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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Viper Daimao]

bastion of democracy and freedom

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

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

[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.

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'.

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"!

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.

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).

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.

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: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 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: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.

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."

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: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.

Perfect solution...

[Kickersny.com]

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

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.

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.

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?

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.