Taiwan Irked at Google's Version of Earth 571
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."
PROC and ROC (Score:4, Interesting)
Ditto Tibet (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Customisable naming? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
Or call it just plain ol' Taiwan.
Or hey, even better, give it a name based on originating IP.
Re:It is sad (Score:3, Interesting)
I say google will... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Simple solution (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
Pxtl seems to misunderstands the situation between China and Taiwan. China is the aggressor. The majority of the Taiwanese, if they believed they could declare themselves independent without total destruction of them and their land, would do so in a heartbeat.
Re:google aren't the only one (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Google is probably adhering to ISO 3166 (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Simple solution (Score:2, Interesting)
what about Tibet? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It is sad (Score:3, Interesting)
China was never, and is still not, a *real* strategic threat to the United States. It has vast potential, but it's still decades from being able to utilize any of it. It was even further away from realizing its potential back in the 60s. However, what the realists saw was a chance to change the polarity of the international system. There was essentially a two bloc status quo: the Free World versus the Sino-Soviet bloc. Nixon and then Brzezinski managed to change that into a three bloc world: the Free World, the Soviet bloc, and the Non-Aligned Movement (of which China was the de facto leader). In this way, China and the United States could (and did) cooperate on strategic manners, such as curbing Soviet expansionism (see the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan).
The realists asked themselves what was more important: the breakup of the Sino-Soviet bloc and strategic cooperation against the Soviet Union (the only actual geostrategic threat the United States has ever faced), or a tiny liberal island ruled by a not-so democratic system (Taiwan didn't truly democratize until the 1990s) with no actual power. The U.S. chose to defeat the USSR and drop Taiwan, because the potential for the two bloc system to turn into a "hot war" and destroy the world was of greater concern than the legal status of Taiwan's sovereignty under international law.
I'm not saying they made a perfect choice, but viewing the wider context, the choice is not so simple as you make it out to be.
Re:Simple solution (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Independence is defined by the ability to defend your land from both military and cultural invasions. Everything else is moot.
Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Interesting)
If even one person refuses it, then the state no longer has legitimacy of control over that individual, HOWEVER, that individual has no right to reside in territory controlled by the state, as they have set themselves apart from society.
Conversely, if a majority of the people in a region refuse the contract, then the rule of that area by the state is not legitimate. The state can force obedience with arms, but a contract accepted only due to coersion is not binding. They may rule the region, but will not be legitimate there until the people freely agree to it.
If this is not the case, then the entire point of having a state has been lost and its purpose perverted.
Not so simple (Score:3, Interesting)
How do we determine when secession is permissible and when it is not? The Basque region in Spain, late 1700s US, Ireland, Hawaii since its statehood, the US South during the Civil War, the Caucasus, Tibet, Taiwan, Israel/Palestine for the last 2000 years, the Sunni triangle, Brazil, Luisitania, so many examples throughout history...
Is there really one simple test to cover all these situations? Everyone's flat declarations really seem to imply there's a some simple approach, but I'm not seeing it.
My first instinct is: secession should be allowed by popular sovereignty - if the locals want independence, they should get it. But does that mean the American South deserved to get its independence, even if it meant the continuation of slavery? So perhaps popular sovereignty is forfeited by a disregard for human rights. But what about in places where the population distribution for and against secession poses a logistical nightmare? Or what if, as in India/Pakistan a few decades back, it would just create two hostile states, tossing out the forced compromises of government for the aggressive posturing preferred by rival states? What if, like in the Basque region, allowing secession might leave the region economically destitute... even to the point it appears genocidal? Can logistical difficulties or paternalism justify a refusal of secession? I don't know, it seems like the answer is "sometimes." Many seem to rely upon historical ownership, but that rarely seems helpful. If a country is unjustly governing a territory, it shouldn't be mitigated because they've unjustly held it for a long time. And if a territory needs another country's rule of law, it shouldn't matter how recent it has begun to benefit. And if it is relevant, how long is long enough? 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years? And how many people does it take to secede? Do you have to have a simple majority, 2/3rds? Can my neighborhood secede?
I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I just don't know why this issue is so easy for everyone else, when the basic principles seem so elusive to me.
After we figure out when secession is justified, we can apply that answer to our maps and blindly ignore political blackmail by groups that are displeased. But it doesn't seem like anyone has done a thorough analysis of the political ethics of secession relevant to the contemporary geopolitical atmosphere, on slashdot or elsewhere.
Re:Simple solution (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
And of course the obligatory comment:
I para uno bienvenido nuestros overlords ilegales nuevos!