Baghdad without provokation would be pretty unprecedented for a modern democracy.

As I said, if you were captured out of uniform doing terrorist stuff, they were'nt considered prisoners. E.g. http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/uboats.html. And people attacking their own countries was treason too. Hell the British executed people for broadcasting for the enemy, it's safe to say that the British citizens captured fighting for the Taliban would have been dead. Ditto the American ones. And I guess most of the people in gitmo would be caught by either the fighting out of uninform, or treason or both.

And if you look at the the way WWII was fought, it's safe to say that the allies weren't particular concerned with civillian casualties, especially late in the war. E.g. in Band of Brothers, they end up levelling some town in Netherlands while they liberate it from the Germans. Partly it's a technological thing, but I think it's also a moral improvement - the technology wouldn't have improved if it wasn't for widespread revulsion at WWII style tactics in Vietnam.

The problem is that the "good guys" do some pretty bad things. Some of them can be justified and some cannot, but I am very skeptical about attributing "goodness" to the government of any major power.

So the levelling Dresden means that the Allies were no less evil than the Nazis? This is really my point, you need to be able to support the less evil side. Of course that doesn't stop you pushing for a rethink on things like gitmo, or Dresden for that matter.

Re:Simple solution

[LordVader717]

Why suche an agressive reply? I think it is more of a case of you being insane for merely thinking that would matter to me. It is in no way an argument for anything, and to reinforce that, I did clearly distance myself from his view.

It is just that according to many sources, noone was killed on the square, as the students decided to move off before they reached the square.

Of course, as with any sources about historical events, they are not always accurate. I can't guarantee that it was that way, but many do consider this true.

It is merely an interesting fact, especially when considering the terrible irony involved, as the name literally means "gate of heavenly peace".

No other reason, no denial of the fact that there was a massacre.

Re:Simple solution

[snarkh]

As I said, if you were captured out of uniform doing terrorist stuff, they were'nt considered prisoners. E.g. http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/uboats.html. And people attacking their own countries was treason too. Hell the British executed people for broadcasting for the enemy, it's safe to say that the British citizens captured fighting for the Taliban would have been dead. Ditto the American ones. And I guess most of the people in gitmo would be caught by either the fighting out of uninform, or treason or both.

You are right, although the conditions were quite different in Afghanistan, where nobody was fighting in uniform. That was more similar to a colonial conquest in many ways.

So the levelling Dresden means that the Allies were no less evil than the Nazis? This is really my point, you need to be able to support the less evil side. Of course that doesn't stop you pushing for a rethink on things like gitmo, or Dresden for that matter.

Well, Robert McNanamara once said that if we did not win the war, we would be tried for war crimes. I am not at all sure that the conduct of the war by the Allies was any better than by Germany and Japan. Firebombing of Tokyo, for example, was the biggest slaughter of civilians in WWII.

While Hitler is a monster, who exterminated millions of innocent people before and during the war, US and Britain were allied with Stalin, whose track record is hardly better.

Re:Simple solution

[Stargoat]

First, I did not say murdered, I said killed. My language is specific. But since we are on the topic, about 1959 to 1960 during the Great Leap Forward? Mao's misguided attempts at industrialization killed between 17 to 29 million Chinese in a single year.

Let's see that hat.

Re:Simple solution

[JudgeFurious]

Well I for one voted for Kerry and just hope that the damage "Dubya" does in his remaining time in office isn't too great to correct. See, what that means is that I supported the other guy which, in my country is an option that won't land you in a camp full of dissidents.

  Admittedly I should probably add the word "Yet" to the end of that last sentence. That falls into my "hope he doesn't do too much more damage" line. Regardless there is literally no comparison between the two countries. If all you see is a pot and a kettle here then you need glasses my friend.

Re:Simple solution

[1u3hr]

personally support the liberation of Tibet. But as an American, it's hard for me to say that without also believing that the territory of the US should be returned to the people it was stolen from -- the Native Americans.

The difference is that in every US state that "non-Natives" are in the majority, mostly by a great degree. In Tibet, the "Native" Tibetans are still in the majority, except perhaps in Lhasa where a few million Han Chinese have taken over most of the businesses, as well of course as the army and government. China is about to complete a new rail line to Lhasa, and that is going to bring a flood of new migrants. In another couple of decades the Chinese will have colonised Tibet and be in the racial majority. Then it will be irreversible -- but at the moment, should say Beijing be nuked and China get involved in a foreign war, Tibet could break away again. Not very likely, though.

After an "invading" power has been settled in a country for a generation or more, it becomes native. As a white Australian whose family has lived there for at least four generations, for instance, I consider myself as much a native as any Aboriginal, and don't feel any guilt or need to make reparations for what someone distantly related to me may have done 150 years ago. That doesn't make invading right, it just means that some things can't be undone.

Re:Simple solution

[snarkh]

Anyway, as soon as you have success building a completely amoral, relativistic society, let me know.

Don't worry, the Ministry of Truth will inform you through the usual channels.

Re:Simple solution

[1u3hr]

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

It's pretty hilarious, since it was only a loose part of China in Imperial times (often controlled by rebels and pirates), over the last 500 years it was controlled briefly by the Dutch and Spanish, was briefly independent till the 1895 Sino-Japanese War when the Chinese empire ceded Taiwan to to Japan. Taiwan was part of Japn till 1945 when after WWII it was given to the Republic of China. So it was never part of the PRC, and only briefly part of any "China" at all.

Re:Simple solution

[aminorex]

My final point tried to emphasize that comparisons of "who is more evil" are useless. The goal has to be to eliminate the evil, not to excuse it.

Re:Simple solution

[snarkh]

I don't think the goal of eliminating evil is useful. The goal may be to have free elections or to promote freedom of speech or to make sure prisoners are treated humanely.

Evil is a useless politically and highly culturally dependent category. For example, premarital sex or homosexuality for many are in evil.

Re:Simple solution

[aminorex]

> Evil is a useless politically

certain presidents of the united states disagree

> and highly culturally dependent category

every word you utter is ideolectically conditioned. that doesn't mean we
give up on communication. "blue" is a highly culturally dependent category.
that doesn't prevent me from talking about color with japanese people.

if you don't want to eliminate evil, then from my viewpoint, you are irrelevant. it's the only thing worth doing.

Re:Simple solution

[snarkh]

if you don't want to eliminate evil, then from my viewpoint, you are irrelevant.

I am very much afraid of politicians who declare that they want to eliminate evil. Some of the most terrible things in history (e.g., various revolutions) started with similar declarations.

Re:Simple solution

[bleckywelcky]

Ah, ok. I was thinking in the back of my mind that Google Earth and Google Maps used the same source data. Guess not. And I don't have Google Earth on this computer, so I couldn't do a quick check even if I thought they used different source data!

Re:Simple solution

[mateomiguel]

[blockquote]And there was never a war in Canada, we went there to reinstate our rightful authority there given the fact that Canada was a holding of Great Britain under the Empire, was invited to join the Declaration of Inedependence, and since the USA is a successor state i.e. is in a chain of replacement governments of British North America (colonial governments to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of 1789), the USA is legally in control of Canada.[/blockquote] Actually that's a damn good argument. I'm going to tell this to my Canadian friends.

Simple..

[pureseth]

It can't be that hard for google to fix that problem, so what's with the "stony silence"?

Re:Simple..

[wangmaster]

i take it you don't know the politics behind this? You call it a province of china, and china is happy, but taiwan isn't. you even imply taiwan is a standalone country and taiwan might be happy, but china won't be. So yeah, this is an easy technical problem to fix, but good luck doing it without pissing someone off.

Re:Simple..

[h4rm0ny]

I'd say there's an empirical way of testing this. Do the Taiwanese pay taxes to the mainland government, are mainland government laws enforced in Taiwan? No, in both cases. Has Taiwan managed to maintain this state of affairs for a reasonable period of time? Yes. Then Taiwan has earnt its right not to be called a province.

Doesn't stop Google annoying the mainland government by calling it such, but you shouldn't let economics get in the way of the truth.

Re:Simple..

[biryokumaru]

They're trying to reconcile making the mad cash from catering to the soon-to-be-richest country in the world and compromising their company motto.

Imma write them a nasty letter. A girl I know is from Taiwan (mmm... hot Taiwanese girl...) and imma send them all the Taiwanese facts about their independence. I suggest you all find hot Taiwanese girls and do the same.

Google! Don't be evil!

Re:Simple..

[engwar]

you shouldn't let economics get in the way of the truth.

ha ha ha. That's a good one.

Re:Simple..

[hunterx11]

Can Taiwan officially call itself Taiwan without death raining down upon its citizens? Do they have official diplomatic relations with many nations? At least Western Sahara openly and boldly proclaims its independence, but all they get is a dotted line between them and Morocco.

I'd like nothing better than to see an internationally-recognized, free Taiwan, but that isn't happening any time soon. Sovereignty issues are incredibly complex. In the meantime, however, Google might be able to get away with calling them by their official name, the Republic of China. It seems a strange state of affairs when a country is going to go to war with you the second you stop claiming sovereignty over their territory.

Re:Simple..

[A.K.A_Magnet]

About your sig, it's not a quote specifically from Jeanne d'Arc. She is said to have told it in her trial, but it is only a widely used french proverb, very often used in songs and poems. It is also found in "Les Fables d'Æsope" (Esope Fables? sp?) which come from ancient Greece (translated to modern french later by Pierre Millot).

Re:Simple..

[Zarel]

I'd say there's an empirical way of testing this. Do the Taiwanese pay taxes to the mainland government, are mainland government laws enforced in Taiwan? No, in both cases. Has Taiwan managed to maintain this state of affairs for a reasonable period of time? Yes. Then Taiwan has earnt its right not to be called a province.

Does Hong Kong or Tibet pay taxes to the mainland government? Are mainland government laws enforced in Hong Kong or Tibet? No in both cases (IIRC). Have they managed to maintain this state of affairs for a reasonable period of time? Yes. But they certainly are considered part of China.

Re:Simple..

[h4rm0ny]

I've actually read the accepted transcripts of Jeanne's trial and the quote I've taken is definitely not in there, I agree It is commonly attributed to her however.

There's no doubt that there have been variations on it throughout history and I can actually top your Aesop's fables reference with one from Thucydides who says much the same thing (fairly sure he predates Aesop). Just don't ask me to look up an exact line number and phrasing now. Still, I admire Jeanne D'Arc very much and I particularly like the way it is phrased in French - Help Yourself and the Sky will Aid You. Translating it loses the beautiful balance of the phrase though.

Butter

[kryzx]

Maybe they already figured out which side their bread was buttered on. After all, they are pretty sharp. They don't have to solve anything. They made the smart move in trying to get cozy with the next economic superpower. Now they can just ignore the complaining until it goes away.

Re:Butter

[Surt]

Of course, in doing that, they probably ought to think about revising their 'do no evil' motto, to something along the lines of 'do evil whenever it is economically convenient'.

Re:Butter

[Dan Farina]

While people in Taiwan are free enough to use Google's search services regardless of a little bit of annoyance over their personal classification, if Google takes this stand against China and its access is removed from the citizens there, they will lose a well-prepared means of finding information.

Perhaps caving to China is the way of lesser evil. The Taiwanese can use Google's search services if they are so inclined, and the Chinese citizenry could use (at least) the parts that the Chinese government has deemed acceptable, and I would take something over nothing.

Re:Butter

[rholliday]

This is probably true, which is surprising since Google is one of the sites filtered by China's Greate Firewall. If I recall correctly that's part of the reason the Google Mirror was set up.

Re:Butter

[monkeydo]

Well, the way of lesser evil is still evil. Their motto isn't "do less evil", it's, "do no evil." Of course in The Real World, that isn't always an option.

Re:Butter

[Serveert]

By caving into the Chinese dicatorship they give them legitimacy, if they let this stand, what if the Chinese govt wants google to censor content? At what point will google take a stand? The Chinese govt will basically use and abuse google until google is but a mouthpiece for the PRC. At some point, if we are to believe the 'do no evil' mantra, Google will draw the line even if it means sacrificing profits.

I'm betting though that the 'do no evil' thing is but a marketing gimick and nothing more.

Re:Butter

[antiMStroll]

" Maybe they already figured out which side their bread was buttered on. After all, they are pretty sharp."

They have a reputation for being sharp for not having a taste for butter. Google refued to order search results by ad dollar and by that simple expedient competitors were swept aside and the company name became synonymous with "internet search".

Re:Butter

[hesiod]

> By caving into the Chinese dicatorship they give them legitimacy

Wow. Google is a business, not a government. Google's actions do not give legitimacy to ANYTHING. They are a COMPANY who wish to do business within a country. To do business within that country, they must follow the LAWS of that country. It is that simple.

Ill solve this quickly

[ihatewinXP]

Question: Who does Google stand to make more money off of?

Google already knows the answer to this and that is why "Taiwan" is listed as such.

End of story. (For Taiwan at least)

Dr.O

Re:Ill solve this quickly

[aminorex]

It is exceedingly rare for a U.S. company to make money in China.
What does make money is using China's cheaper labor to effect a savings.
When entering into a business relationship in China, you have to remember
three things:

1) They are smarter than you
2) They are lying to you
3) They make the rules

For this reason, it's generally better to just say no. Google is likely to
make a lot more money off of little Taiwan than great big China, until this
pattern changes.

They've already solved the problem

[Reality Master 201]

They've chosen to call Taiwan a province of China. Because the most lucrative market that likely to crop up in the next 20 years says Taiwan is a province of China.

It's a political debate, right up until you consider that one side of the debate represents much more money than the other. Then it's a simple matter of economics.

Re:They've already solved the problem

[The Lynxpro]

"It's a political debate, right up until you consider that one side of the debate represents much more money than the other. Then it's a simple matter of economics."

A simple matter of a rogue CIA group equipping the Taiwainese with some nukes would also solve the diplomatic standoff as well, and allow the U.S. to decouple itself from the thorny situation and without the guilt associated with giving China a free-hand with Taiwain in exchange for the freedom to nuke Kim Jong Il's regime.

Re:They've already solved the problem

[chris_mahan]

Negative. Mutually Assured Destruction is a sound political and military doctrine that has directly led to a relatively stable and peaceful period in the world, thanks to the deployment of massive nuclear weapon arsenals.

It't like car insurance: you hope you don't have to use it, but you have to have it, otherwise some bozo is going to rear-end you and you'll lose your shirt.

Lets not forget that China is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. They should have undestood the concept by now.

Back to Taiwan and Google: don't name the island on the political map.

Re:They've already solved the problem

[The Lynxpro]

"The Lynxpro (657990) --- It is comments like yours that makes everyone around the world hate you guys. Americans like you have no sympathy or compassion towards human life. You think you can just go around and "nuke" (i.e. KILL/MURDER innocent people) just for the hell of it. GROW UP. Grow up you little puppy dog... Or is it that you feel so "brave" talking the "big talk.""

I have sympathy for life. I also see the need to take care of nations who are threats to not only their own people but to other nations. North Korea is one example. If it is true that Kim Jong Il's regime is responsible for starving 2-4 million of its own people, then how is my suggestion that the regime gets nuked is less humanitarian if it in turn topples that regime and prevents an all-out war breaking out, which would involve not only killing civilians in both North and South Korea, but also thousands of North Korean and U.S. soldiers? Answer me that, oh anonymous coward.

Furthermore, if Taiwan had nukes, it would keep the People's Republic of China in check and instead of posturing over Taiwan and imperialist claims by the West, the PRC would have to focus inward on its own structural problems, and quite possibly might lead to democracy a little quicker than if the regime just walked all over Taiwan. Furthermore, if Taiwan had nukes, it would mean the U.S. would not have to involve itself in defending Taiwain from PRC intrusion. MAD would keep both Taiwan and the PRC in check, meaning they would work on their relationship and promote better trade amongst each other since a stalemate is counter productive. It might lead to the PRC relenting and allowing Taiwan to join the UN. After all, that means "China" effectively would have 2 seats in the UN, which might favor the PRC in terms of territorial claims against other nations like Japan and Vietnam. Unfortunately, the PRC is blinded to such advantages due to its ideology, which is rampant nationalism.

Funny how you talk about alleged deficiencies regarding bravery yet you post as an anonymous coward. Practice what you preach, oh online coward.

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.

Re:PROC and ROC

[jiawen]

I'd say it's well-established for the US to refer to them in intentionally ambiguous ways, rather than with specific terms. The US deliberately (and, in my mind, quite rightly) avoids clarity on the issue. "Taiwan, ROC" or "Taiwan" or "the ROC" or whatever will make the situation less clear.

This is unfortunate -- it'd be nice if it was possible to be specific and clear -- but specificity and clarity only create diplomatic incidents and lead to saber-rattling in this case.

As for other Western countries -- I can't say.

Re:PROC and ROC

[Daniel_Staal]

You forgot one step: When talking to either side you don't bring up the validity of either side's claim. This means when talking to the People's Republic of China (for instance) you don't list provinces (officially), so the povince of Taiwan isn't conspicous by being or not being on the list.

Google is in a bad position: They have a nuetral product, easily accessable, which shows political divisions. Taiwan shows up on the product, so it needs to be inside or outside a boundry. A diplomat's words can leave it's status undefined, a map cannot.

Most accurate would probably be to mark the area claimed by the Republic of China as 'Under dispute', but neither side would like that...

Re:PROC and ROC

[timeOday]

Google is in a bad position: They have a nuetral product, easily accessable, which shows political divisions. Taiwan shows up on the product, so it needs to be inside or outside a boundry. A diplomat's words can leave it's status undefined, a map cannot.

Bah, diplomacy, that's old fashioned. Google has their own high-tech criticism avoidance mechanism, which should be quick to implement: just label the map "BETA"!

Re:PROC and ROC

[jiawen]

You mean snail mail, right? When I was living in Taiwan, there was a company that sent mail to me marked "Taipei, Republic of China". I only got it a couple months later, after it'd been routed through China -- the People's Republic of China.

I found that marking my mail "Taiwan" -- no ROC, no China, nothing other than just "Taiwan" -- was the surest way to get the mail through.

I think the US post office officially requires mail to Taiwan to be labeled "ROC", but that clearly doesn't work, and isn't even their de facto preference.

Ambiguity, strategic ambiguity, is the way to go here.

As for e-mail, well, the US isn't in charge of the group who decided on .tw. If the US had been in charge, we'd probably have some weird thing like .rc.o for Mainland and .rc.p for Taiwan.

Naaa na na na a na na na na na na na na na....

[Fiver-]

How does "We Love Katamari" refer to Taiwan in the global level? I assume the King of All Cosmos is the ultimate authority.

Re:Naaa na na na a na na na na na na na na na....

[shigelojoe]

Nah.

It is sad

[soft_guy]

that our country decided to hang the Taiwanese out to dry by engaging with China. Taiwan should be our real aly and we shouldn't be trading with China at all. If we had pursued that policy, I think that the PRC goverment would have fallen when the rest of the communist block fell and China would be free by now.

Thanks, Nixon (for nothing).

Re:It is sad

[Nimey]

Kind of how it worked for Cuba, huh?

Re:It is sad

[The Lynxpro]

"Mainland China could do our children's generation an amazingly kind act by allowing Taiwan to call itself what it already is now, avoiding world war in twenty years."

And give up Tibet with the guarantee that the Western Powers won't put military bases there.

Of course, I guess the Chinese could point a finger at the U.S. and ask why we haven't given Hawai'i back to its people.

Re:It is sad

[soft_guy]

That's a very good point. I thought that communism in Cuba would have ended when the Soviet block collapsed, but I was wrong. I still predict that communism in Cuba is unlikely to outlive Castro by very much. We'll see.

OTOH, Cuba is not on the road to becoming a global superpower and the blockade of trade with Cuba has meant that in the long run communism is probably doomed there.

Re:It is sad

[szaz]

Your sentiment is probably honourable but your post is odd The US didn't hang the Taiwanese out to dry - why would you think that the US has any effect on Chinese politics? All Countries should be trading with China if they wish to be active memebers of a global economy. I happen to think that unfettered capitalism is wrong, but that is what the World is now stuck with - at least for a few decades. I assume you wish to disengage with China as they have a dubious civil rights record. So to do many trading partners of the US - Israel, the UK (where I live), Russia, India, many African states - the list is vast. I am of the opinion that the best way to change a Country (if it is our right to change it anyway) is to engage with them. Shutting out a Country economically will simply exacerbate poverty and entrench bad government. Communism does not equal 'not free'. Again I have to make assumtions - but I assume you call China 'not free' for its governments insistence on controlling most of the media? If so - that is not linked to Communism. The US and UK governments control the media, to the point of shutting down media outlets in some cases. And I don't think you wish to imply that the US is a country with any communist ideals at all. Fact is, Chinese politics is not the concern of any of us unless we are Chinese or UN diplomats.

Re:It is sad

[rheotaxis]

Nixon engaged Red China so USA could pull out of Vietnam with "honor." The Viet Cong were effectively restrained by mainland China who didn't favor a Soviet supported government so nearby. Does anyone else recall that Vietnam had battles with China after the USA pull-out? So, yes, both my family and I thank Nixon everday that a generation of American youth didn't have to keep fighting that war forever. Nixon kept his promise: We got out, and it was "honorable" in the sense that Viet Cong were effectively contained.

Re:It is sad

[anaesthetica]

Engaging China was a bipartisan strategy. Relations were opened by Nixon-Kissinger, and normalized by Carter-Brzezinski. It wasn't so simple as, Taiwan=Democracy and is therefore our ally to the exclusion of China=Totalitarian. That's the kind of logic that gets Bush Jr. and the neocons in trouble, quite frankly.

China was never, and is still not, a *real* strategic threat to the United States. It has vast potential, but it's still decades from being able to utilize any of it. It was even further away from realizing its potential back in the 60s. However, what the realists saw was a chance to change the polarity of the international system. There was essentially a two bloc status quo: the Free World versus the Sino-Soviet bloc. Nixon and then Brzezinski managed to change that into a three bloc world: the Free World, the Soviet bloc, and the Non-Aligned Movement (of which China was the de facto leader). In this way, China and the United States could (and did) cooperate on strategic manners, such as curbing Soviet expansionism (see the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan).

The realists asked themselves what was more important: the breakup of the Sino-Soviet bloc and strategic cooperation against the Soviet Union (the only actual geostrategic threat the United States has ever faced), or a tiny liberal island ruled by a not-so democratic system (Taiwan didn't truly democratize until the 1990s) with no actual power. The U.S. chose to defeat the USSR and drop Taiwan, because the potential for the two bloc system to turn into a "hot war" and destroy the world was of greater concern than the legal status of Taiwan's sovereignty under international law.

I'm not saying they made a perfect choice, but viewing the wider context, the choice is not so simple as you make it out to be.

Re:It is sad

[soft_guy]

the Soviet Union (the only actual geostrategic threat the United States has ever faced)

I disagree with this part of your statement. I think the British in the early 1800s clearly qualified as a "geostrategic threat". I also think Spain did too when we were at war with them. (Spain was a big traditional European power who had colonies all over the world. The US was not yet an international power.)

such as curbing Soviet expansionism (see the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

Did the Soviets not take over Afghanistan anyway?

The U.S. chose to defeat the USSR and drop Taiwan, because the potential for the two bloc system to turn into a "hot war" and destroy the world was of greater concern than the legal status of Taiwan's sovereignty under international law.

We should have never allowed the nationalist chinese to lose the chinese civil war in the first place. In the second place, being a fair whether aly of countries like Taiwan is the root cause of many of the credibility problems the US has.

Re:It is sad

[anaesthetica]

You're right. The British Empire was a strategic threat to the United States up until the 1890's or thereabouts. Spain was not a threat. It had many colonies, but none were very productive after the 16th century. The Dutch (of all nations...) were more powerful than the Spanish after the 16th century, and Spain was easily defeated by the U.S. in the Spanish-American war.

The Soviets did take Afghanistan, but the U.S., China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia funded and trained the Afghans who took it back by bleeding the USSR white. Merely the effects of breaking the Sino-Soviet alliance, and the implicit restriction of Soviet ability to act and intervene around the world because of the Chinese acting as a third pole in the international system paid far more dividends than just cooperation in Afghanistan.

You can say that we never should have let the Nationalists lose against the Communists, but the Nationalists were not that much better. They were corrupt and authoritarian, which are the principal reasons that the Communists enjoyed popular support. We could have propped them up, but it may well have ended just like when we propped up the Shah in Iran. We're not a fair weather ally of Taiwan--we've consistently prevented China from using force to reunify the two nations. They have freedom and autonomy and a great economy, they just don't have international legal status. The only reason they don't have that is because the U.S. had bigger fish to fry, and because for many years the Kuomintang did not push for independence, because they claimed to be the legitimate government of the whole Mainland. U.S. Taiwan policy has little to no bearing on our policy credibility anywhere else in the world, except in East Asia. We have no credibility problems with our East Asian allies (if anything, our military threat is a little too credible).

Not "Province: , "Republic"

[magarity]

a province of China
 
It's not a province, it's a Republic of China. That's why the labels on manufactured goods say "Made in Taiwan ROC".

Re:Not "Province: , "Republic"

[avdp]

Actually, "ROC" doesn't stand for A Republic of China, but rather THE Republic of China. As in the "real government of China in exile, the PRC (People's Republic of China) being illegitimate" (which is basically what really did happen, the "old" government of China fled to Taiwan and the communists took over). So no, the ROC terminology is just as offensive to mainland Chinese.

Re:Not "Province: , "Republic"

[hunterx11]

Ironically, the Chinese are less offended by the title "Republic of China" than Taiwan, if only because the former is the status quo. The PRC will actually attack Taiwan if they ever stop claiming to control all of mainland China, which is pretty ridiculous.

Re:Not "Province: , "Republic"

[avdp]

The term "Province" is really how the mainland (PRC) wants Taiwan's refered as. With or without the "Renegate" qualifier. But I does seem they have turned a deaf ear to "ROC" eventhough I am sure it irks them a great deal.

Re:Not "Province: , "Republic"

[myowntrueself]

It's not a province

Actually, its the other way around; the reason that the Kuomintang never wanted to declare 'independence' from China was because they view themselves as *being* the legitimate government of China.

In effect, the Taiwanese line would come out something like:

'All of Chinas provinces are belong to us'.

Re:Not "Province: , "Republic"

[whitehorse]

or calling 'El Nino' ... 'http://gorillamask.net/videoelnino.shtmlTHE Nino

Re:Not "Province: , "Republic"

[Guanix]

Exactly. The mainland government has rarely, if ever, called Taiwan a "renegade" province. Only Western media do that. What they do say is that "since ancient times, Taiwan has been an inalienable part of China" and statements to that effect.

Re:Not "Province: , "Republic"

[avdp]

Yes, it is the government that lost a civil war. I am not saying I agree with them, just stating Taiwan's position from a historical perspective and the differences between "ROC" and "PRC". Of course, no Taiwanese at this point want to govern China. They just want to go on their own merry way (which they already have, there is just a little technicality to overcome)

Re:Not "Province: , "Republic"

[readin]

Actually, "ROC" doesn't stand for A Republic of China, but rather THE Republic of China.

Actually the official name, as it is written in the language used by the government in Taiwan, has neither an "A" nor a "THE". It is simply "Republic of China". Actually, though my ability in the language is limited, it seems to me that the name might be more literally translated "Chinese Republic" or even "Ethnic Chinese Republic".

Re:Not "Province: , "Republic"

[Pablo El Vagabundo]

So what your saying is that China does not own Taiwan, Taiwan owns China...

Pablo

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".

Re:Ditto Tibet

[amerinese]

but Tibet doesn't actually exercise de facto indepedence, i.e. where is there elected or legitimate government and their army/police? it's not that the PRC can roll into Tibet any time--it's that they're already there and the ones really in charge. as to the PRC's legitimacy--that's a separate question entirely.

Taiwan is both a democratic country and it maintains de facto rule--it has its own military that prevents China from walking over, and it maintains order within the island as well. As to its constitutional legitimacy... that is a separate question (if you're talking about from a historical perspective... but of course from a self-determination perspective they are legitimately independent).

Re:Ditto Tibet

[Surt]

Surely it can't be evil to support an evil oppressive regime if it makes you a lot of money? I believe IBM did pretty well by the holocaust, and no one called that evil, right?

Re:Ditto Tibet

[imsabbel]

Maybe its pragmatism.

I dont see many tibetian prime ministers on international meetings, or tibetian embassies in foreign capitals...

Many borders are shaped by unfriendly takeovers, but that doesnt negate those changes.

Re:Ditto Tibet

[Anonymous Coward]

> it has its own military that prevents China from walking over

And the name of Taiwan's army is "The U.S. Army". The U.S. is the *only* thing that stops China from invading.

Re:Ditto Tibet

[Anne_Nonymous]

Fuck Tibet; free America.

Re:Ditto Tibet

[fm6]

There's also the fact that the officially Taiwan is known as the Republic of China. (God knows where the Register got that "Republic of Taiwan" nonsense.) This is a hangover from when Taiwan was ruled by the losing side in the Chinese civil war between the Communists and the Nationalists. The Nationalists, like the Communists, consider Taiwan part of China. Ironically, since losing power to the Democratic Progressives, the Nationalists have found common cause with their former adversaries in Beijing in opposing a formal declaration of Taiwanese indpendence.

And note that even though Taiwan is ruled by a pro-independence party, they still haven't declared formal independence or changed the official name of the country.

Is it any wonder that Google wants to punt?

Re:Ditto Tibet

[Anonymous Coward]

Google also doesn't consider collecting a permanent, central database of all people's interests and communications to be "evil." I'm starting to wonder if Google considers anything to be "evil." If nothing is defined as evil, Google can do whatever it wants and still "not be evil" in its corporate mind.

Re:Ditto Tibet

[Vellmont]

And note that even though Taiwan is ruled by a pro-independence party, they still haven't declared formal independence or changed the official name of the country.

(disclaimer, I am not an expert on China and Taiwan but read the Wikipedia entry and think I know something about foreign relations)

The problem is that the PRC has made it clear they're more happy with Taiwan remaining the ROC than claiming independence. My guess is that they like the patently ridiculous claim that Taiwan is the legitimate government of China a lot more than a very tenable claim that Taiwan is independent. Furthermore the supporters of the ROC also see re-unification with China as something that will happen in the future. In other words claiming to not be the ROC is a step away from re-unification, and China obviously wants to prevent that.

The main point is that if Taiwan were to formally declare indendence from China, China has made it clear they'll take actions against Taiwan. That might include economic sanctions, military invasion, etc. Taiwan sort of lives with a gun against its head if it says the wrong thing.

So.. what exists right now is a strange truce with both sides hoping they'll win the long battle. Taiwan remains silent but hopes children born in Taiwan will see themselves as having a Taiwaneese identity. China hopes that it will become a large enough ecomic power that re-unification will become in Taiwan's best interests.

Re:Ditto Tibet

[fm6]

The problem is that the PRC has made it clear they're more happy with Taiwan remaining the ROC than claiming independence. My guess is that they like the patently ridiculous claim that Taiwan is the legitimate government of China a lot more than a very tenable claim that Taiwan is independent.

Sure, that's a no-brainer. As long as Taiwan is officially the "Republic of China", their international status is on a par with the Confederate States of America. Other countries can't recognize them, because that would mean denying the legitimacy of the PRC. But if the ROC ever becomes the ROT, that's all out the window. And international recognition of a separate Taiwan would be the first step to China giving up Taiwan forever.

However, there's nothing ridiculous about Taiwan being the base for a Chinese government in exile, any more than it was for France's African colonies being a similar base for the Free French during World War II. And indeed, the ROC's sovereignty over all of China was recognized by many nations for years &mdash in the case of the U.S., until 1971, twenty years after they lost control of the mainland!

Of course it's now 50 years since the Nationalists lost the civil war fled to Taiwan. And since 2000, they don't even control Taiwan. So, yeah, the "Republic of China" is a dead letter, and sounds really silly. But that little fiction is the only thing standing between Taiwan and invasion by the Chinese. So it's one we're stuck with, for now. A little political silliness is small price to pay for not having a major war.

Re:Ditto Tibet

[Vellmont]

However, there's nothing ridiculous about Taiwan being the base for a Chinese government in exile, any more than it was for France's African colonies being a similar base for the Free French during World War II.

I beg to differ. Comparing France during WWII to China today is ridiculous. France was taken over by an outside force and the government set up by Germany was never accepted by the people of France. The survival of that government was also obviously contingent upon Germany winning a war it was fighting at the time. It's extremely easy to see how the french governement in exhile had a perfectly valid claim on being the legitimate government during WWII. There's no such similar situation in China at all right now. Taiwan claiming to be the legitimate government of China is about as valid as me claiming to be the king of Spain.

The US not recognizing China was a purely political move because we had to "fight communism" and not recognizing the communist government in China was seen by some as some kind of pathetic way to do that.

Re:Ditto Tibet

[fm6]

France was taken over by an outside force...

And according to some interpretations, that's what happened to China: it was taken over by the Communist International. That was the POV not just of the Chinese Nationalists, but also of most Western governments. (And indeed the Soviets did give Mao and his bunch a lot of support.) Which is why nobody outside the Communist Bloc recognized the PRC for years, and why Taiwan/ROC represented China in the U.N. (including their permanent seat on the Security Council) for two decades after they lost the mainland. Of course, in reality, the Chinese civil war was a lot more complicated than that. But so was the Occupation of France.

... and the government set up by Germany was never accepted by the people of France.

That's the Hollywood version of the Occupation. In actual history, Petain's government wasn't set up by the Germans. It came to power just before the French forces fell apart, and sued for peace shortly thereafter. This decision wasn't universally popular, but it did have widespread support — aside from people who thought that Germany's invasion of Poland had nothing to do with them, there were a lot of French who were as Fascist as anybody in the Fascist countries. The same people remained in power throughout the war, and remained neutral throughout, despite German pressure to rejoin the war on the Axis side. Of course, this neutrality was pretty phony — Petain did a lot to help the German war effort, and had no compunction about handing over France's Jews, or letting the Germans draft Frenchmen for slave labor. But he did so with widespread French support. And, not incidentally, his government retained the recognition of the U.S., even after we went to war with Germany! This recognition was only rescinded 5 minutes before the first invasion of French territory in Africa.

It's extremely easy to see how the french governement in exhile had a perfectly valid claim on being the legitimate government during WWII.

Easy to see now. Wasn't that easy to see at the time. The "government in exile" was a motley collection of bozos who had simply refused their orders to surrender. Many French people considered them traitors, and there was no clear leader until pretty late in the game.

There's no such similar situation in China at all right now. Taiwan claiming to be the legitimate government of China is about as valid as me claiming to be the king of Spain.

And if the government in Taiwan had been set up last week, you'd have a point. But it wasn't. It was actaully set up on the mainland almost a century ago, after the Empire was overthrown. When they lost the civil war, they moved they moved the entire government to Taipei. (For years, legislators went through the motions of representing their old districts on the mainland.) A pretty straightforward government in exile. The fact that 50 years later that government in exile has turned into an empty charade is beside the point.

The US not recognizing China was a purely political move because we had to "fight communism"...

Once again, a simplistic version of history. I never bought into the Evil Communist Conspiracy theory of the cold war. Nevertheless, the cold war was not "just politics". There were serious social and moral issues at stake. And that especially true for the part of the war that determined the fate of China.

The soloution is clear?

[Lucractius]

Surely be google are capable of quick soloutions, but perhaps the slow "reply" is more tied up in politics than it seems, cant be easy to debate between these foreign powers as another country, let alone as a company that could be severly burned by the loss of favour by one of them

Re:Customisable naming?

[djh101010]

How about making it user customisable with defaults based on their geographical location?

Far as that goes, why couldn't they change the label based on the IP space of the place calling up the page? Known Taiwanese subnet? There ya go, it's called one thing. Known Chinese subnet? Here you go, it's called what you want to call it. Give 'em an option to change from that default behavoir. Think of it as live, real-time, address-based translation of the name.

Hell - they're Google. Let 'em invent a standard header to deal with it, so apache can serve up the right version just like it does the languages preferences stuff. It's not like the browser authors (well, most of 'em) wouldn't support something like that.

Solution

[JazMuadDib]

a "/" I.e. Taiwan (ROC/Province of PRC)

Or call it just plain ol' Taiwan.

Or hey, even better, give it a name based on originating IP.

Re:Solution

[HermanAB]

Hmm, how about GNU/Taiwan? Taiwan Roc(ks)...

How Crass, How Gauche...

[Farrside]

How very Provincial!

EBay it!

[IceSabre]

Highest bidder wins the ownership of Taiwan on google map!

Re:EBay it!

[istartedi]

Mod parent up! If mainland China really is a "bigger market", they should put up or shut up. It's kind of a bad precedent though... I mean... does Redmond really want to be Microsoftville? Does Atlanta want to be Coketown? Maybe they could just restrict it to teritories that are under dispute by organized armies.

Re:EBay it!

[Deanalator]

Does Atlanta want to be Coketown?

sorry, I think LA already has this title.

Re:EBay it!

[henni16]

And if they do "Ebay it", you can be sure that it will be named "goldenpalace.com island" ;-)

Claim is it someone else's issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Google could always say they are using the ISO country names (and I think they are) and they will be happy to change it when ISO updates the name in their data.

Re:Claim is it someone else's issue

[millennial]

Someone from Taiwan sent an angry, semi-threatening letter to 2600 Magazine about this very thing. They pulled out the whole "official ISO naming system" thing, too.

Re:Claim is it someone else's issue

[ZachPruckowski]

Well said. While I support Taiwan in principle. They got kicked off the UN Security Council, and virtually no one has a full embassy with them. Therefore, it would be taking the initiative on Google's part to say that Taiwan is independent. I mean, I'd love to see Google take the initiative, but they can't shoot themselves in the foot when they don't have much to stand on in making their case.

Re:Claim is it someone else's issue

[boldra]

In 1999 I was putting together a user registration form for a website when I noticed "Taiwan - provice of China" [sic] in the list of available countries.

I had simply copied the list of countries from another of our websites, where the same phrase was live. I asked the developer in charge of that site where he got it, and replied that it had always been that way. We traced it back through our version history and concluded that at some time our webserver had been hacked and "Taiwan" had been changed to "Taiwan - provice of China".

Instead of doing any real research, I went around the office and asked a couple of people whether Taiwan was independant. Since they unanimously agreed it was (including the C programmer from Hong Kong), we changed all our websites to "Taiwan".

Google Kowtows to China

[RobotRunAmok]

("Kowtows to China" -- sometimes I crack myself up...)

So much for the "do no evil" schtick, huh?

Hey, once upon a time Gates was the clever, driven College drop-out sticking it to the Man, too, right? Eventually, they all embrace their inner Gekko.

Mebbe one of their two billionaire founders will sleep with his sister by mistake and the whole modern Greek Tragedy can be complete.

*sigh*

what's for lunch... haven't eaten lunch... starving...

Re:Google Kowtows to China

[Maxo-Texas]

You beat me to it, brother.

This just shows once again that ANY corporation is a sociopath.

It's all about the money- never give your loyalty to a corporation- they have no conscience- they have no guilt.

Re:Google Kowtows to China

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Gates was (is) clever. He did drop out of Harvard. But he *never* was sticking it to the man. He wanted to be the man....

Re:Google Kowtows to China

[ifwm]

"So much for the "do no evil" schtick, huh?"

Ok, so what is "evil" about this?

Is it that they call the country by a different name than they want? Is that the evil you are referring to?

Or are you another of those people whose definition of evil is "anything that Google does that I can call evil and get modded up for"?

WHAT EVIL?

Re:Google Kowtows to China

[HermanAB]

I think what really irks the Taiwanese is that Google kowtows to the hoi polloi...

Re:Google Kowtows to China

[fbjon]

Actually they're not doing any evil, they're simply following standard practice. They don't have to be the ones to create eternal peace just because they say "Do No Evil". Notice that they're not saying "Do Only Good And Be Perfect".

Effectively, this is not their problem, it's an issue between China and Taiwan.

Re:Google Kowtows to China

[Maxo-Texas]

So siding with china against taiwan or tibet or with russia against chechnia or ukraine or with any other large group of people against a smaller group of people is no longer evil?

Re:Google Kowtows to China

[Rayonic]

Eventually, they all embrace their inner Gekko.

They all save money on car insurance?

Oh Google...

[matr0x_x]

Does it really take the brightest minds to fix this problem?

if (IP == Taiwan){
  Label as independent
}
else {
  Label as province of China
}

Re:Oh Google...

[SparafucileMan]

if ip == 'US':
      for c in countries:
              if ip not 'redstate':
                    label('USA Free Market')
              else:
                    don't show country

Re:Oh Google...

[pH03n1X]

more like ....

if (IP == Taiwan){
Label as independent
}
elseif (IP == China){
Label as province of China
}
else {
Label as West Hawaii
}

Re:Oh Google...

[first_tracks]

good solution, but really the problem here is how Taiwan is presented to and recognized by the rest of the world. China and Taiwan have the minds made up but how about... else if (IP == Rest of the World) { ShowTaiwanPoll(); }

Re:Oh Google...

[jmorris42]

How about just show the name of the country as the inhabitants want it shown and if China just can't live with that they can just program their fscking firewall to rewrite the pages on the fly if they just can't sleep at night any other way. Calling it China is perverted, about as wrong as listing the US as a British territory on a 19th century map of North America. Of course back then mapmakers just reflected the reality on the ground, they didn't try to shape it.

Frankly I think it is about time to hit China with the word "Evil" and see if we can end them like Reagan ended the Soviet Union with it. Sometimes speaking Truth to Power works wonders.

Re:Oh Google...

[harmonica]

Taiwan is not recognized by IIRC all except for 25 smaller countries. (There must be something in Wikipedia's Taiwan article, but I'm too lazy to read it now.) Most nations want to do business with China.

While Google's at it...

[lpangelrob]

...can they sort out the whole India / Pakistan / Kashmir thing too? That'd be great. Thanks.

Re:While Google's at it...

[anaesthetica]

Don't forget China has its own little slice of the Kashmir conflict as well: Aksai Chin

Gotta pick your fights...

[mister_llah]

Taiwan might be able to get Google to change... they sure as hell aren't going to get global recognition...

Sadly, Taiwan is doomed unless the US wants to provoke a third world war... which I hope to God they don't.

Google is "calling it in the air" as they say.

text only, not embedded into the image

[Khopesh]

Just search for taiwan: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=taiwan

The text next to the map says "Taiwan, Province of China" ... the maps themselves don't actually imply it is part of China (as far as I could notice). This means it is a very easy change for Google to implement, no edit of the maps or code needed. They just need to decide what to do politically.

A note, Taiwan is not asking for "Taiwan, Province of China" to become "Taiwan, an independant nation" ... perhaps all provinces of all nations should conveniently lose such descriptors? How could that anger The PRC?

Re:google aren't the only one

[jiawen]

Why doesn't Taiwan have a seat in the UN? Because China, the US and the other countries won't let it.

If the school bully says you have to say "uncle", that doesn't mean he's suddenly your real uncle...

The brightest minds

[SillyPerson]

I am much more interested in the suggestions of the brightest minds that money can't buy (i.e the solutions of the slashdot crowd). It will probably be brilliant thoughts along the lines of

In Sowjet Russia, all your Taiwan are belong to us

or something.

Been there in Canada... easy solution?

[C.]

Labrador (up North in Canada) has been disputed territory for years. Maps were showing it as "disputed territory".

Then again, Canadians are not very likely to go up in arms if they are reminded of it when seeing a map.

What is it then?

[Conception]

Unless Taiwan comes out and decalres its sovereignty, no one really needs to consider it as anything else. I mean, it'll mean war, but at least they get themselves on Google Earth right. But honestly, sack up or shut up.

Re:What is it then?

[hunterx11]

What is it then?

The Republic of China.

Who else thinks...

[Wilson_6500]

Who else thinks that Google didn't actually make these kinds of decisions? There's probably some body or convention that they're following--I just don't know which one.

Earth to Google!

[coopaq]

Stop staring at all the money you want to make in China and look at reality.

Whether or not Taiwan will become part of China in the future it is certainly not the case now.

Yeesh!

Google and Yahoo are becoming buttkissing money mongers for China business ties.

Anyway... No offense to Taiwan or China.

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?

Why are they bugging Google about this?

[squirrelist]

Most countries, including America, do not see Taiwan as independent. Because of this, the UN does not either. If this is good enough for the UN, this should be good enough for Google (an American company).

Re:Why are they bugging Google about this?

[demonbug]

Most countries, including America, do not see Taiwan as independent.

I'd put it a little differently. Most countries do not officially recognize Taiwan as being independent; however, most people of most countries (that I've talked to, anyway) generally consider Taiwan to be an independent nation.

Re:Why are they bugging Google about this?

[coaxial]

Well America, pulls the "There's only one China, BUT Taiwan is our friend and we will defend it in the event of an invasion, and we will make all the bilateral agreements we want with it, and recognize the validity of its passports, and deal with its government, and allow them all the embassies they want just as long as they don't call them 'Taiwanese embassies' but rather 'Taipei Economic and Cultural Offices', and oh yeah they better not bring their flags to the Olympics or even call themselves Taiwan," line. This also known as not stating the obvious, that Taiwan is and has been an independent nation in everything but name since Communist Revolution. The Chinese know it. The Taiwanese know it. The Americans know it. The entire world knows it. However if anyone mentions that an elephant is the room, then people are going to have to die.

Re:Why are they bugging Google about this?

[Stonehand]

We do, however, sell them weapons, and have a law currently obligating us to defend them in certain circumstances -- even against their nominal national government. That should suggest how we -really- view them in practical matters. It's not like we sell weapons to Quebec primarily for aimed at the rest of Canada, or make promises to assist their defense. It'd be a pretty big deal if we did.

Re:Why are they bugging Google about this?

[timbo234]

The situation's a little more complex than that. The UN doesn't consider Taiwan a seperate nation because its not a UN member, because China has used their veto power in the security council to keep them out. The US may not officially refer to Taiwan as a seperate country but at the same time they state in no uncertain terms they will fight to keep it out of the hands of Beijing should they attack.

Re:Customisable naming?

[interiot]

Also, I may be very upset if they don't label the state of Illinois as the "Republic of Interiot" whenever Google Maps is viewed from my specific IP.

I mean, the insanity has to stop somewhere.

Google's Master Plan...

[m93]

Phase 1: Help China harden it's information rights policy by catering to it's search restrictions, then, give them political leverage by legitimizing the Chinese claim to Taiwan (and collect underpants). Phase 2: Wait on them to acheive true superpower status. Phase 3: Profit!

Google does business in China

[stienman]

Google does business in China. China exerts extraordinary control over any company "priviledged" to operate inside china.

Therefore, Google Earth will reflect China's beliefs.

-Adam

Google is probably adhering to ISO 3166

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is probably adhering to ISO 3166 as found here:

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma /10faq/frequently-asked-questions.html#QS03

03: Why is Taiwan named Taiwan Province of China in ISO 3166-1?
A: The names in ISO 3166-1 - and thus on our Webpage - are taken from United Nations sources. These sources are authoritative inputs to the international country code standard. They are:

* The United Nations Bulletin Country Names and the
* Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use of the United Nations Statistics Division

Since Taiwan is not a UN member it does not figure in the UN bulletin on country names. The printed edition of the publication Country and region codes for statistical use gives the name we use in ISO 3166-1. By adhering to UN sources the ISO 3166/MA stays politically neutral.

Re:Google is probably adhering to ISO 3166

[thelost]

mod parent up! especially as it's really boring having to listen to all the whiners who are just dying to take a dig at google.

Re:Google is probably adhering to ISO 3166

[n1ywb]

The UN doesn't even recognize The Principality of Sealand! What kind of backwoods hicks are running that joint anyway?

Re:Google is probably adhering to ISO 3166

[Hays]

By adhering to UN sources the ISO 3166/MA stays politically neutral.

But clearly it is not politically neutral to have Taiwan excluded from the UN. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, but it's certainly not neutral.

I think it's a cop out to say that you're just following the U.N. standards. I think the right thing to do for this any many other situations is to have the maps reflect the political reality- that there is disagreement. Of course China will act like a petulant child if google were to do this, but it would be the right thing to do. The evil thing to do would be to bow to the pressures of the larger, more profitable nation.

Re:Google is probably adhering to ISO 3166

[nine-times]

But clearly it is not politically neutral to have Taiwan excluded from the UN. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, but it's certainly not neutral.

My thought when I read that, too. How is it politically neutral to the controversy to use the naming convention adopted by a political body where China has a large say and Taiwan has no say?

If you want to be neutral, include both names and note that it's in dispute.

Re:Google is probably adhering to ISO 3166

[Forbman]

I think it's a cop out to say that you're just following the U.N. standards.

National Geographic used to do just this on their various maps inserted into the mag. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were shown to be countries, for example, not SSRs. Burma used to be shown as...well...Burma, not Myanmar.

Maybe they still do, too.

Re:Google is probably adhering to ISO 3166

[FurryFeet]

What I want to know is what kind of backwoods hick moderated that obvious joke as Insightful.

Re:Google is probably adhering to ISO 3166

[csrjjsmp]

Saying that leads to the same problem that you have when you try to ask for equal time for creationism in science class because it's "disputed." Being neutral or PC should not take precedence over being correct.

Re:Google is probably adhering to ISO 3166

[srleffler]

Has Taiwan asked to rejoin the UN as an independent country? I don't believe they have officially declared independence. Given that, it seems unfair of them to complain if others don't treat them as an independent country.

Re:Google is probably adhering to ISO 3166

[llwang]

Yes, but it is not up to the UN to decide what the correct
name of a country is. The UN is just yet another international
organization on earth among thousands or millions of them.
It just happens that most countries happen to be a member of
UN, but it still does not give UN the power to decide some
other country's name.
Adhering to UN sources does not actually make ISO 3166/MA
politically neutral. It makes it bias to the UN members.

Just like the ISO or the local government cannot decide what
your standard name is, how Taiwan should be called should be
up to the people in Taiwan.

Re:Google is probably adhering to ISO 3166

[jlin]

This is a direct quote from a letter from Joseph Martinez, the Secretary for the ISO 3166 Maintainece Agency sent May 6, 2005.

"ISO 3166 does not set out to establish the name of countries, territories, or area of geographical interest."

ISO 3166 simply sets the code, not the names. Therefore going by ISO standard simply means that TW, TWN, 158 are the codes for Taiwan, as listed here.

Re:Google is probably adhering to ISO 3166

[llwang]

It seems that people are mis-following the standard by taking the
names as part of the standard.

Easy to fix

[aphaenogaster]

Just call it Formosa. done.

Whose schvantz is tastier?

[winkydink]

That's the one Google will suck.

Kinda hard to "do no evil" when different people have different definitions.

Google needs to grow a pair and stand up on this issue rather than silently ignoring it and hoping it will go away.

Google forgot to add a disclamer?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google Earth portrays an imaginary planet. Any ressemblance with real Earth is purely coincidential. Google Earth is for entertainment only. Do not use Google Earth to learn about political divisions. If dissatisfied with Google Earth, you may reuse Google Earth as a flotation device."

Re:Google forgot to add a disclamer?

[HermanAB]

better: "this report may contain certain forward looking statements..."

quick and dirty (tm)

[nazsco]

bet they will go the easiest/simplest route and make a version for "viewed inside tawain" and a version "rest of the world"

Re:Customisable naming?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this was mapquest or yahoo maps or something, sure. But this is Google we're talking about! Not only should they be able to find a solution with a short script, but they should be able to mediate political talks to fix all territory disputes all over the world. Google for President.

Re:google aren't the only one

[kbs]

It's a pity that the moderators can't recognize flamebait when they see it.

It really depends on how you define "independence."

If by "independent" you mean the existence of a sovereign government, an army, and a legal structure, then by all means Taiwan is independent. If by "independent" you mean recognized by everyone else, then they're not.

As an example, if you try to go to Taiwan, ROC with a PROC visa, you'll be laughed at. The leaders in Taiwan are democratically elected, they have their own army, currency, health care system, business regulations, the whole works. As far as I'm concerned, that's pretty darn independent.

If you're looking at the view of whether they *should* be independent, that's where a lot of the debate comes in. In PROC the view is that historically Taiwan was part of the PROC, so it should be reunited with the motherland. This particular belief is pretty strong on the mainland due to nationalistic pride and control of the newspapers. In Taiwan, people just want the right to elect their own leaders democratically; regardless of where they stand on the reunification issue, they don't want to turn into another Hong Kong, and that is the public relations problem that PROC is faced with. They want to maintain an authoritarian government over a population that is used to publicly berating its own leaders.

google section?

[jshaped]

I'm sure this will be moddded offtopic, but...

Why isn't there a Google section on the navigation bar on the left?
If there's an infrequently updated Apache section,
surely Google deserves one as well.
It seems like 50% off all stories lately are Google related.

another test of their corporate philosophy...

[dAzED1]

A good test for that ever-famous item 6 on the ten things (part of the official corporate philosophy).

6. You can make money without doing evil.

Do they follow Yahoo's lead, and cater to the very oppressive Chinese gov? Or do they support a democracy that has been around just as long as China really, having been created in more or less the same instance. China, after all, has no less claim to being the authority over Taiwan than Taiwan has to being the authority over China.

How about it Google...gona "do no evil" here?

Re:another test of their corporate philosophy...

[metternich]

I can't see this is evil, considering Taiwan, in the view of most of the world, doesn't have de jure independence. If they want to go with de facto independence, then they'll have to show all sorts of breakaway regions like Somaliland, Bouganville, Kurdistan, etc.

Re:another test of their corporate philosophy...

[dAzED1]

as I said, China has no more claim to authority over Taiwan than Taiwan has over China.

Re:another test of their corporate philosophy...

[dAzED1]

lemme state it a bit more clearly...

The ROC controlled Taiwan and China starting in 1912. After the Second Sino-Japanese War, China had a civil war. In 1949 the PRC beat out the ROC in mainland China, and the ROC retreated to Taiwan, where it had ruled since 1912.

Which is to say, the government that controls Taiwan has been in continuous control of Taiwan since 1912. The current government of China has only existed since 1949. In 1950, Truman recognized Taiwan's independence from China - China, at the time, being only *one year old*.

This has nothing to do with being a "breakaway region" or whatever else your anti-American professors have taught you. Taiwan is *older than* China.

Re:another test of their corporate philosophy...

[ladislavb]

The ROC controlled Taiwan and China starting in 1912 Not quite correct. Between 1895 and 1945 Taiwan was, in fact, part of by Japan.

Re:another test of their corporate philosophy...

[metternich]

1) Taiwan was controlled by Japan from 1895-1945. It was ceded by China in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. It was only returned after WWII.

2) This has nothing to do with "anti-American professors", (I love how stating an opinion that is only tangentially related to America becomes "anti-American",) but rather with internationally recognized standards. It's not Google's fault that the international community doesn't recognize Republic of China as a Sovereign state. Likewise it's not Google's fault that the International Community doesn't recognize The http://www.somaliland.org/somaliland.asp> Republic Of Somaliland as a Sovereign State. In both cases, the are by actual fact and by moral right separate governments, but due to various political considerations, nations ignore this. (I realize Taiwan has some recognition, but those states, largely Latin American or island nations, are the minority.)

This is a dilemma for any map maker: How to properly label territories in dispute. If you can show that Google is somehow being inconstant with regard to Taiwan, then you would perhaps have a claim that they were sucking up to China, but if they are being consistent there is no basis for such a claim.

Ps. Heh, I just looked at Google Maps to make sure Somaliland wasn't shown and guess what? Taiwan is now labeled as a separate entity. (So are Hong Kong and Macao, probably so the Chinese don't think their implying Taiwan is Sovereign, but just has separate status.) So I guess this story and/or Taiwanese complaints made a difference!

Re:another test of their corporate philosophy...

[metternich]

Eh, sorry about the bad link, copy and paste rather than click please...

Re:another test of their corporate philosophy...

[dAzED1]

oh, I agree that it's a complicated situation over there.

There's one thing that isn't complicated though, which is that the PRC has never, at any point since it came to power in mainland China in 1949, been in control of Taiwan.

The ROC had a silly policy where it tried to get the international community to consider China a province of Taiwan still, despite the loss of the civil war, but...PRC has never...I repeat...been in control of Taiwan. They had forces there for a year or so at the request of the UN to keep the Japanese out, but...that's not the same. When Russia put forces in East Germany to keep them at bay, that didn't make East Germany a Russian province.

Yes, it's a complicated issue. But the ONLY reason so many countries are afraid to say that Taiwan is independent (which they used to do freely, until the 70's) is because China has a lot more people, and the world expects China to become an economic powerhouse. Rather than be cut off economicly, and potentially even piss off a future military super-power, people no longer recognize Taiwan's independence.

A girl is standing in front of you, and is scared of the 7' tall, 500lbs man behind her. She is asking you to defend her. Do you? Or do you tell the man "well, have fun! She's obviously yours and all" simply because he's so damn big?

That's what is happening here. It has little to nothing to do with whether or not Taiwan is soveriegn. It has everything to do with no one wanting to piss off China.

Re:another test of their corporate philosophy...

[metternich]

I guess this is getting further afield, but there a good reasons why the ROC claims all of China. This has a lot to do with the internal politics of Taiwan. There are two large population groups there: the "natives" (Chinese who settled there in the 17th - 19th Centuries) and those who came in 1949 fleeing the Communists. Many in the latter group want the solution to the "Taiwan Question" to be a unified Democratic China, while many in the former group would prefer an independent Taiwan. As you said, it's a complicated issue and balancing doing what's best for Taiwan, what's morally right, and what's best for China (and by this I mean the Chinese people, not the government) is all difficult. Breaking rleations with China in favor of Taiwan would probably be counter-productive at this point, which is what recognizing Taiwan would do. The best thing is probably to continue informal relations with Taiwan and continue to promise military support. The status quo is working fairly well. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but my hope is that China's government will eventually change eiter to something the Taiwanese feel comfortable being a part of or something that wouldn't mind allowing them to be seperate.

Re:another test of their corporate philosophy...

[dAzED1]

I do predict China having a change of sorts in 15-20 years, but I don't expect it to be peaceful. We'll see.

Re:another test of their corporate philosophy...

[metternich]

There's a popular saying in China, "The Empire, long divided, must unite: long united, must divide." (This is the opening to the famous historical novel, Romance of Three Kingdoms)

Didn't Microsoft run into this problem?

[Rude Turnip]

I seem to recall some Microsoft program, perhaps Encarta or Office, that did something to piss off the Chinese government. Something to do with flags, I think? Microsoft issued a patch rather quickly. Does anyone remember this?

Re:Didn't Microsoft run into this problem?

[arkanes]

They included the Tibetan flag on a list of regions used to set your time zone or some such. Chinese occupation of Tibet, though, is slightly more "legit", for whatever passes for legit. Tibet is an occupied, conquered nation (just like the southern states of the US, for example), while Taiwan is objectively independent. The Chinese claim to it is an example of government refutation of reality, not imperialism.

EASY solution

[FrontalLobe]

All Google needs to say is it will be fixed in the final release, once its out of beta... Problem solved indefinately

Re:Why not call it

[CyricZ]

Perahps because that does not appeal to the Chinese politically. And the next 20 to 50 years will witness the rise of the Chinese economic market. A market that is more than likely going to be far more massive than that of the US and Europe combined.

Article in Time

[FreshFunk510]

I read an article in Time about one of the top people in Google (was there back in '99) and it said that whenever she came across an issue similar to this she usually just referenced the CIA world fact book and went with whatever they had to avoid these kind of issues.

Managing Google's Idea Factory

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_40 /b3953093.htm

"Google shouldn't be the arbiter on languages. Just include anything considered legitimate by a third-party source, such as the CIA World Fact Book, she says. "We don't want to make a large geopolitical statement by accident."

Re:Article in Time

[SparafucileMan]

which is funny because i can't seem to find taiwan in the 2005 fact book.

the map for china though clearly includes taiwan.

Re:Article in Time

[Bryansix]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ tw.html
They refer to it simply as Taiwan.

history

[TheSHAD0W]

Taiwan *IS* a province of China, actually. But the exact situation is complicated.

You folks may remember when the Taiwanese legislature was planning to declare independence, and mainland threats made them back down? Well, if there weren't any ties to the mainland, why would they need to declare independence at all?

The reason is that, when Mao Tse-Tung's army took over the Chinese mainland and China's original rulers relocated to Taiwan, the old government maintained a claim to being the government of the mainland. In their eyes they were a province of China as a whole, despite the rest of the country being controlled by interlopers.

Now, over time, they realized the Communist regime, while it's gotten a bit more flexible, wasn't going away. Their own government changed in the meantime, too. And while they've gotten to the point where they no longer consider themselves to be the same country as the mainland, by having laid claim to being the only legitimate part of the original government they're still tied together.

Re:history

[Izeickl]

Looking back 400 years the Portugese discovered Taiwan...

http://taiwanresources.com/info/history/chrono.h tm

Followed by Dutch eras, china eras, Japanese eras.....China has no real claim to Taiwan bar saying "its ours" at some point in time...as with all border changes years ago, those who could defend it kept it. Now their just trying to regain something they still think belongs to them. Now its just about national pride and that dreaded asian cultural aspect of "face".

But...

[op12]

Will that mean an end to our little plastic toys/trinkets?

Re:But...

[avdp]

Most of our little pastic toys/trinkets are now made in China and not Taiwan. Even Taiwanese companies are shifting much of their manufacturing to China. It's all part of the Big Game of Musical Chairs - when a country's standard of living rises, many of the jobs leave.

Re:But...

[ihatewinXP]

"Will that mean an end to our little plastic toys/trinkets?"

No, but it will _eventually_ mean the end of Taiwan's democraticaly elected government. The US government is trying to straddle the delicate line of appeasing both countries - but US corporations are kowtowing to the Big C every time. It will be interesting to see how far this divide goes.....

Dr.O

just google for it!

[nazsco]

search for "taiwan" in google.

i was feeling lucky and ended up in CIA factbook. And taiwan is listed as a country there.

Re:Customisable naming?

[Derek Pomery]

Actually, when I said geographical location I was thinking precisely of IP localisation. :)
Guess I should stay away from politics.slashdot.org though, already getting negative moderation.

Re:Customisable naming?

[CptPicard]

The user should be allowed to choose between naming systems and languages based on preference. Take names in Finland for example... the naming is simply inconsistent, there is sometimes no apparent logic to it. The Gulf of Finland is named in Estonian, and a lot of Finnish locations seem to have their name pretty much randomly chosen between their Finnish and Swedish equivalents (both of which are valid, but there should be a system to this... like based on the language majority of the place)

Google, DON'T BE EVIL!!

[gr0kCalvin]

eom

Proper naming is important?

[totallygeek]

So Los Angeles should be Googled as:

El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula

?

Re:Predicted

[Shadow Wrought]

It may not be hard science, and I don't pretend to understand it, but its happening. Heck he even predicted that the tenth planet discovered would be named Xenu.

How to really piss off Beijing.

[McGregorMortis]

Call mainland China a province of Taiwan. It's not entirely without basis. he government in Taiwan is the older one, once was the government of all China. The mainland just happens to be under the control of communist rebels at the moment.

Re:How to really piss off Beijing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea! Let's label the United States as a colony of England!

Coming soon from Google

[Adelbert]

Coming soon from Google: Google International Diplomacy!

Are you tired of endless, bureaucratic discussions with international diplomats? Well worry no more! Google will sort out all your petty squabbles for you, with no interference and just a few text based ads appended to your country's constitution.

Google International Diplomacy integrates fully with existing Google packages. Connect that red "President Phone" to Google Talk! Search for the name of a country's Prime Minister with Google Google!

Re:google aren't the only one

[The Lynxpro]

"If Taiwan is so independent why doesn;t it have a seat on the UN ?"

Why isn't the US part of the World Criminal Court?

Why isn't Norway and Iceland members of the European Union?

Why hasn't Atlantis melted all of Antartica's ice that its buried under?

And most importantly...

Why hasn't an American cable channel picked up (new) Doctor Who yet?

Dianetics is a CULT

[engwar]

Do some Googling on it.

I feel so sorry by people who were sucked into a pseudo-religion started by a Sci-Fi writer on a bar bet just to make money.

Not only *.tw. -- GMaps/Earth uses obsolete data!

[Anonymous Coward]

When you search for Poland on Google Maps, you'll get... "Polish People's Republic", which is the name of the Soviet-dependant communist country which existed in the years 1952-1989. A lot of Poles find it offensive to have their country listed under this name instead of "Republic of Poland". Lots of them have sent mail to Google, but they don't give a sh*t about it.

Google Earth sucks, too. If you want to find the town of Chojnów in Lower Silesia, Poland, you won't achieve it by searching for "Chojnów". That would be just too easy, wouldn't it? This town is actually listed with its former, pre-1945 German name "Hainau" (and that's the wrong spelling, since the German name was Haynau, not Hainau). The same applies to many other cities in Western and South-Western Poland. It's comparable to having "New York" listed as "Nieuw Amsterdam". ;-))

So it seems that Google Maps is using pre-1989 data, and Google Earth is based upon pre-1945 data. (Hey, it's consistent with Taiwan being a province of the mainland China, because it was one then).

wikiize it

[flechette_indigo]

A wiki type map would take the responsibility off their shoulders AND save them work. I guess it would be a wikiwar then tho. Hmmm. Store BOTH types of map and make the most popular one the default?

Re:google aren't the only one

[GlassHeart]

If Taiwan is so independent why doesn;t it have a seat on the UN ?

The government that is running Taiwan today is called the Republic of China. This is the government established by the Nationalist Party, which overthrew the imperial Qing Dynasty about a century ago. This is also the government that fought alongside the Allies in WWII against Japan, and is a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

After WWII, the government lost mainland China to the communists in civil war, and retreated to Taiwan. The communists then formed the People's Republic of China, and took over the Security Council seat and UN membership a couple of decades later.

Today, Taiwan maintains an independent executive, legislative, and judicial system, with police and military power. It also maintains diplomatic relationships with about two dozen small countries. It is not in the UN primarily because of the unfortunate zero-sum diplomatic contest that has been ongoing for decades now. Put simply, the PRC would not allow Taiwan into the UN, and most governments do not recognize Taiwan because the PRC would sever relations if they did.

I've head quite a few boxes on them that say Taiwan, ROC on them so I guess not even everyone there shares the same opinion.

Taiwan is ruled by the Republic of China, not the People's Republic of China. The problem at hand is that by saying "Taiwan, China", people (like you, no offense) will mistake it for the People's Republic of China. Over the years, a good number of native (meaning, arrived in Taiwan before 1949) Taiwanese have grown to resent the repressive Nationalist rule, and there is now some negative reaction to the name "China". The Nationalists have since lost power in elections, and the new ruling party has tried what it can to ditch the "China" altogether and achieve an independent "Taiwan", but this remains the most divisive political issue on the island.

as for me, what the hell do I know about it !

...and so I hope this helps.

Re:Predicted

[The Lynxpro]

"I hate to say it but this type of thing was predicted in Dianetics."

Tom Cruise, is that you?

What's the US Government's position?

[RollingThunder]

Google is a US company (primarily). If they don't want to go to the extent of portraying Taiwan differently based on the user's geographic location, it would make sense for them to follow the official stance of the US government.

Hey, they have Japan!

[Grendel Drago]

Did anyone else notice that they have a street map of Japan now? It's all in Japanese only, though, which is less useful. Does anyone know what the triangle thingies mean? Mountains, I'd kinda guess.

They have building outlines, too, which is pretty darn nifty.

Re:Hey, they have Japan!

[rjstanford]

Did anyone else notice that they have a street map of Japan now? It's all in Japanese only, though, which is less useful

I'd guess that its more useful to the majority of people who would be wanting to use that information in Japanese. Adding it in English would be nice, but I can certainly see why they wouldn't want to do it first.

What's in a name?

[HermanAB]

Germany is actually Deutchland. Greece is actually Hellas. The Sea of Gallilee is actualy the Kinneret. ... Yet, we all know who/what people are talking of.

Re:What's in a name?

[KiloByte]

Right, but Google is a service in English (primarily). The English name of Deutschland is "Germany", the English name of Polska is "Poland", the English name of Rossiya is "Russia". Uh oh... this would mean that you want us to use a couple of ideograms, as they are what the local population names Taiwan.

On an English-language webpage, I expect to get the English names.

Re:Predicted

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Which ultimately will free the sleeping aliens from the volcano. Yes, good book.

Google to settle China/Taiwan dispute

[MECC]

That'd be fun to watch...

Dilbertian

[sacrilicious]

[one] shouldn't let economics get in the way of the truth.

Unless one is running a publicly owned company, where the shareholders can file a lawsuit against company execs for failing to maximize profitability. And China is a large untapped market.

Reminds me of that Dilbert from early 2004. Just replace "quality" with "do no evil":

PHB (PointyHairedBoss): Remember, quality is our top priority.
Dilbert: Question: is it more important than safety?
PHB: Ooh... I forgot about that one.
Wally: Question: Is quality more important than obeying the law?
PHB: Well, probably not.
Alice: If we could maximize shareholder value by selling lower quality items, wouldn't we have a fiduciary responsibility to do it?
PHB: Hmmm... (looking at a whiteboard with "QUALITY" on it) well, I'm sure it's in the top four.
Someone: What if we had to lie to achieve quality?

Perfect solution...

[Kickersny.com]

Just take Taiwan off the maps and pretend it doesn't exist.

What to call Taiwan, or China for that matter...

[Seraphnote]

...just call them both: "Walmart Factory Zones"

Woa

[milimetric]

Here's a mind boggling idea. Why don't you just call it Taiwan and let them figure it out?

Isn't this the Taiwanese government's view too?

[jfruhlinger]

The government of Taiwan views itself as the "Republic of China," the legitimate government of all of China, of which Taiwan is a part. Officially, they too view Taiwan as a province of China -- the only province under the control of the legitimate Chinese government, as it happens. What exactly is the problem here?

jf

Google is with the CIA!

[nigelvthomas]

The cold war ended when Russia started running IBM servers, in the same way; Google is using Chinese market penetration, and appeasement of Communist officials to infiltrate the market to the point where Google has such 'capital' within Chinese society that it can then wait for the opportune time to represent American values of democracy and freedom of speech, dont take it from me i just work for google part time.

Republic of Taiwan??

[jdunlevy]

TFA says they want to be called the Republic of Taiwan on Google Earth. My understanding is they aren't even called that at home -- that's what they would be called if the declared independence. Right now, I thought the government of Taiwan was the Republic of China -- which also claims to be the rightful government of the mainland (territory under the control of the People's Republic of China); meanwhile the PROC claims to be the rightful government of Taiwan (territory under control of the ROC). I hadn't been under the impression that there was any official disagreement over whether or not Taiwan was part of China, just over which Chinese government was legitimate had what legitimacy/international standing and where.

Re:Republic of Taiwan??

[mystran]

How about labelling mainland China as "P.Republic of China" and Taiwan as "P.Republic of China". Taiwanese probably don't have a problem with calling mainland "People's Republic of China", and we can claim them "P.Republic of China" stands for "Provice of Republic of China" (as in, the only one not conquered by this "P.Republic of China" standing for "People's Republic of China"). Then just tell the communists that it was printed twice to emphasize that the island of Taiwan is also part of "People's Republic of China".

If they are not convinced, explain that abbreviating saves datafile size, and hence results in faster transfers, more productive map browsing, translating directly to rising futures and/or more equal distribution of wealth.

Re:Taiwan foreignministry when noone recognizes th

[The Lynxpro]

"Totally ridiculous. Considering that only four banana republics have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, they don't need a foreign ministry at all. Every other country recognizes the One China as the Red China. Taiwan is not even in the UN. They are the dwarf who pretends to be the giant, but their heydays are long gone."

North Korea is not a member of the UN.

And there are plenty of people in the US that would like to see the US pull out of the UN, and evict the UN out of the US.

Tongue tied? :)

Re:google aren't the only one

[avdp]

Because China will sever all political ties with any countries (or the UN) that DO recognize Taiwan. It really has nothing to do with the countries in question actually not agreeing with Taiwan's stance, but simply it has to do with not wanting to piss off China (whatever your need or motivations are for caring). Those countries that do recognize Taiwan generally don't care about China, or do it for principle (i.e. the Vatican).

Tickbox

[FrankDrebin]

Google should make it a tick box, so the user can choose whether the map should show independent or not.

Here is a partial list of others:

• Chechnya
• Tibet
• Sri Lanka
• Quebec
• New Hampshire

Is Google an independent state now?

[tga]

Since when does Google have the power and responsability of recognizing foreign nations? They are an American (as in USA) company there I'd expect them to respect the US Department of State's (right or wrong) position on this matter. If the US doesn't recognize Taiwan as an independent nation then why should Google?

"The U.S. does not support Taiwan independence. President Bush clearly stated U.S. policy on December 9, 2003."
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm/

Re:Is Google an independent state now?

[GagnierA]

It doesn't have anything to do with the US Department of State...it's always funny to see how you Americans always think everything revolves around you. Although, lately it seems as though the hurricanes have been stiring things up down there nicely. Anyways, as previously stated in a previous post (by someone else) it's the UN that's in charge of such things as countries wanting to become independant (or, in contrast, annexation, etc etc), not the independant countries themselves. They can cry and moan for years about it, but unless their dignitaries take the necessary steps to acheive independance I'm afraid it's always going to stay that way.

They're screwed either way though if you think about it. If they choose to become separatists and form their own country, China will get insulted and crush them anyway. In this case, I believe that a bit of annoyance and whatnot is a small price to pay as compared to a mass exodus.

Re:google aren't the only one

[Pan Sola]

In PROC the view is that historically Taiwan was part of the PROC

To be technical, in "PRC" the view is that historically Taiwan was part of "China" (as opposed to "PRC" specifically). And because "PRC" is now the one and only "China", Taiwan should reunite with mother "China".

Taiwan is as much "historically part of PRC" as it is currently is part of PRC. The PRC government never ruled Taiwan. Various Chinese dynasties, as well as the ROC government, did/does. The rights PRC claim over Taiwan is only under the One China Principle, not because they thought Taiwan used to be part of the PRC.

You got everything else pretty much right though (-:

Independent Province of China

[nortcele]

Independent Province of China has my vote.

Re:google aren't the only one

[avdp]

Actually, it's more than China won't let it, and the other countries are too scared of pissing off China so they don't (officially) support Taiwan. Of course, the US supports Taiwan in plenty of other ways (including militarily) but just won't cross that line because it would probably cause WWIII.

Minor distinction I feel is important to make.

Re:Taiwan foreignministry when noone recognizes th

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you're full of shit. If you try bullying Taiwan with missiles, you can kiss your already declining economy goodbye. NO country is going to want to have anything to do with you. If you try taking the island by force, you can look forward to getting your ass kicked by the U.S. Navy AND kissing your economy goodbye. You don't have any naval power whatsoever, save for a couple of Sovremnsky class frigates, even your supersonic cruise-missiles can be taken out by the USN's new Aegis systems with Evolved Sea Sparrow, and the PLAAF is nothing but a bunch of old soviet crap piloted by a bunch of unexperienced, shitty pilots, and China's lack of airable land would make feeding your huge population quite difficult without U.S. food imports (take a look at how much food your country imports from the U.S. sometime) so you can look forward to another "Great Leap Forward" style famine if you try to take that route, too. Actually, you're right. If you want to take Taiwan back, you'd better do it as soon as possible. Russia has been experiencing a huge brain-drain ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, so that "Russian tech" you've been talking about really isn't going to be anything special in the next 20 years, and by the year 2020, HALF of your country's population will be over the age of 65 (take a look at what that did to the Japanese economy, then multiply it by 10 due to your excessive population and lack of infastructure) so you won't have the purchasing power to buy all of that nifty stuff anyway. Better get cracking there, little red soldier.

solve it with a radio button

[nfinteractive]

google can solve this with a radio button. If a user wants to view it as a province of china, then they could toggle back and forth...the default option, well...on Tuesdays...

It's really ironic...

[first_tracks]

It's really ironic that Google, being part of the Capitalist herd, will probably not recognize Taiwan's independence in this matter because of the future $$$ potential in China, a Communist country in stark contrast to Capitalism. Capitalism, though it efficiently produces the best at the fastest rate, has no concern for the resources it burns for its achievements nor does it have any concern for things like human rights, morals, and the like. Only money talks with Capitalism, and it will be it's demise. I'm certainly not promoting Communism here. Both systems are fatally flawed.

but not with the CIA world fact book

[fallendragon]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ tw.html#Govt conventional long form: none conventional short form: Taiwan

Someone at google just copied and pasted

[deft]

Congrats, because of you later today in a meeting one of two things will happen.

1. A geek will pass out your post, crisis averted. Expect a job offer. But you have to work in China or something... check a previous post about where google newhires have to work. +)

2. a geek will say "In my research I have discovered that yadda yadda and problem solved, crisis averted".

and then 10 other geeks will roll their eyes because they read the same shit here too.

CIA Factbook: Taiwan Link

[Ironsides]

I read an article in Time about one of the top people in Google (was there back in '99) and it said that whenever she came across an issue similar to this she usually just referenced the CIA world fact book and went with whatever they had to avoid these kind of issues.

Second country from the bottom, aftwer Zimbabwe and before European Union. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ tw.html

So yes, they are in the CIA world factbook.

Re:CIA Factbook: Taiwan Link

[FreshFunk510]

Please RTFA. Thank you.

Re:CIA Factbook: Taiwan Link

[Bryansix]

I read the article. It is a complete joke that those guys call themselves journalists.

Porsche and Palestine

[shamborfosi]

This same sort of thing happened to Porsche when they listed "Palestine" on their world map instead of "Israel." Some jews in the states went ballistic on Porsche and got them change it.. I bet Germans not recognizing jewish states is probably how the taiwanese feel about being called china's bitch by google.

Re:Porsche and Palestine

[mesostructure]

I tried to search for Palestine in Google Map. I got the word "Occupied Palestinian Territory" and the map itself doesn't show me anything. Well actually it shows the world map but no indication for Gaza Strip or West Bank. Then I tried "Israel". It's fine. At least I can find Taiwan in Google Map. So it's fine for me.

Re:Porsche and Palestine

[shamborfosi]

It was on Porsche's website.. not google. Porsche displays their dealers by country and had Palestine listed but not Israel.

A compromise

[JeffTL]

How about labelling it "Formosa"? Perfectly neutral, if slightly obsolete.

Re:A compromise

[easter1916]

I like this idea. We had the same crap in Ireland with people objecting to the appelation "British Isles", since the Republic of Ireland isn't British or part of the UK. Somebody suggested IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic), which was so ridiculous the original complainants shut up. I mean, really... Taiwan, ROC, China, who really cares.

Question

[ifwm]

Why is it that every time this subject comes up (what to call Taiwan) the Chinese get hammered, and the Taiwanese get a pass?

Memo to Taiwan

If you don't like the current political climate, then settle the issue. I don't care HOW, just settle it. If you don't want to be part of China, then man up and say so. Fight if it comes to it. You'll know you'll lose though, which is why you don't try it.

The truth is, Taiwan has played the US as suckers in this. Sure, the US has a stake, but this is really a Taiwan vs. China issue, and should be dealt with as such.

And as an aside, it REALLY pisses me off that such an insignifcant blip is the focus of so much US military attention. Is Taiwan REALLY important enough to go to war with China over?

Re:Question

[HungWeiLo]

And as an aside, it REALLY pisses me off that such an insignifcant blip is the focus of so much US military attention. Is Taiwan REALLY important enough to go to war with China over?

It certainly used to be about 5-10 years ago, when 99% of the world's PCs, laptops, and RAM were manufactured in Taiwan. Now that most of that's gone to mainland China, this reason no longer applies.

However, Taiwan still serves as a strategically important spot for the US military. Along with Okinawa and South Korea, if the US had the balls to build a base in Taiwan, it would be a total containment of mainland China on the Pacific Rim (and some war hawk's wet dream, I'm sure).

Re:Question

[Da_Biz]

If you don't like the current political climate, then settle the issue. I don't care HOW, just settle it. If you don't want to be part of China, then man up and say so.

Sorry, but the way you're proposing to settle this can be extremely destabilizing. "Just settling it now" is not how things work in international relations--nothing is ever that simple. Remember that little war in Iraq we're having, where we're just settling it? I don't even know if we're aware of all the consequences quite yet from that.

Fight if it comes to it. You'll know you'll [Taiwan will] lose though, which is why you don't try it.

And China doesn't know if they'd win it either. The Western world is not so fond of some aspects of Chinese culture, including human rights and environmental problems. I suspect that if the PRC were to molest the ROC, there would be some VERY itchy trigger fingers in countries that resemble the ROC, including Korea, Japan, the US and Western/Central Europe.

And, forgetting the military aspects of it, I suspect the newly-affluent in power would also be quite opposed to it. After all, all of those new Benzes and BMWs in Bejing are there, in part, because of trade with Western countries. This detente works to Taiwan's advantage: Taiwan can maintain a sense of nationalism, while the PRC's new affluent generation can maintain their sense of having cash.

Re:Question

[ifwm]

"Remember that little war in Iraq we're having, where we're just settling it?"

This is the dumbest attempt at insight I've ever seen. The situation in Iraq was STABLE. There was no potential threat, and certainly NOTHING on the order of WW3.

On the other hand, you have Taiwan, to which the US has already committed resources and support, actively pissing off CHINA in the stupidest little ways. NOT STABLE AT ALL.

It's funny that you try to comment of foreign policy, yet have no clue what the hell you're blathering about.

Please shut up and let the adults chat for a while. You'll learn something from us.

PS, in the future, when someone clearly more informed and intelligent than you (that would be me) tells you you're stupid, don't take that as an insult because of your fragile ego. It's true. You are stupid, and the sooner you accept it the better.

Re:Question

[Da_Biz]

This is the dumbest attempt at insight I've ever seen. The situation in Iraq was STABLE.

You've missed my attempt at irony. Try reading the parent post before leaping on someone.

Please shut up and let the adults chat for a while. You'll learn something from us.

Thanks for that amazingly insightful comment. I didn't know I was still a kid at 32. And, I generally hear comments like "you're dumb" and "shut up" from kids. You're how old? Try actually refuting my comments next time.

It's funny that you try to comment of foreign policy, yet have no clue what the hell you're blathering about.

Exactly what makes you knowledgeable in foreign policy? My friends (a mix of liberal and conservative thinkers) are active in local and national politics, and we speak frequently. I read books on a wide range of stances, and maintain an active interest in sociology and anthropology. In the past, I worked extensively on the Bush Sr. campaign (although I'm more liberal now). In the last few years, I've spent over 3 months abroad, taking time to speak extensively with Europeans and Asians about foreign policy. I'm certainly no expert, but it would be safe to say that I'm above average.

Re:Customisable naming?

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

Even better way to fix this problem... if the user of Google Earth is in China, then call it "Taiwan, Province of China", which will presumably make the chinese happy.

If the user of Google Earth is in Taiwan, then call it "Taiwan" or whatever will make them happy.

And no one needs to be the wiser...

Google's China Syndrome

[Mulletproof]

"Taiwan Irked at Google's Version of Earth"

Actually this is quite interesting considering it is a known fact [past slashdot story here, too lazy to link] that Google is actively courting a business relationship with China and has already agreed to the censorship of their own search engine. Perhapse it smacks a bit of conspiracy theory (ok, no perhapse about it), but it's not exactly a huge stretch to believe that this may have been part of that business agreement. Google wants Chinese business, China demands a few small concessions, this being one of them. Honestly, what is Taiwan going to do about it? Whose economic impact is more important to google as a whole?

Yeah, I know it goes against everybody's sensibilities that Google is the self proclaimed 'good company' but I think the fact they caved to censorship in the first place already puts that particular bit in doubt.

On a side note, it's absolutely facinating what you CAN find using Google Earth. Scouring the naval shipyards in Yokosuka, Japan (old stomping grounds) found me a few cruisers and an aircraft carrier in port (35.17.28N by 139.39.46E for the curious). Also wonder if they have specific agreements to limit the resolution of any given area to comply with that nation's policy. I may not hold any love for the company, but it's a damn useful tool, I'll give em that.

Re:google aren't the only one

[Mr. Underbridge]

In PROC the view is that historically Taiwan was part of the PROC

And ya know, that isn't rigorously true. Taiwan was filled with indigenous polynesians until the 1600s, was a Dutch colony for a while after that, was fairly uncontrolled between 1700 and 1800, was a Japanese colony from about 1800-1900, and was independent between 1900 and the start of WWII. Japan occupied it again during the war, and the Allies agreed China would occupy it *temporarily* after the war. Afterwards, of course, the Chinese civil war proceeded, the Kuomintang fled there, and the rest is history.

Disclaimer: I am Chinese

[Wingie]

Why not call both China and Taiwan provinces of Japan? When anyone asks the engineers at Google that can just say "oops we were using old data from the WWII days" while they are being showered by Japanese gifts of schoolgirls and playstations and tentacle porn.

Hate To Say It...

[Caraig]

...but I don't believe Google is going to back down. Their pledge of "Do No Evil" is coming hard up against realpolitik, and they're discovering that they're going to have to make compromises. They want that lucrative Chinese market. They've already started filtering their search engine, disallowing searchhes of words that the Chinese government finds objectionable. (Such as "Tiananmen Square." Nothing at ALL happened there, nope, nothing at all, citizen....)

Taiwan is an independant nation. It established itself in the chaos following the Communist Revolution and has stedfastly maintained independance. I do not believe that Google, however, will acknowledge that, since it's trying really hard to break into the Chinese market. It's really pretty sad and disgusting if you think about it, but I'm not going to be holding my breath. The days of Google being the scrappy and ethical underdog are passing by the wayside.

Of course I'll eat my words if I'm happily surprised and Google does "the right thing."

Simple answer

[shec0002]

When a request comes from a Mainland user create the map with Tiawan as part of China. When the request comes from Tiwawan, make it a seperate company. Otherwise use some nuetral name for the rest of us, that would satisfy the people who don't understand this conflict.

Of course the business-like thing to do is...

[paymoretaxes]

... mark Taiwan as a part of China anyway so that Google will be able to do business in both places. China has the authority and means of cutting off google.com to all its people. Taiwan cannot do the same because it's a "free country". Sure a percentage of people may boycott the site but that's a lot better than losing a potential 1.5 billion customers.

It may not be politically correct, but it's the best solution for the company I see.

But Amtrak got it right despite ISO 3166!

[jlin]

Amtrak made the same mistake, but then corrected themselves, despite ISO 3166-1. After the matter was looked into, Amtrak sent an official letter of apology.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/20 05/09/02/2003270053

Why can't Google?

One China, one Taiwain

[Urusai]

Argument to antiquity is bullshit. The fact is that Taiwan is a democratic and independent country, as much as any may claim to be. Any attempt to validate China's claim is even more ethically corrupt than validating Hitler's claims to various bits of Europe (Austria, the Sudetenland, Alsace-Lorraine, Prussia, or whatever else lebensraum requires). Do NOT pretend that China is anything but an evil country with evil designs, lest ye be the Devil's apologist. We should have fought the annexation of Hong Kong as well--it would have been destroyed, but the point would be made. Legal principles and paper don't mean jack when moral principles are at stake, and don't you forget it.

Official U.S./U.N. Relations

[FauxReal]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan

Currently there are 26 states -- mostly small, third-world nations in Africa and South America -- that have diplomatic relations with the Republic of China, although many countries such as the United States and United Kingdom have only de-facto embassies in Taiwan - the United States, for example, maintains diplomatic relations through the American Institute in Taiwan. ROC's de facto embassies are referred to as "Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Offices" (TECRO), with branch offices, the equivalent of consulates, called "Taipei Economic and Cultural Offices" (TECO). Each year, the government of the Republic of China petitions the UN for entry but has so far been unsuccessful because most countries, including the United States, view Taiwan as part of China. The ROC sometimes uses the name Chinese Taipei in the Olympics and other international events.

Sounds like I'm screwed...

[SwedeGeek]

I'm thinking this means my chances of getting Google to remove some false but ancient usenet posts containing my name are significatnly dimished. For some reason, I doubt my emails to Google are more effective than phone calls from foreign dignitaries. Then again, maybe Google is ignoring Taiwan because they're not nuclear capable. In that case, I'll just have my wife contact them... she certainly IS nuclear capable!

easy solution

[idlake]

When Google is accessed from China, label it "A Province of China".

When Google accessed from Taiwan, label it "The Nation of Taiwan".

When accessed from anywhere else, label both China and Taiwan as "Butthead Totalitarian Regimes".

what about Tibet?

[NoSelf]

Every search i tried for a city in Tibet failed with "We could not understand the location", whereas searches for cities in China were accepted even though GM doesn't have map data for the area. Even "Lhasa, China" failed.

Re:Predicted

[Gulthek]

Tenth planet. Oooh, amazing. People have been predicting the existance of a 10th planet since the 1910s. Unfortunately all predictions call for a gigantic gas giant (which may be out there indeed) and we have found plutinos.

Re:Predicted

[deesine]

...this type of thing was predicted in Dianetics.

I wouldn't hold the ability to predict conflicts between man, especially those involving land disputes, as anything great or praiseworthy. I mean, man has been fighting man since the begining of time, and the big brawls are always over territorial rights.

Of course, then we have to look at who's doing the predicting. A meglomaniacal science fiction writer who lived on an ocean liner with his cult of followers (was convinced the US government was out to get him) trying to get in touch with the ancient alien in themselves (?, check it out, it's actually much more cooky than I can even attempt to explain).

Here's someone who found his niche as a science fiction writer, but just wasn't content to stop there. He went for the gusto, the full-on messianic mission. The history books might remember him as a good writer, more likely he'll be infamous as the leader of a wayward cult.

Um, wouldn't that be "imperialistic?"

[chaboud]

Instead of "how to balance the nationalistic pride of the inhabitants of Taiwan against the nationalistic pride of the inhabitants of mainland China" shouldn't we say "how to balance the nationalistic pride of the inhabitants of Taiwan against the imperialistic pride of the government of mainland China?"

The people of Taiwan deserve credit.

[Futurepower(R)]

The Taiwanese culture is quite different from the Mainland Chinese culture. The people of Taiwan deserve credit for their achievement. They should not have their freedom and self-determination taken away by a Chinese government that just wants to be bigger, when it does not manage perfectly what it has already.

Re:The people of Taiwan deserve credit.

[kryptKnight]

The Taiwanese culture is quite different from the Mainland Chinese culture. The people of Taiwan deserve credit for their achievement

The south western American culture is quite different than the north eastern culture. The people of the south west deserve credit for their achievement.

And what is this achievement anyway? Having culture?

While google is being yelled at..

[Now.Imperfect]

If Taiwan gets seen as independant then they should also change the label of "puyallup Valley" to Fife washington. I'm sure if the hicks around here saw that they're raise hell!

It'd also be nice if the development i lived in *wasn't* a patch of dirt. =P

You can always count on a capitalist...

[srobert]

There was an old saying among Communists: "You can always count on a capitalist to sell you the rope that hangs him."

Re:google aren't the only one

[mgs1000]

Actually only one Chinese dynasty ruled over Taiwan, the Qing. They took control from the Dutch and ceded it to Japan.

Checkbox

[jabelar]

Just provide a user check-box for whether you want Taiwan shown as part of China. Just like overlaying roads and restaurants, overlaying optional political boundaries seems pretty easy.

Google will Cave

[zogger]

That's my bet. When it comes to money or doing what is right, google will now take the money. They will right Taiwan off if it's a choice and placate the PLA (the real rulers of mainland China) and their besuited front men goons.. Inevitable since they went public. Same as every other public corporation out there, profits always come first.

Why the US picks on China

[mslinux]

Am I the only white, anglosaxon male that is sick and tired of the US picking on China? So they're communists... big deal. So they've had some human rights abuse... please point to a country that has not? Slavery in the US anyone?

Let's look at the positives about China:

1. They have a long, documented history that dates back thousands of years.

2. Much of the technology that the world enjoys today came from China. Gun powder, fireworks, silk, etc.

3. They are an extremely civilized people. They have no fanatic religious nuts tyring to nuke the world... this alone should make the US love China.

4. And finally, if it weren't for China, Walmart and much of the US economy wouldn't exist.

Think about it.

Re:Why the US picks on China

[jxs2151]

During the cultural revolution China's communist government killed an estimated 11 MILLION people in three years.

For God's sake man, cut the moral equivalency crap and realize that there is bad and good and these are absolutes. They are not values that are relative to something else and they certainly cannot be excused by saying in essence "heck, everybody does it."

11 million people killed for their ideology....that's evil, pure and simple. That's the evil of a man, drunk with his own power, that feels that the end justifies any means.

11 million individual...with lives, with families, with hopes and dreams. Killed. Because they did not praise "Dear Leader" vociferously enough to please the vicous communist government.

Re:Why the US picks on China

[mslinux]

Evil is evil and numbers don't matter. One life is as valuable as 11 million.
 
  How about all the African-American slaves that died under slavery in the US? What about all of the black babies taken from their mothers to be sold at auction in the US.

  China has done some bad things, but so has the US. Evil is not confined to China. The US has plenty evil in its own history. That was my point.

Re:Why the US picks on China

[Stonehand]

While one might argue about whether nor not a thousand years ago they contributed some technology to the rest of the world, you can't really dispute the facts that now they have a thoroughly corrupt, autocratic police state with extra-judicial re-education and hard-labor camps, aided by a wonderfully vague "state secrets" law; a notoriously unresponsive bureaucracy that's experienced at ignoring mere commoners; a habit of propping up the sociopaths running North Korea; a severe habit of fanning extreme nationalism, aided by repeatedly rewriting history; and no tolerance for political dissent of any kind. That's not intolerance as in they merely criticize you back, but as in they use a variety of means to completely and perhaps permanently remove you from society if they don't like what you're saying.

Re:Why the US picks on China

[jxs2151]

Your post was a defense of China. I pointed out the evil of that government. One does not brush that aside by showing other incidences of bad. Blaming the US, while currently popular with the empty-minded, is not the way out of every argument.

You tried to make China sound like a nice place to vacation. Stand and defend your comments like you've got a brain instead of falling back on the shopworn "Oh, yeah. Well the US has done some bad things too you know." Such an argument is pathetic and weak and tends to indicate that you have not thought your position thru and instead get your talking points from some leftist website.

Again, stand and defend your position like a man.

Re:Why the US picks on China

[Galvatron]

Time matters. The US ended slavery almost a hundred and fifty years ago. There are no living former slaves or slave owners. I'd wager money that there is no one alive today who has ever MET a slave or slave owner. On the other hand, many of the victims of the Cultural Revolution would probably be alive today had they not been killed. Plenty of those responsible are still alive, and some still hold seats of power in the government. They were running over their citizens with tanks as recently as 16 years ago.

A more apt comparison might be Germany or Japan, but they've paid for their sins. In the former case, they've paid monetary reparations, lost vast swaths of national territory, and several leading figures in the government were executed. In the latter case, theirs were the only cities ever to be hit by atomic bombs.

Re:Why the US picks on China

[jlanthripp]

First off, just because one person (or government) does evil things doesn't excuse another person (or government) doing evil things.

Secondly, the United States abolished slavery 140 years ago. It was recognized as evil, and outlawed by the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution. Not to mention that abolishing it was an effective way to financially punish those uppity Southerners who had the gall to think the 10th Amendment means what it says, thus "starting" the War of Northern Aggression.

Isn't China still imprisoning people who belong to religions the government doesn't like, people who say and/or print things the government doesn't like, and "unauthorized" people caught attempting to flee the country?

Is the Chinese government's censorship of speech and filtering of Internet content a myth?

These are evil things that are going on RIGHT NOW, and no amount of draggin up ancient wrongdoings can make these evil things right today.

The Answer is Obvious

[kakos]

If a person surfs to Google from Taiwan, call it Taiwan, ROC. If a person surfs to Google from China, call it Taiwan, Province of PRC. If a person surfs from anywhere else, label it "Here be dragons."

Google is not the only one...

[rngadam]

Interesting, because I just reported this for Ubuntu as it was also displaying "Taiwan, Province of China":

http://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/show_bug.cgi?id=16314

methink there is a definite concerted effort out there from mainland Chinese to do this. It is also quite easy to do with OpenSource and it's wilfully politically ignorant geeks...

Re:Google is not the only one...

[aok]

This reminds me of the Debian maintainer that quit because Debian didn't call Taiwan as part of China.

Does "Don't be evil" ring a bell ?

[AftanGustur]

Maybe they already figured out which side their bread was buttered on. After all, they are pretty sharp. They don't have to solve anything. They made the smart move in trying to get cozy with the next economic superpower. Now they can just ignore the complaining until it goes away.

"Don't be Evil" used to be Google's motto.

If they don't solve this by reflecting on "good", such as calling Tibet, "Tibet", then they are at least as evil as the Chinese ..

obvious bullshit?

[kinaidos]

Obvious nonsense, your post is rather, I say. Only a handful of countries recognize Taiwan as an independent country. Taiwan isn't a member of the UN. It's not recognized as a soveriegn nation by the US, Googles base of operation. It seems that folks expect Google to make a political statement that the US government itself isn't willing to make, nor most other countries on the planet. That seems a bit much to ask. I presume that the "Province of China" moniker is included to differentiate the political entity from the island of Taiwan. The political entity includes a number of smaller islands in addition to the main island of Taiwan.

Re:obvious bullshit?

[Minna Kirai]

It's not recognized as a soveriegn nation by the US,

Wrong. The USA is aware that Taiwan is a separate nation from China.

They have a rule not to mention this in front of China, and once President Bush accidently told the truth about this on TV and got spanked.

Just look at the CIA's description of the China-Taiwan situation: "The dominant political issues continue to be the relationship between Taiwan and China - specifically the question of eventual unification". By using the words "eventual unification", they directly acknowledge that Taiwan isn't part of China right now.

Re:google aren't the only one

[jkrausyao]

While China claims that Taiwan is a province it still treats their citizens as foreigners. If they really believed their claim they would treat the citizens of Taiwan the same as other Chinese citizens. This would include the granting of passports, entering the country and working without a visa, etc. My wife has both US and Taiwan passports but we still needed a Chinese visa to visit relatives in Shanghia. Unlike direct transport links which require both China and Taiwan to approve, China could treat Taiwanese as Chinese without the cooperation of the Taiwan government.

Re:Ditto Tibet & Iraq

[mauriceh]

By that reasoning Iraq is no longer a nation, but is a territory of the USA.
The elections were a farce and a failure, and are not recognised by the 2nd largest ethnic/population group, and there is no "exit date" for the occupying invaders.

So, like Tibet is a part of China, Iraq is a part of the USA.

Note, I am not saying what is right or wrong here,just following the logic you have expressed.

Re:No way to give up Taiwan

[ikea5]

It's very sad that memebers of a family have to be separated due to some political nonsense. Look at people living in Taiwan and Mainland China: they looks exactly the same; they speak exactly the same language; they have the same tradition ..... Actually, people from Taiwan usually get very well with people from Mainland, they are like brothers and sisters. They just don't like the government. That's not excatly true. In fact as a Taiwanese myself, I can usually identified who came to the island after 1949, and their direct descendents, based on how their faces look. And taiwanese people usually get very well with people form mainland China? Where did you get that idea? We speak differntly, think differenty, eat differently, and hey we even look differnt.

Pics are 3 years old ...

[malcomvetter]

Just tell Taiwan that the images are three years old and nobody was as certain as to their sovereignty then. That will buy Google a few years time to come up with a good answer!

Handle it the same way 2600 did.

[AyeRoxor!]

A Taiwanese 2600 Magazine reader wrote a letter to the editors making this very same complaint and threatening to stop reading, etc., until 2600 made a formal apology. 2600 said pretty much, slow down there, pal. There are ISO standards for what countries are called, how their names are transliterated, etc. These standards are maintained by the UN. If you have a complaint, take it there. We're following ISO standards. I imagine for Google, following ISO standards would be a legitimate concern.

Compromised Media

[MrSteveSD]

The important thing to realise is that the media does not just adapt to the requirements of foreign governments, but also to those of your own government and particularly big business. You should never solely rely on domestic media for your information as it's really full of distortions and deliberate omissions. You need to take an average, and unfortunately this can be time consuming.

Re:google aren't the only one

[Pan Sola]

Actually supporters of the Ming dynasty (after it fell to Qing) took Taiwan from the Dutch. Those supporters dreamed of using Taiwan as a base to one day defeat the Qing and restore the Ming dynasty, but eventually the Qing defeated them and got control over Taiwan.

Prior to the Dutch control, settlers from China has crossed over to Taiwan too, as early as the "Three Kingdoms Period" if I recall correctly. The Taiwanese aboriginies used to be called the "mountain folks" a few decades ago, because Chinese settlers has long took over the plains, which I guess (ie I don't have any source to back me up) was way before when the Dutch came.

Anyways your point is taken. Only one dynasty has had direct rule over Taiwan. Thanks for the correction (-:

Re:No way to give up Taiwan

[wokick]

hey we even look differnt.

Do you have blue eyes? or even two mouths? I have lots of friends from Taiwan, and we are very happy together.

Not to be mistaken as communist?

[kuc]

Isn't it that people have right not to be mistaken as communist?
  Taiwan is mistakenly labeled as part of some communist country.
  This is ridiculous because it's definitely not communist and has
progressed toward a democratic government in last century.

A related question on passports...

[Vellmont]

A question to anyone that might know. How does someone born in Taiwan travel outside the "country"? If other countries won't officially recognize Taiwan (or ROC) as an actual country, how is a passport issued by ROC valid? Do people from Taiwan have to also obtain a passport from the PRC?

Re:A related question on passports...

[elchang]

Other countries won't recognize Taiwan (ROC) as an actual country, but they do accept Taiwan (ROC) passports.

The passports used to just say "Republic of China" on them, which led to a lot of additional confusion/hassle when immigration officials mistook Taiwanese travellers for citizens of the PRC, so the government recently added (Taiwan) on the cover of new passports. Of course, this earned a rebuke from the Communist Chinese government.

which side of the great firewall?

[orn]

I wonder if Slashdot is on the outside of the great firewall... Talk of Taiwan can't be appreciated by those that rule China...

Re:Not only *.tw. -- GMaps/Earth uses obsolete dat

[ggy]

And searching for Stockholm (the capital of Sweden, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm) in Earth shows you Uppsala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uppsala) instead.

I might be offended by that, but I prefer the comforting feeling that even google gets it wrong sometimes.

(This was the last time I checked, so it might be fixed, or get fixed when it's out of beta.)

Why even bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of China probably isn't allowed to even view a google.com site... so let the Taiwanese get their way! :)

Re:No way to give up Taiwan

[ikea5]

Do you have blue eyes? or even two mouths? I have lots of friends from Taiwan, and we are very happy together. No, but most taiwanese who live on the island before 1949 have blood mixture from south pacific islanders. And I am glad that we are not 100% "pure blood chinese".

quebec

[sewagemaster]

In other news, Quebec wants Google Earth to stop calling it a province of Canada :D

No longer true.

[kbs]

I think as of 1998 or so the government of Taiwan no longer considers itself the rightful ruler of the mainland. If I remember correctly there was even some rectification of the legislature to reflect the situation on the ground.

Taiwan is a full fledged democracy

[kbs]

So unfortunately that doesn't work...

dates...

[kbs]

Well, you're right; the "historically" is somewhat of a misnomer because it's been a staging grounds for failed dynastic returns etc... and it's only current issues which have made the people on the mainland so attached.

But if we're talking rigor :P ...after the Polynesians got there, the Japanese attempted a settlement, and failed. The Chinese also attempted and failed. Then it was a Dutch colony was for perhaps less than 50 years in the early 1600s, but by that point there were already ethnic Chinese on the island, which the Dutch encouraged to intermarry with the Polynesians and Dutch in order to foster racial stability. It was nominally part of China, and signed over to the Japanese at the end of the Sino-Japanese War in 1895. The Taiwanese weren't happy about this, so they declared independence, only to be run over by a significantly superior army three days later. Thus it was a Japanese colony from 1895-1945. The documents left rather vague about how Taiwan was to be handled, and this was done on purpose by the Americans in order to allow the KMT a place to run when the Chinese civil war (which had been halted for WWII) wound down and they lost.

Now, culturally speaking, Taiwan and China can be considered sufficiently different. What's interesting is that the whole idea of a unified China (the whole dynastic ideal anyway) has always been one ethnic group oppressing everyone else, whether it be the group from around Manchuria, or Mongolia, etc. There is no such thing as a unified Chinese culture... but I digress.

US foreign policy

[peope]

As Google is a US Corporation it should use the policy that US has for naming. A corporation of a country should not have its own foreign policy.

Re:US foreign policy

[macgeek]

So you're saying that just because Google is a U.S. based corporation, they should respect the U.S. laws (obviously) and foriegn policy?

I don't think so. They're working with the Chinese in their continued censorship of the internet based on what the government wants it's citizens to see or not see. Democracy is bad. Falongong is bad. Certain other things are bad too - I don't know them all - but clearly Google is doing what it can to work with various contries - mainly based on the fact that if they don't work with China directly, China would block access to them entirely.

Google does what's right by Google - same as any individual or corporation. As long as they don't break any laws, they'll continue to do what's in their best interests.

Re:google aren't the only one

[tlord]

Which is why it's delicate and potentially graceful.

Mainland is actively, albeit carefully and incrementally, moving
towards greater democracy, economic liberalization, and even
greater degrees of province self-management (the last of which
there is some already but not obviously of a desirable sort).

Probably the best outcome is that we all just dance around this
issue for a few more years and it dissolves, either because
"sentiment on the street" changes on one side or the other
(less likely) or because there's a clear win-win reconciliation
that probably includes *some* form of peaceful reunification.

Meanwhile, companies like Google (as noted in several posts already)
ought to mind their own business by picking a least-controversial
political authority and following that standard. That may be
emotionally rough on some Taiwanese but it's not as though Google
doing something different would really advance their cause.

-t

Taiwan DoI

[slothman32]

If the US gained independence when it wanted to, i.e. the DoI, then doesn't that mean Taiwan does when it wants to as well? It's leaders seem to agree, like our founders, that it is seperate from the mainland.
Now I would guess it is part on mainland China. It seems more like a state then a seperate country.

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:Not so simple

[xMilkmanDanx]

The one comment on the south's secession from the US might not be necessary if you consider whether the slaves would've been for or against it and also if secession should require giving rights of emmigration to those that don't want to secede.

Re:Taiwan IS a province of China

[fishbowl]

So by your personal doctrine, any large nation is at liberty to take over any smaller nation?

Re:google aren't the only one

[Krach42]

Taiwan used to have a seat. In fact, it's the seat that mainland China now holds. When the US and the UN officially recognized mainland China, they conceeded that Taiwan were a province thereof, and thus it lost all diplomatic status in the UN.

In the US, it's kind of a little weird. We're forbidden from recognizing Taiwan as an independent country, but yet we de facto defend them.

The whole Taiwan/China thing is a mess, and making any sense out of the political mess is impossible, because it's so full of paradoxes and logical inconsistencies that you can't properly make sense of it.

No censorship here

[drsmack1]

There is supposed to be some sort of filter to block out ////happyhappyhappy//// content and ////happyhappyhappy//// objectional material. ////happyhappyhappy//// is alive and well here is communist China!

SImple solution

[TractorBarry]

Well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out...

If the client browser IP makes it look like the visitor is from China mark Taiwan as being a province of China.

If not mark it as a sovereign state.

If you can't get the browser IP ask the user which desccription they'd prefer and set a cookie :)

There. Everyone's happy.

Aboriginal saying (paraphrased 'cause I'm too lazy to find the proper text): "Men arguing about who owns territory on the earth are like fleas arguing about who owns the dog they're standing on."

Maybe they should name it ..

[RedLaggedTeut]

A province of the Empire of China

Lesser evil/Greater good

[Thyrsus]

In classical ethics, there are a few actions that are intrinsically evil, among them, lying. The trouble with lying is that it consists not only of the selection of some arbitrary symbols, but a selection which intentionally misleads the person begin lied to. There seems always to have been a distinction between the explicit lie and the tacit one: early Roman Christians were content not to disabuse their fellow citizens of the Christians' (non-)pagan status unless specifically challenged. Otherwise, the Roman eradication would have been rather more complete.

With a published work such as Google, the issue is complicated by the many audiences. Who is Google's audience? Me? I don't feel lied to when I see "province of China" plastered over Taiwan, because I am aware of the situation and expect to be notified of a regime change by CNN, not Google.

What about the larger U.S. public? Due to our pathetic world geography education, those folks may be deceived. But the degree of deception is tempered by the overwhelming apathy of that audience.

Most of the rest of the Google audience is better educated, and not deceived. Certainly the Taiwanese are not deceived. I've been assured that the mainland Chinese are also aware of their government's pervasive influence on the media -- though not all, evidently: see the dogmatic statements on Korea earlier in this discussion.

That last minority is a troubling one: those who want to believe the lie (N.B.: I am not disputing the claims concerning Korean history above; it's just that I have no means to judge the source's credibility). Another example: those religious fanatics who insist that sexual preference is always a matter of choice. But one may defend the "misleading" publication that lends them support by casting the responsibility back on them: they could find the truth if they wanted to find it. Thus the misrepresentation is found in the intent of the reader, not the publisher.

Google is making a judgement that the good they bring overwhelms the transparent deceptions in which they must participate to bring it. Perhaps they're wrong. Those without sin will certainly continue to cast stones.

Separate the label property from the object.

[Kaz Kylheku]

Basically, you have to register a cookie with the client which encodes his political view on the matter. Then generate the view accordingly. If he's a Taiwanese patriot, label the region one way; if he's a People's Republican, label it the other way.

That's how you cater to insanity, basically: you allow everyone to live in his little world of personalized preferences. :)

Re:google aren't the only one

[youknowwhat]

"was a Japanese colony from about 1800-1900, "

At 1800 Japanese did not even dare to declare war with China.

"Japan occupied it again during the war, and the Allies agreed China would occupy it *temporarily* after the war."

Please give a reference where this "temporarily" comes from.

Why do you keep posting a lotta historical facts with so many mistakes?

Good guys follow the law.

[jotaeleemeese]

There is no international institution that recognizes Taiwan as an independent country.

Case closed.

Re:Good guys follow the law.

[Old Wolf]

There is no international institution that recognizes Taiwan as an independent country.

In fact, the Catholic Church does. Also, 26 other countries do.
See our old friend Wikipedia.

The UN - Chinese Veto

[BSDevil]

The UN doesn't consider Taiwan a country because they're not a member. Why arn't they members? Because new membership in the UN requires the assent of the Security Council, and Taiwan (as well as everyone else) knows the PRC would veto their joining faster than you can say "Formosa."

That's why - not because the US doesn't think so.

Re:geeks for bush?

[Y0tsuya]

What the hell is with all these hardcore conservative nerds these days? It's like some kind of self-parody.

It beats being a pinko-commie nerd any day.

I suggest the Monty Python approach...

[merc]

Taiwan, whom until recently were known as the province of China...

Easy technical solution

[lost in place]

it will be interesting to see the brightest minds that money can buy trying to solve what decades of diplomats have unsuccessfully wrestled with

/* Tell them what they want to hear */
if (country_code(referrer_IP())) eq "cn") {
        country_label = "Taiwan, a Province of China";
} else {
        country_label = "Taiwan, an independent country";
}

For those who can read chinese.

[didiee]

here's two of the blogs that started this whole movement. whether you agree or not, there's some infomation that's invaluable for both sides.... warning... it's definitely a pro-independent blog; however, the owner is quite tolerant to those who have different opinion. blog.yam.com/subing blog.yam.com/lifeshot i think most points have been covered. i definitely dont agree with the lable. i like the fact that once again it has generated an international discussion. more people understand the issues, the better....

Taiwan?

[fermizhang]

Taiwan is exactly a part of Republic of China, by Taiwan's constitution. The others are

"Do no evil"

[Cappy Red]

"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."

The mission statement is not "do good," nor is it "fight evil." It is, as you said, "do no evil."

All that that statement implies is that the company should not personally do evil. Regardless of whether we, as individual people or companies avoid creating it, evil exists, and there will always be others willing or misguided enough to make it. Being good means doing good. It means fighting evil when we can and how we can.

Neville Chamberlin was not a bad man. Nevertheless, he tried to appease evil when he saw it. What good did that do?(Does it count as a Godwin violation if I compare someone to Chamberlin? This isn't to compare China to Nazi Germany, nor to suggest that Google ought to declare war on China... Chamberlin was merely the first appeaser who came to mind.)

*honken*

Re:google aren't the only one

[Sinner]

No. But the school bully could be fucking your sister, and beating you up because she wont let him go anal.

That still wouldn't make him your uncle. For that, he'd have to fuck your aunt.

If your aunt is fucking the school bully... you might be a redneck.

Unrecognized independent country?

[ChuyMatt]

That is because China is on the UN security council, they are big, they are becoming economically giant internationally, and they can be scary as hell.

What China has done with Taiwan is rather crappy.

Rodney Dangerfield country

[Tablizer]

Taiwan gets no respect. It is a democracy, yet people offend it to avoid offending it's autocratic big brother, China. Why are we defending a non-democracy at the expense of a democracy?

In Soviet Russia...

[Celsius 233]

Apparently, both "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and "Soviet Union" are in Google's database, "America" points to the United States (not labeled with its official name, or any name for that matter), "Korea" shows South Korea (the Republic of Korea), yet "Northern Ireland", "Republic of China", "Kuril Islands", "West Bank", and "Tibet" give nothing...

WTF?

[Trogre]

Why is this even an issue?

With China's abominable human rights record and blatant disregard for it's own (UN-approved) constitution, I'm amazed that companies with any ethics whatsoever are even contemplating doing business with scum like that.

You may as well start selling chemicals for Gas Chambers at Auswhitz. Oh wait...

Just because these jokers have money are we just going to roll over and acquiesce to their own view of the world?

Re:WTF?

[smash]

Because as we know, the USA of course has one of the best human rights records around...

smash.

Re:google aren't the only one

[jiawen]

Very good point. I've made other posts elsewhere in the thread that said almost as much, but they didn't get moderated as highly... :)

It takes two chopsticks...

[xactuary]

to make a fork, so to speak.

Re:Taiwan foreignministry when noone recognizes th

[denelson83]

> Every other country recognizes the One China as the Red China. Sure, that may be true of countries, but individuals do not have to. I, for one, do not recognize any country that pisses on human rights, so I view the "People's Republic of China" as illegitimate, as well as North Korea, Vietnam, Myanmar, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. If a country does not give its citizens lawful control of their own lives, then in my mind's eye, it's not a country at all.

Re:Customisable naming?

[CptPicard]

This wouldn't solve the issue I am talking about really. If the user is in Finland, he may want his place names in Finnish or Swedish as both are official languages. I want them in Finnish, my Swedish-speaking pals might want them in Swedish, and a few forced-bilingualism fanatics will insist that the naming must be according to language majority, or always have both names visible.

As things stand, the names seem to be randomly drawn from either language, which can look amusing.

Browser language setting might be a good trigger for this.

the debate continues

[spepper]

I see the debate about the geopolitical status of Taiwan is alive and well-- the Taiwanese know who they are, and that's what counts-- whether someone else, be it Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, or whomever, refers to them as "subservients" to another nation (Communist China), is irrelevant-- people who live in Taiwan ARE CHINESE, and FREE-- and that CANNOT be disputed!