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

[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

[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

EBay it!

[IceSabre]

Highest bidder wins the ownership of Taiwan on google map!

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...

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.

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."