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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

bastion of democracy and freedom

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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!

:-)

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

[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.

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

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

[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

[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.

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.

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: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.

EBay it!

[IceSabre]

Highest bidder wins the ownership of Taiwan on google map!

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.

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...

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

While Google's at it...

[lpangelrob]

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

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.

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...

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).

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 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

[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

[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: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: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.

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...

[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.

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

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."

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.

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!

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.

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.

Perfect solution...

[Kickersny.com]

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

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: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

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.

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.

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: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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

Re:WTF?

[smash]

Because as we know, the USA of course has one of the best human rights records around...

smash.